Sitting of 15 July 1996

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

    Welsh Assembly
    1. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about a referendum on a Welsh Assembly. [35545]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Since 1 January, I have received three written representations in favour of a referendum on a Welsh Assembly.
    Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulties with a pre-legislation referendum are the number of questions it does not ask and the number it leaves unanswered? My father is Welsh—will he have a vote in any referendum? As I have Welsh ancestry, will I have a vote in the referendum, should there ever be one?
    Mr. Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ancestry. He raises a difficult question. I think that it was right for the Labour party to decide that, if it were ever able to propose an assembly, it would have a referendum on the matter. My hon. Friend was right, however, to point to the difficulties of a pre-legislation referendum. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said three weeks ago that the difficulty with a pre-legislation referendum is that so many questions cannot be answered. Two days later, he announced that a pre-legislation referendum was his policy.
    Mr. Ron Davies: That is because we sorted out the difficulties and found the answers.
    Why does the Conservative party always get itself into such great difficulty at the thought that the will of the people will prevail? Does the Secretary of State realise that what we have suggested is quite unexceptional? We will put our detailed proposals to the people in a White Paper, and ask specifically for their approval. If they say yes, we shall legislate on that basis. The hard question now is for the Secretary of State: will he recommend to whatever is left of the Conservative party after the general election that, if the people of Wales say that they want an assembly, no one should stand in their way?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman need not worry about our view on the will of the people, as the result was 4:1 against the idea of an assembly the last time it was
    766
    demonstrated on the matter. I believe that that is what will happen again, and the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical question will not arise. The most alarming thing about the whole episode has been that it shows that the Labour party's chief spokesman for Wales has no more influence in the party than anyone who happens to write on a postcard to the Leader of the Opposition, and probably a great deal less.
    Mr. Marlow: What powers and influence would Welsh Members of Parliament—particularly Labour Members—and Welsh councillors have to concede to assembly men? Will that not cause a lot of petty jealousy and upset? Is there not the potential for a fracas outside the television studios, as assembly men try to climb over Members of Parliament to hog the limelight? Who will be responsible for what? Is it all necessary?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend points to some genuine difficulties. If responsibilities are transferred away from this House, Ministers can no longer be held accountable in this House and other people elsewhere will be held accountable for the matters. The role and power of this House would be diminished, and rival majorities in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Westminster would tear apart the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend asks about the influence of Labour Members. Clearly, at the moment, the Leader of the Opposition neither trusts nor takes seriously his Front Benchers, and I do not see why anybody else should do so.

    Traffic Area Office
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has made to the Department of Transport concerning the setting up of an all-Wales traffic area office. [35546]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): My right hon. Friend and I have expressed our support for a single traffic area covering the whole of Wales.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Is it true that the Department of Transport has accepted the Welsh Office recommendation that an all-Wales traffic office should be set up, but has decided that it would be administratively convenient to set it up in Birmingham? What plans does the Welsh Office have to go along with that recommendation, and perhaps move to Birmingham as well?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have no plans to do that, save should the office be downgraded totally, as would happen under a Welsh Assembly. I should have thought that it was more a part of the hon. Gentleman's policies to transfer the Welsh Office to Birmingham—the office would be that relevant if his regional assembly proposal went through.
    Mr. Fabricant: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the high standard of roads in Wales, but does he accept that half-saesnegs like me, who cannot understand Welsh, have great difficulty with Welsh road signs? In some parts of Wales, Welsh is on top and English underneath; in other parts, it is the other way around. If we are to have a single office, I hope that we will have some consistency

    767
    in road signs—perhaps, one colour for English and one for Welsh, so that half-saesnegs like me can understand what is going on.
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend is being too modest. I doubt that he really has the difficulties that he suggests. I feel that our bilingual road signs add to the breadth of what they offer and represent the culture of Wales. They are part of our increasing success in attracting tourists to Wales.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in awarding private finance initiative contracts in Wales. [35548]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Wales has long led the way in the move towards private finance. We recently announced a PH contract for the OSIRIS information technology project for the Welsh Office, as well as for major new car parking for the University hospital of Wales.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the second Severn bridge demonstrates the scope that the private finance initiative offers for improving the Welsh economy and increasing investment in infrastructure in Wales? Does he find it surprising, therefore, that although the Labour Front-Bench team commends the PFI, Labour Back Benchers are critical of it? Is that not an example of new Labour being endangered by the prejudices of old Labour?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. We know that new Labour means new danger. We also know that new Labour means new speak. The Opposition do not catch up with what is going on in Wales. As well as the second Severn crossing, we have been leading the way for a long time with our kidney dialysis treatments; they have been dramatically improved by the infusion of private finance, which has taken us from one of the worst rates in Europe a decade ago to one of the best now.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that we all say croeso to the private finance that is coming from LG of Korea, but does he agree that that is long overdue, given the heavy male unemployment following the mine closures and the thousands of redundancies in steel? Without interfering in the day-to-day running of that new company, would it be helpful if the company were given a gentle hint that, the more males it employs, the more it will ease our unemployment problem in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: I hesitate to go down that line, and I wonder that the hon. Gentleman—seeing the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) sitting next to him—did not hesitate at expressing such sexist preferences. I am glad to have his whole-hearted welcome for the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in bringing that major new jobs initiative to south Wales—6,100 jobs for LG and possibly up to 20,000 in total as a result. Last week's announcement was a great day for Wales and that will continue, as long as we do not have the Labour party's policies.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I was interested to note the success of the PH for the second Severn crossing for the people of Wales. What of the opportunities for new hospitals under the PH in Wales, particularly given our historic role of waiting in queues for the somewhat limited capital programme, which nevertheless is bigger under this Government than it used to be? What problems might there be in Wales if the Labour party tried to do everything it could to undermine the projects that are under way, just as it has done with the Darenth Park project in my constituency?
    Mr. Jones: One of the most important PFI proposals in the project list is Baglan hospital, at £63 million. We intend to take that forward as quickly as possible under the private finance initiative. That project could be thwarted by a Welsh Assembly, as £63 million is only about 18 months' worth of the running costs of such an assembly. Since we know from the Opposition that no new spending would be financed other than out of existing moneys, would Baglan hospital be sacrificed in the interests of a Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister list the schemes in Powys that have benefited from the PFI, or that are likely to benefit from it in the next 12 months? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) reminds me of the Mid-Wales/Bronllys hospital. We are seeking to take forward 23 projects under the PH in Wales. I will happily give the hon. and learned Member any further details that I can.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The problem is that, while the Government are trying to take the schemes forward, there is precious little evidence of their being successful. Will the Minister cast his mind back to the first answer that he gave on this question when he said that the PFI contract for the improvements to University hospital, Cardiff had been let? I understand that that contract has not been let. There have been months of delay in letting it. As a result, there have been delays to the Geraint Evans memorial heart research centre, which is badly needed in Cardiff.
    In the light of the Confederation of British Industry's recommendations to the Government last week, would it not make sense to scrap the PFI for all schemes involving less than £10 million and fund them by conventional means?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman was wrong on the last part of his question.
    On the University hospital of Wales, the £6 million contract for the major car park expansion is going forward and I anticipate no difficulties in respect of it. The Geraint Evans centre, for which I have the greatest sympathy, is a separate matter and not directly connected.
    The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read what the CBI said last week. I welcomed its report as a constructive contribution to fine-tuning the PH. It demonstrates a large measure of consensus and I especially welcome its support for the Government's efforts. Guidance has already been issued in response to some of its concerns.
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairmen and chief executives of NHS trusts in Wales to discuss finances for 1996–97. [35549]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend met national health service trust chairmen on 18 October 1995.
    Mr. Ainger: Since then, the trust chief executives and chairmen have become aware of the settlement that is coming down from the Welsh Office through the Welsh health authorities to them. Is the Minister aware that in Dyfed Powys, which faces cuts of £7 million, all six chief executives have refused to sign the contract offered by Dyfed Powys health authority because they say that they cannot deliver the services for the price that is being offered? Unless the Welsh Office gives additional finance to Dyfed Powys health authority, especially in respect of writing off the debts of the predecessor Dyfed and Powys health authorities, there will be significant cuts in hospitals and community services throughout the area. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as has happened in England in similar situations, health authority debts incurred in previous years should be written off?
    Mr. Jones: Contracts between national health service trusts and any health authority, including Dyfed Powys, must be a matter for the two parties to the contracts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the news that I have agreed a loan of £1.7 million to Dyfed Powys health authority which, it is expected, will enable it to achieve a balanced position by the year 1999–2000.
    Dr. Spink: When my hon. Friend meets the chief executives and chairmen of NHS trusts, will he explain the positive benefits that market testing has brought to the financing of the health service in Wales in delivering real resources for patient care and that, if the Government were to follow the policies advocated by the Labour party, that money would be denied to the health service in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. Market testing has enabled savings to be made which, in the case of the health service, have been passed on to the bedside for the benefit of the patients. My hon. Friend is right to point to the Labour party's dogma, not least the stricture from the shadow Chancellor that there will be no new spending unless it is financed from existing moneys. Where will the cuts be made for the sacred cows?
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that, if the cuts agreed to be necessary to deal with the present deficiency of money in Dyfed Powys materialise, there will be a furore in the area, especially in respect of the reduction, and possible closure, of community hospitals? Lack of revenue and the capital charging system are imposing serious strains on smaller district general hospitals such as Bronglais, which will not be able to keep up with capital development or replacement of equipment, much less with the introduction of new technology. Is the Minister aware that there are serious fears that we are into a spiral of decline in Bronglais which could lead to its being
    770
    downgraded from its status as a district general hospital? What does he intend to do about that and how can we prevent that scenario from materialising?
    Mr. Jones: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis. The concept of capital charges has no bearing on the size of the hospital. The hon. Gentleman is being irresponsible in prophesying, no doubt for electoral purposes, some decline in Bronglais hospital. I should prefer that he look at the reality, such as the dramatic improvement in the out-patients waiting list across the Dyfed Powys area. That is what he ought to concentrate on.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State has been abjectly humiliated by the refusal of Gwent Community Health NHS trust and Gwent health authority to publish the report on Julie Sharma and the £35,000 redundancy payment that she received, even though the Secretary of State put on the working party his own independent observer, Professor Dimond, one of the leading experts in Britain on NHS law? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the working party has been a complete shambles, in spite of his observer? What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do to ensure that the report is soon published in full and is available to all of us?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman starts off with the usual nonsense. Nothing of the kind has happened. Gwent health authority is pursuing the matter as strongly as possible. I am confident that it wants to ensure that a full, accurate account is available for all. I understand that it has set a deadline of 3 September to publish the report.

    Governance
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to hold a referendum on the structure of government of Wales. [35550]
    Mr. Hague: No. I believe that the interests of Wales are best served by the direct representation provided in Westminster by hon. Members in the House and the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet.
    Mr. Hain: If the Secretary of State is so confident that the people of Wales back his unelected Tory quango state, why does he not offer them a referendum on replacing it with a Welsh Assembly? Or is he frightened—not so much frit as ofni?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman forgets several things. The last referendum rejected the idea of an assembly by 4:1 and only 12 per cent. of the Welsh electorate turned out to vote in it. It is incumbent on those who wish to change long-standing arrangements to demonstrate popular support for change. I have no plans for a referendum, because I have no plans to do violence to the constitution.
    Mr. Sweeney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh branch of the Institute of Directors recently conducted a survey of businesses in Wales and found that more than 70 per cent. were against a Welsh Assembly? Does that not show how disastrous a Welsh Assembly would be for business in Wales?
    Mr. Hague: Yes. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. Nothing could do more damage to business confidence than the sight of an extra tier of government and an extra roomful of politicians consuming a great deal of time, money and space for no good purpose whatever. Wales is now forging ahead without the arrangements proposed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: In the past couple of years, Conservative Members have regularly asked the Labour party to include a referendum in its policy, so does the Secretary of State welcome the decision to hold a referendum? Does he acknowledge that, once we have had a referendum and have achieved a yes vote by a 2:1 majority, which I anticipate, it will be much easier for an incoming Labour Government to implement the legislation, and more difficult for the Conservative party to reverse it at any future stage?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman must not presume the outcome of any referendum. I seem to remember a number of people presuming the outcome in the 1970s and, indeed, presuming the outcome of general elections.
    I welcome the conversion of the Labour party to the idea of a referendum. I have asked Opposition Members about this on many occasions. The mistake that they have made now is to advocate a pre-legislation referendum which keeps the public in the dark about the final details, instead of submitting the final details to the electorate. That is an unsatisfactory option, for reasons well set out by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) only 48 hours before he was forced to adopt it as his policy.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's policy for a Welsh Assembly would spell economic ruin for Wales?
    Mr. Hague: It would do no favours for the Welsh economy and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the dangers. An extra tier of government, with buck passing between different levels of government and division between different parts of government, is no way to encourage business or to improve business confidence.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase the money available for local government in the next financial year. [35552]
    Mr. Hague: I will make my decisions on provision for local authorities in the forthcoming public expenditure round and will consult local government in the usual way.
    Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State will be aware of the impact that the last settlement had on local authority provision in Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I were appalled by the decision that Rhondda, Cynon, Taff was forced to make to close residential care homes in the area. That has struck at the most vulnerable in our society in one of the poorest areas in Great Britain. In the next settlement, will the Secretary of State make some special provision for social services?
    Mr. Hague: Local government was given a fair settlement last year, but it is important for local government to be as efficient as possible in using its resources. The hon. Gentleman and I have often discussed the position of Rhondda, Cynon, Taff, and he knows that it received an additional £10 million in council tax reduction grant, on top of the normal settlement, following the discussions that we had last year. When I consider next year's settlement, I will, of course, take into account all the pressures on local authorities as well as the resources available. I have no doubt that Rhondda, Cynon, Taff will be involved in those discussions.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of Government support for local authority expenditure in Wales is now more than £850 a person? Is he aware that that is 18 per cent. more than the sum allocated to English local authorities? As an Englishman, I have no objection to that, because the figure should be based on needs and council tax revenue, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales, the local authorities and the council tax payers in the Principality get a good deal?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The level of Government support for local government spending is £132 higher a head in Wales than in England and council tax levels are substantially lower in Wales than in England. The people of Wales get a good deal from the existing arrangements.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of budget cuts, nursery and infant schools in the Rhymney valley will be closed or merged? We will have to build portakabins on the precious playing space of neighbouring schools to accommodate the children. Is that any way to enter the millennium, with our youngest children being educated in portakabins on playing spaces in schools in our community?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are making great investments in education and that the private finance initiative will allow us to do more. I protected capital spending by local government on education in the last public spending round. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should remember that local government must use its resources as efficiently as possible and, before asking for more money, it should be sure that every penny it spends is well spent.
    Sir Raymond Powell: Did the Secretary of State take into consideration the concerns of councillors in the new unitary authorities that have taken over the responsibilities of counties, boroughs and districts, before he assessed them this year? The councillors were worried about cuts in services to the people they serve. I hope that, when the Secretary of State meets the officers of Bridgend county borough council, he will consider increasing the amount of money that they get next year to spend on essential services, so that they will not have to worry, as they are this year, about cuts.
    Mr. Hague: I certainly considered the task that local authorities faced during the reorganisation of local government this year. That is why we are giving them more than £40 million this year to finance the transitional

    773
    costs associated with change in local government on top of the 2.8 per cent. increase—which is generally in line with the rate of inflation—in the level of Government support which they receive in any case. I shall, of course, look at all representations in the coming public spending round.

    Schools
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met with leaders of local authorities in Wales to discuss the government of schools. [35553]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has met local authority leaders specifically to discuss that issue. As part of the recently lifted boycott of discussions with the Welsh Office, directors of education declined to meet Welsh Office officials to discuss school government issues in the run-up to publication of the recent White Paper "Self-Government for Schools".
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons why local authorities have failed to meet the Secretary of State is that they realise that the Government are obsessed with the government of schools? The real issue facing education in Wales is a decade of constant underfunding. Why does the Minister not forget about government of schools and nursery vouchers and concentrate on what really matters: a proper financial settlement for schools in Wales?
    Mr. Evans: If there is any obsession, it is that of Labour Members with control and uniformity regarding local education authority actions. The Government believe in choice and diversity, which is why we promoted the concept of local management of schools in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. That concept is now welcomed universally by schools in Wales. The changes that we announced in relation to school self-government are also a step in the direction of choice and diversity.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, without pressure from central Government, there would be no progress in schools in Wales because local authorities are so stick-in-the-mud socialist that they would never allocate the required budgets to education? Is it not a fact that more money is allocated to schools in Wales and that they should produce better results?
    Mr. Evans: I absolve some local education authorities from the charge made by my hon. Friend: my local education authority in Powys pioneered the idea of devolving budgets to schools and setting a margin for that. As my hon. Friend makes clear, there has been widespread opposition from other parts of Wales and large-scale scepticism about the policy. However, I do not see any manifesto commitment from the Labour party to return to the previous arrangements.

    NHS Waiting Lists
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in reducing NHS waiting lists in Wales in the last quarter. [35554]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: During the first three months of 1996, the number of people waiting more than six months for a first out-patient appointment fell by a third and the number waiting more than a year to be admitted for treatment was cut by 3 per cent.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the millions of pounds that the Labour party plans to spend on a Welsh Assembly—which is opposed by the vast majority of Welsh people—would be better spent on the national health service, thus building on the Government's reforms which have reduced waiting lists to a record low? [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend agree also that Labour's policies for the health service would deprive patient care of as much as £500 million? [Interruption.] Surely Conservative policies will always provide better care for patients.
    Mr. Jones: Despite the baying of Opposition Members, I think that my hon. Friend is entitled to offer that opinion—which is shared by many people in Wales. She is right to raise the question of costs so that we may examine what would be lost through sacrifice to dogma. If we compare the number of day cases and in-patients treated now with the numbers in 1979, we can see that the size of the health service in Wales has, in effect, doubled. That is what the people of Wales prefer.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Would the Minister care to comment on the decision by Gwent Community Health NHS trust to force the mentally ill in Abertillery—the most vulnerable people in our community—to receive in-patient treatment outside the county borough? Will he comment also on the remarks of the trust's chief executive officer, Mr. Bob Hudson, who told those patients, "Well folks, you have lost out"?
    Mr. Jones: I admire the hon. Gentleman's determination to press the case on behalf of his constituents. He has, I believe, presented a petition to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and has also secured an Adjournment debate for Wednesday night. I look forward to offering him the fullest reply some time after 10 pm on Wednesday.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve nursery education in Wales.[35555]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Under our proposals, all parents of four-year-olds in Wales will, for the first time, have the opportunity to exercise choice when they seek nursery education for their children. Again for the first time, all voucher providers will have to meet defined education standards. The inspections to ensure that will drive up standards generally. We have also allocated substantial resources to the voluntary sector for training and other measures to raise standards of education for all under-fives.
    Mr. Flynn: May I thank the Secretary of State for Wales and congratulate him on his role in the partnership between the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and Newport borough council that secured the

    775
    sumptuous investment of LG in my constituency? Will the Government now also commend the great achievements of Welsh Labour-controlled authorities, which provide better nursery education on a greater scale to more children than any authority in England? Is not it true that one does not need choice in Gwent and Clwyd, where there is virtually 100 per cent. provision of high-grade nursery education? Why does not the Secretary of State drop the silly idea of nursery vouchers, which are unwanted in Wales, unnecessary and wasteful?
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the generosity of his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his role in securing the LG investment. If I may say so, that stands in contrast to the churlish remarks made by his colleague the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) from the Front Bench. That investment will present many opportunities for those who live within Newport and the south Wales valleys. I believe that the extension of nursery education that will be brought about by the introduction of the voucher system will do a similar thing.
    The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is right to say that there is higher provision of nursery education in Wales than in England, but there are shortcomings in some parts of Wales in terms of the quality of that provision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am bound to say that there is a stark complacency in some of the observations—[Interruption.] We can look at many of the authorities represented by hon. Members who are raising their voices at this moment. The inspectorate has made it clear that shortcomings exist, and one of the advantages of the nursery voucher system is that it will lead to standards generally being raised.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Can the Minister confirm that, in Wales, well over 90 per cent. of four-year-olds already have pre-school provision, and that Her Majesty's chief inspector in Wales pointed out clearly that the best provision was made in local authority nursery schools and nursery units? Will the Minister confirm that, if the additional money that is being put into the voucher scheme had been given directly to the local authorities, all four-year-olds—and many more three-year-olds—could have had quality nursery education provision, and that the administrative costs of the voucher scheme are wasted money, which the Labour party will get rid of as soon as possible?
    Mr. Evans: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that nursery provision across Wales as a whole is patchy and that parts of Wales have no provision for all four-year-olds. [Interruption.] It is astonishing that those who claim to represent the people of Wales have such a lack of knowledge of the way in which nursery provision operates within the Principality. It is a fact that provision is patchy and that Her Majesty's inspectorate has said that there are shortcomings in relation to quality. The introduction of the nursery voucher scheme will lead to an improvement in standards and availability.

    Exporting Companies (Awards)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives have been launched recently to encourage Welsh exporting companies to compete for national and international awards. [35556]
    Mr. Hague: I have recently launched the 1996 Welsh award for export achievement and my officials have written to Welsh exporting companies encouraging them to apply. My Department also encourages applications for the Queen's award for export achievement, the export award for smaller businesses and the language for export awards.
    Mr. Butler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to boost exports of goods from Wales. To do that, of course, it is necessary to manufacture those goods in Wales. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the import of jobs and inward investment from LG in Korea, which will create more than 6,000 new jobs in south Wales. May I welcome Wales to the Milton Keynes club of areas that rely on inward investment for jobs?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for what they have said. I believe that LG's announcement is the best single piece of news that the economy in Wales has had for many years. It will create 6,100 jobs directly, and at least as many indirectly. That achievement is greatly to the credit of the Welsh Development Agency, and of my officials in the Welsh Office. I also thank Newport borough council for its help and co-operation in bringing the project to fruition.
    This has been a highly successful team effort, and I hope that everyone in Wales will be delighted with the news; however, we must now build on it. Today's Dun and Bradstreet survey shows that Wales is one of the most optimistic parts of the United Kingdom, and that is what we shall build on in the future.
    Dr. Howells: As the Secretary of State says, one of the key drivers in exports is the Welsh Development Agency. Is he aware that the agency is telling everyone that it has no funds left for the rest of the year, and that in a number of constituencies represented by Opposition Members key projects that will help with exports—such as land reclamation schemes—are currently on stop, and have been for months? What will he do to provide funds to enable those schemes to start up again?
    Mr. Hague: The WDA has a very large budget in the current year, but it is not possible to undertake all projects simultaneously and to do all that we would like to do. Over 15 or 16 years, we have implemented Europe's largest land reclamation programme. Of course we want to do more, but it will not be possible to do everything at once.

    NHS Patients
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what these figures were in 1979. [35557]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Provisional figures show that 514,000 people were treated as in-patients and 661,000 were seen as new out-patients in 1995–96, compared with 350,000 and 429,000 respectively in 1979.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a great improvement in the health service in Wales since the Government took office? Will he confirm that the increase in the number of patients treated has taken place more quickly since the national health service reforms were introduced?
    Mr. Jones: Certainly—but those remarkable figures have been achieved by remarkable staff, and by everything else that combines to make up the national health service in Wales, not least the Government's determination to keep driving the service forward and attaining our manifesto commitment to increase spending on it.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Given that some of those figures will include women waiting for, or having, treatment for breast cancer, when can we expect a response to the petition that I handed in to the Welsh Office, along with some of our prospective women candidates who will be in the House after the next election? That petition—bearing more than 20,000 signatures—calls for better access to breast cancer facilities, for more money for research and for health authorities to make breast cancer treatment a top priority.
    Mr. Jones: Coincidentally, I signed a reply to the hon. Lady three hours ago.
    Mr. Richards: Has my hon. Friend yet calculated the additional demands on in-patients and out-patients in Gwent in the light of the proposed LG investment? Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who initiated the original contacts with the Koreans some 10 months ago and has supervised negotiations since then? Does he agree that the main factors in the securing of the investment, and the additional number of out-patients and in-patients—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about the national health service.

    Boviine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from farmers' leaders regarding the effect of the BSE crisis on agriculture in Wales.[35558]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have received representations from farmers' leaders about various issues relating to BSE's effect on the industry in Wales. We have met them several times and expect to do so again as the situation develops.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he acknowledge that the industry's main and deep-seated concern is the lack of support given to farmers who are producing clean beef for the market? In recent weeks, those farmers, who are producing animals under 30 months old, have seen prices drop dramatically. Will he assure the House that the Government will top up the £29 million grant given by the European Union to
    778
    help producers in special difficulties? For once, will the Government give their own money to support Welsh farmers?
    Mr. Evans: First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have a substantial investment in supporting Welsh farmers. His specific point is well understood by Ministers. He will know that, following the Luxembourg Council, the British Government can decide to make some £29 million of aid available to the industry. Later today, I will meet the Farmers Union of Wales to hear what its observations may be as to the way in which that money should be spent, but I can make no commitment to the hon. Gentleman on topping up that money at this point.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Inquests
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Attorney-General what is the current average interval between his Department receiving notification of a death in suspicious circumstances and the holding of an inquest.[35535]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Law Officers do not receive notification of deaths. The timing of an inquest following a death in suspicious circumstances is a matter for the coroner concerned.
    Mr. Corbyn: The Minister will not be surprised to know that I rise to raise the question of the tragic death in November 1992 of Leon Patterson in a police station in Greater Manchester. An inquest was held the following year, in which a verdict of unlawful killing was returned. That was successfully appealed against by the Home Office and a new inquest was ordered nearly two years ago. Will he explain why there has been that disgraceful delay in resolving the question of Leon Patterson's tragic death? Will he consider ensuring that legal aid is available for the representatives of Leon Patterson's family, particularly as the police and all other agencies will be funded at public expense in defending their actions surrounding his tragic death? Surely, in justice, the family should receive the same degree of support.
    The Solicitor-General: The matters of delay and legal aid are not ones for which I have responsibility, but I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman in two respects. First, I understand that the new coroner's inquest will take place in September and, secondly, if new evidence is forthcoming at that inquest, the Crown Prosecution Service will consider it and decide whether, in the light of it, any criminal proceedings should be instituted.
    Mr. Jessel: Following the inquest into the Marchioness disaster, when 51 mainly young people were drowned in the River Thames, does my hon. and learned Friend expect any prosecutions?
    The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend will know, the verdict of a coroner's jury in April 1995 recorded death by unlawful killing and, following that coroner's inquest, the Crown Prosecution Service obtained the transcripts of the evidence that had been given. It has

    779
    obtained the advice of leading counsel and a decision will be taken shortly as to whether further criminal proceedings will be instituted.

    Traffic Offence Cases
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General how many road traffic offence cases within Greater London have been abandoned by the Crown Prosecution Service, subsequent to their court listing in the past six months; and if he will make a statement. [35536]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Precise statistics are not kept, but many motoring cases are discontinued at court on production by the defendant of documents that should have been produced much earlier.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Attorney-General do better and inquire of the courts in London as to why prosecutions are often abandoned on the day, simply because either no lawyer is available to prosecute or for some inexplicable reason other than the one advanced by the Attorney-General?
    The Attorney-General: The reason that I have just advanced is common. Some people turn up with their documents at the last moment. It is only when they are brought to court that they produce them, but, if the hon. Gentleman lets me know of the inexplicable cases that he has specifically in mind, I will have them examined.
    Mr. Dykes: I hope that I remain in order in asking about the unusual case of the McPanlin family, where Mrs. McPanlin was killed in a hit-and-run accident in June 1995—I know that this is different from the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). This is a disturbing story, but there has been no CPS follow-up and no action by the police, with the suggestion in the press recently that no prosecution has been forthcoming because the apparent perpetrators, Robert and Mark Mazure, have been involved in a separate murder case that has been tried recently. This is a most unusual and distressing case for the members of the McPanlin family who are my constituents. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General could look into the matter in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor to whom I wrote on Thursday.
    The Attorney-General: I shall ask my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to let me have a copy of the letter and if I need further details I shall get in touch with my hon. Friend.

    Appeals (Undue Leniency)
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases during the past year have been referred to the Court of Appeal on grounds of undue leniency. [35537]
    The Attorney-General: In 1995, 77 cases were referred to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and four were referred in Northern Ireland. To date, 69 of those cases have been heard by the Court of Appeal. Sentence was increased in 63 cases or 91 per cent.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend may not be aware that he has the gratitude of my constituents for referring a particularly vicious, fatal knifing case to the Court of Appeal on the ground of undue leniency. What might have befallen my constituents and what opportunities would they have had if Labour had been successful in voting down the capability to refer such cases to the Court of Appeal?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The Attorney-General's right to refer unduly lenient sentences has undoubtedly been of real assistance to the administration of justice. It enables the Court of Appeal to put right not only unduly lenient sentences in, it must be said, the very small proportion of cases where such sentences are imposed, but to give valuable guidelines to the judiciary about the right sentence for grave offences of the type to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that the limitation on the nature of sentences that can be referred to the Court of Appeal, namely indictment-only type cases, creates the right atmosphere and allows only the correct cases to be forwarded? Does he further agree that the Crown Prosecution Service, in which I obviously declare an interest, by its careful sifting has aided the Attorney-General's office on the nature and type of cases that should come before the court and that that has benefited the whole sentencing process?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman makes two good points. He is correct to say that the Crown Prosecution Service looks carefully at each case that is capable of being referred. If it thinks that the sentence may have been unduly lenient, the case is referred to me, if necessary. That is in addition to the opportunity for hon. Members and the public to draw such cases to my attention.

    Petty Offences
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Attorney-General what estimate he has made of the number of cases the Crown Prosecution Service has prosecuted for petty offences, with special reference to petty theft, vandalism and public disorder. [35538]
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep records for these individual offences but in the year ending March 1996 the CPS took proceedings in respect of 769,023 defendants for summary only offences. The prevalence of the offence is treated as a factor in favour of prosecutions.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the tendency among the forces of law and order to think that small offences do not matter but that small offences which start to go unnoticed begin to drag an area down? Unless we can prosecute people for small offences the larger ones will follow. Can he assure the House that the Crown Prosecution Service pursues cases of petty theft, vandalism and other small offences just as vigorously as it pursues those involving major, high-profile offences which, of course, get much more publicity?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Crown Prosecution Service takes into account a number of factors before deciding whether prosecution is in the public interest. It considers not only the interests of the victim, which are important, the victim's vulnerability and the likelihood that an offence will be repeated, but in particular—this may strike a chord with my hon. Friend—in cases where the offence is not serious in itself, it considers whether it is widespread in the area where it was committed.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate resources and is properly staffed to prosecute? What financial cuts are now being imposed on it? Why is information offering early retirement with enhanced pensions being circulated to experienced staff as young as 31 to 38? Is that at the Treasury's suggestion? What effect will that have on the service? What will those early retirements cost?
    The Solicitor-General: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate money and adequate staff. Notwithstanding a 2.9 per cent. cut in its budget for this year, its funds and the number of its staff are greater than they were when I became Solicitor-General in 1992. As for his comments on early retirement, information on retirement conditions is being circulated to people at grade 7 and to senior executive officers simply because employment legislation requires that everyone in a class in which there may be staff reductions should be familiarised with their options.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the public and the police have considerable concerns that the work of the Crown Prosecution Service, even on minor cases, needs to be much improved? That could give rise to outright opposition to a proposal to extend the CPS's rights of audience. Will he make a decision about its rights of audience in the near future?
    The Solicitor-General: The future of the application for rights of audience for the Crown Prosecution Service lies not with me but with judges designated under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The judges concerned have an application in front of them now. My hon. Friend mentioned the CPS's standing in the eyes of the public and the police. I should tell him that the police—whom I meet frequently about specific cases and matters of policy—almost without exception are full of praise for the Crown Prosecution Service's professionalism and expertise. On occasions the public are misled by biased and partial reporting in the media, but if the truth were to be told, they would share the view of impartial observers that the Crown Prosecution Service is doing a very good job.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to improve the work of the CPS. [35539]
    The Attorney-General: Current initiatives include team working, the promulgation of further charging standards, the setting up of a Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate and close co-operation with the police—aimed at simplifying paperwork wherever possible and helping the police to ensure that files delivered to the CPS contain all the evidence necessary to secure a conviction.
    Mr. Flynn: What can the CPS do about a case—of which I have given the Attorney-General brief notice—that happened in my constituency last week, when a man was sentenced to community service after he had attacked Mr. John Marsh, an ambulance driver who was on duty attending an injured woman? A friend of the injured woman attacked Mr. Marsh and inflicted on him injuries so severe that he will probably never work again. The sentence was community service. Since 1980, crime has doubled but clear-up rates have dropped from 40 per cent. to 26 per cent. Are not soft sentences and poor clear-up rates an incentive to criminals to commit more and more vicious crimes?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. If he will give me the details of the case, I will examine it together with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, to see whether we consider that the sentence was unduly lenient—in which case we can refer it to the Court of Appeal under the provisions that were introduced by this Government and, despite being opposed by the Opposition, are now almost universally recognised as being of real value.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconfirm that he does not recommend that the Crown Prosecution Service gives the right of audience in the higher courts to its employees? The result would be to wipe out the junior Bar and lead to the fusion of the two professions—which neither solicitors, barristers nor anybody concerned with the right movement of the criminal justice system in this country wants.
    The Attorney-General: Decisions on such matters are for the Lord Chancellor and the four senior designated judges. Personally, I am implacably opposed to fusion.
    Mr. Llwyd: A recent criticism of the CPS is that victims of crime feel estranged from the prosecution system. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman lend his support to the Director of Public Prosecutions' initiative in establishing officers with each branch, whose job it will be to liaise with victims and potential prosecution witnesses?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the value of Victim Support, which is strongly supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is a strong initiative within the CPS to ensure that it works closely with Victim Support, to give every assistance to victims.

Northern Ireland
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the events of the past 10 days in Northern Ireland, and about the way forward.
Throughout that period, massive and completely unacceptable civil disorder has occurred on both sides of the community—totally wrongful in character and unjust in its consequences for all its victims. In the course of that period, two men have tragically lost their lives.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary has been stretched to the limit of its ability to maintain order and preserve life. Violent manifestations of sectarian antagonism have occurred. Intimidation, including intimidation of RUC officers and their families, has been rife. The Killyhevlin hotel at Enniskillen has been gravely damaged by a bomb, with many people shocked and injured.
All that represents, without doubt, the worst setback for many years—a return towards what so many people in Northern Ireland and far beyond had prayed was over for good. It has been a black period for Northern Ireland, with deep fears and anxieties generated on all sides. Trust and confidence have suffered greatly. In this statement, I will examine briefly with the House what has happened, and what the way forward from here now should be.
At the outset, however, I want to say three things. First, I warmly commend—as I think the whole House will—the maintenance by the loyalist paramilitary organisations of their ceasefire. It is of critical importance that it should continue. Secondly, if the people of Northern Ireland are to be helped to move back from the abyss, and move forward to a better future, all of us who claim a right to speak on these matters must seek to be objective and fair. To seize on what is no more than a partisan perception and proclaim it as an established truth without examination is immensely dangerous and damaging.
Lastly, I want to say that the scene, grave though it undoubtedly is, does have a crucially positive element. We have in place a democratic process of political talks, for which a large majority of the electorate has voted. I shall return to that aspect and to its paramount importance.
Sir Hugh Annesley, Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, yesterday gave an extensive interview to the BBC in which he described the background to those events and the events themselves. I have placed a transcript of that interview in the Library. I commend it strongly to the House. It sets out the facts.
Unprecedented efforts had been made by the Government, Church leaders, the RUC and others to secure an accommodation in Portadown. The Chief Constable makes it clear that, ever since January, he personally, and his deputy Chief Constable, Mr. Flannigan, had tried with both sides at Portadown to negotiate a compromise. I pay special tribute to the entirely independent efforts of the Church leaders, who strove for two days and nights to bring the two sides together—sadly, without achieving success.
The Chief Constable is required by law to consider the likelihood of serious disorder if a notified march proceeds. He has to make an operational, professional and impartial judgment. That judgment, under our clearly established constitutional arrangements, is for him alone.
784
On Thursday 6 July, the Chief Constable had duly decided to order that the return stage of the Orange Order parade at Portadown, which was to take place the following day, should be re-routed away from the Garvaghy road. A lawful order was accordingly made to that effect. That decision was made because he anticipated serious organised disorder—not limited to Portadown protesters—if the intended return stage of the march went ahead. A counter-march planned by the Garvaghy road residents also had restrictions placed on it, although, in the event, it did not take place. I wish to make it clear that, in taking that operational decision at that time and in those circumstances, the Chief Constable had and retains the Government's full support.
Over the next four days, serious disorder occurred in Drumcree and many other parts of the Province. There was a clear and reprehensible intention to overstretch the capacity of the RUC to maintain public order. At Drumcree itself, the Chief Constable has said in his own language that the most insidious, despicable and disgusting threats were made to his officers in the front line, to the effect that their wives or families would be got at. Elsewhere, the RUC was fiercely engaged. There was intimidation of officers' families and other civilians, with widespread blocking of roads and attacks on property.
The RUC, with full support from the Army, did its duty with great resolution in responding to this critical situation. At the request of the Chief Constable, two further battalions were brought into the Province in support of his force. However, despite the sustained efforts to which I have referred, it proved impossible for the two sides in the local community at Drumcree to reach an agreement.
On the morning of 11 July, after considering a number of options and having awaited the outcome of the on-going attempts at mediation, the Chief Constable decided that a limited parade down the Garvaghy road was the option most likely to prevent loss of life. He has made it clear that it was foreseeable that, by the night of 11 July, some 60,000 to 70,000 Orange marchers would be invited by the Orange Order to converge on Drumcree, and an attempt had already been made to get through the fence. In that event, he foresaw that they would overrun the wire, obliging the police and the military to withdraw and to attempt to protect the Garvaghy road estate. He concluded that there would be serious risk of lives being lost, including on the Garvaghy estate, and he has said that he would not in any circumstances have
traded one life for the Garvaghy Road"
In that decision also, the Chief Constable has the Government's full support. We also share his regret at what he described as
"an outrageous attempt by one side to impose their will on the other by the sheer weight of force."
I recognise, of course, that the nationalist community, or many of its members, are bitterly critical of this decision, but it was taken very much with the safety of the Garvaghy road residents in mind. I am in no doubt, however, that, under the circumstances, it was the right decision. The violence that followed in many nationalist areas was no more justified or acceptable than that fomented by loyalists earlier in the week. Once again, the security forces came under intense attack from gunfire, as well as petrol bombs and other missiles.

785
The police have responded proportionately, and with great courage and professionalism, to the attacks.
The police investigation into the bomb attack on the hotel at Enniskillen is now under way. While it is too early to say which organisation was responsible, it seems clear that preparations for that attack began well before the events at Drumcree.
The events surrounding Drumcree and the march on the Lower Ormeau road in Belfast on 12 July have underscored the potentially destabilising effect of controversial parades. There are no immediately obvious answers. Over many months, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), has been seeking to avoid conflict in this year's marching season. As I said in the House last week, I now have in mind a general review that will make recommendations about the better management of future controversial parades.
I therefore confirm today that the Government intend to establish a review based on evidence that any interested party will be free to summit. I envisage that the review will examine the current arrangements for handling parades and marches in Northern Ireland. I shall announce further details of the review later, including the name of the chairman and detailed terms of reference.
Recent events, however, are but a symptom of the much deeper divisions that plague Northern Ireland. Along with all politicians who are committed to a peaceful solution, we must continue to seek to overcome them.
That can be achieved only in a talks process that can address all the issues and is committed to securing an agreed outcome that respects the aspirations and principles of both parts of the community. I referred earlier to the democratic process of talks that is in place. It is now more imperative than ever that it begins to address the substantive issues that lie at the heart of the divisions that have had such terrible consequences. I am pleased that the process continues tomorrow.
For our part, the Government are fully committed to the talks process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be meeting the leaders of each of the parties involved over the coming days to hear their views of the way forward and to emphasise our commitment to the talks process.
I shall also be making arrangements, in consultation with the Irish Government, to meet them at an intergovernmental conference to discuss the mutual security interests between our two countries, and to demonstrate the reasons behind last week's decisions. On that basis, we intend to rebut very firmly the quite unjustified and unwarranted criticism that has been made of the Government and the RUC. In particular, my purpose will he, in the presence of the Chief Constable, to rebut any suggestion of political interference in his operational decisions.
All those who wish to lead Northern Ireland towards a more peaceful future—and they certainly include the Government—must now work together to re-establish trust and dialogue. None of us can accept a return to the violence of the past 25 years. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to avoid that and to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it is truly possible to find political
786
and peaceful means of resolving Northern Ireland's profound problems. That is the challenge that confronts us now.
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Nothing can excuse the violence and destruction that has occurred over the past weekend. In the interests of peace—for which the people of Northern Ireland are crying out—it must stop.
We congratulate and support those who have exercised restraint and encouraged others to do the same. None of us should underestimate the seriousness of the problems in Northern Ireland today. A peace process that was already in serious difficulties has been dealt a mighty blow. It now requires real efforts from everyone if it is to be rescued. As the Secretary of State said, trust and confidence have suffered greatly. We congratulate the police in London on the discovery of bomb-making equipment this morning. Quality intelligence and assiduous investigation are the terrorists' worst enemy.
We totally condemn the callous bombing of the Killyhevlin hotel in Enniskillen. I am appalled that the people of that beautiful town, who have suffered so much, should be made to suffer again. It shows simply the boundless cowardice of the bombers. We condemn also the atrocious violence and rioting across Northern Ireland, and offer our condolences to the families and friends of the two men who have tragically lost their lives.
Security and vigilance are necessary to protect people. But, as with all policing matters, the police can only operate effectively with consent. Does the Secretary of State accept that the rule of law is paramount, and that the confidence of both communities in the institutions responsible for enforcing the rule of law is essential?
On the events of last week, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the police were put in an impossible situation in Portadown, and that their resources were overstretched by a co-ordinated show of hostile activity across Northern Ireland? Will he now acknowledge to the House what he refused to condemn last week—that, in the words of the Chief Constable of the RUC,
"the consent to comply with the rule of law did not exist with the Portadown Orange Lodge. They were not encouraged to do so by constitutional politicians and they should have done"
We commend the residents of the Garvaghy road—whom I met and spoke to last week—along with the police, Church leaders and some in the Unionist tradition who, over weeks and months, have made determined efforts to reach agreement. But does the Secretary of State accept that it is his responsibility to set the political framework within which local negotiations can take place with a hope of success? Does he accept that his failure to act, as we and many others have urged for many months, in a proactive way to help to resolve disputes and contentious parades makes him partly responsible for the failure to reach a local agreement?
The Secretary of State has announced today a review, with details and terms of reference to follow. Does he understand that such an unspecific announcement of a general review is not the most helpful at this time? Will he consider some of the suggestions that have been made for an independent commission to address matters such as guidelines for the conduct of parades that respect tradition but eliminate intimidation and triumphalism; helping to ensure that decisions about the routing of parades are made in a fair and consistent fashion; and the effectiveness of the existing law in relation to parades?

787
Let me make it clear that we are not arguing that operational matters relating to marches should be taken out of the hands of the police; nor do we want to undermine the existing mediation efforts. But urgent steps must be taken. When can we expect the details of the review? When will it begin? What will be its status? When will it report? The people of Northern Ireland want answers to these important questions.
On the broader political level, we welcome the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon that he will meet the Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, tomorrow. Working together, the two Governments have given impetus to the search for peace. They must set the example by co-operating now if they expect the parties in Northern Ireland to climb over their frustration and anger also.
For our part, the Opposition have maintained a bipartisan approach, based on the two Governments' endorsements of the principles and proposals outlined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the joint framework document. Our support, like today, has sometimes been critical, but it is, I hope, always constructive. What I have said this afternoon is entirely in that spirit.
It would greatly help if everybody involved in this disastrous situation would acknowledge their part in its creation and stand up and take their share of the blame. That includes those who have threatened force to achieve their ends, those who have failed to act in advance and those—among whom I include myself—who failed to press their case for early action to sufficient effect.
Many parallels have been drawn in the press today with the events of 1969. If we can learn anything from the violence and deaths of the intervening years, it is that we should all have the courage to do what is necessary, so that we do not live our history over again.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's congratulations to the security forces on the way in which they have handled these extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances in Northern Ireland, and on the recent finds in London. I am glad to agree that the rule of law is paramount in any democratic and decent society.
I also agree that, for some time at Drumcree, the RUC was put in an impossible position, as the Chief Constable made clear yesterday in the interview to which I referred. I agree that, following the 6 July decision by the Chief Constable, a lawful order had been made that the return stage of the march should not go down the Garvaghy road. It was therefore the duty of all concerned to comply with that order—that duty was not complied with, and I greatly deplore that.
The hon. Lady said that failure to act on the part of the Government makes me responsible for the riots that took place. [HON. MEMBERS: "She did not say that."] It is her privilege to make any allegation of that character that she likes. I accept the full responsibility that properly lies with the Secretary of State, and have done for some four and a quarter years.
As I said, however, the Government have been far from idle during the period that elapsed after July last year. I will not repeat the particulars, but in fairness I should be allowed to remind the hon. Lady that I wrote to her on 7 March saying:
788
"Regrettably attitudes on both sides have hardened, which does not inspire confidence although discussions continue. I also believe that other routes"—
I was referring earlier to the efforts of the Chief Constable and the RUC—
"such as mediation network are involved and it is to be hoped they can assist others to find a solution. We are not, however, complacent. John Wheeler and officials are examining whether there are any other avenues of approach but the answer must lie with the various groups involved talking to each other and being prepared to accommodate views which do not coincide with their own. Failing that, the RUC will endeavour to minimise the problems associated with individual parades."
In June, I wrote to the hon. Lady in reply to a further letter from her, saying that, having set up a working group internally,
"an independent body to advise the police about individual contentious parades"
was not an idea that had more going for it than against it. Towards the end of that letter, I said:
"I do not … have a closed mind on this issue; the subject is one that might well usefully be addressed in the current Political Talks or the Forum, and in any event I will wish to revisit the whole question of parades in the light of our experience during the current marching season."
I also said:
"John Wheeler has been doing a great deal of work behind the scenes to try to persuade those organising the most controversial marches (and those who may have influence over the organisers) to adopt a more flexible attitude."
It is wise of the hon. Lady to welcome my announcement today. The review can, of course, hear any representations advocating any solution that any interested party may feel it right to make. We cannot conceivably anticipate the length of time that the review will take, but it is desirable that we follow that method as a possible way of ensuring that next year and thereafter Northern Ireland is not subject to the tortures that have disfigured it this month.
Mr. David Trimble: First, I repeat the appeal that my colleagues and I have made in the past week to the loyalist paramilitaries to maintain their ceasefire, whatever the circumstances and whatever may happen. The people of Northern Ireland earnestly hope that that ceasefire will be maintained, even if other ceasefires have not been.
The Secretary of State referred to a review on the management of parades. Will that review extend to the public order legislation introduced within the past decade, which has manifestly failed? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman also give some indication of what he intends to do before next year, because we are not out of the woods yet and significant problems are not far ahead, which will require urgent attention?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the first priority must be to try to restore public confidence in Northern Ireland in the political process, and that that will not be done by actions such as those of the Social Democratic and Labour party in adopting the Sinn Fein policy of abstention, particularly with regard to the democratic element of the talks process to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred? That process is a package, and it has to be considered as a whole.
We will not restore confidence by promoting the Anglo-Irish process, which has been part of the problem, especially with regard to Portadown but also generally with regard to the people of Northern Ireland. It is part of the problem, not the solution.

789
However, I welcome the Secretary of State's proposal to consult political parties. I suggest that that should be done as quickly as possible and that the focus should be on the major political parties, by which I mean those that participated in the 1992 talks. We need consultation, whether individually or, preferably, jointly, as soon as possible to see where we go from here, and to find whether we can in some way add to confidence in the community.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse and welcome the hon. Gentleman's appeal to the loyalist organisations to maintain their ceasefire.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the review will extend to the public order legislation. It should be entirely open to the review to consider whether the legislation is sufficient or whether—and, if so, in what ways—it should be amended and enhanced.
The hon. Gentleman asked about immediate steps to deal with urgent problems that are on the horizon, or nearer than the horizon, before we enter next year's marching season. It is important that there should be a discussion of these matters as soon as possible within the substantive talks. It is very important that all of us—that includes the Government—should seek to analyse and proclaim the lessons to be learned from the hideous events of the past 10 days. I believe that there are very many in Northern Ireland who have been deeply shocked by what has occurred, who will wish to reflect, and are already reflecting deeply, on the way forward.
I very much regret any suggestion that any party may make about withdrawing from the forum. The forum was the immediate purpose of the elections and I believe that it is a sad thing if any party is to withdraw from a forum in which it is open to all in Northern Ireland to make their views known about the issues of the hour, including the present issue.
I regret that there should be any notion that the future of Northern Ireland is advanced by people excluding themselves rather than furthering an inclusive process, which certainly extends, on proper terms, to the talks process itself. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the need for consultations with the parties, and the Government look forward to carrying them forward.
Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, as my time of office started with trouble on the Garvaghy road and tunnel at Portadown and included the bomb at Enniskillen, it would be easy to believe that nothing has changed in Northern Ireland? Yet I profoundly believe that, so enormous has been the welcome for the period of peace that was achieved—and so manifest the benefits to the Province—and so ghastly have been the implications of the past week, that nothing could more clearly underline the importance of the work to which he has set his hand and of continuing the political efforts to try to achieve a sensible accommodation between the different interests.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who speaks with great experience of the office that I have the privilege to hold. He speaks of the paramount importance of a political talks process as offering the only alternative to violence and force as a means of securing political objectives. I believe that the
790
huge majority of people in Northern Ireland will endorse what he has said, and seek to see that that view is implemented and carried through.
Sir David Steel: My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the review into parading and marching that the Secretary of State has announced. Does he accept that the right to demonstrate and march is carefully safeguarded throughout the United Kingdom, but that it cannot be extended to a right to march on a precise route in a provocative manner that has been deemed unwise by the chief constable? That is an extension of the right which does not apply in any part of the United Kingdom.
Does the Secretary of State also accept that we in this House are entitled to expect fellow parliamentarians who describe themselves as loyalists to show a higher standard of leadership than we saw during last week, higher leadership than simply to say, "There is a crowd—I must follow it"? Does he accept that we in the Liberal Democrat party support the Government in their pursuit of the political talks in the Province and in their dialogue with the Government of the Republic? I hope that that dialogue will resume very soon.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have said that we expect to have further dialogue. I hope that we shall do so this week, in the talks process and in a meeting under the conference. I intend to provide the occasion for the representations that I have already mentioned in my statement.
I acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of the right to march, to parade and to demonstrate one's feelings, culture and identity. I also agree that that right has to be qualified. It certainly has to be qualified by an obligation to obey an order lawfully made by a chief constable. It is not helpful for me to engage in attributions of blame, certainly not of individual blame. Each of us here in the House is responsible for his own conduct.
Mr. Michael Mates: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those of us who comment on, take an interest in and speak out on these matters, mostly from the comfort of an English armchair, would be well advised to refrain from criticising a senior police officer who has done his very best in the most difficult circumstances to take operational decisions which sometimes have to be taken on the spur of the moment? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he should be commended for the job that he is doing, however much it has brought opprobrium on him, when he was doing what he thought was right?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that those who have come to this House from time to time urging that the law be not broken owe it to us to ensure that they do not disobey laws of which they may disapprove, and that defiance of the law and of police forces trying to enforce the law is equally unacceptable from whichever side of the community it comes?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the Chief Constable. He has taken an unparalleled degree of personal criticism. I reiterate what I said in my statement on behalf of the Government: we uphold each of the decisions that he took.

791
The second decision was taken in very different circumstances from the first. It would have been a weak man who, recognising that the situation had deteriorated gravely since the original decision on 6 July, none the less, through fears of facile accusations of a U-turn, held in inappropriate circumstances to the same decision. There are some questions that can be ducked from the safety of non-responsibility, and some questions have been ducked by those in high places who have expressed their view recently. The one person who cannot duck an essential and central question is the Chief Constable.
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the mutual character of the obligations that are imposed by the rule of law.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State is correct to say that we must all now look forward, but he should be aware that the test of history will be applied to his actions, his behaviour and his conversations on the morning of 11 July. Bearing in mind recent reports in the media that the Prime Minister's feelings have been hurt, and that he has refused to sanction meetings with the Irish Government because he is in a huff, does the Secretary of State accept that it is unacceptable to the people of the United Kingdom that, while people are dying and being evicted from their houses, we have a Prime Minister sulking in Downing street?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland and frequently expresses, if I may say so, reasonable and sensible views, should have fallen far short of the level that the hour requires. He may not have heard me say that there is to be a meeting in the intergovernmental conference between the two Governments for the purpose that I have described. Therefore, it is regrettable, and I think that he will come to regret it, that he began his question in the way that he did.
One gets used to the knowledge that history will judge one's actions. I do not care what history says: I care that I discharge sensibly and properly the obligations that are imposed on me. I am able, in the context of criticism that has been laid, to point to what was said by the Chief Constable yesterday and previously. He said unequivocally that he was subjected to no political interference or influence at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of that episode. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can reject that if he likes.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I warmly welcome and support my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. May I invite him to revisit some of the ground that he has covered? Does he agree that there are now three priorities—to uphold public order and to protect life and property, to promote dialogue, communication and contact among those who are genuinely committed to non-violence and democracy—because there is no other way forward—and to secure harmonious relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, whose understanding, support and friendship in key respects is so essential?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in all three of the priorities he addresses and it is
792
right to uphold, above all, the sanctity of life and the safety of people. Injustice to people has been paramount in the consequences of violence of the character that we have seen. The promotion of contact between all sides of the community is very important and must be pursued, especially in the light of what has happened.
Harmonious relations with the Republic of Ireland are also important. I have had to respond robustly to what I knew to be unjust criticisms uttered over the weekend, but we must get through this period, as I am certain we shall, and resume the constructive and forward-looking relationships that have always characterised progress in this area.
Mr. Tony Benn: The Secretary of State asks us to be objective, but he left one factor out of his account—the role of Britain in Ireland over many centuries. During the years of British jurisdiction, peace and social justice have never been achieved, and, since partition, no Government, Labour or Conservative—even when troops were sent in, as happened when I was in the Cabinet in 1969—have ever achieved anything.
It is clear from the events of the past few days not only that the nationalists are pursuing their desire for freedom from Britain, but that the so-called loyalists will be loyal only as long as they can control what the police and the Government do. Therefore, in a sense, a consensus is emerging, because neither community in the north trusts the British Government. The time is coming when we shall have to consider the truth, which the world knows—that Britain cannot and should not exercise jurisdiction, and that any peace force would have to be international, and not made up of British forces.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will carry any significant support for his last point. It cannot be proper for any Government of the United Kingdom to cut loose a province of the United Kingdom in which a substantial majority of people wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, and have demonstrated that in vote after vote. I do not believe that the course that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed is honourable.
I recognise, unlike some who describe themselves as "loyalist", that there has been a selective approach to loyalty, in the sense that some have thought it acceptable to perpetrate the violence I have described this afternoon against, in particular, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose function and duty it is to maintain the Queen's peace.
The right hon. Gentleman is associated, above all, with democracy and being a democrat, and I hope that he will recognise that adherence to democracy in the context of Northern Ireland involves not only giving but honouring the constitutional guarantee that the status of Northern Ireland will remain unchanged unless and until most people living there freely indicate that they want it to change.
Mr. Norman Lamont: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has aroused great sympathy and admiration for the way in which he has dealt with his awe-inspiring responsibilities? Is it not time to recognise that there is no "middle way" between Unionism and nationalism—to use the phrase of the Irish

793
Foreign Minister? If we pursue a middle way that does not exist, there is a danger that we will arouse nationalist expectations that cannot be fulfilled and provoke a reaction from the majority. Therefore, is it not time to consider a fresh approach that would see Ulster governed more like the rest of the United Kingdom?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's initial comments. He said that there is no "middle way" between Unionism and nationalism—by definition, the two lead in opposite directions. However, in using that phrase, I hope that my right hon. Friend does not mean that there is no practicable means by which Unionists and nationalists can co-exist in tranquillity in Northern Ireland. I do not think that he means that.
Mr. Lamont indicated dissent.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I see my right hon. Friend shaking his head, and I am not surprised. Therefore, the Government are not seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland achieve a "middle way" between Unionism and nationalism, but are seeking to achieve that tranquil co-existence. I do not believe that, in practical terms, seeking to administer Northern Ireland as though it had no problems not to be found in Surrey, Kent or Westmorland is likely to achieve the tranquillity and the acceptance by nationalists and Unionists of their ability to live together that my right hon. Friend and the whole Government wish to see.
Mr. Clive Soley: Is not the sad truth that a very impressive Chief Constable has seen his authority undermined, because the rule of law was not upheld? It is his duty to exercise the Queen's writ in Northern Ireland, and it is the Government's duty to support him when mob rule threatens the police. The charge against the Government is that they did not uphold the rule of law.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the only way to put right this desperate situation is to make it clear that the Orange Order or any other organisation—Unionist or nationalist—will never again be able to exercise a veto over the lawful decisions of the police or the British Government?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in those terms—HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and I shall say why. The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government, whom he alleges failed to support the Chief Constable and the police in the face of violence.
I have made it clear that the Chief Constable had to consider his powers, which Parliament has conferred upon him. He must consider whether there is a risk of serious disorder in one circumstance or another: in the case of a march that continues, or a march that is banned. Therefore, by definition, Parliament has recognised that there is a foreseeable risk that violence will be offered in Northern Ireland in one circumstance or another. It has told the Chief Constable that he must consider that matter.
When he made his first decision to ban the return stage of the march, I heard no one in nationalist or Irish circles complain that, in banning the march in the face of threatened disorder, the Chief Constable was bowing the
794
knee to violence. I never heard that criticism—which would have been quite unjust. It is interesting to note that only when a decision adverse to their interests is made five days later and in different circumstances is the Chief Constable told that he is bowing the knee to violence and that the Government—who were not criticised initially, either—have somehow connived in that. I reject that claim.
Mr. David Wilshire: I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the calm way in which he has handled the tragic events. Does he agree that the Irish Prime Minister's intemperate comments confirm what some of us have thought for a long time: that the Dublin Government believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement gives them control over the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and the right to demand that British Ministers explain themselves to a foreign Government? If that is so, is it not time to consider ending the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said at the outset. I made it clear, as it was my duty to do as soon as I heard them, my view of the remarks made by the Taoiseach, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend. I do not want to dwell unnecessarily on them; it is necessary for us to look forward, to move on in the old constructive way that has always characterised in recent times the relationship between the two Governments.
Let me make one thing additionally clear. No Government exercise control over Northern Ireland save the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and so long as that remains the wish—freely expressed—of most people in Northern Ireland, that will continue to be the case. I do not recognise the assertion that the Irish Government reckon that the Anglo-Irish Agreement gives them control over what happens in Northern Ireland. The agreement gives them the right to make representations about many things, but control exists in this Government only, and that, subject to the qualification I mentioned, will remain the case.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Secretary of State will realise that the Killyhevlin hotel is in my constituency, that the bomb damage there places in jeopardy dozens of full-time and part-time jobs, and that the incident undermines the tourist infrastructure in my constituency. Does he agree, however, that, when people hoot derision rather than listen to what is being said by those of us who understand what is happening in Northern Ireland, those of us who regret and condemn violence from whatever quarter it comes in Northern Ireland must remind them that it was not against the background of any march that Canary wharf occurred, that Hammersmith occurred, that Manchester occurred, that Warrington occurred, that a Garda officer was shot in Adare, that my constituents were murdered at a Royal British Legion parade in Enniskillen nine years ago?
All those things should be reckoned with and understood by the House when it tries to make judgments against people who are afraid that their civil rights, and their very right to exist as an integral part of the United Kingdom, are being slowly and deliberately eroded and taken from them.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: There are many fears, many anxieties and very deep feelings—some of them of a character that the hon. Gentleman just described—held

795
right across the community in Northern Ireland. That is one of the great difficulties. I recognise, of course, the hon. Gentleman's close association with the Killyhevlin hotel in Enniskillen, and I recognise the grievous injury that has been done to the hotel, but more importantly, of course, to the individuals who suffered shock and injury.
I also recognise that none of the earlier episodes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is connected in any way with any march. I only hesitate to follow him down that line of thinking lest I be thought to agree with anybody who would suggest that any grievance of whatever character can justify the sort of things that have happened in the past few years—I know that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that.
The truth of the matter is that life is sacrosanct. Nothing can justify the taking of a life. I return to what the Chief Constable said yesterday in his interview, that the protection of proper sensitivities about the Garvaghy road could never be traded for a single life, and that was the justification for the decision that he took.
Sir Peter Hordern: I welcome the inquiry into future marches into the Province, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is most unwise ever to question the operational judgment of a senior Chief Constable, as has happened in this case, whose charge it is to preserve the safety of individuals in the Province, and that is so whether that criticism comes from this country or from the Prime Minister of a foreign country? Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that now is the time for all sides to show commitment to the peace process, not only from this country and from all parties, but from Dublin as well?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse what my right hon. Friend has said. One becomes used to the versatility of one's critics, and I dare say that the Chief Constable does as well. He has been criticised because, it is said, there was political interference; he has denied that. Then there are those who say, "Well, if there was not political interference, there should have been. That is not a matter for the Chief Constable, but a matter for the House."
Let me tell my right hon. Friend why I think that public confidence demands that such decisions shall rest not with a politician, but with a Chief Constable or other senior police officer. I do not think that the public would have confidence in an alternative system that enabled a Minister to say, "Our political opponents are going to have a march next week. We will soon stop that: we will use the public order legislation."
I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of the peace talks process, and with what he has had to say about the importance of the democratic will of people being heard, heeded and acceded to. He is a very experienced Member of the House, and I am grateful to him for what he has said.
Mr. David Winnick: I am one of those—including the majority of Members of Parliament—who believe that, over 25 years, we have been right to respect the views of the majority community in Northern Ireland and their wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, and thus right to oppose terrorist violence.
796
Is it not the case, however, that, time and again, large elements of the loyalist community have used force and intimidation? That happened last week, and it happened in 1974, when the loyalists disagreed with a power-sharing agreement reached by the United Kingdom Parliament. At the end of the day, is there not a limit to the patience of the British people in dealing with Northern Ireland? The loyalist elements who demonstrated last week, breaking the law, should recognise that.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge the view that the hon. Gentleman has consistently taken about the pre-eminence of the majority, and the majority view, in a democracy—provided that that view is freely expressed and the contrary view can also be freely expressed. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has taken a wholly consistent, and, if I may say so, courageous line on that. I also acknowledge that large numbers of those who purported to support the Union have, over the past 10 days, defied the security forces, including a police force whose duty it is to uphold the law for everyone's sake, and indulged in violence.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke of a limit to the patience of the British people, I wondered where he would take that. I feared that he was going to say, "Cut the place loose." I firmly believe that that is not something that the majority of the British people will ever agree to, contrary to the democratic wishes of people in Northern Ireland; nor should that ever happen. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman was referring to a limit to patience with people who apply double standards. I think that that patience ran out a long time ago, and that that should be made very clear.
Mr. Barry Porter: My right hon. and learned Friend will have noticed the absence from the Chamber not only of the SDLP but of the Democratic Unionist party. Apparently they think that the political process is all over, and from their point of view, it probably is. That reality must be faced.
May I echo the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? We shall not get very far unless we face reality, and the reality is that part of the problem is the Anglo-Irish Agreement. At least it is worth looking at. The problem posed by the agreement was that it caused unrealistic expectations in the nationalist community, and put the fear of God into the Unionists. We must look at that very soon.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that my hon. Friend, who also takes a consistent and close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, will allow me to remind him that the talks process is a process within which, among other things, the Anglo-Irish Agreement can be reviewed, considered and amended or changed, and that that has been the consistent position of both Governments for many years. They are prepared to consider a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, if it will secure wider acceptance. Therefore, this is yet another reason why the talks process should be maintained and sustained, despite the difficulties.
Miss Kate Hoey: In condemning utterly the violence and intimidation of the past week, may I urge the Secretary of State to take whatever measures

797
are necessary to ensure that the rule of law is maintained in Northern Ireland so that people can sleep safely in their beds?
Given the Anglo-Irish Agreement, however, will the Secretary of State say how he felt about what I personally thought were sad remarks by the Taoiseach at the weekend? Should we not remind the Taoiseach that, while the Republic of Ireland still lays an illegal claim to Northern Ireland through articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution, frankly, it does not make the pro-Union majority in Northern Ireland feel confident about the Republic of Ireland Government's views?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Anyone in the House who knows the interest that the hon. Lady has always taken will not have been surprised to hear her condemn the violence of the past period. I readily accept, of course, the opportunity she offers me to say that all practicable steps will be taken to maintain and to uphold the rule of law.
The hon. Lady referred to the remarks of Mr. Bruton, the Taoiseach. I have made my view on those clear and I do not want to dwell on them, although it was right that I should have spoken as I did, because we feel strongly that it was a great pity that they were uttered in those terms and in those circumstances; but one must not dwell unduly on these matters. One must take the opportunity to come together, to thrash them out—which is what I intend to do, among other things, at an early opportunity—and to come together again and make common cause in what we have a common interest in: a constructive way to help people in Northern Ireland come through to a settled accommodation of their differences.
Mr. Tony Marlow: How does my right hon. and learned Friend react to the widely held view that the first essential is for a large degree of constitutional certainty—that Northern Ireland is, and is likely for the foreseeable future to remain, an integral part of the United Kingdom, and that Her Majesty's Government have and will continue to have sole responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland? On that stable basis, it would be possible to devise a strategy to take account of the aspirations and interests of all sections of the community.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree that, if stability is to be achieved, there is a need for a wide degree of constitutional certainty, and I am surprised to infer from what my hon. Friend says that that is not present in Northern Ireland at the moment. In modern times, no one has taken more pains to express the constitutional guarantee than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have already recited today what it says. I will not do so again, but there can be no doubt whatever about the Government's determination to uphold and to honour that guarantee. In fairness, I have never heard it suggested on behalf of the official Opposition that it would be less safe with them—I hope and trust that that would be the case. Therefore, that certainty is there, or the grounds for it are there, and it is incumbent on all of us who have a claim to speak in public on these matters not to do anything to cast doubt on it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that it stretches the bounds of credibility for him to tell us and the nation that, somehow or other, in the middle of the crisis last week, the Government played no part in the Chief Constable changing his mind?
Just over 10 years ago, the same Government found a way, somehow or other, of instructing every chief constable, in every coalfield area in Britain—in Durham, Scotland, Wales, Derbyshire and Yorkshire—to tell miners that they could not go here, there or anywhere, and 11,000 of them were arrested. The real reason for the Government's double standards is that the miners did not wear orange sashes and bowler hats, and did not have the Government's fate in their hands.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad to have an opportunity to resume my contest with the hon. Gentleman, who, in the days when I had responsibility as a Law Officer, used to assume the mantle of the National Union of Mineworkers' vicar upon the surface and engaged me in weekly contests.
The hon. Gentleman says that it strains credulity. I do not care whether the hon. Gentleman believes the Chief Constable or me. I have a duty to carry out my responsibilities in the way that I have described. Of course it may be easier to accept the word of those who carry public responsibilities in Derbyshire, and if that is the hon. Gentleman's view, so be it: I can live with that, philosophically. The Chief Constable has said what happened, and I endorse it.
Mr. Richard Spring: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever the current difficulties of the peace process, it was overwhelmingly set back by the terrible bomb explosion at South Quay several months ago? Does he agree that the quickest way to restore calm and the prospect of long-term stability in Northern Ireland would be a declaration of an immediate cessation of violence by the IRA and a ceasefire?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue that is at the heart of the danger to peace—the IRA's abandonment of its ceasefire. One of the tragedies of recent events is that that has been lost sight of.
There is only one way to secure peace in Northern Ireland, and it is by all concerned not only signing up to the Mitchell principles of non-violence and democracy but honouring them. Of course, before that can lead to an invitation to take part in the talks process, there has first and foremost to be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire by the IRA. Events such as those that my hon. Friend describes make it difficult to see how that can be regarded as unequivocal in the short term.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Army and the police were subjected to attacks by bricks and petrol bombs at Garvaghy road on Thursday 11 July? If that is right, does it not seem odd that that behaviour by the people of Garvaghy road was described last night on Radio Telefis Éireann in Dublin by the southern Irish Prime Minister as disciplined and carried out peacefully and with dignity?
Again for the purposes of the record, can the Secretary of State confirm that the RUC arrested at least 100 loyalists in the first four days of last week and cleared

799
dozens of roads, since Cardinal Daly went to church in Portadown last night and alleged that the RUC had not arrested any loyalists or cleared any roads? That is in the Irish News today.
As we look forward to the future, may I ask the Secretary of State, who has stressed the importance of accommodation and dialogue, whether he welcomes the decision by the Ulster Unionist party to be at the multi-party talks tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock at Stormont, expecting to see all other parties present?
Does the Secretary of State accept that underlying all these problems has been, first, the breach of the ceasefire by the IRA and, secondly, the role of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the lack of trust that it is continually building up in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that, regretfully, more and more people are being pushed to the position stated by Edmund Burke, who said:
"There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue"?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is, of course, right that, when the RUC attempted to maintain order as, under its control, a limited march went down the Garvaghy road on the 11th, it came under fire, and bricks and petrol bombs were used. I think that it is right that some 2,000 petrol bombs had been manufactured and were fired. However, I speak from recollection, and would not wish to be held precisely to that. The point is that a very hostile reception of that character had been prepared.
It is also the case that many loyalists had been arrested previously by the RUC. I shall not comment on the merits of any of those cases, but the fact is that many loyalists had been arrested. I believe that that gives the lie to the charge that the RUC showed itself to be partisan and partial.
I, too, welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist party will be present at the talks tomorrow. I do not want to add—I do not need to add—to what I have said about the paramount importance of that process, and of it being as inclusive as possible on proper and equal terms.
I have already mentioned the breach of the ceasefire. It is of central importance, and is totally unjustified in a democracy.
I do not think that I want to or need to add anything to what I have said about the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

Points of Order
4.35 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 24 June this year, I received a response to a question that I had asked of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for the Overseas Development Administration, about whether Her Majesty's Government would pay closer attention to Madam Aung San Suu Kyi's consistent calls for no encouragement of western business interests in her country until the State Law and Order Restoration Council shows a real commitment to democracy.
The Minister assured me that Her Majesty's Government are in very close contact with Madam Aung San Suu Kyi, and that they pay close attention to what she says. However, there were reports in yesterday's newspapers—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must read her point of order. Reports in newspapers and exchanges across the Floor of the House are not my responsibility as Speaker. I deal with the House's procedures. What procedures may I deal with now?
Ms Jackson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am asking for your advice. The reply that I received—Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Is this a request for advice or a point of order? If the hon. Lady requires procedural advice, she may come to my office at any time or see the learned Clerks. I should now like to know what is the hon. Lady's point of order, and what she is asking me to deal with.
Ms Jackson: Madam Speaker, the point of order is that a Minister of State, in response to a question from me, led the House to believe that the Government had a uniform policy on the calls made by Madam Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. However, reports in yesterday's and today's newspapers underline the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. If the hon. Lady has a matter to pursue with the Minister, she must pursue it properly across the Floor of the House at Question Time.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate your difficulty in calling on all hon. Members after statements, but today the Ormeau road in my constituency was specifically mentioned, and I was not given an opportunity to deal with the issues. I crave your indulgence, and ask for an opportunity to put the record straight before the House rises for the summer recess.
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and I have sympathy with him. I do my best to call all hon. Members who I think have a deep interest in a matter, and he certainly has such an interest in this matter. I am sure that he realises that, out of the

801
five hon. Members in his party who wanted to intervene after the statement, I was able to call three of them. I am sorry that I missed him out, and I shall do better next time.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is this a similar point of order—that the hon. Gentleman was not called?
Mr. Dykes: Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, is it in order to register my interest as a member of the British-Irish parliamentary body?
Madam Speaker: I have a complete list of hon. Members who are members of the Select Committee, the British-Irish parliamentary body, the Conservative Back-Bench committee and the Opposition Back-Bench committee. If I called them all, we would never be able to get on with the House's business. Is anyone else disappointed?
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have noted that; thank you. Now we can move on.
Mr. David Faber: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a genuine point of order?
Mr. Faber: Madam Speaker, it is not only a new point of order, but it is the first point of order that I have raised in my four years in the House—so I hope that it will impress upon you the importance that I attach to the issue. Today, a conference on the subject of Europe is taking place in Trowbridge, in my constituency. Originally it was to be organised by West Wiltshire district council, but it seems to have been hijacked by the ruling Liberal
802
Democrat group—as I can think of no other reason for the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to be there today to chair the conference.
I do not ask you to rule on the hon. Gentleman's suitability as a chairman of the conference or to sympathise with my constituents on having to have foisted upon them his views on Europe, but is it not a common courtesy of the House—one which I know that you hold very dear—for hon. Members to inform other hon. Members when they visit their constituencies?
Madam Speaker: That is absolutely correct. I am sorry that it has even been necessary for the hon. Gentleman to initiate a point of order on such an issue. He was right to do so, and I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will make note of it and offer an apology to him for appearing in his constituency without the courtesy of informing him.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—and a genuine one. I say that as an someone who was born and bred in Ireland but never recognised. Last week I raised privately with you, Madam Speaker, and subsequently with the Serjeant at Arms the question of vehicles entering the Palace, particularly Government cars and when a Division has been called. I cannot identify the driver who nearly mowed down myself and about 20 other people, after hooting the car horn and shooting through the gate. Perhaps a 10 mph speed limit could be initiated in New Palace yard.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been heard by the Serjeant at Arms, and I will take that matter up with him to see what can be done.

BILL PRESENTED
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Alex Carlile presented a Bill to make provision with regard to the power to imprison for fine default: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 14 October and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
Orders of the Day
  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1
  EXTENSION OF SPECIAL APPEALS PROCEDURES
  Lords amendment: No. 1, leave out clause 1 and insert the following new clause—

  EXTENSION OF SPECIAL APPEALS PROCEDURES
  (". For paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 ("the 1993 Act") there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
  "5.—(1) This paragraph applies to an appeal by a person on any of the grounds mentioned in subsections (1) to (4) of section 8 of this Act if the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion, the person's claim on the ground that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention for him to be removed from, or be required to leave, the United Kingdom is one to which—

  (a) sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) below applies; and

  (b) sub-paragraph (5) below does not apply.

  (2) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if the country or territory to which the appellant is to be sent is designated in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument as a country or territory in which it appears to him that there is in general no serious risk of persecution.
  (3) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if, on his arrival in the United Kingdom, the appellant was required by an immigration officer to produce a valid passport and either—

  (a) he failed to produce a passport without giving a reasonable explanation for his failure to do so; or

  (b) he produced a passport which was not in fact valid and failed to inform the officer of that fact.

  (4) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if—

  (a) it does not show a fear of persecution by reason of the appellant's race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion;

  (b) it shows a fear of such persecution, but the fear is manifestly unfounded or the circumstances which gave rise to the fear no longer subsist;

  (c) it is made at any time after the appellant—

  (i) has been refused leave to enter under the 1971 Act,

  (ii) has been recommended for deportation by a court empowered by that Act to do so,

  (iii) has been notified of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order against him by virtue of section 3(5) of that Act, or

  (iv) has been notified of his liability to removal under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to that Act;

  (d) it is manifestly fraudulent, or any of the evidence adduced in its support is manifestly false; or

  (e) it is frivolous or vexatious.

  (5) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if the evidence adduced in its support establishes a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured in the country or territory to which he is to be sent.
  (6) Rules of procedure under section 22 of the 1971 Act may make special provision in relation to appeals to which this paragraph applies.
  804
  (7) If on an appeal to which this paragraph applies the special adjudicator agrees that the claim is one to which—

  (a) sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) above applies; and

  (b) sub-paragraph (5) above does not apply,

  section 20(1) of that Act shall not confer on the appellant any right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
  (8) The first order under this paragraph shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (9) A statutory instrument containing a subsequent order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (10) In this paragraph—
  `immigration officer' means an immigration officer appointed for the purposes of the 1971 Act;
  `passport', in relation to an appellant, means a passport with photograph or some other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality or citizenship."")
  Read a Second time.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move amendment (d) to the Lords amendment, in sub-paragraph (5), after 'claim', insert `(a)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take amendments (e), (f) and (b) and Lords amendment No. 35.
  Mr. Straw: The amendments relate to the procedure in respect of the so-called white list of designated allegedly safe countries and the exclusion from the list's operation of applicants who can show reasonable evidence that they have been the victims of serious torture.
  We have fundamental objections to the principle and practice of the so-called white list of safe countries—and would not operate it in government—because, under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, it is required that each application should be considered on its merits, yet the so-called white list permits the Secretary of State to designate countries in which it appears to him that, in general, there is no serious risk of persecution. The result is that all applications that arise from citizens or residents of designated countries will summarily be refused by the Secretary of State in a peremptory way.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe)No.
  . StrawWell, there must be some purpose to the white list. If the Minister will just contain herself, I shall explain that the list will place a further onus of proof firmly on the applicant. If an applicant from a white list country will be dealt with no differently from an applicant from a non-white list country, the list will serve no purpose. The white list exists to put applicants from designated countries at a disadvantage.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley), for reasons we all understand, is not in his place, but in a letter published in The Times today, he states that the Bill
  "will affect the genuine refugee as well"
  as bogus refugees. The hon. Gentleman adds:
  "It is of course impossible to distinguish the genuine from the fraudulent until a case has been thoroughly examined."

  805
  We share the hon. Gentleman's apprehension about the way in which that and many other provisions of the Bill will operate, in discriminating against genuine asylum seekers or individuals who would, if their applications were properly examined, be given exceptional leave to remain.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the white list could also speed up the process for certain immigrants? If the hon. Gentleman would like a fast track for all immigrants, will he commit the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to the cost of additional immigration staff?
  Mr. Straw: The white list system will speed up the process, but indiscriminately. Its purpose is to provide a fast track. In principle, the Government are saying that applicants from designated countries will not have a case. The Home Secretary has declared that in general, there is no risk of persecution—under the 1951 convention definitions—in white list countries. Therefore, a double burden of proof will be placed on applicants originating from those countries.
  As to the lion. Gentleman's point on the need to increase and improve efficiency, if a Labour Government do as badly administratively in dealing with asylum applications as the present Government have done, we shall have failed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1993, he voted in favour of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, while we voted against, on the basis of the promise made by the then Home Secretary—and notwithstanding the fact that he anticipated that the number of applicants would increase—that applications would be dealt with in three months. They are taking about 18 months.
  Miss Widdecombe: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that even applicants from countries on the designated list will have their cases considered on their merits? Is there not an analogy to be drawn with the present situation, in which a small number of applicants even from most designated countries still manage to satisfy us of genuine need each year? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I assured the Standing Committee, of which he was not a member—I mean that as an observation, not a criticism—that there would be cases where it might be appropriate to remove applicants from the fast-track procedure and would do so?
  Mr. Straw: I accept that the Minister believes that applications from individuals even from white list countries will be dealt with on their merits, but there is a logical inconsistency in the hon. Lady's case. Unless the white list ensures a more summary procedure, in which white list applicants will have fewer rights of scrutiny of their cases, it will serve no purpose.
  Under examination in the House, the white list proposals fell apart—even more so in the other place, which is why Lords amendment No. 1 is before the House.
  Mr. David Alton: I strongly endorse the hon. Gentleman's points. Is he aware that when the Committee considered some of the countries that are to appear on the designated list, Labour Members and others pointed out that the list would have a doubly
  806
  undesirable effect? Tyrants and despots the world over would hope to see their countries included on the so-called white list and use that for propaganda purposes, to pretend that everything was well from a human rights point of view.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
  It was nicely ironic that in the other place the Minister of State, Lady Blatch, spoke about the independent evidence that would be available to Ministers and on which they would base their country assessments. Lady Blatch talked about the Carter Centre, Amnesty International and the US State Department. Would that the British Government had taken notice of the State Department's practice.
  In the 1980s, the US faced a more difficult situation on asylum than confronts our country today, yet decided not to follow a white list procedure. One of the State Department's senior officials recently told me of the three reasons for that decision—all of them applicable to the UK. One is that they feared that the inclusion or exclusion of a country from the white list would generate considerable additional litigation in the US courts. That is, of course, almost certainly what would happen in this country. This area of the law is already very complicated and judicial review quite often has to occur because other powers of appeal are inadequate.
  Secondly, to pick up directly on the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the US State Department decided not to go down the road of a white list because of the adverse diplomatic consequences that it feared in respect of countries that were put on the list and then subsequently omitted. It also believed that, perversely, the omission of a country from the list in the first place would encourage asylum seekers to make applications.
  The white list began, as we were led to believe, as a great long list. I understand that, now, only seven countries are likely to be designated: India, Pakistan, Ghana, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland and Romania. From general knowledge about those countries, one realises that, in almost every one, it is arguable whether there is no general risk of persecution under the convention definitions in respect of either the whole territory or all the communities.
  India, for example, for which I have great affection, in which I have spent some time and from which I have many constituents, has achieved a remarkable amount as one of the major democracies of Asia. Although I fully accept that, generally, there is no risk of persecution, the argument cannot run in respect of some of the people in Kashmir, where the most severe difficulties remain.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Despite both his and my affection for India, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that were Mr. Rushdie to return there, there might be some fear of persecution? It is right that every case should be considered on its merits, irrespective of the country to which the person might be returning.
  Mr. Straw: It depends to which part of the country Mr. Rushdie went, which, in a sense, makes my point and the hon. Lady's. Of course, each case must be considered on its merits.

  807
  Pakistan, sadly, has not had the same continuous democratic tradition as India. It is now operating under democratic institutions, but remains very fragile. In the Karachi area, there is a high degree of communal violence, not to say in some instances quite serious political violence. Indeed, it is in the living memory of everyone in the House that Governments in that country, under General Zia for example, routinely tortured political opponents, including, most notoriously but by no means exclusively, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the father of the present Prime Minister.
  To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill again, if Pakistan were on the white list and there was a change of regime, it would doubly complicate diplomatic questions to the Foreign Office and the high commission in Pakistan on whether and in what circumstances the country was to be removed from the white list. That would make it much more difficult for us to apply pressure on that country for a restoration of democratic political institutions.
  Mr. Max Madden: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Pakistan, will he comment on the continuing persecution faced by the religious Ahmadi community? Will he also press the Home Office to produce the home country assessment reports to which he referred? We are still waiting for such reports on India and Pakistan. When on earth will we get them, so that we may see the assessment that the Government are making of human rights in India and Pakistan?
  Mr. Straw: The alleged persecution of that community highlights the fact that a country may, generally speaking, respect human rights, but particular communities in it might be the subject of intense persecution. The Government's blanket approach and their attempts to whitewash a country will obscure that issue, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West asks when we are likely to get the country assessments. The Minister is better qualified than me to answer that. I can say only that, when the matter was debated in the other place on 23 April, Baroness Blatch said repeatedly that the country assessments would be made available before any affirmative resolution came before the House and the other place asking for approval of the countries on the white list. That leads me directly to amendment (f).
  Under pressure in the other place, the Government agreed that the initial list of countries on the white list should be the subject of the affirmative procedure, so that the House would have an opportunity to debate the inclusion of those countries in the list before the list was, as it were, set in concrete. Bizarrely, the Government refused to allow the same procedure to apply when countries that were not on the original list were added to it. That is completely inconsistent, and our amendment would set that right, while allowing Ministers to drop a country from the list when there has been a shift away from democratic institutions, without the immediate necessity to come back to the House.
  808
  On Report, in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, Ministers agreed that torture, even if it fell outside the 1951 convention, was a good ground on which exceptional leave to remain in this country should be given. The Under-Secretary gave various undertakings to that effect when the matter was debated earlier this year. Again, under pressure in the other place, Ministers finally agreed that the acceptance that torture outside the 1951 convention should be a ground for exclusion from the operation of the white list should be in the Bill, and it now appears in paragraph 5(5) of amendment No. 1.
  Our amendment seeks to supplement that provision by providing that, if the person making the application claims to fear persecution in a country or territory where the United Nations committee against torture or the UN special rapporteur on torture has published documentary evidence of extensive practice of torture of the type or in the circumstances referred to in the claim, that person should be exempted from the white list fast-track procedure. I hope that our amendment finds favour with Ministers.
  Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
  Mr. Straw: The Minister shakes her head, which, in India, of course, means an acceptance of the point. I hope that she has learnt that from visits to that country.
  The amendment represents an important supplementary addition to what Ministers say is their concern as much as ours to ensure protection of victims from torture. It is drafted carefully and comes into play only when documentary evidence shows extensive practice of torture of the type and in the circumstances referred to in the claim.
  As we have heard and know, India is proposed to be on the white list, yet I have the report of the Commission on Human Rights by the rapporteur on torture relating to India, especially Kashmir, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has kindly provided me. The rapporteur quite fairly details the allegations of torture that have been received and the Indian Government's response. The report states:
  "The Special Rapporteur transmitted 50 individual cases and received replies to 43 of these cases."
  The document reveals substantial evidence of torture in Kashmir. I cannot say whether that evidence is wholly corroborated or substantiated. Sadly, neither can the special rapporteur because, according to the report,
  "He continues to believe … that the situation remains such that a visit to the country would be desirable and he regrets that the Government has not yet deemed it appropriate or opportune to invite him."
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Indian Government have set up a human rights commission that has greater powers to investigate cases of torture? In my opinion, that represents an advance in the protection of human rights in India, particularly in Kashmir.
  5 pm
  Mr. Straw: I accept that the Indian Government, certainly under Narasihma Rao, have made some moves towards ensuring that allegations of torture in Kashmir are properly investigated. As a good friend of India, when I

  809
  met Narasihma Rao four years ago, I said that the Indian Government's reputation had been damaged by their refusal to allow outsiders, including the United Nations rapporteur, to visit that country.
  Ms Liz Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because of the terrible human rights record in Indian Kashmir, India should not be on the white list? If he were Home Secretary, would India be on that white list?
  Mr. Straw: This is not a reproach, but merely an observation. Had the hon. Lady been here at the start of my speech, she would have heard me say that no country would be on the white list. Let me make it absolutely clear that we do not accept the principle of a white list. We believe that it would be far more trouble than it was worth in practical terms. We also consider it unprincipled and we shall not operate it. Meanwhile, our amendment would moderate its effect.
  Today is the last day for the House to debate the Bill. It is the worst, least justified measure before Parliament this Session. It comes only two years after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, in respect of which the former Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said:
  "It is important to make sure that the Asylum Act, which has only been in place for two years, works before we rush through a future piece of legislation."
  However, Ministers have sought to rush through the legislation without effective scrutiny in a Special Standing Committee, as we proposed.
  We all know the real motive behind the Bill, because the cat was let out of the bag in September 1995 by Mr. Andrew Lansley, former head of research at Conservative central office and now a Conservative candidate for a Cambridge constituency. He said:
  "Immigration, an issue we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt."
  That is the motive behind the Bill. Everything that has occurred since has confirmed Mr. Lansley's chilling admission that the measure is about the use of the race card. I am pleased to say, however, that at least the British people have seen through the moral barrenness and practical vacuity of the measure, and the Government have not achieved the political support that they intended.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I shall detain the House only briefly, but I should like to speak to amendment (h), in my name and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The amendment seeks to clarify the position with regard to involuntary abortion and sterilisation. There was a very good and thorough debate in another place on Report, on art amendment moved by my noble Friend Lord Ashbourne, and many who spoke in that debate felt that amending the definition of torture was a more appropriate way of protecting the victims of enforced abortion.
  During her speech on Report in another place, the Minister of State, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, in an attempt to say that the Chinese Government did not support coercion, quoted the country reports on human rights practices for 1995. Those reports are submitted
  810
  annually by the US State Department to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations. What my noble Friend did not say is clear from a letter sent last year to the House of Representatives Appropriation Committee by a distinguished expert on China, Mr. Stephen W. Mosher, stating:
  "the Government"—
  of China—
  "blames instances of coercion on 'overzealous local officials' and asserts that such officials are punished as soon as their crimes are detected. None of the above claims are true … none of the provincial family planning regulations adopted since 1979 warns against coercion or specifies penalties for guilty officials. No case of an official being punished for using coercion has ever been cited in the media, although many cases of officials being punished for failing to meet their targets or quotas have appeared. Family planning workers are judged by their party superiors solely on the basis of how well they succeed in holding down the birth rate … All other considerations—including questions of coercion—are secondary."
  My office recently received a letter from Maggie Wynne, director of the House pro-life caucus, to whom I pay tribute for her dedicated work. She tells me that in 1992 the People's Republic of China passed a law that laid down:
  "A man may not divorce a woman who is required by law to terminate her pregnancy for at least six months."
  No requirement could be so heartless. What happens if the woman refuses to have an abortion? On that, the law is silent. I presume that the man can then divorce her—if so, then so much for equality.
  Civilisations can be judged by how they treat women, children, old people and strangers. Vulnerable people bring out the kindness and the cruelty in every society. One such cruelty is enforced abortion.
  I was gratified to read the comments of my noble Friend the Minister of State, who said that the Government would not remove a pregnant woman in circumstances where there was a likelihood that she would be subject to enforced abortion, until after the birth of the child. What would happen after the child was born? Would that woman then be deported? If so, she would face a great many dangers. If she were deported to China, she would be charged—and most likely convicted—with having an illegal child. She would then be forcibly sterilised and fined three or four times the annual wage in China. If she were unable to pay, her house would be demolished.
  My noble Friend Baroness Blatch is honourable in her intentions, and I had no doubt whatever as to her sincerity when she said in another place that she would never return a pregnant woman. Unfortunately, future Ministers may not be as sympathetic; that is why I feel it so necessary that the amendment should be included in the Bill as a safeguard.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised an extremely important issue. She knows that I respect her amendment, although I am unable to accept it. Let me put her mind at rest on the point that she has just raised.
  When considering whether to return anybody, of course we would consider the predicament that such an individual would then face. If the danger were limited purely to forcible abortion—and that was the only

  811
  danger—there would be no impediment to returning the woman after the birth of her child. But if she were to face further dangers of the sort outlined by my hon. Friend, that would create a different set of merits under which the case would be considered. We would not return someone to those dangers.
  Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those reassurances. The only problem is that many reassurances given to the House in the past have not been kept. That is why I had hoped that the Government—who are opposed to enforced abortion—would accept this minor clarifying amendment. It rather disappoints me to hear that my hon. Friend will not do so.
  Mr. Alton: I warmly agree with the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), to whom I wish to make two points. First, a woman who presented herself to the Beijing embassy could say that she wanted to seek asylum in the United Kingdom by virtue of her second pregnancy, as she was facing an enforced abortion. In that case, the issue should not arise of whether she would be returned after the birth of her child. But would she be admitted to this country as an asylum seeker at that stage because of her pregnancy? Secondly, what are the implications for all the women in Hong Kong, which will return to communist Chinese rule a year from now?
  Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman raises two extremely valid points, and I am sure that the House will have taken note of them. There is no doubt that practices in China and Hong Kong—when it rejoins mainland China—will not necessarily be ones that we would consider right and proper, and we shall have no jurisdiction over them whatever.
  The House may be interested to know that the matter of enforced abortion was considered recently by the European Parliament—hardly a Conservative institution. An amendment to the budget was passed at a plenary session on 24 May this year to ensure that
  "Community assistance shall not be granted to any country … which permits or encourages coerced abortion, forced sterilisation or infanticide as a means of controlling population growth".
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I fully support everything that the hon. Lady is saying. Will she expand her remarks to include the dreadful horror of genital mutilation that women face in some countries, forcing them to seek asylum? What are her comments on that?
  Mrs. Winterton: I am delighted that—for once during our time in the House—the hon. Lady seems to be on the same side as me. That is quite unusual, and I absolutely agree with her remarks.
  It was raised in another place that anyone who might have an abortion voluntarily in another country could then complain here that she was forced to have that abortion. I share that concern. However, there is no evidence that denying asylum to people whose claims are based on enforced abortion will be of any use in preventing false claims. The applicant must prove her claim, so she would have to show that she really did have the abortion against her will. People willing to lie to obtain asylum will simply
  812
  switch to another story. The solution to credibility problems is careful case-by-case adjudication, not wholesale denial.
  Measures to prevent abuse of refugee programmes must distinguish between toughness and meanness. Britons must bear it in mind that the national attributes of which we are justly proud—liberty, decency and fairness—are not free goods. One of the costs that they impose is that we may not return people—even inconvenient people—to dangerous places for subjection to unspeakable acts.
  In conclusion, I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister would accept this clarifying amendment, although I know that that will not happen. If she had accepted it, there would have been no ambiguity, and the House would have sent out a clear message that enforced abortion is rightly regarded as torture. But I hope that the House will, in due course, have an opportunity to express its opinion on what I believe to be one of the gravest human rights violations imaginable.
  Mr. Alton: The amendments fall into three separate categories. Amendments (d) and (e) deal with torture, amendment (f) deals with the designated list, and amendment (b), which was ably spoken to by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), deals with a specific kind of torture that can be inflicted on a citizen.
  I should like to begin by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I entirely agree with his comments about the designated list; I made similar comments in Committee and on Report. I gave the Committee examples such as Romania, which has been included on the designated list, where abuses of civil, political and religious liberties continue to this day. The danger of including countries on a designated list is that it provides propaganda for the people who run those countries—they are able to claim that their human rights regimes are up to western and civilised standards when that is not the case.
  5.15 pm
  In many countries—the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned India—regional variations must be taken into account. What may be the wish of a Government nationally may not be what happens on the ground in some states and provinces, and a designated list cannot take that into account. That is why I will recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support the amendments as they apply to the designated list.
  On torture, the hon. Member for Blackburn was good enough to mention the all-party amendment that I tabled on Report. I should like to pay tribute here to the Minister of State and her colleagues in another place for going some way to answer some of my points. I recognise that some movement has been made, and I am grateful. The Minister will know that, in another place, the Duke of Norfolk argued succinctly and eloquently about the need to put the word "torture" in the Bill. In a way, that has been attempted between the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords and its return to the Commons.
  Amendment (b) aims to clarify what we mean by torture. One area in which there is insufficient clarification is the violation of women's rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) mentioned the mutilation of women as an example, and the hon. Member for Congleton stated what can happen to Chinese women who have more than one child.

  813
  I thought it mildly ironic that, last year, some 35,000 women gathered in Beijing to talk about women's rights. In what seemed to me to be almost the ultimate act of political correctness, motions were passed on everything under the sun, including guaranteeing sexual satisfaction to women the world over. Quite who will police these arrangements and what the penalties will be if satisfaction is not achieved I know not, but the women at the conference did not seem to notice the absence of the Chinese women who, clay in, day out, have their human rights violated.
  The one-child policy makes China the only country in the world where it is illegal to have a brother or a sister. The implications for next year, not for some faraway country of which we know little, but for the women of Hong Kong, should be glaringly obvious to hon. Members. A friend of mine from Hong Kong told me recently that he thought it unsurprising that many of the women in families of his acquaintance were currently pregnant; they are seeking to avoid the draconian laws that will apply when Hong Kong reverts to Chinese rule.
  We cannot claim to have no interest in this issue. Last year, the Government gave £8.5 million to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, UNFPA, and £7.5 million to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF. That money was in turn channelled through the Chinese Population Association. A total of £100 million of British taxpayers' money in the past decade alone has aided, abetted and underwritten forced abortion, forcible sterilisation and the forcible fitting of IUDs, and it has been going on for more than 20 years.
  There is not just sterilisation and abortion, but infanticide. Since the passing of legislation in China last year, handicapped and disabled babies have been left out to die, merely because of their disabilities, with the force of Chinese law. Surely that will be seen by historians as one of the most shameful episodes of human rights violation and abuse since the eugenics and genocide of the 1930s and 1940s.
  Some hon. Members will have seen the film "The Dying Rooms" broadcast on Channel 4 in June 1995. Early this year, a return to the dying rooms was broadcast. Those broadcasts have had a profound effect on many people who simply did not believe that such things were going on in China, and I pay tribute to the brave journalists who made them. On 31 July, Anita Roddick, Paul McCartney, Elton John and Juliet Stevenson are launching a campaign called, "The Dying Rooms—Time for Action", which in their words will
  "outline the circumstances of hundreds of thousands of baby girls who are left to die in China each year".
  At the height of the mass sterilisation campaign in the 1970s, the UNFPA gave China the first ever United Nations population award for its success in curbing population. The UNFPA provided training for central Government officials responsible for the policy; it provided computer systems to monitor the effectiveness of the programmes in reaching their targets; and it funded the building of two factories that have made China self-sufficient in IUD production. Some 41 per cent. of Chinese women have IUDs inserted, often against their will. They can do little about it. X-ray machines are used to ensure that they do not have them removed.
  The UNFPA is a United Nations agency. The United Nations purports to guarantee the
  "right to freely found a family and decide on the number and spacing of the children."
  814
  In direct contradiction of that guarantee, the communist Chinese Minister for Family Planning, Mr. Qian Zinzhong has said:
  "The size of the family is far too important to be left to the couple. Births are a matter for state planning."
  The Chinese one-child policy marks it out, uniquely, as a country in which it is illegal to have a brother or sister, where little girls are eliminated in favour of their brothers and where eugenics laws like those favoured by the eugenicists who founded the IPPF now permit the killing of disabled children. The IPPF, with its historic links with eugenicists such as Huxley, Stopes, Sangster and Galton, should never be used as an instrument for utilising British funds.
  In 1995, reports from Feng Jia Zhuang and Long Tian Gou—two Catholic areas of China—reveal a combination of religious repression and political coercion. The slogan promoted by the state governments in those two regions is:
  "It is better to have more graves than one more child."
  The local authorities repeatedly raid people's homes, confiscate families' property, round up the people and beat those who escape into nearby fields. Forced abortions have been performed on women in their last weeks of pregnancy, and women have been forcibly sterilised against their will. Monstrous fines—bigger than an annual income—are imposed on couples who do not comply. One villager had his legs so badly broken that he nearly died and, while concerned relatives inquired about him, they were arrested, abused and forced to pay a huge fine. Another villager unsuccessfully tried to sell his two children in an effort to have his wife freed from gaol.
  Far from condemning such practices, the executive director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, said:
  "China has every reason to feel proud and pleased with its remarkable achievements in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past ten years. Now China could offer its experiences and special experts to other countries."
  When I put that quotation to Baroness Chalker, she said that she did not believe that Sadik had ever said it. I pointed out that the quotation was taken from briefing material that had been provided by her Department.
  In a report entitled "Women in China: Imprisoned and abused for dissent", Amnesty International, the views of which would be different from mine on the broad sweep of pro-life questions, said:
  "Amnesty International takes no position on the official birth control policy in China, but it is concerned about the human rights violations which result from it, many of which affect women in particular. It is concerned at reports that forced abortion and sterilisation have been carried out by or at the instigation of people acting in an official capacity, such as family planning officials, against women who are detained, restricted or forcibly taken from their homes to have the operations. Amnesty International considers that in these circumstances such actions amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees or restricted persons by Government officials."
  The amendments give us a rare chance to focus on this major human rights question, which political correctness usually ensures does not dare speak its name. Ours is an advanced nation, but in the domestic and international arena we frequently promote policies that are uncivilised and inhumane. On the ground of choice, we sanction the daily killing of 600 unborn children in this country, we permit destructive experiments on human embryos and, on 1 August, we will cull thousands of human embryos, frozen and held in suspended animation having lost their

  815
  parents. An unborn child may be killed in Britain up to and even during birth because it is disabled, and the terminally ill or chronically infirm are killed by court order. Women in China are abused and their children are killed and we foot the bill. Advanced we may be, but civilised hardly.
  This evening, we have the chance to step back from the culture of death and assert civilised values. The first Division will be on torture in general. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will then vote for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, which commands all-party support and should be incorporated in the Bill.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be brief in the hope that, among other things, that will please the Chief Whip.
  I support the amendment. I am only sorry that it does not incorporate the so-called ritual of female genital mutilation, which vile practice is inflicted on many millions of women each year. I recently asked the Home Office and the Foreign Office what succour they give those countries whose Governments allow such rituals to continue. Would the Minister treat with sympathy an application for asylum by a woman fleeing one of those countries to escape that so-called ritual?
  In New York recently, a young woman from Togo sought asylum in the United States on those grounds. She was promptly handcuffed and fettered and put in a New York prison for women. Fortunately, she has been rescued from incarceration and a New York family is looking after her. She was encouraged to flee by her elder sisters, who had suffered that torture. I have heard of other women who have undergone that dreadful practice urging their younger sisters to flee to the west to avoid the torture.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) raised that case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the lady concerned has received settlement. I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) suggest, entry clearance officers in our embassies and high commissions will consider such cases favourably.
  Dr. Godman: In fairness to the Government, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), told me that his Department was working to provide aid to health education programmes in countries whose Governments are making genuine attempts to reduce, if not eliminate, the practice. I know that I will get an answer from the Minister if I can get her attention—she is blethering away to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). This is an important issue. If a woman seeks asylum in Britain on such grounds, she should be given it.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I signed amendment (b) because it seemed to me that I was merely signing a statement of the obvious:
  "'torture' includes the inflicting of involuntary abortion or involuntary sterilisation, and the phrase 'has been tortured' shall be construed accordingly."
  816
  For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone can dissent from such a simple statement of the obvious. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will do anything other than accept it. It would not particularly strengthen the Bill, and it certainly cannot weaken it. It would make it clear beyond any doubt that we believe that such barbarous practices are among the worst methods of inflicting torture on a human being.
  Miss Widdecombe: I ask the House to resist amendments (d), (e), (f) and (b) and to accept Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 35. Lords amendment No. 1 does three things. It rewrites clause 1 to make it easier to understand; it puts torture on the face of the Bill; and it makes the initial designation order affirmative rather than negative. I take the mood of the House to be that there is no serious dispute with those proposals and I shall therefore concentrate on replying to the other amendments rather than on expanding on their lordships' amendments.
  Under amendments (d) and (e), asylum applicants would be excluded from the accelerated appeal procedure if their country of origin is reported by certain UN bodies to have an extensive practice of torture. Let me say right away that I entirely share the House's concern about giving adequate protection to victims of torture. I state categorically that if anyone were to establish that he or she were in danger of torture, that person would have clear grounds for asylum. That has always been the Government's position and that remains our position. The question is whether this additional exemption is helpful. I believe that it is not because the Bill tries to establish the general principle that the individual must make a claim based on that individual's circumstances.
  I have already said in response to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that there is no intention whatever in the accelerated procedure of failing to consider applications on their merits. There is no intention whatever of depriving people of the opportunity to establish a claim based on torture or on any other valid ground for asylum. The amendments would lead to separate exemption for applicants who, by definition, were unable to establish a claim of torture, notwithstanding their country's poor record. I cannot discern a convincing argument for the proposition that an asylum seeker who has not himself been tortured and whose claim, on individual consideration, is found to be manifestly unfounded or not to qualify for certification under one of the other headings in clause 1, should nevertheless be exempted from having his appeal accelerated.
  Secondly, the argument in favour of the Lords amendment—that asylum seekers who have experienced torture in the past may be especially vulnerable and, in particular, may be suffering from traumatic effects that make it desirable to allow them more time to prepare their appeal—cannot be advanced in support of these amendments, which would exempt asylum seekers from having their appeal accelerated if they have not been tortured. Amendments (d) and (e) would mean that for certain nationalities, asylum appeals could not be accelerated even if it became apparent after proper individual consideration that they were manifestly unfounded. The amendments would significantly and unjustifiably restrict the availability of the accelerated appeal procedure. They would greatly reduce the impact

  817
  of clause I as a deterrent against abuse of appeals and as a means of enabling such appeals to be processed more quickly.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Does the Minister accept that she is mistaken in her reading of our amendment? Amendment (e) relates to cases where applicants claim political asylum because of torture. Its last line refers to the
  "extensive practice of torture of the type and in the circumstances which are referred to in the claim."
  It therefore relates only to cases where the applicant says that he is afraid of torture in that specific circumstance or area.
  Miss Widdecombe: No. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I was not talking about areas or particular religious groups. I said that simply because a country had an established record of torture, an individual whose claim was manifestly unfounded, and who could be shown neither to have been tortured nor reasonably to fear torture, would nevertheless under the amendments be exempt.
  Mr. Henderson rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want turn to the amendment that occupied most of the debate. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and ably supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who, in respect of such issues, I often refer to as my hon. Friend. On this occasion, I deeply regret that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. There are several reasons for that.
  First, there is the use of term "involuntary" rather than "forcible". "Involuntary" can cover a wide range of circumstances from, at one end of the spectrum, forcible abortion or sterilisation, which in all circumstances are repugnant and cruel and would indeed constitute torture, to cases where a woman undergoes an abortion because of pressure from her partner or family but not necessarily from the state. That, I am afraid, is the definition of "involuntary". I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that that is too wide. He will know that if that word were used in the Bill, it would have to be interpreted in that fashion. For those reasons, I cannot accept it.
  Mr. Alton: Surely the hon. Lady accepts that, whether the term used is "forcible" or "involuntary", it amounts to the same act of cruelty both to the woman and to her unborn child. Whether the pressure comes from the state, partner or individual, such action has not been from personal choice. It amounts to the same thing.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is not thinking clearly.
  Mr. Madden: The remedy for the defect to which the Minister pointed lies in her hands. Will she table an amendment in another place that uses the term "forcible"? That would meet her objections and the concerns of hon. Members. It would immediately answer the fears of many women, not least those from China.
  Miss Widdecombe: Had that been the only objection, I might well have considered that course of action, but as I said in my introductory remarks, there are several reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. However, I stress that both personally and as a Minister I utterly accept that forcible abortion, sterilisation, genital mutilation and allied practices would almost always constitute torture. In fact, they would probably always constitute torture. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone making a case to us on those grounds would have an extremely good case for asylum.
  So, in rejecting the amendment, I am not rejecting the argument. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that it would be our intention to move in the spirit of the amendment, even if we cannot accept it.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend will understand that there are deep concerns on this issue on both sides of the House. She will also understand that guarantees have been given at the Dispatch Box on previous occasions which have not in practice been fulfilled later on and that one has become slightly cynical about what Governments of both parties do later on. Can she help us in any way whatever other than by giving her personal assurance as Minister now? Can she go further and do what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) suggested? If not, will she receive an all-party delegation to discuss how to take the issue further? It will not go away and the Government will have to act. Would it not be better to act now when she is in a position to do something in a very simple way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I share entirely my hon. Friend's concerns and, indeed, those expressed by Opposition Members about this issue. If there is any way forward which can give greater assurances than those which I have pledged at the Dispatch Box tonight, and if there is any way in which we can sensibly and coherently take forward the issues that she has raised, I shall be delighted to consider it, if not under the aegis of the Bill, in some other way.
  I will always accept delegations, whether all-party or anything else, that want to talk to me on matters of this level of importance.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I accept that there is something in my hon. Friend's point about the difference between "forcible" and "involuntary". Is she prepared to issue not guidance but clear instructions to those who adjudicate on these matters that anyone who has suffered in that way should be construed to be a victim of torture?
  Miss Widdecombe: I have no difficulty whatever in issuing guidance. I am afraid that it would have to be guidance, but it would be clear guidance on that subject. Despite my hon. Friend's fears and anxieties, it is not our practice to turn away people in that circumstance. We certainly have no intention of making it our practice. I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton that if I can in some way give force to my assurances, I shall certainly do so.
  Mr. Alton: Although no one doubts the Minister's personal position in this regard, does she not understand that this is the only legislative opportunity open to the

  819
  House and that at the fag end of the proceedings on the Bill it would be better to accept the amendment tonight and allow it to be changed in the other place when it goes back before we rise for the summer than to reject it this evening? Many of us want to press the amendment to a vote in any circumstances. In accepting the amendment, the Minister would at least allow words to be changed, if that is what needs to be done, in the other place.
  Will the Minister answer the point that I made earlier about what happens if a woman presents herself to the embassy in Beijing and says that under the one-child policy she is about to be forced to have an abortion? Would our officials there grant her political asylum?
  5.45 pm
  Miss Widdecombe: Before I answer those points, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I shall try to answer both interventions together.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? Is she saying that there is general agreement that torture obviously includes enforced abortion by the state? Will she consult her colleagues and parliamentary draftsmen to find out whether there is any way in which, if not here tonight but in another place, we can ensure that the wish of the House is given effect when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament?
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend was correct in the first half of his question. We would regard enforced abortion as torture, as we would enforced mutilation or sterilisation. I can undertake to put the guidance in instructions to caseworkers and to make that guidance available to the House, if that helps my hon. Friend.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am anxious to answer all the points, but I am continually interrupted when answering one point by someone wanting to make another. For the sake of good order, I should like to answer the points that have been made as fully as I can and then give way, if hon. Members will contain their impatience.
  In response to the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, if the only objection were the use of the word "involuntary", there might have been a way forward. However, there are other objections, which I shall come to.
  In response to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, if someone presents at an embassy, we will take into account two things. The first is the merits of the case. I think that I have said already that we would consider such reasons to make a meritorious case. However, where people present at embassies rather than on arrival in Britain, we would also consider ties with the United Kingdom and reasons for preferring it to other countries. I cannot give a blanket welcome to absolutely everyone who presents at an embassy with that particular case, but I can say that the merits of that case will have established themselves.
  820
  As the hon. Gentleman well knows, when people present at embassies abroad, there are other issues to be considered. I could not possibly say that every Chinese woman who presented herself at an embassy abroad would automatically be accepted. The hon. Gentleman can work that one out for himself.
  I have tried throughout the debate to assure the House that anyone who comes here and makes a case on the ground of enforced abortion would be considered to have a claim for political asylum. I give way, because I promised and I have not forgotten, to the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson).
  Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Lady's ministerial sympathy extend to women seeking to avoid genital mutilation? Does she regard that form of mutilation as torture?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister please explain to the House how her authority will extend over the Foreign Office; how her authority will be so great that it will ring down the decades more strongly than the words that we seek to include in the Bill? It is extremely difficult for all Opposition Members and, I suspect, for most Conservative Members, to take her personal assurance in the way in which she wishes us to take it. It just cannot be true.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry that the hon. Lady will not accept my assurances. I have already said that the matter will go into guidance and that I will make that guidance available.
  I give way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). This will have to be the last intervention before I move on.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Minister has made an important point in suggesting that if someone went to an embassy and asked to be granted asylum, the embassy would consider the merits of the case and ties with the United Kingdom. That is a much wider point than the question about someone who turns up at the embassy in Beijing suggesting that she may be about to have an enforced abortion. This could affect many people in many countries. Precisely how many people have so far been able to turn up at an embassy and make that case? I have come across cases of people who have ties with the United Kingdom who go to an embassy and ask for a visa on the ground that they wish to ask for asylum. There is never the slightest chance of their being granted admission.
  Miss Widdecombe: Neither ties to the United Kingdom on their own nor merits on their own would be sufficient when applicants present from abroad, but I cannot be more specific. I have indulged in a clear question-and-answer session on that point and I wish to move on. I reiterate my sympathy with those who have tabled the amendment, but we cannot accept it.
  Furthermore, we have another objection, because we cannot sensibly seek to legislate for each of the different ways in which people may be mistreated or persecuted. There is no logical end to that path and that approach

  821
  would lead to unwieldy and unmanageable statutes. Special cases make, as we all know, bad legislation and that is why we believe that the right approach is to continue to use the general principles set out in the 1952 United Nations convention. I have assured the House how we would treat applications based on forcible abortion, forcible sterilisation and forcible mutilation and I therefore urge the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 35.
  Amendment (d) to the Lords amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (e), in line 46, at end insert
  `; or
  (b) if the person making it claims to fear persecution in a country of territory where the United Nations Committee against Torture or the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture has published documentary evidence showing an extensive practice of torture of the type and in the circumstances which are referred to in the claim.'.—[Mr. Straw.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 300.

  Division No. 197]

  [5.51 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ann

  Alton, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Corston, Jean

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cox, Tom

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Darling, Alistair

  Bell, Stuart

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

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

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Dewar, Donald

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Blunkett, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Keith

  Dowd, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, Stephen

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Flynn, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foulkes, George

  Church, Judith

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clapnam, Michael

  Galbraith, Sam

  822

  Galloway, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Gapes, Mike

  McNamara, Kevin

  Garrett, John

  MacShane, Denis

  George, Bruce

  McWilliam, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Madden, Max

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Maddock, Diana

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mahon, Alice

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marek, Dr John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Graham, Thomas

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hain, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hardy, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Paul

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Parry, Robert

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  lllsley, Eric

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Radice, Giles

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooney, Terry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Keen, Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

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

  Sheerman, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  kilfoyte, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Simpson, Alan

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McAllion, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCartney, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  Macdonald, Calum

  Straw, Jack

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McKelvey, William

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  McLeish, Henry

  Trickett, Jon

  823

  Turner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Vaz, Keith

  Winnick, David

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wise, Audrey

  Walley, Joan

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Watson, Mike

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Eric Clarke.

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Day, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Elletson, Harold

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gallie, Phil

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butcher, John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coe, Sebastian

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Congdon, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  Hendry, Charles

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  824

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Paice, James

  Hill, Sr James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Potter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Riddck, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sr Timothy

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Sr Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sr Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  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, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Merchant, Piers

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trend, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  825

  Waller, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Ward, John

  Wilshire, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Mr. Derek Conway and Dr. Liam Fox.

  Wilkinson, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in line 67, at end add —
  '"torture" includes the inflicting of involuntary abortion or involuntary sterilisation, and the phrase "has been tortured" shall be construed accordingly.'.— [Mr. Alton.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 290.

  Division No. 198]

  [6.06 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Corston, Jean

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cox, Tom

  Barnes, Harry

  Cummings, John

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart

  Darling, Alistair

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davidson, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew F

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

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Berry, Roger

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

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, John

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Donald

  Blunkett, David

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dowd, Jim

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Eastham, Ken

  Byers, Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Caborn, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fisher, Mark

  Cann, Jamie

  Flynn, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Church, Judith

  Foulkes, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Fraser, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clarke, Eric (Midbthian)

  Galbratth, Sam

  826

  Galloway, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike

  MacShane, Denis

  Garrett, John

  McWilliam, John

  George, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maddock, Diana

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Maginnis, Ken

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mahon, Alice

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marek, Dr John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Graham, Thomas

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hain, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hardy, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hinchlrtfe, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hoey, Kate

  Mudie, George

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Murphy, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Olner, Bill

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoyie, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  lllsley, Eric

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jamieson, David

  Primarob, Dawn

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Purchase, Ken

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Radtoe, Giles

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

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

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyte, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Livingstone, Ken

  Simpson, Alan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  MacdonakJ, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McKelvey, William

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McLeish, Henry

  Stevenson, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  827

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wilson, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Wise, Audrey

  Tyler, Paul

  Wray, Jimmy

  Vaz, Keith

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Walley, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, Mike

  Ms Liz Lynne and Mr. David Alton.

  Wicks, Malcolm

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baldry, Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bates, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Beresfond, Sir Paul

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evennett, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Faber, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Fabricant, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowis, John

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forth, Eric

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Fit Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gallie, Phil

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butcher, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butler, Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Chartes

  Butterfill, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clappison, James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Fit Hon Sir Archibald

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Congdon, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Couchman, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cran, James

  Hayes, Jerry

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

  Heald, Oliver

  828

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kynoch, George

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Legg, Barry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spfcer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Lord, Michael

  Sproat Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stephen, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sweeney, Walter

  Matone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  829

  Wardle, Charles

  Willetts, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Wilshire, David

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Mr. Derek Conway and Dr. Liam Fox.

  Wilkinson, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): We move to Lords amendment No. 2, with which is grouped Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 6.
  Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move formally, That this House doth agree with the Lords in amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and I beg to move formally, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 6; and I move amendment (a) in lieu.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that we have approved Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3. May I clarify the procedure? My hon. Friend the Minister has moved formally that we disagree with Lords amendment No. 6, but will we still have an opportunity to debate it?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the answer is no.
  Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Lords amendment No. 6 is the one that grants asylum seekers three days in which to apply—
  Hon. Members: No, it is not.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be interested in a later amendment.

Clause 2

  REMOVAL ETC. OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS TO SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES
  Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 17, at end insert ("by statutory instrument").
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 5.
  Mr. Kirkhope: Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 provide that the first order designating countries outside the European Union to which applicants can be removed without a suspensive right of appeal will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and subsequent orders will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The
  830
  Government gave careful consideration to the report of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers, and accepted its recommendation in full.
  I assure the House that the initial order that we shall lay before it in draft will be as comprehensive as possible. The countries that we have identified as possible candidates for designation under this clause are the United States, Canada, Switzerland and Norway. We envisage that the order-making power will be used sparingly.
  Mr. Henderson: The House will welcome the Government's conversion on this issue, which relates to an applicant's ability to appeal against the rejection of his application for political asylum after coming through a third country. The Government's original position was that, regardless of what the country was, what language was spoken there and the state of its legal system, the applicant must return to it to make an appeal. In Committee, it was emphasised to the Government that that was an impractical proposition. The Government have accepted that, and their Ministers in another place have tabled the amendments, which I am sure that the House will welcome.
  I must enter one word of caution. I hope that the Government will not use the amendments to extend the list way beyond the European Union in a way that would reinstate their original proposition. Perhaps the Minister could give me an assurance on that.
  Mr. Kirkhope: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening. My final remark was that we intended to use the power sparingly, and that is what we shall do. Moreover, as I said, the first list, which will be subject to affirmative resolution, will be as comprehensive as possible, thus allowing the House as much opportunity as possible to discuss it.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Clause 3

  APPEALS AGAINST CERTIFICATES UNDER SECTION 2
  Lords amendment No. 6 disagreed to.
  Amendment made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 6: (a), in page 3, line 33, leave out from 'under' to end of line 34 and insert—

  '(i) Part II of the 1971 Act (appeals: general); or

  (ii) section 8 of the 1993 Act (appeals to special adjudicator on Convention grounds),

  as respects matters arising before his removal from the United Kingdom'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
  Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 8

  RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT
  Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 6, line 2, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (2A) and (3)")
  Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 11.
  Miss Widdecombe: The amendments would add to the list of those in respect of whom an employer would not

  831
  be guilty of an offence under clause 8. The new category would be those employed as domestic workers where a police officer, doctor or solicitor had certified that the person had suffered substantial physical abuse or deprivation, or serious economic exploitation, as a result of what is described in Lords amendment No. 11 as "previous bonded employment".
  The amendment creates an anomaly. While it would remove from the second employer liability for employing a person not permitted to undertake the work in question, it would not affect the position of the employee, who would still not have permission to work for the new employer. He or she would therefore be either in breach of immigration conditions or an overstayer. The amendments do not, therefore, achieve the intention behind them.
  Let me put on record that I fully appreciate and, indeed, share, the genuine concerns that lie behind the amendments. The Government's rejection of them is in no sense a refusal to acknowledge that some employers treat their domestic workers in a thoroughly unacceptable manner, but amendments to the Bill's provisions on illegal working are not the right way in which to address those problems. We must not widen the scope for illegal working. At the same time, we cannot create a category of people who are allowed to change jobs at will. They would acquire a privileged status accorded to no other group of people who come to the United Kingdom to work. That is why we do all that we can to ensure at the pre-entry stage that only those who are willing to accompany their employers here under the domestic working concession are allowed to do so.
  The arrangement is that the domestic worker, who must be at least 18 years old, must hold an entry clearance for that purpose on arrival here. When the entry clearance is applied for, the entry clearance officer will interview the domestic worker, with the employer excluded, and try to establish that the domestic worker is satisfied with the terms of employment. He will also ensure that the domestic worker receives and understands a leaflet explaining his or her rights in the UK, especially where to go for help or advice, should abuse of employment follow. The leaflet is available in English, Arabic, Tagalog, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, Tamil, Thai and Spanish.
  Additionally, the employer must give a written undertaking to provide adequate maintenance and accommodation, including a separate bedroom for the domestic worker. He must also set out in writing the main terms and conditions of the employment, a copy of which goes to the domestic worker, who is asked to confirm that he or she agrees to them.
  6.30 pm
  We already make considerable efforts to weed out at the entry clearance stage applications that are backed by unsatisfactory arrangements. We refuse about 600 applications a year because those criteria are not met. However, we are always ready to listen to suggestions on how to improve further the pre-entry arrangements. There is no question of employers already here being allowed to recruit domestic workers direct from overseas. Workers must have been employed for at least one year by the person whom they are accompanying and for at least two years if nothing more than a short visit is involved. That
  832
  is designed to ensure that there is a genuine, established employer-employee relationship, which both parties wish to continue.
  Therefore, while the amendments are well intentioned—I share their intention—they would be defective in effect. They will not eliminate the risk of abuse by employees' original or subsequent employers. The way forward on what, I admit, is a difficult issue is to prevent abuse at the entry clearance stage, or to deal with it where it occurs here through the normal processes of law. In cases of financial or other hardship, as with all persons who are in distress overseas, domestic workers may seek the help of their embassies. That advice is included in the leaflet.
  Mr. Henderson: I accept that there are some technical difficulties on the definitions in the amendments made in another place, particularly the definition of serious economic exploitation and, probably, the definition of physical abuse. I also accept that that possible loophole would create other difficulties, which might allow persons wrongly to classify themselves as domestic servants and to substantiate that some abuse has taken place.
  I accept, therefore, that there are problems in the way in which the Lords amendments are written, but the Government are not on high ground in their response because they have not dealt with the problem of bonded domestic servants who enter this country as visitors as an extension on the visa of the person who is their master or mistress. Under our immigration regulations, those servants have no protection.
  At a previous stage of our proceedings, it was argued that we should recognise that some important foreign guests to this country wish to bring with them servants who are attached to their employment, but that servants should also have rights under our immigration law, and that they should be recognised in a category as domestic servants. That was the intention behind Labour Members' amendments to the Immigration Act 1971, which were of course rejected by the House.
  The Minister believes that she is able to dispose of this issue with her motion, but she is disposing of it only in procedural terms. The problem still exists and the Government must face up to the fact that young women who enter this country as bonded servants to employers are being physically and sometimes sexually abused and have no protection under our immigration law. Those poor women have little alternative but to grin and bear what is happening to them, lest they be deported from our country, sometimes to face severe difficulties in the country to which they are deported, the risk of which is the reason why they became bonded servants in the first place. I ask the Minister to show compassion and to address the issue in further stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Alton: We have heard the Minister of State again advance the argument that their lordships' amendments are defective, but, if the principles behind them were accepted, there has been a chance to put them right since they were passed in the other place. That is why I question precisely where the Government are coming from on some of the issues. They have had the chance to put right defective amendments and they have failed to do so. If Lords amendment No. 9 were accepted in its present form, even though it be defective, the Government could put it right between now and when it goes back to the House of Lords in a couple of weeks.

  833
  In a letter to the Home Secretary supporting the amendment, Kalayaan, otherwise known as Justice for Overseas Domestic Workers, said:
  "If retained the amendment will provide fleeing domestic workers of whom we have interviewed over 1000 since 1992, to consider their position, and it will help to give them time to prepare litigation against their former abusing employers."
  The letter goes on:
  "Instead of further entrapping her by placing secondary employers under the threat of prosecution, the Government should be seeking urgently to solve the scandal of what Anti-Slavery International has described as modern day slavery."
  The amendment has a long history. Much to his credit, my noble Friend Lord Hylton, the Cross-Bench peer, has campaigned for many years on the issue. The background is that, in 1981, the Government allowed rich employers coming to the UK to bring their domestic workers, who, tied to one employer, risked deportation if they left that employ. That led to innumerable injustices and to hundreds of instances of exploitation.
  Lord Hylton gave a particular example of a Nigerian who was
  "brought here direct by Nigerian employers in January 1991. She escaped from them in December 1995. During all that time she received no salary, was continually slapped and beaten by the employers and locked in their house."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 1996; Vol. 573, c. 1284–85.]
  He gave many other examples. During that debate, he called for an interdepartmental committee. He has been campaigning for 15 years, highlighting cases such as that of Mrs. Swami and the Kuwaiti princesses, which Members will recall.
  The Government will say that they deplore these practices—they have done so again today—yet they do not conduct spot checks to find out what is happening to people, once they have arrived in the UK and become domestic workers. The Government propose no new penalties. They retain a concession that allows 12,000 bonded workers into the country every year and shackles them to their employers. Those workers have no more rights than mediaeval serfs. In a country that remembers the Tolpuddle martyrs and the early battles over trade union and labour laws, and that argues to this day about the social chapter and its protection for workers, it is mildly incongruous that we should be settling for anything less than the protection that any other worker receives in this country, merely because the workers in this case are foreign.
  I would rather the so-called concessions were abolished, than keep in place a concession that allows people to abuse, to exploit and to curtail freedom to seek alternative employment. Even by the Government's own misguided lights, this is a denial of free-market forces and instead permits a small group of people to live in shadowy homes, where upstairs-downstairs attitudes hold sway. The Government should urgently examine the Dutch and Canadian systems of protecting domestic workers. They should give Lord Hylton the interdepartmental committee that he has requested. They should have an amnesty for overstaying domestic staff, who inhabit an even darker zone of the unprotected nether regions. They should permit workers who wish to bring civil or criminal cases against employers to stay here and to work until their cases are over.
  Even without accepting the amendment:, the Government could provide greatly improved protection against abuse and exploitation by noting on arrival the
  834
  address to which employers intend to take domestic workers and by carrying out spot checks to ensure that the terms of the contract of employment are observed. Perhaps on arrival workers could be given the telephone number of a 24-hour helpline that would offer advice or help. To date, the Government have promised nothing to replace Lord Hylton's amendment. We should not put up with that negativity and indifference. Before the House decides, I hope that we shall hear from Ministers about what they propose to do to protect this group of people.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am a member of the executive committee of Anti-Slavery International. There is real concern on this issue. I accept that there may be imperfections in Lord Hylton's amendment and logic in the Minister's recommendation to reject it, but we must have some measure. If we cannot have an interdepartmental committee immediately, we should at least have the promise of interdepartmental talks and a promise about the drawing up of clear guidance notes for those who have to deal with people, most of whom are women, who are often subjected to appalling brutality.
  As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said, Lord Hylton has campaigned on this issue for many years from the Cross Benches. This should be entirely a Cross-Bench issue and we should all be concerned about having in our country people who are working under the control of what amounts to an alien regime. We would not for a moment condone certain practices for our own workers. As I have said, there must be interdepartmental discussions on this matter, the possibility of a committee of the type for which Lord Hylton has been campaigning, and the drawing up of clear guidance for all those who deal with these people. In asking us to reject the amendment, the Minister should at least give us those assurances.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I agree with everything that has been said by Opposition Members and by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). As he said, there is cross-party agreement, except by the Government, on this issue and certainly on the case in my constituency that was brought to my attention. The Government are labouring under a delusion if they regard the people whom we are discussing as employees. Those inevitably rich families who bring bonded servants into the country do not regard them as employees or in many instances even as human. In a case that was brought to my attention, the person was an abused slave.
  The Government's argument that the embassies of the nationals concerned offer some protection does not stand. Many employers of those bonded servants are families of great importance and wealth in their own countries and have close associations with embassy officials. In my experience, the embassies invariably take the side of the employer and not that of the bonded servant. If the Government will not listen to Opposition arguments, I hope that they will listen to those by Conservative Members.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that I must maintain my resistance to the amendments. However, that does not mean that I underestimate the importance of their intentions. I have said that we are always interested in hearing about additional ways to improve our system so

  835
  as to give proper protection to people who are caught in this situation. I fully understand that some employees are subjected to physical and sometimes sexual and economic abuse. When that happens, our first duty is to give those people the protection of the law. I do not think that the problem will be solved by simply creating for them a unique situation which does not apply to anybody else coming into the country.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that I shall carefully consider his suggestions and those of other hon. Members. I pay tribute to Lord Hylton. He has been to see me and has always been persistent but reasonable on the issue. I assure the House that I am willing to explore further ways forward. The amendments are not the answer.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Twice in this short debate, the Minister has said that she does not want to create a special situation for these people. We are arguing that they are already in a special situation because, unlike people in any other category of immigrant or asylum seeker, they are not acting under their free will. That is why we are calling for a different special situation.
  Miss Widdecombe: If people have not come here voluntarily, are not satisfied with the terms and conditions of their employment and are likely to be exploited, those are clear signs that we have to provide even tighter and surer entry clearance procedures. I have said that I am willing to listen to suggestions on that rather than go down the suggested route.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall do so for the last time.
  Mr. Banks: The Minister has said that people who are abused, and she gave examples, should have the full protection of the law. What about the proposal that more should be done to inspect the conditions under which they are employed, if employed is an accurate description? After all, the Minister is more than happy to send in the forces to check on illegal immigrants who are working in factories and elsewhere. Why not go into some of those homes to find out what is going on? If that is not done, we cannot take her assurances.
  Miss Widdecombe: If a complaint is received, proper investigations will be carried out. The answer must lie in good and tight clearance and inspection procedures on the genuineness of the employment.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I have been generous about giving way, but I have said that I will not give way again.
  I maintain my resistance to the amendments, but I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire that I will carefully consider what he has said.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 6, line 3, leave out from ("employs") to ("as") in line 11 and insert
  ("a person subject to immigration control ("the employee") who has attained the age of 16, the employer shall be guilty of an offence if—

  (a) the employee has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or

  (b) the employee's leave is not valid and subsisting, or is subject to a condition precluding him from taking up the employment,

  and (in either case) the employee does not satisfy such conditions")
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Kirkhope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16.
  Mr. Kirkhope: The amendment responds to concerns that were expressed during discussion of clause 8 in another place about the complexity of its wording. It also responds to unease about the use of the word "immigrant" in the Bill. The amendment does not in any way change the substance of the clause but, as amended, the clause will be easier for employers and others to understand. While we shall, of course, provide employers with guidance, the Government agree that it is desirable for the legislative provision itself to be as straightforward as possible.
  As I have said, the amendment removes the word "immigrant" from the clause. The Government made it clear during debate in the House and in the other place that the term was simply a neutral one to refer to a person who was subject to immigration control and that it did not in any way affect anyone's immigration status. Nevertheless, we accepted that, however irrationally, the word "immigrant" is perceived by some as having a pejorative connotation and that its use could give rise to anxieties among minority communities. We also recognise that the word might be seen by the layman as referring to anyone who has come here from abroad to live rather than only to a person who is subject to immigration control under the Immigration Act 1971.
  For those reasons, the Government tabled a series of amendments, including this one, to remove the word "immigrant" and replace it with the phrase
  "person subject to immigration control".
  We are satisfied that the phrase simply reflects the scope of the Bill. It is a technical definition with no pejorative connotations at all.
  Amendments Nos. 12 and 15 will make it clear that an employer will not have a defence if he knows that an employee does not have permission to work in the United Kingdom. I gave notice of our intention to consider whether it would be appropriate to table an amendment to that effect before the Bill left the House. That consideration led us to the conclusion that we could not allow an employer to rely on one of the specified documents to provide him with a statutory defence if he knew that an employee was not entitled to work in the United Kingdom. To do so would be to leave a loophole that could be exploited by racketeers and by unscrupulous employers.

  837
  If clause 8 is not to be amended in this way, it is likely that it will not be possible to prosecute successfully at least some of the employers known to employ illegal workers on a regular basis. There would, therefore, be a risk that the effectiveness of the new offence could be limited in the cases of some of the employers about whom we are particularly concerned.
  I hasten to say that amendment No. 10 will not in any way increase the burden on legitimate employers. Employers will be additionally liable only if they have specific actual knowledge that renders a defence invalid. It would be for the prosecution to prove that the employer had such knowledge. I know that the Confederation of British Industry, among other organisations, has written to hon. Members to express its concerns. I hope that my remarks are of comfort to those organisations.
  Those attempting to comply with the legislation in good faith will never have such knowledge, and so will be able to have complete confidence that they have established a satisfactory defence. We shall of course ensure that the guidance that we issue makes the position abundantly clear.
  Lords amendment Nos. 13 and 14 simply make some minor but important adjustments to clause 8. Lords amendment No. 13 removes from subsection (3) the requirement that an employer must prove that the document he inspected to provide himself with a defence was produced to establish that the employment would not constitute an offence. On consideration, we took the view that that was not a necessary requirement. The important elements are that the document was produced and, when necessary, copied. Furthermore, while in many cases the document will have been produced simply because of the requirements of the clause, that will not necessarily be the case. A P45, for example, will continue to be produced principally for purposes related to income tax.
  Lords amendment No. 14 is a minor drafting amendment that makes it clear that employers will be expected to prove only that a document that was produced to them "appeared" to be one of the specified documents. The previous 1 ext specified that the document
  "was of a description specified."
  Theoretically, that would not cover a forged document. We made it clear in the consultation document that employers would be expected to satisfy themselves only that a document appeared to be one of those specified. The amendment ensures that there is no doubt about what is expected of employers on that point.
  Lords amendment No. 16 introduces into clause 8 a definition of the term "employ". That definition makes it clear that "employment" means employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship. The intention is to make it clear that the employed, but not the self-employed. should come within the scope of clause 8.
  As the House is aware, clause 8 will make it an offence to employ a person aged 16 or over who does not have permission to live and work in the United Kingdom. However, the term "employ" was not originally defined. That was consistent with the approach taken in the Immigration Act 1971 and in the immigration rules, where no attempt was made to define what is meant by "employment". However, if "employ" is not defined in clause 8, it will, finally, be for magistrates courts to decide the scope of that term for the purposes of clause 8.
  838
  Some respondents to our consultation document made the point that we should define in the Bill what is meant by the term "employ". Having considered the matter, we agreed that it would be helpful to have such a definition, as that would make it easier to give clear guidance to employers about the nature of their obligations. The term is of course defined in other legislation affecting employment.
  The most common definition, and the one that it seemed most appropriate us for use in the context of this new offence, relates to employment under a
  "contract of service or of apprenticeship."
  That is a well-established term, and there is a considerable body of case law that explores the circumstances in which such a contract would be taken to exist.
  A person who is self-employed works under a contract for services and would, quite properly, not be covered by the terms of clause 8.
  Mr. Henderson: I think that Lords amendment Nos. 13 and 14 constitute a minor improvement. Employers will welcome the fact that they will have a defence if they believed that documents that were presented were genuine, although subsequently they were shown not to be. However, there is generally no substantial improvement in clause 8 and in how it is affected by the other amendments. It is not only one of the most unacceptable parts of the Bill, it is one of the most unacceptable aspects of any legislation that Parliament has considered. Not only workers and the general public but employers will regard its provisions as racist and divisive because they separate people based on the colour of their faces and on the language that they speak.
  Furthermore, as Ministers know, although employers' organisations have reluctantly conceded that some aspects of clause 8 are less unacceptable than they were, there is still overwhelming opposition to it. In short, clause 8 is bureaucratic, draconian, unpopular and unnecessary, and—as Ministers know—it will not work.
  Mr. John Fraser: It is quite right that employers should have a defence if they have seen a national insurance number or a birth certificate. That would clear them, and they would know that no offence has been committed. However, with the introduction of Lords amendment No. 15—coupled with the fact that exemptions for employers are not in statute but only in regulations, which the Minister will make—there is a very good chance that the situation will turn out nothing like it has been portrayed to the House today.
  For example, the Minister said that production of a national insurance number would provide clearance for an employer to employ someone, and that that would be quite in order. The Minister knows perfectly well that, if someone comes to the United Kingdom as a Commonwealth holidaymaker for two years he will be given a national insurance number, but that does not guarantee that he will be entitled to work after the two years have expired, although he will still have the number. Having a number also does not allow him to work full time all the time. In those circumstances, either the Minister will have to change the regulations, or the employer, as a result of Lords amendment No. 15, will be at risk of committing an offence.

  839
  Let us take another example. Quite often, students are given permission to work during vacations if they have a letter from their college to present to their local employment office. They will also be given a national insurance number. However, it is impossible to determine limitations on their ability to work simply from a national insurance number.
  There are similar provisions for students' spouses who applied before the 1995 immigration rules came into force. Those spouses are allowed to work, and they receive national insurance numbers. Since the 1995 rules came into force, however, only spouses married to students with studentships of more than 12 months are given leave to work.
  So there is a mishmash of circumstances in which people will be given national insurance numbers, and it does not automatically follow that employment is unrestricted because someone has a national insurance number. There are two possible consequences of that. The first risk is that perfectly innocent employers who have not colluded with an employee may be committing an offence. The second risk is that the Minister will spot the problem and then change the regulations.
  The Minister stated in the consultation document that it will be sufficient if an employee produces a birth certificate. The Minister knows that, as a result of the British Nationality Act 1981—which came into force on 21 December 1983—birth in the United Kingdom does not automatically confer United Kingdom nationality. We have only two years to go before those born before 1 January 1984 will come on to the labour market with birth certificates, but not necessarily with United Kingdom citizenship or with an entitlement to work. I think that there could be—I do not say that there necessarily is—a hidden agenda.
  Perfectly innocent employers are perplexed at the possibility that they may commit an offence when they learn—perhaps half way through someone's employment—that they have employed a Commonwealth holidaymaker, for example. It would be much better to have a clear, unambiguous exemption for employers.
  If the Minister wants to amend the Bill, he should amend it so that it applies only to employers who collude in the commission of an offence, ensuring that the real rogues are caught and not those who have quite enough to do in getting on with their jobs and in employing people.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 11 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment's Nos. 12 to 23 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 24, after clause 10, to insert the following new clause—Saving for social security regulations—
  ".—(1) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, regulations may exclude from entitlement to any of the following benefits, namely—

  (a) income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;

  (b) income support and housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992; and

  840

  (c) jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995 or the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995,

  any person who has made a claim for asylum other than on his arrival in the United Kingdom or within three working days of that arrival.
  (2) Regulations may provide that, where such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above is subsequently recorded by the Secretary of State as a refugee within the meaning of the Convention—

  (a) that person may, within a prescribed period, claim the whole or any prescribed proportion of any income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit to which he would have been entitled had he been recorded as a refugee immediately after he made the claim for asylum; and

  (b) where he makes such a claim as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above in respect of housing benefit or council tax benefit having resided in the areas of two or more local authorities in Great Britain, the claim shall be investigated and determined, and any benefit awarded shall be paid or allowed, by such one of those authorities as may be prescribed.

  (3) Regulations making such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above may require the other authorities there mentioned to supply the prescribed authority with such information as it may reasonably require in connection with the exercise of its functions under the regulations.
  (4) Schedule (Modifications of social security regulations) to this Act—

  (a) Part I of which modifies the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996; and

  (b) Part II of which modifies the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996,

  shall have effect.
  (5) The Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996 shall have effect as if they had been made on the day on which this Act is passed.
  (6) In this section—
  "claim for asylum" and "the Convention" have the same meanings as in the 1993 Act;
  "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;
  "regulations"—

  (a) in relation to income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration Act 1992;

  (b) in relation to income support or housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;

  (c) in relation to jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration Act 1992;

  (d) in relation to jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, means regulations under that Order or the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992."

  7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that the Lords amendment involves privilege. With this, we may consider the following: Government amendments (a), (b) and (c), and amendments (d), (h), (e) and (f) to the Lords amendment.

  841
  Lords amendments Nos. 27 and 28, and Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 28.
  Mr. Lilley: The procedures for claiming asylum were set up to help the small number of people who escape tyrannous regimes, but the rules have been exploited by more and more economic migrants using them to circumvent immigration controls. That situation has been exacerbated by the benefit system. The easy availability of social security benefits has been exploited by an ever-rising number of asylum seekers—more than 90 per cent. of whom turn out not to be genuine.
  The losers are genuine refugees. They come here not for benefit but for sanctuary, but their asylum claims are delayed as the system becomes swamped by an ever-increasing number of bogus claims, and they have to wait longer and longer for a decision. The other losers are the taxpayers. If we had done nothing, the cost would soon have exceeded £400 million a year. We are determined that this country shall remain a sanctuary for genuine refugees.
  The changes I introduced in February, with parliamentary approval, ensure that anyone arriving in the UK as a refugee, and persons trapped here by an upheaval in their home country, will receive benefit help until their claim is turned down. That continued help to asylum seekers is expected to cost £140 million a year. Persons who are found to be genuine refugees, and those granted exceptional leave to remain, will continue to quality for help—which is over and above the sum that I mentioned.
  The regulations removed the benefit incentive from illegal immigrants and overstayers who claim asylum when apprehended by the authorities, and from individuals who gained entry to the UK by claiming that they would support themselves without recourse to public funds—and it is surely wrong that they should be able to avoid that requirement by subsequently making an asylum application.
  The third change was to end entitlement to benefit if and when a claim to refugee status is found to be invalid. If people choose to appeal against that refusal. the regulations treat them like British citizens, who do not receive benefit while appealing against refusal of a benefit claim.
  Those regulations were all agreed by comfortable majorities in both Houses, but, on 21 June, the Court of Appeal decided that the benefit changes required primary legislation. In the light of the court's decision, I moved promptly, and announced the Government's wish to insert a new clause in the Bill to reinstate those successful and much-needed regulations. A new clause and new schedule were agreed in the Upper House and restored the regulations.
  I also took the opportunity to meet the concerns that lay behind the Court of Appeal's decision about the tiny minority of asylum seekers—5 per cent. at first decision and 3 per cent. on appeal—who are eventually found to be genuine refugees. Our amendment provided for an individual's benefit to be backdated once he or she is found to be a refugee, which brings treatment of refugees fully into line with that of British citizens who will an appeal against an initial decision to refuse them benefit.
  Sir Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend makes the important point that the regulations treat
  842
  asylum seekers the same as British citizen—but the latter are claiming a means-tested benefit, whereas there is no such test for refugees.
  Mr. Lilley: I am not sure why my hon. Friend thinks that is so, because the same means test applies to asylum speakers as to British citizens, and is in that respect analogous. Refugees will be treated the same as British citizens—now fully so, in that, if they are found to be genuine claimants, they will have their means-tested benefits backdated to the beginning of their claim.
  Mr. Corbyn: Surely the Secretary of State appreciates that his point is not logical. No one who appeals against a social security decision, who will normally be resident in this country, does so against a background of absolute destitution. Asylum seekers who are denied benefits face the alternative of complete destitution.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may think the arrangement is illogical, but it is the one that he requested in our earliest debate on the matter. I thought that he would welcome the fact that I listened to his points and made the change. People appealing against asylum decisions may have friends and relatives in this country, whereas individuals appealing against benefit decisions may not have any friends and relatives living in this country—so the situation could be the reverse of that which the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Ms Lynne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that benefit claimants are able to work, whereas asylum seekers are denied that ability?
  Mr. Lilley: That is only partly true. After six months, any asylum seeker is normally given the right to work. We are withdrawing benefits only from persons who have demonstrated that they have the means to support themselves. Individuals who, at the port of entry, declare themselves to be seeking asylum will be entitled to benefit from the moment that they enter the country.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman justify his statement that he is only withdrawing benefits from persons who are able to support themselves? That is patently not the case. Is not the answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) that, in one case, an individual is appealing against a benefit decision, whereas in the other, the person is appealing against an asylum decision? The two cases are completely different.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's second point ignores the fact that the asylum claim gives a right to benefit entitlements—so it amounts to much the same thing. What was the hon. Gentleman's first point? He has forgotten.
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State has forgotten. He claimed—I am astonished that he has forgotten this—that he was withdrawing benefit only from persons who are able to support themselves.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman does not realise that anyone who claims at the port will get benefit. Those who do not must have convinced the immigration authorities that they have the means to support themselves in this

  843
  country. It is reasonable to hold them to that assurance. They have given it, and demonstrated that they are not asylum seekers but business men, tourists or students.
  Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: May I make a little progress?
  Mr. Alton: It is on that point.
  Mr. Lilley: I will make a little progress. I am sure that this theme will run through our subsequent discussions.
  As well as, effectively, accepting the regulations and reinstating them through the clause and the schedule, the Lords accepted an Opposition amendment to our clause, which, among other things—I shall return to those other things—extends benefits to those who claim asylum within three days of entering the United Kingdom. That has been presented as a minor change of limited consequence, which mainly affects genuine asylum seekers. If that were so, I would be very happy to accept it. I readily understand why, accepting it on those terms, John McCarthy and the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster, for whom I have profound respect, have given it their support.
  In fact, the amendment is not minor. It would have major financial consequences—costing £80 million, and far more as people deliberately exploit the loopholes it creates and, of course, respond to the incentives it generates. Far from helping just genuine refugees, the change would be of the greatest help to bogus refugees, since it also creates a whole raft of new incentives for them to claim benefit as well as asylum.
  I shall explain what the amendment would do. It extends benefit to three groups. First, it would give benefit to illegal immigrants. Since their immigration is illegal, we cannot say when they came in, so the three-day rule would enable any illegal immigrant, when discovered, no matter how long they had been in the country, to obtain benefits simply by declaring that they had only recently arrived in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members display a degree of ignorance of the real world that does them little credit.
  Mr. Tony Banks: If the Minister lived in the east end, he would know about the real world.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman expresses a profound truth.
  The change would also open up opportunities for people to circumvent the rules inherent in the Bill that will enable us to return people who come from a safe third country to that country. People who enter the country through the European Union channel at the channel ports or at airports by waving a forged EU passport at the immigration official would subsequently be able to claim benefit. That cannot be right.
  Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State raises a point about falsified papers and forged documents, which is similar to his earlier point, on which I was trying to intervene. Business men, students and people who are classified in any number of ways do not say precisely what has
  844
  happened to them in their countries of origin, often because of fear, what they are fleeing from and the persecution they have endured.
  If the Secretary of State or a member of his family were fleeing political persecution, does he imagine that the first thing on their mind when they arrived in the country to which they were fleeing would be to ask for the relevant form so that they could fill it out in the accurate way he describes?
  Mr. Lilley: My first instinct when faced with authority in foreign countries—I have been faced by the secret police in Uganda—is to tell the truth. I am afraid of getting into trouble by telling lies. That is most people's instinct. One reason why some people tell other stories is that, when they enter the country, they genuinely are business men, students or tourists, and subsequently decide to become asylum seekers.
  One of the cases that was heard before the Court of Appeal was of a gentleman who came to this country from Bulgaria because he was a keen follower of the Bulgarian football team. He only subsequently decided that, having got here, he should lodge a claim for asylum. That surely should not entitle someone to the right to benefit.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I should like to make a little progress, because I want to get some further factual information into the debate. Hon. Members are clearly reluctant to consider the facts.
  Those who support the amendment presume that anyone who makes a claim within three days of arrival is more likely to be genuine than those who delay making a claim for longer periods. I asked to see the figures. The figures for the last quarter, which are the only ones available, show that that is not so.
  Indeed, of those who claimed asylum within three days of arrival, 3.5 per cent. were found eventually to be genuine. Of those who claimed after a longer period, 4 per cent. were found to be genuine. Although they are both very small numbers, they do not confirm the belief that people who claim within three days are predominantly genuine.
  7.15 pm
  Ms Abbott: The very first point that the Secretary of State made in arguing against the three-day concession was that it would allow any illegal immigrant merely to state that they had been here only for three days to evade immigration control. If he knew a little more about immigration and nationality matters, he would know that the majority of illegal immigrants are discovered because they are informed on. The same person who informs would therefore be able to testify that someone had been here longer than three days.
  Mr. Lilley: There may be some instances for which we would have such evidence. If informants were willing to come forward and testify, what the hon. Lady says would be perfectly true, but in many instances, that would not be so, and people would be able to circumvent the rules.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State said that he wanted to impart some facts. Does he accept that the facts that

  845
  we are talking about are these: about 5 per cent. of applicants are granted permission to stay as refugees, and on top of that, last year, 18 per cent. were awarded exceptional leave to remain, which makes 23 per cent.? We are talking about people who the Government accept have genuine grounds for staying here: not 5 per cent. but 23 per cent.
  Mr. Lilley: The exceptional leave to remain is exactly what it says it is—exceptional, and not a recognition of refugee status. In 80 per cent. of cases last year, people came from three countries—Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Those countries are currently in a state of some turmoil, so we do not immediately send them back, even if we believe that they do not fulfil the criteria of the Geneva convention.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Could my right hon. Friend say in rough terms what proportion of those seeking asylum have come from another EU country? What would be the effect of reversing the Lords amendment on preventing illegal access to the United Kingdom from EU countries?
  Mr. Lilley: Several thousand people every year, and rising, come via an EU third country. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken measures so that we can, as the Geneva convention allows, return people straight to the safe country—France, Belgium or somewhere—through which they came.
  The amendment would create a loophole so that, when it was advantageous for people to enter from those countries without declaring themselves, pretending to be EU citizens, and using a forged passport that they had only to wave at the passport official before destroying their documents and claiming that they came directly from their country of origin, we would have no option but to give them benefit.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House and people outside would be grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said about the three-day proposal, were it not to have other disadvantages. I think that I am right in recalling that the archbishop's arid the cardinal's letter said that the Lords amendment might not be perfect, and that some flexibility might be important.
  Would it be possible, at least in theory, for the three-day rule to apply if it did not give any other advantages to the late applicant? If, for example, they were judged only on asylum rules and not on immigration and deportation rules, and they had to demonstrate that they had arrived in the previous three days, we would get rid of the problem about the long-term illegal immigrants.
  Mr. Lilley: The second point would not be possible under the Geneva convention. Under the convention, one is not allowed to discriminate against illegal immigrants. To have a different set of benefit rules and a presumption of proof that applied to them and not other claimants would therefore not be possible.
  My hon. Friend suggests that we might change the immigration rules, and I shall come to those in a minute. I should point out, however, that introducing a three-day rule would open up a loophole similar to that available to illegal immigrants, as, in practice, anyone who had
  846
  entered the country some while ago could destroy their documentation and claim to have arrived recently. It is common for those claiming asylum to destroy their documents or return them to the agents who brought them here, so that they can be recycled for other users.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: Does my right hon. Friend understand and appreciate the point made in the other place, that some people who arrive here in a state of fear and trauma may not understand that they have to claim asylum at the airport? Therefore, will he assure the House that all immigrants or asylum seekers are made aware of their rights in their own language at the airport or port?
  Mr. Lilley: Of course people must have access to an interpreter so that they can deal with the immigration authorities. There are interpreting facilities in scores of languages to cope with people arriving from various countries.
  The most telling point in the archbishop's letter referred to the difficulties that might be experienced by asylum seekers who cannot speak English. However, there is a degree of flexibility, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). People who arrive at an airport or other port of entry with no interpretation facility are told to come back and complete the formalities in a few days' time. They are then treated as if they had just arrived and were making an in-port claim, although such a claim is made two or three days later. That flexibility will continue when the measure is in force.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I am concerned about the plight of those who may find it difficult to speak at all, such as victims of torture. I have worked with such people. They have been so humiliated by the torture, which has degraded them as human beings and exploded their sense of identity, that they can hardly speak. Apart from their inability to speak English, it may take them months to explain what has happened to them, because they feel so abused, degraded and ruined. Of course they have forged documents. Otherwise, how on earth could they get out—by speaking to the secret police who are torturing them? That is just a joke.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady misunderstands what happens at ports. We do not expect people to know about our benefit regulations or understand the minutiae of bureaucratic detail, as has been suggested. They are simply asked why they are coming to Britain. If they are seeking asylum, they have simply to say so. Surely it would be more difficult for people in the circumstances the hon. Lady describes and for whom we all have immense sympathy to tell some concocted cock-and-bull story than to tell the truth, which is all we require of people arriving in Britain.
  There is a misunderstanding about why so many asylum seekers do not claim at the port but wait until they are in country before lodging a claim. It is often suggested that the main reason is that they arrive ignorant and traumatised, but, since we have introduced changes to the benefit regulations, the number of people claiming in country has fallen by two thirds. The figure has fallen by

  847
  two thirds since last June. So it is pretty clear that the great majority of people learn pretty quickly about changes in the benefit system, and respond to them.
  Mr. Madden: The Secretary of State—I am sure unknowingly—is being entirely disingenuous, as there was a comparable reduction in asylum applications two years before the regulations were introduced. The numbers of asylum applications ebb and flow, for all sorts of reasons. The fluctuation is certainly not affected by the introduction of regulations.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the point he was making earlier—that, in some circumstances, people arriving in Britain can be told to come back in two or three days' time and make an asylum application? Will he elaborate on those circumstances? Has he ever been at a desk in Heathrow when large flights are arriving at terminal 4? Has he attended any of those sessions? Does he really think that such casual conversations take place?
  Mr. Lilley: If the best the hon. Gentleman can do to explain the two-thirds drop in in-country claims since the regulations were introduced is to suggest that it is just a coincidence, he is grasping at straws. On his second point, about the problems of languages, Heathrow is well equipped with a vast array of interpretation facilities. However, other ports that cater for smaller numbers of people do not have facilities for every language. If someone arrives with an unusual linguistic requirement, such arrangements as I suggested might be necessary should apply.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), who is a distinguished expert on these matters.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if anyone is disingenuous, it is the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)? The last time that the number of asylum applications fell dramatically was immediately after applicants were required to turn up in person at Lunar house.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend wins game, set and match on that point. He is absolutely right.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Lilley: As this is not Question Time, may I make a little progress?
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Lilley: Knowing the hon. Gentleman's persistence, I give way to him.
  Mr. Dalyell: I simply follow up my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who asked the Secretary of State whether he had direct experience of such cases. During business questions on 11 July, I asked the Leader of the House the following question:
  "May I ask a question that by implication could be interpreted as being offensive, but is not meant to be? Cabinet members have some 300 years' experience between them as constituency Members of Parliament. Can we be told, before Monday's debate, whether any member of the Cabinet, as a constituency Member, has become involved with asylum seekers within three days of their arrival in this country? I have, and it is a very chastening experience, because the asylum seekers are extremely confused when they arrive. I wish to know whether any Cabinet member or any Home Office Minister has had that experience in the course of their constituency duties."—[Official Report, 11 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 582.]
  The Leader of the House, ever courteous, said that he would make inquiries.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long intervention. The hon. Gentleman should wait until he can make his own speech.
  Mr. Lilley: I have not asked all my Cabinet colleagues, but as I represent a constituency with a large immigrant population, I have certainly had to deal with such cases.
  Mr. Dalyell: Within three days?
  Mr. Lilley: I have experience of cases involving people seeking asylum or in other ways in conflict with the immigration and asylum laws. The most recent case that I can think of offhand was within three days, but it involved the wife of someone who had entered the country illegally, who was about to claim asylum three days later. I do not know whether that falls within the hon. Gentleman's circumstances, but it is an example of what happens. All hon. Members are used to such cases.
  The main reason why people claim in country rather than at the port of entry is that they are advised to do so by their relatives and friends, or in most cases their agents. Let us acknowledge that most people coming to this country as asylum seekers have agents. In almost every case mentioned in The Independent on Sunday report yesterday, the person concerned had an agent who had been paid to help them leave their own country and enter Britain. Agents give that advice because it is—or used to be—in the interests of asylum seekers to make a claim in country rather than at the port of entry.
  Although the same criteria and process of assessing an asylum claim apply whether it is made at port or in country, different rules apply once the application has been turned down and the applicant has entered the normal appeal process if he is an in-country claimant, rather than in-port. In-country claimants whose claim to asylum status is rejected can invoke complex immigration law appeal rights against deportation that can drag on far longer than those available to port applicants. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, they do so, and many hope to prolong their stay indefinitely. It is wrong that we should enable them to do so by extending benefit and rewarding those who have failed to tell the truth simply to get a better immigration status by claiming in country.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Keith Hill: If the Secretary of State is right, and most in-country applicants have been put up to it by outside advisers, can he explain why in-country applications for asylum are twice as successful as in-port applications?
  Mr. Lilley: They are not. The figures vary from year to year, but in both cases they are very small. As I have just said, the proportion of successful claims among those who claim within three days is lower than for those who wait longer.
  The amendment extends the right to benefit to people who have been found not to be genuine refugees. Anyone claiming at the port or within three days will, under the amendment, retain the right to benefit throughout their appeal process—even after they have been found not to be a genuine asylum seeker at the first decision point. That means that, under the amendment, they will have greater rights to benefit than British residents in analogous circumstances. That cannot be right, and it would be extremely costly. It demonstrates that the amendment goes far further than its apologists suggest.
  The amendment effectively denies the Government the right to bring in any regulation to withdraw benefits from anyone claiming at the port or within three days as long as they continue to maintain their claim as an asylum seeker, so we could not withdraw benefits after he or she had been found not to be genuine. The amendment would, as a whole, be costly. It would cost £80 million even if there was no behavioural change, no attempt to exploit the loopholes and no incentive effect that encouraged more people to come to this country and lodge asylum claims.
  Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State has made a great deal over the months about the costs involved, and all of us are conscious of that. But will he confirm that, if every person who came to this country—not as an immigrant, but as an asylum seeker or refugee—was fraudulent, we would still be talking about one third of 1 per cent. of his entire departmental budget? The parliamentary time that we have taken on the issue leads me to wonder what motives were behind the introduction of the measure in the first place.
  Mr. Lilley: The cost would be some £400 million. If that has to be met within the social security budget—as the hon. Gentleman suggests—that is equivalent to cutting the basic state pension by 1 per cent. Is that what the Liberal Democrat party proposes? Is that what the Opposition are proposing? The Opposition have told us that they will restore the benefits, and have also said that they will not allow any net increase in the social security budget. That must mean that they are proposing to reduce benefits going to British citizens to finance the extension of benefits to largely bogus asylum seekers.
  Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
  Mr. Lilley: This will be the last intervention that I take, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.
  Ms Jackson: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. I should like some clarification of the figure of £400 million that he has given. When the changes to the
  850
  benefit system were introduced, we were told that the savings to the taxpayer would be some £200 million. Last week, the Secretary of State inflated that figure to £300 million. Given that we have heard about the savings that have been made, how can we now be looking at the possibility of £400 million being saved? Does the Secretary of State know either the costs or the numbers?
  Mr. Lilley: I can explain to the hon. Lady. When we made the assessment, we assumed that there would be no reduction in the number of claims. On that basis, the figure was about £200 million in a full year. There has been a sharp reduction in the number of claims, and that has enhanced the likely savings to something like £274 million. But that means that we are continuing to pay out some £140 million to people who were in-port applicants, making a total of about £400 million—the figure that I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady.
  It is important to make savings, and the Opposition suggest that that can be done purely by speeding up the administrative process. They are mistaken. As long as we have a benefit enticement to people to come here, ever-increasing numbers will do so and will clog up the system, and it will not be possible for us to speed up the assessment of claims.
  As a result of the changes we made, the overall number of claims fell by more than half since January 1995, and by two thirds as far as in-country claims were concerned. As the asylum system is relieved from a flood of bogus claims, so it is easier to process those remaining, which is of great benefit to genuine claimants.
  Last month, 75 per cent. of all new in-country claims were cleared through the short decision procedure in, on average, one month. But we believe that it is important to do better, and we remain committed to further improvements. We are investing an extra £37 million to speed up asylum decisions and appeals, and the Home Office is introducing a major computerisation scheme, and is further extending the short procedure.
  Above all, the measures in the Bill as a whole will further speed up the process, and will tackle claims from safe third countries and from white list countries. Yet the Opposition—while saying that instead of curbing entitlements, they would make savings by improving the efficiency with which claims are dealt—are opposing almost all the changes contained in the Bill.
  The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they leave in existence a benefit lure, they will make it more difficult to give a speedy assessment to genuine benefit claimants. That is what those who have expressed concern about the issue in the press and the media recently want. We share their desire to see a speedy assessment of genuine claimants, but we believe that that will be possible only if we make the amendments that we moved in another place, and do not accept the specific amendment that will effectively drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
  I believe that much of the concern expressed about the issue has been based on inaccuracies. A large majority of those seeking asylum do abuse the system. There is no question of taking away benefit just because people do not understand the procedures of claiming asylum. We are taking away benefit only from illegal immigrants, from people who change their story after they have arrived in

  851
  Britain claiming to be something other than asylum seekers, and from people found not to be genuine refugees.
  The genuine refugee has nothing to fear from this change. This country has always been a safe haven for genuine refugees, and will remain so. I ask the House to reject the clause as it now stands, and to amend it to restore the Government's original intention, which was agreed by this House in January.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I want to refer first to the issue of the three days, which the House of Lords put into the Bill and which the Government are seeking to delete. I want to tackle the fundamental assumption that underlies everything that the Government have said and done on that issue—if someone does not apply for asylum the moment that he sets foot in this country at port, his claim is somehow inevitably bogus. That is what the Government believe, because it is the logic that underlies everything that the Secretary of State has said. Yet the figures disprove that thesis. Of the 775 people granted refugee status in the first four months of this year, 610 were in-country applicants.
  In a rather dismissive response to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on that question, the Secretary of State said that the figures vary from year to year. For every one of the past four years, the approval rate for in-country applicants has been higher than that for port-of-entry applicants. So the Government's assumption that, simply because one does not apply at the port of entry, one is more likely to be a bogus applicant, is false.
  The Secretary of State has been parading himself around the radio and television studios in the past few days, talking about people who come in as students, business men and tourists. He says that such people cannot be genuine refugees. He clearly has no idea of the circumstances of someone who is genuinely fleeing from oppression, who has to adopt such guises to seek a safe haven here.
  Mr. Lilley: Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain why the change in the benefit rules that took away entitlement to benefit from those who claim in country has led to a two-thirds reduction in people making claims in country?
  Mr. Smith: The Government are trying to starve genuine refugees out of this country. Of course, that change may well have an effect, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that there are ebbs and flows in applications, which is a valid point.
  The Secretary of State clearly does not understand what drives people to flee from oppression in their own country. They might well be frightened of any figure in authority and, when confronted with such a figure at the port of entry, they will not be confident about immediately telling that person their life story. They might well have been given bad advice before they left, but that does not mean that they are not genuine asylum seekers. They might well not be questioned intensively at the port, depending on the port of entry. They may well have had to flee with false papers because that was the only way in which they could get out of their country. Their one anxiety may be to get in and be safe in this country.
  852
  Those are all circumstances in which people who are genuinely fleeing from oppression and are in fear of their life—often people have been subjected to torture—arrive at the initial point of entry. To assume that, simply because they come in with other papers or in another guise, they are not legitimate refugees, is a false assumption.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Smith: I will not give way at the moment because many hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Smith: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course. I want to make some progress.
  The House of Lords, by including a three working days period of grace to allow someone who is genuinely fleeing from persecution to contact his or her community here and, perhaps, friends or a solicitor and make an application for asylum, has made a reasonable, commonsense, small extension of the provision. That period of grace will ensure that some genuine refugees who are excluded by the Government's provisions can be included and will be entitled to benefit.
  The Secretary of State argued that the change would help illegal immigrants and asked how we would tell if someone claimed that he entered the country three days ago, when he did not. That is a bogus argument. All the Government need to do is to provide clear guidance that proof of the date of entry is required before benefit entitlement can be achieved. The moment that that is achieved, the Secretary of State's entire argument falls.
  7.45 pm
  The Secretary of State also told us that the proposal would cost £80 million. [Interruption.] It might pay Conservative Members to attend to the figures that the Under-Secretary of State issued to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who asked about the proportion of asylum seekers last year and in the first six months of this year who had applied for asylum within the first three days after arrival. The Under-Secretary answered my hon. Friend today—5 per cent. of those seeking asylum in the first six months of this calendar year applied within the first three days. I have the answer here.
  That 5 per cent. figure means that the Secretary of State's figure of £80 million as the extra cost of the Lords amendment is bogus. If one allows an average of a year and a half for the determination of each of those 5 per cent. of applications, the Secretary of State is assuming an average cost to the social security budget in each case of £30,000 a year. That figure is not credible. The Secretary of State ought to come clean to the House about how he arrived at his £80 million figure, because it does not hold water.
  Mr. Lilley: The figure is made up of the two factors involved in the Opposition amendment. One is extending the benefit entitlement to those who claim within three days of arrival and the other is extending the right to benefit of those who claim at the port and those who claim

  853
  within three days of arrival into the appeal process, which is very expensive. The two together come to about £80 million.
  Mr. Smith: I took that into account in the figures that I just gave. If the Secretary of State had been listening, he would have understood that I had.
  Mr. Alton: The appeal process in itself is revealing. The Refugee Legal Centre—an organisation funded by the Home Office and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—has recorded a 20 per cent. success rate in the past three months. The issue is one of representation. If refugees and asylum seekers are properly represented, the number of successful appeals increases—the inadequacy of representation was raised by Conservative Members in Committee. The argument that virtually everyone who comes in is bogus has been shown to be nonsense.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government continually fail to point out that it is not only those who are granted full refugee status who are legitimately here at the end of the asylum-seeking process, but people who are granted exceptional leave to remain. The figures are far higher than the Government keep claiming.
  Mr. Madden: The Secretary of State's claims about savings are as bogus as his claims that the regulations alone have caused the reduction in asylum seekers. The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) robustly rejected my claim that there had been similar reductions in earlier years. Perhaps they will accept the briefing of the Refugee Legal Centre, which was sent to all hon. Members and states:
  "between 1991 and 1992 there was a decrease in applications of some 45 per cent. There was no change in the legislation affecting asylum seekers in that period and yet this decrease is almost identical to the reduction presently being proclaimed as the result of changes made to benefit entitlement."
  Perhaps the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle will have the good grace to apologise—if they believe the figures of a body that they fund.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an effective point.
  The Secretary of State argued that the Lords amendment is technically defective, in that it does more than the Lords intended when they passed it. All the speeches in the other place show that they intended it to apply to people who were claiming asylum within three days of the point of application through until the first determination.
  There is a legal dispute about the legal definition of
  "any person who has made a claim for asylum".
  If that is to be interpreted in the same way as an asylum seeker is interpreted in Department of Social Security regulations, it applies only up to the point of first determination, and the definition in the Bill is unclear. However, if the. Government—and some of their Back Benchers who might be minded to support the Lords on this—are worried about that, there is a simple answer. If the Government are defeated on amendment (a), it is open to them to table a simple manuscript amendment to ensure
  854
  that it is clear that the provision applies only up to first determination, or they could use the opportunity of next Monday's debate in another place to resolve the matter.
  Mr. Lilley: Can we be clear about this? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there was a mistake with the amendment and that it was not meant to restore benefits during the appeal process? Up to now, the Opposition have favoured restoring benefits and we assumed that the amendment was deliberate. Is he saying that they no longer favour restoring benefits during the appeal process? Have they made a giant U-turn and has he consulted the parliamentary Labour party about that?
  Mr. Smith: I expected better from the Secretary of State. There are two issues. I am dealing at the moment with what the House of Lords intended when it passed its amendment to the Bill. I shall come in a moment to the issue of appeal in general, because I think that the Government are wrong about that. I am pointing out that their argument about the technicality of the Lords amendment is not valid. They must not let a technicality stand in the way of a sensible proposal that would make the procedure a little more understanding and humane in respect of the circumstances of genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing for their lives.
  I promised the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) that I would give way and I shall do so, but for the last time.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: That is a fascinating way in which to debate something. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. His response to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is inadequate. We need to know what the hon. Gentleman's policy is. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that the amounts of money are small and that we should not worry about them, or does he want to stick to his policy so far, which would treat asylum seekers who may turn out to be bogus more generously than British people? What is his policy? He is getting muddled. At the moment, he is saying that he wants to treat asylum seekers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a long intervention.
  Ms Abbott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) claimed that I had said that the amount of money involved was small. I did not make that excellent point; it was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Smith: It is not I who is muddled but the hon. Member for Harrow, West, who clearly cannot tell his Hackney, North from his Mossley Hill. The sooner he does, the better.
  It is not only a question of the three-day provision that the House of Lords passed, which we support and will vote to defend. There is the more general issue of what the Government are trying to do with the removal of

  855
  benefits from many asylum seekers. There are several reasons why the Opposition oppose what they are doing in general.
  First, and most importantly, we oppose the Government's action because it is inhumane. That point was made tellingly by Lord Justice Simon Brown in the Court of Appeal when he said:
  "this uncompromising draconian policy contemplates a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it".
  The Court of Appeal was not concerned only about the illegality of trying to introduce the changes by regulation rather than by primary legislation but about the morality and humanity of what the Government were doing. It was right to be concerned. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster are also right to be concerned.
  Secondly, what the Government are doing hits the bogus and genuine claimant alike. The Government always like to refer to bogus claimants. Indeed, the Secretary of State's letter to all hon. Members of 9 July begins:
  "I am writing to explain why we are limiting benefits for bogus asylum seekers".
  Yes, they are limiting benefits for bogus asylum seekers, but they are also limiting them for genuine asylum seekers. The sooner that the Government admit that, the better.
  The third reason why we oppose what the Government are doing is that the cost savings that they claim are mythical. They may be saving a bit of money on the Department of Social Security budget, but the cost for local authorities will rise because they will be left to pick up the pieces. If an asylum seeker who has children is denied benefit—and remember 5,000 come in each year with children—and is left destitute, there is a responsibility on local authorities to take children into care at an average cost of £45,000 per child per year. The Government have recognised that, because they have produced a scheme to reimburse local authorities for the extra costs involved. They even have a scheme to reimburse the social services costs through the Department of Health to the tune of £25 million. They are saving money in one part of the public purse but spending it in another.
  The fourth reason why we oppose the Government's action is that it fundamentally undermines the concept of appeal. The Secretary of State is fond of parading the argument that British citizens who appeal against a benefit decision do not receive benefit. He is fond of saying that all he is doing is putting asylum seekers in exactly the same position. That is an entirely fallacious argument, because he is not comparing like with like.
  An asylum seeker in receipt of benefit who appealed against a decision to withdraw it would, in the same way as a British citizen, not be entitled to that benefit while the appeal was pending. This is a question not of people appealing against a benefit decision but of their appealing against the decision on whether to grant them asylum. The two are quite different decisions.
  In addition, a decision on benefit is taken on factual, objective criteria. A decision on asylum is taken on a subjective assessment by the Home Secretary of the
  856
  degree of difficulty in the country of origin and how genuine is the fear of oppression of the individual. They are two completely different issues, and for the Secretary of State deliberately and erroneously to confuse the two is not to do any justice to his argument.
  The last reason why we oppose what the Government are doing is that they would be far better employed in speeding up the processing of asylum applications in the first place. The average length of time spent waiting for an initial determination is currently eight months. In February this year, more than 10,000 asylum seekers had been waiting since 1991 for a determination. What the Government are doing is not the way to save money on the benefit bill. The solution is not to leave people—some with children, some with injuries and disabilities—destitute on the streets. It would be much better to speed up the processing of applications.
  Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  8 pm
  Mr. Smith: I will not give way, I am afraid, because I am trying to conclude and other hon. Members wish to speak.
  The Government claim that they are seeking to ensure that Britain is a safe haven and not a soft touch. No one is arguing for a soft touch. We all want to root out bogus claims, and to do it much more quickly, but we do not want to deny legitimate, genuine applicants the means of life while we are doing it. For many entirely legitimate applicants fleeing from real persecution, Britain will become not a safe haven but, if the Government have their way, a place of wretched destitution. The Government should think again.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not wish to detain the House long, but I cannot pretend that I am not extremely troubled by this series of amendments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with whom I have spoken, knows well that I am concerned.
  There were three letters in The Times this morning. I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to them. One, from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster, is carefully and persuasively worded. One is from our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley). The one that is really important, in my view, is from Dr. Perutz. I will not read it to the House, but I shall quote one paragraph:
  "Beginning with the Huguenots, asylum-seekers and their descendants have brought fame, health, wealth and even victory to this country."
  He cites a number of eminent men and women who have come to this country fleeing persecution, have made it their home and have brought great honour upon it, and great wealth, too, in many cases.
  I was taught to love Shakespeare by a German refugee who was not a Jew but had some Jewish blood. If he had stayed in Nazi Germany, he would doubtless have suffered, as so many others did. He came to this country and was given succour. He more than repaid the refuge that was given to him.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that any of the people whose names were set out in that letter were claiming benefit? It was all

  857
  pre-welfare state. The debate is not about whether people should come into this country and whether they are genuine asylum seekers but about whether they should claim benefit.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am tempted to stray, but I will not. The debate is about more than that. It is about Britain's reputation as a safe haven. I do not for a moment impugn the sincerity of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am sure that they share my view and that of Dr. Perutz, as expressed in his letter. However, I am clear that if the Lords amendment is resisted, we shall have made life more difficult for some people—I do not know how many, but obviously some. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has admitted that with his statement about retrospective payments. The very fact that he makes that statement makes it plain that he accepts that some people will be refused and will later receive benefit. That concerns me.
  It concerns me that some people persecuted by evil regimes will come into Britain in a state of shock, bewilderment and dismay and will not in the first three days necessarily fully comprehend the circumstances. It is a modest amendment that their lordships have inserted into the Bill. All that it says is that three days' grace should be granted to such people. It was not proposed by outlandish people. Nor is it supported by such people. The Refugee Council is an extremely responsible body. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is an extremely responsible organisation. Those bodies have to deal at the sharp end with the problems of refugees. They believe that the amendment to allow three days, modest as it is, will help.
  It is important that my right hon. Friends do everything that they possibly can to separate the bogus from the genuine. I hope that not one Member of the House would want a bogus person to benefit. But I am afraid that I have to say that, if faced with the choice, I would rather that a bogus person benefited than that a genuine refugee was sent back to an evil regime. That is the way in which we have conducted our policy over the centuries. It is a policy that has benefited Britain considerably.
  I do not see why it is not possible to insist on proof that the person came into the country within three days of the application. I do not see the amendment as opening the floodgates, so that every illegal immigrant could present himself or herself at a benefit office. That is not a valid argument against the amendment. I am prepared to accept that it may be technically flawed. I would not want to argue with that. I should be happy if my right hon. and hon. Friends came up with a series of proposals and formulae that would meet the point. No hon. Member would refuse to listen carefully to such a series of proposals. However, we do not have such a series of proposals. We are urged to reject the Lords amendment, with nothing administrative or otherwise to put in its place.
  The reputation of this country is priceless. One of the things that has made Britain a great country—I believe that it is a great country—is the fact that it has been through the centuries a safe haven for those who have fled from desperate regimes and terrible conditions. Whether one talks about Louis XIV revoking the edict of Nantes, or those who came over in the 19th century fleeing pogroms, or those who came during the evil years of the 1930s from Nazi Germany, or those who are here now,
  858
  having fled the evil of Bosnia in the past two or three years, one is talking of people who have suffered desperately, for whom Britain is a beacon. Why is it a beacon? It is because of the standards and values that they believe that we encapsulate and personify. At our best we do. The Government would take a little step in the wrong direction and, unless my right hon. Friends can convince me by good administrative proposals or some other means, I cannot take part in voting against the Lords amendment.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: It is a pleasure to speak to amendment (d) to Lords amendment No. 24, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) have also put their names. It is a simple amendment that would make means-tested benefits available to asylum seekers if the decisions on their cases took longer than 28 days. It would, we believe, mean that asylum seekers would not become victims of bureaucracy and would not be kept waiting too long for their decisions. Given the attitude of the present Government, it would certainly have that effect.
  The strength of the Government's case for turning down last-ditch amendments such as amendment (d), which is backed by all the Church leaders, rests on two arguments. The first is the problem of drafting minutiae, which suggests that the Clerks of the House of Lords cannot do their job. I find that difficult to believe. The second has comprised a series of elastic personal guarantees from the Minister of State, which stretched and contracted according to the notes that she received from the Home Office civil servants in the Box. The Secretary of State for Social Security added his guarantees later. Those guarantees are worthless. Perhaps the latest ones from the Secretary of State are as invalid as the selective unemployment figures that he used recently in Southwark cathedral. While we have listened to those worthless guarantees, the moral minority on the Conservative Benches has sat on its hands when Divisions were called.
  Why do I say that the guarantees are worthless? I must be the only person on Opposition Benches who voted in favour of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. I reread a little of the debate this evening to discover why, unwillingly, I supported the Act. The then Home Secretary, a man I trusted—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer—said in the Second Reading debate:
  "The Bill will achieve a better system for making prompt and fair decisions when we receive applications to settle in this country … That in itself will ease the pressures on all our public services."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 22.]
  Yet recent Home Office statistics show that, in 1994, 4,170 decisions were made on the cases of applicants who applied in that year, as opposed to 11,390 decisions made on cases lodged in previous years. The higher figure for previous years even excludes an additional 5,435 decisions for which no year of application was recorded.
  We should not confuse decisions and applications. The total of 4,170 decisions taken in 1994 on cases lodged in 1994, made up only 13 per cent. of the total number of applications in that year. How, therefore, can I believe the assurances given by Ministers tonight when the assurances given by a previous Home Secretary have proved so swiftly to have been invalid? The figures also show that applicants wait far more than three months for initial decisions to be made, and cases take years to

  859
  resolve. The decision may take only three to six months, but files sit in backlogs waiting to be considered. That may be the result of a lack of resources, poor planning or inefficiency. Current delays are impossible to justify now, but they would be completely unacceptable if applicants were to be excluded from benefits as the Government desire.
  Those with exceptional leave to remain would also benefit from amendment (d). Some 7,825 people received exceptional leave to remain in 1992, 5,520 in 1993 and 1,875 in 1994. All of them—more than 15,000—would have been denied benefit by the Government's proposals, yet all have been found to have genuine reasons for being too frightened to go back to their homes. Those 15,000 people also have families, so the number of people in trouble would have been significantly larger. I voted for the 1993 Act. I know now that it has become a licence to bully.
  I am concerned when the Secretary of State talks about forged European Union passports and false papers. Does he not understand that people in Iraq cannot get a passport, let alone a visa? They cannot travel unless they travel on false papers. How can people in Iraq have their family name on any paper when Saddam Hussein has wiped out all family names and people are allowed to use only their forenames?
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Lilley: I entirely accept that people need to resort to all sorts of devices to leave an oppressive country, but they do not need to resort to devices or dishonesty to enter this country. The hon. Lady gave the example of Iraq. That country has a tyrannous regime and we were recently at war with it; we might expect that even genuine asylum seekers would be fearful on entering this country, but none the less a majority of those claimants claim at the port and not in country. On the other hand, the vast majority of claimants from the Indian subcontinent, who follow a well-oiled trail to this country, claim in country and not at port because they know that that gives them an advantageous status in the immigration rules when their claims are subsequently found to be bogus.
  Miss Nicholson: Iraq was a protected state of the United Kingdom for many years and the Iraqi people know Britain well and they know our systems. I am sad to have to tell the Secretary of State that he is known by the Iraqi refugees in London—and many thousands of other refugees—as monster Lilley. I take no pleasure in that and, like others who have spoken, I want the Government to make the United Kingdom respected internationally, not disrespected.
  The Secretary of State has talked about bogus asylum seekers abusing the system, but a more competently run system would not be open to such abuse. The Secretary of State's job should be on the line tonight, not the benefits of some of the most miserable people in the world.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The earlier part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) was better received than her unjustified attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
  860
  The essential element of our debate tonight is how to meet the objective of the Lords amendment and of the letter from the Moderator of the Free Church and the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster and, at the same time, to see if it is still possible—here or in another place, if we do not accept Lords amendment No. 24—to meet the Government's aim. I do not regard Lord Carr—the former Home Secretary—Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, or the Earl of Sandwich as revolutionaries. They are people who know what they are talking about because they have served in their different ways, and we should take their points as seriously as we do those of the Church leaders.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friends in the Home Office and the Department of Social Security that we should try to recognise that a small number of people who have a justifiable claim for refugee status should be able to claim not only at the moment that they arrive in this country, but within a day or two afterwards. They should be able to do that by putting themselves in the position that they would have been in had they claimed when they arrived, legally or illegally. They should have to demonstrate when they arrived, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) suggested, and they should give up any claim they might have under immigration rules and agree to be treated only under the asylum rules. That would remove any artificial incentives for people to apply for asylum after their arrival.
  We shall achieve our desired ends through tight limitations and by removing any advantage people may derive from sneaking into the country giving a false story, making false declarations that they can support themselves, or appealing against deportation on immigration grounds if they fail in their asylum appeal.
  We can achieve the flexibility that Church leaders seek in another way. If the Government will not allow claims for benefit, they should provide a certain amount of money—I hope not too little—to those bodies that will carry the load. I have not visited the refugee centre in Vauxhall or the United Reformed Church centre in Stoke Newington, but I know several people who have, and their testimony is impressive.
  I ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, to confirm how flexible the system will be. Will he ensure that, before the matter returns to the House of Lords—whether we disagree with the Lords amendment or produce some other Government proposal—the Government will find a way of addressing the genuine concerns of those who want to give those with justifiable asylum claims the chance to live in this country without suffering destitution?
  In a letter to The Times of 4 July this year, I am on record as supporting the Government's policy to reduce the number of unjustified asylum claims. I stand by that view. However, it should be possible to reach a compromise and agree not to penalise those who have a genuine—I do not really like to use that word in these circumstances—reason for not applying for asylum immediately. They should not derive any advantage from applying within two or three days of their arriving in this country. If people sneak into the United Kingdom without passing through immigration, the duty should be upon them to demonstrate that they arrived within three days of making an application.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I wish that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) spoke for the entire Conservative party, but unfortunately he does not. We know what the issue is about: it is a hangover from the Conservative party conference of last year or the year before. Stirring up racism and xenophobia might be good for the blue-rinse brigade, but it is not good for those who must represent the people we are discussing tonight—many of whom live in the east end, where I come from.
  Mr. Lilley: It may interest the hon. Gentleman to learn that the board of the race relations commission, which was meeting when I delivered my speech, considered it and was delighted to find that it did not contain any such invective.
  Mr. Banks: I am sorry; I would never accuse the Secretary of State of using invective in his speeches to Conservative party conferences. I remember his, "I have a little list" speech. If he believes that that sort of speech does not stir up racism and xenophobia, he does not understand the meaning of those words. That is what lies behind the proposal tonight.
  As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, the Lords amendment is modest: it calls for a three-day delay. The Secretary of State and other Conservative Members must try to imagine how they would feel if they had just arrived in this country fleeing from an evil regime. How rational would they be? The Secretary of State says that the easiest thing to do is speak the truth—hon. Members do not always follow that advice—but we must consider the circumstances.
  People arriving in this country may not speak English and they may have left families or children behind in their country of origin. The idea that they will be totally coherent regarding their rights and their intentions beggars belief—it will not work like that. That is why this modest and reasonable proposal should be acceptable to a reasonable Government—if the Government were trying to help such people.
  The Secretary of State did not say whether or how often he has visited terminal 4 to watch people entering this country and claiming asylum or refugee status. We should be grateful that people want to come to this country. We talk about people being economic refugees, as if that were a crime. People come to the United Kingdom to improve their lot. They want to contribute: they do not want to live off social security. Some might do that, but some who live here do it also. Most asylum seekers want to improve their personal circumstances and those of their families. We should not refer to "bogus" asylum seekers, as though they are useless people who can make no contribution to society.
  Allowing that point to pass, we must ask how helpful are the immigration officials at the port of entry. In my opinion, they are not helpful at all: they certainly do not explain people's rights. They ask trick questions—I have listened to them—to try to trap people because they do not want asylum seekers to enter the country. Little helpful information is offered at the port of entry. That is a sad thing to say in this place, but it is my experience.
  Never mind the circumstances—obviously I speak in support of the Lords amendment—let us examine the practicalities if the Government are successful in forcing through their amendments. What will happen to the
  862
  people from whom all benefit is withdrawn? Children may be involved. What will people do? Come to borough councils' social services offices. What will the borough councils do? Refer asylum seekers to the refugee centre in Newham, where they will receive £15 and a food hamper. That is not very generous, but it is all that the centre can afford. Such benefit soon runs out.
  What will the local authorities do? Unlike in some Conservative constituencies, in Newham there may be 10,000 or more refugees. Many people who come to my constituency advice centres do not appear on the electoral register. They are considered to be my constituents, but much of my work load consists of trying to explain rights to people who are not registered voters. When we examine hon. Members' work loads, we should look not only at the number of registered electors but at the work load of individual Members of Parliament.
  I ask the Secretary of State: what will happen in the London borough of Newham when people are bereft of any recourse to state aid? What will the local council do with people who have no resources and no access to funds?
  Mr. Alton: In areas such as the hon. Gentleman's and in cities such as mine, people will live on the streets and we shall end up with shanty towns like those in the United States.
  Mr. Banks: That is a strong possibility. The Minister of State has visited my borough. I should like to take her to the areas where immigrants and those waiting for the Department to process their applications live. The hon. Lady smiles, but she would not like to live like that—I certainly would not. As I do not want to live like that, I am not prepared to condone the conditions that those people must endure.
  If the Secretary of State manages to smash the amendments through the House tonight, what will he then do to assist the hard-pressed borough of Newham where the problem is concentrated? We welcome refugees to the east end, but we need Government support. Today the Government are showing two fingers to us, two fingers to those who turn up in this country seeking asylum and two fingers to those who must look after them on their arrival. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State should turn down the Lords amendment, and I hope that he will be defeated.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hope that I can lower the temperature following that rant by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Many of those who are listening to the debate will think that we have taken leave of our senses shortly after giving ourselves a substantial pay rise. I shall examine some of the points that have been made. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we are being racist in questioning the abuse of public money. That idea is too preposterous for words. Most—if not all—Conservative Members would not tolerate any action that our Government took that was racist in any sense, and I think that the House showed how united it was against racism in a series of debates that we had before.
  My former hon. Friend—still the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson)—talked about Iraqis. It may well be the case that people from

  863
  Iraq and from other terrible regimes want to leave their countries and cannot expect to come without forged passports, exit visas or whatever. But all they have to say when they arrive is, "Asylum." They do not have to say any more before we give them asylum, and with it they get social security benefits, housing benefits, health benefits, education benefits. All they have to do is say, "Asylum," and if they cannot "speaka da English"—[Interruption.] All they have to do is indicate that they cannot speak English, and the immigration authorities will provide them with somebody who will translate for them. All that person has to do is to say, "If you are a genuine asylum seeker, because you're in a state, you've obviously been beaten up, you've got burns all over your body, you can claim asylum." That is what the immigration service provides. It provides translators, people who will help them. It is nonsense to say that that does not happen.
  8.30 pm
  Ms Abbott: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to make her own contribution in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), for whom I have much respect, showed some confusion. The people who are here and make a claim for asylum in country may still be able to get asylum or to get extended right to remain. All we are saying is that those people will not get benefits. All the people to whom he referred in the letter from the academic in The Times today were those who got asylum but who did not get benefits.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, please, I have a short time in which to speak, and most hon. Members will make their contributions, or will have already made them.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke about the need to speed up. Of course there is such a need. Everybody agrees that there is a need to speed up asylum applications, but one of the best ways to do so is by reducing the number who make asylum applications, 95 per cent. of which are bogus. If that number is reduced, the legal, justified and genuine applications that are made by asylum seekers will be processed that much more quickly.
  The background for this legislation is that, nine years ago, 5,700 people applied for asylum in this country, and now the number has risen to 50,000. It is rising in this country, whereas it is falling in all the countries in Europe that have tightened their asylum-seeking requirements. Italy does not even provide benefits for asylum seekers. That is why people want to come to Britain. For too long we have said, "We have this very proud tradition. We will not question too deeply, and of course you will have benefits."
  I think that people outside think that we are mad having a debate on this not about the people who come to this country who genuinely seek asylum, who say at the port
  864
  of entry, "Asylum," or get a translator to help them, but about people who are not inarticulate, who are not quivering with fear or are too humiliated to speak. Seventy per cent. of them enter the country, saying, "I want to visit." They have with them their sponsor and have filled in applications and forms that set out clearly how much money they have so that they will not be a burden on the state. They come in with their return tickets, saying, "I have business to do. I am a business man. These are the men I am doing business with. These are the men who will guarantee that I will be not one penny burden on the taxpayer." They come into the country and say, "I am a student. I have a place at this college. I will not be a burden on the state because the following people and organisations are helping me." They are the people who, when they turn round later and say, "I am an asylum seeker, please let me come in," have lied and cheated their way here.
  Sir David Steel: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, as too many hon. Members want to speak in what is a short debate.
  The people outside—
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we have your advice? When we are confronted by an hon. Member who refuses to give way, while listing a catalogue, a tissue of lies and untruths—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to withdraw the word, "lies".
  Mr. Madden: I certainly withdraw the word, "lies," but substitute the term "deliberate falsehoods".
  What can we do when the hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to give way to Opposition Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can do nothing. The hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for his own speech and whether he gives way.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The only reason why I shall not give way is that it would prolong my speech and many other hon. Members want to speak. I notice that the hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench gave way only once, and my right hon. Friend gave way so many times that his speech went on for much longer than he intended.
  I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology, but he has just shown that he is so carried away that he is capable of misjudgment, and that is what I am afraid is dictating so much of the debate. We are losing control of ourselves. I was merely making the point that our constituents simply do not expect us to provide social security benefits all the way down the line for illegal immigrants. I do not think that people outside want to provide social security benefits for people who come into this country, promising that they can afford to be here without being any burden on the state, pretending, or perhaps changing their minds later, that they are students when they are not, that they are business men when they are not, that they are genuine visitors with genuine sponsors when they are not—all of

  865
  whom have to be interviewed; all of whom have to be articulate; all of whom have to satisfy the immigration authorities that their application sounds genuine.
  To say that those people are petrified, that they cannot explain themselves or that they are so humiliated, is to paint a completely false picture about what happens with 70 per cent. of applicants who are in-house applicants, having changed their minds as to the reasons why they are here.
  We must take a sensible grip of ourselves. Ordinary, genuine asylum seekers will nearly always claim asylum when they arrive. They will get asylum and continue to get benefit. Those who are here and who have changed their minds can still satisfy the authorities that they are genuine asylum seekers and they will be given asylum or extended right to remain, but they will not get benefits. For the illegals and everybody else, I am afraid that the public are against Opposition Members who think that what is needed is a bigger handout and that we should be a bigger soft touch than all the other countries of Europe that do not operate such an absurd system of welfare payments in the circumstances that we are discussing.
  Mr. Dalyell: The less said about the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) the better.
  Hon. Members who intervene at this point had better have a very good reason for doing so. My good reason is personal experience of having seen—like, I hope, other hon. Members—what happens in the first day when an asylum seeker arrives. I repeat the question that I put to the Leader of the House last Thursday, which was meant not offensively but factually: how many members of the Cabinet and Home Office Ministers have seen what happens in the crucial first three days? The Leader of the House said that he would
  "draw it to the attention of those who reply to the debate."—[Official Report, 11 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 582.]
  Could we have some kind of factual answer?
  On 18 November 1992, at the request of the then Home Secretary—now Chancellor of the Exchequer—I went, along with Dr. Perutz, who wrote to The Times, and Dr. Pirouet of Charter '87, also known as A Charter for Refugees, to see those who were framing the previous Bill. As Home Office records will show, we were allowed an hour and three quarters with a most courteous Mr. Peter Wrench. My interest in the matter is not sudden., and I therefore ask the following questions.
  How can the asylum procedures be shaped to allow for the exhaustion, trauma and confusion that many asylum seekers experience on their initial arrival—sometimes so severely that they are unable to give an adequate account of their reasons for seeking asylum? If they later have to change and amplify their stories, they are liable to be accused of lying. In fact, they often are accused of lying, precisely because they have had to amplify and change the stories that they gave in their original traumatic condition. What the Secretary of State said about lying is open to considerable question.
  Moreover, both male and female rape are all too frequent among those who have suffered imprisonment and torture in a number of countries from which genuine asylum seekers come. The United Kingdom police now know that rape victims often need time and reassurance before they are able to reveal what has happened to them.
  866
  I hope that the Secretary of State will make some reference to those who have been raped in the course of torture.
  Dr. Stuart Turner, of the traumatic stress clinic in London, specifically notes the incidence of rape, and says that it is doubly evident in some of the cultures from which asylum seekers come. An amendment permitting a person to apply for asylum within three days of arrival without loss of benefit constitutes a minimal recognition of that difficulty. I am a newcomer to the Bill; others have worked on it long and hard. I hope, however, that I shall receive a reply on the specific question of rape and the general question of whether the Ministers who are giving us this legislation have personally observed the terrible effects of the current arrangements on asylum seekers.
  I was very moved by the speech of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), and it is in that spirit that I ask my questions.
  Ms Abbott: I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I understand that he is a lawyer; if he is, I feel genuinely sorry for anyone whom he seeks to represent in court, because he managed completely to ignore the real legal point about the benefit cuts.
  Perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman by reminding him of what Lord Justice Waite said in his judgment. He said that cutting benefits for asylum seekers and refugees would
  "have the effect of rendering their ostensible statutory right to a proper consideration of their claims in this country valueless in practice by making it not merely difficult but totally impossible for them to remain here to pursue those claims."
  I am struck by the fact that a lawyer of the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience has missed the central legal point that it is no use having a right to appeal if the person concerned is made destitute while exercising that right: the right becomes valueless. Either the hon. and learned Gentleman missed that point, or he did not care to comment on it.
  I also listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). During his heartfelt speech, in which he spoke for most hon. Members on both sides of the House, my attention was drawn to the expression on the faces of Ministers. When he called in aid the point that it would be damaging to this country's international reputation if we introduced changes that might hurt genuine refugees, Ministers rolled their eyes and sneered. It has come to something when Ministers sneer at hon. Members who express genuine concern for the country's reputation. If Ministers think that, for the sake of a fraction of the social security budget, it is worth throwing away a reputation for fair play in regard to refugees, that tells us something about them. It also tells us something about the respect that they have for their Back-Bench colleagues.
  8.45 pm
  The substance of Ministers' arguments for the benefit cut is that anyone who claims refugee status in country is more likely to be bogus than someone who claims it at the port. Over and over, hon. Members on both sides of the House have put it to Ministers that there is not a shred of statistical evidence to demonstrate that people who claim in country are more likely to be bogus than those

  867
  who claim at the port; over and over, Ministers have refused to deal with that fact. In my view, however, that fact blows away the whole basis of their case.
  As hon. Members have said, this is a modest amendment. It will rule out the very small number of people who may have been here for six months, a year or longer, and then claim refugee status gratuitously, while giving confused and frightened people a few days in which to collect their thoughts, obtain advice and put in a claim. It will do a good deal to help genuine refugees.
  I have listened to the debate with interest. I have been struck both by Conservative Members' unwillingness to face the truth about their case—which I believe has no basis in fact—and by the number of hon. Members who have jumped up to complain that the great British public do not want to give benefits to foreigners and "tinted people". Those hon. Members—some of whom are not present now—are the same hon. Members who, year after year, rose to denounce Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and to say that he should be hanged. History has shown that their position was both morally and politically bankrupt, and I believe that history will show that those who vote against this modest amendment are just as morally and politically bankrupt as the Conservative Members who, year after year, denounced Nelson Mandela as a terrorist who was beneath contempt.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I, too, am disgusted by some of the squalid sentiments that have been expressed tonight. I am sure that I speak for many other hon. Members when I dissociate myself from those sentiments, and state categorically that what the Government say is not being said in my name. If their proposal is passed tonight, it will not be passed with any agreement from my party.
  As I listened to the speeches, some simple maxims ran through my mind. Two of them form the basis of our entire system of justice. One is the belief in innocence until proof of guilt; the second, deriving from that, is that it is better for one guilty person to go free than for 10 innocent people to be convicted.
  We are discussing a fairly straightforward issue of natural justice, which the Government are ignoring. The implication of everything that is being said—particularly by the Secretary of State—is that in-country applicants are not genuine asylum seekers but, by definition, bogus applicants. Yet most applicants have applied on an in-country basis and they have greater success than those who apply at the port of entry.
  I understand that the Refugee Council's figures for 1993 show that some 12.8 per cent. of in-country applications were successful, compared with 4.3 per cent. of port applications, so, in 1993 at least, people were three times more likely to be successful if they applied in country. I would have made that point if the Secretary of State had allowed me to intervene in his speech because it seemed to run counter to his figures.
  It is not hard to come up with reasons why there should be that differential. We have discussed them tonight, but many Conservative Members appear not to accept the reality of disorientation and distress. It does not take much imagination to put oneself into the shoes of someone who comes to this country from regimes that we are able to
  868
  read, hear and know about. Their disorientation and distress could be enormous, amounting, in some cases, to outright trauma, which again the Government do not appear to want to recognise.
  In many cases, people will be completely ignorant of the need to apply immediately for refugee status. In many cases, that ignorance would be understandable. The Government have not dealt with that, other than to make spurious points, for example, about interpreters somehow magically metamorphosing themselves into advisers. In my experience in court, interpreters simply interpret the words. They are not there to give advice—it is not their job to do so. In any case, the Nuffield interpreter project, set up in 1991, highlighted what in its view were serious miscarriages of justice as a result of shoddy interpreting in other sectors of the public service. That project was set up with Home Office funding, so I assume that the Government are aware of that, yet they want to rely entirely on interpreting services available at the port of entry for people who do not speak English. I understand that that involves some 90 per cent. of those seeking asylum.
  The hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about the enormous difficulty that many people have—and, in the example that I wish to raise, that many women have—about talking about some of the things that have happened to them. That should not be underestimated. Women who have been raped or have been subject to other forms of sexual torture will find—[Interruption.] I see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department shaking his head. I wonder if he has considered this matter. It is extraordinary that it can be dismissed in such a fashion.
  Women, particularly those from cultures where expressing themselves about such matters is extremely difficult at the best of times, have enormous difficulty in talking about some of the things that have happened to them. To have to do so in front of strangers at the time of greatest distress, and about issues that, even in their own culture, would cause enormous distress—not to mention the extra problems of talking about rape or torture—is difficult, yet they are somehow expected magically to do so in a calm and rational manner on arrival at Heathrow or other ports of entry. I am sorry, but I just do not accept that they can do so. Ministers know very well that such women cannot do so. The truth is that Ministers simply do not care. That is what appals me most and should appal most people in this country. In many cases, that absolute lack of compassion is explicit in many Conservative Members' speeches.
  As I have said, this is a simple issue of natural justice, but, if that concept is too difficult for people to understand, how about simple humanity?
  Mr. Gerrard: I want to make some brief points because we are obviously short of time. First, what will happen to people as a result of the Government's wish to reject the Lords amendment? We do not have to guess because the benefit regulations were introduced in February and the court judgment has meant that the Government must try to put them into the Bill.
  We know from what has happened to people since those regulations came in that they have had led simply to destitution. The Refugee Council monitoring project has shown that people have ended up on the streets. The

  869
  Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has, I think, sent all of us evidence of what it has found out. Its clients—remember that the foundation is treating victims of torture—have attempted suicide since they were deprived of benefits. More than 40 clients who have been victims of torture alone would have been destitute, but for financial help and food parcels from the foundation.
  People are being forced to live on charity handouts, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) pointed out, the bill will be shifted from social security to local authorities, which have to pick up the tab when taking people in through the Children Act 1989.
  Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers do not seem to realise that not just Labour local authorities, but Conservative local authorities such as Westminster will bear a serious burden if the legislation goes through?
  Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right. It will cut across the political control of local authorities, particularly in London.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security, when he introduced the regulations, said that no one who was receiving benefits now would lose benefits, unless there was a negative decision on that case, but there have been cases where a man has claimed, his wife has been attached to his claim and, after that couple has split up, the wife's claim has been treated as a new claim and she has been refused benefits, so women have been left without a penny simply because they and their husbands have split up.
  Secondly, much has been made of the question of telling the truth at the port of entry. Members have said, "It is quite simple. You just turn up at the port of entry and say that you are an asylum seeker. There is no reason why any genuine asylum seeker should not do that." The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and others have pointed out the difficulties for people who are torture victims. Even if people are not torture victims and are fleeing for other reasons, think of what they have to do to get here in the first place.
  Earlier this evening, in an attempt to mollify some of the Conservative Members who were pressing the amendment on involuntary abortion, the Minister of State, Home Office, suggested that it would somehow be possible for people to turn up at a British embassy or high commission, to tell their story, and to say that they were asking for asylum, and that their case would be considered in the light of the evidence and their connections with the UK. I cannot think of a single refugee whom I have come across who has been given a visa by an embassy or high commission in those circumstances. I shall be interested to see the answer to the written question about the number of such people that I have submitted since that first debate.
  The Government have introduced a visa regime in every country from which the number of asylum applications has increased. They also introduced the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, as a result of which, airlines will not take people without papers. That means that people have to persuade a high commission or an embassy to grant a visa for some other reason, such as a visit or a tour. If I came to an airport with such a visa,
  870
  I would not be keen to say to the first person whom I met, "By the way, I got my visa in the high commission in SriLanka and I lied to get it." I would not feel safe until I was out of the airport. The next day, or the day after, I might think of claiming asylum, when I felt that I was actually in the country.
  Ministers shook their heads when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) suggested that genuine asylum seekers would be hit as well as the bogus ones. I do not want to make too much of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), but he accepted that some genuine asylum seekers would make applications and said that the only difference was that they would not get benefit. Therefore, genuine asylum seekers will lose.
  Even if I gave credence to the Home Office decisions on asylum, I would be worried about what is going on. There is a culture of disbelief in the Home Office and the administrative system for dealing with immigration and asylum cases is a shambles. For the Home Office to think only now of computerising such a system is beyond belief. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, the amendment is modest and, if it is defeated, people will be left destitute.
  9 pm
  Mr. Corbyn: We have had a long debate and I should like to put on record the fact that the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) discredited him and every hon. Member. It was an abominable speech in which he sought to plead to the lowest common denominator, and it showed an absolute failure to understand the legal technicalities surrounding asylum seeking. That is surprising for someone who spends so much of his life in courts—perhaps he should be spending more time here. Secondly, he made a naked appeal to racist attitudes throughout the country. It was an absolute disgrace.
  In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) drew attention to the problems of poverty that are faced by many asylum seekers. In the borough that he and I have the honour to represent, many people are living in absolute destitution. Often, the only way that they have been able to survive is by getting support from asylum refugee communities that have been here for some time, most of whose members are unemployed and relying on benefits. That means that they are sharing misery rather than wealth.
  Alternatively, people beg on the streets or are kept by generous people who belong to some of the churches in the borough and who collect money at Sunday services to buy food parcels for asylum-seeking families to make sure that they do not starve. The Secretary of State says that there is no evidence of increased destitution. He could walk not far from his house and talk to people in some of the churches in his borough to find out exactly what the situation is like.
  Many families are in a desperate position. We are in danger of having asylum seekers begging on the streets and people living in benders or broken-down cars, or sleeping under railway arches because they have been denied benefit as a result of the Government's obdurate attitude towards asylum seekers. Local authorities will have huge bills trying to ensure that children are maintained under the Children Act 1989.

  871
  The Secretary of State spoke about the appeals system and made free use of the term "bogus asylum seekers" because he does not believe that people have a genuine fear of persecution if they return to their own country. The Government should look at some of the evidence on which they are acting. I have had extensive correspondence with the Home Office about people whom I believe to be in danger if they are returned to Nigeria. One case that stands out is that of the Onibiyo family. To the credit of the Government of Guyana, they were prepared to take Ademole Onibiyo. To the disgrace of this Government, he was thrown out of the country and placed in enormous danger. Likewise, people have been forcibly returned to Zaire, to the Ivory Coast and to some other countries in which there is a veneer of electoral democracy, underneath which all the old evil forces of the police and the army and the oppression of individuals are still at work.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I think that Guyana has really shown up the Government in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is one of the poorest countries in the world and cannot afford to look after its own people adequately, yet it held up its hand in that case and our Government did not.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I shall return shortly to the issue of how the British and European Governments are turning their backs on asylum seekers while others recognise the problems of those people. It is a great credit to President Jagan and the people of Guyana that they were prepared to help out the Onibiyo family.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton demonstrated his ignorance of the procedures—as have the Minister and many other hon. Members—for entering the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) then put his finger absolutely on the point. I remember a debate in this very Chamber about the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 just before the 1987 general election. It was another flawed piece of legislation rushed through on the basis of a speech from the previous year's Tory party conference. If the Secretary of State troubled to read it or to check the Hansard report of its Committee stage or the debate on its Second Reading, however, he would discover a recognition that it was legitimate for people genuinely fleeing from persecution to use bogus names and false documents to deceive their way out of a country and to deceive their way into a country of safety.
  People write books about the genuine heroism of people who fled from Nazi Germany, from pogroms against Jewish people in Russia at the turn of the century, from Chile at the height of the oppression, from El Salvador and from so many other places around the world, Iraq and Iran included. In 50 years, will people write books about how they must deceive their way into Britain to gain a place of safety because of the Government's attitude towards asylum seekers? The history lesson that the Government need to be taught is that they are acting in a grossly inhumane manner at a time when the world is desperately crying out for humanity in the way that people are treated.
  The Government's attitude towards the provision of social security payments has been very well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and
  872
  Finsbury and by many other hon. Members. The issue of the three-day rule to make an application has also been dealt with very well. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has ever bothered to go to any port of entry to see what it is like when someone is fleeing from somewhere and attempting to seek asylum. If he can, I ask him to put himself in the mind of a Kurdish person coming out of Turkey, Iran or Iraq, where Kurds face the most appalling persecution in their villages, which have been bombed and burnt out by the army. They get themselves away from that community, to Ankara or to Istanbul, to try to get a plane out.
  Those people have to get a visa and an airline to take them. So they go along to a normal, reputable airline, such as British Airways, but people there tell them, "Sorry; we can't take you because the Home Office might not admit you, and we'll be fined £2,000 if subsequently you're not admitted, and we'll have to bring you back." So they go to the back streets and they pay out a great deal of money to a corrupt travel agent who buys them a plane ticket and is prepared to bear the danger of paying the fine. It is another example of exploitation of people in fear.
  It is quite possible that those people have been brought up in a community in which anyone wearing a uniform is just not trusted. When they arrive at a port of entry and are confronted by people in uniform, they might not be so trusting of them as those of us who have grown up in a slightly different atmosphere with different attitudes. So they get themselves into the country by whatever means they can, and then they do something about the situation.
  We are talking about a minimal and modest amendment—one that will merely allow three days for an application to be made. Some hon. Members said that information should be given to potential asylum seekers, and they were jeered at by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. I hope that that will be understood by the public.
  I want the Government to understand this message: people seek asylum from many places for many reasons. They might be victims of religious, social or political persecution. Perhaps they stood up against a structural adjustment programme in a third-world country, were deemed to be an enemy of that state and had to flee. The Secretary of State might call them economic migrants, but I call them people standing up for justice. They deserve our support and our recognition.
  The Secretary of State says that the number of people seeking asylum is reducing throughout Europe, but that is because of the xenophobia of the right hon. Gentleman and others of his ilk in different countries. As a result, Europe accepts fewer asylum seekers than any other part of the world, and Britain admits proportionately less than most, if not all, other European states. Let us have a sense of humanity and, if nothing else, agree to amendment No. 24, so that there will be less destitution and more people who have fled from fear of persecution will at last be able to live in a place of safety.
  Ms Lynne: What leads the Secretary of State to believe that amendment No. 24 will restore benefits during the appeal period? My understanding is that the Lords amendment was not voted on, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question.
  The removal of benefits has caused great controversy in both Houses, which should fully debate any regulations before they are approved. If nothing else, that is a matter

  873
  of democratic accountability. We have heard from many hon. Members that asylum seekers face destitution because, unlike UK benefit claimants, they are not allowed to work for six months. What are they supposed to do?
  It was wrong of the Government to smuggle through benefit changes in an amendment in the other place, because we are dealing with people's lives.
  Mr. Lilley: The changes were not smuggled through.
  Ms Lynne: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but why did he not come to the House with another Bill after the court ruling? That way, we would have had the chance to debate the regulations fully, in Committee and through all the other stages.
  Mr. Alton: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the processes of this Parliament. According to advice that we received today from my noble Friends Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lady Williams of Crosby, because of the pell-mell way that the Bill has been rushed through, the UK may be in breach of the European convention on human rights. Our compliance with international law is being seriously questioned. If the Secretary of State had paused, the House would have had the chance to consider the country's international obligations.
  Ms Lynne: I totally agree; that is why both Houses should have considered a proper Bill.
  The Government's only concession has been that, if an applicant is successful, his benefits will be backdated. That does not go far enough. An asylum seeker might not have any family, friends or voluntary group to provide support. Even if he does, the initial determination takes an average of eight months. Figures produced in February this year show that 10,000 applicants have been waiting since 1991. How can family, friends or voluntary groups support an applicant for that length of time?
  The right to claim asylum within three days is a minor concession for the Secretary of State to make. We are not asking much. I do not know whether Conservative Members have ever talked to torture victims. I talked to several when I was working with Amnesty International. They do not turn up at a port of entry and decide that they will tell all about what they have gone through. They are devastated about what they have gone through. They cannot speak about it. Some of them cannot speak about it for months on end. Only through counselling and various people trying to bring it out of them can they begin to talk about the horrors that they have undergone.
  When I hear some Conservative Members, I wonder where they are coming from. They obviously have no idea what Opposition Members are talking about. We are talking about humanity. We are talking about decency. We are talking about taking into account the fact that genuine asylum seekers are terrified when they turn up at the port. They are terrified of authority and people in uniform. Does the Secretary of State expect all of them to say at the port of entry, "I have been tortured. Help me"? Most of them will not be able to do that. I know that some will, but many will not.
  I sincerely urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Lords amendment for the sake of humanity and justice.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) quoted my local authority's situation. Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is currently out of the Chamber, I spoke on Second Reading, and specifically about inner-London local authorities, which would potentially be penalised by the draft benefit regulations.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I abstained in the Division on the benefit regulations on 23 January. Unlike him, though, I have been driven towards the Government's position by the Lords' three-day amendment. I am now clear—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for replying to the fax that I sent him last week—that those who claim asylum in country bestow on themselves a more privileged immigration status than those who claim at the port of entry.
  Like many hon. Members, I have had representations from the clergy—earlier, and recently. I understand the clergy overlooking falsehoods as somebody leaves the country of persecution, but I find it a little more difficult to understand the clergy overlooking falsehoods told at the port of entry here. Pragmatically, one of the strongest arguments for telling the truth is that it is a great deal easier to remember. Morally, I find falsehoods to improve one's immigration status, even if made unconsciously, distasteful.
  I have heard Opposition Members' speeches on people who are terrified of those in authority when they arrive at the port of entry here. Nevertheless, such people have been able to present their case for entering the country in a manner that has proved persuasive to the immigration authorities.
  On Second Reading, I alluded to unaccompanied refugee children and their effect on Westminster and its finances. Incidentally, those children have no difficulty at all in getting their story off pat. The Government did their best to unwoo me by their financial treatment of unaccompanied refugee children and local authorities on 26 June, but I agree that that is not a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers on the Front Bench at the moment.
  The Government could, however, do much to ease the anxiety of Conservative Members who are uneasy on these matters by giving a commitment that part of the funds that they will save from the regulations will go towards voluntary organisations that will have to provide a safety net for those in trouble. I share the Government's concern to temper the numbers of those seeking asylum without justification, but the benefit of the doubt has also played a notable part in our national evolution.
  The Government would carry these matters off with greater dignity if they provided reasonable funds to those voluntary organisations that have been and will be carrying a national burden of responsibility for us all. I shall listen closely to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says in winding up.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: With the exception of the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), listening to the speeches

  875
  emanating from Conservative Members has been one of the most nauseating experiences I have had to endure in the four short years since I was elected to this place.
  Not least was the lamentable contribution by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who began by wishing to lower the temperature of the debate, but succeeded only in lowering its tone. I refer to his disgraceful speech to make one specific point. Yet again, he made the spurious allegation that emanates from the Conservative Benches whenever the House debates this subject: that the Opposition are not concerned about bogus immigrants and asylum seekers or about reducing the costs to the public purse. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The fact that, not for the first time, the Secretary of State has significantly failed to give the House any detailed information as to the actual cost to the taxpayer engendered by bogus asylum seekers, or how many people have come off benefit lists since the changes to the system on 5 February, is irrelevant. We are not concerned with indulging anyone who makes bogus claims to be a refugee.
  I find it deeply disturbing that the Government have convinced themselves—and the Secretary of State in particular—that the absolute, total and final definition of a bogus asylum seeker is a person who has failed to apply at the port of entry, and that anyone who applies in country, without any examination in a court of law or by immigration officials, has suddenly been defined—almost under the Government's writ—as a bogus asylum seeker. That is why I support the Lords amendment, not least in the name of humanity and compassion.
  I should also make the representations that have been made to me by my constituents. The House cannot be unaware that there was yet another lobby urging hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Lords amendment. My constituency of Hampstead and Highgate has a proud reputation of offering asylum to those who have had to flee from their countries. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke of the Huguenots. My constituency offered sanctuary to people fleeing from that reign of terror in France. It has offered sanctuary to those fleeing oppressive and cruel regimes since records began.
  The Secretary of State consistently argues that there is wide popular consensus throughout the country for the proposed changes as they affect asylum seekers. Ever since the changes to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act were introduced, and even more since the changes in the benefit system as it applies to asylum seekers, my postbag has increased. My constituents are outraged by what their country is doing in their name. They are ashamed beyond belief that their reputation and the reputation of their country is being damaged by such a blinkered, cruel and appalling change to our system.
  It is not a minority of people who feel a sense of deep disgust at what is being done in their name. There is total cross-community, cross-society consensus in my constituency over this long-drawn-out episode that is resulting in the genuine degradation of human beings who suddenly find themselves bereft of any financial support. Surely they have suffered enough.
  During the debate on an earlier amendment, Conservative Members made representations—which the Minister of State, Home Office looked upon kindly—that
  876
  enforced abortions should be a reason for women to be allowed to apply for asylum here. I have a constituent who is here in London right now. She is seven months pregnant, yet she has been denied any financial support for herself and her unborn child, as she is deemed to be a bogus asylum seeker. It is shameful not only on the level of common humanity and decency, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) said this evening in a particularly fine speech.
  Hypocrisy is running rampant among Conservative Members, who are denying what I believe vast numbers of people want. This country's reputation as a beacon for what we claim to represent in this House—a commitment to justice and freedom for all—is being Tamished by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am pleased to follow that fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson).
  I shall not detain the House long, but it is right that it should be aware of the history that I shall briefly outline, involving someone currently living in my constituency who is a refugee, before we come to vote on this crucial amendment.
  The case history involves a 31-year-old Kurdish refugee from Iraq. The case is familiar to the Secretary of State, as I mentioned it during the debate on 23 January, and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, with whom I have corresponded about it. The person would, under the Government's rules, be described as a bogus refugee, but the House should be aware of the circumstances of his claim.
  The man came to this country after 10 years of appalling terror at the hands of the Iraqi regime. In 1986, he was injured when shot from the air by a helicopter, after having fled to avoid being conscripted into the Iraqi army during the Iran-Iraq war. In 1988, he was arrested, blindfolded and subjected to repeated electric shocks to his legs and genitals. He was frequently suspended from the ceiling by one leg, abused and whipped, and this torture continued for two weeks. He was made to witness the torture of others, including watching one man having his fingernails pulled out and his feet set on fire. This other man was subsequently executed. The person who is now my constituent was released after five months' solitary confinement.
  Three years later, when the Kurdish uprising took place after the Gulf war, my constituent joined the freedom fighters in their doomed rebellion. His brother, who was also involved in the rebellion, was one of 5,000 Kurds buried alive by the Iraqi forces after the rebellion had been put down. The person who is now my constituent was subsequently arrested, and was again taken to be tortured. He was again hoisted from the ceiling, and subjected to repeated electric shocks. He was kicked, beaten and forced to undergo water torture. He remained in prison for a year until March 1993, when he was once again released.
  Last year, the security police visited my constituent's home while he was away, and his uncle warned him that, if he returned, his life would be in danger. At this point, he finally realised that he had to get out of Iraq to save his life. Leaving his wife and his four young children behind, he fled across the border into Turkey, from where he was assisted on to a flight to Britain. He arrived at

  877
  Heathrow late on a Friday evening, exhausted, frightened, confused and speaking no English. He was met by friends, who took him to stay with them over the weekend and, on the Monday, helped him to make an application for political asylum.
  I do not believe that any hon. Member with a sense of humanity and decency could believe that that person was doing anything other than making a proper application for political asylum. The very fact that, under the Government's rules, he is to be classified as a bogus applicant because he delayed the application from the Friday evening to the Monday morning is an indication of just how profoundly wrong those rules are.
  In my constituents's case, because he arrived in this country before 5 February, he is entitled to benefits. To that extent, he is lucky. If he had been denied benefits, who knows whether by now he would have been forced by destitution and starvation to give up, and possibly to return to the country where he suffered such appalling torture?
  I believe that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) spoke for the whole House when he said that, although we would not want to allow bogus applicants to benefit, it would be far worse if individual genuine asylum seekers were penalised unfairly as a result of the rules being brought in. The case that I have described undoubtedly reveals that truth. Had my constituent been denied benefits and forced to leave this country and return to a country where he had been tortured and where his life had been put at risk, he would have suffered an acute injustice, for which everyone in the House would have felt deeply ashamed. We owe it to him, to this country's sense of decency and to our common sense of humanity, to support the Lords amendment, which would ensure that that individual was treated as a genuine refugee.
  Even the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) would probably accept that my constituent was a genuine refugee. It must be an indication of how profoundly wrong and shameful the regulations the Government propose are that someone in that position and with that history could be treated as a bogus refugee. We owe it to everyone to reject the Government's position and to support he Lords amendment.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Lilley: First, I must set right two concerns expressed by Opposition Members. The hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) suggested that someone arriving in this country seeking asylum is required to give details at the port of the suffering that they have undergone or their reasons for seeking asylum. All we ask is that, when such people are asked why they have come to this country, they should say that it is to seek asylum, not something totally different. There is no question of their being required to give details then and there. Of course it is right to be considerate to them if they have suffered in the ways that some hon. Members have rightly expressed concern about.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) mentioned the problems faced by people whose spouse or head of household had made a claim before the regulations came in, but who were subsequently divorced or widowed. We have tabled amendments to the Bill to cope with that difficulty, so that problem is being set right.
  878
  On the substance of the debate, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen made a weak attack on the Government's position—I suspect that it was deliberately weak—and defence of their amendments. It was deliberately weak, because the Opposition are two-faced on this issue. The politically correct face, directed towards their The Guardian reader clientele, has to express a degree of opposition to the changes that we have made, but as they recognise the concerns of ordinary voters, they want to keep quiet the cost implications of the changes that they would force.
  That is why the speech of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), offered no answers to key questions. There was no explanation of why in-country claims have fallen by two thirds since the benefit rules were changed. There was no explanation of why it is wrong to exclude from benefit 100 per cent. of those who say that they are not going to rely on benefits when they come to this country because they are here for some purpose other than to claim asylum, but right to exclude 90 per cent., because only 10 per cent. would be covered by the three-day rule.
  That seems an arbitrary point at which to put the divide, and it would probably lead to far more people claiming within those few days to get the advantages of immigration status, as my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) explained.
  We heard no explanation from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman of why it is right to set a boundary anywhere other than at the point at which people are asked whether they are asylum seekers. There were no suggestions as to how the Opposition would speed up the process, given that they are opposed to all the changes that we are introducing in the Bill, which will speed up the processing of applications. Above all, there was no explanation of where the Opposition would find an extra £270 million to extend benefits indiscriminately to all those who claim in country and on appeal. I therefore have little respect for the Opposition's position, which was marked more by sanctimonious humbug than by serious argument.
  I respect the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire was right to emphasise the importance of Britain remaining a sanctuary and a place of liberty. Like him, I warm to the points made by Dr. Perutz in his letter to The Times. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, many of the people Dr. Perutz was talking about, and most of the people about whom we are concerned, come to Britain not primarily to receive benefits, but because they know that it is a sanctuary and a place of liberty. Conservative Members are determined that we should remain that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham recognised that there were reasons why people are, and have been, advised to claim in country rather than at the port. He suggested changing the rules to remove those reasons. He wanted immigration law changed, so that people got no extra rights to appeal against deportation, and social security law changed so that applicants would bear the burden of proof.

  879
  That would require immense changes to the amendments which I doubt could be done in the time available, even if the changes were feasible. I doubt, too, whether it could done in line with the Geneva convention and not still leave considerable loopholes for people to abuse the system. I will consider closely what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot pretend that it is likely to prove possible to do what he suggested.
  I was grateful for the powerful support of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South for the measure. At an early stage, he rightly expressed concern about the impact of concentrations of asylum seekers in his constituency, and we endeavoured to respond to that concern in respect of local authorities. Of course I shall keep his points under review, but he is right to recognise that the Government have tried to achieve our desire to allow this country to be a place of refuge for those who genuinely come to seek asylum, without indiscriminately making benefits available in a costly way.
  I hope that the House will join us in rejecting Labour's amendment and supporting the changes that the Government have introduced, to make this a sensible and targeted way to help people who want to come to Britain to seek asylum.
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords
  amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 274.

  Division No. 199]

  [9.37 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Aitken, Fit Hon Jonathan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Burns, Simon

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Butcher, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Colvin, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Congdon, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Body, Sr Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bonsor, Sr Nicholas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Booth, Hartley

  Couchman, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

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

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Devlin, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dover, Den

  880

  Duncan, Alan

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacGregor, Fit Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, Sir David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garnier, Edward

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Malone, Gerald

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Merchant Piers

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Needham, Fit Hon Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  881

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thomason, Roy

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Sackville, Tom

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexfyhth)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charies (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

  Wilkinson, John

  Stern, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Wilshire, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fid)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sykes, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Callaghan, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Alton, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Chidgey, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Church, Judith

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clapham, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beith, Rt Hon AJ

  Corbett, Robin

  Bell, Stuart

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corston, Jean

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cousins, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Cox, Tom

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  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)

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

  Byers, Stephen

  Denham, John

  Cabom, Richard

  Dewar, Donald

  882

  Dixon, Don

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dobson, Frank

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

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Eastham, Ken

  Lewis, Terry

  Etherington, Bill

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loyden, Eddie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  McAllion, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fraser, John

  McFall, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McKelvey, William

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Gapes, Mike

  Madennan, Robert

  Garrett, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  George, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacShane, Denis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McWilliam, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Madden, Max

  Godsiff, Roger

  Maddock, Diana

  Gotding, Mrs Uin

  Mahon, Alice

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mandelson, Peter

  Graham, Thomas

  Marek, Dr John

  Grant Bemie (Tottenham)

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Harrnan, Ms Harriet

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harvey, Nick

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yandley)

  Heppell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mudie, George

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Paul

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North,

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoyle, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  lllsley, Eric

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Purchase, Ken

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  883

  Rooney, Terry

  Thumham, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Salmond, Alex

  Turner, Dennis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Vaz, Keith

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walley, Joan

  Short, Clare

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

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

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Soley, Clive

  Wilson, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. John Cummings.

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment agreed to.
  Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question put.:—
  The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 270.

  Division No. 200]

  [9.51 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butler, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Butterfill, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Canington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Cash, William

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bates, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clappison, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coe, Sebastian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Congden, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Davies, Quentjn (Stamford)

  884

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evennett, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Faber, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry

  Legg, Barry

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Leigh, Edward

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lidington, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Madel, Sir David

  Garnier, Edward

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gill, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mans, Keith

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marland, Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mates, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Nick

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Page, Richard

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pattje, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  885

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Richards, Rod

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Riddick, Graham

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tredinnick, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Trotter, Neville

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Walden, George

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ward, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wggin, Sir Jerry

  Spring, Richard

  Wlkinson, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Willetts, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Maccfld)

  Stephen, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stem, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sumberg, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sykes, John

  Mr. Gyles Brandreth and Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Caborn, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Hos'dale)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cann, Jamie

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Chidgey, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin-Walker, John

  Church, Judith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Battle, John

  Clelland, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Coffey, Ann

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cohen, Harry

  Bell, Stuart

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbett Robin

  Benton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corston, Jean

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cox, Tom

  Blunkett David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dafyell, Tam

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

  Darling, Alistair

  886

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jowell, Tessa

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Denham, John

  Keen, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dixon, Don

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lewis, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fatchett, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McAllion, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flynn, Paul

  McCartney, Ian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McFall, John

  Fraser, John

  McKefvey, William

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Galbraith, Sam

  McLeish, Henry

  Galloway, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Gapes, Mike

  McNamara, Kevin

  Garrett, John

  MacShane, Denis

  George, Bruce

  McWilliam, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Madden, Max

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Maddock, Diana

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mahon, Alice

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marek, Dr John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Graham, Thomas

  Martlew, Eric

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Meacher, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meale, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gunnell, John

  Mtehie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hain, Peter

  Mtehie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hall, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)

  Hanson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hardy, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mudie, George

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Margaret

  Murphy, Paul

  Hoey, Kate

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Olner, Bill

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Parry, Robert

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Primaroto, Dawn

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Radice, Giles

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rendel, David

  887

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Suteliffe, Gerry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rogers, Allan

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooney, Terry

  Trickett, Jon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vaz, Keith

  Salmond, Alex

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Watson, Mike

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Welsh, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wise, Audrey

  Snape, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. John Cummings.

  Straw, Jack

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 27 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 28, before schedule 1, to insert the following new schedule—
  New clause
    SCHEDULE— MODIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS
      PART I
        SOCIAL SECURITY (PERSONS FROM ABROAD) MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS 1996

          Preliminary
          1. In this Part of this Schedule—

          (a) "the 1996 Regulations" means the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996; and

          (b) expressions which are used in the 1996 Regulations have the same meanings as in those Regulations.

          Income support
          2. In regulation 8 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Income Support Regulations)—

          (a) paragraph (2) so far as relating to the sub—paragraph added to regulation 21(3) of the Income Support Regulations as sub—paragraph (j); and

          (b) paragraph (3)(c) and (d),

          shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.

          Housing benefit
          3. In regulation 7 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of regulation 7A of the Housing Benefit Regulations)—

          (a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub—paragraph added to regulation 7A(4) of the Housing Benefit Regulations as sub—paragraph (g);

          (b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub—paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 7A(5) of those Regulations; and

          (c) paragraph (c),

          shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.

          Council tax benefit
          4. In regulation 3 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of regulation 4A of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations)—

          (a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub—paragraph added to regulation 4A(4) of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations as sub—paragraph (g);

          (b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub—paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 4A(5) of those Regulations; and

          (c) paragraph (c),

          shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.

          General
          5.—(I) Subject to sub—paragraph (2) below, any person who is excluded from entitlement to income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit by any of the provisions which are modified by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—

          (a) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after the day on which this Act is passed; and

          (b) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after 5th February 1996 except on a claim made before the day on which this Act is passed, or an application made before that day for the review of a decision.

          (2) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply in any case where a person is entitled to the benefit in question either—

          (a) by virtue of regulation 12(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving); or

          (b) by virtue of regulations making such provision as is mentioned in section (Saving for social security regulations))(2) of this Act.

        PART II
          SOCIAL SECURITY (PERSONS FROM ABROAD) (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1996
            Preliminary
            6. In this Part of this Schedule "the 1996 Regulations" means the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.

            Income support
            7. In regulation 4 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Income Support (General) Regulations)—

            (a) paragraph (2) so far as relating to the paragraph added to regulation 21(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 as paragraph (j); and

            (b) paragraph (3)(b),

            shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into operation, on the day on which this Act is passed.

        Housing benefit
        8. In regulation 5 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations)—

        (a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub—paragraph added to regulation 7A(4) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 as sub-paragraph (g);

        (b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub—paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 7A(5) of those Regulations; and

        (c) paragraph (c),

        shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into operation, on the day on which this Act is passed

        General
        9.—(I) Subject to sub—paragraph (2) below, any person who is excluded from entitlement to income support or housing benefit by any of the provisions which are modified by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—

        (a) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after the day on which this Act is passed; and

        (b) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after 5th February 1996 except on a claim made before the day on which this Act is passed, or an application made before that day for the review of a decision.

        (2) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply in any case where a person is entitled to the benefit in question either—

        (a) by virtue of regulation 11(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving); or

        (b) by virtue of regulations making such provision as is mentioned in section (Saving for social security regulations)(2) of this Act.")

        Amendments made to the proposed Lords amendment:
        (a), in line 46, at end insert—
        `. Regulation 12(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving) shall have effect as if after the words "shall continue to have effect" there were inserted the words "(both as regards him and as regards persons who are members of his family at the coming into force of these Regulations)".'
        (b), in line 91, at end insert—
        `. Regulation 11(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving) shall have effect as if after the words "shall have effect" there were inserted the words "(both as regards him and as regards persons who are members of his family at the coming into operation of these Regulations)".'—[Mr. Burns.]
        Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.[Special Entry.]
        Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 36 agreed to.[Some with Special Entry.]
        Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Jack Straw and. Miss Ann Widdecombe; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Burns.]
        To withdraw immediately.
        Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Assisted Places
  10.8 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I beg to move,
  That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
  As hon. Members know, in 1981, we introduced the assisted places scheme for the prime purpose of opening up educational opportunities for able children from less well-off families. The Government are committed to encouraging high standards in education, wherever they are to be found. In stark contrast, the Labour party would remove those opportunities from thousands of children. Its stated intention to abolish the assisted places scheme would make independent schools the preserve solely of the rich. Labour, in its well-known way, would push away the education ladder from those talented children. The Government believe in extending choice as widely as possible, but Labour believes in choice only for the few, such as many of its Front Benchers. Many Opposition Members have received the benefit of a private education, but Labour would deny those benefits to all but a privileged few.
  Since 1981, almost 80,000 children in England and Wales have benefited from the scheme. There are now well over 30,000 pupils in the scheme, and four out of 10 pupils are fully assisted because their family income is below the threshold of £9,572 a year, and eight out of 10 are from families whose incomes are below the national average of £18,540 a year.
  We want to widen access to assisted places for parents in every part of the country. That is why we are doubling the scheme, to give twice as many children the opportunity to benefit. At present, 5,900 entry places are available each year in 300 schools in England and Wales. From September, almost 10,000 places will be available in some 370 schools. All the schools in the scheme have been carefully selected on the basis of their records of academic achievement.
  Recent independent research by the London school of economics confirms that assisted places pupils achieve better examination results than their counterparts of similar ability in maintained schools. That independent evidence shows that assisted places pupils were entered for significantly more A and AS-levels than their counterparts in the maintained sector. Assisted places pupils achieved higher total points scores than pupils in the maintained sector and their average points score per examination entry was higher than that for maintained sector pupils. Overall, the benefit of an assisted place is between 3.2 and 6.2 A-level points. Translated into grades, the advantage is between 1.5 and 3 A-level grades over all subjects taken.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Gillan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. I am trying to go through my speech as fast as possible and I do not intend to allow any interventions.
  As hon. Members know, this is the annual laying of the regulations on the assisted places scheme and, from debates in previous years, hon. Members will also know

  891
  that the amendment regulations have a specific and straightforward purpose. They simply update the principal regulations, the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995. Essentially, they implement the annual uprating of the parental contribution tables, setting out the amount that parents must pay towards a child's assisted place at a participating independent school in the coming year. If approved, the amended regulations will come into force on 25 August.
  Regulation 3 of the draft regulations permits schools to offer an assisted place to a child from the beginning of his or her compulsory education, thus extending the ladder of opportunity for many more able children. We are making places available for the first time to children in the junior and preparatory departments of some of our best independent schools. For the sake of brevity and so as not to take up too much time, I commend the regulations to the House.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Minister omitted to mention that children do better in schools that are beneficiaries of the assisted places scheme not least because, unlike many of our schools, they have smaller classes and resources such as books and roofs that do not leak. If the Minister needs any evidence of that, she has only to look at this year's report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, which shows in painful detail what happens in state schools.
  Each year we have this debate and each year the same arguments are put. This debate is perhaps the most significant since the assisted places scheme was introduced by the Education Act 1980. It was a device to underpin the newly independent former direct grant schools. Subsequently, there was a steady increase in the number of places, although they have remained reasonably constant since 1987–88. Take-up has also increased, although 13 per cent. of the places that are available still go begging. However, the increase in cost speaks eloquently. While the cost of the scheme has increased by 3,000 per cent. since its inception, the number of places has increased by only 600 per cent., which is a telling sign of educational inflation in the independent sector.
  In his wisdom, our misguided Prime Minister has announced plans to double the number of places, notwithstanding the failure to take up the slack in the scheme from the start. His proposals dovetail with his other plans to establish secondary moderns in every town. To coin a phrase: de pluribus ad minores—[Interruption.] That is a fitting epitaph for this most divisive of Governments. By such means, he hopes to put his seal on the differences between the Labour and Conservative parties. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) shows his ignorance of Latin. A rough translation of the phrase is, "From the many to the few."
  In short, the proposals are a party political manoeuvre rather than a serious attempt to deal with the educational divides in our country. They enable independent schools to choose from among our brightest youngsters, bringing money and talent within their walls. We should remember that the closure rate of independent schools was halved after the introduction of the assisted places scheme.
  892
  Perhaps there were so many closures because so many parents realised—as the Secretary of State for Wales reportedly has, according to the weekend newspapers—that good comprehensive school education made private education a waste of money.
  However, the Government set out to delude parents further, and the scheme was their answer. Now we have a further development of that illusion. Schools that were formerly deemed to be ineligible will now be able to jump on to the gravy train, joining schools that receive up to half their fees in income from the assisted places scheme. No doubt that will be seen by Conservative Members as an expansion of choice and diversity, and the Under-Secretary of State said as much today. If that is so, why did the leaflet entitled "Assisted Places at Independent Schools: A Brief Guide for Parents" say:
  "Schools choose the pupils themselves … Most schools will need your child to take an entrance exam and go to an interview."
  Schools make the choice, not parents—or certainly not working-class parents, according to Professor Tony Edwards of Newcastle university, who reckons that only 10 per cent. of assisted places scheme scholars are from a working-class background.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that the scheme is becoming increasingly popular and that it will double in size. He says that, according to his policies, £240 million will be saved if his party abolishes the scheme. However, has he forgotten that it will cost £183 million to send those children to the state system, thereby saving only a net £57 million?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to point out that, this year, 86,000 children entered the education system without any extra funding and that, next year, another 60,000 will enter it. I should like to ask him or the Minister whether the Chancellor will make available the same type of funding to those 60,000 pupils that is provided to those on the assisted places scheme. The answer is that they will not receive the same funding, because the Government have a two-tier view of education. What is good enough for the private system is not good enough for the state system.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the distinction between the state system and the independent sector, and earlier in his speech he used the word "divisive". Can he tell us whether, when the Labour party, or if the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "When or if?"] Should the Labour party have the opportunity to abolish the assisted places scheme, can he tell us how it proposes to break down the barriers between the state and the independent sectors, as he clearly believes should be done?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: We shall do it by giving half a million infants a far better education than they currently get. The answer is as simple as that.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what has been done to investigate the fraud allegations made in The Sunday Times on 12 November 1995. When the Minister trots out her statistics, will she confirm that fewer than 1 per cent. of applications are checked and whether, in fact,

  893
  schools check applications for irregularities? Will she explain how possession of large amounts of capital is disregarded in the award of places, and how a de facto step-parent is considered in assessing a family's income? Does she agree with the claim made by David Jewell, of Haileybury school, that 20 per cent. of assisted places scheme applications are—to use his euphemism—"incorrect"?
  The Sunday Times article cited the Freeman family. They had saved £30,000 for school fees, only to discover to their delight that, despite having their own building business, they qualified for an assisted place for their son. As Mrs. Freeman confided to the newspaper,
  "on paper we are not high-income earners."
  Christopher Marley was pleased that he could invest his nest egg in his business after his son, Simon, received an assisted place. Mr. Marley said:
  "the world is not a fair place."
  How true that is for children in overcrowded, under-resourced and dilapidated state school classrooms.
  The Under-Secretary undoubtedly believes that the APS has merit. Perhaps she agrees with the headmaster of Ampleforth, which is new to the scheme and who apparently believes that it will reinforce his links with his north Yorkshire community. How wrong can one be? He will select 25 "bright boys"—to use his words—for the college, which I assure him will divide the community, and that is not something I associate with the Benedictines. Other schools will, like Ampleforth, seek to replace diminishing returns from private and service applicants with assisted places. Although the assisted places scheme does not match the huge fees of many independent schemes, it is better than empty places.
  Fees paid under the APS are nevertheless generous, compared with the money allocated to state schools, for which the Government have steadily reduced funding. The Library estimates that the average cost of an assisted place in 1993–94 was £4,110, compared with £2,105 for 11 to 15-year-olds and £3,050 for over-16s in the maintained sector. Curiously, the Under-Secretary, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on 23 November 1995, put the same figures at £3,700, £2,600 and £3,600 respectively. Inflation apart, I rely far more on the numeracy of the Library than on that of the hon. Lady. Perhaps the Minister will also explain how, in 1993–94, 33,139 places were available—of which 29,747 or 97 per cent. were taken up, yet the Budget estimate of £101.6 million was the same as the outturn. Was there an unforeseen leap in the cost of places taken up? How does the hon. Lady account for such remarkable figures?
  Will the Minister explain the increasing proportion of places concentrated in schools that are already heavily dependent on the assisted places scheme? Does she agree that if the Prime Minister's fantasy became reality, many of those schools would need virtually to be wholly populated with APS pupils? What would that mean for the Prime Minister's other pie-in-the-sky plan for a grammar school in every town? There is not a cat's chance in hell of those cloud cuckoo land commitments being realised.
  There is no overwhelming demand among our constituents for such concepts, which bear no relation to the educational needs of the vast majority of pupils. 'They are political gimmicks and show little understanding of
  894
  educational priorities or of the national mood, which is why Labour is pledged to wind down the assisted places scheme. Cracks are showing even among the scheme's erstwhile supporters. Preparatory schools excluded from the APS's latest extension are calling foul play. Recipients who perceive the election of a Labour Government are looking for a new accommodation, given our implacable opposition to the scheme. Everyone in the world of education recognises our case for redirecting the APS's finances, to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 pupils or fewer.
  Mr. James Pawsey: How much will that cost?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will give him chapter, verse and line.
  At January this year, 1.3 million primary school children were in classes of 31 or more pupils. Over the past five years, class sizes have increased by 40 per cent. in the maintained sector—another five years of Toryism would add half a million to the figure to which I referred earlier, which would be intolerable.
  Mrs. Gillan: The Labour party has said that it will phase out the scheme over time. If that was done, the saving in the first year would be £5 million, which is equivalent to the cost of 200 primary teachers. How does the hon. Gentleman expect Labour to keep its pledge, because that is equivalent to one tenth of the pupils in the classes to which he refers?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I will answer the hon. Lady directly. The National Foundation for Educational Research has costed our proposals at £68 million for England. That is not a Government statistic plucked out of the air. It is based on real local education authority data and actual experimentation, as in Staffordshire. By the way, it is revealing that we have had to readjust last year's figure of £60 million to £68 million because class sizes have increased so much under the Tories.
  We believe that, by phasing out the assisted places scheme, freeing up to £23 million a year, we shall meet out target for England over three years. That will show our concern for the many whose educational start has suffered and been made much more difficult by culpable Government neglect. The Government insist on displaying that neglect in the proposals, with Ministers incapable of reading the signs of the times. I remind the Minister of what Nye Bevan once said of another misguided soul:
  "He is a man walking backwards with his face to the future."
  We are walking forwards, well fitted for the future. I ask the House to vote for the future of all our children and to reject the proposals.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I represent a constituency with very deep deprivation among tens of thousands of people, profound poverty, minimal youth facilities, the second highest youth unemployment of any constituency in England and Wales and the highest youth unemployment of all English constituencies.

  895
  The schools in my constituency are often in dire difficulty, yet three schools are scooping up millions of pounds of taxpayers' money through the assisted places scheme. Located in my deprived and impoverished inner-city constituency are three independent schools substantially and lavishly funded through the scheme: Manchester grammar school, Manchester high school for girls and William Hulme's grammar school. During the past six years, the assisted places scheme has provided those three schools with £10.819 million. In the current year, the scheme is providing them with £2.128 million. That compares with the budget, this year, for the 39 local authority schools in the state sector in my constituency of £23,957,931.
  There are 14,205 pupils in the state sector; the average amount available a head for their education is £1,685.58. The amount available for each of the 661 pupils who are beneficiaries of the assisted places scheme is £3,219.36—almost exactly double what is available to the vast mass of children in my constituency.
  Hon. Members might say that 661 of my constituents are benefiting, but of course they are not. Of the 262 assisted places pupils at Manchester grammar school, 23 live in my constituency. Of the 179 assisted places pupils at Manchester high school for girls, 33 live in my constituency. Of the 220 assisted places pupils at William Hulme's grammar school, 29 live in my constituency. So, at those schools in the heart of the inner city, 85 of my constituents are benefiting from the assisted places scheme-85 compared with the 14,205 of my constituents who attend all the other 39 state schools, yet the parents of children at state schools are paying through their taxes for 85 of my constituents whose children have been selected to attend those three schools.
  Let me make it clear that I have nothing against the three schools. I was invited to William Hulme's grammar school when Princess Anne opened a laboratory there, I was invited to Manchester high school for girls, and I was even invited to Manchester grammar school.
  Mr. Michael Lord: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I shall act in the same way as the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is a great deal more courteous than I am, so he did not do as the Minister did. I shall behave as the Minister did.
  Mr. Lord: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Kaufman: I assisted, and was thanked by, Manchester high school for girls when it was libelled by the Government's league tables and contemplated taking legal action against the Government.
  Although those three schools are in my constituency, they are not part of my constituency. They have next to no relationship with the people living around them and they have little knowledge of the poverty that surrounds them. They have affluent premises and beautiful playing
  896
  fields while Spurley Hey high school, for example, is yearning in vain to get its hands on a filled-in clay pit next to the school.
  The assisted places scheme is subsidising the cost of those three schools with money that could pay for two extra teachers in each local authority school and could have done so for the past six years.
  I have here a 14-page list of work that is necessary to restore the state schools in my constituency to a fit condition. It would cost £3,475,000 to carry out all the work that is required in the 39 schools in my constituency, yet this year they have been allocated only £263,000.
  The list includes security and anti-vandalism work, and health and safety work. There have been requests for safety film to glazing and, believe it or not, work needs to be carried out—for which there is insufficient money—to prevent an outbreak of legionella in 13 schools. Outstanding major repair work is required in many. The money that has been spent on a small number of children who do not live in my constituency could have been used to provide decent accommodation for 14,000 children in my constituency.
  The work—for which the Government have the money, but refuse to make it available—does not involve trimmings or fripperies; it includes roofing, the provision of play areas, safety services to a nursery climbing frame, security doors, fire prevention, security fencing, intruder alarms, fire alarms, dry rot repairs, waterproofing and asbestos removal. There is no money for floor renewal, the renewal of urinals and toilet cubicles, anti-vandal measures and playground resurfacing.
  Children in certain schools in my constituency—such as Gorton Brook school, a special needs school, and Stanley Grove nursery school—have been at risk of their lives because of the lack of a few thousand pounds to resurface the playgrounds, but the Government are spending £2 million this year on handouts to privileged schools that are oases of affluence in a deprived constituency.
  The other Saturday, we had a street party on the Anson estate—an area of great poverty—because of the need for a youth centre. There is an abandoned shop that we could use as a youth centre in an area of poverty, high unemployment and high crime, but we do not have the money to do that. A fraction of the money being voted tonight could solve the problems of that area.
  In a parliamentary answer, the Government have told me that there will be 50 more assisted places at the three schools. On past form, seven of my constituents' children will qualify, and £160,000 will be spent on the extra places. With that £160,000, Manchester city council could pay for all the security and anti-vandalism work that is needed in all the state schools in my constituency. It could pay for all the health and safety work, and all the anti-legionella work in my constituency. Instead of seven of my constituents' children benefiting, thousands could.
  I received a letter from Mrs. W. Bradbury on behalf of the governing body of Alma Park primary school in my constituency. She said:
  "As both parents and Governors, we are appalled to realise that year by year the environment in which our children have to learn and develop academically, socially and morally is sinking into disrepute through lack of investment. Their main resources, teachers, NNEBs and special support workers are regularly being reduced,

  897
  nation-wide in order to meet budgets. Teachers who are doing an excellent job are starved of resources and put under excessive pressure due to continuous changes in legislation.
  We feel we must express our concern and that of all Governors that through your approach"—
  meaning the Government—
  "and attitude to educational funding many of the current generation of children will have no future. Class sizes will increase, resources will be reduced, the school meals services will reduce and our schools become areas of dereliction that give no one pride in themselves or their community."
  The children of my constituents are as talented, eager and bright as all other children who are benefiting from the system, and they have the right to their chance. The Government's priorities, as demonstrated by this scheme and by the regulations, are twisted and harmful. It is my duty to vote against the Government tonight and, in doing so, I shall have the support of my constituents.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. Having heard the interesting remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and having taught at Manchester grammar school for five years between 1960 and 1965, I would like to follow his remarks about education in Manchester. I understand the figures that he has given and his argument against the assisted places scheme.
  Before I address those matters, let me remind the right hon. Member for Gorton that Manchester grammar school—in the days when I was teaching there—was a direct grant grammar school. It was, admittedly, highly selective at that time, and many hon. Members here may oppose that. It was so selective that some 2,000 young boys used to come to sit an examination, and only 200 used to get in. But socially it was totally non-selective. There was no question of fees at that time, and poor children came from all over the Manchester area. The right hon. Gentleman was right—children came from a wide area, but from all walks of life. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, because I was there and I know exactly what happened. The pupils came from as far away as Oldham, and even Southport, at that time.
  Then, Manchester grammar school, as a direct grant state school, served the very pupils it cannot serve now because it is independent, and that is because a Labour Government abolished direct grant schools. The right hon. Member for Gorton is right; fees now have to be paid if a pupil from Manchester or anywhere else wants to attend Manchester grammar school. It is still a fine school, and a selective school, but it is now a fee-paying school, and that is why he made the speech that he made. It is a pity that he did not cast his mind back to the history of that great school, which I was lucky to serve for five years. It was certainly a privilege to be there. I think that he will agree that it is a fine school and one that we can be proud of.
  I promised to be brief. All that I wanted to say about the regulations is that I have taught at schools other than Manchester grammar and have seen the benefits of the assisted places scheme. I will not deal with all the figures that have been bandied about. I am suspicious of bureaucracy and figures. I do not believe any of this nonsense, whether from the Government or from the Opposition, about £118 million—I have read the brief—or £263 million. It is all a load of hogwash.
  898
  The assisted places scheme is a success for the young people who are on it because the schools that they go to are good schools, with good teachers, who work hard outside school hours and it is a quality—[Interruption.] This is not a party point. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is laughing, but he knows that it is not a party point.
  The quality of the teaching in those schools has led to the results that we have read about in recent reports. It is all too sad that the Labour party has abandoned young people from poorer families for old-fashioned reasons, because it is anti the independent sector. The Labour party has pledged to abolish the assisted places scheme. I think that it has made a mistake—it has misjudged because it is removing known benefits to pupils from less well-off families for pie in the sky.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: As I have made clear in the House on a number of occasions in speeches on this issue, the Liberal Democrat party has no antipathy to the independent school sector, which is a valuable educational resource and one that we want to be made available to a much wider community. Indeed, as I have also said on a number of occasions, we welcome many of the areas of co-operation that exist between the state and the independent sectors. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the buts?"' I will come to those in a minute, if hon. Members can contain themselves.
  For example, we welcome the joint membership of trade unions and professional associations, the joint in-service activities that take place, the shared use of premises, and even, on some occasions, the shared teaching. All those are examples of mutual co-operation for mutual benefit.
  Conservative Members will be pleased to know that we have gone further. Recently, we made it clear that we are not in favour of removing charitable status from independent schools. We would prefer to achieve a level playing field, by including local education authority schools in the charitable status. We have also rejected the introduction of value added tax on independent school fees, which was first proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
  But—Conservative Members have been waiting for this—as I have said several times, we are not convinced that the assisted places scheme offers the best basis for co-operation between the state and independent sectors. We do not believe that it is the best way to extend mutual co-operation for mutual benefit.
  After all, whatever other arguments might be used in the Chamber, the scheme is hardly the basis for wide-scale co-operation when it deals with less than 1 per cent. of the relevant school-age population. How can a scheme that spends large sums of public money on so few people be the best way to forge effective partnerships between the state and independent sectors?
  There can be little or no justification for using public funds to prop up independent schools that would otherwise be unable to attract sufficient students—and so survive—without the assisted places scheme. It is interesting to note how the fees of several independent schools involved in the scheme have risen by considerably more than the average rate of inflation. One wonders

  899
  whether such rises result from the almost certain knowledge that they will be covered by funding from the scheme.
  It is also worrying that so few independent schools involved in the assisted places scheme are inspected. Questions from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) have recently revealed that it is unlikely that more than three independent schools will be inspected by the Office for Standards in Education over the next 12 months. It must be of great concern that the Government do not require independent schools involved in the scheme, using state school funding money, to make available scores on key stage 3 standard assessment tasks. It is difficult to know whether we are getting value for money from that use of public funds.
  There is little evidence that the assisted places scheme provides value for money, and we must ask whether the money involved could not be used to greater effect. We have some evidence that the scheme is missing its intended target. For example, research shows that 40 per cent. of parents with children on the scheme earn more than £13,000. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) pointed out, recent evidence shows that only about 10 per cent. of the parents of children on the scheme come from manual backgrounds.
  Two years ago, research showed that about 50 per cent. of parents with children on the scheme had attended independent schools. I doubt whether much has changed in the intervening two years. I would welcome a contradiction from the Minister of the evidence of two years ago that few people from ethnic minority backgrounds had received places. For those reasons and others that have been mentioned by other hon. Members, I am not convinced that the scheme is the best use of what will always be limited education resources.
  We have already heard from Conservative Members that the assisted places scheme is popular. It is hardly surprising that it is increasingly popular in some quarters. After all, many parents know that their local education authority schools are being starved of cash. Class sizes are rising; there are shortages of books and equipment; buildings are crumbling. Parents know that all those factors depress educational achievement.
  Of course parents want their children to have the benefits of smaller class sizes, more books and equipment, and better-maintained buildings. The question is whether we should find ways of investing more in our education service. I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will join my party in calling for a significant increase in investment in the education service.
  For those reasons, I am not convinced that the assisted places scheme is the best way to forge closer co-operation and make the best use of the important resource that is the independent school sector. I remind the House that it was the Prime Minister who told us that we had good state sector provision for the ablest pupils. It was the Prime Minister who said that it was those other, perhaps less able, pupils to whom we should be directing our attention. The assisted places scheme does not help us to do what even the Prime Minister says we should be doing.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: Each year we have this debate, which is extremely useful in that it shows the differences between Opposition and Conservative Members on education. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), in his short but lively contribution to the debate, said many things with which Opposition Members agree. He said that good teaching and good, well-resourced schools with bright children got good results. That was a statement of the extremely obvious. The difference between us is that the Government consider that only 1 per cent. or fewer of children should receive that good education.
  The assisted places scheme emphasises the education of the few at the expense of the many. It is an admission of 17 years of failure if, as the Minister said, the Government believe that bright children can be educated only in independent schools. Deregulation of independent schools and their inspection has removed any accountability for taxpayers' money.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said, when local education authority budgets were settled for this year, they exposed a massive shortfall of funding. Many hon. Members, not only Opposition Members, will have beaten a path to the Minister to make representations on behalf of the local authority in their area. They saw class sizes rising, buildings crumbling and books and equipment shortages. Yet the only new initiative to come from the lips of the Prime Minister was a pledge to put £100 million more into the assisted places scheme.
  Even the Government cannot claim that the assisted places scheme represents value for money. As has been demonstrated by other hon. Members, a place in an independent school, even considering the capital costs and the other costs involved in running the LEA, costs between one and a half and three times as much as a place in a maintained school. So even comparing like with like, costs in an independent school are far greater.
  When the then Minister summed up this debate last year, he said
  "Above all, the assisted places scheme offers good value for money. It produces better GCSE and A-level results than the maintained sector".—[Official Report, 3 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 110.]
  The assisted places scheme is largely intended to cream off bright children from maintained schools, so is it surprising that independent schools perform better? The Minister made a conclusion of remarkable insight last year. He was telling us that taller people can reach higher shelves.
  So are we surprised that we are paying so much more for assisted places or that the Government are not making proper checks that we are getting value for money? If the Government were genuine in their attempts to assist the brightest children, they would tackle the issue not just for the few but for the majority of children in all our schools. If the Minister was making a sincere effort to assist able and gifted children, she would insist that all schools in the maintained sector had a policy for the gifted, that proper and differentiated work went on in our schools, and that primary and secondary schools in the maintained sector had the necessary modern equipment—information technology and access to the Internet—so that those children could benefit from a varied and wide education. But instead the Government are ploughing £200 million of taxpayers' money into the independent sector.

  901
  We recognise diversity and choice, but we say that it should be available to all children within every school, not just to a few. However, we also recognise that £1 extra spent in one school is £1 less spent in another.
  The most extraordinary feature of the assisted places scheme is that the scheme has been undersubscribed for nine years out of 14. Spending on the scheme has not reached the figure that the Government projected in nine years out of 14. Parents are leaving the places empty because they are unenthusiastic about the scheme, yet the Government have decided to double the amount of money spent on it.
  Some of the 355 independent schools currently in the scheme are highly dependent on taxpayers' money. In fact, if the scheme were extended further, they could almost become private state-funded schools, but the difference is that the education that they supply costs more and no one is accountable to the taxpayer for the money spent. If the Government have their way, the taxpayer will spend more than £200 million on the assisted places scheme. More than £100 million is spent on the service boarding scheme and the funding of other schemes means that about £350 million of taxpayers' money is paid to independent schools. Yet those schools do not follow the national curriculum or conduct standard assessment tests. They do not have to give the same type of detailed information to parents as maintained schools nor are they subjected to full Ofsted reports.
  Maintained schools have to be inspected every four years and it was the original ambition of the Government that independent schools should be inspected every seven years. However, the chief inspector of schools told me recently that only three independent schools, out of nearly 2,300, will be inspected next year. I shall assist the Minister with the arithmetic and tell her that, on that basis, it will take just over 700 years to inspect all the independent schools. Yet when the chief inspector of schools appeared before the Education and Employment Committee, he admitted that the education in many of the independent schools was less than good. In answer to one of my questions, he said:
  "We have found some independent schools where the education is less than miraculous."
  Despite that the Government do not insist that those schools, which receive substantial amounts of taxpayers' money, are examined in the same way as maintained schools.
  I have staled that independent schools are more expensive. The one simple reason why education in independent schools is more expensive than in maintained schools is that most of a school's budget is spent on teachers' salaries and independent schools have considerably better teacher-pupil ratios than maintained schools. In short, independent schools have smaller classes and smaller classes get better results. The House need not take my word for it, because it can take the word of David Woodhead, the national director of the Independent Schools Information Service. In ISIS's magazine, he wrote:
  "In any survey of parents' reasons for choosing independent schools, smaller classes are mentioned amongst the most influential factors … teachers in independent schools have to teach, on average, about 60 per cent. of the number of pupils of their maintained sector equivalents."
  Most tellingly, he also says in the same article:
  902
  "If smaller classes are good enough for independent schools, they are good enough for other types of schools, too."
  I totally subscribe to that view. If we are going to find resources for smaller classes, we should find the resources for all schools.
  Like parents, we reject the Government's illogical, ill-founded notion that there is no connection between class size and children's academic performance. That is demonstrated by the money that the Government are spending on the assisted places scheme. The Labour party will replace the assisted places scheme: we will give a real chance to all pupils, whether bright or not, by using the money that is currently allocated to the scheme to reduce class sizes in early-years education. Labour Members will reflect that intention in our votes tonight.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Kilfoyle: With the leave of the House. I had not intended to speak again until I listened to the contribution by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). I commend the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I also agreed with many of the remarks by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
  The hon. Member for Norwich, North viewed the past with rose-coloured glasses. I also attended a direct grant school that was fine in some respects. However, at that school—which is now independent, like so many others—I learnt about the class divisions in society. It was not the same sort of school that the hon. Gentleman recalls from the 1950s and 1960s. I returned to speak to the old boys and I was booed and cheered in equal measure when I reminded them of the lessons that I learnt—which were not the valuable ones that one often derives from education.
  I returned also to my primary school and I pointed out that the values that have stood me in good stead throughout life were the ones that I learnt there rather than at the direct grant school. I disabuse anyone who has experience of a direct grant school of the notion that there is good and bad in every school. It is ridiculous to argue that what obtained in those halcyon days would have the same effect in this day and age.
  I put to the Minister three points arising from the debate. First, will she assure the House that the 60,000 extra children who enter the system next year will receive the same funding as the Government propose for those who will be advantaged under the direct grant scheme? Secondly, will she assure us that the scheme is not a subsidy for private schools that might not exist otherwise? Lastly, will she take seriously the allegations concerning fraud within the system?
  It is all very well to talk, as we did earlier, about people who allegedly defraud the benefit system while seeking asylum in this country. I want to know how seriously the Government will take the claim by David Jewell from Haileybury school that 20 per cent. of applications are fraudulent. Apart from conducting a cursory audit, what will the Government do about that?
  11.2 pm
  Mrs. Gillan: With the leave of the House I shall reply to the debate. I assure Opposition Members that any doubts that they may have about the assisted places

  903
  scheme are not shared by the many parents whose children have benefited, and will continue to benefit, from it under this and the next Conservative Government.
  Opposition Members claim that the assisted places scheme costs much more per pupil than maintained schooling and that abolishing the scheme would save substantial sums of money. They are quite wrong. In fact, in some parts of the country assisted places are cheaper than maintained schooling. In many inner-London local education authorities, last year's standard spending assessment unit cost for pupils aged 11 to 15 years was well above the national average assisted place cost of £3,700. For example, in Tower Hamlets it was more than £4,000; in Southwark, nearly £4,100; in Hackney, more than £4,300; and in Lambeth, nearly £4,500. Those four LEAs were among the 10 worst performing LEAs in the country in terms of the percentage of pupils who attained five or more GCSE grades A to C. We can contrast that with the benefits derived from the assisted places scheme.
  I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to a letter that appeared in The Mail on Sunday last weekend. It was from a grandmother, who wrote:
  "It disgusts me that the Labour Party intends to scrap assisted places in the top schools for poorer children if they get back in power. My grand-daughter will be one of the so-called 'minority' affected".
  She continued:
  "This would give a gifted and hard-working child the start in life that she deserves.
  Despite the insistence of Tony Blair and some of his shadow cabinet on selective schooling for their own children, they seem determined to ruin the chances for the offspring of less privileged parents."
  That is the truth behind the Labour party's stance tonight.
  The hon. Member for Walton asked where the children who are in the assisted places scheme come from. I am extremely pleased to tell him that 80 per cent. come from C1, C2 and DE families—lower middle class, skilled working class and unskilled working class. The average cost of an assisted place is £3,700. If money were everything, why was the cost of a pupil's education at Hackney Downs—a school that the Government had to close—£6,489?
  I am happy to take up the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is absolutely no evidence of widespread abuse of the scheme. Steps are already in place to detect and prevent fraudulent applications by parents for assisted places. If the hon. Gentleman knows of anybody with evidence of fraud, he should bring it immediately to my Department. Indeed, checks are carried out by my Department every year.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in an elegant speech, complained about the education in his area. Capital allocations in his area are the responsibility of the local education authority. I suggest that he asks the LEA to look at surplus places in the Manchester area. There must be savings to be made there.
  My excellent Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), in a lively contribution, made the point that the Labour party had destroyed direct grant schools.
  904
  That was an act of vandalism for which nobody will forgive the Labour party. Nobody can spin a line to my hon. Friend. He knows a success when he sees one, and he knows that the assisted places scheme is a great success.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was right when he said to me earlier that he would be making a speech that I may have heard before. I certainly had heard most of it before. I can reassure him that schools are inspected on a five to eight-year cycle. If he wants evidence of value for money, I refer him to the detailed research produced by the London school of economics, which proves the success of the scheme.
  While listening to the speech by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), I heard him argue for the abolition of independent schools. He certainly has no love for them. Perhaps this is the real Labour party and the hidden agenda is the abolition of independent schools: tomorrow, assisted places; the day after, independent schools. He said that the scheme was not taken up. This September, almost 100 per cent. of all the places on the scheme will be taken up. Overall, the take-up is 95 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman wanted assurances that the scheme was not propping up the independent sector, for which he has no love. On average, 14 per cent. of pupils go to independent schools. He made a point about pupil-teacher ratios. I have already said that the cost of Hackney Downs was two and a half times the national cost of a maintained secondary place, but on pupil-teacher ratios, the ratio was 1:8. I rest my case.
  The Conservative party supports independent schools and supports assisted places, which have provided a ladder of opportunity to able pupils from poor families. The assisted places scheme is safe in the hands of the Conservative party. I commend the regulations to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 230.

  Division No. 201]

  [11.09 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowis, John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brazier, Julian

  Alton, David

  Bright Sir Graham

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, VMan

  Carrtiss, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Churchill, Mr

  Booth, Hartley

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  905

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  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)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knox, Sir David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dover, Den

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan, Alan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  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

  Lidington, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Faber, David

  Maclean, Ftt Hon David

  Fabricant, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Madel, Sir David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Forman, Nigel

  Malone, Gerald

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Forth, Eric

  Marland, Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Amndel)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  French, Douglas

  Mates, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gale, Roger

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gallie, Phil

  Merchant, Piers

  Garnier, Edward

  Mills, Iain

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gorst, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Paice, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Pawsey, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pickles, Eric

  Hayes, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Potter, David (Waveney)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Richards, Rod

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Robatnan, Andrew

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  906

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thomason, Roy

  Sackville, Tom

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Trend, Michael

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waller, Gary

  Soames, Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spfeer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Watts, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  Spring Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittjngdale, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Stem, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Wolfson, Mark

  Streeter, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Sumberg, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Sweeney, Walter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sykes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Coffey, Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corston, Jean

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Cox, Tom

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dafis, Cynog

  Battle, John

  Dafyell, Tam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darling, Alistair

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davidson, Ian

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

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

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Betts, Clive

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

  Blunkett, David

  Denham, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Dewar, Donald

  Bradley, Keith

  Dixon, Don

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

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dowd, Jim

  Byers, Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Faulds, Andrew

  Cann, Jamie

  Flynn, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clapham, Michael

  Fraser, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clelland, David

  George, Bruce

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  907

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Jowell, Tessa

  Graham, Thomas

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Keen, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Grocott, Bruce

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gunnell, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Hain, Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Hall, Mike

  Livingstone, Ken

  Hanson, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Hardy, Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Loyden, Eddie

  Harvey, Nick

  McAllion, John

  Henderson, Doug

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Heppell, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hinchliffe, David

  McFall, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  McKelvey, William

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Home Robertson, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Hood, Jimmy

  McMaster, Gordon

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  McNamara, Kevin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  MacShane, Denis

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  McWilliam, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Madden, Max

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Maddock, Diana

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mahon, Alice

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Marek, Dr John

  Hutton, John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Illsley, Eric

  Martlew, Eric

  Ingram, Adam

  Maxton, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Meacher, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Meale, Alan

  Jamieson, David

  Michael, Alun

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  908

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Snape, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pope, Greg

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vaz, Keith

  Quin Ms.Joyce

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Joan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reid, Dr John

  Watson, Mike

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rendel, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Short, Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy and Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

  Contracting Out
  11.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I beg to move,
  That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The orders will allow local authorities greater freedom to use the private sector for specific service provision, if they so wish. The Local Government Act 1972 allows an authority to delegate most of its functions to a committee or officer. However, without a specific power, functions may not be delegated further to any other person. As a result, this could exclude those functions from being exercised by a contractor.
  The orders will help to address that situation in two ways. The first is concerned with the contracting out of local taxation billing, collection and enforcement functions and the second with local authority investment functions. The aim is to clarify for local authorities their discretion to use a contractor for service provision in those specific areas.
  The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order is intended to clarify an authority's powers to contract out its billing and its collection and enforcement functions on council tax, community charge and national non-domestic rates. The order will enable most of the statutory functions relating to billing and to the collection and enforcement of local taxes to be delegated to a contractor, if the authority so wishes.
  There are, of course, some exceptions. Local authorities have certain powers to instigate firm action against those who do not meet their legal obligations. Those actions include applications for the committal of a debtor and the imposition of civil penalties—powers that should remain the exclusive territory of authorities. Therefore, the order does not allow the delegation of those powers to a third party. Decisions to reject an individual's appeal against council tax liability and to pass it to a valuation tribunal, and whether discretionary relief should be applied on non-domestic rating, will also remain the responsibility of the local authority.
  The second order will clarify a local authority's powers to contract out functions relating to investment. The order will set in place some good practice principles. It relates to a range of investments, but they must be approved investments under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Approved investments have been used for the investment of local authority funds over the years, and they provide a sound basis for the order.
  Contractors will have to be suitably qualified. They must follow proper investment and accounting practices and comply with local authority instructions. They will not be able directly to sub-delegate decisions on functions. While the order does not prohibit a contractor from
  910
  making an arrangement for the exercise of functions by another person, I have insisted that, where such an arrangement is made, the other person must be approved by the local authority directly. Contractors will be obliged to make three-monthly reports to the authority and to provide any information that the authority may request.
  The orders will regularise and clarify the current situation and will provide a helpful addition to local authorities' existing powers. They are aimed at helping authorities achieve the very best and most efficient service provision and management of their resources on behalf of local taxpayers. I commend them to the House.
  11.24 pm
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: The Opposition do not oppose the orders, because they enable local authorities to contract out but do not force them to do so. With that level of discretion, authorities will be able to make decisions according to what they think will provide the best value to local taxpayers.
  However, several issues arise out of the orders, which I ask the Minister to consider. We are anxious that the Government do not use them as a means to compulsion via the back door. Compulsion has not worked in local government, and the most effective relationships between local government and the private sector have been established when they have been entered into on a voluntary basis of partnership. That is how we think matters should proceed in future, so that local government's public ethos can operate alongside the private sector's efficiency and market-driven efforts.
  I am not a sceptical person, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am sure that you know. However, one wonders what relationship there is, in particular, between the contracting out of the tax billing, collection and enforcement functions and other proposals made by the Minister several weeks ago and a current consultation process. Those consultative proposals advocate the extension of the proportion of financial services that local authorities will be forced to put out to tender from 35 to 65 per cent. Some authorities would have no choice but to contract out the tax billing, collection and enforcement functions if those proposals are approved.
  Those who are cynical or sceptical might regard the proposals as only appearing to be voluntary, whereas, in the long or medium term, the Minister might make them compulsory by means of the proposals that he announced several weeks ago, forcing local authorities to contract out those functions. The draft order was put out to consultation in 1994, and we are now in 1996. Perhaps something that will happen before 1997 may have caused the Government to lay the orders now.
  As I said, I am not a cynical person, and I am sure that an impending general election has nothing whatever to do with the Minister's decision. However, while we are not opposing the order, because we believe that local authorities should be able to secure the best value for local people by using the mechanisms that are most appropriate to local circumstances, we oppose the extension of compulsion for the reasons that I have mentioned. Local governments must be able to bring together the important stakeholders in any area to ensure that they are working effectively in response to the needs and aspirations of local people. Compulsion does not enable that close working relationship. Local government wants to develop

  911
  real partnerships and the means of working with the private and voluntary sectors. Compulsion is stopping good, healthy relationships developing.
  As to confidentiality and public responsibility, vast amounts of information will be available to the contractors who bill council tax and bring enforcement proceedings in the case of non-payment—and it offers the potential for abuse. It is crucial that the Government make it clear that that activity must be kept separate from any others of a company bidding for a contract. Large utility companies are already seeking mergers with others, and may want to know whether an individual is a good payer. They could obtain that information from council tax collection, which could affect their decision to make other services available to the individual in question.
  Such a practice would not be legal or proper; nor would it uphold the standards that we expect of publicly accountable local government officers. I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that confidential financial information obtained by a contractor will not be used for any other purpose without the individual clearly giving permission.
  What comments has the Minister sought from organisations interested in confidentiality and related matters? Has he received advice from the Office of Data Protection? We must be confident that the public's right to privacy is properly protected.
  Contractors should be expected to comply with a national code of practice. The public are vulnerable, and we want an assurance that any organisation performing the functions in question will respect the sensitivities that will be involved and will use its powers responsibly. That means the provision of appropriate and accessible collection points, methods of payment most appropriate to the individual and giving advice on meeting payments to people on low incomes. I note from the order that a contractor will be responsible for collecting the liabilities of a deceased person. When such a duty is not performed carefully, incredible offence and distress can be caused to the bereaved family of the deceased from whose estate the council tax is sought. How will the Government ensure that the sensitivity for which a public body can be held accountable will be observed?
  The contracting out of investment functions is a slightly different matter. Local authorities have been asking for such a measure for some time. Four to five years ago, the Government questioned whether local authorities had the power to delegate investment management on superannuation funds. They subsequently legislated to clarify local authority powers in relation to the delegation of investment management on superannuation funds but did not do anything about the delegation of everyday general fund cash management. Many local authorities assumed that they had such general powers already, but it became clear that some people questioned it. Local authorities have therefore been asking for some time for the matter to be clarified and for specific powers to delegate cash management. In many senses, it is therefore welcome that the Department is now responding to such requests.
  Having issued the draft order, the Government found that some authorities that they assumed would be covered by it, such as joint police, fire and passenger transport
  912
  authorities, were not because of the definition of a local authority in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Government will have to address that omission at some stage. It seems somewhat perverse that, having worked out that those authorities were not covered by the order, the Government have not subsequently sought a means to ensure that they will be. I understand that the Department has stated that it has no intention of changing the legislation any further unless another opportunity comes along. I would have thought that the Government could have found a way in which to ensure that the order covered joint bodies as well as local authorities as defined under the Act.
  I hope that the Government are able to give some assurances, especially on the confidentiality of tax billing and the fact they will not be able to introduce the white collar proposals this side of a general election, which is how I read the situation. I also hope that they are prepared to consider the case for contracting out investment functions that is being made by the joint authorities that cover police, fire and transport.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I shall not detain the House for long, because I am only too well aware that doing so late at night when the Opposition have said that they will not divide the House is the best way in which to make oneself deeply unpopular in this place.
  The orders warrant a small amount of comment because they would allow councils to choose who is best able to carry out two more functions. Indeed, the orders could be used by some councils to invite competitive bids to test the market. My 11 years as a councillor persuaded me that choice, market testing and the use of contractors ensure the best possible service for local people and the lowest cost for local taxpayers—if the activity is fair and honest. That is a big if.
  Events in my county of Surrey, which represent at best sloppy management and at worst criminal conspiracies, make me want to speak in this debate. I have studied the orders with particular care because of what has happened, and I shall briefly explain what bothers me about those events. Those who saw "Panorama" last week will have seen how a council can use powers such as those that we are being asked to grant tonight to cook the books. For example, Surrey was obliged by order to put a number of services out to contract. In respect of highway maintenance, the contractors were informed that the roads were longer than they actually were. Therefore, the council received high bids. It then bid for the right length of road and, not surprisingly, won the contracts.
  What "Panorama" revealed last Monday was the tip of the iceberg. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to join me in rooting out corruption in Surrey or anywhere else. If more information comes to light, will he join me in ensuring that all such matters are thoroughly investigated? I hope that what happened then cannot happen in respect of tonight's orders. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me that tonight's orders provide adequate powers of internal audit and external check, so that when we grant a local authority certain powers, they are transparent, and so that it is easy to ensure that not only the law, but the spirit of competition and contracting out is observed. Thus those of us who believe in that process can be sure that it operates fairly and honestly.
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Chris Davies: I shall be brief; perhaps my throat infection will ensure that my speech is even shorter than I intended.
  The orders enable local authorities to contract out certain functions. The word "enable" shapes my approach, which would be different if they attempted to force local authorities to contract out their services. However, I share the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) about the possibility of the orders becoming a precursor to compulsion.
  The Liberal Democrats are deeply committed to the principle that decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level. We have always believed that locally elected representatives should ensure that the people whom they represent receive the services that they need and provide those services in the most appropriate circumstances.
  I hope that all hon. Members agree that the vast majority of local authorities strive—and always have done—to ensure that services are delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is why we object—and have done so in the past—to the imposition by the Government of compulsory competitive tendering, as it represents an unacceptable degree of control. It has proved a key element in the centralisation of power in the past two decades. Functions have been removed from local government, allowing central Government to dictate to local government and prevent it from exploring its own unique solutions.
  Few hon. Members know better than I do that it is possible for a local authority to fall victim to a Frankenstein monster of its own creation. Some 15 years ago, I had the experience of inheriting a direct works department, where the employees and their trade union representatives put their own interests before those of the people and the council. The political circumstances at the time meant that I did not have the power to transform or to slay the monster.
  That is why I believe that central Government should impose a general duty on local government to demonstrate publicly that services are provided in the most efficient and effective manner. However, we take a different approach from that of the Government. They are the only Government in Europe who force local authorities to undertake competitive tendering rather than giving them the freedom and the opportunity to do so.
  914
  The orders represent a welcome change, however, as they provide local authorities with opportunities and enabling powers without an element of compulsion. Therefore, in principle, we have no objection at all to the orders, but I hope that the Minister will address in his response the serious and detailed concerns that have been raised during the debate.
  11.44 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: I ought to touch first on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is soon to be a Surrey colleague. I have a keen interest in that matter being sorted out, and it has become a territorial interest. There are adequate police processes, and the fact that those people are being rooted out is a sign of that. Fraud occurs not just in the private sector—it occurs in-house. When one considers the vast amounts being spent by local authorities with or without contractors, the percentage that turns out to be fraudulent is very low. Incompetence is another story.
  The hon. Members for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) and for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) referred to compulsion, but there is none. The measure has been out for discussion for 18 months, and local authority response has been almost blank. I think that a total of 12 responses have been received over the whole 18 months, and local authorities are not concerned about it.
  I accept the point that the hon. Lady made about confidentiality, which is vital, as the Government and the local authorities accept. Contractors will be covered by the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1988, exactly as local authorities are. Information obtained specifically for the purpose of local tax collection cannot be used for any other purpose, and contractors must observe the same strict regulations on local government taxation as local authorities. I hope that, with that assurance, the House will accept the orders.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

  Local Government (North-east Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: My contention in this debate is to assert and demonstrate that councils in north-east Scotland are being unfairly treated in relation to the rest of Scotland. North-east councils are delivering vital services to a growing population with fewer resources than the Scottish average. North-east councils account for 9.74 per cent. of the population of Scotland—that is growing rapidly—while the Government's support for north-east councils represents only 9.05 per cent. of the total to Scottish councils, a figure that is falling.
  In the circumstances, I find it gratuitous and insulting that inexperienced Ministers should attack north-east councils for profligacy, when, year on year for many years, those councils proved themselves the most efficient, not only in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch)—who is to reply to the debate—has criticised Grampian region, the main predecessor council. May I remind him—and the other Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson)—that Grampian regional council was assessed as the best council in the UK for its efficiency and value for money? PA Management Consultants, on behalf of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, gave it the prize throughout the United Kingdom for its total quality management performance. That is a record of which it has every reason to be proud, and I believe that Ministers ought to give the council credit rather than make gratuitous criticism.
  The new councils have had very little time to prove themselves. In spite of that, Aberdeen city council has the lowest council tax of the four cities in Scotland, and Aberdeenshire and Moray have respectively the third and fourth lowest council tax rates on the mainland. In fact, the three lowest rates of council tax on the mainland are in the three councils with Liberal Democrats in the administration—Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, and Aberdeenshire. Yet, in spite of low council taxes, north-east councils have continued to support and develop local services. That is, until now. This year, as a direct result of the Government's miscalculation of the cost of reorganisation and the inadequate real funding that they have made available, most developments have come to a halt, vital services are being cut, and charges are being hiked.
  Councillors and council officials, who are rightly proud of their record in providing good-quality, value-for-money services to their local communities, are angry and frustrated at what they are having to do, because the Government have failed to provide adequate money to maintain services. All the councils are seeking and finding substantial efficiency savings, but they go nowhere near meeting the budget reductions, and many of them are short term and will lead to long-term damage of the services they offer.
  Based on what was spent last year, councils have had to cut expenditure by an average of nearly 10 per cent in cash terms, and, in the present economic climate of low
  916
  inflation, that sort of cut means cutting through the red meat and well into the bone. If the Ministers have questions about that, I can give some detail as to exactly what it means for their constituents as well as mine, although they show rather less concern for the impact than I do.
  In Aberdeenshire, the financial settlement and the grant-aided expenditure required a spending reduction on last year's budget of £25.565 million or 9.8 per cent. The city of Aberdeen recorded a reduction of £24.5 million. The situation between the city and the rural authorities was aggravated by a transfer by mismatch, which will mean that it will be worse for the city of Aberdeen next year, and the authorities are already expressing concern about the implications.
  Aberdeenshire council has said that, simply to meet the capital budget, it will have to find assets to sell of £7.85 million, because it will be allowed to retain only 75 per cent. of the proceeds, and £5.9 million is the realisable, usable, capital receipt it needs.
  On the budget of £235 million, the capital commitment left is £3.564 million, which is totally and hopelessly unrealistic for an organisation of that size. Indeed, it is barely sufficient to meet the council's legal obligations, such as fire precaution works, social work institutions, cemetery extensions, accommodation of overcrowded schools and other mandatory grants. It puts beyond any reasonable calculation for the foreseeable future the provision of a Garioch academy, which our growing school rolls necessitate and for which the outgoing council had the good sense to acquire a site.
  The city of Aberdeen has identified cuts. First, on administration, it has rationalised staffing structures at a cost of £2.8 million. It has cut the funding for supplies to schools by £1.9 million, which is a substantial amount. It has reviewed the eligibility for school transport above the statutory minimum requirement—I will return to that—introduced charges for the use of leisure and recreation facilities, additional charges for music tuition and charges for the use of educational establishments, and has increased the cost of school meals by four times the rate of inflation. It has also put up the cost of meals on wheels.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): That was the council's decision—it was disgraceful.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is not replying to the debate or taking part in it, and I should be grateful if he would let me develop my argument in my own way. Indeed, if he interrupts, he will intrude on the time of his colleague the other Under-Secretary of State, who wants to reply to the debat.
  I am demonstrating that there have been real cuts in real services used by real people, who voted for those services and have had them for many years. Those cuts are not being implemented by councillors who were elected to make them or who believe in them. They are being forced to do it. No one is denying that councils can always review what they do and find savings—councils have done. However, it is absurd for Ministers to suggest that the scale of the shortfall can be anywhere near met by efficiency savings.
  In Aberdeenshire, the education budget accounts for more than half of council expenditure. Non-exam swimming has had to be cut altogether, which is

  917
  controversial and the council does not wish to do it. There has been a reduction in supply staff. [Interruption.] That the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South should find that funny is a fair indication of just how callous a Minister he is and how uncaring he is about the services that his constituents require and for which they voted.
  Supply staff have been cut, which increases pressure on permanent teachers. Transport above the statutory minimum for travel to schools has had to be reviewed. A complete halt has been proposed on staff and curriculum development, which should have concerned the hon. Gentleman as Minister responsible for education.
  School meals charges have been raised. Some community education centres have been closed, while others have had their hours restricted at exactly the times when community groups are likely to want to use them. There has been a reduction in funding for schoolchildren to travel out of their schools and reduced support for playgroups, and no new nurseries have been opened.
  It is a little rich that local Members of Parliament who are Ministers should turn up to support demonstrations on issues that arise out of those cuts. I saw the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South standing among a group of parents demonstrating about the travel-to-school reduction. He chose to champion those people. It is understandable that those people feel the way they do; I have no problem with that. He refuses to accept any responsibility for his Government's policy of reducing the funding, miscalculating the reorganisation costs and forcing councils to review services that they developed and that were not required by statute.
  The same applies to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside in respect of his support for the opening of a nursery school in Newtonhill. No one would like that nursery to open more than me—except perhaps the parents of Alford, which was ahead of Newtonhill in the objective assessment of need. It is ridiculous for a Minister not to acknowledge that councils in these circumstances have to stop all new developments to protect the core services they already provide.
  It was because the council had a policy of development that, when the new school in Newtonhill had to be rebuilt because of subsidence, it decided to incorporate a nursery class. It wished to ensure the continued development of nursery education. Unfortunately, it was unable to fund that, because the local Member of Parliament became the Minister responsible for local government, and provided the council with funding inadequate to carry out the project. He knows that to be true.
  The record of Grampian regional council in developing nursery education is second to none in Scotland. It was only when the Conservatives were removed from office that the policy of developing nursery schools took off. Nursery school development was consistently frozen while the Conservatives were in control of the council. They never believed in it, funded it or provided it.
  Other controversial cuts have been made. The council has shown that it is responsive to local pressures on matters such as the pool at Stonehaven. It has given the community an opportunity to find other ways of funding it. It has reviewed the warden charges in sheltered housing because of concern about those affected by it. Nevertheless, it is cutting home helps, and cutting voluntary services across the board. It is cutting a variety of services that the entire community regards as essential.
  918
  In such circumstances, Ministers would serve their constituents better if they were prepared to turn up and fight constructively for the resources the services need, and recognise that we have cost-effective councils that have delivered those services efficiently over many years. The councils would like constructive engagement about improving efficiency, if Ministers have constructive ideas. They do not want megaphone abuse that does not tie in with their records. Those Members should fight in government for their constituents to get a fair crack of the whip. Instead of fighting for their own communities, they are the very instrument of savaging the quality services built up over recent years. What is the point of having local Members of Parliament in government if this is the way in which they behave?
  I refute the Government's claims that this year's settlement is adequate. Almost all the extra money was eaten up by reorganisation costs, which were underestimated, by care in the community transfers and by priority allocations for police, fire and the courts. On the Government's own calculation, the provision for roads, environmental services, planning, leisure, recreation and the urban programme was cut. The Government cut the allocation to them, and presumably wanted those services to be cut, but they have never owned up to it in any publicly acknowledged way. The cuts were based on a miscalculation of what was actually spent, and they are even deeper in reality than was at first thought.
  The situation will get worse unless the Government rethink their policy. Ministers talk of local government as if it was a thing apart. In fact, councils deliver services that most people use every week, and on the whole they do it well. It is the Government's own mismanagement that is to blame, as is the fact that they have removed councils' independent financing in order to put the bite on them.
  Local services efficiently and cost-effectively delivered, which Ministers' and my constituents voted for, valued and until now enjoyed, are now under threat. I contend that those local services are not safe in Tory hands. The voters know that. That is why there are no Tory councils in Scotland and very few Tory councillors.
  Now, we need fewer Tory Members of Parliament and no Tory Government, because it is clear, unless the Minister changes his tune in reply to the debate, that a recognition of what people want and have voted for and the requirement that those services be properly delivered requires a rethink of the way in which the Government fund local authorities. They must give them more access to their own finance, and a more realistic financial settlement. Otherwise, good-quality services will continue to be cut, and something that has been built up over the years, of which the north-east people are proud, and which people move to the north-east for, will be put at risk.
  I hope that the Minister can give me a reply tonight that will assure me that that will not be the case.
  12.1 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on his success in securing this debate. As he said, I have a dual interest in the topic of tonight's debate; not only as the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for local

  919
  government, but, like the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament with a constituency in the north-east of Scotland.
  I am delighted to see tonight the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), in his place to show his interest on behalf of his constituency in the debate tonight, and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in her place.
  The hon. Member for Gordon has been very vocal, both tonight and in the past few months, in his criticism of the Government over the financial position facing the three new councils in the north-east, and particularly the position of Aberdeenshire, within which my constituency and his lie. That shows his total lack of understanding of local government finance, but that is something that I would expect of the hon. Gentleman, who seems more interested these days in matters south, rather than north, of the border. I reject his criticism, and during the next 10 minutes or so, I shall try to explain why.
  I start by reminding the House of the key features of the overall 1996–97 local government finance settlement. This year's overall settlement provided, first, for an increase of 2.3 per cent. in the level of Government-supported expenditure, which is the Government's view of what authorities need to spend to pay debt charges and to deliver services. This increase of 2.3 per cent. is before any account is taken of the scope for efficiency savings.
  Secondly, the settlement provided for an increase of 3.6 per cent. in the level of Government support. This increase of 3.6 per cent. compares with 2.8 per cent. for England and 2.7 per cent. for Wales. In cash terms, the increase in the level of Government support for Scottish authorities is more than £186 million, which is almost £65 million more than the formula consequences of the English settlement.
  As a result of this generous settlement, the level of Government-supported expenditure for Scottish authorities is now 30 per cent. higher per head of population than the comparable amount for English authorities, and the level of Government support for Scottish authorities is no less than 44 per cent. higher than that for English authorities.
  If Scottish local authorities ever found themselves in the unfortunate position advocated by the hon. Member for Gordon, of looking to a Scottish Parliament for their financial support, it is most unlikely that they would ever receive a settlement which was £65 million more than the Barnett formula consequences of the English settlement. That is the measure of the extent to which this year's settlement was, in fact, an extremely generous one.
  I shall be specific about what the 1996–97 settlement has meant for the three councils formed out of the former Grampian region area. For Aberdeen city council, the settlement permitted an increase in expenditure of £8.8 million, or 4.35 per cent., over its notional 1995–96 budget. But that, it said, was inadequate: it wanted to increase expenditure by around £33 million, or more than 16 per cent.
  For Aberdeenshire council, the settlement permitted an increase of £14.8 million, or 7.34 per cent., over its notional 1995–96 budget. Again, it said that that was
  920
  inadequate: it wanted to increase spending by £40 million, or nearly 19 per cent. That is despite the fact that senior officials, in the past 10 days, have confirmed to my officials that the notional budget figure was a fair starting point. For Moray council, the settlement permitted an increase of £4.3 million, or 5.06 per cent., over its notional 1995–96 budget. Once more, we were told that that was not enough: it wanted to increase spending by £12 million, or 14 per cent.
  At a time when inflation is expected to remain below 3 per cent. throughout this year and local authorities are expected—like the rest of the public sector—to fund any pay increases from efficiency savings, those three councils claim that they needed to increase expenditure by 16, 19 and 14 per cent. I find that absolutely astonishing, and I suspect that council tax payers throughout the area are greatly relieved that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, notwithstanding his general desire to devolve power to local authorities, decided to retain his power to cap local authorities.
  The hon. Member for Gordon referred to Newtonhill nursery in my constituency. He seems to be more concerned about matters in my constituency than in his own. If he is not worrying about Stonehaven hospital, he is worrying about Newtonhill nursery. That nursery has been built and equipped, but, sadly, not opened. That, we are told, is one of the consequences of Aberdeenshire council having to cut its education budget by £11.5 million.
  I note, however, from the council's own leaflet that it has increased its education budget by virtually £2 million over last year's level, from roughly £108 million to £110 million. I take it that, if the council had not made cuts of £11.5 million, it would have pitched its education budget £11.5 million higher—an increase of 12.5 per cent. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is making comments from a sedentary position. He shows his total lack of understanding of financial matters, but I would expect that from the Liberal Democrats. I find it astonishing that any council would dare to suggest that it needed to increase spending by 12.5 per cent. at a time when inflation is below 3 per cent.
  The council might have been better advised to spend the £26,000 that it spent this year on producing a new logo on opening the new nursery class at Newtonhill. I suspect that the children in the nursery would have been only too happy, and able, to design the council's new logo for it.
  Given the generosity of the settlement and the specific assistance for particular areas, one might be excused for wondering why there has been so much talk of councils having to make cuts in their level of service provision. I can assure the House that it is not because we made an inadequate settlement, nor is it a direct result of reorganisation per se. It is wholly due to the irresponsible actions of the outgoing councils over the past couple of years, and particularly during their last year of tenure.
  It has been clear since the old councils across Scotland set their last budgets, in March 1995, that they were storing up problems for their successors. They budgeted to spend some £140 million from balances rather than fund pay rises from efficiency savings. At that time, the new councils stood to inherit balances totalling £45 million.

  921
  However, the enormity of the old councils' disregard for the plight of the new councils has become clearer as time has passed. It now appears that the old councils went far further even than they had planned. The new councils have inherited a collective deficit of £11.5 million. So, having set out to spend £140 million from balances last year, the outgoing councils actually spent about £200 million. In so doing, they have handed over the legacy of an artificially high level of expenditure. It is artificial in the sense that it could not possibly be sustained by the new councils, even with an extremely generous settlement.
  Further confirmation of the irresponsibility of the old councils is now available. Provisional outturn expenditure figures for the outgoing councils demonstrate that they spent some £143 million more during 1995–96 than they budgeted to spend at the start of the year.
  I concede that budgeting is not, and cannot be, a precise exercise. However, when I examined the figures for the past 10 years, I found that the local authorities had never overrun their budgets by more than 0.9 per cent. Indeed, they underspent on several occasions by between 1 and 2 per cent. Last year's overspend of £143 million represents an overspend of 2.5 per cent., and is some £100 million more than the 'worst overspend in the past 10 years.
  Therefore, the difficulties that the new councils face are the fault of the outgoing councils, not of the Government. There is absolutely no doubt that the difficulties that Aberdeenshire—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would shut up and listen for a moment—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hour may be late, but I still expect certain standards of courtesy and we are falling below them.
  Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little more patient and listen, he will hear what I have to say about the north-east. There is absolutely no doubt that the difficulties that Aberdeenshire and the other new councils in the north-east have faced over their revenue budgets are a direct result of irresponsible action by Grampian regional council.
  I suppose that one could suggest that we should have some sympathy for the new councils—and I concede that I might feel that way in certain circumstances. However, that is certainly not the case when—as with Aberdeenshire--the new administration comes from the same stable as the old. This is where the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal Democrat, gets slightly embarrassed.
  Grampian region was controlled by a Liberal Democrat alliance, and so is the new council. Senior officials in the new council also served in the Grampian region. Both councillors and officials knew that they were taking action last year that was bound to have an adverse impact on Aberdeenshire council—the phrase "chickens coming home to roost" springs to mind. That experience of extravagant prodigality by local authorities—
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Kynoch: No, I will not give way.
  Extravagant prodigality by local authorities controlled by the Opposition parties is one of the reasons—
  Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is attacking officials who have no right of reply. Is that in order? Would he do it to his own civil servants?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Kynoch: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  That experience of extravagant prodigality by local authorities controlled by the Opposition parties is one reason why we on Conservative Benches oppose a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. It would become a focus for the same high-taxing, high-spending aberrations as we have seen in local government—many of its members would almost certainly be drawn from the ranks of Opposition councillors. With a weapon such as the tartan tax at its disposal, it would wreak havoc upon Scottish taxpayers, jobs and the economy.
  If the hon. Gentleman has complaints about the funding of the new councils—particularly Aberdeenshire—he should direct them not at the Government, but at the members of his party who were part of the administration of Grampian regional council that took totally irresponsible action last year in relation to current expenditure.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to capital expenditure. As he will be aware, last year local authorities were entitled to make forward commitments totalling some 70 per cent. of the 1995–96 allocations. Authorities in the Grampian area made commitments far in excess of that, and now face a major problem in having to account for how they will recover from that over-allocation. Last year, they over-committed by 75 per cent. on the 70 per cent. allocation.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Show us the figures.
  Mr. Kynoch: I shall give the hon. Lady the figures. At the end of last year, the new councils said that they would inherit commitments from Grampian of just under £16 million. Three or four months later, according to the new councils' figures, they had inherited commitments of £35 million. My right hon. Friend had guaranteed to meet £20 million. It is clear that, in the last few months of its existence, Grampian chose to place its successors in a position of having to meet commitments which it knew that my right hon. Friend could not meet. I do not think that that was responsible financial management by the outgoing councillors.
  Underlying the debate on local government expenditure is a more fundamental issue. The Opposition parties have never come to terms with accountability for spending what they inaccurately call "public money". As we on Conservative Benches have often pointed out, and will continue to reiterate, there is no such thing as "public money". There is only taxpayers' money. The stewardship of taxpayers' money is a moral responsibility.
  Unfortunately for taxpayers in Aberdeenshire and the rest of Scotland, the Opposition parties have not yet matured sufficiently to replace a propensity to squander with a culture of stewardship. Unless and until they embrace that culture of stewardship, they will remain unfit to govern locally or nationally. The Government will continue to fight for the taxpayers' and for Scotland's

  923
  interests by pursuing policies of responsible financial stewardship based on respect for the rights of our citizens, whose money we have a duty to manage with punctilious care.
  The hon. Gentleman has shown that he totally misunderstands the situation in the north-east of Scotland. Central taxation funding, which comes through Government support, has been greater than ever before. The hon. Gentleman cannot accept that his party in the local authority of Aberdeenshire has, in the years when it was in Grampian region, been unable to budget and spend as much as it told the electorate it was budgeting for. It has overspent, used up resources, sold assets, sold the family silver, so that it could keep the council tax at such a level that his party could face its electorate.
  Now chickens are coming home to roost. The Liberal Democrats have to account to their electorate, because they now control the new local authority, and they now have to make cuts from a wish list that they had in the
  924
  past. Had they had their house in order over the past few years, they would have been able to manage without making cuts. Had they got their priorities right and not frittered some of the expenses which they have, on issues such as cycle paths or new logos, I believe that they would have been able to open nurseries, or to maintain transport for pupils to learn to swim.
  Those are issues that the Liberal Democrats in particular have shown that they are totally incapable of managing in local government. I believe that the Government have done their bit to smooth the path for the local authorities, to try to ensure, by giving them significantly more than what flows through from the English settlement—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum seekers claimed asylum(a) at port of entry, (b) within three working days of arrival in the United Kingdom and (c) within 14 working days of arrival in the United Kingdom. [36655]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  During 1995, there were 43,965 applications for asylum submitted in the United Kingdom, of which 14,410–33 per cent.—were made at the port of arrival and 29,555–67 per cent.—were made after entry. During the first six months of 1996, 14,860 applications for asylum have been submitted with 36 per cent. being made at ports and 64 per cent. made in country.

  Information regarding the length of time between arrival date and application date, for those who applied for asylum in the United Kingdom after having been previously granted leave to enter or remain under another section of the immigration rules, is given in the table.

  Average time taken1 to apply for asylum by persons2 previously granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom under another section of the Immigration Rules, 1995 and January to June 1996

  Percentage

  Period of time between arrival and application

  1995

  1996 (January-June)

  Within 3 days

  10

  5

  Between 4 and 14 days

  15

  15

  Over 14 days

  75

  80

  Total

  100

  100

  1 Estimated and rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  2 Excludes those in-country cases for which arrival dates are not known.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual expenditure of his Department, including administrative expenditure, on the Isle of Wight; and what was the cost of the 1992 general election in respect of the Isle of Wight. [36916]

  Mr. Howard
  Expenditure from the Home Office votes in respect of the Isle of Wight in 1994–95—the latest year for which final outturn figures are available—was £51,619,183.

  The overall cost of the parliamentary election for the Isle of Wight constituency at the 1992 general election was £83,260.78. That total includes a sum of £27,942.44 for the cost of delivery of candidates' election material.

  Gaming Equipment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) firms and (b) people were employed in the manufacture of (i) bingo and lottery tickets and (ii) other gaming materials and equipment in 1992 and at the last available date. [36888]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We do not collect such figures but we have been able to obtain gaming machine and bingo ticket estimates from relevant trade associations.

  The British Amusement Catering Trades Association estimates that there were 97 amusement and gaming machine manufacturers and distributors in 1992 and there are 112 now.

  The Bingo Association for Great Britain is aware of six manufacturers of bingo equipment and three printers of bingo tickets, the same totals as in 1992.

  Asif Das
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the application of Asif Das for exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [37103]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  It was decided when refusing Mr. Das's applications for asylum and for student status in the United Kingdom that there were no grounds for allowing him to remain exceptionally. An appeal against the refusal of asylum was dismissed by the independent appellate authorities on 4 March.

  Run Away Children
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued in respect of the procedure for dealing with children who run away from(a) children's homes, (b) foster care, (c) educational residential establishments, (d) secure units, (e) boarding schools, (f) children's homes with education and (g) private fostering arrangements. [36515]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Legislation gives local authorities a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in need within their area, wherever they are living.

  Guidance issued on children's services planning (LAC(96)10) identifies young runaways as a specific group requiring strategic planning by local authorities with other agencies.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the last five years the total receipts received by Cheshire county council for the sale of council houses. [36450]

  Mr. Clappison
  Cheshire county council does not have responsibility for the sale of local authority homes but the available information on the value, after discount, of such sales reported by each of the district authorities in Cheshire is presented in the following table. Actual cash
  349
  receipts in any year will depend on the extent to which sales were financed by mortgage advances from the authorities.

  Total capital receipts from the sale of council dwellings in Cheshire (net of discount)

  (£000)

  Local Authority

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Chester

  1,205

  1,492

  1,063

  978

  1,275

  Congleton

  739

  812

  1,320

  938

  792

  Crewe and Nantwich

  848

  620

  1,173

  976

  952

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  1,019

  737

  826

  1,396

  846

  Halton

  1,750

  1,339

  1,106

  938

  1—

  Macclesfield

  2,447

  1,480

  2,018

  2,203

  21,468

  Vale Royal

  1,422

  1,442

  1,630

  1,882

  1,341

  Warrington

  1,799

  1,961

  1,948

  1,942

  3602

  Notes:

  1Not reported.

  2 April-December only.

  3 April-September only.

  Source:

  Quarterly P1B and annual HIP2 housing returns by local authorities.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much local authorities have written off in uncollected council tax in each year since its introduction; and if he will list the authorities and amounts in each case; [36835]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 1 July, Official Report, column 266, if he will list by authority the (a) estimated community charge arrears on 31 March 1995 and (b) the amounts written off. [36863]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Estimates of uncollected community charge and write-offs of community charge and council tax are published regularly by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy: figures for 31 March 1995 are available in its "Revenue Collection Statistics 1994–95" publication, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports have been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by the London Docklands development corporation concerning proposals for an east London river crossing; and what alternative proposals he is assessing for improvements to cross-river public transport. [36668]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government published"A Transport Strategy For London" on 30 April this year. It includes proposals for a package of new crossings to improve cross-river road and public transport links in east London. One potential component of that package is a local multi-modal crossing, incorporating a dedicated public transport corridor, linking the Royal Docks and Thamesmead. The London Docklands development corporation and Thamesmead Town Ltd. have recently completed a range of studies exploring the feasibility of such a crossing at Gallions Reach. The results of these studies will make an important contribution to the further development of the crossings package.

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that major publications from his Department are accompanied by a simultaneous electronic release of the text on the Internet. [37232]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department currently publishes the vast majority of its priced publications through HMSO. HMSO provides information on the Internet about these and other Government publications.

  Where appropriate, it carries a summary of the priced publication: it has, for example, summarised the housing White Paper, the Thames gateway planning framework and the Drinking Water Inspectorate's annual report, and will soon carry an executive summary of the environmental health action plan.

  Additionally, all departmental press notices are made available on the Internet.

  European Regional Development Fund (Kingsbridge)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a substantial financial commitment will be forthcoming from the European regional development fund for economic regeneration in Kingsbridge, including the building of a swimming pool, bowling alley and associated facilities; and if he will make a statement as to what progress has been made with the European Commission to provide funding under objective 5b. [36954]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration wrote to the hon. Member on 3 July. There are on-going discussions, including with the European Commission. A decision will be reached as quickly as possible.

  Area Cost Adjustment Review Team
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place a copy of the area cost adjustment review team's final report in the Library; what consultation will take place on this report; what timetable he proposes for its implementation; and if he will make a statement. [37402]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The report of the review of the area cost adjustment was placed in the Library upon publication. The report will be discussed with the local authority associations. We shall also examine with them whether any consequential changes to other parts of the standard spending assessments would be required, if the recommendations of the review were adopted. We shall wish to consider the responses to the report in deciding what changes in the standard spending assessments should be made for 1997–98.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount paid to United Kingdom local government from European Union sources in each of the past five years. [34867]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.
  351
  The figures show the total amounts paid to local authorities from European Union sources through supply estimates:

  1991–92: £172 million

  1992–93: £198 million

  1993–94: £301 million

  1994–95: £112 million

  1995–96: £156 million

  Information on European Union payments to local authorities outside supply estimates is not held centrally by Treasury, and could be collected from individual Government Departments only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Stagecoach
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received relating to the operations of Stagecoach in each of the last 12 months. [36852]

  Mr. Norris
  No central record is kept of the monthly total of representations received by my Department relating to specific transport operators, but about 20 letters have been received in the past year about the operations of Stagecoach or one of its subsidiaries.

  East and West Coast Main Lines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average age of(a) the locomotives and (b) the passenger rolling stock on the east coast and west coast main lines. [36832]

  Mr. Watts
  Precise figures would be available only at disproportionate cost. I have set out in the table details of the build dates of locomotives and passenger rolling stock on the east coast and west coast main lines.

  EAST COAST MAIN LINE

  Locomotives

  31 Class 91s built between 1988 and 1991

  22 Class 43 HST Power Cars built 1976–82

  Coaches

  283 Mark IV coaches for electric services built 1989–1992

  76 Mark III HST trailer cars built 1976–82

  WEST COAST MAIN LINE

  Locomotives

  18 Class 86s built 1965–66

  35 Class 87s built 1973–75

  15 Class 90s built 1987–90

  7 Class HST Power Cars built 1976–1982

  Coaches

  138 Mark II built 1973–75

  249 Mark III built 1975–79

  38 Mark III built 1985

  20 Mark III HST Trailer Cars built 1976–82

  As at January 1996

  Airline Pilots (Lariam)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Civil Aviation Authority advised that Lariam should not be administered to airline pilots; and what factors underlay this decision. [36874]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority's medical division has been advising against the use of Larium in response to specific inquiries for some years. The first general advice against the use of Lariam by aircrews was contained in an aeronautical information circular on malaria—reference AIC 2/1995 (Pink 107)—published on 12 January 1995. The circular explains the reasons for that advice. I have arranged for copies of the circular to be placed in the Library.

  Transport and Works Act 1992
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff in his Department are employed in the Transport and Works Act 1992 processing unit. [37002]

  Mr. Norris
  Six—one grade 7, two HEOS, two EOs and one AO.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the applications made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 which have been subject to public local inquiry with in each case the date he received the inspector's report and the date of the Secretary of State's decision. [37004]

  Mr. Norris
  The applications listed in the table have been subject to a public local inquiry and reports have been made to the relevant Secretary of State by the inspector. Unless otherwise indicated, the decision whether to make the orders rests with the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Application

  Date of receipt of inspector's report

  Date of Secretary of State's decision

  Usk Barrage

  1 March 1995 (Secretary of State for Wales)

  13 September 1995

  East London Line Extension

  17 February 1995

  "Minded" letters issued on 27 September 1995 and 13 June 1996

  Greater Manchester (LRTS) (Eccles) Extension

  15 January 1996

  Not yet determined

  Greater Manchester (LRTS) (Airport Extension)

  29 February 1996

  Not determined

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the terms of the redundancy settlement for former(a) directors and (b) other staff of the Highways Agency who (i) have left the service in the last 12 months and (ii) will be leaving in the next 12 months. [36897]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  353
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the terms of the redundancy settlement for former (a) directors and (b) other staff in the Highways Agency who (i) have left in the last 12 months and (ii) will be leaving in the next 12 months.
  All staff, including those at Director level, who have left the Highways Agency in the previous 12 months on redundancy, or who will be doing so in the next 12 months, have been or will retire on compulsory early retirement (CER) or compulsory early severance (CES) terms in accordance with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) and the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS).

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the Highways Agency overspent its budget in the last financial year; and what action was taken against those responsible for the overspend. [36896]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to rely to your recent question about expenditure against the Highways Agency's budget for 1995/96.
  The Agency did not exceed its vote in 1995/96. Details of last year's expenditure will be published in the Agency's Annual Report later this month.

  Rail Ticket Sales
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what enforcement measures are available in respect of train operating companies that do not comply with their licence obligation to give impartial sales advice on competitive routes. [37084]

  Mr. Watts
  The regulator's powers of enforcement are set out in sections 55 to 58 of the Railways Act 1993. Section 55 states that, where he is satisfied that an operator is contravening, or is likely to contravene, any relevant condition of his licence, the regulator shall make an order to secure compliance. Section 55(5) states that no order need be made if, for instance, the regulator is satisfied that the relevant operator has agreed to take, and is taking all such steps as are appropriate for the purpose of securing or facilitating compliance with the condition in question.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will halt further sales of train operating company franchises until a review is made of impartial ticket sales. [37055]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the temporary moratorium on the enforcement of the licence conditions for train operating companies to give impartial ticket sales advice on competitive routes was introduced; and when it ended. [37085]

  Mr. Watts
  No such moratorium has ever existed.
  354
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken against train operating companies that have not complied with their licence obligation to give impartial sales advice on competitive routes in each month since January. [37116]

  Mr. Watts
  The enforcement of licence obligations is a matter for the independent Rail Regulator. He has said that he will consider carefully any evidence which suggests that train operators are failing to fulfil their licence obligations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish an independent national rail ticket sales organisation which can ensure that all rail passengers are given unbiased sales advice. [37054]

  Mr. Watts
  No. The sales of rail tickets is a matter for train operators, subject to the requirements on impartiality contained in their licences and policed by the independent Rail Regulator. The regulator has all the powers he needs to ensure that train operators comply with their licence obligations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the Rail Regulator to conduct an urgent review of rail ticket sales. [37053]

  Mr. Watts
  The independent Rail Regulator has already said that he intends shortly to launch a wide-ranging consultation exercise on the practical application of train operators' obligations on impartial ticket retailing.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current actual levels of expenditure on maintenance of the trunk road network; to what extent these accord with present public expenditure plans; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current levels of maintenance to prevent longer-term deterioration of the network. [36742]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what are the current actual levels of expenditure on maintenance of the trunk road network; to what extent these accord with present public expenditure plans; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current levels of maintenance to prevent longer term deterioration of the network.
  The Agency is planning to spend the following sums on trunk road maintenance in the current financial year:

  £ million

  Capital road maintenance

  250.0

  Capital bridge maintenance

  130.0

  Current maintenance (roads and bridges)

  146.4

  These figures are wholly consistent with the Government's expenditure plans set out in Transport Report 1996 (Cm 3206—March 1996).
  355
  This level of funding will not be sufficient to avoid some deterioration of the network. Some works are having to be postponed until 1997–98. However, by working hard and innovatively, the Agency expects to be able to maintain safety and to minimise the effect on serviceability and value for money.

  Congleton Station
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reasons have been given to him by British Rail west coast for the recent withdrawal of stops at the Congleton station; what consultation was undertaken with the local business and residential community prior to implementing that decision; and what assessment he has made as to the extent to which withdrawal is consistent with his policy of improvements in passenger services. [35882]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: I understand that InterCity West Coast withdrew the 08.30 service from Manchester to Euston and the 19.00 Euston to Manchester service, which both called at Congleton, from the summer 1996 timetable due to low passenger usage. Rail users consultative committees, Cheshire county council, Congleton borough council and Crewe and Nantwich borough council were consulted about the proposal to withdraw the services.

  The Government intend to improve passenger services by franchising them to the private sector. Franchise operators are contractually bound by the passenger service requirement—PSR—and the obligations set out in the franchise agreement. The PSR may not be changed without the franchising director's consent, and significant proposed changes are subject to consultation with rail users consultative committees and local authorities. The franchise agreement required franchise operators to consult RUCCs and local authorities about proposed significant timetable changes.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the terms of reference given to the admiralty salvage office of the Ministry of Defence in respect of its forthcoming investigation on site into the loss of the MV Derbyshire, together with the names of the independent technical assessors already appointed, stating which of the latter will be present on site; [37148]

  (2) pursuant to the oral statement by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) of 3 July, Official Report, columns 900–04, if he will list (a) the names of the bodies, persons, or organisations which will be on site for the projected investigation into the wreck of the MV Derbyshire, together with the details of those to whom they are responsible and their sources of finance and (b) the names of the bodies or organisations which have expressed a wish to send or nominate observers to be present on site during those investigations; and what are his reasons for treating the presence of any person representing a body named in (b) as prejudicial to the objectivity of the investigation, or the credibility of conclusions drawn by bodies concerned with that investigation. [37163]
  356
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The terms of reference given to the officers of the admiralty salvage office appointed as project managers for the return expedition are as follows:
  "to be responsible to this Department and the European Commission, taking account of advice from the technical assessors, Professor Douglas Faulkner and Robin Williams, and of the European Commission's assessor, Remo Torchio, for the co-ordination and operational management of the project, which we envisage will include:

  drafting the specification for the expedition;

  inviting and evaluating the bids received from contractors, and recommending who should carry out the work;

  any post-tender negotiations with the successful bidder;

  placing the contract;

  management and control of the contract on-site"

  Those on board the survey vessel carrying out phase 1 are expected to include: Dr. Remo Torchio, European Commission technical assessor; Professor Douglas Faulkner and Robin Williams, UK technical assessors; David Keogh and James Ward, Ministry of Defence, salvage officers and project managers; and the staff of Oceaneering Technologies, the contractors.

  The UK assessors are paid for by my Department and Dr. Torchio by the European Commission. My Department and the European Commission are sharing the other costs of the project.

  No specific request to have representatives on board has been made by an interested party, other than the Derbyshire Families Association. However, solicitors representing British Shipbuilders have said that, if the DFA were represented, they would also wish to be.

  It is essential that the results of the evidence gathered is, impartial, objective and thorough. To have any party represented could lead to challenges that the return was partial, lacked objectivity and was undertaken with a specific purpose in mind. To have all interested parties represented would be impractical.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE AFFAIRS

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's current policy in respect of entry into force arrangements for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [37130]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 27 June 1996,Official Report, columns 197–98.

  Robert Hussein
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kuwait in respect of Robert Hussein; and if he will urge the Government to issue him with a new passport and to guarantee his safe passage out of the country. [36867]
  357
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We continue to keep in close touch at a senior level with the Kuwaiti authorities about this case. They have assured us that there are no restrictions on Mr. Hussein's freedom of movement.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a Kuwaiti citizen has formally taken the Ja'aferi judgment in respect of the apostasy of Mr. Robert Hussein to an imam for that judgment to be confirmed. [36868]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are not aware of any such action.

  China (Nuclear Tests)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the radioactive discharges into the atmosphere as a result of recent Chinese nuclear tests; and what measures he is taking to prevent the provision of technological assistance to China's nuclear weapons programme by firms in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) its allies. [37009]

  Mr. David Davis
  No such estimate has been made. The UK and our allies maintain export controls on nuclear and nuclear-related dual use equipment, material and technology in order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The UK considers all exports to China on a case-by-case basis.

  Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from the leader of the Isle of Wight council to represent the Isle of Wight internationally. [36915]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None.

  Lake Kojanovskoe
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to this letter of 30 April, to the hon. Member of Linlithgow, what progress has been made on assistance to counter the contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe. [36643]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  It is still too early to consider what concrete assistance might be made available to counteract contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe. Information on progress will be given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow as soon as consideration of the conclusions of the EU-financed study has been completed by the Government Departments concerned and considered with our EU partners prior to discussion with the European Commission.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects guidelines for editing the "St. Helena News" and for access to broadcasting in St. Helena to be made public. [37249]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Government of St. Helena plan to publish the guidelines during August 1996.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on licensing arms exports to the states of the former Yugoslavia following the lifting of the United Nations arms embargo. [37694]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  On 18 June, the UN Security Council confirmed that the UN arms embargo on former Yugoslavia was terminated in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1021. The Government have decided that, taking into account the overall situation in the states of the former Yugoslavia and the paramount importance of ensuring the safety of British and other troops deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, applications for arms export licenses will be dealt with on the following basis:

  (a) for Slovenia and the Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, applications for licences to export military equipment listed in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 and dual use equipment will be considered on a case-by-case basis;

  (b) for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, our policy is not to allow the export of military equipment listed in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order of 1994 during the period of the NATO-led implementation force's deployment. Within this context, applications for export licences will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, as will applications for export of dual use goods.

  The EU as a whole has adopted a common position along these lines. We will keep this policy under review, particularly in light of progress in implementing the peace agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

DEFENCE

  U-Boats (Salvage)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department expects to receive from the salvage of the U-boats sunk to the north of Ireland in Operation Deadlight in 1945; if the proceeds will benefit wartime Royal Navy and Merchant Navy crews and their families who survived; and if he will make a statement. [37123]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Disposal Sales Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. David Atkinson, dated 15 July 1996:
  I am responding to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about receipts from the salvage of the World War II U-boats scuppered in Operation Deadlight in 1945, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.
  With the agreement of the Russian and US authorities, joint signatories with the UK to the 1945 Tripartite Agreement on the disposal of all ex-German shipping, my Agency let a licence for the scrapping of a number of surrendered U-boats sunk to the north of Ireland. In addition to a licence fee, the contract allows for a proportion of the proceeds from the scrapping operation to be paid to the Ministry of Defence by the Contractor. Both amounts, the latter being necessarily estimates at this stage, are commercially confidential and, in line with the Department's policy, are not disclosed publicly.

  359
  It has been the policy of successive Governments that any compensation paid to the victims of hostilities should be broadly similar for all. It follows that it would not be fair to the majority if money from an unexpected small windfall was to be used by a Government department to pay additional compensation, whether directly or through related charities, to particular groups of survivors or their families.

  Low Flying (Compensation)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid in compensation in each financial year since 1990–91(a) to farmers whose cattle have aborted or been damaged and (b) to people who have been injured or whose health has been damaged by low flying aircraft. [36840]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not possible to provide details of compensation for cattle in the form requested without incurring disproportionate cost. My Department has paid the following amounts of compensation in respect of(a) livestock losses and (b) personal injury claims as a result of military aircraft activity since financial year 1990–91:

  (a) £

  (b) £

  1990–91

  270,000

  66,000

  1991–92

  320,000

  33,000

  1992–93

  182,000

  63,000

  1993–94

  379,000

  51,000

  1994–95

  327,000

  121,000

  1995–96

  196,000

  35,000

  Bett Review
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his ansfwer of 25 June,Official Report, column 64, if he expects his Department's consideration of the recommendations contained in the report of Sir Michael Bett to be completed by 21 September. [36860]

  Mr. Soames
  We have been studying all of the recommendations contained in Sir Michael Bett's report carefully, and hope to make a further announcement shortly on progress and our proposed way forward.

  Scottish Bases
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's jobs there were at each Navy, Army, Air Force and reserves defence installation in Scotland for the year ended 1 April 1996. [37543]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Accommodation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new armed forces married quarters and single quarters accommodation are currently being built by his Department. [37066]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: Sixty-one married quarters and 14 single accommodation projects are currently under construction.

  Procurement Projects
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's 25 most expensive current procurement projects; what was the original estimated cost of each of these projects at today's prices; what is the current estimated final cost of each of the projects; and if he will list the delays in the in-service dates of these projects. [33999]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Pursuant to my answer of 27 June 1996,Official Report, columns 247–48, I regret to say that the most recent major project report—MPR95—has not been placed in the Library of the House owing to the confidential classification of the document. An unclassified version is being prepared and will be placed in the Library of the House. The projects covered by the report are:

  1. Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile AMRAAM

  2. Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile ASRAAM

  3. Bowman radio system

  4. Bridging for the 90s—BR90

  5. Challenger 2

  6. Common New Generation Frigate—GNGF

  7. COBRA

  8. EH101 Merlin

  9. Eurofighter

  10. Hercules C-130J

  11. Infra Red Counter Measures —IRCM

  12. Landing Platform Dock (Replacement)—LPD (R)

  13. Landing Platform (Helicopter)—LP(H)

  14. Rapier—Field Standard C

  15. Sea Harrier attrition buy

  16. SKYNET 4 Phase 2

  17. SKYNET 5

  18. Spearfish Torpedoes

  19. Swiftsure and Trafalgar class submarines—update

  20. Tornado GR1 Mid Life Update

  21. Trafalgar Class Submarines—Batch 2

  22. Trident

  23. Tracked utility vehicles—TUL/TUM/TUM(HD)

  24. Medium range TRIGAT

  25. Vertical Launch Seawolf.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil Installations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 62, if he will (a) place in the Library a copy of the International Maritime Organisation guidelines to which he refers and (b) set out the considerations as a result of which the United Kingdom has not yet ratified the UN law of the sea convention of 1982; and when United Kingdom ratification is expected to take place. [35928]

  Mr. Page
  I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the International Maritime Organisation guidelines and standards for the removal of offshore installations and structures on the continental shelf.
  361
  Ratification of the UN law of the sea convention of 1982 is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Composite Insurance Companies
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the regulatory organisations within his Department which have a responsibility in relation to composite insurance companies; and if he will indicate their responsibilities. [36035]

  Mr. Nelson
  The regulatory responsibilities of the Department in relation to composite insurance companies as such fall to the insurance directorate of the DTI, which carries out prudential regulation including, in the case of long-term business, safeguarding the reasonable expectations of policyholders under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and related legislation.

  Aerospace Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives he has taken to facilitate aerospace sales abroad. [36060]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Department of Trade and Industry actively pursues its responsibilities to promote the United Kingdom's civil aerospace industry overseas. We support and fund missions by sector trade associations to important overseas markets, particularly in the US and the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region. Ministers also take opportunities to promote aerospace initiatives during their visits overseas. Aerospace companies use the market information and help available through the DTI's geographical market desks and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's overseas posts. The DTI's aerospace and defence industries directorate also supports the industry and its trade associations in their overseas efforts. For some key markets, there are export promoters, seconded from industry, who focus on helping aerospace companies to develop their overseas business.

  North-west Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directors of the north-west industrial development board have declared business interests; and to what value. [36249]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  All members must notify the Department of their business interests, including directorships and significant shareholdings, on appointment to regional industrial development boards. Changes are also notified during membership. Values are not placed on business interests.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the directors of the north-west industrial development board in the last five years. [36247]

  Mr. Taylor
  The information requested can be found in the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many grants, and of what value, have been given by the north-west industrial development board in the last five years. [36248]
  362
  Mr. Taylor
  Grants are not given by the north-west industrial development board.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors underlay his Department's decision to send trade missions to Indonesia on 26 August, 23 September, 7 October and 11 November in 1996; and what is the projected cost of each mission to public funds. [36829]

  Mr. Nelson
  The missions have been planned to concentrate on sectors that have been identified as having the most potential for UK industry. The sectors are aerospace and airports; health care; oil and gas; power generation; and transport. The plan also recognises that opportunities exist in agribusiness; automotive components; environment and ports and harbours. The missions aim to take a group to the market focusing on one or more of these sectors.

  The projected costs to public funds of these missions is as follows;

  26 August : none, the mission has been cancelled.

  23 September : £6,000

  7 October : £6,000

  11 November : £9,000

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which members of the Indonesian military met members of the trade missions carried out in 1996; for what purpose; and what representations were made to them concerning Indonesia's human rights record. [36767]

  Mr. Nelson
  Meetings with the Indonesian military do not form part of the formal programme for Department of Trade and Industry sponsored trade missions to Indonesia. I am not aware that any members of these mission met the military.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost to public funds of trade missions to Indonesia on 19 February, 15 April and 24 June. [36765]

  Mr. Nelson
  All of these missions visited two markets—Indonesia and Thailand. An eligible British company visiting only one of these markets receives a subvention of £600. For companies visiting both markets with the mission, grant is increased to £660. The costs to public funds of grants to British companies to travel with missions to Indonesia and Thailand was, therefore, as follows;The mission on 19 February, sponsored by the Leeds and Bradford chamber of commerce and industry—£13,080.
  The mission of 15 April sponsored by the Northern Development Company and the Railways Industries Association—£10,920.
  The mission on 24 June sponsored by the London chamber of commerce and industry—£9,060.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which public relations companies assisted the trade missions to Indonesia on 19 February, 15 April and 24 June; and when he last met personnel from each company. [36766]

  Mr. Nelson
  None. However, the missions were sponsored and administered by the Leeds and Bradford chamber of commerce and industry, the Northern Development Company in co-operation with the Railways
  363
  Industries Association and the London chamber of commerce and industry respectively. I would not expect to meet individual members of DTI-supported trade missions as a matter of course.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department last conducted an appraisal of human rights conditions in Indonesia; and in what circumstances companies which participate in trade missions to that country are made aware of the human rights record of the Indonesian military. [36768]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have been asked to reply.

  We continually monitor the human rights situation in Indonesia. The British embassy in Jakarta briefs visiting missions on the general political and economic situation in Indonesia, including, where relevant or specifically requested, its human rights record.

  Trade Missions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy, when appraising British companies intending to participate in trade missions, to notify them of the human rights record of the country involved. [36830]

  Mr. Nelson
  British diplomatic posts brief visiting missions on the general political and economic situations in the country concerned including, where relevant or specifically requested, its human rights record.

  Iraq (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost to the Export Credits Guarantee Department of underwriting the sales of arms to Iraq in(a) 1987–88, (b) 1988–89 and (c) 1989–90. [36613]

  Mr. Nelson
  The ECGD did not underwrite any arms exports to Iraq in these years.

  However, a relatively small amount of equipment with possible defence application—in particular communications equipment—was underwritten under the so—called "Defence Allocation" under the Iraq protocols; there are currently claims outstanding of £26 million in this respect.

  DTI Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the DTI investigations which have been completed in the last three years and for which the report will not be published; and if he will make a statement. [37383]

  Mr. Lang
  In investigations leading to a report in respect of which there is a statutory provision allowing for publication that no reports have been completed in the last three years remain unpublished.

  My Department undertakes a number of confidential investigations for which there is no provision for the report to be published.

  Design Initiative
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for a design initiative involving business links, universities and private sector companies. [36999]
  364
  Mr. Page
  The Government are convinced that design is fundamental to winning in world markets and that goods design is a crucial part of competitiveness. At national level, Design Council activities include research at leading universities to develop knowledge and tools which will help business managers to make better use of design. At local level, design services are being made available to companies by business links. Business links have been invited to bid for Government funding to employ design counsellors. To date, 51 bids have been approved, and 28 design counsellors are in post.

  Statutory Holidays
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many statutory holidays there are in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) England every year; and what are the equivalent figures in other European Union countries. [37088]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are currently eight bank and public holidays in England, Wales and Scotland, and 10 in Northern Ireland. The following table, based on information in the Official Journal of the European Communities (No. C 45, 1996, item 7), lists the number of current public holidays in other European Union member states.

  Number of public holidays in other EU member states

  Number

  Austria

  13

  Belgium

  11

  Denmark

  10

  Finland

  13

  France

  11

  Germany

  110 to 14

  Greece

  12

  Ireland

  10

  Italy

  9

  Luxembourg

  12

  Netherlands

  8

  Portugal

  15

  Spain

  110 to 15

  Sweden

  11

  1 A range of numbers indicates local variations.

  Holiday entitlement in the United Kingdom is not generally a statutory right but a matter covered by the contract of employment between the individual employer and employee.

  British Energy
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the British Energy share offer. [37788]

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to report that the Government's UK public offer and international offer of shares in British Energy plc were successfully completed this morning, when dealings in interim rights started on the London stock exchange.

  As a result of bids received in the international offer, the prices of the second instalments for all investors in the UK public offer and the international offer were set at 98p per interim right.
  365
  Accordingly, the price for British Energy interim rights purchased in the United Kingdom public offer was 198p per share, comprising 100p paid on successful application and 98p to be paid by 16 September 1997.

  The price for interim rights purchased in the international offer of British Energy shares was 203p per share, comprising 105p paid on successful application and 98p to be paid by 16 September 1997.

  The Government offered for sale up to 610 million British Energy shares in the UK public offer and the international offer.

  Some 600,000 applications were received in the United Kingdom public offer for a total of some 443 million shares. This represented about 2.4 times the shares initially expected to be sold in the UK public offer. In response to this demand, the Government increased the total number of shares allocated to the UK public offer to 260 million shares—some 43 per cent. of the shares offered. At this level, the number of shares applied for in the UK public offer represented some 1.7 times the shares available.

  Almost 98 per cent. of applicants in the UK public offer received an allocation of shares; 41 per cent. of all applicants had their applications met in full.

  Some 6,300 employees—about 94 per cent.—of the British Energy group applied for shares in their company. In addition 1,000 employees—about 24 per cent.—of Magnox Electric applied for shares. All employee and pensioner applications were met in full.

  Excluding the retail tender, 295 million shares were allocated to bidders in the international offer. This number does not include any shares that BZW Securities Ltd. may have over-allocated in connection with the international offer. The extent of any such over-allotment will not be disclosed until later. As already announced, BZW Securities Ltd. may also effect stabilisation transactions. Excluding the retail tender, bids covered the minimum number of shares expected to be sold in the international offer about 2.4 times.

  Individual investors bidding in the United Kingdom retail tender bid for some 72 million shares. Of this number, some 41 million shares were in respect of PEP applications. All PEP applications in the retail tender were met in full.

  In addition to the shares sold in the UK public offer and the international offer, BZW Securities Ltd., as global co-ordinators for the sale, holds an option to acquire from the President of the Board of Trade up to a further 90 million British Energy shares for the purpose of meeting any over-allotment made by it in connection with the international offer. This option must be exercised by 14 August 1996.

  Total gross proceeds from the privatisation, including debt and assuming the exercise in full of the option held by the global co-ordinators, amount to about £1,993 million, of which some £716 million of equity proceeds is expected to be received in this financial year.

  Following the offers, and assuming the exercise in full of the option over British Energy shares granted by the President of the Board of Trade to BZW Securities Ltd., Her Majesty's Government expect to hold not more than
  366
  1 per cent. of the issued share capital of British Energy plc. This amount comprises principally shares that may be needed to meet share bonus entitlements under the UK public offer.

  Research Councils (Quigley Review)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the Quigley review into the joint working arrangements of the research councils. [37396]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Costs incurred by the working group on cross-council efficiency relate primarily to the time of group members from the office of science and technology and the research councils in respect of five meetings between August 1995 and January 1996, and widely distributed small proportions of staff time relating to data gathering and analysis. These costs could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the research councils will contribute to the funding of the procurement function resulting from the Quigley review; and what savings have been projected for each of the research councils as a result of the new procurement arrangements over the next five years. [37397]

  Mr. Taylor
  The intention is that improvements in the procurement function resulting from the Quigley review should be self-financing.

  The Quigley review saw scope for potential savings in the region of £1.75 million from spending on payroll systems, travel and subsistence and computer support. A group of senior representatives of the research councils, chaired by the office of science and technology, has been set up to implement the recommendations of the Quigley review. The group has already begun the process of recruiting a procurement adviser. One of the tasks of the adviser will be to identify specific savings in all areas of procurement.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with small businesses about the compliance costs of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [36657]

  Mr. Page
  The Asylum and Immigration Bill is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. This Department has had no discussion with small businesses or their representative organisations.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of his Department's current consultation with small firms regarding whether large companies should report payment practice in their annual report. [36656]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave her on 4 July 1996,Official Report, column 496.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the World Trade Organisation concerning trade in goods produced by child labour; and if he will make a statement. [36321]
  367
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 July 1996]: The Government deplore any exploitation of children and are fully committed to international action to stop it, for example through the UN and the International Labour Organisation, but do not consider that action through the World Trade Organisation would be an appropriate means to achieve this.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are placed on the importing of goods produced by child labour; and if he will make a statement. [36317]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 July 1996]: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 19 June 1996, Official Report, column 508.

  Arabian Peninsula (Security Equipment)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding was provided by his Department's export market research scheme for the market report, "Police and Public Security Requirements for Equipment and Services in the countries of the Arabian Peninsula" published in June 1994, and what proportion this was of the total cost of the report. [36362]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 July 1996]: The report was partially funded through the export marketing research scheme—EMRS—under the terms and conditions applicable at the time for trade associations using the scheme for the first time—75 per cent. The total cost of the project was £63,920, the EMRS contribution was £47,940. The report covered six countries in the Arabian peninsula and was restricted to marketing research only.

  Insurance Policies (Orphan Funds)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the distribution of orphan funds between insurance policyholders; and what sums have so far been identified and apportioned. [37022]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: My policy remains as set out in the answer given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs on 24 February 1995, Official Report, columns 362–63.

  The following companies have made announcements in the light of the policy:

  Company

  Long-term business assets £ billion

  Amounts reserved solely for benefit of shareholders £ billion

  United Friendly Insurance

  2.4

  0.3

  Legal and General Group

  21.8

  see below

  Pearl Assurance

  12.1

  1.0

  The remaining amounts within the long-term funds are largely for the benefit of policyholders, save that shareholders are entitled to receive a defined share of any surplus in the funds declared in future. For the bulk of the funds, the defined share is 10 per cent.

  In the case of Legal and General, policyholders have rights to receive at least 90 per cent. of any distributed surplus, except that directors have discretion over surplus arising from a sub-fund of some £200 million.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Arts Council Grants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the total grants provided by the Arts Council for organisations in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36386]

  Mr. Sproat
  Between 1991–92 and 1995–96, North West Arts made 25 awards totalling £63,735 to arts organisations in Crewe and Nantwich. In Cheshire as a whole, 324 awards, totalling £1,896,975, were made to arts organisations during the same period. I have today placed a full list of awards in the Library of the House.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the total grants provided by her Department for museums and galleries in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36387]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department, through the museums and galleries improvement fund, and the Museums and Galleries Commission—MGC—which is funded by the Department, has awarded the following amounts to museums and galleries in Cheshire over the past five years. The north-west museum service, funded by the MGC, also made awards. They include one of £1,480 to the Nantwich museum in 1993–94.

  Grants for museums in Cheshire 1991–92 to 1995–96

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–84 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund

  0

  37,500

  7,500

  7,500

  25,000

  MGC capital grants

  0

  2,200

  0

  0

  10,000

  MGC Victoria and Albert museum purchase grants

  13,250

  7,500

  22,162

  12,300

  391

  PRISM1

  1,300

  7,700

  7,064

  3,800

  0

  North-West Museums Service

  44,518

  42,101

  43,167

  36,202

  2—

  Total

  59,068

  97,001

  79,893

  59,802

  35,391

  1 Preservation of industrial and scientific material.

  2—Not yet available.

  European Broadcasting Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the European Commission will publish its second monitoring report on the implementation of articles 4 and 5 of the European broadcasting directive; and if she will make a statement. [36941]

  Mr. Sproat
  The European Commission has published its report today. The document will be deposited in Parliament and my Department will submit an explanatory memorandum in accordance with the usual arrangements for the scrutiny of European Community documents.

  I welcome the Commission's work on this subject, which shows that many of the television channels licensed in this country which qualify for meeting the quota regime are exceeding the minimum requirements set out in the broadcasting directive for programming of European
  370
  origin and for independent European production. The report also notes the good progress being made by those satellite services which have yet to achieve the quota targets.

TREASURY

  Finance Ministers
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Finance Ministers of other EC countries; and what subjects were discussed. [36268]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 8 July.

  The Council debated the incoming Irish presidency's work programme in open session. The programme will focus on European monetary union—EMU—employment, fraud, taxation issues, financial services and Community lending to third countries.

  I emphasised the importance we attach to tackling unemployment in the Community, through sound public finances, low inflation and labour market reform. I also urged the need for budget discipline in the Community and rejected any increase in the financial perspectives of the EU budget. I said the UK would continue to play a full and constructive part in discussions of EMU. I strongly supported the presidency's emphasis on fighting fraud. Recalling the UK's long-standing support for EU enlargement, I urged early consideration of reforms to the common agriculture policy and the structural funds so that enlargement could go ahead on the right terms.

  The Council welcomed the Austrian convergence programme. It also agreed recommendations to 12 member states—Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and the UK—with excessive budget deficits.

  The Council heard Commission and European Investment Bank—EIB—proposals to modify guarantee arrangements for the bank's lending operations outside the EU.

  The Council agreed the conclusions of the Commission's 1995 annual report on the fight against fraud and noted progress with the SEM 2000 initiative designed to improve the Commission's financial management.

  There was a meeting with Ministers from the associated countries of central Europe, within the framework of the "Structured Dialogue", on the implications for the financial sector of eventual EU membership. The discussion focused on pension reform, EIB work in the region, and the implications of extending the transit regime.

  Unfunded Pension Liabilities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to improve the accounting and financial reporting to Parliament of United Kingdom unfunded pension liabilities. [36351]
  371
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are planning to improve the accounting and reporting of the main occupational public service pension schemes administered by central Government. This will take place in the context of the development of resource accounting and budgeting. For each scheme, there will be a scheme statement attached as a note to the departmental resource account. There is further work to be done on the details of these statements, and this will be taken forward in accordance with the timetable for resource accounting published in the White Paper "Better Account for the Taxpayer's money"—Cm 2929.

  Medical Products (VAT)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if products designed for sufferers of ulcerative colitis are exempt from VAT; [36692]

  (2) what revenue the Treasury received from VAT on products designed for the sufferers of ulcerative colitis in the last year for which figures are available; [36693]

  (3) what medical products are currently exempt from value added tax. [36691]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Medical products, including those designed for sufferers of ulcerative colitis, are exempt from VAT when they are supplied in connection with the provision of care or medical or surgical treatment in any hospital or other institution which has been registered or exempted from registration pursuant to an Act of Parliament. Incontinence products which are supplied directly to disabled people are also zero rated. There are no official figures available for VAT receipts on medical products designed for sufferers of ulcerative colitis.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 355, when he will be in a position to give the cost of answering (a) oral and (b) written questions in April. [36566]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The average cost of answering questions in April this year will be calculated after data on movements in earnings become available in October. I expect the information requested to be available by the end of November.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 257, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37431]

  Mrs. Knight
  The examination of more than 20,000 files dating back to 1987.

  Paymaster
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the future of the Paymaster agency. [37789]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The report of the prior options review of the Paymaster agency that I announced on 4 December 1995,Official Report, columns 15–16,
  372
  has now been completed. I have accepted its recommendations and am placing copies of the report in the Library of the House.

  Briefly, the report confirms that Paymaster has made itself much more cost-efficient and responsive to customer needs since it achieved agency status on 1 April 1993. It has won a number of market tests for its existing work against private sector rivals, but remains constrained by statute from taking on work for the private sector. If it transferred to the private sector, it would be free to seek new work in both private and public sectors, thereby strengthening its long-term viability.

  The review showed that a small part of its banking business is concerned with work that must stay with the Government. The rest, including all its pensions business and IT support, could be contracted out to the private sector. Given that the agency has already proved its competitiveness against private sector rivals, the Government intend to privatise all but any non-divestible elements as a going concern.

  The proposal is that both the pensions and the banking business should be offered, jointly or separately, for a trade sale, with the present management, staff, IT support and their building in Crawley. At least the pension business—which constitutes some 85 per cent. of the whole—should be privatised within the current financial year. The preparations for the banking business may be more complex, but every effort will be made to have it ready for privatisation in the same timeframe.

  It is expected that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to protect staff in the transfer, which will be achieved with initial contracts for existing work. To prepare itself for operating from the private sector in future, the agency will be allowed to seek new work in the pensions area in the private or public sectors at once.

  I believe that this represents a good outcome for the agency's existing customers and its staff, by keeping their expertise intact and granting access to new markets, and for the taxpayer, through reducing the cost of providing these public services. The pension schemes will, of course, continue to be funded, and have their rules set, by sponsoring Government Departments. It is the administrative functions that are to be contracted out. Where necessary, Parliament's approval will be sought under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 before the privatisation is effected.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Central Statistical Office performed against its key targets in 1995–96. [37790]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Central Statistical Office's performance for 1995–96 is described in the agency's annual report and accounts, which are being laid before the House and published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The CSO achieved 29 of the 34 published targets, including 18 of the 20 targets relating to the quality of key economic statistics.
  373
  Targets for the future will relate to the performance of the Office of National Statistics, which was formed on 1 April 1996 following the merger of the CSO with the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Targets for 1996–97 are set out in the ONS business plan 1996–97 to 1998–99, which was published in March.

PRIME MINISTER

  Stone of Scone
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister at what time he first informed the Dean of Westminster of his intention to make a statement to the House about the Stone of Scone; and what consultations previously had taken place with the dean and chapter. [36913]

  The Prime Minister
  My discussions with the dean and others before the announcement were confidential.

  Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Isle of Wight council calling for independence. [36917]

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

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake a study on the future status of the pound sterling as legal tender on the Isle of Wight following the council's call for independence. [36919]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Isle of Wight is part of the United Kingdom and sterling continues to be the only legal tender on the island.

  Beef Exports Ban
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take action if the EU committee of experts fails to agree to lift the ban on British beef exports to third countries. [37488]

  The Prime Minister
  We expect the Commission and other member states to act fully in accordance with the framework for removing the ban agreed unanimously at Florence.

HEALTH

  Dental Services (Duplicate Registrations)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many duplicate registrations were eliminated by the Dental Practice Board in each six-month period between January 1990 and January 1994 and in each month since January 1994; and what estimate he makes of the number of duplicate registrations in place in January of each year since 1990. [35088]

  Mr. Malone
  The table sets out the number of duplicate general dental service registrations that were eliminated by the Dental Practice Board in each six-monthly period between January 1990 and January 1994 and in each month since January 1994.
  374
  A reliable estimate cannot be made of the amount of duplication that remains within registrations. The Dental Practice Board is continually seeking to reduce the level of duplication.

  General Dental Service: Number of duplicate registrations eliminated 1990–96, England

  Month

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  July-December 1990

  0

  0

  0

  January-June 1991

  0

  0

  0

  July-December 1991

  0

  0

  0

  January-June 1992

  370,500

  0

  370,500

  July-December 1992

  469,855

  65,406

  535,261

  January-June 1993

  378,744

  124,542

  503,286

  July-December 1993

  129,310

  45,768

  175,078

  1994

  January

  87,983

  21,988

  109,971

  February

  49,881

  13,772

  63,653

  March

  54,022

  17,234

  71,256

  April

  115,593

  31,407

  147,000

  May

  447,505

  127,396

  574,901

  June

  104,052

  36,408

  140,460

  July

  98,484

  31,162

  129,646

  August

  100,723

  37,429

  138,152

  September

  103,504

  34,290

  137,794

  October

  105,400

  37,916

  143,316

  November

  105,197

  37,477

  142,674

  December

  95,478

  29,457

  124,935

  1995

  January

  93,583

  26,398

  119,981

  February

  96,792

  34,400

  131,192

  March

  106,942

  36,953

  143,895

  April

  98,407

  35,994

  134,401

  May

  98,249

  34,802

  133,051

  June

  100,535

  33,892

  134,427

  July

  98,091

  32,643

  130,734

  August

  99,407

  37,960

  137,367

  September

  101,805

  34,798

  136,603

  October

  109,898

  41,864

  151,762

  November

  98,404

  37,171

  135,575

  December

  103,385

  33,932

  137,317

  1996

  January

  102,101

  30,201

  132,302

  February

  105,089

  38,947

  144,036

  March

  111,490

  38,598

  150,088

  April

  98,339

  38,629

  136,968

  Central formal registration was introduced in October 1990. From the outset the Dental Practice Board's systems ensured that the same patient (as defined by first initial, surname, sex and date of birth) could not be registered more than once with the same dentist. The "eliminated duplicates" shown in the table represent detected duplicates where the same person was registered with more than one dentist.

  The numbers eliminated in 1992 contain estimates because recorded data is for England and Wales.

  GP Lists (Removals)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include in the patients charter a requirement for each GP practice to include in its annual report the number of patients removed from its list at the general practitioner's request; and if he will make a statement. [35841]

  Mr. Horam
  General practitioners routinely supply this information to health authorities and there are no plans to make publication of it a patients charter requirement.

  Primary Care Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that health authorities are able to commission primary care services from general practitioners according to locally expressed needs., and if he will make a statement. [36188]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that primary care services are developed according to local community needs and priorities; and if he will make a statement. [36159]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities are responsible for developing strategies in consultation with local people for improving health and health services, including supporting and developing primary care. A major consultation exercise is also under way to identify how primary care services might be further developed in future.

  Health Trusts (Consultation)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health ( 1 ) what guidance is issued to health trusts on the necessity for consultation with the public; and if he will make a statement; [35980]

  (2) what courses of action are open to members of the public in circumstances where a health trust declines to attend a public meeting to discuss changes in health care and its provision; and if he will make a statement; [35981]

  (3) what courses of action are open to members of the public if a health trust refuses to meet them to discuss changes in the level and provision of local health care; and if he will make a statement; [35982]

  (4) what guidelines are issued by his Department on the need for, and the extent of, consultation with patients about changes in availability or quality of health care and its delivery; and if he will make a statement. [35983]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities to assess the health needs of their population and purchase services to meet those needs. Where substantial changes in services are proposed, the health authority is required to consult with its local community health council. If the CHC objects to the resultant proposal, it is normally referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for a final decision—regarding English HA proposals. Members of the public of course have the opportunity to put their views forward to the CHC. Copies of relevant guidance are in the Library.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of health risks incurred by those who sleep rough, with particular reference to Victoria street, London SW1.[36003]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government recognise the health problems associated with rough sleeping and have developed two key initiatives to help homeless people, including those who sleep rough, obtain the health and personal social services that they need.

  The homeless mentally ill initiative provides accommodation and psychiatric care for rough sleepers with mental health problems in central London where the problem of rough sleeping is most acute.
  376
  The Department has also funded some 35 primary health care projects in England to help homeless people to access services they need. The projects provide a range of services in places where homeless people tend to congregate, such as hostels and day centres, and have been fully evaluated.

  Both initiatives provide services to rough sleepers in Westminster, including Victoria street SW1, and have provided valuable information complementing the Government's rough sleepers initiative.

  The Department also published, on 4 July, a report entitled "Tuberculosis and homeless people" which recommends strategies for the identification and treatment of tuberculosis in homeless people and contains measures to prevent tuberculosis in the homeless population.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [3601 I

  Mr. Horam
  The cost of taxi cab fares is not separately identified in the Department's accounts and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contaminated Blood Products
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he has done to increase funding for(a) treatment and support services for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment with contaminated blood products, (b) research into this problem, (c) recombinant products and (d) core funding for the Haemophilia Society to provide services and support on a continuing basis. [36131]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department does not allocate money to support specific treatments for particular patient groups. National health service funds are allocated to purchasers of health care who are in the best position to decide what services (including treatments) they wish to purchase to meet local needs.

  An additional £1 million has been made available by the Department's research and development division to fund research into improving our understanding of hepatitis C.

  The Haemophilia Society receives grants totalling £155,000 from the Government in the current year. This compares with £126,900 in 1995–96.

  Pharmaceutical Products (Supermarkets)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the sale of pharmaceutical products in supermarkets on the availability and opening hours of dispensing chemists. [35989]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Health authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide adequate and accessible pharmaceutical services to meet local requirements.

  Dedicated Case Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations of dedicated case managers for(a) head injury patients, (b) cancer patients and (c) fertility patients. [35991]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated percentage of(a) men drinking more than 21 units and (b) women drinking more than 14 units of alcohol per week for each year since 1979, for each nation of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [36049]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information, derived from the general household survey and the continuous household survey, is shown in the tables.

  Men drinking more than 21 units of alcohol per week, by United Kingdom country 1984 to 1994

  Percentages

  Men age 18+

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1984

  25

  24

  25

  n/a

  1986

  27

  32

  24

  n/a

  1988

  27

  28

  23

  15

  1990

  28

  29

  24

  17

  1992

  26

  28

  27

  18

  1994

  27

  27

  25

  21

  Women drinking more than 14 units of alcohol per week, by United Kingdom country 1984 to 1994

  Percentages

  Women age 18+

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1984

  10

  6

  5

  n/a

  1986

  10

  9

  7

  n/a

  1988

  11

  8

  7

  4

  1990

  11

  11

  6

  5

  1992

  12

  11

  7

  6

  1994

  13

  11

  9

  7

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  2. Northern Ireland data relate to 1988, and 1990–91, 1992–93 and 1994–95 financial years.

  Sources:

  Office for National Statistics general household survey and the continuous household survey.

  n/a=not available.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of pre and post-registration education for the care of older people; and if he will make a statement. [36117]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on research commissioned by the Department of Health is contained in "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme:378
  Commissions in 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Emergency Medical Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received since 1 January about the danger to patients arising from the operation of(a) inadequately trained private ambulance operators, paramedics, emergency medical technicians and ambulance technicians and (b) inadequate or poorly maintained vehicles and equipment used by such operators; and if he will make a statement on the incidence of accidents specifying complaints received by his Department arising from such operations. [36043]

  Mr. Horam
  My hon. Friend recently forwarded to me a letter from a constituent. There has been one other representation on the subject this year. Private ambulance operators must comply with the law on the administration of medicines and the conditions and use of vehicles. Any national health service trust considering using a private ambulance operator to transport patients should take account of the code of practice issued by the NHS executive in December 1993.

  Detoxification Units
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many detoxification units existed in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many
  currently exist. [36132]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not held centrally.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons accreditation of specialist cancer centres will not be compulsory; and if he will make a statement. [36398]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the responsibility of individual health care providers to determine how they pursue and ensure quality services and systems within their own organisations. Once cancer centres have been designated, it will be a priority to ensure the maintenance of high quality standards through peer review.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list be region the courses currently being run solely for nursing staff on the care of cancer patients; and if he will make a statement. [36301]

  Mr. Horam
  Courses for nursing staff on the care of cancer patients currently approved by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting to be run in each region are as follows:

  Region

  Course

  Course name

  Northern and Yorkshire

  ENB 237

  Oncological Nursing for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, or 12 of the Professional Register

  ENB 285

  Specialist Course in the Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family of Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts of the Professional Register

  ENB 931

  The Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  379

  Region

  Course

  Course name

  ENB A11

  Breast Care Nursing for Nurse and Health Visitors on Parts 1, 2, 11 or 12

  ENB A18

  Palliative Care for Nurse and Health Visitors on Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15

  North West

  ENB 237

  Oncological Nursing for Nurses on Parts 1,2, or 12

  ENB 931

  The Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB A11

  Breast Care Nursing for Nurse and Health Visitors on 1, 2, 11, or 12

  ENB N23

  Principles of Care Related to Bone Marrow Transplant for Nurses on parts 1,2, 8, 12, or 15

  ENB N29

  Supporting Patients and Relatives Experiencing Loss for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all parts

  ENBN 92

  The Nature of Cancer and its Treatments for Nurse and Health Visitors on Parts 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, or 15

  ENB N93

  Working with the Person with Cancer for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, or 15

  Trent

  ENB 237

  Oncological Nursing for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, or 12

  ENB 285

  Specialist Course in the Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB 391

  The Continuing Care of the Dying Patent and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB A11

  Breast Care Nursing for Nurse and Health Visitors on Parts 1, 2, 11, or 12

  West Midlands

  ENB 237

  Oncological Nursing for Nurses on Parts 1, 2,or 12

  ENB 931

  Specialist Course in the Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB N29

  Supporting Patients and Relatives Experiencing Loss for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all parts

  Anglia and Oxford

  ENB 237

  Oncological Nursing for Nurses on Parts 1,2, or 12

  ENB 285

  Specialist Course in the Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB 931

  The Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB A18

  Palliative Care for Nurse and Health Visitors on Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15

  ENB N37

  Developing Clinical Practice in Palliative Care for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, 8, 12, or 15

  North Thames

  ENB 285

  Specialist Courses in the Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB 931

  The Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  380

  Region

  Course

  Course name

  ENB A11

  Breast Care Nursing for Nurse and Health Visitors on Parts 1, 2, 11, or 12

  ENB A18

  Palliative Care for Nurse and Health Visitors on Parts 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15

  ENB N23

  Principles of Care Related to Bone Marrow Transplant for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, 8, 12 or 15

  ENB N37

  Developing Clinical Practice in Palliative Care for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, 8, 12 or 15

  ENB N59

  Care of the Patient Having Chemotherapy for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  South Thames

  ENB 237

  Oncological Nursing for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, or 12

  ENB 931

  The Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB A18

  Palliative Care for Nurses and Health Visitors on Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15

  ENB N10

  Caring for Patients Receiving Radionuclides for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, or 12

  ENB N37

  Developing Clinical Practice in Palliative Care for Nurses on Parts 1, 2, 8, 12 or 15

  South and West

  ENB 237

  Oncological Nursing for Nurses on Parts 1,2, or 12

  ENB 285

  Specialist Course in the Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all Parts

  ENB 931

  The Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors on all parts

  Cancer Services are identified as a priority in the Education and Training Planning Guidance (EL(96)46) issued in June 1996, a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to provide additional resources for cancer services; and if he will make a statement. [36303]

  Mr. Horam
  Current spending on the national health service will grow by over £1 billion in 1996–97. This additional funding, together with efficiency gains, will enable the NHS to make further progress in developing services of proven effectiveness, including cancer services.

  Cheshire Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of paramedics employed by the Cheshire ambulance service for each of the last five years; and what was the average number per ambulance service; [36511]

  (2) if he will list the number of incidents attended by the Cheshire ambulance service for each of the last five years; [36513]

  (3) if he will list the number of emergency ambulances operated by the Cheshire ambulance service for each of the last five years; [36512]
  381
  (4) if he will list for each of the last five years the total budget allocated by his Department to the Cheshire ambulance service. [36510]

  Mr. Horam
  The former Cheshire county ambulance service merged with the former Mersey metropolitan ambulance service in September 1991 to form the Mersey Regional ambulance service. This new organisation commenced operating in "shadow form" as a national health service trust from that date until 1 April 1992, when it became fully operational.

  Information on the number of paramedics employed by ambulance services and the average number of paramedics per ambulance service is not available centrally.

  The number of emergency calls taken by Mersey Regional ambulance service which resulted in an ambulance arriving at the scene of an incident are as follows:

  1992–93: 147,700

  1993–94: 160,200

  1994–95: 165,700

  1995–96: 180,700

  Information for the final year of operation of the former Cheshire County ambulance service is not available centrally.

  Information of the number of emergency vehicles operated by ambulance services is not available centrally.

  The annual turnover of Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS trust for each full year of its operation is as follows:

  Financial year

  1992–93: £21.8 million

  1993–94: £22.6 million

  1994–95: £23.8 million

  1995–96: £25.3 million

  Information on the budget allocation of the former Cheshire County ambulance service in its final year of operation is not available centrally.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Utting inquiry will investigate the responsibilities of the social services inspectorate and the social services inspectorate Wales, in dealing with concerns raised with them directly by children and concerned individuals regarding the abuse of children looked after and in care. [36530]

  Mr. Bowis
  Sir William Utting's review is concerned with the safeguards for children living away from home, introduced since 1991. It will be for him to decide whether to recommend any changes in the responsibilities of the Department of Health or the Welsh Office.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of young people looked after or in care since 1972 who have committed suicide(a) while looked after in care, and (b) subsequently. [36522]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally.
  382
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what psychological and counselling assistance will be given to children giving evidence at the Utting inquiry. [36524]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for Sir William Utting to determine how he proposes to conduct the review, including the manner in which any evidence is given.

  Health Care (Efficiency Drives)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that quality standards in health care are not compromised by efficiency drives, and if he will make a statement. [36361]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government's aim is to spend as much of the available resources as possible on direct patient care. Efficiency savings which can be made within the health service produce additional resources for patient care. The quality of care provided by the national health service has risen since the introduction of the patients charter in 1991. At a local level, health authorities have a responsibility to ensure the provision of health services for the population in their area. Health authorities' and general practitioner fundholders' contracts with hospital and community trust providers should include provisions concerning quality. It is for individual provider trusts to determine how best to use their available resources to meet all the requirements of their contracts.

  Osteoarthritis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out to measure health outcomes in people with osteoarthritis; and if he will make a statement. [36374]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health's policy research programme has commissioned two research projects on osteoarthritis:Primary care interventions in osteoarthritis
  This is a four-year study designed to determine whether exercise can improve the burden of knee pain in the general population. Some 800 patients over the age of 50 will take part. Results will be available in 1999.
  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of analgesics and NSAIDs—non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—in the treatment of knee pain caused by osteoarthritis.
  This is a three-year randomised controlled trial which is planned to compare the treatment of knee pain by NSAIDs and analgesics among 600 patients presenting to their general practitioners. Results will be available in 1998.
  In addition, under the national health service research and development programme, Trent region is funding research on "measuring health outcome in people with osteoarthritis".

  This will look at the evaluation and audit of the costs and health consequences of surgery and other interventions for varying severity of osteoarthritis. The lead researcher for this work in based at the university of Sheffield.

  Health Care (Responsibility)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that the responsibility for
  383
  meeting the health care needs of people with physical or learning difficulties who are profoundly dependent on the skills of health care staff falls on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [36297]

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service continues to be responsible for assessing and meeting the health care needs of the population is serves, including people with physical and learning disabilities.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department is giving to promoting autonomy and independence among older people, with particular reference to an evaluation of educational programmes in nursing; and if he will make a statement. [36305]

  Mr. Bowis
  Promoting continued independence and rehabilitation is a key principle of our policies on services for older people. To this end, we published recently a video on good practice in this area. We also work closely with, and provide substantial grant aid to, the voluntary sector in this field, much of whose work is also directed to this end.

  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has commissioned two research evaluations of pre and post-registration education. One of these will look specifically at the care of older people and care of the elderly is a central theme of the other.

  Cheshire Health Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of beds available for long-term elderly care in each of the hospitals in the Cheshire health authority for each of the last five years; and what is the national average figure; [36460]

  (2) if he will list the number of beds available for cancer patients in each of the hospitals in the Cheshire health authority for each of the last five years; and what is the national average figure; [36459]

  (3) if he will list the number of intensive care beds in each of the hospitals in the Cheshire health authority for each of the last five years; and what is the national average figure. [36461]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally in the form requested. Information on bed availability by ward classification may be found in "Bed Availability, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of fundholding and 384
  non-fundholding general practitioners in (a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36493]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available below health authority level.

  Surgical Patients
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into pre-operative information requirements of surgical patients; and if he will make a statement. [36365]

  Mr. Horam
  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.

  Infant Nutrition
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has carried out on the influence of childhood nutrition and nutritional
  status on health and adulthood; and if he will make a statement; [36376]

  (2) what research his Department has undertaken into the responsibility of a relationship between infant feeding and schizophrenia; and if he will make a statement. [36366]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government have funded three studies, with long-term follow-up, of nationally representative groups of babies born in 1946, 1958, and 1970. These individuals, the oldest of whom are 50 years, continue to be followed up with support from the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. These three studies have provided a basis of much research on the influence of childhood nutrition and nutritional status on health in adulthood.

  Two Medical Research Council-funded units have a particular interest in infant and child nutrition and on its effect on health in later childhood and during adult life.

  The MRC Dunn clinical nutrition centre, in Cambridge, co-ordinates a multi-centre study of feeding and nutrition of pre-term infants. Follow-up of the study participants has continued since their birth in the mid-1980s. Contact will be maintained with these individuals as they enter adult life.

  The MRC environmental epidemiology unit in Southampton has reported a range of retrospective studies which assess relationships between adult health and aspects of nutrition in infancy including method of feeding and infant weight.

  We are unaware of any research into relationships between infant feeding and schizophrenia.

  Pharmaceutical Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate a review of the NHS Pharmaceutical Regulations 1992 with the objective of ensuring greater(a) simplicity in the processes for considering applications under the regulations, (b) flexibility in responding to the needs of different types of communities for pharmaceutical services, (c) openness in consultation processes and (d) ability to accommodate the provision of pharmaceutical services to different types of retail outlet selling general pharmacy products; and if he will make a statement. [36299]

  Mr. Malone
  The NHS Pharmaceutical Regulations 1992 are kept under constant review, but there are no immediate plans to make amendments.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health care workers have been infected by the hepatitis B virus since 1988. [36342]

  Mr. Horam
  Confirmed cases of acute hepatitis B infection are reported by laboratories to the Public Health Laboratory Service under a voluntary and confidential surveillance system. Information on the number of laboratory confirmed cases of acute hepatitis B infection in health care workers reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service from 1988–95 in England and Wales, where occupation was stated, is given in the table.

  Laboratory reports of acute hepatitis B infection in health care workers in England and Wales 1988–95 to the Public Health Laboratory Service

  Number

  1988

  21

  1989

  16

  1990

  13

  1991

  5

  1992

  9

  1993

  5

  1994

  6

  1995

  5

  1. Data for 1995 is provisional.

  2. Data includes hepatitis B infections acquired both occupationally and non-occupationally in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  3. Hepatitis B infection can occur asymptomatically and may not, therefore, be diagnosed.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to offer hepatitis B vaccination to persons outside the currently defined at risk groups. [36341]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department's current policy is to recommend immunisation for those groups at increased risk of infection because of their life style, occupation or other factors such as close contact with a case or carrier. This policy, including the risk groups for whom immunisation is recommended, is kept under review.

  Intensive and High Dependency Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct a comprehensive review of the intensive care and high dependency requirements in each health authority with a view to revising funding to meet service requirements; and if he will make a statement. [36399]
  386
  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities to assess the level of provision of intensive care and high dependency facilities needed and to allocate resources accordingly. Following the recent publication of guidelines on admission to, and discharge from, intensive care and high dependency care, health authorities have been asked by the national health service executive to examine the level of local provision to ensure that best use is made of available resources.

  Beta Blocking Drugs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost to the NHS per patient, per month for patients receiving treatment with beta blocking drugs. [36294]

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

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish an independent commission of inquiry to review the current arrangements for collecting prescription charges; and if he will make a statement. [36302]

  Mr. Malone
  The scheme was last reviewed in 1993 as part of the fundamental review of health expenditure. There are no plans for a further review. Extensive charge exemption and remission arrangements, among the most generous in Europe, ensure that only those able to afford the prescription charge are asked to pay.

  Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has committed to establishing the extent of skills and knowledge within acute hospital environments with particular reference to acute medical/haematological wards providing pain relief in patients with a malignant disease; and if he will make a statement. [36364]

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

  Hearing-impaired Children
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out on the impact of early detection on outcomes for hearing-impaired children; and if he will make a statement. [36375]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1994, I asked the screening panel which supports the departmental standing group on health technologies to give priority to considering developments in the early identification of hearing impairment in children and to advise on whether the available evidence was sufficient to justify a review of policy and practice. To facilitate this, we commissioned the Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research to produce a review paper. We expect to receive this paper shortly.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the impact of the private finance initiative on capital development in the NHS; if he will ensure that there is no reduction in capital investment in the NHS from public funds; and if he will make a statement. [36397]

  Mr. Horam
  The private finance initiative benefits capital development in the national health service by giving the NHS access to private sources of finance where this offers best value for money and transfer of risk to the private sector. It also enables the NHS to make the best possible use of private sector skills and experience. Some 57 privately-financed schemes worth over £1 million each have been approved to date, with a total capital value of £524 million, and schemes worth about £1.5 billion are currently testing for private finance. We cannot guarantee what the level of capital spending will be in the future, but what matters is not the level of public funding alone, but the total funding available to the NHS from public and private sources.

  Dentists (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of dentists accepting NHS patients in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36494]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  General Dental Service: number of dentists who had additions to their register in Cheshire as a whole, and in Crewe and Nantwich; year ending 31 March 1992–1996

  Number of dentists Cheshire

  Number of dentists Crewe and Nantwich

  1992

  352

  36

  1993

  363

  34

  1994

  357

  31

  1995

  352

  32

  1996

  354

  29

  Additions to the register include instances of patients registering with a dentist after a break in attendance and reinstatement of registrations that had been cancelled in error.

  Some dentists have contracts in more than one area.

  Counts relate to registrations for which payments were authorised during the year. Payments are made one month in arrears.

  Social Services Inspectors
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number of social services inspectors were employed in each year since 1991(a) in England and (b) in Northern Ireland. [36525]

  Mr. Bowis
  From 1993, figures of directly employed regulation and inspection staff in social services departments in England are published in "Local Authority Social Services Statistics: Staff of Local Authority Social Services departments at September; England", copies of which are available in the Library. Corresponding data for 1992 and earlier years are not 388
  available centrally. Questions relating to Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Drug Abuse
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total Government funding to Trent region to counter drug abuse for each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [36242]

  Mr. Bowis
  Over the past three years, Trent regional health authority has been allocated the following amounts specifically to help develop drug misuse treatment services:

  1993–94: £2,253,000

  1994–95: £2,337,000

  1995–96: £2,429,000

  Health authorities may draw on general allocations for further funds.

  Following the abolition of regional health authorities, £3,384,000 has been allocated to health authorities within Trent region for 1996–97.

  Dementia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from occupational therapists on the interventions to be used with patients suffering from mild or moderate dementia; and if he will make a statement. [36304]

  Mr. Bowis
  No such representations have been received.

  Playgroups
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the role of a structured playgroup in social and language development of pre-school children; and if he will make a statement. [36377]

  Mr. Bowis
  This research is contained in "Playgroups in Practice: Self Help and Public Policy", and "Playgroups in a Changing World", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Nursing Homes (Visits)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that all health authorities publish the reports of their visits to nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [36300]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 25 June, column 88.

  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the mental handicap hospitals expected to be closed in each region of England, with details of the expected closure date, the current number of residents, and the plans for their future relocation, together with the total number of people currently resident in long-stay mental handicap hospitals. [36555]
  389
  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not routinely collect information on hospital closures. However, inter-authority comparisons and consultancy was commissioned in 1994 to conduct a national survey of learning disability hospital closures and closure plans. A copy of its report is in the Library. It is estimated that, at 31 March 1995, there were 9,300 people with a length of stay of one year or more in national health service hospitals and units under the mental handicap (learning disability) specialty.

  Clinical Outcome Indicators
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 14 clinical outcome indicators which his Department is piloting for use in measuring the clinical effectiveness of NHS trusts in England; and when he plans to publish a report on clinical outcome indicators for England similar to the report published by the Scottish Office in December 1995. [36556]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service executive is working with the Joint Consultants Committee to promote the development of new clinical indicators, which will enable aspects of NHS trusts' performance to be examined. The following set of clinical indicators, recommended by the JCC/NHS executive working group, will be piloted this year to ensure that the information is robust and unlikely to mislead, before publication is considered.

  Perioperative mortality;

  Surgical wound infections;

  Length of hospital stay of stroke patients, and discharge home;

  District rate of hernia recurrence;

  In-hospital mortality for acute myocardial infarction;

  Adverse drug reactions while patients in hospital;

  Reoperation after prostate surgery;

  Length of stay in hospital, mortality and discharge home after admission for fractured neck of femur;

  Frequency of diagnostic curettage in women under the age of 40 years;

  Perioperative organ damage (sentinel event marker);

  Perioperative pulmonary embolism as an alternative to perioperative myocardial infarction (sentinel event marker);

  Perioperative Central Nervous System complications (sentinel event marker);

  Some of the clinical outcome indicators mentioned in the report published by the Scottish Office in December 1995 require the linkage of patient records in a way not yet routinely available in England, and, accordingly, there are no plans at present to publish such indicators.

  NHS Clinical Staff (Suspensions)
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of suspensions of NHS clinical staff from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the west midlands the NHS executive has had referred to it for each of the last five years. [36572]

  Mr. Malone
  Decisions on employment matters, including suspensions, rest with the employing authority. National health service employers have reported cases of suspension of hospital and community medical and hospital dental staff lasting more than six months since 31 March 1995. Information is, therefore, only available on those cases over six months and from that date.390
  The total number or reported cases from March 1995 to 30 June 1996 in England and the West Midlands is nine and one respectively.

  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.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS patients in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the west midlands have been treated by alternative consultants as a results of NHS clinical suspensions for each of the last five years; [36573]

  (2) what was the total cost of investigating and processing suspensions of NHS staff to the NHS (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the west midlands over each of the last five years; [36574]

  (3) how many suspensions of NHS clinical staff concerned matters of (a) personal and (b) clinical conduct in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the west midlands in the last five years; [36575]

  (4) how many suspensions of NHS clinical staff have been followed by reinstatement in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the west midlands for each of the last five years; [36576]

  (5) how many NHS clinical staff suspensions there have been (a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands in each of the last five years; [36587]

  (6) how many NHS clinical staff suspensions have been processed within (a) three and (b) six months from the first date of suspension in each of the last five years (i) nationally and (ii) in the west midlands. [36588]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. Decisions on employment matters, including possible suspensions, rest with the employing authority.

  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.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS clinical staff suspensions have not been processed within(a) six months, (b) a year and (c) two years from first date of suspension in each of the last five years (i) nationally and (ii) in the west midlands. [36589]

  Mr. Malone
  Decisions on employment matters, including suspensions, rest with the employing authority. National health service employers have reported cases of suspension of hospital and community medical and hospital dental staff lasting more than six months since 31 March 1995. Information is, therefore, available only on those cases of suspension over six months and from that date.

  Nationally there were nine reported cases during the period 31 March 1995 to 30 June 1996 of which one was from the west midlands. Seven of these cases have now been resolved and two are still outstanding. Of those resolved nationally, two were cleared within six months to one year and three within one to two years. Two cases

  391
  lasted over two years, of which one was in the west midlands. One of the two unresolved cases has lasted over two years and the other between one and two years.

  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.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated public expenditure by the NHS on non-EU foreign nationals on(a) contraception and (b) all community health services in the most recent year for which figures are available. [36848]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected.

  Health Services Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by family health services authority the number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) administration and clerical staff and (f) managers for the most recent year available. [36847]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the scheme for giving recipients of war disablement pensions priority treatment in NHS hospitals after emergency and other critical cases was introduced. [36834]

  Mr. Bowis
  Following a Government commitment given in 1953, war pensioners receive priority treatment in national health service hospitals for the condition or conditions for which they receive a pension or gratuity. Priority is not given for unrelated conditions.

  Shellfish-related Illness
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 335, how many cases of shellfish-related illness reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service were subsequently proved to be linked to (a) the consumption of shellfish, (b) the consumption of shellfish whose deficiencies were traced back to the production practices and (c) factors other than production practices; and in how many cases no link to the consumption of shellfish was established. [36595]

  Mr. Horam
  All of the 82 cases were reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service as associated with the consumption of shellfish. Information is not available on the precise cause of contamination in the shellfish implicated in each case.

  Health Care (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairs and chief executives of national health service trust hospitals, covering the Greater London area, to discuss health matters relating to care in the local community. [37195]

  Mr. Bowis
  Ministers meet chairmen and chief executives of national health service trusts as necessary to discuss various issues. I am not aware of any recent meetings with all the hospital trusts in the London area.

  Care for the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the German system of funding long-term care for the elderly. [37181]

  Mr. Bowis
  A system of social insurance for long-term care was introduced in Germany in 1995. The system is compulsory, and operates on a pay-as-you-go rather than a funded basis. We have no plans to introduce a similar system here.

  Radiotherapy
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been made to him regarding compensation for victims of radiotherapy following breast cancer; and if he will make a statement. [36924]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has received a number of letters in support of the campaign by the group Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure—RAGE BREAST—which represents those suffering adverse effects following radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer.

  Morning-after Pill
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds are currently made available by his Department to(a) the Health Education Council and (b) other bodies, for the promotion of the use of, or awareness about, the morning-after pill; for what precise purpose those funds are used; which of these projects involve the provision of a telephone helpline service; at what cost; in what areas; for what purpose; to what age group of women and in which geographic areas such campaigns are being mounted; and if he will make a statement. [37492]

  Mr. Horam
  In support of the Government's "Health of the Nation" objective of reducing the level of unwanted pregnancy, the Health Education Authority is conducting a national campaign to raise awareness of emergency contraception among women aged 16 to 49. The Department has made available £600,000 to the HEA to run the campaign, which commenced on 25 June and runs until 24 July. It aims, through press and radio advertising, briefing for general practitioner surgeries and family planning clinics, and through posters and leaflets, to improve knowledge of emergency contraception, where it can be obtained and the time period in which it can be used. A 24-hour freephone helpline is available until the end of September.

  Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average expenditure per head for each health authority, and the average for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the current financial year. [37515]

  Mr. Horam
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which health authorities in Yorkshire have had in respect of previous years overspend, made by predecessor constituent health or family health services authorities,(a) sums written off and (b) additional grant aid to reduce those overspends; [37252]

  (2) if he will list those health authorities that have (a) had previous years overspend written off by his Department and (b) been given grant aid to reduce overspends in previous years. [37253]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not held centrally.

  Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, columns 148–49, what drugs, other than paracetamol and codeine, were involved in the adverse reactions of erythema multiform and epidermal necrolysis; and how many cases were involved for each drug identified by its generic and trade name. [35492]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer on 4 July 1996]: A table has been placed in the Library which lists all drugs reported in association with erythema multiform and epidermal necrolysis between 1991 and 1995 and the number of reports for each drug.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, columns 148–49, how many of the adverse reactions were fatal or caused serious damage to the patient's health. [35493]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: The Medicines Control Agency holds the following information relating to suspected adverse drug reactions reported through the voluntary yellow card scheme. These data have been mapped to two relevant preferred terms: erythema multiforme—which includes Stevens-Johnson syndrome—and epidermal necrolysis.

  There have been five fatal reports of erythema multiforme and 29 fatal reports of epidermal necrolysis where the fatality was associated directly or indirectly with the adverse reaction. None of the fatal cases were reported to be associated with products containing paracetamol and/or codeine.

  Epidermal necrolysis is a serious condition, as indicated by the high proportion of fatalities. However, many cases of erythema multiforme are mild and self-limiting. Of the 715 reported cases of erythema multiforme, 80 were known to have been hospitalised.

  Trusts and Health Authorities (Debts)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 July Official Report, column 25, on bad debts, if he will provide equivalent figures for each of the previous five years. [37102]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: Information for 1987–88 is not available. The information for 1988–89 to 1991–92 will be placed in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibitions
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Achievements of the Engineering Industry, Present and Future", to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [37759]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 21 October to Friday 25 October 1996.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Working for Health in Wythenshawe" to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall. [37576]

  Mr. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 4 November to Friday 8 November 1996.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition in relation to "Cyprus:— A Photographic Record 1974–1966" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [37550]

  Mr. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 28 October to Friday 1 November 1996.

  Standing Committee Reports
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many occasions paperback versions of complete Official Reports of Standing Committees on Bills have been published (a) prior to the Report stage of the Bill and (b) to date, in the current Session of Parliament; and what changes there have been in this practice since the Session 1979–80. [37013]

  Mr. Newton
  There are no set timetables for the publication of paperback versions of complete Standing Committee Hansards. The practice is to publish them in recesses, usually summer recesses.

  No such versions have been published (a) before the Report stage of a Bill or (b) to date, in the current Session.

  There have been no changes in the practice since the 1979–80 Session.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Special Needs Education (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the funding for special needs education for Cheshire education authority for each of the past five years [36502]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Provision for special education is contained in the education standard spending assessment, but cannot be separately identified.

  Teaching Staff (Devon)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of(a) teachers and (b) classroom assistants employed by Devon education authority in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. [37049]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest available information on teachers and education support staff employed by Devon local education authority is shown in the tables. Staff in grant-maintained schools are excluded throughout.

  Full-time equivalent—FTE—teachers in the LEA-maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector

  January

  FTE

  1994

  7,320

  1995

  7,400

  1996

  7,450

  Full-time equivalent education support staff in LEA-maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools

  January

  FTE

  1994

  1,540

  1995

  1,680

  1996

  n/a

  1 Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff and other support staff including librarians, technicians, medical staff and child care assistants. Voluntary or unpaid staff are excluded

  n/a=not available.

  New Apprenticeship Schemes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many hours are spent(a) in the classroom studying the theoretical subjects and (b) gaining practical experience under the new apprenticeship scheme in the engineering industry. [37078]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not available because employers are free to decide how the skills and underpinning knowledge required by a modern apprenticeship are acquired. The training frameworks for modern apprenticeships specify the outputs to be achieved, but not the process. This allows employers the flexibility they need to organise training.

  Physical Education and Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 454, when she will place
  396
  in the Library the full results of the survey her Department has recently conducted into physical education and sport in schools. [37126]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The report placed in the Library on 3 July 1996 gives full details of the results of the Department's survey of PE and sports in schools in England. The Department will try to meet any requests for further information on specific aspects of the survey, provided this can be done without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Nutrition
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines she has set out in respect of the serving of healthy meals in the canteens of(a) schools, (b) colleges and (c) universities; and if she will make a statement. [37090]

  Mrs. Gillan
  None. The nutritional content and presentation of school food is for individual LEAs and governing bodies of grant-maintained schools to decide. We expect to publish voluntary dietary guidance for them in the autumn. We hope LEAs and governors will adopt the good practices it recommends. Colleges and universities are autonomous institutions and responsible for their own catering. Although the guidance is not aimed at them, those institutions will no doubt also wish to ensure that healthy food options are available.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she has taken to ensure that the Government offices for the regions are aware of their responsibility to ensure TECs comply with the operating agreement in respect of equal opportunities. [36894]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department's operating guide for Government regional offices makes specific reference to the requirements relating to equality of opportunity. Training and enterprise council performance, including equality of opportunity, forms part of the regular dialogue between Government offices and the Department.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many TECs have complied with an equal opportunities strategy under paragraph 8 of the TEC operating agreement. [36893]

  Mr. Paice
  All 74 training and enterprise councils or chambers of commerce, training and enterprise have agreed, and are taking steps to implement, an equal opportunities strategy in accordance with their contracts with the Government.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to ensure that TECs spend a larger proportion fo their budgets on management training for small firms. [36682]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government are currently consulting businesses and their support organisations on the simplification of their business support. The purpose of the consultation, which ends in September, is to allow TECs and others greater flexibility in meeting their clients' needs. We look to TECs to tackle management development needs in local companies but have no plans to require TECs to dedicate a specific proportion of their funds to that area.
  397
  The TEC contract specifies activity in the skills for small business scheme by which TECs specifically assist small businesses to develop their own in-house training expertise. In addition, it is open to TECs to use the discretionary fund resources to target their small business sector.

  Education Funding (Devon)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was available for the local education authority in Devon to spend on each pupil, on average, in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [37424]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Allocations of education standard spending spending assessments—SSA—per pupil for 5 to 10-year-olds, 11 to 15-year-olds and over-16s are shown in the table. Actual expenditure per pupil is for the local education authority to decide: LEAs can and do spend more or less on education than is provided in their education SSA.

  £ per pupil

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  5 to 10-year-olds

  1,865

  1,879

  1,958

  11 to 15-year-olds

  2,605

  2,506

  2,609

  Over-16s

  3,484

  3,350

  3,280

  Objective 4 Status
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 335, on objective 4 status, how much money has been made available to firms (a) in total, (b) with under 100 employees, (c) with under 50 employees and (d) with under 10 employees in each EU country which has participated in the objective 4 programme. [36745]

  Mr. Forth
  No information has been made available by the European Commission on the breakdown of funds under objective 4 between firms or other bodies in the countries which have objective 4 programmes.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those local education authorities that pay education maintenance allowance, indicating the amount currently paid by each; and if she will list the practice of each authority as to when the allowance is paid. [36779]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following local education authorities in England and Wales informed the Department that they had paid educational maintenance allowances in 1994–95 as in the table.
  398

  Educational maintenance allowances paid by local education authorities

  England and Wales 1: academic year 1994–95

  Number of EMAs

  Total expenditure on EMAs

  Corporation of London

  1

  518

  Greenwich

  431

  82,050

  Hackney

  57

  23,020

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  219

  114,780

  Islington

  99

  19,800

  Kensington and Chelsea

  505

  256,270

  Lambeth

  801

  341,632

  Lewisham

  388

  139,882

  Southwark

  1

  500

  Tower Hamlets

  439

  133,100

  Wandsworth

  269

  126,743

  City of Westminster

  239

  96,600

  Barking and Dagenham

  129

  52,358

  Bexley

  3

  1,440

  Bromley

  256

  129,046

  Croydon

  55

  24,515

  Enfield

  267

  125,819

  Havering

  32

  16,902

  Hounslow

  131

  62,972

  Merton

  47

  20,550

  Newham

  65

  14,100

  Redbridge

  52

  21,619

  Waltham Forest

  703

  246,287

  Birmingham

  457

  110,505

  Coventry

  220

  33,487

  Walsall

  174

  81,457

  Knowsley

  326

  80,984

  Liverpool

  1,724

  545,618

  St. Helens

  69

  32,778

  Sefton

  321

  72,414

  Wirral

  460

  153,554

  Bury

  9

  2,800

  Manchester

  133

  19,883

  Oldham

  124

  58,156

  Tamside

  23

  7,620

  Wigan

  170

  80,835

  Doncaster

  128

  43,647

  Rotherham

  166

  92,949

  Sheffield

  121

  11,838

  Calderdale

  337

  65,963

  Kirklees

  435

  293,717

  Leeds

  773

  445,805

  Wakefield

  64

  11,196

  Gateshead

  185

  117,225

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  406

  278,837

  North Tyneside

  90

  24,435

  South Tyneside

  28

  20,440

  Sunderland

  161

  73,265

  Clwyd

  124

  8,820

  Dyfed

  417

  106,797

  Gwent

  704

  404,279

  Gwynedd

  88

  22,440

  Mid-Glamorgan

  857

  243,726

  Powys

  79

  24,024

  South Glamorgan

  360

  72,000

  West Glamorgan

  67

  19,890

  Avon

  514

  163,668

  Bedfordshire

  93

  21,340

  Berkshire

  188

  127,260

  Buckinghamshire

  273

  142,950

  Cambridgeshire

  910

  111,936

  Cheshire

  614

  298,821

  Cleveland

  66

  31,417

  Cornwall

  402

  130,328

  Cumbria

  226

  79,976

  Derbyshire

  380

  135,919

  Devon

  1,164

  576,973

  Dorset

  1,232

  288,254

  399

  Educational maintenance allowances paid by local education authorities

  England and Wales 1: academic year 1994–95

  Number of EMAs

  Total expenditure on EMAs

  Durham

  1,185

  548,639

  East Sussex

  214

  89,637

  Essex

  396

  232,832

  Gloucestershire

  112

  48,290

  Hampshire

  15

  8,426

  Hereford and Worcester

  907

  345,422

  Hertfordshire

  215

  93,027

  Humberside

  304

  177,723

  Kent

  686

  149,138

  Lancashire

  65S

  368,309

  Lincolnshire

  124

  36,770

  Norfolk

  17

  1,290

  Northamptonshire

  316

  147,399

  Nottinghamshire

  728

  429,077

  Shropshire

  161

  77,220

  Somerset

  74

  23,530

  Staffordshire

  203

  82,833

  Suffolk

  127

  50,996

  Surrey

  824

  197,868

  West Sussex

  229

  92,427

  Wiltshire

  1,577

  392,238

  Total all Leas2

  34,554

  12,191,668

  Source:

  F503G.

  Notes:

  1 Made by Local Education Authorities in England and Wales to students normally domiciled in their area.

  2 National totals have been grossed to compensate for incomplete returns.

  This information is derived from returns made by local education authorities to the Department; the fact that there is no entry for some LEAs does not necessarily mean that they paid no allowances. We have no information about the practice of authorities in making these allowances, which are discretionary awards. It is for individual LEAs to decide whether to pay education maintenance allowances and they are responsible for setting the conditions under which such allowances are paid, the level at which they are paid and the timing of payments.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the(a) gross and (b) net expenditure cost of the introduction nationally of a means-tested education maintenance allowance; how such an allowance would be paid; to whom it would be paid; and if such allowances are taxable. [36776]

  Mr. Squire
  No such assessment has been made by the Department.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the(a) number and (b) percentage of primary school children in classes of 31 or more (i) in each local education authority and (ii) nationally in 1996. [37151]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of pupils in one-teacher classes of 31 or more pupils in maintained primary schools in England in January 1996—provisional—was 1.26 million. This represented 31.8 per cent. of pupils in all 400
  one-teacher classes in maintained primary schools in England. Class size figures for local education authorities will be available in the autumn.

  English Tests
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the final guidelines issued to markers of key stage 2 English tests included lower thresholds for some levels than those set out in the draft guidelines; and if she will make a statement. [36642]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The draft thresholds set by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on 22 April were confirmed in full following the level setting procedures based on an initial sample of actual scripts. Dummy thresholds had been issued to markers in March purely for training purposes.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dun woody
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of legal aid applications and the total sums involved received from members of the public in Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36391]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Legal Aid Board has an area officer in Chester which covers the county of Cheshire along with nine other counties or regions. The data gathered by the board do not separately identify applications received by individual counties.

  The total number of applications for civil legal aid received by the Chester area office over the last five years were as follows:

  1991–92: 26,391

  1992–93: 30,542

  1993–94: 24,969

  1994–95: 25,517

  1995–96: 24,593

  For civil legal aid certificates issued by the board's Chester area office, the net cost of cases which closed during the last four years were as follows:

  1992–93: £14.056 million

  1993–94: £17.657 million

  1994–95: £18.320 million

  1995–96: £18.622 million

  The figures for 1991–92 are not available.

  Court Closures (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the(a) magistrates and (b) other courts closed in the county of Cheshire in each of the past five years. [36390]

  Mr. Streeter
  In the last five years, two courts have been closed in Cheshire. They are: Winsford magistrates court, closed in September 1992; and Ellesmere Port county court, closed in December 1994.

  In addition, sittings ceased to be held at Ellesmere Port magistrates court with effect from 31 March 1996.

  Leeds Crown Court
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many prosecutions, heard at the Leeds Crown court in the last two years, have proceeded to the Court of Appeal; and if he will make a statement. [35541]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of cases heard at Leeds Crown Court in the last two years which have proceeded to appeal.
  In 1994, 192 appeals in cases heard at Leeds Crown Court were received in the Court of Appeal. In 1995 this rose to 211.

  Court Debt-recovery Procedures
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the programme to streamline court debt-recovery procedures. [36744]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 15 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the programme to streamline court debt-recovery procedures.
  There is an ongoing programme to streamline certain aspects of debt recovery business in the county courts. The Summons Production Centre, which opened in 1990, operates a computerised and highly automated system for issuing summonses and now handles 47% of all summonses issued. There are further plans to centralise and computerise the handling of payments under attachment of earnings orders which will enable all employers to make payments to a single central point. It is also planned to implement a new national computer system in local county courts beginning in 1997.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mohammed al-Masari
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General when he will reach a decision on whether to prosecute Mr. al-Masari for reported anti-semitic remarks. [35540]

  The Attorney-General
  Material attributed to Dr. al-Masari has been considered by the Crown Prosecution Service with a view to deciding whether there is evidence that offences of incitement to racial hatred or incitement to murder have been committed. In the light of advice from leading counsel, the CPS has concluded that there is insufficient evidence at present to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for any criminal offence. Any further evidence will be closely reviewed.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress in the prosecution of persons under the War Crimes Act 1991. [35542]

  The Solicitor-General
  Proceedings have been commenced in the Serafinowicz case which was committed to the central criminal court on 15 April 1996 and is due for trial in January 1997. Nine other cases remain under investigation.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to reorganise the Serious Fraud Office. [35543]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office continues to implement recommendations made in the Graham report and by the Davie group, including measures to rationalise its investigative function and to make the most efficient use of police resources. I have no plans for further reorganisation.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest position over the prosecution in the United Kingdom of Asil Nadir. [35544]

  The Solicitor-General
  Asil Nadir stands indicted before the central criminal court on 13 counts of theft involving over £33 million alleged to have been stolen from Polly Peck International plc. A warrant has been issued for his arrest. The Crown is ready to proceed as soon as he returns or is returned to the jurisdiction.

  Pensions Ombudsman
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the pensions ombudsman concerning legal proceedings in connection with decisions of the ombudsman. [36379]

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Solicitor's Cost
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Attorney-General, who is the taxation master in the matter of solicitors' costs; and if he will list the names and firms of those in the legal profession who assist him. [36309]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with the Solicitors Act 1974 and order 62 of the rules of the Supreme Court, taxations of solicitor and own client costs—Solicitors Act taxations—may be carried out only by a taxing master or district judge, sitting alone. Reviews of such taxations are carried out by a judge assisted by two assessors, one of whom is a taxing master, and the other a practising solicitor nominated by the president of the Law Society.
  403
  Deputy taxing masters and deputy district judges also conduct taxations. There are seven taxing masters, 331 district judges, 16 deputy taxing masters and 691 deputy district judges. There is no panel of practising solicitors acting as assessors. Individual nominations are made for each review. I will write to the hon. Member if he wishes to provide me with details of any particular case that he has in mind.

SCOTLAND

  Drugs and Aids
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total funding for Tayside drugs services broken down by the national services division, the helath board and the local authority figures in 1995–96. [31756]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total funding allocated for Tayside drugs services in 1995–96 was as follows:

  1995–96 £

  National Services Division

  11,091,000

  Tayside Health Board

  103,350

  Tayside Regional Council

  271,182

  1 This figure does not include additional funding of £13,000 and £33,000 allocated for the Tayside drug development officer, and community drug action projects respectively.

  2 This figure covers grants to the Dundee drugs and AIDS project, and the Perth misuse of drugs project only. In addition, funding was made available to other voluntary sector projects where drug misuse was a factor amongst clients but not the main thrust of the service.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the posts which will be lost in 1996–97 in(a) the Scottish Drugs Forum, (b) Dundee drugs and AIDS project, (c) Wishart centre and (d) Body Positive in Tayside. [31620]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information, which has been provided by Tayside health board, is set out in the table:

  Posts cut in 1996–97

  Scottish Drugs Forum

  None

  Dundee Drugs and Aids Project

  16

  Wishart Centre

  2

  Body Positive

  None

  1 This figure includes a social work secondment and a research post; both were fixed-term appointments which have now ended.

  GPs (Special Deprivation Payments)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of patients of(a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholders in Scotland live in areas attracting special deprivation payments under the regulations governing general practitioners' remuneration. [31818]
  404
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The percentages of patients of general practitioner fundholders and non-fundholders in Scotland who live in areas attracting special deprivation payments are 11 per cent. and 11.6 per cent. respectively.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) the total national costs, (b) the total cost to each health board and (c) the cost to each NHS trust in Scotland of managing transactions with GP fundholders or supporting GP fundholding. [31814]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Hospital and Community Services Expenditure
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total budget for hospital and community services, excluding GP fundholding, in each year since GP fundholding was introduced in Scotland. [31816]

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

  1991–92: £2.488 million

  1992–93: £2.707 million

  1993–94: £2.895 million

  1994–95: £2.973 million

  1995–96: £3.037 million

  Constituency Statistics
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be(a) the number of Scottish constituencies at the next general election and (b) the average number of voters in each; what will be the equivalent figures for (i) England, (ii) Northern Ireland, (iii) Wales and (iv) the United Kingdom. [35996]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Number of seats

  Average electorate based on the 1996 electoral registers

  Scotland

  72

  55,043

  England

  529

  169,083

  Northern Ireland

  18

  65,386

  Wales

  40

  155,507

  United Kingdom

  659

  166,620

  1 These figures are based on the 1995 electoral register as the 1996 electorate figures are not available.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the responsibility of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency in respect of environmental pollution in the Minches. [36457]
  405
  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency's pollution control powers are defined in sections 31 and 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These powers cover the regulation of discharges to controlled waters as defined in section 30A of that Act. The Minches are wholly within controlled waters.

  Home Energy Conservation Act
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 will come into operation in Scotland. [36869]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The provisions of the Home Energy Conservation Act are to be introduced in Scotland on 1 December 1996. Guidance to local authorities on how they must carry out the duties required of them is being prepared and will be issued to the authorities later in the year following consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  1994–95

  NHS Trusts

  Income £000

  Management/Administration and board members £000

  Percentage

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  123,084

  8,790

  7.14

  Angus

  40,874

  2,500

  6.12

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  59,168

  4,408

  7.45

  Caithness and Sutherland

  15,308

  1,069

  6.98

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  47,655

  2,485

  5.21

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  39,798

  2,933

  7.37

  Dundee Healthcare

  58,211

  3,548

  6.10

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  114,524

  7,787

  6.80

  East and Midlothian

  53,711

  2,951

  5.49

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  85,132

  7,602

  8.93

  Edinburgh Sick Childrens

  27,091

  3,210

  11.85

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  36,970

  2,705

  7.32

  Fife Healthcare

  81,677

  5,686

  9.96

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University

  119,729

  7,241

  6.05

  Grampian Healthcare

  135,767

  10,190

  7.51

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  152,023

  11,295

  7.43

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  48,705

  3,703

  7.60

  Highland Communities

  52,258

  3,053

  5.84

  Inverclyde Royal

  39,095

  3,322

  8.50

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals

  46,759

  3,806

  8.14

  Law Hospital

  45,318

  3,789

  8.36

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  53,356

  3,771

  7.07

  Moray Health Services

  26,107

  2,416

  9.25

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  75,018

  5,616

  7.49

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare

  58,057

  3,379

  5.82

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  38,217

  2,867

  7.50

  Raigmore Hospital

  52,108

  3,641

  6.99

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  69,419

  4,782

  6.89

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  50,653

  3,169

  6.26

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  157,192

  10,495

  6.68

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  46,955

  3,790

  8.07

  Southern General

  81,170

  5,401

  6.65

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  40,741

  2,515

  6.17

  Stobhill

  66,459

  5,537

  8.33

  Victoria Infirmary

  59,298

  4,125

  6.96

  West Glasgow Hospitals University

  113,090

  7,582

  6.70

  West Lothian

  66,652

  4,762

  7.14

  Western General Hospitals, Edinburgh

  75,258

  5,222

  6.94

  Yorkhill

  55,747

  4,551

  8.16

  Total

  2,608,354

  185,694

  7.12

  Algrade Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the investigations of the affairs of the Algrade trust by the Scottish charities office and the police. [37018]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that the further inquiries referred to in my answer of 24 April 1996,Official Report, column 186, to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), are drawing to a conclusion. The investigators are awaiting the completion of accounts for the period of the administration of the former trustees. The Charities Office continues to monitor the work of the new trustees.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each trust in Scotland(a) total income, (b) the amount spent on the overall cost of management staff, administrative staff and board members and (c) (b) as a percentage of (a) [37373]

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

  Research Projects
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of funding allocated to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council in respect of indirect costs relating to research projects in Scotland for each of the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95. [36861]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council did not receive any grant in aid for allocation to institutions before 1 April 1993. For the 1993–94 financial year, the Secretary of State approved the council's proposal that £98.8 million of the total recurrent resources available to it should be allocated to institutions to support research infrastructure. For 1994–95, he approved the council's proposal that £99 million should be allocated for the same purpose. It is for institutions to determine with project sponsors the appropriate level of contributions towards indirect costs of specific research projects, and in doing so to comply with the arrangements set out in the financial memorandum between the council and the institution regarding full-cost recovery.

  Private Landed Estates
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 512, on financial assistance to private estates, if he will list the criteria upon which monitoring conditions imposed on applicants for financial assistance are based; and if he will make a statement; [36771]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 4 July, Official Report, column 511, what options are under discussion for making more transparent the objectives of schemes involving public funds paid to private estates; and if he will undertake a study of the possibility of publishing assessments of whether all conditions attached to such schemes are fulfilled. [36770]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 11 July 1996]: In accordance with paragraph 3(ii) of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", we are progressively making available for public scrutiny internal guidelines about the Scottish Office's dealing with the public. This task will take some time to complete, since each document must be scrutinised to ensure that it is comprehensive and does not include any matter which should properly be kept confidential under part II of the code.

  The objectives for agriculture schemes apply equally to all applicants whatever their land tenure status, and are set out in the various explanatory leaflets, application and claim forms. Each scheme has its own criteria for monitoring.

  Where, as a result of monitoring by departmental officials, it is found that scheme requirements are not being met, steps are taken to withhold assistance or to recover any financial assistance paid, in whole or in part, in accordance with undertakings given. However, I have no plans to publish assessments of the fulfilment of scheme conditions.

  Epilepsy Association of Scotland
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support he currently provides to the Epilepsy Association of Scotland. [36857]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: In the current financial year, the Epilepsy Association of Scotland has received funding of £13,500 from the Scottish Office Department of Health, £3,500 as a core grant towards its administration costs under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and £10,000 towards the cost of publishing the association's information pack on epilepsy and women.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Statistics
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for(a) family credit, (b) attendance allowance, (c) disability working and living allowance, (d) severe disability allowance and (e) invalidity care allowance have been processed since 4 February; how many people have (i) passed and (ii) failed the residence test in (a) to (e); and how many awards previously made or granted in (a) to (e) have been withdrawn. [36040]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  Benefit

  Claims processed

  Residence and presence test

  Period

  Passed

  Failed

  Family credit

  668,227

  n/a

  360

  February 1996 to June 1996

  Attendance allowance

  163,575

  n/a

  181

  February 1996 to June 1996

  Disability living allowance

  216,039

  n/a

  651

  February 1996 to June 1996

  Disability working allowance

  9,758

  n/a

  5

  February 1996 to June 1996

  Severe disablement allowance

  32,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Invalid care allowance

  56,882

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

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

  2. Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Coventry local authority area in each of the last 12 months were in receipt of(a) unemployment benefits only, (b) income support only, (c) unemployment benefits and income support and (d) national insurance credits only. [35940]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer Monday 8 July 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  409

  Thousands

  Total unemployed claimants

  Unemployment Benefit (UB) only in payment

  UB and Income Support (IS) in payment

  IS only in payment

  Neither UB nor IS in payment

  May 1995

  14.1

  1.2

  0.6

  11.0

  1.3

  August 1995

  15.1

  1.4

  0.8

  11.0

  1.9

  November 1995

  13.3

  1.3

  0.7

  9.9

  1.3

  February 1996

  14.5

  1.3

  0.9

  10.1

  2.2

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a sample of one in 20 claimants.

  2. Figures relate to unemployed claimants who sign on at an employment service jobcentre—ESJ—in the Coventry local authority area. The ESJs included are Coventry Bankfield, Coventry Cheylesmore, Coventry Park Court and Coventry Tile Hill.

  3. Figures are subject to sampling variability.

  4. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Quarterly 5 per cent. sample of unemployed claimants taken on the second Thursday of the months shown.

  Council Tax and Housing Benefits
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the number of claimants for council tax benefit in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years; [36336]

  (2) if he will list the number of claimants for housing benefit in (a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36338]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Average number of council tax benefit recipients for Crewe and Nantwich local authority and all local authorities within Cheshire from 1993 to 1995

  Number of recipients

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Crewe and Nantwich

  9,100

  9,100

  8,800

  Cheshire

  80,000

  80,800

  82,000

  Average number of housing benefit recipients for Crewe and Nantwich local authority and all local authorities within Cheshire from 1991 to 1995

  Number of recipients

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Crewe and Nantwich

  5,400

  5,700

  6,200

  6,300

  6,300

  Cheshire

  49,700

  54,300

  57,300

  58,700

  60,600

  Notes:

  1. Council tax benefit figures for 1993 are averages of the three quarters ie. May, August and November, due to council tax benefit being introduced from 1 April 1993. All other figures are averages of the four quarters.

  2. A proportion of housing benefit recipients may have also been in receipt of council tax benefit.

  3. Figures refer to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  4. The local authorities within Cheshire are as follows: Chester, Congleton, Crewe and Nantwich, Ellesmere Port, Halton, Macclesfield, Vale Royal and Warrington.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, quarterly 100 per cent. stock count inquiries taken at the end of February, May, August, and November for each year shown.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of annual savings resulting from changes to the reduced earnings allowance scheme. [36225]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 18 June,Official Report, column 420.

  Local Offices (Closures)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the offices within his Department that have been closed in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36344]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is set out in the table.

  During the last five years, no DSS offices have been closed in Crewe and Nantwich.

  Year

  Agency/Business unit

  Offices closed in Cheshire

  1991–92

  All

  None

  1992–93

  Benefits Agency

  Royal Avenue, Widnes1

  All other DSS units

  None

  1993–94

  All

  None

  1994–95

  All

  None

  1995–96

  Child Support Agency

  Wimslow2

  1The public caller facility was moved to the existing Caldwell road site in Widnes, which was deemed better suited in terms of location and accessibility by public transport. The telephone and correspondence work was transferred to Warrington.

  2 The work and staff from this site were transferred to Macclesfield.

  Appeals Tribunals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security appeals tribunal hearings at(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough have been heard in each of the last five years. [36289]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  411

  Social Security Appeal Tribunal Hearings in Doncaster

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Actual number of appeals heard

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  777

  Approximate number of appeals heard

  750

  800

  850

  900

  —

  The Independent Tribunal Service does not keep detailed records for periods before the previous financial year.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consultations have taken place on the operation of social security appeals tribunals in Doncaster and Mexborough; [36287]

  (2) what proposals he has to improve the operation of social security appeals in Doncaster and Mexborough. [38288]

  Mr. Evans
  The administrative arrangements for social security appeals tribunals are the responsibility of the independent tribunal service, which has been asked to write to the hon. Member.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of staff employed in his Department in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36343]

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

  Crewe

  Cheshire

  Benefits Agency

  109

  726

  Contributions Agency

  4

  32

  Information Technology Services Agency

  0

  0

  Child Support Agency

  9

  46

  War Pensions Agency

  0

  0

  Total

  122

  804

  1. None of the agencies employ staff in Nantwich.

  2. The figures are represented as staff in post figures and include permanent and fixed-term appointment staff as at 31 May 1996.

  3. The figures for Cheshire include staff employed in Crewe.

  4. Figures for previous years are not available.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, columns 370–71, on statutory sick pay, how many employers reclaimed statutory sick pay under the small earners relief scheme in 1994–95; what was the average amount reclaimed; and how many employers reclaimed in each (a) parliamentary constituency and (b) region. [36681]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  In 1994–95, the estimate of statutory sick pay costs reimbursed to employers under the small earners relief—SER—scheme was £25 million. This is a proportion of the total statutory sick pay—SSP—costs reimbursed to employers during 1994–95 arising from SER and from reimbursement of 80 per cent. of SSP paid by employers during 1993–94. Detailed information on recoveries made
  412
  under each scheme is not available as employers were not required to distinguish between reimbursement received under each scheme in their end of year returns.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for which groups the receipt of child benefit brings eligibility to other social security benefits; and at what income levels such eligibility is reached. [36773]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Receipt of child benefit is the principal qualification for child allowances and, therefore, a family premium in income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, and for child dependency increases of retirement pension, widows benefit, short-term incapacity benefit—IB—at the higher rate, long-term IB, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement, and short-term IB at the lower rate and unemployment benefit if the beneficiary is over pension age. In the income-related benefits, eligibility arises where applicable amounts, including any child allowances and family premium, exceed the benefit unit's income. Child benefit is counted as income for the purposes of income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, but not for family credit and disability working allowance.

  Child dependency increases in the non-income-related benefits are not subject to an income rule but, with exception of widows' benefits, the increase for the first child is withdrawn when the beneficiary's spouse or partner's earnings reach £130. Any increases for subsequent children are withdrawn for each subsequent £17 of earnings.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents or guardians of those aged 16 to 19 years in full-time education have received child benefit; and what was the(a) gross and (b) net cost of such payments in each of the last three years and in the current year to date. [36777]

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

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of families (000)

  1,016

  1,038

  1,089

  Gross expenditure (£ million)

  581

  598

  644

  Net expenditure (£ million)

  465

  480

  515

  Sources:

  1. 1996 Departmental Report.

  2. Child Benefit management information statistics.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents or guardians of those aged 16 to 19 years, in full-time education, over the last three years to date, have declined to accept child benefit. [36778]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Take-up of child benefit has always been close to 100 per cent. of those entitled. The benefit is paid only on receipt of a claim from the parent or guardian. No information is available about how many beneficiaries voluntarily relinquish child benefit where there is continuing entitlement, but the number is believed to be negligible.

  Widows
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total annual income lost by a widow with(a) one child and (b) two children, aged between 16 and 19 years, in full-time education, if child benefit were abolished; and if he will estimate the effects on widows in receipt of (i) income support, (ii) a third of average earnings, (iii) half average earnings and (iv) average earnings. [36774]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The widows benefit income lost by a widow with one or two children aged between 16 and 19 years in full-time education if child benefit was abolished would depend upon the age of the widow at the date child benefit entitlement ended. A widow with one child, who was aged 55 or over at the time child benefit ended would have widowed mothers allowance replaced with widows pension at a lower rate—a weekly loss, including lost child benefit, of £20.70 a week. Such a widow with two children would lose a total of £40.65 a week. Any additional pension paid with widowed mothers allowance would continue to be paid with widows pension.

  A widow with one child, who was aged under 45 when child benefit ended would lose widowed mothers allowance and receive no further widows benefit. With the lost child benefit, there would be a loss of £81.85 a week. Such a widow with two children would lose a total of £101.80 a week. Any additional pension paid with widowed mothers allowance would also be lost. Where, but for its abolition, child benefit would otherwise have continued for at least one child until she attained the age of 45, she would also lose entitlement to age-related widows pension of at least £18.35 a week from this later date. There would be different effects for women aged between 45 and 55 at the date of change. Special rules also apply in respect of women widowed before April 1988.

  The net income effect on a widow aged under 45 in receipt of (i) income support, (ii) a third of average earnings, (iii) half average earnings and (iv) average earnings is set out in the table.

  Weekly loss of income

  Widow in receipt of

  One child, age 16 £

  Two children, one age 16 and one age 18 £

  Income support

  Nil

  Nil

  ⅓ average earnings

  8.14

  10.54

  ½ average earnings

  22.20

  20.31

  Average earnings

  64.80

  82.07

  1. Indicates net loss of income, taking into account entitlement to income support, family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit as appropriate (April 1996 rates).

  2. Assumes continuing child allowances in income support and family credit while children remain in full-time education.

  3. Assumes average local authority rent and council tax liability.

  4. For all in-work examples it is assumed that the widow is working 30 hours per week and paying not contracted out national insurance contributions.

  5. Assumes April 1996 average earnings figure of £349.80 per week, based on April 1995 figure uprated by average earnings index.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account is taken of the payment of education maintenance allowance in calculating social security benefit. [36775]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Educational maintenance allowances paid to young people continuing their secondary education beyond the upper limit of compulsory school age are full disregarded when calculating entitlement to social security benefits.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the external legal advice he has received in connection with the consequences of Lords Amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [37401]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It is not Government practice to disclose legal advice.

  Lost Records
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many teenagers had their records lost as a result of problems in transfers of records between the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency; and what remedial action he is proposing. [37403]

  Mr. Heald
  No records were lost as a result of problems with the transfer of information between the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency. A transmission failure did, however, result in an estimated 5,000 data items not being transferred, which were intended automatically to register juveniles approaching age 16 for national insurance purposes. Any teenager affected by this problem can register by completing an application form at their local social security office.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many asylum seekers resident in(a) the London borough of Southwark, (b) south London and (c) London have lost benefits a direct result of two negative decisions on their applications for political asylum in each of (i) March, (ii) April and (iii) May this year. [37251]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Tied Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the levels of returns to the United Kingdom economy of tied aid expenditure for(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid in each of the last five years. [36654]

  Mr. Hanley
  The returns to the United Kingdom economy of bilateral tied aid expenditure were examined in the recently concluded tied aid studies, the findings of which ODA will publish shortly. The studies found that
  415
  bilateral tied aid has only a small impact on the UK economy. They did not provide a precise measure of the returns.

  None of the UK's contributions to multilateral aid is tied. But the returns to the UK economy from our contributions to multilateral aid are significant. The latest estimate is that for every £1 contributed, 90p is spent in the UK on procurement of goods and services—latest available three year moving average. These figures are imprecise, given differing definitions used by the multilateral organisations. But the trend is declining when compared with previous estimates because developing countries themselves are receiving a larger share of procurement and because a bigger proportion of our multilateral aid goes through the EU, where our share of procurement has tended to be lower than in the World bank or UN agencies.

  South Africa (Oil Suppliers)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protocols or agreements were entered into between Her Majesty's Government and Oman, Brunei or the United Arab Emirates in relation to the supply of oil to South Africa between 1979 and 1990; and if he will give the dates and summarise the nature of such protocols or agreements. [36610]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have found no record of any such protocols or agreements.

  Angola
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, columns 393–94, what is the latest total number of weapons of each kind handed in by UNITA personnel under the United Nationals verification mission III operation in Angola; and in what condition the verification mission has judged them to be. [37071]

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 10 July, the number of weapons handed in by UNITA was as follows:

  Vila Nova

  Lunduimbali

  Negage

  Piri

  Quibale

  N'Tuco

  N'Gove

  Andula

  Inducted

  5,002

  5,212

  5,013

  3,676

  4,000

  2,201

  5,053

  4,450

  Below 15

  74

  114

  201

  80

  74

  48

  55

  129

  15–18 years

  417

  736

  348

  263

  234

  135

  343

  240

  18–35 years

  4,158

  3,876

  3,635

  1,271

  3,045

  1,594

  4,281

  3,459

  Above 35

  353

  481

  824

  534

  647

  415

  374

  622

  TBC

  —

  5

  5

  1,528

  —

  9

  —

  —

  Absent

  1,229

  2,112

  205

  17

  724

  45

  215

  978

  Died

  5

  3

  21

  5

  2

  3

  6

  1

  Present

  3,768

  3,097

  4,787

  3,654

  3,274

  2,153

  4,832

  3,472

  Chitembo

  Catala

  Chicuma

  Caiundo

  Licua

  Lumege

  Muxinda

  Inducted

  3,319

  4,555

  3,809

  2,794

  2,472

  1,350

  0

  Below 15

  31

  284

  27

  15

  4

  12

  0

  15–18 years

  159

  656

  249

  60

  50

  41

  0

  18–35 years

  2,432

  3,364

  3,314

  1,977

  1,264

  939

  0

  Above 35

  697

  251

  219

  742

  1,071

  358

  0

  TBC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  —

  —

  Absent

  0

  246

  884

  163

  76

  0

  0

  Died

  0

  8

  1

  0

  0

  2

  —

  Present

  3,319

  4,291

  2,924

  2,631

  2,396

  1,348

  0

  416

  Number

  Personal weapons

  26,805

  Crew served weapons

  3,641

  Artillery and air defence weapons

  65

  Tanks and armoured vehicles

  8

  Under classification

  113

  UNAVEM considers that at least 30 per cent. of the weapons handed in are unserviceable.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to prevent by way of international action by the United Nations the export of illegally mined diamonds from UNITA-controlled areas of Angola. [37072]

  Mr. Hanley
  The prevention of illegally mined diamonds being exported from UNITA-controlled areas is the responsibility of the Angolan Government.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking in the United Nations to increase surveillance, warnings and interdiction to prevent UNITA in Angola from obtaining supplies of arms and material from sources outside Angola, with special reference to Zaire. [37073]

  Mr. Hanley
  As a permanent member of the Security Council, the UK has supported all efforts to remind states neighbouring Angola, including Zaire, of their obligation to implement fully the provisions of paragraph 19 of United Nation Security Council resolution 864(1993). This was reaffirmed in UNSCR 1064 of 11 July.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, columns 393–94, what is the latest total number of UNITA military personnel quartered under the United Nations Angola verification mission operated in Angola in each of the UN quartering areas and in each of the age categories being monitored. [37074]

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 10 July, the number of UNITA military personnel in each of the UN quartering areas was as follows:

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Prices
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many beef cattle under 30 months have been sold and slaughtered in each week since 20 March; how much per kilogram they have averaged less than the average price in the week previous to 20 March; and what that shortfall amounted to per head. [30024]

  Mrs. Browning
  The weekly average price for clean cattle for the week ending 6 July was 18p/kg below the equivalent price for the week ending 16 March, a shortfall of some 15 per cent. Weekly average prices, throughput at selected auction markets and total slaughterings, for clean cattle—steers, heifers and young bulls—for the weeks following the 20 March, are detailed in the table.

  Week ending

  P/Kg

  Throughput (head)

  Slaughterings (1,000 head)

  23 March 1996

  115.81

  18,580

  41.6

  30 March 1996

  96.99

  447

  2.3

  6 April 1996

  108.77

  5,124

  16.4

  13 April 1996

  100.21

  13,498

  26.7

  20 April 1996

  101.21

  14,327

  31.8

  27 April 1996

  107.86

  14,225

  38.4

  4 May 1996

  103.18

  18,088

  40.4

  11 May 1996

  101.56

  13,497

  30.9

  18 May 1996

  100.74

  17,755

  38.6

  25 May 1996

  97.72

  16,059

  38.7

  1 June 1996

  99.71

  14,096

  31.9

  8 June 1996

  100.88

  16,118

  38.5

  15 June 1996

  101.84

  16,392

  35.8

  22 June 1996

  99.77

  14,913

  34.3

  29 June 1996

  100.22

  14,134

  n/a

  6 July 1996

  101.16

  16,215

  n/a

  Slaughtered Cattle
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been slaughtered in the latest available four-weekly period in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and how many showed external signs of the disease. [31970]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not possible to provide details of the numbers of animals slaughtered in the last four week period as there is a delay of between six to eight weeks from the date of slaughter and recording on the central BSE database. The latest four-week data set available for the numbers of animals slaughtered as BSE suspects is:

  Week beginning

  Number

  18 March 1996

  308

  25 March 1996

  328

  1 April 1996

  200

  8 April 1996

  161

  All animals slaughtered as BSE suspects would have been exhibiting clinical signs.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which members of the EU are currently opposing the removal of the ban on the export of British beef; and on what grounds. [32211]
  418
  Mrs. Browning
  In Florence on 21 June, the European Council unanimously accepted the framework and procedures put forward by the Commission for lifting the wider ban on British beef.

  Beef (Germany)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what justification the Germans have given for banning the sale of British beef to non-EU countries. [32183]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Germans have not banned the sale of British beef to third countries. The decision to prohibit exports of British beef was taken by the Commission in Commission decision 96/239 of 27 March 1996.

  Set-aside
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage the replacement of set-aside with an environment-friendly arable extensification policy. [36650]

  Mr. Baldry
  Set-aside is a requirement of the European Community legislation governing the support arrangements for producers of arable crops. While it remains so, the UK will continue to apply management conditions to set-aside land at national level designed to help maximise its environmental benefits. At the same time, the countryside stewardship scheme includes provisions intended to enhance the conservation value of arable field margins and the Department is in discussion with interested parties on further means of enhancing the conservation value of arable land generally.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that land previously subject to the environmental conditions attached to set-aside land will be subject to the same conditions when it returns to cultivation. [36651]

  Mr. Baldry
  Most of the environmental conditions that apply to the management of set-aside land would not be relevant in the context of cultivated land. However, during the set-aside period, farmers are required not to damage or destroy certain features on or adjacent to their set-aside land. The Government aim to lay regulations protecting important hedges, including those on agricultural land, by the end of the year.

  Rabies
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will arrange for veterinary surgeons to have unimpeded access to the inactivated rabies vaccines already approved by his Department for animals in their care; [36878]

  (2) if he will remove the restrictions imposed by his Department on access to rabies vaccines. [36879]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 29 February,Official Report, column 710.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the risks of European bat lyssavirus infection in the United Kingdom. [36880]
  419
  Mrs. Browning
  More than 1,880 bats belonging to 23 species from all parts of Great Britain have been screened for rabies since 1986 with negative results. The recent case of European bat lyssavirus 2—EBL 2—found in a bat in Sussex is the first time that rabies virus has been isolated from a bat in this country.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if European lyssavirus type 2 is a notifiable disease in the United Kingdom. [36882]

  Mrs. Browning
  Yes.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many scientifically proven cases of rabies confirmed by isolation of the rabies virus have occurred in animals in the United Kingdom over the last 25 years; in what species; and in what years they occurred. [36884]

  Mrs. Browning
  European bat lyssavirus 2 was isolated on 6 June 1996 from a bat found in Sussex. This is the only occasion in the last 25 years on which rabies has been confirmed by isolation of virus.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the comparative risks of infection from European bat lyssavirus and urban and sylvatic rabies virus; and if he will list his sources of information and the methodology used to reach his conclusions. [36881]

  Mrs. Browning
  No such comparative assessment has been made or is considered necessary while this country remains free from rabies except for the one isolated case of European bat lyssavirus in an insectivorous bat in Sussex. In this particular case, the risk of dissemination of disease to terrestrial wildlife was considered, on the basis of the circumstances of the case, to be very small.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take following the recent diagnosis of rabies in a Daubenton's bat; and if he will make a statement. [36883]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on 11 June 1996, Official Report, column 139, and to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 18 June, Official Report, column 441. These outline the action already taken.

  The restrictions on the premises on which the bat had been held will remain in place until they pose no risk of dissemination of rabies. We have asked all members of the Sussex bat group to help us ensure that any dead or sick bats found in Sussex are sent for testing at the Central Veterinary Laboratory as part of our continuing British survey for rabies in bats. Bat groups throughout Britain are being contacted to ask for their continuing support in providing bat carcases for such testing.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to get the beef ban lifted in the European Union. [31645]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on 24 June 1996, Official Report,
  420
  columns 21–24, about the outcome of the European Council in Florence. He informed the House that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy eradication plan had secured unanimous approval in Florence and that a framework of measures for lifting the wider ban on beef exports had also been agreed.

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the total number of live sheep exported from Dover port on 3 June on the Cap Afrique was recorded on the accompanying export health certificate with individual identification as required by the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996. [35668]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 11 July 1996]: Five consignments of sheep were exported from Dover on the Cap Afrique on 3 June 1996. Each consignment was accompanied by a health certificate recording the number of animals in that consignment and the individual identification numbers of each animal. Not all the animal identification numbers were in compliance with the requirements of the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996—SAGRIMO. However, we are satisfied that the identification numbers provided would enable the sheep to be traced back to the farm of origin as required by the EC directive. Steps have been taken to ensure that all sheep and goats exported in future are identified in accordance with SAGRIMO.

  Slaughter Programme (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that the economic advantages of competitive tendering, as set out in the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993,
  have been effectively pursued in the allocations to abattoirs of cattle under the 30-month slaughter programme; [37030]

  (2) what steps he has taken to meet the requirements of EU directive 92/50 on competitive tendering in the allocations to abattoirs of cattle under the 30-month slaughter programme. [37032]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The requirements of Council directive 92/50/EEC as implemented by the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993 have only limited application to the procurement of slaughtering services. Competitive tendering for allocations to abattoirs of cattle under the 30-month slaughter scheme was precluded by a number of factors including time constraints, the interrelationships between the sectors of the industry and, in particular, the limitation on rendering capacity. Allocations were granted to abattoirs according to criteria which have been announced by the Government which were: a traditional large-scale trade in cows and heavy steers; logistical consideration such as geographical spread and proximity to Tenderers; committed to accepting casualty animals; currently operating and with EC approved status; and the ability to process at least 100 animals a day on days specified for participation.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to reply to the letters of 24 April and 28 May from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, in respect of a constituency case. [37091]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied to these letters on 11 July 1996.

WALES

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) opposed to the nursery voucher scheme. [35551]

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received about nursery vouchers; and, of those, how many were in favour of the scheme. [35564]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In addition to letters to Ministers, over 40 petitions and some 4,300 separate representations opposing the Government's proposals have been received, mostly printed pro forma letters and postcards. So far, there has been one letter of specific support. I refer also to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) today.

  Rural Businesses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the recently published proposals to afford non-domestic rate relief to small rural businesses; and if he will make a statement. [35559]

  Mr. Hague
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and I have received 93 responses to date including one from the hon. Member. These are now being considered.

  Cardiff International Airport Link Road
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has now received a bid for funding from Vale of Glamorgan council for the proposed new dual carriageway linking the Ely link road with Cardiff international airport. [35560]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend is providing transport grant support towards the preparation costs involved in improving the links to the airport in 1996–97. Bids for 1997–98 have recently been invited and need to be submitted by 2 August 1996.

  Hospitals (Capital Charging)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of capital charging on smaller district general hospitals and their associated NHS trusts. [35561]
  422
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Trusts include capital charges as an element of their contract prices. In the allocation process, health authorities and GPs are funded to meet these contract prices. The size of the hospital should not affect this process.

  Incomes
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the gross weekly income per household as a percentage of(a) the English, (b) the Scottish and (c) the Northern Ireland average; and what were the percentages in 1980–81. [35562]

  Mr. Hague
  Average household income per head in Wales in 1994, based on regional accounts data, was 88 per cent. of the average for England, 89 per cent. of the average for Scotland, and 104 per cent. of the average for Northern Ireland. The corresponding figures for 1984, the earliest year available, were almost identical.

  An alternative source of information is the family expenditure survey. According to this, in 1994–95, average gross weekly household income in Wales was 75 per cent. of the English average, 78 per cent. of the Scottish average, and 87 per cent. of the Northern Ireland average. The corresponding figures for 1980–81 were 91 per cent. 96 per cent. and 116 per cent. respectively. Given the small sample size in Wales, these figures are subject to considerable variation from year to year.

  Schools
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals the Welsh Office is taking forward to increase self-government for schools. [35563]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I launched the White Paper "Self-Government for Schools" on Tuesday 25 June. It includes many proposals to increase substantially self-government in schools.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what incentives are offered to inward investors in Wales; and what inward investments have been attracted in the past 12 months. [35565]

  Mr. Hague
  The incentives available to inward investors into Wales are the same as those possible for indigenous companies: competitive overhead costs; good quality trained labour; a sophisticated industrial infrastructure; support and training; support by the Welsh Development Agency; and Government grant aid. The combination of these secured projects promising over 12,000 new and safeguarded jobs and capital investment of over £970 million in the last financial year. Since then, further new projects have been announced, including LG's £1.7 billion investment at Imperial park, Newport promising the creation of 6,100 jobs.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current level of inward investment to Wales. [35574]
  423
  Mr. Hague
  Wales continues to attract levels of inward investment which are higher than its population share. Last year was a good year in which Wales secured projects promising over 12,000 new and safeguarded jobs and capital investment of over £970 million. I expect this year to be even better, particularly in the light of my announcement last week of LG's investment at Imperial park, Newport.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on recent inward investment to Wales. [36923]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Over the past few months, there has been a steady flow of inward investment success for the whole of Wales. The LG project has become the jewel in the crown and my right hon. Friend and I expect it to herald a new phase of success for Wales. The work of everyone involved in the LG project, and in the other projects that we have won over the past few months, should be applauded.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received seeking the establishment of a Welsh Assembly. [35566]

  Mr. Hague
  Since 1 January 1996, I have received six written representations about the establishment of a Welsh Assembly—two in favour and four against.

  A55
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has recently been taken to improve the A55. [35567]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The opening of the Aber improvement in September 1994 completed the A55 duelling across mainland north Wales. Since 1979, over £700 million has been spent on improving the 60 miles from Chester to Bangor, cutting journey times from over three hours to about one hour.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the areas with the highest unemployment rates in Wales. [35568]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of Welsh travel to work areas in which the average rate of unemployment is more than three percentage points above the GB average has fallen significantly in recent years. In the year of 1979, there were 15 such travel to work areas in Wales. In the 12 months to May 1996, there were four.

  Privatised Utilities (Employment)
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussion he has had with heads of privatised utilities in Wales about their future employment forecasts. [35569]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many statutory instruments he has introduced in the last three years. [35570]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of statutory instruments introduced by the Welsh Office from 1993 onwards is as follows: 1993:48; 1994:64; 1995:109; 1996 (up to and including 31 May):76; total 297.

  Governance
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on the reform of government structures in Wales with particular reference to the raising of revenue. [35571]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on holding a referendum in respect of the future government of Wales. [35572]

  Mr. Hague
  Since 1 January 1996, I have received three written representations in favour of a referendum on a Welsh Assembly.

  Judicial Reviews
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has held with which bodies in respect of the length of time taken over judicial reviews. [35573]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans: No recent discussions have been held.

  Food Strategy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the people appointed to the advisory group set up in response to the consultation paper on a food strategy for Wales, and for each member to list the(a) commercial interest, (b) non-commercial interest and (c) value of all grants received from his Department in the last six years; and if he will make a statement. [36052]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The group members are listed in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales" a copy of which is available in the Library. Information on Welsh Office grant payments is commercially confidential and cannot be disclosed.

  GCSE Point Scores
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 212, and the answer of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of 19 June to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on GCSE point scores, Official Report, column 479, what factors specific to his Department led to his conclusion that to provide a substantive answer would involve disproportionate cost. [36119]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Welsh Office holds summary examination data at school level, drawn from the Welsh examination database and specified to meet the requirements of the school and college performance
  425
  booklets. To provide the information previously requested, a special analysis of the pupil level data held on WED would need to be commissioned.

  Beef
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to help re-establish the market position of Welsh beef; and if he will make a statement. [36053]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government are seeking to have the export ban on British beef lifted. Once this is achieved, the position of Welsh beef in the export market can be re-established.

  The Meat and Livestock Commission is working with Welsh Lamb and Beef Promotions Ltd. and Welsh Food Promotions Ltd. to promote Welsh select beef in the UK market. Additionally, Welsh beef will be promoted throughout the Royal Welsh agricultural show 22 to 25 July.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated, on comparative costing of (i) organic, (ii) bio-dynamic, (iii) permaculture and (iv) conventional intensive agricultural systems where the external costs have been internalised; and if he will make a statement. [36055]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No research of this specific type has been commissioned in Wales.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the percentage of youths undergoing training who enjoyed employed status on the last date of their training in each of the training and enterprise council areas in Wales in 1995. [36581]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information is not available on the number of young people with employed status on the last day of their training. Employed status statistics are collected for those in training on the last day of each period. The percentage of young people with employed status who were in training in each TEC area at 31 December 1995 is shown in the following table:

  Percentage of young people with employed status in training1 at 31 December 1995 (provisional)

  TEC

  Per cent.

  Gwent

  66

  Mid Glamorgan

  63

  North-east Wales

  64

  Powys

  44

  South Glamorgan

  62

  TARGED

  69

  West Wales

  46

  Wales total

  59

  1 Includes Youth Training, Youth Credits, Modern Apprenticeships and Accelerated Modern Apprenticeships.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individuals started youth training in each year since 1990–91. [36585]
  426
  Mr. Evans
  The number of young people in training in each year since 1990–91 is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Starts

  1990–91

  18,231

  1991–92

  17,955

  1992–93

  16,911

  1993–94

  17,567

  1994–95

  117,179

  1995–96

  1 218,939

  1 Includes modern apprenticeship first-time entrants

  2 Provisional.

  Education and Training
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department receives notification of applications made to the European Union for financial support for education and training projects. [36113]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Welsh Office is aware of applications made under the structural funds and some Community actions. Other applications, made to the European Commission either directly or through an intermediary, are not automatically notified to the Welsh Office.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the percentage of(a) males and (b) females currently unemployed in the (i) 16–19 years, (ii)20–29 years, (iii) 30–39 years, (iv) 40–49 years, (v) 50–59 years and (vi) 60 years and over age groups; and what were the figures in (1) 1979, (2) 1984, (3) 1986, (4) 1989, (5) 1990 and (6) 1992. [36667]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Unemployment rates by age are available from the labour force survey, which was carried out annually up to 1992 and quarterly from 1992 onwards. Estimates in the following table relate to spring (March to May) for years up to 1992; the latest estimate is taken from the winter quarter (December to February) for 1995–96. Data for 1979 are not available on a comparable basis.

  ILO unemployment rates, percentage by age and sex, Wales1

  Age

  1984

  1986

  1989

  1990

  1992

  1995–96

  Males

  16–19

  25.9

  24.3

  n/a

  18.6

  21.3

  n/a

  20–29

  21.5

  23.0

  11.3

  11.9

  15.1

  15.5

  30–39

  12.6

  11.2

  9.0

  7.0

  11.2

  9.4

  40–49

  10.5

  11.5

  6.4

  n/a

  7.7

  7.5

  50–59

  9.8

  9.4

  n/a

  n/a

  9.4

  n/a

  60 and over

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Females

  16–19

  32.0

  27.4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20–29

  17.6

  18.4

  10.1

  9.5

  8.6

  10.5

  30–39

  12.9

  12.2

  8.8

  9.1

  n/a

  7.2

  40–49

  n/a

  9.7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  50–59

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  60 and over

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Percentages based on estimates below 10,000 cannot be quoted as they are thought to be unreliable—these estimates are marked n/a.

  ILO=International Labour office.

  427
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of male unemployment in(a) Newport and (b) Wales. [35533]

  Mr. Jones
  In May 1996, the unadjusted number of males on the claimant unemployment count in the Newport travel-to-work-area was 5,619, that is 10.4 per cent. of the male work force. The corresponding figures for Wales were 79,696 and 11.2 per cent.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report column 507, what assessment he has made of the incidence of clusters of CJD in Wales. [37459]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no statistically significant evidence of clustering of CJD in Wales of the rest of the UK.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 507, if he will (a) draw up and (b) place in the Library a map, adopting the model produced by the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh for 1995, of definite and probable cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in Wales for the period May 1990 to April 1996. [37456]

  Mr. Jones
  This information will be contained in the fifth annual report from the CJD unit. The unit anticipates that it will be publishing this report in the late autumn. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Abattoir, Marchwiel
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what controls he exercises over(a) the disposal of (i) solid waste and (ii) open running liquid waste and (b) the spraying of blood from the Marchwiel abattoir, near Wrexham. [37455]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Controls on slaughterhouses for disposal of waste materials are covered by the specified Bovine Materials (No 2) Order 1996, the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 and the Fresh 428
  Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. The Specified Bovine Material Order has the effect of separating specified bovine material from other waste materials. This specified bovine material is then rendered and the remaining waste material incinerated. As indicated in the latest progress report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Great Britain (May 1996), a copy of which is in the Library of the House, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has advised Ministers that the current and proposed methods of dealing with waste material from the slaughter of cattle are safe. Minor amendments to the Specified Bovine Material Order are currently being considered to reflect SEAC's recommendations.

  The Government are required by the EC framework directive on waste to take the measures necessary to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment. The main requirements of the directive are given effect in Great Britain in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and related regulations. The Environment Agency (England and Wales) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are responsible for the enforcement of the regulatory systems. Local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of some air pollution controls.

  BSE
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action the Intervention Board executive agency is taking to ensure that the products of rendered cattle aged over 30 months and currently stored in(a) Exeter, (b) Belfast, (c) Liverpool and (d) Gloucestershire are not contaminated with BSE; and if he will make a statement. [36339]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The produce of animals rendered under the over-30-month scheme is being stored pending destruction. The animals are processed in approved plants which meet Community standards for rendering ruminant waste. Those standards are implemented in GB in the Animals By-Product Order 1992 (as amended) and the Specified Bovine Material (No 2) Order 1996.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Lottery Funding: Community Projects
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether lottery funds are being denied to community projects, in favour of national projects, in the inner London boroughs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): No, my Lords. Applications for community-based projects are treated on their own merits and are not assessed by reference to the success or failure of applications for national projects.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Will he confirm that there are important, and indeed big, community projects which are not currently getting national funds? Does my noble friend agree that generally in the London area community projects are not doing very well in getting lottery funds? Is it not correct that, on figures issued by my noble friend's department, community projects in the borough of Southwark are receiving only 2 per cent. of lottery funds as against national projects; in Islington, 3 per cent; in Camden, 3.4 per cent; and in Lambeth, 5 per cent? What advice can my noble friend give to those who are putting forward those community projects?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, at the risk of stating the obvious, the key to receiving lottery grants is to apply for them. That is the essential first step. The kinds of points that my noble friend raised have caused concern. I understand that the London Pride Partnership is making contact with the distribution bodies to see whether there is scope for maximising lottery opportunities in London.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report that far too few inner city sports projects have so far come forward for lottery support? Is there any explanation for that, if it is a fact; and does it matter anyway?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not aware of the report to which the noble Lord refers. The purpose of the lottery is to try to ensure an appropriately even spread of distribution across the country as a whole, taking account of the particular circumstances and contexts that pertain. If it is the case that there is such a
610
substantial shortfall as that to which the noble Lord refers, the steps taken by the London Pride Partnership should perhaps be taken by those who are concerned.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it be possible, bearing in mind the Minister's practical reply, for the results of any inquiries to be made known to the House?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that the results of any inquiries made of the distribution bodies will be generally available. If I have any information that would be of particular interest to the noble Lord, I hope he will be assured that I shall contact him.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend said that the first step is to apply to the National Lottery Board. Surely the second step is to make sure that you have a very well thought out and costed project. Is it a fact that some applications are not sufficiently well thought out and constituted?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there must be examples to which my noble friend refers. However, in certain circumstances the distribution bodies are prepared to provide funds for feasibility studies to enable those who are perhaps less well placed to bring forward a proposal in a properly worked out form.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can consideration be given to changing the rules relating to lottery grants so that the amount given does not have to be balanced by an equivalent amount raised from charity? Are the Government aware that it is very difficult for a museum, for example, that is to be awarded £5 million to have to raise the equivalent amount from charity? Charity resources are finite and limited. I receive complaints from everywhere. Will the Government consider this matter?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, right from the outset matching funding has been a matter for the distribution bodies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has encouraged the distributors to be flexible in that regard for the kind of reasons mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, my noble friend said that it was necessary that there should be an even spread of the yield of the lottery across the country. Is he aware that there is an even spread of schools across the country, and a very widely shared perception that there should be an increase in the encouragement of sport played in and between schools? Could the bodies responsible for distributing the money be reminded of the need to enable teachers to supervise that sport at the cost of replacement teacher time, which is expensive?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend's point is a trifle wide of the Question. It is the case that one of the distributing bodies is the Sports Council, which is interested in the promotion of sport in its widest context. School sport is particularly important.

611
As regards the first part of my noble friend's question, in referring to the even spread of lottery distributions I specifically said that it was important to see them in the context of the circumstances that pertain. In the case of national projects, clearly if there is only one such project it will be very expensive and will have to be in only one place.

Air Safety Standards: Foreign Aircraft
2.43 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many foreign airline operators have had their aircraft or operations surveyed in view of increased safety surveillance now being undertaken in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Sectary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, in January, the Government announced a package of measures to strengthen the oversight of safety standards of foreign aircraft operating to the United Kingdom. Since then the Civil Aviation Authority has carried out nine checks on such aircraft at our request. An audit of the aviation authority in Bulgaria has also been undertaken to measure that state's compliance with International Civil Aviation Organisation standards.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government will encourage the publication of names of airlines whose aircraft fall below the required safety requirements, as is done in other countries, particularly the USA?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the first point to make is that the aviation industry has been extremely successful but extremely safe. We undertake random checks of foreign aircraft in this country where we have reason to doubt that states are not complying with International Civil Aviation Organisation standards. In those circumstances, we shall invite the CAA to inspect those aircraft. Fortunately, those circumstances are very few. The results of such inspections are usually either that the aircraft are not in the condition that some people might expect in terms of the safety standards—in other words the check was satisfactory—or that measures are quickly taken to put things right. If measures are not taken to put matters right, we shall take action and possibly ban aircraft from that company.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many foreign airlines have been supervised in this way and how many have been adversely reported upon?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can give the figure for the number of inspections carried out since we announced the package of new measures in January. So far, nine inspections have taken place. Where we have
612
had specific doubts about the safety condition of aircraft from other countries, the results have been largely satisfactory.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what has been the result of those nine inspections? Have there been breaches of the minimum ICAO standards? If so, what sanctions are being applied?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe I have answered that question. For the nine inspections that have taken place, the results have been largely satisfactory. There have been some minor safety questions raised and in those circumstances the national authorities have taken action to address those questions. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with a list of the inspections, the dates and safety concerns that were originally raised and any problems that are outstanding.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for deciding to do that. However, is he aware that there is an increasing practice of foreign airlines being used by UK operators where there is a need to bring in some additional help because of shortage of capacity and that frequently those foreign aircraft do not return to their home base? Does he believe that that is giving rise to some abuse and some considerable difficulty in being able to carry out the necessary inspections to which he alluded?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, the inspections to which I alluded are the exception. They take place when specific doubts are raised about the safety standards of a particular airline or country's administration. Secondly, I recognise that in the charter airline sector some charters—so-called fifth freedom charters—are undertaken by aircraft to a third country. But that is a relatively small proportion of the charters undertaken—some 5 per cent. or under. We recognise that UK charter carriers should be given a fair competition basis on which to operate. That is why I announced approximately one month ago some tightening of the measures relating to charter aircraft. To address the specific issued raised by the noble Lord, we have introduced a measure which will mean that particular charter carriers can only undertake a certain number of charters, thus preventing them from being based over here. That number is 10.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any research on the relative safety of former Soviet aircraft and western aircraft respectively? If no such research has been undertaken, do the Government believe that it would be a useful idea to commission such research, in view of the anecdotal evidence that some of those Russian aircraft are less than safe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the first point to make is that Russia and the former states of the Soviet Union are signatories to the Chicago Convention. They are members of the International Civil Aviation

613
Organisation. The principle of the regulation of these international industries is that we mutually recognise each other's certification. We have undertaken checks from time to time on aircraft from countries of the former Soviet Union. I understand that the American federal administration has also participated in a programme. We believe that this is best done internationally on the basis of ICAO work. We are co-operating with its programme and indeed have contributed the use of some CAA experts towards that.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's promise that he will give information to my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, is it not proper that such information about safety should be available to everybody, especially those passengers who have some kind of citizen's charter in this area?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the information requested by the noble Lord is largely technical. I can give some examples. There was the aircraft from Venezuela which was inspected and checked on 25th June. Nine items only were noted and no detention was warranted. An aircraft from Zimbabwe was checked on 30th April and there were no safety problems. I could read out details of the nine inspections, but it might try the patience of the House.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, are the Government able to satisfy themselves that the pilots of the aircrafts are competent and physically fit, as distinct from the machines?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that goes back to what I said earlier: that we are part of an international civil aviation industry regulated on an international basis but specifically by the member states. It is not possible for any one country to be the world's policeman. It is not possible for our Civil Aviation Authority to check every foreign pilot in the world, nor for other countries to check every English pilot. The system must work on mutual recognition. Where problems arise or where there has been an accident and that reveals difficulties, we must take action on that basis.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, will my noble friend look again at the Answer he gave to our noble friend Lord Gainford? As one who travels at lot in east and central Europe, at one stage various government departments advised us not to fly with certain airlines. Can my noble friend say whether such advice is still extant and, if so, which airlines?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, advice is given on the basis of a number of factors. For instance, in some areas of the world we may give advice because we believe that there are security threats. We are talking of aviation services to and from the United Kingdom run by specific airlines. I stress the importance that we place on aviation safety. If we have doubts about a specific airline operating to and from this country, we will inspect it. If difficulties are found that cannot be overcome, we will not allow that airline to operate to this country.

ODA: Reproductive Health Initiatives
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What new initiatives the Overseas Development Administration has taken in the field of reproductive health following the recommendations of recent international conferences.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, in Cairo I said I hoped to commit more than £100 million to reproductive health work in 1994 and 1995. We actually committed £184 million. Our spend has increased from £24 million in 1990 to £62 million in 1995—some 3 per cent. of the aid programme. New developments include our Seedcorn Fund to support innovative work. ODA and the Medical Research Council are co-funding the development of new methods of contraception.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Will she accept that her response indicated welcome examples of the considerable achievements of her department and herself in recent years, reflected in the enormous increased resources allocated? However, does she agree that there is still a large expressed need in the area of reproductive health in the developing countries—something of the order of 200 million people? Will she continue therefore to set an example to other donor countries by giving high priority to this subject in her department?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. It is vital that not only we, but also other donor countries, help the development of the growing world by assisting families to decide on the size and spacing of their children. The world population is currently 5.6 billion. It is growing by 1 billion people every decade and could double or triple in the next century. That is why we are committed to giving access to families so that they may choose what size of family they want and its spacing. And that is why we have more than doubled our programme in the past five years.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I acknowledge the splendid work which the Government, with the help of my noble friend, have done to help the world in that way. As my noble friend recently agreed that overpopulation is a principal cause of poverty, will she agree also that it leads to relentless urbanisation and too much damage to the environment? Will the Government therefore continue with their policy as relentlessly as they can?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right that urbanisation does not bring relief to families that are growing faster than the economies of the countries to which they belong. The difficulty for those families is often that they have no access to good family planning advice and no access to sound reproductive health assistance.

615
We want to give them that access so that they can choose. In the British programme there will never be any coercion and support for abortion.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I wish to raise two points: first, that the term "reproductive health" includes access to abortion on demand; and, secondly, that the declaration of the United Nations Conference on Population and Development in Cairo last year stated that abortion should never be used as a method of family planning. That was confirmed at a recent conference in Istanbul. I would ask the Minister to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not support any initiative that involves abortion.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I repeat what I said to my noble friend. We have been opposed throughout to abortion as a method of family planning. My team and I argued for that to be included in the Cairo programme of action; we argued for it in the Beijing platform of action; and will not support any organisation that permits or condones abortion as a method of family planning.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, my noble friend said that population increase is the single most serious problem facing developing countries. Will she agree to help to remove opposition to family planning which still exists in some quarters in this country and throughout the world? That is essential to the developing countries. Will my noble friend do her utmost to remove that opposition and lay to rest the fears that are quite unjustified?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I will do my best. It is sensible to set out these matters in a factual and non-emotional way. We know from long experience in development that many families across the world are desperate for help in containing the number of children that they have. I have seen many thoroughly exhausted young women in their late 20s and early 30s who have already been through more than 10 pregnancies. That has so exhausted them that they are no longer able to look after their families. It is important to work in a practical, common-sense way to get rid of some of the emotion and some of the fears that arise in relation to this difficult and sensitive subject.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the Minister is aware that the all-party group on this issue gives equal weight to the words "population" and "development". Does she agree that her successful population programmes go hand in hand with social or human development, particularly the development of primary care and education, especially of girls? Does she agree also that population activities which neglect that aspect and are funded at the expense of such programmes are likely to be ineffective?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, not for the first time on this important subject the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and I are in a considerable degree of agreement. It is critical that, in addition to making available access to family planning advice, we ensure
616
that all people, especially women, have access to better opportunities for education so that they can make and maintain responsible choices. We know that we cannot be as successful in helping families without education and the ability to read to choose and determine the number of children that they have.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their commendable record with population control in the world generally. However, is not the Minister concerned that we give proportionately more of our gross national product than any other country? Is it possible that we can persuade the Americans to be as generous as we are in helping this problem which, out of self-interest, they should consider seriously?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not use the word "control" again because nothing in our policy smacks of it. We talk about children by choice and not chance. There is a real reason for that: that couples should decide how many children they are going to have; they should never be controlled by any government. As regards the United States, we very much hope that it will be more realistic. We know full well that all the most successful programmes to look after the needs of women in the developing world begin in the villages. They are very much based where the family is situated. If more of that work can be done through USAID, I believe that the United States will see the value of the sort of work of which we know the complete value.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a large body of scientific evidence available now indicating that perhaps the women involved will not need to have the choice? There are something like 25 million pesticide poisoning incidents in the undeveloped countries each year. There is an increasing body of evidence that pesticides in small quantities are affecting the reproductive health of these young women and that eventually they will be unable to have babies. Many of the pesticides have been found in the United Kingdom—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Countess of Mar:—and other developed countries. Can the noble Baroness say what she proposes to do about it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this matter is very wide of the Question. I shall look at what the noble Countess has said. We try to improve health wherever we are working.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I wonder whether we might proceed to the next Question. I apologise to my noble friend. With the leave of the House, I believe that we should give time to the final Question.

ME Sufferers: Treatment
3.1 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to ensure consistent and adequate treatment for the 150,000 men, women and children in Britain who suffer from the debilitating illness ME.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government have commissioned the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to provide us with advice about the nature and wider clinical aspects of the condition. The chapter on chronic fatigue syndrome in the Disability Handbook is being revised and will be published in September this year. The Chief Medical Adviser to the Department of Social Security has set up an expert group to advise on chronic fatigue syndrome.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she ask her department to consider distributing the report that has been brought out by the national task force to doctors and the Department for Social Security so that people who suffer from this terrible disease may discover whether they are eligible for a disability living allowance?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. I understand that this report came out in 1994. It was distributed to the Department for Social Security and all family health service authorities. Copies were sent to health professionals in hospitals and universities. They were also made available free of charge to those who asked for them.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, the national task force has been referred to and also the report of the Royal Colleges. Can the noble Baroness tell us when the report of the Royal Colleges is expected, and when we are likely to be able to read it? Will she also join in condemning the kind of ill-informed press report that appeared in the Daily Mirror on 11th May under the heading,
"It is just posh bosh",
which can only add to the pain of ME sufferers?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we expect to receive the report of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges soon. As to its publication, that will depend on the Chief Medical Officer. He is a very open person who on the whole likes to publish reports.
I did not see the press report of 11th May. However, I know that there is a consensus in the country that there is this condition which is called either ME or CFS. It is not fully understood and more research needs to be done into its causes, its diagnosis and its treatment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, on Thursday the Minister announced that she was convening a special group to study people suffering from organophosphate poisoning, which is another
618
condition where treatment is often said to be somewhat inappropriate and inconsistent. Will she take similar action as regards ME? Does she agree that if the internal market did not prevent the pooling of specialist knowledge between consultants and hospitals, the need for these specific initiatives would be much less?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before another group is set up we need to see the report from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and from the group set up by the Chief Medical Adviser. As regards the internal market, there is no setback at all in pooling information, advice and research.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Department for Social Security is taking the problem of ME and chronic fatigue syndrome very seriously and now has a committee looking into the problem with a view to informing the doctors in the medical service of the Benefits Agency of the symptoms and the signs to look for?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I did refer to that in my initial Answer.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the recent events in Northern Ireland.

Henry Johnson, Sons & Co., Limited Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry to delay the House on what I believe to be a comparatively minor matter, although it has the importance of appearing on your Lordships' Order Paper and it asks for the consent of your Lordships to pass it. But can the noble Lord give us some idea of what this Bill is about?
I observe that at paragraph (4) it says:
"Having regard to the fact that the area of operation of the Company is and has been for many years wholly in the Republic of France, certain advantages would accrue to the company if it were incorporated under the laws of the Republic of France instead of under the laws of England".
We are talking at a time when the advantages of being in the United Kingdom, owing largely to the photogenic qualities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have been widely advertised. Therefore, it is a little unusual to find a company that wants to leave these shores.
This company is on the shipping and forwarding agency side of commercial transactions. It was incorporated in the United Kingdom in 1907. From the

619
inquiries I have made it has net assets at the moment of between 50 million and 60 million dollars, which is not an inconsiderable amount. There may be a perfectly good reason why this company should decide to be incorporated in France. Can the noble Lord tell me what advantages are anticipated, because, as I say, they are mentioned in the Bill? In particular, are there any taxation implications in this matter, not only for the company itself but for the subsidiary companies and as regards the interests of the directors, the names of whom I have here and who appear to be associated with English companies or companies which have not yet applied to go abroad? These are Three Keys Properties Limited, Leasecon Engineering Associates Ltd., Five Oak Leisure Ltd., Climax Chemicals Ltd. and Tele-Units (Service) Limited.
As I say, I am quite sure that all is in order, but I would like to be reassured on the various matters that I have raised, following which I have no doubt that, unless there is something which obviously requires further inquiry, the House will be pleased to allow the matter to proceed in the normal manner.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I hope that your Lordships will know, I am always anxious to assist noble Lords, and not least the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. However, your Lordships will also know that I am bound by the practice and procedure of the House and the first point to which I ought to draw your Lordships' attention—quite unnecessarily, I am sure—is a point with which your Lordships will be familiar, not least because the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had occasion to remind your Lordships of it only last week. I refer to the fact that a Third Reading is to be taken formally and any debate which arises at that stage should take place on the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
There is a second procedural point to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. It will be less familiar to some of your Lordships than to others. It is a point which I had the occasion to draw to your Lordships' attention only a few weeks ago. I refer to the fact that the practice and procedure of your Lordships on private Bills—this is a private Bill—are such that if points are to be raised at various stages, notice is to be given and a sponsor appointed from the Back Benches.
As I have said, I am always anxious to try to assist if I can. Had such notice been given and had a sponsor been appointed, I am sure that the first thing that that sponsor would have noted was that he or she would not have been at all surprised had the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, wanted to raise a matter which has European implications, as has this Bill.
Had I been permitted by the rules of procedure of your Lordships' House to assist, I should have pointed out that the company has been incorporated in this country, but the whole of its business is, and has been for a very long time now, in France. Therefore, it is of assistance to the company and no doubt to its customers that that company should no longer be incorporated in this country but in France where it can carry out its practices all the more efficiently. As the noble Lord,
620
Lord Bruce of Donington, who is a distinguished accountant, will know, there is no procedure under the United Kingdom Companies Acts for a company's incorporation to be transferred to another country. The Bill is needed to effect that transfer.
I hope that I have assisted to some extent, but I do not think that I should transgress upon your Lordships' sense of order by attempting to assist further. However, if there is any way in which I can help, I shall seek to do so outside the Chamber.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like at once to apologise to the House and to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for having raised such a matter on Third Reading rather than on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. My curiosity has been perfectly well satisfied. I accept the noble Lord's rebuke, but I can assure him that next time I shall be spot on the procedure and that I may possibly require further information than the noble Lord found it proper to give this afternoon.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I doubt not one word of what he has told your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed.

Public Order (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Wildlife Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Railway Heritage Bill
Read a third time.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
In moving this Motion, perhaps I may pay tribute to my honourable friend Mark Robinson in another place, whose idea this was, and to those officials at the Department of Transport who have helped me to get the Bill to this point in your Lordships' House. I trust that the Bill will now be given the correct green light and allowed to reach its terminus.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
3.15 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Arrangements for making grants]:
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of subsection (4) below and after the making of an order having effect for a period of up to twelve months").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this group of amendments is designed to secure the best of both worlds in an area where there is still a great deal of public concern, and which is perhaps the weakest part of the Bill as it stands. So far are they from being wrecking amendments that I would hope the Government might welcome them as a constructive means of targeting expansion in the direction and through the structures which the Government have in mind, while at the same time allaying the worries of those parents and providers who have greatest involvement in nursery education.
The problem, as noble Lords are by now well aware, lies in those authorities, some of them Conservative-controlled like Solihull, where there is already high LEA provision. I need not repeat the arguments in detail. The way in which the resourcing is intended to work, by the convoluted clawing back of money from LEAs only to give most of it back later, means that, to put it no higher, where nursery provision is already at near-universality, the LEA cannot gain and there is a likelihood that it will lose financially. It is surely quite wrong that those who have worked in the past to build up good nursery provision should now have this provision threatened. On top of this we have the attendant uncertainty in planning future LEA provision, to say nothing of the rigmarole of the administrative paperchase—was it eight different steps that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to in Committee?—to enable nursery school parents to reclaim what they have already.
I think we can do better than that. In Committee we put forward an amendment which would have allowed a whole LEA area to opt out of the voucher scheme. Where that was something of a blunt instrument and involved the complication of parental ballots, what we are bringing forward today is much more focused.
The effect of this group of amendments, of which Amendment No. 5 is the operative one, will be to remove all local authority nursery provision from the ambit of the voucher scheme. The scheme will apply only to places in the voluntary and private sectors. Grants, however, may still be made to LEAs for any new provision they may want to make.
This will come about as follows. Sub-paragraph (i) of Amendment No. 5 provides for such grants to authorities for any new nursery provision—the relevant words here are "for the first time". Nothing should be done to discourage authorities from bidding to government through the mechanisms that exist to expand their own provision if they want to. I will deal with the bit about the order made under subsection (1) in a moment.
Sub-paragraph (ii) in effect insulates the maintained sector from the voucher arrangements—and note that this can involve other departments in addition to education, for example, social services. A parent or guardian will not be able to present a voucher and through it obtain a local authority place. This is the crux, together with sub-paragraph (iii), which prevents local authorities' revenue support grants from being raided to fund the voucher scheme. Together these are designed to lift local authority places out of the scheme and so prevent the financial and administrative disruption to existing provision which is the major drawback to the Bill as drafted.
Subsection (4A), still under Amendment No. 5, gives a necessary definition of the word "voucher" in sub-paragraph (ii) which has otherwise not appeared in the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 cross-refers to the subject of Amendment No. 5 from the Secretary of State's enabling power to make arrangements at the beginning, and stipulates the making of an order for a period of up to 12 months. This is to give flexibility in the light of Amendment No. 13, which your Lordships agreed to in Committee, on the question of full evaluation of the pilot scheme; the first order could come into effect after the evaluation, for the period up to the end of March 1998, giving the Government the choice thereafter whether to continue with a cycle based on financial years or to revert to the academic year cycle. We feel it is appropriate that there should be a chance for a review of the scheme on a regular basis, and Amendments Nos. 1 and 11 provide for this to be done through an order made under the negative resolution procedure.
If these amendments are agreed to, the voucher agency would still send an application form to all parents who were eligible. Instead of merely offering a voucher, the form would ask parents to choose between seeking a place for their child in a maintained school or taking up a voucher for the voluntary or private sector. According to their choice, the full system which the Government are proposing in this Bill would either apply or not. Parents could not unscrupulously try to secure a voucher as well as a free place if they had been required to commit themselves to a choice of one or the other on the form.
There is much to gain and little to lose in agreeing to these amendments. There is no loss of choice involved. Parents can exercise just the same preferences as they could under the Government's proposed scheme, but in a more direct and less confusing way. What is different is that the new money which the Government are providing will go straight where it is needed, and LEA resources will not be redirected round the houses in an elephantine exercise of energy-sapping bureaucracy, while much of the estimated £20 million administration costs of the scheme will be saved and thus available for actual nursery education.
Since the evidence which has come in so far indicates that it is the extra money, not surprisingly, that is producing the expansion (such as it is), for goodness sake let us maximise it. And since these amendments are targeting vouchers on precisely those sectors—

623
the voluntary and the private—where the Government themselves wish to see the greatest expansion, I can commend them confidently to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. It may be helpful to take as an example the circumstances in Wales. In Wales over 92 per cent. of four year-old children already attend schools in their local authority areas, some in church schools and some in county-maintained schools. That is the parental wish. Without this amendment the money for the education of those children would have to go through eight different additional administrative loops. There can be no justification for that. The same would be true in Northern Ireland, if the result of the Government's consultation was a Northern Ireland order. The same is true for Solihull and many areas of the country. If one takes Solihull as an example, that is not by any means an inner city deprived area; nor is it an authority in receipt of high levels of revenue support grant. The Conservative authority in Solihull, which was in power until a little over a year ago, made direct provision with money which came primarily from the local community charge and local council tax to build up the service. It seems a rather odd irony that in those circumstances governors of church schools and non-church schools will face uncertainty as a result of the Government's plans in the Bill before your Lordships today and will have to go through the loops to get back the money.
The Minister might be minded to reply that in some way the amendment would diminish parental choice. The amendment reduces parental choice not one wit. The amendment offers to parents the choice between available local authority-funded nursery provision for four year-olds and opting for a voucher to purchase provision in the voluntary or private sector. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, said at the beginning, the amendment ensures that the money which would otherwise be spent on administration and re-routeing funds through eight different loops, for example in Wales, in order to put it back where it started from, would be available to spend elsewhere.
At Report stage I asked the Minister whether or not additional capital funding—there is no proposal for capital funding in the provisions of the Bill—had been available to any of the authorities in the pilot study. I have since ascertained that such funding was made available in Norfolk in order that bids and new provision could be made. Surely, it is better to spend the money if there is a church school in a rural community which, but for the want of a small amount of capital, could meet parental demand. Surely, it is better that that capital is made available to the system and finance is released, small though the amount may be, rather than that it should be wasted on bureaucracy.
At previous stages the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the popularity of the voucher scheme. She prayed in aid the fact that the voucher scheme was possible if parents applied for a voucher. What a nonsense. To say that people who currently get a service and wish to continue to use it now have to apply for a
624
voucher to continue to use it, and that they must pay for the bureaucracy involved in getting the money redeemed, is a nonsense.
Finally, if the Government do not believe that parents faced with a choice will continue to use local authority provision, all local authority assumptions about the actual number of children in schools are retrospective. That applies to five, six and seven year-olds. There is nothing to stop the Government using the figures for four year-olds in the schools to ensure that the funding is commensurate with the continuation or variation in parental choice. There can be no real support from any quarter. Parents in Solihull have expressed their views strongly, clearly and often. Those in the voluntary sector express concern that, as a result of remarks by the Minister and his friends in another place, the proposals before your Lordships will not protect their access to new funds. This amendment protects that new money from an increase in bureaucratic paper chases which use up scarce resources. We support the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise to give warm support to this amendment from the Liberal Democrat Benches. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, has said, the amendment comes close to giving us the best of all worlds. On that basis, he indicated confidence that the Minister would be likely to accept the amendment. Sitting where I am, the look on the Minister's face at that point indicated that the noble Earl's confidence might have been misplaced. It is to be hoped that we can still persuade the Minister.
This comes close to giving the best of all worlds. First, it retains what I think should be and I hope is the central purpose of the Government, which is to provide parental choice and an expansion in the provision of nursery education initially for four year-olds. More than that, it seeks to address the many concerns which have been raised about the nursery voucher scheme. At every stage of the Bill many of us have expressed surprise at and certainly commented on the volume of post which we have received from all quarters of the country expressing grave concerns about the likely and, I believe, unintended effects of this scheme.
As previous speakers have said, this amendment tries to address those concerns. It proposes to take the existing provision in the maintained sector out of the voucher scheme. That means that we shall no longer have what has come to be called the long paper chase. In the Second Reading debate I itemised the eight stages which follow this voucher from the first move from the Child Benefit Agency right through this long loop until eventually we come back to where we started for the majority of children who already have existing provision. One effect of this is to cut out that long paper chase for the vast majority of parents and providers.
That alone should lead to a significant cut in administrative costs. At earlier stages we have expressed some doubts about whether those administrative costs could be kept within the £20 million suggested by cutting down so hugely the paper chase of the administration. We certainly should be able to keep well

625
within that figure and indeed to have some money over which could be spent not on more administration but on more and better provision.
That provision would be targeted on the voluntary and private sector, and that surely must be one of the Government's wishes. It certainly gives a better opportunity to target these resources—something that we must all be in favour of in relation to scarce resources, and resources are always scarce. They need to be targeted where they will have the best effect. That may well be the private and voluntary sector.
The provision would give a greater degree of certainty to the maintained sector, both in its budget flat planning and in its provision planning. That too must be a good thing. Indeed, there is so much in favour of this amendment that I find it hard to imagine what the Minister will say against it, although I suspect, from the look on his face, that he will find something to say.
Finally, the test of the voucher scheme, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, has said, is not actually its take-up rate. If the only way in which parents can obtain nursery education for their children is by having vouchers, then of course they will go for vouchers. The take-up rate, whatever it may be, is not a test, although we have some concern about those who do not seize that opportunity and why.
The test of the success of the voucher scheme must be the new provision which it brings. At Report stage the letter which some of us received from the Kensington and Chelsea Pre-School Learning Alliance, one of the pilot scheme areas, was mentioned. The alliance expressed its concern in that letter, and I quote from it:
"This has had a great effect on the local Pre-School as the 4 year olds have been filtered away to the school they were planning on entering in a year's time. Therefore we have lost their voucher money. The authority have suggested that they will be withdrawing the funding equivalent to the vouchers we have received".
It seems to be having the opposite effect from that which is intended. The amendment will make it much more likely that we can target the scarce and valuable resources where they are needed; we shall be able to cut out much administration and a long paper chase; and we shall actually be seeing the money best used as it should be used, to provide additional provision for four year-olds and we hope in due course, three year-olds. I beg to support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, in the final exchange on the Report stage of the Bill the Minister commiserated with me for having apparently taken a vow of silence not to speak on any amendment except those to which my name was put. I should like to assure him that, in standing to speak on this amendment, such a vow can in fact be rescinded.
I wish to support the general thrust of these amendments, and the major reasons for doing so have already been made clear by those noble Lords who have already spoken. These amendments do not disturb the central thrust of the Bill: that parental choice is still allowed and that a parent who has a child in nursery provision made available by the local authority could, if he or she wished, withdraw the child and place him or
626
her with the voluntary or private sector. There is therefore no undermining of the central thrust of parental choice.
However, I want to underline what other noble Lords have already said. While I was turning over in my mind what to say, I recollected that during the Second Reading a number of us had talked about the nonsense of the long road along which money has to go in order to arrive at its final destination. As I was remembering that, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, made exactly the same comment. I think it is also a nonsense that so much money has to be spent on administration when in fact it could be made available for new provision.
Like other noble Lords, I have been somewhat surprised at the volume of correspondence and particularly at the way in which it has continued to pour in. It did not come in only at the Second Reading stage. Many people, and indeed many parents, have written personal letters to me (as I know they have to other noble Lords) to express their concerns; and I would have thought that the Government might be concerned about the public relations effect of the Bill. I want to express my support for the general thrust of the amendments. I am by no means clear, however, that technically they would achieve what they set out to do. I have no doubt that the Minister will have points to make in that regard.
One point I would like to make is that the word "voucher" does not appear elsewhere in the Bill. Although it is an enabling Bill, and it simply enables grants to be made, the means by which they are made is indicated elsewhere. We are presuming it will be by voucher, but that is not on the face of the Bill. Therefore it seems a little odd that it should appear in this one place only, supposing that this amendment is agreed. If the Minister says that this amendment is technically flawed, I hope that he will take account of our anxieties and go some small way towards recognising the great concern there is about the Bill, not only in this House but throughout the country.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am the first to wish to cut down on bureaucracy and I think there are real concerns about the paper chase that is implied by the enactment of the Bill. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a major problem with these amendments as they are proposed which I consider would have a very unfortunate effect. They could put a real brake on the opportunity for expansion of any local authority provision.
If the grants were to be made only in respect of voluntary and private provision, and if a local authority were to decide (as it would be quite free to decide) not to expand its nursery provision, then parents who wished to send their child to a good local nursery school would be unable to do so. It is all very well to protect the position of those parents whose children are already in local authority nursery education, but those new parents who might decide that they want their children to go would not be able to use a voucher to do so. Therefore the extraordinary effect of these amendments would be to make all the expansion happen in the voluntary and private sector and no expansion in the

627
good nursery schools and classes which exist in the local authorities. I am sure that that is not the effect that noble Lords who have proposed these amendments would wish them to have, but I cannot see how it could be gainsaid.
At present, as we know, many local authorities have cut back on their nursery provision and there is no guarantee in the future that they would not continue to do so. The small extra amount of money which would become available to them because of the reduction in bureaucracy would not necessarily be spent on expanding their nursery education. Even in the first case, and certainly in the future, there would be no guarantee of expansion there. This seems to me more like the kind of provision one sees in a developing country, not in an advanced and civilised country like our own. We want to see our local authority provision expand as well as our private and voluntary provision.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have had some beguiling words from noble Lords who tabled this group of amendments. It is important to assure the House that this is yet another attempt to delay implementation of the scheme and to exclude existing provision from the scope of the scheme—existing local authority provision, of course, rather than existing private and voluntary sector provision. So, in essence, this is a series of amendments about delay and about preferential treatment for the existing local authority provision. Parental choice is set aside.
It was right for the right reverend Prelate to draw attention to some of the technical defects of these amendments. We should remind ourselves that as a revising Chamber it is not right on Third Reading to bring forward amendments which do not achieve what the proposers of those amendments have set out to achieve. I have to make it clear to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that his claim that they do not set aside parental choice is wrong. If his intention is that there should be total freedom of parental choice, the amendments do not achieve that aim. It would not be right for us to pass them.
We must address what noble Lords opposite and local authorities are frightened of. On the one hand, noble Lords, together with a number of local authorities, tell me how good their provision is, how it meets the needs of the local community, how it is of good quality, and how parents are completely satisfied with it. But on the other hand, noble Lords and the same local authorities tell me that they are frightened that parents, with the new found mechanism that the Bill will provide to express their choice, might flee the maintained sector. We cannot have it both ways. If, and I appreciate that is a big if, local authorities are providing what parents want, and parents continue to choose local authority provision, what have they to fear? I contend that if local authorities are making the right provision, they have nothing to fear.
It would be right for me to say a little about how the money will be deducted. Central government are providing a significant amount of new money to meet
628
the costs of giving a voucher to every four year-old whose parents want it. But it is obvious that in order to avoid double funding, some money has also to come from local education authorities' existing funding for four year-olds.
There has been much misrepresentation of the way in which the amount to be taken from each LEA's funding will be calculated. I shall therefore explain the proposal in straightforward terms. Local authorities currently receive funding from the Government for educating children under five. When the nursery education voucher scheme starts, the amount of funding coming through the present route will be reduced. The amount it will be reduced by is the number of four year-olds currently attending state schools in the LEA, multiplied by the voucher value.
That means that if a four year-old is attending a state school in this school year, the LEA's funding in the first year of the voucher scheme will be reduced by a certain amount for that pupil. But if that four year-old's place is filled again under the voucher scheme, then the LEA will get back that same amount of money through the voucher. If the LEA creates a new place, then it will get the voucher money even though it has not had any funding deducted for that place.
So the only LEA provision which is threatened by the voucher scheme is poor provision—provision to which parents do not choose to send their children. I can only assume that those who talk about schools "losing" funding have very little faith in the quality of those schools.
The amendments have two purposes: to deny parents the choice we seek to give them; and to shield local authority provision from any chance of losing funding. Parents deserve choice. They know best what suits them and their children. Through their vouchers they can demand over time the provision of new places that meet their needs in local authority maintained schools or the private or voluntary sectors. Local authority providers, too, can modify what they do to suit parents and their children. But the amendment cuts across all that, and leaves the providers in charge. That will not do.
Subsection (4A) of Amendment No. 5 attempts to define the nursery voucher in statute—a point made by the right reverend Prelate. I suspect that a close examination would show that the attempt is not entirely successful. Defining the voucher in primary legislation would be extremely cumbersome, and it is for precisely that reason that the word "voucher" does not appear on the face of the Bill.
Further, much has been made of the £20 million alleged to be wasted on administration. The vast majority of that money is to go on inspection. The lion's share is for that new education inspection regime—one that does not exist in the private and voluntary sector. I am sure that that is something that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will greatly welcome. She also alleged that the scheme was unpopular. Perhaps I may assure her that a survey conducted by my department showed that 60 per cent. of parents was in favour of the scheme. Its very popularity may be why noble Lords opposite so

629
fear it. That is two and a half times as many as who were against it; and 87 per cent. of parents in Norfolk said that they were in favour of it.
As I said, the amendments cut across the purpose of the Bill. All I can recommend to the House is that the amendments be rejected. They are, as I said, defective. They do not achieve what is wanted. Even if they did, we do not believe that they are right way forward. I hope that the noble Earl will listen to my words and consider withdrawing his amendment. If not, I ask my noble friends and other Members of the House to reject the amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he correct my lack of understanding of one matter? I believe I heard him say that parental choice would be undermined by the amendment, but my reading of it is that even if the amendment were passed parents would still have the choice of withdrawing their children from existing local authority nursery provision and going elsewhere if they wished. Nursery schools would thereby lose income. Therefore I do not see how the amendment protects local authorities or undermines parental choice.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must remind the right reverend Prelate that we are at Third Reading. That is why it is undesirable to debate such an amendment at such a late stage. My advice is that the amendment would not achieve that and would deny parents the choice that we wish to give them. For that reason, the House should reject the amendment. The amendment does not achieve what the noble Earl claims; that is, protecting local authorities while maintaining choice for all parents.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he agree that when a voucher is not applied for or is not placed because parents cannot find a suitable nursery, or is lost, that funding disappears?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, perhaps I may remind the House that we are on Third Reading. That is not a valid point. The surveys we have conducted show that the vast majority of parents, particularly in Norfolk, can obtain vouchers. Obviously not all of them want vouchers. We are also seeing new provision occurring. We never said that there would be an automatic entitlement to a place the minute the Bill came into effect. We have always said that we look for growth in provision over time.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I did listen carefully to what the Minister said. I have to say that I disagree with him on most of the points that he put forward. I cannot for the life of me see how this restrains parental choice or alters the position. The right reverend Prelate made that point very well. It leaves choice just as it would have been under the Government's own scheme.
630
The Minister asked what the LEAs have to fear. I thought that we had explained at great length that we fear this enormous rigmarole of administrative hoops that everything has to go through, in many cases to produce the situation that existed before. It is precisely that, and that only, which has led us to bring forward these shorter and more sensible routes to achieve the desired result.
Nor do I believe that it is right to invoke my noble friend Lord Weatherill's law of unintended consequences which he promulgated during our constitutional debate. I do not think that that applies here, except possibly in the Government's case, when it is this rigmarole of which I have already spoken. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said that this could be a brake on LEA provision, but as I said in my introduction, and as is in the amendment, LEAs can perfectly well bid for new provision under the schemes that exist at the moment. Nothing has taken that away from them. Therefore, the LEAs are in with as good a chance as anyone else. I firmly believe that that is the case. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but there is nothing to prevent them doing that. So for once the playing field is as level as we would all like it to be.
As regards the word "voucher", I have heard nothing to convince me that it is wrong. It may not be the best possible wording but it is a possible wording to have on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that it is fatal to our purposes to have it there and I am quite happy that it should be there in the form that it is.
In short, I have heard no argument which would persuade me that we are on the wrong tack with the amendments that we are putting forward. I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Lord and ask the opinion of the House.
3.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Annan, L.

Clancarty, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bancroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Barnett, L.

Croham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies, L.

Birk, B.

Desai, L.

Blackstone, B.

Diamond, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brightman, L.

Dubs, L

Broadbridge, L.

Eatwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Falkender, B.

Carlisle, E.

Falkland, V.

631

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Ogmore, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Palmer, L.

Grey, E.

Peston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hayman, B.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Healey, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rea, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Howell, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rochester, L.

Hughes, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Russell, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Scanlon, L.

Jeger, B.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L.

Kennet, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Kitchener, E.

Stafford, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thurso, V.

Longford, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Tordoff, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Varley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mar, C.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Courtown, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Cox, B.

Ailsa, M.

Craig of Radley, L.

Aldington, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cuckney, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Balfour, E.

De Freyne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denham, L.

Beloff, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Berners, B.

Devonport, V.

Blaker, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Downshire, M.

Boardman, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bowness, L.

Elles, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Finsberg, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Flather, B.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gainford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Geddes, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gisborough, L.

Carnock, L.

Goschen, V.

Cayzer, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Chelmsford, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Cockfield, L.

Henley, L.

Coleridge, L.

Holderness, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hooper, B.

632

Hylton-Foster, B.

Pender, L.

Inglewood, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Ironside, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Quinton, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kintore, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Knollys, V.

Rees, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Rennell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Renwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Richardson, L.

Liverpool, E.

Romney, E.

Long, V.

St Davids, V.

Lucas, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Seccombe, B.

McConnell, L.

Shannon, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sharples, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Sherfield, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mansfield, E.

Slim, V.

Manton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Swinfen, L.

Mountevans, L.

Terrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Teviot, L.

Moyne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Munster, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Norfolk, D.

Westbury, L.

Northesk, E.

Wigram, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wilcox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Wise, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Northern Ireland
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat the Statement on Northern Ireland which has been made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend Sir Patrick Mayhew. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a Statement about the events of the past 10 days in Northern Ireland. Throughout this period massive and completely unacceptable civil disorder has occurred on both sides of the community, totally wrongful in character and unjust in its consequences for all its victims.
"In the course of this period two men have tragically lost their lives. The RUC has been stretched to the limit of its ability to maintain order and preserve life. Violent manifestations of sectarian antagonism have occurred. Intimidation, including intimidation of RUC officers and their families, has been rife. The Killyhevlin Hotel at Enniskillen has been gravely damaged by a bomb, with many people shocked and injured.

633
"All this represents, without doubt, the worst set-back for many years: a return to what so many people in Northern Ireland, and far beyond, had prayed was over for good. This has been a black period for Northern Ireland, with deep fears and anxieties generated on all sides. Trust and confidence have suffered greatly.
"In this Statement I will examine briefly with the House what has happened and what the way forward from here now should be. At the outset, however, I wish to say three things.
"First, I warmly commend, as I think the whole House will, the maintenance by the loyalist paramilitary organisations of their ceasefire. It is of critical importance that this should be sustained.
"Secondly, if the people of Northern Ireland are to be helped to move back from the abyss and forward to a better future, all of us who claim a right to speak on these matters must seek to be objective and fair. To seize on what is no more than a partisan perception and to proclaim it as an established truth without examination is immensely dangerous and damaging.
"Lastly, I want to say that the scene, grave though it undoubtedly is, does have a crucially positive element. We have in place a democratic process of political talks, for which a large majority of the electorate has voted. I shall return to this and to its paramount importance.
"Sir Hugh Annesley, the chief constable, yesterday gave an extensive interview to the BBC. He described the background to these events and the events themselves. I have placed a transcript of that interview in the Library. I commend it strongly to the House. It sets out the facts.
"Unprecedented efforts had been made by the Government, by Church leaders, by the RUC and by others, to secure an accommodation at Portadown. The chief constable makes it clear that ever since January he personally, and his Deputy Chief Constable, Mr. Flannigan, had tried with both sides at Portadown to negotiate a compromise. I pay special tribute to the entirely independent efforts of the Church leaders, who strove for two days and two nights to bring the two sides together, sadly without achieving success.
"The chief constable is required by law to consider the likelihood of serious disorder if a notified march proceeds. He has to make an operational, professional and impartial judgment. That judgment, under our clearly established constitutional arrangements, is for him alone.
"On Saturday 6th July the chief constable had duly decided to order that the return stage of the Orange Order parade at Portadown, to take place the following day, should be re-routed away from the Garvaghy Road. A lawful order was accordingly made to that effect. That decision was made because he anticipated serious organised disorder, not limited to Portadown protesters, if the intended return stage of the march went ahead. A counter march planned by the Garvaghy Road residents also had restrictions
634
placed upon it, although in the event it did not take place. I wish to make it clear that in taking that operational decision at that time and in those circumstances the chief constable had, and retains, the full support of the Government.
"Over the next four days there occurred serious disorder both at Drumcree and in many other parts of the Province. There was a clear and reprehensible intention to overstretch the capacity of the RUC to maintain public order.
At Drumcree itself the chief constable has said, in his own language, that the most insidious, despicable and disgusting threats to his officers in the front line were made, to the effect that their wives or families would be got at. Elsewhere the RUC were fiercely engaged. There was intimidation of their families and other civilians, with widespread blocking of roads and attacks upon property.
"The RUC, with full support from the Army, did its duty with great resolution in responding to this critical situation. At the request of the chief constable, two further battalions were brought into the Province in support of his force. However, despite the sustained efforts to which I have referred, it proved impossible for the two sides within the local community at Drumcree to reach an agreement.
"On the morning of 11th July, after considering a number of options and having awaited the outcome of the ongoing attempts at mediation, the chief constable decided that a limited parade down the Garvaghy Road was the option most likely to prevent loss of life. He has made clear that it was foreseeable that by the night of the 11th July some 60,000 to 70,000 Orange marchers would be invited by the Orange Order to converge on Drumcree, and an attempt had already been made to get through the fence. In that event he foresaw that they would overrun the wire, obliging the police and the military to withdraw and to attempt to protect the Garvaghy Road estate.
"He concluded that there would be serious risk of lives being lost, including on the Garvaghy Estate, and he has said that he would not in any circumstances have 'traded one life for the Garvaghy Road'. In that decision also the Chief Constable has the full support of the Government. We also share his regret at what he has described as an outrageous attempt by one side to impose its will on the other by the sheer weight of force.
"I recognise, of course, that the nationalist community, or many of them, are bitterly critical of this decision, but it was taken very much with the safety of the Garvaghy Road residents in mind. I am in no doubt, however, that under the circumstances it was the right one. The violence which followed in many nationalist areas was no more justified or acceptable than that fomented by loyalists earlier in the week.
"Once again, the security forces came under intense attack, from gun fire as well as petrol bombs and other missiles. The police have responded proportionately and with great courage and professionalism to these attacks.

635
"The police investigation into the bomb attack on the Killyhevlin Hotel is now under way. While it is too early to say which organisation was responsible, it seems clear that preparations for this attack began well before the events of Drumcree.
"These events surrounding Drumcree, and those surrounding the march on the Lower Ormeau Road in Belfast on 12th July, have underscored the potential destabilising effect of controversial parades. There are no immediately obvious answers. My right honourable friend the Minister of State, the Member for Westminster, North, has over many months been seeking to help the avoidance of conflict in this year's marching season. As I said in the House last week, I now have in mind a general review that will make recommendations about the better management of future controversial parades. I therefore confirm today that the Government intend to establish a review based on evidence which any interested party will be free to submit. I envisage that the review would examine the current arrangements for handling parades and marches in Northern Ireland. I shall announce later further details of the review, including the name of the chairman and detailed terms of reference.
"Recent events are, however, but a symptom of the much deeper divisions which plague Northern Ireland. We must, along with all politicians committed to a peaceful solution, continue to seek to overcome those. This can be done only in a talks process in which all these issues can be addressed and which is committed to securing an agreed outcome which respects the aspirations and principles of both parts of the community. I referred earlier to the democratic process of talks which is in place. It is now more imperative than ever that it begins to address the substantive issues that lie at the heart of the divisions which have had such terrible consequences. I am pleased that this process continues tomorrow.
"For our part the Government are fully committed to the talks process. I and the Prime Minister will be meeting with the leaders of each of the parties involved over the coming days to hear their views of the way forward and to emphasise our commitment to the talks process.
"I shall also be making arrangements in consultation with the Irish Government to meet them in an intergovernmental conference to discuss the mutual security interests between our two countries and to demonstrate the reasons behind the decisions taken last week. We intend on this basis to rebut very firmly quite unjustified and unwarranted criticism which has been made of the Government and of the RUC. In particular my purpose will be in the presence of the chief constable to rebut any suggestion of political interference in his operational decisions.
"All those who wish to lead Northern Ireland towards a more peaceful future—and they certainly include the Government—must now work together to re-establish trust and dialogue. None of us can accept
636
a return to the violence of the past 25 years. All of us have a responsibility to do what we can to avoid that and to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it is truly possible to find political and peaceful means of resolving Northern Ireland's profound problems. That is the challenge that confronts us now."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as always on these occasions, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is a profoundly depressing occasion for us all and I believe it to be a time of potential great danger in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
We all condemn the murder of a taxi-driver, killed for no greater sin than being a Roman Catholic; the destruction of the hotel in Enniskillen; and the mindless violence and intimidation of these past days. We particularly congratulate those responsible for this morning's success in discovering what seems to be a bomb factory as close to us as south London.
It all seems to be so sad—the hopes and dreams of thousands shattered in just a week of madness. I agree as emphatically as I can over the importance of trying to secure the continued ceasefire by the loyalist paramilitaries.
It was only on Tuesday last week in this House that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, answered a Starred Question on Northern Ireland. As the House will recall, I assured her of our bipartisan support, and she very generously, as always, recognised that. It was only Tuesday. I asked her whether Her Majesty's Government were content with the arrangements for security and peacekeeping at Drumcree and Portadown. Something went very badly wrong. The threat of violence succeeded. The chief constable, in the quotation which the Minister herself adopted, described this as "outrageous". I agree.
The honourable Member who speaks on these matters in another place, Dr. Mowlam, and I have been deeply concerned about the flashpoint which we knew would come. Because of that, we started discussions about what should be done in July of last year. This is a bleak and unfortunate story. Dr. Mowlam wrote to the Secretary of State on 17th July 1995 saying:
"Could you let me know what preparations are being made to establish a mechanism for discussions between the community groups in advance of the marches next year?".
That was a year ago. She wrote again on 19th February of this year. The Secretary of State replied that the operational handling of parades was for the chief constable. On 1st April of this year, Dr. Mowlam wrote:
"The Northern Ireland Secretary should, as a matter of great urgency, seek advice on mediating local solutions rather than landing the RUC with the problem".
What she foresaw is exactly, I regret to say, what happened: the RUC were landed with the problem. As the chief constable said, he is sick of being between a rock and a hard place.

637
Dr. Mowlam wrote again on 10th June of this year, when she said:
"You may recall I proposed the establishment of an independent commission to take in the wider views of the communities living where marches take place; to advise on possible ways to reduce tensions. Both Archbishop Eames and Sir Hugh Annesley, the Chief Constable, have indicated their support for independent advice".
On 25th June Dr. Mowlam wrote again saying:
"I am concerned that unless the questions are tackled on a larger scale, the potential for these situations to deteriorate each year will escalate".
She asked for a commission to look at guidelines for the conduct of parades; how to ensure that decisions about the routing of parades should be fair and consistent; and an inquiry about how effective is the existing law relating to parades.
The Secretary of State said that he had accepted advice that the disadvantages of such a commission outweighed the advantages. That was his view on 26th June 1996. I am sorry to say that I believe the advice was wrong and the acceptance of it deeply mistaken.
There are at least three important aspects on which we must focus our minds. I am grateful to see that the Secretary of State, in the Statement which was repeated, is now going to appoint a commission. It seems to us that that must report before the end of this year at the very latest.
Secondly, the closest co-operation is called for between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Of course I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to meet the Irish Foreign Minister tomorrow. We welcome the intergovernmental proposals referred to in the Statement. I shall be grateful if the Minister will indicate what sort of timescale the Government have in mind.
I repeat that no terrorist or malcontent will get any opportunity to destroy our bipartisan support. But if this weekend's events have demonstrated anything, it is that imaginative forward thinking and planning on a political basis is the only key. I believe that no one can blame the Chief Constable; but there are questions about the political decisions which were made as a background to the disasters that have befallen us. I entirely agree with the Minister. Although this is a dark time, there is some light. However, the problems are becoming more difficult by the day.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the last time that I addressed the House on a ministerial Statement on Northern Ireland, I warned that it would be a long and bumpy road and that there would be hopeful times and bleak times. This is certainly a bleak time. We have just gone over the most enormous bump. All Members of your Lordships' House will share the sadness that so many hopes have been dashed and so many good efforts thrown away. In that context, and in view of the painstaking work that she has put in on economic progress in Northern Ireland, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be particularly saddened today.
It is terrible to see old bitterness which had been silenced for nearly 24 months freely expressed again with bombs exploding and fires burning in Northern
638
Ireland. We should not delude ourselves: what we are seeing here is not the peace process at risk, but the very ceasefire itself. I do not believe that it is a time for recrimination because, like those on the Benches to our left, we have tried and have not found it too difficult throughout the developing peace process to adopt a bipartisan approach.
However, we must ask ourselves how we came to this pass. It is possible to discern some things that have gone wrong over the past few months. There is no doubt that the excessive attention to the demands of the IRA over a long period—a squeaky wheel which has had all the grease of political effort applied to it—has created significant resentment and tension in the Unionist community. But, at the same time, I am amazed that responsible constitutional Unionist leadership should have chosen to inflame rather than to reduce tension over the days of the march. How much of what the Statement describes as,
"an outrageous attempt by one side to impose their will on the other by sheer weight of force",
has been due to the role played by those who purport to be leaders but who, sadly, have behaved more like followers? I am also surprised that we are now proposing to set up a review of marching and parades. As the Labour Party has said, surely the time to have done so would have been after the clearly signalled trouble at Drumcree last year, and on other marches, rather than now.
Then there is the question of the operational nature of the decision made by the chief constable. How can it any longer be a local operational matter when it has become massively politicised with the prospect of a breach of the rule of law that threatens the basis of civilised life in the British Isles? There is also the question of the exchange of discourtesies with the Irish Government which has now, mercifully, stopped. As I am sure most noble Lords in this House will agree, I believe that the Taoiseach expressed himself over-forcefully and, perhaps, imprudently. However, we could hardly dare hope for a Prime Minister in Dublin who is a greater friend of Britain and a greater enemy of terrorism than Mr. John Bruton. This is the time to respond to him in a more generous spirit.
I turn now to the future which is the important matter. It is vitally important that the Governments get together. Can the Minister say when that will happen and at what level? There is a slight vagueness in the Statement in terms of the IGC being reconvened. That is extraordinarily urgent. Whenever the two Governments are apart, we have all observed that the terrorists and men of violence thrive. The centre must hold; and the only centre that we have in this situation consists of the two Governments.
Further—and the Government have done this very wisely in the Statement—perhaps I, like the noble Baroness, may appeal to the former leadership of the loyalist paramilitaries—Mr. Gary McMichael, Mr. David Ervine, Mr. Billy Hutchinson, and others. I have got to know them as, indeed, have government Ministers. I appeal to them for continuing restraint. They now hold the key to this issue not becoming a wider conflict.

639
I should like to ask the Minister about the proposed review. Will it go beyond the technical question of how and where marches are conducted and deal with the fundamental issue of whether those marches are a perfectly legitimate cultural and historical celebration; or whether they are, as they seemed to be last week, the assertion of the supremacy of one community over the other?
Finally, let us try to ensure that we do not neglect the people of Northern Ireland in the equation. They still will for peace. Indeed, the people whom we saw on the streets last week do not represent them: they are being betrayed by the loud voices and the bully-boys. Above all, there is a special responsibility on the constitutional leadership of Unionism. After all, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing Street declaration and the framework document all show that Northern Ireland will not, as many Unionists feared, be merged against its will into a united Ireland.
I ask my Unionist friends what they are going to contribute in terms of positive goodwill and movement now that they have the assurance which matters most to them. It is no good them calling on their gracious Queen and on their British identity unless they, too, are prepared to respect the rule of law and behave like Britons.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for expressing much of the concern that I feel the whole House is experiencing. These were not good days in Northern Ireland. There is no pride to be taken by anyone other than by those people who called for sensibility and for an end to violence. That included many people—for example, families of people who were killed, and others—who sought to build a future. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, rightly praised the people of Northern Ireland. I should like to add that those people went to work and continued to try to do so, despite five diversions on the way. The aim of most of the people in Northern Ireland is to build a future.
Those people were doing just that and, indeed, were leading a normal life. For example, the Catholic couple who were celebrating their wedding in a hotel owned by a Protestant had no thought of what might happen. They were thinking about their future. There were also people who were aiming to bring up their grandchildren at home in Northern Ireland and who had invested much in that peaceful future. We, as Government, continue to do just that.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in praising the work of the police in discovering the arms cache in south London today. I hope that that reassures the House that the fight against terrorism will be ceaseless and that it will continue day and night. There is a need for mediation; and, indeed, there is a need for people to talk to each other. I hope that the Statement made clear that the Government believe that dialogue is the path to the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, listed some of the correspondence between the Secretary of State and his honourable friend who speaks on Northern Ireland
640
issues in the Shadow Cabinet in the other place. Perhaps I may, first, absolutely reject any suggestion that the Government have sat on their hands and done nothing for the past year. The suggestion made by the honourable lady in July of last year was a mechanism for discussions between community groups. Both mediation groups and the RUC at Drumcree were already well down that road trying to find an accommodation.
The suggestion made in February of this year of an arbitrating or executive body raised a number of difficulties. However, it is hoped that the forthcoming review will have the opportunity to look at the matter. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the review will look at the overall issue. We doubt that a commission which said, "Thou shalt use the rerouted march", would have been any more effective than any of the statutory and constitutional methods already in place.
In reply to the noble Lord's question on the role of a chief constable and the Government, we believe that in this democracy, following our constitutional arrangement, one does not direct the police as to their operational decisions. Public confidence will not accept a Minister taking a decision as to whether a march goes ahead. But we believe that the review should cover all those issues.
I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that the next meeting of the intergovernmental conference is planned for Thursday; and, of course, it is planned that there will be an Irish Minister at the talks tomorrow. We rightly believe and share the views expressed that the two Governments working closely together, shoulder to shoulder, is the best way to build a peaceful process.
We continue to aim in the future to represent a consensus of the views of people who live in Northern Ireland. There is no question that by talking, by learning about those views, by the elective process which showed that so many people in Northern Ireland wished for the dialogue route, we can work to the future. But we work with the help of our many friends in this House, and with the support we have received from the Opposition Benches for many months now. That enables us to look towards the future with hope—because that is what we must do.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister, accept, sad though it may be, that after so many deaths and so many years it is at least possible that there is no compromise solution available? Everybody wishes the Government every success in seeking to negotiate. We have now been a long time doing so. Will the commission be able at least to consider this possibility if it so wishes?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the review will consider the role of the marching process in this matter. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that over many months in Northern Ireland in the past two years there has been a lack of violence. People have led a normal life, building for their children and for future generations. I am afraid I cannot share his

641
depressing thought that there is no solution. I believe that in the past two years we have seen a desire by the majority of people to walk towards this solution although, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, it was always known it would be bumpy.
Lord Healey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made it crystal clear that the tragic dangers now faced by the peace process were brought about by an operational decision of the chief constable to reverse a clear decision he had previously taken—because of the threat of violence from the Unionists in the area, indeed, throughout Northern Ireland as she has now told us.
That decision was seen by the Catholic community throughout Northern Ireland, represented by the head of the Roman Catholic Church there, as a reversion by the police to its traditional role as the supporter of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I am living in the past to this extent. Twenty-seven years ago I was Secretary of State for Defence when the sectarian behaviour of the B Special police compelled the Government of the day to put security under the British Army and to reform all the local police forces in Northern Ireland.
This was the clearest possible demonstration that the use of police forces in Northern Ireland is not automatically always simply an operational matter. It may have profound political implications, even for our relations with foreign governments, and those political implications require consideration and decision by a Minister. Incidentally, I found that this was equally true of our Armed Forces in Aden and Borneo, as several of my noble colleagues here may remember.
Last week's tragedy stems essentially from Ministers forgetting this central fact as regards the situation in Northern Ireland. If we are to get the peace process going again, they must never forget that fact again. The use of police forces in Northern Ireland, in situations such as occurred last week, must be for decision by political Ministers.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, a situation likely to occur in your Lordships' House is that one finds oneself in disagreement with someone who has many years' experience and knowledge. However, I believe that it is important to maintain a constitutional situation in which the decision on such matters as maintenance of order is for the chief constable.
When the chief constable required further troops to support him, the Government were happy to ensure that that happened. The battalions were provided, as was required. But it is important that the law which Parliament has provided to guide the chief constable is maintained. I would suggest that the responsibility for the violence of Northern Ireland in the past days was entirely that of those people who rioted and challenged the rule of law.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, these are dire days for Northern Ireland and it is quite right that we should weep for all the people in Northern Ireland, whether they be members of the public, members of the RUC or indeed, anybody else.
642
I am particularly glad that this review will now take place. But I notice that there have been several very strange articles in the press recently, both in this country and, indeed, in the Irish Republic. Will the review be able to take account of the activities of the press which, of course, have an effect both in Northern Ireland and on thinking over this side of the water? Headlines such as "Government orders RUC volte-face" simply do not help in any of these situations.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to agree with my noble friend that the media brings little help in these situations. The images that were flashed round the world in the past week will have a tremendously detrimental effect on the economic future of Northern Ireland and on the impression of the people of Northern Ireland, because it is a warm nation who welcome strangers and we saw transmitted pictures of that minority who do not.
I believe that the issue is not the media in this instance; it is to cure the problem. The review will concentrate on ensuring that there is no repetition of the incidents that happened throughout the Province on this occasion.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree with much of the Statement? I also agree with the decision of the chief constable. I thought at the time that he was in a very difficult, dangerous position. However, he decided, in order to save life, that he had to be responsible for a volte-face. I backed him.
Is the Minister aware that it is essential, first, that the Stormont peace talks continue because they are holding the ring between most of the political parties? Secondly, we must strive to restore the ceasefire. Those are the two imperatives.
However, we must remind ourselves that the Provisional IRA shattered the ceasefire with the Docklands bomb, the Manchester bomb, and the bomb on a London bridge. It has even been shattered in Northern Ireland in the past 48 hours. The so-called Republican Sinn Fein is still part of the Provisional IRA. Is the Minister aware that the Protestant paramilitaries are now teetering on the brink of revenge? Noble Lords who have already spoken have appealed to them for restraint, for one incident by them could be the last straw before the outbreak of civil war in the Province.
Is the Government aware that I and, I think, the majority in the Province, feel that they have gone too far in speech and deeds, alarming the Protestant community? They feel that their link with Great Britain is being totally eroded by the constant whittling down of what was the position prior to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They are also worried that there is too much Republican interference in Northern Ireland affairs. Of course the comments made by the Taoiseach this weekend did not help. The majority community in the Province needs to be reassured and calmed. If only the Government would convey the message that there will not be a united Ireland; that there is no surrender to the South; and that there will be no more concessions to the IRA, the tension in the Province might be eased.

643
If there is another bomb outrage, would the Government not consider, in view of the anger of the nation in its wake—that was certainly true of Manchester—carrying out a sweep of arrests of suspects in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain, and, with the assistance of the Taoiseach, in the Republic, to shatter their system, their command structure, their proposals and their plans? We can hold them, and within the law. I believe we just cannot continue to sit back waiting for bombs and deaths. A round up ought to be considered.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, like all of us who have been Ministers in Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has suffered the frustration of trying to work towards peace, but failing so far to attain it. He asks us to make it clear that there is no role for the violence of the IRA. I should have hoped that was entirely clear. There has been no negotiation by Ministers with it since the breaking of the ceasefire in the aftermath of the Docklands bomb. We could have asked for no greater support than we received from the Taoiseach in Ireland and from the President of the United States in condemning the IRA's violence. No one was allowed to continue discussions while the ceasefire was broken. The noble Lord asked us to reassure the Unionists that there is no intention to break up the Province. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and all of us who represent the Government, have made it clear time and time again that the future of Northern Ireland is in the hands of the people in Northern Ireland. There is a triple lock on that process.
The noble Lord commented on our security activity, should there be a further bomb. We must hope and pray that that situation will not arise. I am grateful to your Lordships who, with Members of another place, have made it possible to retain on the statute book the possibility for the security forces to take the appropriate action, should that be necessary.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add my tribute to those paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for the work that she has done in a most detailed and painstaking way to try to create links for peace in Northern Ireland. I have appreciated the tremendous efforts that she has made to bring the communities together. I thank her for the clear Statement. I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government have made it clear time and time again that no decision about the future of Northern Ireland will be made which is contrary to the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. If I may say so, I was a little surprised at the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, because I cannot think that anything could have been more clearly stated than that. I think the noble Baroness might agree that the problem with Northern Ireland is to try to persuade both communities that neither triumphalism on the one side nor terrorism on the other will lead to a successful move towards peace. When the review considers the routeing of marches, will it also consider whether the whole role of marches does not express more about the history of Northern Ireland than about its future? Will the noble
644
Baroness once again advocate the significance and importance of sharing responsibility and power between both the communities that together make Northern Ireland both the difficult but also the remarkable place that it is?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. Living together, working together and sharing together is the future for Northern Ireland. It is quite obvious that much work needs to be done. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the past few days was to note how close to the surface the bitterness still was. I agree that living in the past and taking too much account of history means that history becomes the future. We must avoid that. It is worth considering that last week was also the week that President Mandela paid a visit. We can all learn much from him as regards looking forwards rather than backwards. I believe the noble Baroness will agree with me that we need to bring more women's voices to these discussions.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I begin by saying that I deplore violence and terrorism in all its forms, no matter by whom it is committed. There has been great resentment over the past few days about the part that the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic has played in interfering in Northern Ireland, and—if newspaper reports are correct—of being somewhat abusive to our own Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said—again I go by press reports—that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Surrey. Would he like Mr. Bruton, or any other prime minister, to interfere in things that happen in Surrey? It should be made plain that that kind of interference should not be tolerated in the future, despite the notorious Anglo-Irish Agreement. I agree with what has been said by two noble Lords; namely, that great resentment is felt at concessions being made to the excessive demands of the IRA. That destabilises the majority population in Northern Ireland. I also felt rather ashamed when I noted that the Government said that they could not do anything about the events of the past few days or the past week because that constituted an operational decision of the chief constable. Admittedly there are many events that call for operational decisions but, when a situation becomes so grave, the Government have to take responsibility for governing the country.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I stress to the noble Lord that part of the Statement where my right honourable and learned friend said that he intended to take the next meeting with the Irish Government as an opportunity to rebut very firmly the quite unjustified and unwarranted criticism of the Government and the RUC. There can be no doubt that in the past we have seen co-operation between the security forces of north and south and the support of the Taoiseach in condemning violence and taking all the necessary steps to ensure that the situation is kept in that way. I say to the noble Lord that concessions are not being made to the IRA. We are trying to work for the people of Northern Ireland to bring forward their own solution to their future.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I recognise that time is running short. I welcome the Statement and I sympathise with those who expressed concern about the victims killed and injured in the upset of the past few days. However, I should like to have heard a little more self-criticism in relation to the major obstacles to whatever progress will be made. In relation to progress on peace, we ought to be critical of our own Government and ourselves for frittering away 18 months of a ceasefire when we were told at the very beginning that if it lasted three months there would be peace talks. It lasted 18 months before there was any move. But in between, one obstacle after another had been raised to make sure that the peace talks did not take place. We were then faced with the current situation.
On the recent events in Drumcree, the whole world saw on television how the Orange Order gradually overruled whatever decisions were made by chief constables or governments, resulting in the surrender at Drumcree. The whole world saw how the RUC then lashed into the Catholic population of men, women and children with batons and other weapons to make sure that the Orange Order's decision was maintained. That was a disgraceful state of affairs. We ought to be critical of it and not try to excuse it.
Thirdly, I welcome the Taoiseach's remarks in southern Ireland. I understand his frustration and the anger that is felt among the Catholic population in the whole island. Of the 32 counties, he governs 26 counties where Protestants and Catholics live and work in peace together. Noble Lords on the other side shake their heads. I have forgotten more than they will ever know about the situation. It is about time that we were a little more self-critical. Then, we could become constructive.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is possible for Catholics and Protestants to live together. It is possible for people who do not box themselves in by their religion but treat each other as people to live together. We have not frittered away the time. We have taken many actions in the 18 months of peace which we hope will stand in good stead. We have treasured that. We do not wish to see the efforts now ruined by intemperate language and criticism. We build for the future.

Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No.2:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert (", and where such arrangements are made, the Secretary of State, or a person exercising functions under section 2, shall take all practicable steps in liaison with persons to whom grants are payable to secure that parents about whom information is not available through the use of social security information to which Schedule 2 applies are contacted, to enable their children to have the opportunity to benefit from such education.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on the Government or agency to find parents who are not on the DSS database and to ensure that they receive full nursery vouchers. There is widespread concern that many of the most vulnerable children will not receive nursery education as a result of this legislation because their parents are not registered with the Child Benefit Agency and so will not receive an offer to apply for a voucher.
Reference was made earlier to the research done by the DfEE. It showed that, despite the large amount of publicity, including posters, leaflets, advertisements in the local press, advertisements on supermarket trolleys and a helpline number, the main source of information about the voucher scheme was the provider itself, and the main burden was on the provider. That research went on to find that some 60 per cent. of parents believed they had too little information. In the case of Westminster, it was 73 per cent. of parents. Parents also believed that the information was at the wrong level.
This weekend I received a helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in which he made it clear that every effort would be made to ensure that eligible children do receive a voucher. He made clear his intention; however, the purpose of the amendment is to place an obligation on the face of the Bill to ensure that all children receive a nursery voucher.
We are talking about the most vulnerable children. It is likely that those who do not receive a voucher are the children of feckless parents, of parents seeking asylum or of parents who may recently have moved. Such children are likely to be very vulnerable. It is right to place an obligation on the face of the Bill to require the Government, through their agencies, to ensure that all children have the opportunity of nursery education. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree that it is vitally important that parents, should they wish, apply for vouchers for their children and that children benefit from the scheme. It is also important that schools, nurseries and playgroups receive the grant to which they are entitled.
However, I do not believe that it is necessary or workable to place on the face of the Bill the requirement that contractors and providers must pursue those parents who do not apply for vouchers, as the amendment suggests.
It may be useful, since I wrote to the noble Lord, to remind the House of the measures the department and the contractor have already taken to ensure that eligible children receive vouchers. The vast majority of parents in phase 1 areas received an application form automatically from the child benefit database. I think the House will agree that most children will be on that database, as most parents will be claiming child benefit. Those who did not have been made aware of the opportunity to apply for vouchers through an effective information campaign in the phase 1 LEAs using a range of media.

647
Most parents who want their child to attend a nursery provider will seek guidance from a local provider and we have ensured that all providers in the scheme have both general information about the scheme and information about how parents should apply for vouchers. And the information we publish for parents stresses the need for them to apply for vouchers and submit them to their chosen provider.
On the whole, these measures have been highly successful. In Norfolk, 97 per cent. of the estimated number of parents with eligible children have applied for a voucher. In Wandsworth, the figure is 95 per cent., and overall it is 91 per cent. For various other reasons I accept that it is somewhat lower in the other two areas, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster. But we can learn from the pilot in the phase 1 areas and make sure that we reach the Norfolk levels in phase 2. In the exceptional cases where these measures fail, headteachers of maintained schools are able to apply for vouchers on behalf of children whose parents have been unable to do so.
To return to the meaning of the noble Lord's amendment, it would be helpful if he had indicated how voucher contractors are to contact parents they know nothing about. It would also be helpful if we could hear how providers are to discover these unknown parents to fulfil their role under this amendment. Surely advertising, on the one hand, and informing providers, on the other, are the most effective ways of contacting such parents if they are not on the child benefit database. Obviously, if they are not on the database, it cannot be used in order to contact them.
Bearing those difficulties in mind, and bearing in mind the assurances I gave in my letter to the noble Lord and the assurances I have given on earlier occasions and this afternoon in the House, I hope the noble Lord will agree that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary. I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he comment further on the figures he gave? They were all in the nineties, which sounds very impressive. However, I believe he used the word "estimated". Will he tell the House how they were estimated?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again with the leave of the House—we are at Third Reading—I should prefer to write to the noble Lord in greater detail on the precise methodology used by the department in obtaining those figures. So far as I can make out, we are getting to the vast majority of parents in the areas that I mentioned: 97 per cent. in Norfolk is a very impressive figure and 91 per cent. overall is good. I hope that we can improve on that and learn from the pilot. That is why I said I thought that the amendment was unnecessary, that we can make further progress and that we shall continue in phase 2.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister's answer. He said that the amendment was not necessary or workable and went
648
on to try to justify that statement by giving statistics saying that something like an average of 91 per cent. of people had taken up their voucher entitlement. The whole point of my amendment is to address that minority of children whose parents have failed to apply for a voucher. I submit that it is not so impressive that something like one in 20 children have failed to take up the voucher. More to the point, the agency does not know why that small minority failed to take it up.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the Government "shall take all practical steps" to ensure that contact is made. I should have thought a simple example of that would be a telephone call just to ensure that a contact is made and the parents are aware of the voucher system. The amendment seeks a duty to contact to be with the agency itself. I am sure that the noble Lord has good wishes but it is not the same as a duty. For that reason, I feel that I must ask the opinion of the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 153.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carlisle, E.

Lincoln, Bp.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Desai, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Diamond, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Methuen, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkender, B.

Monson, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hamwee, B.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hayman, B.

Redesdale, L.

Healey, L.

Richard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Howell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

649

Russell, E

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Sandwich, E.

Thurso, V.

Serota, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Shepherd, L.

Tope, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Varley, L.

Taverne, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gage, V.

Aldington, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Geddes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Annaly, L.

Gisborough, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Goold, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Balfour, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Berners, B.

Hemphill, L.

Birdwood, L.

Henley, L.

Blaker, L.

Holdemess, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bowness, L.

Ironside, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brentford, V.

Kintore, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Knollys, V.

Burnham,L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Leigh, L.

Cadman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Liverpool, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas, L.

Camock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chelmsford, V.

McConnell, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Coleraine, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cornwallis, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Courtown, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Merrivale, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Davidson, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

De Freyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

De L'Isle, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Devonport, V.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Newall, L.

Downshire, M.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elles, B.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Eme, E.

Orkney, E.

Erroll, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Feldman, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fiasberg, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Flather, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

650

Quinton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Skelmersdale, L

Rees, L.

Stewartby, L.

Rennell, L.

Strange, B.

Renton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Romney, E.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Seccombe, B.

Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Wigram, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wise, L.

Sherfield, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Education in respect of which grants are payable under this section shall be given in premises conforming to such standards as to space and facilities as the Secretary of State shall by regulations specify.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 3 is to require institutions in receipt of nursery vouchers to conform to indoor and outdoor space standards. We have debated this subject extensively on previous occasions during the passage of the Bill and I shall try not to detain the House too long. However, I make no apology for returning to the subject because it is important and this is our last attempt to try to get something in the Bill which lays down requirements as to standards of teaching accommodation and recreation areas.
All of us believe and accept that children require space in which to learn, play and develop; that overcrowding cannot be in anyone's interest; and most of all that it cannot be in the interest of children, whether in the classroom or the playground. I have expressed anxiety previously that because the value of the nursery voucher in many cases will not meet the full cost of nursery provision, there will inevitably be pressure upon some providers at least to obtain as near as possible the value of the voucher. Part of that pressure is likely to have an effect on the space provisions. That may be mostly so with new providers who will have to meet capital and other costs necessary to starting up and they will be under pressure not to meet acceptable standards. It is also an important health and safety issue.
Amendment No. 3, unlike previous amendments, takes account of the worries expressed by the Minister at earlier stages. It recognises that different types of provider may need varying standards of provision. It meets his objection, also expressed at earlier stages, that it would bind all providers to restrictive requirements and therefore in this case it restricts requirements only to those providers in receipt of nursery vouchers.
The amendment leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide what the standards should be. It makes no prescription as to what they should be; simply that they should be prescribed. It is likely that the standards will be those that would otherwise be contained in the guidance and therefore the only difference between us

651
is whether it should best be done by guidance or regulation. We believe that it is better done by regulation because that has a stronger effect. It means that the providers "must" comply rather than "should" comply. That is important for that small minority which has previously been described as "cowboys"—those out to make a quick buck. But, more importantly, it is fair that genuine providers who are trying to meet and wish to meet the standards know that others must meet the standards as well; in other words, that it is a fair competition.
The amendment meets all the previous objections from the Minister. I am reasonably confident therefore that he will accept it; I hope that he will and I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the amendment. We can add nothing to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in his admirable description of the need for the provision.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hate to pour a bucket of cold water over these matters but we cannot accept the amendment. As the noble Lord made clear, it requires the Secretary of State to specify in regulations standards for space and facilities to which all voucher-redeeming pre-school providers of nursery education must conform.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we have been over this ground before both at Committee and at Report stages, and perhaps I can explain once again why we have different regulations and requirements for different settings.
We believe that there are some important differences between the maintained and non-maintained sectors. The former offers education; the latter offers day-care facilities as well as education and can cater for very young children. Those differences require different regulations prescribing different standards and requirements.
The new school premises regulations (which come into force in September this year) will not specify minimum requirements for teaching accommodation or recreation areas. That is because we believe that LEAs and school governors are in the best position to decide how to administer their school premises. The new regulations will give governors and LEAs increased flexibility over their accommodation arrangements. The guidance we shall be publishing later this year will help schools and LEAs make informed decisions.
Perhaps I can make it clear to the House that both the revised school premises regulations and the relevant Children Act guidance contain important requirements for essential areas of health and safety—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Our policies fully address the issue of premises' standards for institutions that will redeem nursery vouchers while recognising the important differences between sectors. I hope therefore that on this occasion the noble Lord, slightly happier than on previous occasions, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I cannot claim to be any happier than I was on previous occasions. However, we have gone as far as we reasonably can in trying to reach a compromise with the Minister's concerns. I have said—on too many occasions now—that guidance, though useful, is not a requirement as such.
We have expressed our anxieties. I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to include on the face of the Bill anything other than that which is already there in relation to this extremely important issue. I do not intend to take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) No arrangements for the issue of vouchers in respect of nursery education shall be made in relation to Wales until the Secretary of State has consulted the Welsh Joint Education Committee on the arrangements and on the implications of the report of the Secretary of State evaluating the operation of any grants for nursery education made during the financial year 1996/7.)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of our debates on the relevance of the Bill to the Welsh education system, my honourable friend and myself moved a series of amendments where we sought to include on the face of the Bill assurances about the implementation of the scheme in relation to Wales. So far we have not succeeded. But being an optimistic nation we never give up hope and it is with those thoughts that I tabled Amendment No. 4.
This is a simple attempt to put on the face of the Bill the indication that we were given both at Report stage and by letter from Mr. Jonathan Evans, the Under-Secretary of State for the Welsh Office—the MP in another place—on 11th July, that the department is prepared to consult with the Welsh Education Committee on the implementation of the scheme in Wales.
The reason for putting the provision on the face of the Bill is simple. We have failed to have any success in obtaining from Ministers, apart from a few cursory references, a recognition of the distinctive expression of education policy in relation to the current nursery system in Wales. We have also failed to obtain from the Minister and the department an indication that they will seriously and independently monitor the effects of the scheme.
We make the next point as strongly as we can in view of the petition that was presented again last week to the Welsh Office by supporters of the current system of nursery education. This scheme is being implemented with the universal hostility of the teaching profession, parents, school governors and communities throughout Wales. There has been no demand in Wales for this scheme and there is still no demand for it. My concern is that we have got to a position where the Government are prepared to legislate on this issue without regard for public opinion in Wales. That is not normal, even for Conservative Governments, which have not had a majority in Wales in living memory.
In moving this amendment I request that even at this late stage the Government have a full review of the operation of the nursery voucher scheme and not the kind of review indicated in the letter from Mr. Jonathan Evans to me and what he described as "an on-going review" of the development of the nursery voucher scheme being the right one. An on-going review is of course necessary and we expect the department to do that. But we want a full review, with an interim report at the end of the first year and a more detailed, final report at the end of the second year. That review should be a formal exercise. We say that because there has been no pilot scheme. The Government will explain that away by saying that nobody volunteered. But that is not sufficient justification for not having one. Therefore, we argue that a review should be undertaken by the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector in full consultation with ACAC, the curriculum assessment body, the WJEC and the Welsh Language Board in which I have an interest and which I now declare.
That review requires that the scheme should be evaluated from the point of view of whether it has ensured an increase on the current figures in the numbers receiving nursery education; whether the system established to administer the scheme in Wales is both effective and efficient; and whether the new system does not adversely affect the provision of quality nursery education throughout Wales, and in particular the value and quality of Welsh bilingual education.
Not to do that would be to put at risk the achievements that have already been recorded in the nursery sector in Wales, and in particular the achievement recorded by Mudiad Ysgolion Meithvin, the voluntary body concerned with the pre-school age and the Pre-School Playgroups Association in Wales, and all those who have been involved in the statutory sector of reception classes in developing the very effective language teaching and bilingual policy. More than anything else, it has effected a turn around in the numbers who speak Welsh among the cohort of school age and enabled us to talk realistically of having a bilingual nation within the foreseeable future.
Nothing should jeopardise these achievements. I am not assured that the Government's response so far has indicated their concern for that. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that, either here at this late stage or in the other place at an even later stage, in his response to the representations made to him he will announce the Government's intention to organise a proper review of the implementation of the scheme. I ask the Minister to tell his honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Jonathan Evans, that, although we like to receive letters from him, they have to be a little bit better than the one of 11th July. We welcome him to the Welsh Office as a Minister and we hope that he will do better. To tell me and my noble friends, the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, as he did on the 11th July, that,
"the Welsh Office is taking steps to ensure that the Welsh dimension is taken fully into account",
is no more than it should do. It is one of the functions of the department, and that is within government policy. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the implementation of that so-called dimension being taken into account as regards this scheme.
For those reasons, it is high time that we had a clear indication from the Government that they are going to respond to Welsh public opinion on this issue. It is not enough to give us assurances that legislation has flexibility and that the Welsh Office may or may not introduce separate arrangements and regulations. It should be on the face of the Bill that we have here a distinctive education system, with its own distinctive provision. The publication of the results of the effects of nursery education in the annual report of the chief inspector is not enough, even though over the years they have provided a strong and independent voice in assessing the education system. We need a proper and clear independent review. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I speak to this amendment, although I shall not go over the ground that has been so ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
The Bill has two objectives. We heard about them at Second Reading. They are to extend nursery education to all four year-olds whose parents want it and to enhance parental choice. In Wales we start with the fact that the investment in nursery education is well advanced, although it is not without shortcomings. But instead of building on the best of existing Welsh experience, with an eye particularly to remedying the defects that there may be in the system, the Welsh Office has pressed the facts of Welsh life into the Department for Education mould and emerged with a model that does not fit the Welsh situation or meet the needs of Wales.
In Wales it appears that the overriding objective of the Bill is to enhance parental choice. That comes out very strongly in the evidence of the House of Commons Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I shall not weary the House with reading extracts from the report, which can be found between pages 3 to 21. But if we concede just for the moment that the wider policy—it is described as such—succeeds in giving more opportunities for some parents to exercise choice in nursery education, what will be the price? That is the question being asked in Wales.
It was a unanimous report from the Select Committee. It did not divide on party lines. The report concluded that the application of the scheme could do a great deal of damage to existing nursery provision in Wales and impede the development of nursery provision for three year-olds. That provision is now available to 40 per cent. of three year-olds. That is the fear that has been expressed in countless letters which I and other noble Lords from Wales have received from parents, teachers, governors and their representative organisations.
If the Bill is introduced and applied in Wales, Welsh nursery education, which has been built up for many decades by Welsh local authorities, will become vulnerable. That risk deserves special consideration, yet nowhere in the evidence from the Welsh Office to the Select Committee or from elsewhere is there any reference to this risk. It appears to us that it has just been ignored.
The Welsh Office Minister, Mr. Jonathan Evans, in his letter of 11th July to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, refers to the on-going review of the

655
development of the scheme. One might concede that it is a very small step in the right direction, but it does not satisfy the representative organisations I have spoken to and I hope that it will not satisfy your Lordships.
The Welsh Office failed to evaluate the risk inherent in the Bill. We say that the Bill must now reflect that risk. That is what the amendment is about. The letter from Mr. Jonathan Evans says that there will be an ongoing review undertaken by Welsh Office education officials—with their present convictions. That in no way allays our anxiety. There is no undertaking that there will be a report within 12 months of the completion of the 1996–97 schemes. If we are to place any reliance at all on that letter, we must press for an independent review and for the involvement of the Welsh Joint Education Committee in the task of evaluating the grants made during the 1996–97 financial year.
Members of the House who come from Wales will know that the WJEC has had a fine record of service to Welsh education for the past 50 years. It has detailed knowledge and experience of the Welsh education service and it is independent of the Welsh Office. More importantly still, it enjoys the confidence of the Welsh public. We ask the Government to accept the amendment and to allow the WJEC to undertake a review of the scheme before it is applied in Wales. It is a small concession and I trust that the Minister will be able to accept it.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, one of the great virtues of Welsh culture is the high regard in which education is held. That includes pre-school education. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, we have long known that the route to the classless society is through the classroom. We have long known that the pathway to personal fulfilment is through academic achievement. Nothing must be done to endanger that.
I ask my noble friend why the Government insist on a common provision across England and Wales when the conditions that prevail in England are very different from those in Wales. I find quite a lot to commend in the amendment, but I await my noble friend's reply.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment, which seems to be about the minimum that could be requested. If the Government resist this amendment, they will be seen entirely to have given up any pragmatic approach to education. After all, when the Prime Minister adumbrated this scheme in the first place, the targets that he set out had already been achieved in Wales. Why should all that be prejudiced? There was no volunteer for an experimental scheme in Wales because nobody wanted such a scheme. There was not sufficient impulse in even the most Conservative part of Wales for there to be any volunteers for such an experimental scheme.
I should like to deal with one particular point. As I said in Committee, we had the pleasure of meeting the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Jonathan Evans, at Gwydyr House before our previous
656
debates on this. He listened carefully and courteously to us, but I am bound to say that one point in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is causing great concern in Wales. Mr. Evans wrote:
"Lord Hooson during both Committee and Report Stage made the point that schools will have to move from full-time to part-time provision under the voucher scheme. That is not the case. There is nothing in the scheme to prevent schools from continuing to provide exactly the same sort of provision as at present, eg if schools are currently funded to provide full-time places, there is no reason why that should change because of vouchers … It is important to remember that the transfer from the local authority sector will be no more than £1100 (even though authorities may spend more than this per four year old place) and will not take account of expenditure on provision for three year olds".
The real concern in Wales is that voucher funding is based on part-time education, whereas 92 per cent. of four to five year-olds in Wales already have either full-time or part-time education and over 70 per cent. of those four to five year-olds have full-time education. It is the hope in Wales that the rest of Wales can move up from providing part-time education to providing full-time education. What will be the effect of the Bill on that? Will such provision be funded in the future? That is an important point.
Perhaps I may comment on the background to the concern in Wales. There have been squeezes on the inspectorate in Wales. There are now fewer inspectors than there were. We are told that the scheme will be reviewed from time to time and inspected. However, a lady from Chirk, which is on the Welsh side of the border, wrote to me about her concern over her children's education. She told me how pleased she was about educational provision not only for four and five year-olds, but also for three year-olds, in Wales. When she moved to the area she was fearful about what the state education system might provide because she had moved from an area where state-provided education did not have such a good reputation. She said that, had there been a small private school, she might have been tempted by its self-promotion and sent her children to it. She wrote that that would have been a mistake.
Obviously, there are deficiencies in some parts of Wales but, by and large, I am sure that in relation to nursery education England wishes that it was in the same advanced state as Wales. Why jeopardise all that now? If the Government cannot accept this amendment, that will show that they have lost all semblance of a pragmatic approach.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. I support it because over 100 years ago my grandfather went to school in Wales at the age of three-and-a-half. He was punished for speaking Welsh—a policy imposed by the English and possibly adopted in England at that time. However, nursery education was available then in Wales.
During the passage of this Bill we have not received a single concession to consensus. The Minister has been unable, has felt unable or has been constrained to be unable to make any concessions in favour of consensus. The Government cannot point to one single decision that they have taken since 1979 which has affected local

657
government finance which has not had unexpected financial repercussions, complications and problems. How dare people in England, based on the experience of what happens in Whitehall, make a judgment and then impose it on the people of the Principality?
If the Government believe that this is merely the view of the Labour Party in Wales, obviously they are not aware that there are some extremely independent Independents the length and breadth of Wales. If there had been one whiff of support for the Government's proposals (either from a minority or the majority), we would have received letters about it. I say that as somebody who has over 10 years' experience of working with Welsh Independents as well as with Welsh colleagues in the Labour Party.
I should like to concentrate now on the Government's imposition of totally centralised decision-making. If I were in favour of the conspiracy theory, I would welcome this because I think that the Government are putting up yet another flag behind which the people of Wales can rally in favour of a Welsh assembly. It is my experience that, from small villages in North Wales to the schools in the large urban communities of Cardiff, nobody wants what the Government are imposing; or are the Government frightened of the result of the evaluation to the point where they are not prepared to wait and see and then argue their case from a position of strength? Teachers, parents, Church leaders, voluntary organisations and school governors—people the length and breadth of the Principality—are telling the Government that they have got it wrong. Is it beyond the capacity of even this Government occasionally to admit that consensus is a better model than railroading and driving roughshod over the people of Wales and what they believe? Is it just possible that for once the Minister is able to reply not with a bucket of cold water but with the hand of co-operation so that we may achieve more and not end up with so many tragic wrecks of government mistaken and arrogant impositions on people?
Why do people in England believe that when it has taken them so long to achieve the Government's targets the Government have the right to look at someone who has achieved in Wales what the Prime Minister said he was setting out to achieve and then seek to undermine it? They are not my words but the words of the people of Wales. I hope that for once the Minister will be able to say that the Government are in favour of consensus and do not want to impose on the people of the Principality yet again something that they have not voted for and have not asked for, bearing in mind that the Government do not have the courage to wait and demonstrate whether there are any benefits.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am rather pained by the allegation made by the noble Baroness in her speech—which sounded more like a Bill do now pass speech—that I have not moved at all at any stage in this Bill. I would have thought that the concessions that I brought forward on the SEN code of practice were fairly major and fundamental and generally welcomed by the House. To suggest that I have resisted and rejected all the way through is unfair. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider her words on another occasion.
658
The intention of the amendment, rather than what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas sought, calls for consultation by the Secretary of State for Wales with the Welsh Joint Education Committee in respect of the evaluation of phase 1 of the scheme. It is important that the noble Lord recognises that it will not deliver the full review that he appears to seek. It would only require consultation with the Welsh Joint Education Committee for implementation of the scheme in Wales. It would not achieve the objectives which I believe the noble Lord set out. The review promised by my honourable friend in another place and in his letter would do just that.
I do not believe that there is very much more I can say that we have not already debated at considerable length at both Committee and Report stages about the position in Wales. As my right honourable friend has made clear, he and the Welsh Office firmly intend to keep the scheme under review and to make sure that full account is given to the Welsh dimension. I can assure noble Lords that both I and my right honourable friend in the Welsh Office recognise that there is very much a Welsh dimension.
The Welsh Office is ensuring that providers in Wales work to specific educational outcomes agreed for Wales. All establishments will be inspected according to the framework for inspection devised by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales. The contractor for the scheme will be required to ensure that a bilingual service is provided. We have made clear all along that phase 1 will help inform implementation in Wales. Welsh Office Ministers and officials will liaise very closely with Ministers and officials in my department.
The Welsh Office wants to involve LEAs in Wales in this process. In a letter to the WJEC earlier this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales said that he hoped constructive dialogue with officials would continue in the run-up to introduction of the scheme. Indeed, officials have been in touch with the Association of Directors of Education in Wales as recently as last week about arrangements for meetings to discuss the detailed implementation of the scheme. Had it not been for a local authority boycott of meetings with the Welsh Office, dialogue might have been possible much earlier.
Colleagues in the Welsh Office very much want to discuss the detailed operation of the scheme in Wales with local authorities and the WJEC both before its start and during its operation. Welsh Ministers have made it clear that they want to involve all the key players—local authorities, WJEC, voluntary sector, the inspectorate and parents—and ensure that there is an objective view of the impact of the scheme in Wales. If at any time it seems that the arrangements in Wales warrant modification, Welsh Office Ministers have made it clear that they will not hesitate to do so. The legislation offers this flexibility.
I give an assurance that the Welsh Office is committed to full monitoring of the scheme in Wales and will include any effects on current provision and the value added element. On-going monitoring, including dialogue with local authorities, will allow the Welsh

659
Office to implement a scheme which will fully reflect the particular circumstances of Wales. But what we cannot contemplate is a delay to the scheme in Wales and a situation where parents in Wales do not have the same opportunities as their counterparts in England. As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, seemed to imply, that is not centralising but giving power to parents.
In the light of the assurances that I have given of the intentions of my right honourable and honourable friends in the Welsh Office about involving the Welsh Joint Education Committee in discussions on the detailed operation of the scheme in the run-up to implementation in Wales, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty. We are chastised for moving amendments that are too radical. Apparently we are now chastised for moving amendments which will not make much difference. On that basis, I have no alternative but to test the opinion of the House.
5.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Birk, B.

Inchyra, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carlisle, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

Kennet, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kintore, E.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Desai, L.

Lockwood, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Longford, E.

Dubs, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Elis-Thomas, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkender, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Fitt, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Meston, L.

Grey, E.

Methuen, L.

Hamwee, B.

Monkswell, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Haskel, L.

Nicol, B.

Hayman, B.

Ogmore, L.

Healey, L.

Peston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hooson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

660

Redesdale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Richard, L.

Taverne, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rochester, L.

Thurso, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank L.

Tonypandy, V.

Russell, E.

Tope, L.

Tordoff, L.

St. Davids, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sandwich, E.

Wharton, B.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stafford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Geddes, L.

Aldington, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gisborough, L.

Annaly, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ashboume, L.

Goold, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Balfour, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Greenway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Berners, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hemphill, L.

Blaker, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L.

Boardman, L.

Holderness, L.

Bowness, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ironside, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bumham, L.

Leigh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cadman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Liverpool, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas, L.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chelmsford, V.

McConnell, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Coleridge, L.

Colwyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mersey, V.

Cuckney, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Davidson, V.

Mottistone, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norfolk, D.

Downshire, M.

Northesk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Palmer, L.

Falmouth, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Feldman, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Finsberg, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Flather, B.

Pike, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gage, V.

Prior, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Quinton, L.

661

Rankeillour, L.

Stewartby, L.

Rees, L.

Strange, B.

Rennell, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Romney, E.

Teviot, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Seccombe, B.

Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Wigram, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wise, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.54 p.m.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
("provided that in the case of a person who has not previously been a provider of nursery education subject to inspection by him, the Chief Inspector has placed that person on a public register maintained by him of such persons who provide or can reasonably be expected to provide nursery education of a satisfactory quality and standard.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this amendment which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and myself. I should say first that the noble Baroness is detained on business elsewhere in the House and has asked me to move it on her behalf as well as my own, which of course I do with pleasure.
The purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on the chief inspector to maintain a public register of those persons who can provide, or who can reasonably be expected to provide, nursery education of a satisfactory quality and standard. This amendment would have the effect of providing what might be called a provisional licence until, following final inspection, a validation is granted. The tightening up on scrutiny of new providers is needed to prove that they too will be capable of providing a service which is of sufficient standard to meet the meagre curriculum requirements in the SCAA desirable learning outcomes document.
The amendment would require the chief inspector at least to provide a reasonable safeguard against rogue providers whose aims may be to make a financial killing and then move on. It will also guard against the well-meaning amateur potential providers who simply do not have sufficient resourcefulness with which to establish an effective programme of teaching and learning.
The Minister in his reply may again claim that all is well, because no provider may be allowed to be funded from nursery voucher income unless he or she meets the registration requirements of the Children Act 1989. That is all very well, but the Children Act does no more than charge the social services department of the local authority to satisfy it that the person is fit to look after the under-eights. It says nothing about their education. It provides some guidance and some indication of where it may seek advice before making that decision, but in practice those powers are at best advisory and will be
662
constrained by available resources which are set against the many statutory duties with which the social services departments are charged.
During Committee stage the Minister hinted at the possibility of making better use of the self-assessment schedule. At least in principle he conceded that there should be an initial screening of new providers to test their calibre prior to awarding grant. He may again expand a little further on that when he replies. There is little doubt that completing a self-assessment schedule may reveal only that which the individual is either capable of understanding and knowing or is willing to admit. The trained eye of an inspector, even at some distance removed from the nursery setting, will be able to gain a view as to the suitability of the person applying for grant.
This process may, if taken together with the registration under the Children Act, strengthen the requirements for high standards and quality in nursery education which we are all seeking. The effect of scrutinising such initial providers and authorising their inclusion on a public register will add considerably to public confidence in a scheme which, as far as new providers are concerned, stands untested by the pilot scheme and is therefore not even subject to evaluation, let alone open to a professional once-over prior to the phase 2 implementation. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I think I explained at an earlier stage, we have already made arrangements for a register of eligible providers to be maintained by the voucher company. The company will make that register available free of charge on request. Again, as I explained I think in some depth on Report, to which the noble Lord referred—I shall return to that point later—we have in place robust arrangements to ensure that all participating providers placed on the register, including private and voluntary sector providers, provide education of a consistently high standard.
Again, I stress that there is no risk of the cowboy outfits joining the register. Under the quality assurance arrangements, all private and voluntary sector providers will need to be registered under the Children Act. I have no qualms about mentioning that again because it is important. That means that they will have to pass, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, put it, inspection by the social service department in which the inspectors have to satisfy themselves that the staff are fit persons to work with children; that the premises are suitable; and they will also need, for the first time, to work towards a set of goals for children's learning development, developed by SCAA, and publish information for parents.
There are already many four year-olds in private and voluntary sector establishments. Such establishments do not currently have to adhere to any requirements in relation to the quality and standards of education. It will be to the benefit of children in such establishments that the voucher scheme starts as soon as possible so that we can have inspections as soon as possible.
The noble Lord asked me to say a little more about the self-assessment schedule. It too will act as an important tool for providers to identify their strengths and

663
weaknesses and will act as stimuli to improve quality and standards of education. Again, as I said on Report, we shall consider with interested outsiders and experts whether to require providers to complete and submit the schedule within a certain timescale. The schedule could then be passed to an inspector in advance of the first inspection. I can assure the House that we shall give serious consideration to that option before phase 2. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore feel that his amendment is unnecessary and be able to withdraw it.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and the assurances that he has given. I wish him well with that. I remain to be convinced, particularly with regard to new providers, which by definition must have an untested record. Existing providers have at least some record. Parents have something against which to judge their performance, standards and quality. That cannot of course be the case with new providers. On the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given, at which we shall look with interest, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
PARTNERSHIP IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS
(".—(1) Arrangements made under section 1 above shall be made in accordance with a strategy for nursery education published or revised in accordance with this section.
(2) A local education authority shall publish, and from time to time revise, a strategy for the provision of nursery education within its area.
(3) In drawing up or revising a strategy under this section, a local education authority shall have regard to—

(a) the needs of children aged three and four in its area;

(b) the quality and range of educational provision for such children;

(c) the desirability of involving parents of such children in the provision of nursery education;

(d) the efficiency and effectiveness of different types of educational provision for such children and the desirability in relation to the needs of the area of securing the most effective distribution of resources among those types.

(4) Before publishing or revising a strategy under this section a local education authority shall consult persons within its area who appear to it to be concerned, including persons representative of parents, voluntary organisations and such persons as may have been prescribed under section 1(4)(b) above.
(5) In drawing up, revising or implementing a strategy under this section, a local education authority shall have regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may issue.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is important as it provides a framework for a partnership at local level to ensure that the needs of all children in the locality are met. In drawing up its strategy, an LEA is to have regard to a number of factors designed to underpin the commitment to partnership working and the creation of a mixed economy of nursery education within a development plan. Thus, under subsection (3) of the new clause, the LEA is to have regard to the needs of children aged three and four in its area and to secure the best quality and range of nursery education for such children.
With regard to the needs of three year-olds, I refer to the need to ensure that the needs of three year-olds with special educational needs, including behavioural and social difficulties and moderate learning difficulties, are recognised as important. The LEA is required to look also at the effectiveness of different types of provision to meet the needs of all children in the area. So a LEA may well find that high quality, good value education may be provided through the encouragement of pre-school education in a particular area.
During the passage of the Bill, many speakers referred to the unique circumstances that exist in some rural communities. I think of my county of Lancashire where in some small villages there is a small Anglican primary school and a small Catholic primary school to serve the needs of a small scattered community. In those circumstances, leaving the matter to the marketplace will not necessarily guarantee that the needs of those children are met. Before publishing or revising its development plan, an LEA would be required to consult people in the area who appear to be representative of parents, the voluntary sector and private providers, and to pay due regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may wish to issue as to how a development plan should be drawn up.
The new clause aims to set out a coherent framework within which the power of the Secretary of State to make grants could be used in relation to some or all of the sectors involved so as to secure the best possible expansion of nursery education within the resources available. It could be tailored to suit local circumstances. That is important, because circumstances in different parts of England and Wales vary enormously. There needs to be more than just a reference to the haphazard nature of the market system through the use of vouchers.
The important issue here is to ensure that all sections of the community, in particular parents, are given an opportunity to contribute to debating the needs of the community. I spent part of my childhood in a small rural community with few children of school age. There was a child who had a withdrawn mother who did not develop contacts with the rest of the community. Her husband was an agricultural worker and they lived a long way from the village. When that child started school at the age of five he could not speak. That was a fairly affluent area of Leicestershire. Those needs could have been overlooked. That child would not have been actively sought by any of the providers because to meet the needs of children with special needs may take people more time than is envisaged.
Why cannot we have a commitment to encourage good local planning? That is part of building community respect, and community respect is one of the things which is increasingly missed. I listened carefully to the Minister's response to my views on Wales. It would be churlish of me not to admit that there were concessions with regard to special educational needs and the code of practice. I hope that that was the beginning of a further concession in this area. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the amendment. Perhaps I may emphasise its importance in terms of the quality and range of educational provision for three and four year-olds and of ensuring that it is done in a way which reflects the needs of the local community. Those points were eloquently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington.
In case the Minister is tempted to respond by saying that this is another example of people wanting big brother to do everything and that the market will provide, perhaps I may make one further point. In local government, irrespective of which party or parties are in control, partnership is the name of the game. That is what we seek, as do the institutions which are not part of local government. They expect to co-operate with local government, which expects to co-operate with them. The private and voluntary sectors and local government find that there is added synergy when that operation takes place.
The new clause seeks to put on the face of the Bill a description of what is happening in many local authorities. We wish to see that in the Bill, which covers an unusual way of funding a publicly provided service. I hope that the Minister will listen to our arguments.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, perhaps I may underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in relation to rural areas. Parts of my diocese in Yorkshire are remote; I suspect as remote as any in England. The difficulty of seeing how a market system will respond to the demands in those areas is enormous. Some years ago I visited a county-maintained school, not a church school, in which there were five children at the primary stage. That is the kind of number of children that there are in such remote areas. Without planning and working together, I find it difficult to understand how provision will be made for those children. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can trump the right reverend Prelate's school of only five pupils at the primary stage. When I was a county councillor, in my county council division was a school with only three children. I tried manfully to save it but I have to say that my heart was not in it. Indeed, I doubt whether a school of that size can provide an appropriate education.
We debated the need for an early years strategy during Report stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness made the point during that debate that in her view there is a need for planning and for organisations to work together.
666
I have no difficulty with the notion of planning and certainly applaud organisations working together in a common aim. But I do not consider that those factors necessitate local authorities preparing development plans or putting together a strategy. There is little that I can add to what I said before. A key theme of our nursery education voucher initiative is parental choice, as I have made clear on numerous occasions. We want to put power into parents' hands and give them the means to choose a nursery place for their child that best suits their own circumstances and the child's situation. We do not want the expression of that choice limited by the fact that arrangements to pay grant can be made only in accordance with a local authority strategy. That could deny choice to parents. Subsection (1) of the new clause would certainly do so.
We are putting power into parents' hands because we believe that it is parents who understand best the needs of their child and who know what kind of nursery setting is best for their child. We do not believe that either central government or local government should make that choice.
However, as I have said before, none of this prevents a local authority putting together its early years strategy for expansion of nursery education. None of this prevents local authorities working closely with the private and voluntary sectors. None of this prevents local authorities consulting interested parties before expanding their own provision. Any local education authority can put together a development plan, or a strategy, for a particular element of its provision.
I should like to make clear that there is no need for such provision in the Bill. Furthermore, the amendment would limit and undermine the choice of parents. Therefore, I cannot accept it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it was with great disappointment that I heard the Minister's words. I almost detected two replies; one from the point of view of his experience as a county councillor and another which sounded like a press briefing on parental choice.
No one is speaking against parental choice. We are in favour of it. I am disappointed about the Government's approach but it would be to little avail to press the matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Delegation]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("(3) Where arrangements are made under section 1 to which subsection (1) above applies, those arrangements shall be such as to ensure that the parent of any child in respect of whose education a grant is made available is advised by the person exercising a function on behalf of the Secretary of State that in the absence of alternative provision being made, the exercise by the parent of a choice not to apply for financial support from monies available by way of grant under this Act represents a choice not to seek nursery education for his child.
(4) The requirements of subsection (3) shall not be considered satisfied unless it is shown that a parent who has failed to seek the benefits of financial support from monies made available by way of grant under this Act has been reminded of his opportunity to do so.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Benjamin Franklin, writing his own epitaph, said that though his body would lie, food for worms,
"Yet the work itself shall not be lost,
For it will, as he believed, appear once more
In a new
And more beautiful edition,
Corrected and amended
By its Author!".
Corrected and amended, not by its author but by me after the Report stage, the amendment is briefly resurrected. I hope that this time I get it right.
It means that the voucher agency would be required to carry out a further procedure, such as a telephone call, beyond the normal application and distribution of vouchers in order to remind parents of the consequences of non-application.
I was relieved to hear from the Minister that the voucher agency, Capita, employs,
"staff at the moment who can translate into 20 languages".
His subsequent letter, for which I am also grateful, modified that exuberant 20 to a more sober 15. I was also relieved to hear that his right honourable and honourable friends in the Welsh Office will be considering appropriate translation services in Wales. For those we are grateful.
I understand that the DfEE commissioned the Central Office of Information Research Unit to interview,
"201 parents of eligible four year-olds in the four phase one participating boroughs".
The interviews were conducted before the scheme started in the week of 15th April 1996. The purpose of the survey was,
"to assess the effectiveness of the recent and current publicity campaign, and to provide guidance for the future publicity campaign for the national launch in 1997".
There are more than 16,000 eligible children in the four areas, according to "Countdown to vouchers", in Nursery World of 21st March 1996. If we ignore the small number of four year-olds, twins or triplets, there are likely to be around 16,000 "eligible" parents in the pilot areas. If my sums are correct, that means that only 1.25 per cent. of phase 1 parents were surveyed. Statistically, that is not a convincing sample. I could continue at some length about the survey, which I have studied, but I shall not do so on this occasion. Of those 1.25 per cent. of parents in the four pilot areas, 82 per cent. realised that they were eligible to receive vouchers and 18 per cent. did not. That sounds most creditable, but 18 per cent. of 16,000 is 2,880. Those parents did not know and they are the people in whom we are interested. It is not enough to say that an overwhelming majority did know. We have a duty to search out those who did not.
These figures illustrate that much more work needs to be done to ensure that parents understand this scheme. In accountability terms the voucher agency must make efficient and effective use of this public money. The
668
experience of the scheme so far in phase 1 has shown occasions where this has not always been the case, so I ask the Minister once more, has this issue been properly and fully explored, quantified and costed with Capita Managed Services? If so, what response has been elicited from it about this small percentage that it should be following up? If it has not done so, why has it not done so, and when will it do so? I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, once again I rise in support of this amendment to add a couple of points. There are 18 per cent. of parents who have been proved not to have known what was going on or not to have coped with it very well. When the scheme operates countrywide, how will the agency reach everybody, and what is the cost likely to be? Instead of trying to reach everybody in the same blast of publicity, would it not be better to spend less money on reaching those who prove less responsive than the majority? It seems to me that that would be a more cost-effective way of doing it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I certainly remember this debate at an earlier stage and I think the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, also remembers it. Having brought forward a defective amendment, he kindly agreed to reflect on its defects. I have to say, with some regret, that the new amendment is little better.
There is no disagreement that it is important that those parents who want to take advantage of the scheme should apply for vouchers for their children and that children should benefit from the opportunities provided. It is also important that schools, nurseries and playgroups know that all parents who want to be, are equipped with vouchers, and that grant funding will flow from that.
But I do not agree with the noble Lord that it is necessary to place on the face of the Bill the requirement that the contractor must explain to parents the need to apply for a voucher and remind them to do so. All those parents of eligible children who appear on the child benefit database were sent an application form. A reminder form was sent to those who had failed to apply a month before the start of term.
The department has mounted, as I mentioned on an earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, an extensive information campaign in the phase 1 authorities to raise awareness among parents, and we plan to carry out a similar campaign on a national scale in phase 2.
The survey involved 200 parents, a number which the independent research company adjudged was necessary to produce a statistically significant result. So it was their choice. We now know from that survey that most parents who want their child to attend a nursery provider will seek guidance from a local provider, and we have ensured that all providers in the scheme have both general information about the scheme and information about how parents should apply for vouchers. The information we publish for parents stresses the need for them to apply for vouchers and submit them to their chosen provider.

669
In phase 1 we have demonstrated that the effective ways to contact parents are via the child benefit database, via advertising and via the providers. The amendment proposes one way which I believe is neither sensible nor practical. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment on this occasion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, as there will never be another occasion, I have remarkably little choice. I have either to withdraw it or seek the view of the House, which I shall not do. It is quite clear that we will not get any more from the Minister or from his department on this point. I simply register that we on these Benches are primarily concerned in opposing, as it is our duty to do. It is our duty to oppose, which does not mean to destroy, this Bill; to go into it in great detail with the Minister.
We are concerned that there should be full compassion and responsible government in the care of those people who are perhaps the least fortunate, the most unlovely in our community. There are people who are eligible for this scheme who do not know it. There are people out there with children who are eligible for this scheme who cannot read or write and who will not tell anybody. We on these Benches press for consideration to be given to them. It is hard. It is difficult. It requires a lot of hard work from government departments and their agencies. May I leave with the Minister the thought that that is the kind of work that good people do? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Requirements]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(4) Requirements imposed under this section shall include a requirement to ensure that corporal punishment is not used in nursery education provided by an authority or other person to whom a grant is made under section 1.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return yet again to the question of corporal punishment. There is a good deal of confusion because of the Minister's letter not having turned up last time. So I do not make any apology for coming back to this point.
Various Members of the House have encouraged me to table this amendment again because the responses that we have had from the Minister at Committee stage, Report stage and in correspondence are not satisfactory. With respect, they have been both confused and confusing. I shall be brief because the arguments have been set out before.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that corporal punishment is prohibited in all voucher-redeeming institutions. This is not a large step from the Government's current position, which is to prohibit corporal punishment from voucher-bearing children in these institutions. It is a step which the Government have so far declined to take but which we hope to persuade them to take tonight.
The Minister has told us:
"It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to prohibit corporal punishment for all state-funded education".
670
The Department of Health has reiterated its policy that:
"physical punishment of children has no place in the child care environment".
If the Government pursue their current policy it will represent a U-turn on these policies because institutions providing nursery education, both in the private sector and in Children Act institutions, will be permitted to use corporal punishment for non-voucher bearing children, although many of the institutions, as the Minister admitted in his letter to me dated 6th July, receive public funds.
In his replies so far the noble Lord has waltzed around the central issue: do the Government really condone the use of institutional corporal punishment for three and four year-old children? I hope we shall get a clear answer tonight. If they do, they are ignoring not only their own policies but the strongly expressed opinion of all the organisations involved, the NSPCC, Save the Children and a great many institutions which are involved with children's welfare and care, and, of course, international human rights standards and recommendations, which I may leave to others to pursue tonight.
We are asking for a small but principled movement from the Government in line, let me emphasise, with their own policies. If the Government do not wish to protect these very young children from corporal punishment through the use of this Bill, they could give us an assurance that they will do so through regulations issued under the Children Act and the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. I hope that the least we can have from the Government tonight is that reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am glad to speak in support of the amendment, which also stands in my name on the Marshalled List. I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has returned to a theme for which she has campaigned for some 15 years, to stamp out what is described on the Continent as le vice anglais—the English vice of institutional corporal punishment—to ensure that children in institutions providing early years care education are protected like everybody else.
I have a particular professional interest in that some years ago I represented Karen Warwick in her case against the United Kingdom before the European Commission of Human Rights, which ultimately led to a finding of a breach of Article 3 of the convention: the infliction of degrading corporal punishment on her, on that occasion in a state school.
The Minister has made it clear that it is the policy of the Government, as I am sure that he will make clear yet again in a few minutes, to prohibit corporal punishment in all state-funded education, including education provided in exchange for nursery education vouchers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, made clear in Committee and as the Minister confirmed on Report, day nurseries are fully publicly-funded. Playgroups also receive public funds. Yet, as I understand the position, under the Government's proposals, non-voucher-bearing children in those institutions will not be protected from corporal punishment.

671
On Report at col. 245 my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood asked the Minister whether he considered that there was a risk of the Government being in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. His reply then was that he did not believe that the Government would be at risk in that respect. The Minister said:
"We have always maintained that we will not have corporal punishment within publicly-funded education. It is still open and a number of schools may make use of corporal punishment in the non-maintained sector. That is a matter for them".
The Minister pointed out also that there is guidance in the Children Act 1989,
"which does not support the use of corporal punishment but leaves the decision to individual institutions".—[Official Report, 9/7/96; col. 245.]
In my considered view, there is a real risk that the Government will eventually be held to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights unless this amendment is accepted as it stands or unless, at the very least, effective guidance is issued of the kind sought by the noble Baroness, Lady David, when the regulations are made, that corporal punishment should not be used in nursery education provided by a day nursery or by a playgroup receiving public funds.
In its judgment in the case brought by Mrs. Costello-Roberts against the United Kingdom in March 1993, a case concerning school discipline, a narrowly divided European Court of Human Rights decided by five votes to four that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the convention, the article forbidding inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The majority of the Court held, as I say by a wafer-thin majority, on the particular facts of the case, that the punishment had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required for a breach of that provision of the convention.
However, the Court pointed out that it had misgivings and said that it was not:
"to be taken to approve in any way of the retention of corporal punishment as part of the disciplinary regime of a school".
In his concurring opinion, Judge Sir John Freeland, the British member of the Court, very significantly—and he had been the agent of the United Kingdom Government in many of the cases brought against them in Strasbourg—said,
"it must be evident, if only from the divisions of opinion in the Court, that the case is at or near the borderline".
The Court agreed with Mrs. Costello-Roberts that the state cannot absolve itself from responsibility by delegating its obligations to private bodies or individuals. It was observed that, although the treatment complained of was the act of a headmaster of an independent school, nevertheless, it was such as might engage the responsibilities of the United Kingdom under the convention if it proved to be incompatible with Article 3 or Article 8, dealing with lack of respect for private life, including a child's physical and moral integrity. For good measure, that view was supported by the dissenting minority led by the very distinguished president of the Court, Judge Rolv Ryssdal.
672
In the wake of that judgment in the Costello-Roberts case, Parliament amended the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to ensure that any remaining school using corporal punishment was not engaging in inhumane or degrading treatment. According to the department, as we have heard, it is the Government's policy to prohibit corporal punishment for all state-funded education. But unfortunately, the Government decided on grounds of parental choice that corporal punishment shall remain available for privately-funded pupils in independent schools.
The matter goes further than that. Not only do we have the benefit of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Costello-Roberts, but the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its concluding observations on the UK's initial report about measures taken to comply with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, had expressed concern at the continued legality of corporal punishment in the private sector.
Nor is that all because the very experienced and extremely authoritative Human Rights Committee which oversees the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in its comments on the UK's fourth periodic report, recommended that:
"corporal punishment administered to privately funded pupils in independent schools be abolished".
Therefore, it is clear that there is a gap in the current legal regime which gives the appearance that the Government really do, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady David, condone the use of institutional corporal punishment for three and four year-old children if they are not voucher-supported children and if they are in the private sector.
If that is the position, I can only say that in my view, it is likely to lead to further breaches of the European convention and condemnation by the European Court, the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, putting the UK in quite unnecessary and serious breach of its international obligations.
I should be most grateful if the Minister would make quite clear in his reply how exactly the Government consider that they are complying with their international legal obligations in each of those respects. It is not enough simply to say that the Government are satisfied that they are complying. Parliament needs to be told in exactly which respects and how they consider that there is compliance. How can it be compatible with the spirit and the letter of the judgment in Costello-Roberts that non-voucher-bearing children will remain unprotected against corporal punishment?
Will the Government also agree to give at the very least guidance which makes it quite clear that they disapprove of the infliction of corporal punishment on non-voucher-supported children in the private sector of nursery education? As the European Court has made perfectly plain, the Government cannot simply pass the buck to private educational bodies. The Court has made it quite clear that the Government have positive obligations to protect pupils against corporal punishment in those circumstances.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the Third Reading of a Bill relating to the funding of nursery education and the borrowing powers of grant-maintained schools, I do not think that it would be appropriate to launch into a long explanation as to why we believe that we are right in terms of our policies and why we feel that we are satisfying the requirements of the European convention.
As I said, the Bill relates to nursery education. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, expressed the matter, the intention behind her amendment is to ban corporal punishment for all children in voucher-redeeming institutions. I believe that I noted her words correctly.
As the noble Baroness will probably be aware, the amendment does not have that effect. Its effect, which is confined to nursery education, as defined by the Bill, can only cover those who would be receiving their funding under the Bill; that is, through vouchers. We cannot take the Bill further to cover the sort of settings which the noble Baroness would like to cover.
I know that the noble Baroness would like to see corporal punishment banned in all daycare and educational settings irrespective of whether state funding is involved. But, equally, she will know, as I made quite clear, that today's debate on corporal punishment must be limited to the scope of the Bill; that is, the prohibition of corporal punishment only in so far as it relates to children funded by nursery education vouchers. The Bill cannot go beyond that. Therefore, it would not be right for me at this stage—dare I say it—on a Third Reading debate to try to answer all the points made by a very distinguished lawyer. I respect the noble Lord's views, but I must tell him that the advice I receive from those who advise the Government is contrary to his. The advice is that we are satisfying the requirements of the European convention.
There is just one small point that I should like to raise with the noble Lord. It relates to the question of non-voucher paying children attending Children Act registered institutions, some of which are subsidised by local authorities. Is that not publicly funded provision? Some playgroups and day nurseries are subsidised by local authorities—usually by the local social services department. As such, the emphasis is very often on daycare provision rather than education. But, as I said before, the Children Act guidance does not support the use of corporal punishment; it leaves decisions about the use of corporal punishment where the child is not in receipt of state-funded education with the parent and the provider. I can go no further. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am much obliged. Before the Minister moves on, perhaps I may just ask him one simple question. Will the Government at the very least make clear their position that they would not wish corporal punishment to be inflicted in respect of non-voucher children? In other words, while leaving it to the discretion of local providers, will the Minister confirm that in the Government's view it would be undesirable for corporal punishment to be inflicted? That should at least be made clear by the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have made our view absolutely clear. We wish to ensure that corporal punishment is not administered to children whose nursery places are funded by the nursery voucher scheme. As regards those who are funded in other ways, as I said, that is a matter for the parents and the providers.
However, where I differ from the noble Baroness is how we deliver that objective. The noble Baroness would like to see something on the face of the Bill but, as I made clear earlier, we would prefer to ensure that that objective is secured by making prohibition a requirement of grant. I believe that that method of achieving what we are trying to achieve—indeed, what we are both trying to achieve—is as effective as putting something on the face of the Bill. I say that for no other reason than that I suspect the noble Baroness's amendment would be technically deficient because it has no definition of corporal punishment. I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that fact. Indeed, when we tried to do that in the proceedings under the Education (No. 2) Bill it amounted to something like two-and-a-half pages of text. To try to get such wording into one small amendment is not the right way forward. Therefore, with the sort of assurances that I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before I give my final answer, can the Minister say whether he has given an assurance that there will be guidance to the effect that the Government are against corporal punishment in any institution where there are children receiving vouchers and, indeed, others who are not?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have given guidance under the Children Act. I do not want to move away from that sort of guidance. I believe that that guidance would be appropriate in the sort of settings about which we are talking.
Baroness David: My Lords, surely providing guidance under the Children Act extends as far as care and does not really cover the education being given. Am I correct in that assumption?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, that is the case. However, as I made clear, I do not believe that any further guidance would be necessary. Again, I should stress that this is a Third Reading debate. I do not think that I could go any further.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am still most amazed that we cannot have that direct assurance. I am most grateful for the support that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has given me; indeed, it has been extremely helpful. I repeat: I am amazed that we cannot have that straightforward assurance. It is quite extraordinary. This is a matter of principle and, although I am quite certain of the outcome, I am afraid that I must take the opinion of the House.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Barnett, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carlisle, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Methuen, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton L

Shepherd, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B,

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L.[Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tope, L.

Howell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden.B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Winston, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Aldington, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Annaly, L.

Downshire, M.

Attlee, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Balfour, E.

Elton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Erroll, E.

Bemers, B.

Falmouth, V.

Biddulph, L.

Feldman, L.

Blaker, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Flather, B.

Boardman, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bowness, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goold, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Goschen, V.

Bumham, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Caithness, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hertford, M.

Chelmsford, V.

Hesketh, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hogg, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Holderness, L.

Coleridge, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Comwallis, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Courtown, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Cox, B.

Kimball, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kinnoull, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Leigh, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Lindsay, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Denham, L.

Liverpool, E.

676

Lucas, L.

Prior, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Rees, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rennell, L.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Romney, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Marlesford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Seccombe, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Sharples, B.

Monson, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mottistone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Northbourne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northesk, E.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Palmer, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Pender, L.

Wigram, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wise, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.52 p.m.
Clause 7 [Power to borrow]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("given") to ("but") in line 38, and insert ("only where the Secretary of State or a person to whom he delegates the function is satisfied that the land or buildings concerned are not essential to the functioning of the school concerned);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name. We debated the whole subject of core assets fairly briefly, it has to be said, at Committee stage, but at rather greater length on Report. By that time the Minister had written a very helpful letter to me, substantial parts of which I quoted at the Report stage and shall not need to do so again.
The Minister has made it clear, both in his letter and again in his reply at Report stage, that the Government believe it is important and they are fully committed to retain essential school assets. The amendment before us today is simply one last attempt to get something onto the face of the Bill that actually recognises the commitment which the Government have already given. That is the purpose of the amendment.
I think we have debated fairly fully the reasons for this and the need to have a clearer understanding of exactly what is meant by core assets. It is therefore not necessary for me to go into it at any greater length tonight.
However, there are two points that I would like to raise. The Minister said in previous debates that he believed it was best that the Funding Agency for Schools should look at applications on a case-by-case basis and deal with them on their merits. In fact, the Bill allows for a generalised consent:
"which may be given for particular borrowing or for borrowing of a particular class".

677
In another place there was some debate on when generalised consent might operate and the Government indicated that they did not foresee it applying until the new arrangements had bedded down. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us how well generalised consent and the need for administrative discretion for the FAS to consider applications from individual schools fit together.
My final point on this subject is one which, again, we considered at Report stage. It is the question of further consultation on the remit letter. I made the point that during the passage of the Bill, particularly in your Lordships' House, it has become much clearer what the Government regard as being core assets and what are not core assets.
Many factors have emerged since the original consultation. I asked the Minister at Report stage whether he would consider having a further brief consultation with interested parties on the content and meaning of the actual remit letter before it is published. I do not want to press the Minister too hard. It is only a few days since he undertook to give such a consideration, but I wonder in which direction that consideration might be moving. I urge upon him that it can only be helpful to clarify some of these points before the letter is published rather than to have them left unclear after publication. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we support this amendment. All I would add to the points made comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is the question of whether the FAS is reasonably placed, in terms of geography and resources, to be able to look in detail at applications from individual schools; and whether it is not also important, from the point of view of those schools, for it to issue guidance directly to the schools on the sort of remit that would be given on this matter in order to help them frame applications which are likely to be approved and not to submit applications which are unlikely to be approved.
Perhaps I may reiterate and strengthen the point about the need for further consultation on this matter. We are not seeking to regulate for every detail. We are not seeking to put obstacles in the way. But we do believe it is important that everyone is clear about the circumstances in which the provisions in the Bill would be applied, were it to become an Act.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think it would be necessary or desirable for me at this time to rehearse all the arguments that I went through at Report stage on the main part of the noble Lord's amendment. I believe that we are both looking in the same direction but have different ways of going about it. I think it would serve little purpose to rehearse my arguments again other than to say that I think we can agree to disagree.
However, the second effect of the amendment is something which I ought to address in that it would prevent the funding agency from consenting to classes of borrowing. As the noble Lord made clear, this is not something that we have debated before and I would like to try to explain our position and to give some
678
reassurances to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. This will be covered in the remit letter which my right honourable friend intends to send to the funding agency.
In the first instance, the Funding Agency for Schools will give its consent to borrowing only on a case-by-case basis. This is to monitor borrowing in its early stages and to make doubly sure, while borrowing is new, that schools do not overstretch themselves and that publicly-funded assets are protected. So initially consent will not be given by particular class.
Once the arrangements are well-established, however, it should be possible to introduce more flexible arrangements whereby consent would be given by particular class. This might be consent for loans below a certain value or for particular types of loan.
I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to tie up schools in red tape by requiring them to seek consent for every loan just to reglaze the science block or to put up a bike shed. But the Government are committed to cutting red tape and we think that the proposed arrangements for borrowing provide the right balance.
To underline our position, consenting to borrowing by particular class is a very useful flexibility which will be used only where it is appropriate. And in the first instance consent, as I said, will be given only on a case-by-case basis until we have gained experience. This is in no way intended to circumvent the necessary protection for schools and their assets which the Secretary of State's consent provides.
The noble Lord also asked whether there would be further consultation. I think I made it quite clear that there has already been a great deal of consultation. I made it clear that I thought consultation was possibly coming out of our ears more generally speaking, in terms of departmental policy. I am not sure there is a case for further consultation on this issue, but I have no doubt that many interested parties will probably still seek to submit their views. They would be taken note of in drafting the remit letter.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked us whether we were satisfied that the Funding Agency for Schools had sufficient geographical cover and sufficient resources to perform its job effectively. We are so satisfied and if the Funding Agency for Schools were not so satisfied, I am sure that it would be the first to let us know. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able on this occasion to withdraw this amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply; I am also deeply disappointed by it. I had hoped that as we come almost to the end of this process we had at last found an amendment which he might feel able to accept. It is sad that even at this late stage we shall not achieve that small amount of consensus.
On the question of further consultation, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. In requesting that further consultation we are not seeking great detail and over- regulation in the remit letter. We seek clarity. I have acknowledged on previous occasions that consultation has taken place, but it occurred before

679
the passage of this Bill. Much has emerged during the passage of the Bill, in the other place and in particular here. It would be common sense to consult with interested parties, in particular the funding agency and the local authority associations, on the draft remit letter. Whether or not they agree with it is not an issue at that stage. It is to ensure simply that those bodies understand the measures that they think it is clear, and that it cannot be drafted in a way to make it clearer. I do not believe that that would be a lengthy and formal consultation process but a necessary, comparatively informal and quick process which could well avoid much greater difficulties at a later stage when it is harder to deal with them. I hope that the Minister's consideration of this point is not finally concluded and that his mind is not finally set upon it. I shall not press him further on that point, nor shall I press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("first") and insert ("second").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that all noble Lords will pay close attention to this highly technical amendment. I shall say this once, and once only. Schedule 3, paragraph 9 amends the local authority capping provisions to take account of local authority budgets following the removal of resources to fund the voucher scheme. Local authorities will not know at the start of a financial year what their expenditure will be because voucher income is not known. Authorities may exceed their cap if education is provided for more children than expected.
Paragraph 9(3) makes separate provision for the first financial year, and either or both of the next two financial years. I hope that is quite clear. The intention is that the first financial year should commence on 1st April 1997 when the "roll out" phase starts. The first financial year is tied to the use of Clause 1 of the Bill; that is, the grant-making powers.
It appears that the Government wish to use Clause 1 to fund inspections of private and voluntary sector providers in phase 1 authorities this financial year, 1996–97. As the Bill stands, if Clause 1 is used this financial year, then the capping provisions would also start, whereas the intention is that they should first apply in the following year. The government amendment ties the start of the capping provisions to the first financial year in which local authorities are funded, and not the first year in which Clause 1(1) is used.
There is a problem with the government amendment as it will make the Bill inconsistent in our view as between Schedule 3 and Clause 1(3), which the Government have not changed in the Lords. The Government should uphold the Bill rather than introduce
680
ambiguities. The government amendment raises a doubt about the Government's view of the Lords' amendment which is new Clause 1(3).
My amendment achieves the technical objective of the Government's amendment without causing this inconsistency. It has the effect of renumbering the financial years for which the capping provisions apply and so enables inspections to continue after 1st April 1997. This, I submit, will leave the Bill in tidier shape on leaving your Lordships' House than the government amendment would, and it would not bring inspections to a halt. My amendment will make the Bill internally consistent. I hope that that is all clearly understood. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, all I can say is that I am grateful that the complexities of local authority finance and capping arrangements did not come up at one o'clock in the morning at Committee stage; at seven o'clock it is bad enough. I intend briefly to explain why we do not feel that the noble Lord's amendment is appropriate. I ask if he would bear with me and listen to my words carefully. Then, if I may—I appreciate the amendments are not grouped—I shall speak to my amendment. That might be for the ease of the House, and we can then formally move the amendment later.
The noble Lord's amendment would delay the operation of the capping power in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 until the second year in which grants were made to providers in any sector. As I said, I shall shortly move the government amendment. I shall go into that in greater detail.
Like the government amendment, this amendment attempts to ensure that the capping power in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 9 will not be brought into force too early as a result of payment of grant under Clause 1 of this Bill to private and voluntary sector providers in phase 1.
However, unlike the government amendment, this amendment is not linked specifically to the changes in local authority funding which will make the capping power necessary. This means that the proper functioning of the capping power will continue to be dependent on the nature and timing of payments to providers in sectors other than the maintained sector.
The formulation of the government amendment, on the other hand, avoids all risk of the power being brought into force at a time when local authority funding should not be affected, and so allows for far greater flexibility in determining appropriate payment arrangements for providers in all sectors.
I shall now speak to my amendment. Paragraph 9 makes the necessary adjustments to existing capping legislation to reflect changes in local authority funding as a result of nursery education grants.
It is intended to provide for a reduction in local authorities' base budgets for capping purposes to reflect changes in their funding for four year-olds as it is switched from revenue support grant to grant under Clause 1 of this Bill. It is not a general widening of the existing capping regime, and will not disadvantage local authorities. The government amendment would provide

681
that the changes to capping limits can take place in the first year in which nursery education grant under Clause 1 is paid to any local authority.
I know how much importance the House attaches to early inspection. In order to inspect phase 1 private and voluntary sector providers under Schedule 1 to this Bill, it will be necessary to use the grant-making powers under Clause 1 to fund those providers. But without the amendment to paragraph 9, which we propose, making grants to private and voluntary sector providers in phase 1 would bring sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 9 into force a year too early. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as I said, would delay the operation of the capping power in sub-paragraph (a) by one year. However, it does not link the capping power specifically to the payment of nursery education grant to local authorities and the resultant changes to their funding, as my own amendment does.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 applies only to local authorities. We have already seen that the need to pay grant under Clause 1 to some private and voluntary sector providers in this financial year has made this technical amendment to the capping power necessary. For the avoidance of any future doubt or complications it is best to tie the operation of the capping power to the timing of changes in local authority funding which will make it necessary. This government amendment will ensure that the capping power refers to the first year of full implementation of the voucher scheme, as we have always intended. This will be the case irrespective of the year in which the voucher scheme is fully implemented and irrespective of any previous funding arrangements for private and voluntary sector providers. I hope that that explanation as to why we believe our amendment is better than the noble Lord's amendment is comprehensible to him. I appreciate that it is rather technical stuff at this time of night. However, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment in favour of the government amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is transpicuously clear for the moment. I cannot believe that I shall remember it with anything like that detail tomorrow morning when I read what the noble Lord said and what I have said in the official record. It seems to me that the government amendment may give extra flexibility but it has not addressed the Clause 1(3) issue, and that still remains. We feel that our amendment does exactly the same as the government amendment; but the glory of ours is that it comes for free. However, I understand that the Minister may feel that there is no such thing as a free amendment. In the light of that, and hoping that his officials and our advisers will have a careful look at this matter to see whether we have it completely right this time—I agree with the Minister that it is a very technical matter, best fought out in Committee rather than at this late stage of the Bill—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 36, after ("made") insert ("to any authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I give an assurance, however, that I will examine again very carefully the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in relation to the allegedly superior virtues of his amendment. I believe that we have got ours right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
We have now completed our consideration of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. It is a short and straightforward Bill. Those noble Lords who have devoted so much time and attention to rather larger education Acts in recent years may not regret its size. Your Lordships have, nonetheless, put a good deal of care and attention into scrutiny of the Bill, in the finest tradition of this House.
At Second Reading of the Bill I had one main message that I wished to convey to the House. The Bill builds on the themes that have underpinned all the Government's education reforms: choice, diversity and quality. Although modest in size, the Bill will be far-reaching in effect—far-reaching for parents, who will have new and unprecedented choice in respect of their four year-olds' education; and important, too, for governing bodies of GM schools, which will have far greater flexibility to address their schools' capital needs.
It has been a disappointment that so much time has been spent on efforts to delay the implementation of our nursery education scheme. That has been an unfortunate approach. It will be particularly unfortunate for parents whose four year-olds may lose out on nursery education as a result. Many noble Lords mentioned the number of letters received from parents. I have received similar representations and I do not discount parents' anxieties.
However, we now have the results of an independent study of the views of parents in the phase 1 areas. We know, for example, that six in 10 parents have rated the scheme positively. The positive rating for Norfolk was a very heartening 87 per cent. We know that 72 per cent. of parents said that they found the application forms very easy to use; and almost all those who had used their vouchers had experienced no difficulty. The picture is brighter than has sometimes been painted.
I was accused earlier today of being somewhat unmoving in my acceptance of amendments. The Bill has been distinguished by its examination by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. I am most grateful to him and his committee for their constructive contribution to our proceedings. Following the committee's helpful report, we have provided the example for the amount of grant that is to be paid under the nursery scheme to be put in regulations. We did move. There have been other amendments. Government amendments have been made in response to concerns both in this House and the other place. We amended the Bill to meet concerns expressed by local education authorities on the question of admissions to reception classes. We have included a requirement for all providers outside the maintained

683
sector to have regard to the special educational needs code of practice. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and am sad that he was not able to be here later on this afternoon. He brought those matters to our special attention. Special educational needs is one of the areas in which this House has developed a special expertise.
I end by offering my thanks to all those who have advised me, both here and in the department. I offer my thanks to my Whip, my noble friend, Lady Miller. I am afraid she is ill today, and I hope she returns feeling better. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Young and others on my own Benches. I pay tribute to all the work put in by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and all their team; to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and their team. I also pay tribute to those on the Cross-Benches, and to the right reverend Prelate.
Our debates have been by and large conducted with an air of general good humour and without acrimony in a field where, I appreciate, feelings are very strong indeed. That in itself is some achievement. Perhaps I may now say goodbye to the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, as I prepare for a different form of nursery. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, let it be clearly understood as we come to the end of this debate and our consideration of the Bill that we on these Benches are wholly, totally and utterly opposed to nursery vouchers in every form in which they might be put forward. We consider them to be a waste of effort, a waste of time and a waste of money. Nothing that has been said throughout all the stages of this Bill will convince me, or has even come anywhere near convincing me, to the contrary.
That having been said (if your Lordships will permit the passive participle to be used in this way), I have a lot of people to thank and I will do so quickly. There were a number of noble Lords who spoke on our side of this argument. I refer to the fearless noble Baroness, Lady Farrington; to the determined and dauntless noble Baroness, Lady David; to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who always appears to come straight from Moscow, sometimes with snow on his boots; to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who gave us the Scottish dimension; to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who once described herself in this House as "a retread". We found her absolutely tireless!
I was most impressed with the timely and thoughtful interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell; and by the precise and perfect professionalism of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies; the noble Lord, Lord Parry, was a great help, bringing with him all the power of Pembroke. There was the doughty noble Lord, Lord Dormand; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn; the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal; and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees.
684
Among our colleagues—and on this occasion our allies—on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I was staggered by the sheer knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. It was a pleasure to listen to them, and I have learnt a great deal. I am used to the formidable contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I wish we had heard more from her. There was the solid good sense of the noble Viscount, Lord Addington; the brief but trenchant intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore; the fearsome forensic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson; and the fine analytic mind of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
Among the Cross-Benchers, we had the aid of the philosopher, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock; the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, with a lifetime in education; the strange alliance of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas and the noble Viscount, Lord St Davids. I should never have thought it could happen, but Wales is the better for it. We benefited from the thoughtful interventions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who watches over far more than simply Church matters. I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), each of them careful, cheerful champions of special educational needs; and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who helped us a great deal at the beginning and whose wisdom we have missed in these later stages.
Some noble Lords were not quite as supportive of us as I could have wished. There was the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, always independent but quite frequently helpful; and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who always listens and makes up his own mind. There was the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for whose support the Government should be truly grateful whenever they get it. They do not always get it, but they got it on this occasion, and we got it, too—in the neck! And there were lesser interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain; the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe; the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith; the noble Lord, Lord Bowness; the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, a fellow academic who contributed very much as a thinker; the noble Lord, Lord Elton; the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour; the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, whose expert knowledge adds so much to our education debates; and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. To all, I offer my grateful thanks.
My thanks go, too, to the organisations which have advised us: the AMA, especially Mr. Damien Welfare, who did so much to help us; the ALG; the ACC; the NUT; the SEC; and CASE, the coalition of children's charities. I thank too, all the correspondents. There were well over 700 letters to me alone. Finally, I thank our researchers, Jessica Bawden and Clare Cozens, who worked indefatigably.
I turn to the noble Lord the Minister, who has been here from start to finish—from the beginning of Second Reading, even until now, alone very often on the Bench, apart from his Whip. He has taken the full burden of this Bill. When I thank him my mind is drawn to some words of a writer whom he may care to try to identify, if he cannot already do so straightaway:

685
"I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed … where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat".
The noble Lord has endured the dust and heat. That particular passage ends:
"that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary".
In that sense I have certainly tried to purify the noble Lord. I thank him for his patience and courtesy. I apologise for any inconvenience that we may have caused him and I hope that any further troubles that he may have this week will be little ones.
Lord Tope: My Lords, not for the first time I have to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and I think to myself, "Now follow that". The only way I can compete with him on this occasion perhaps is to read out the names of all the parents who have written to me during the passage of this Bill. But I shall spare your Lordships.
I started the process of this Bill during the Second Reading debate by stating very strongly the Liberal Democrat commitment not just to a high priority but to the highest priority for the funding of early years learning and increased provision for nursery education for all three and four year-olds whose parents want it. It is therefore appropriate that I end on the same note and reiterate that very strong commitment from my party. If I thought that the Bill would in any way help toward that, I might at least at this stage of the conclusion be willing to wish it at least some qualified success. But I share the view, so strongly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that this Bill and the scheme it will allow will not do it. It will be likely to raise expectations which too often will not be fulfilled. Above all, it is almost the least effective way of targeting resources to increasing provision for early years learning. For those reasons, we feel that fundamentally the Bill and the scheme that it will allow are flawed.
We have sought during its passage through this House to make it a less bad Bill. I think we have succeeded in one important area. If phase 1 is the success that the Minister believes, the Government have nothing to fear from the evaluation. The evaluation presumably will demonstrate that; we shall accept that we were wrong; and the scheme will go ahead. If he believes that, he should be content with our amendment. It is not my view of what an evaluation will show; nor do I believe that it will be the best way to extend early years learning.
We have had very long sessions on what the Minister quite rightly described as a very short Bill. I should like to feel that apart from a few important areas it will leave us as a better Bill. But I fear that it does not. It is better for the amendment which your Lordships agreed; it is certainly better for the amendment on special needs which the Minister introduced. We all welcome that and, since I have not spoken before on that subject, let me put on record that I and my party welcome it. That makes it a less bad Bill but it does not make it a good Bill. Most of all, I regret an opportunity lost.
Having said that, I move on to my thanks. I should not dream of competing—I do not think I could—with the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I may check at a later
686
stage, perhaps during the summer holidays, whether he missed anyone from his list, but I doubt it. I assume that he did not and so I simply join him in expressing all the thanks that he offered to all those people. I particularly want to thank and pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Thomas, who has given me great support on all occasions, sometimes under difficult circumstances for her—at Committee stage under difficult circumstances for me. I did at least learn that a nine-hour Committee stage is best not undertaken immediately after getting off a plane from China. At one stage in the evening my noble friend Lady Thomas thought that I had been resting my eyes for rather too long and she advised me to go out and take a walk in the fresh air. As always, I took her advice and it was beneficial. Of course I want to thank my colleagues who have contributed, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Addington, whom the noble Lord, Lord Morris, recently promoted, for his help and support.
I join the noble Lord in thanking the associations which have advised us very well indeed. This has been the first Bill that I have been able to take right through from start to finish. Certainly I appreciated the help and advice from the local authority associations. I also pay tribute to and thank my research assistant in our Whips Office—Carolyn Rampton, for whom this was also her first Bill from start to finish and so we learned together, I hope successfully.
Perhaps I may conclude with the Minister. If I had the time, I should wish to count up the number of times that he said, "My Lords, this is an unnecessary amendment". At times, it is a little dispiriting to be told that on amendment after amendment. Nevertheless, on the whole he has treated us with great patience and some tolerance and sought to explain—not always convincingly, I must say—why amendments are unnecessary. He told us earlier that it was possible he might not be with us today. I am pleased that he is with us. I hope that now the matter is concluded, he will not have to wait very much longer before having an even more personal interest in the subject matter before us.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, before we take leave of the Bill, I rise briefly to add my thanks to those already expressed in your Lordships' House. I have expressed from these Benches my hesitations about various aspects of the Bill and feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we have made modest amendments which have improved it. I join him in expressing my appreciation of the amendments on special educational needs which have been moved and agreed.
I enjoyed taking part in the debates of the Bill. I cannot possibly match the comprehensiveness of the thanks which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has already offered—biblical in their range, but we have noticed that the noble Lord is frequently biblical in his references and we are grateful to him for it. I offer a word of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, not least for her untiring championship of church schools, which she mentioned on many occasions throughout the debates. Finally, I thank the

687
noble Lord the Minister for his patience and courtesy. I join others in hoping that the rest of his week is a highly enjoyable one.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996
7.27 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to move to resolve, That this House declines to approve the draft Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996 and invites Her Majesty's Government, first, to reconsider what is necessary to ensure the provision of efficient local government services throughout Kent without additional administrative costs falling on the taxpayer; secondly, to take full account of researches ascertaining the clear wishes of the local people; and, thirdly, in any order affecting the structure of local government in Kent, to make mandatory the establishment of a procedure for the future of a county-wide structure plan for Kent in accordance with the recommendation of the Local Government Commission.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of the Motion, which has the support of Peers from Kent of all parties and on the Cross Benches—many of them have told me that they are unable to be present tonight for good reasons, but I regret their absence—is to persuade the Government not to proceed with this mistaken and damaging order and to think again about their policies on Kent local government structure. Our debate will enable this House to consider important subordinate legislation to which the other place was not able to give more than a short time. We cannot amend the draft order but we can and should give the Government and the other place a chance to have second thoughts. That is what I am about tonight.
If passed, the order will take out of the County of Kent the present districts of Rochester upon Medway and Gillingham, merge them and give them a unitary district council. The order goes further and would create a new county—if you please—given the name of the County of the Medway Towns. The district would no longer be in Kent; it would be in the new county. Chatham, with all the historic associations of its dockyards, would no longer be part of Kent; nor would the City of Rochester, with its cathedral, the historic centre of the diocese covering north and north-west Kent, I wonder how the Secretary of State has become so powerful that he can, by order, create new counties in England. I am told that he has that power but I have not yet been able to discover from where the power comes. I do not believe that the commission in its report recommended the creation of a new county.
Be that as it may, implications arise from the setting up of the new county in Kent. My honourable friend the Member for Gillingham asked pertinent questions in another place in that regard on 4th July but time did not allow for him to be given an Answer. One thing is clear: nobody who is living in and is a citizen of the Medway towns can also be a citizen of Kent; perhaps we shall be enlightened on that later.
My Motion is concerned with three points arising from the order and they are clearly set out. Before I come to them I want to remind the House of the inevitable effects that this change in Kent's constitution will have. Kent's local government services have been developed by boroughs, districts and counties over a long period, the method of delivering them changing over the years and partnerships being developed between county, district and others.
Everyone has gained from the experienced and skilled leadership of the teams that have been formed, as they gained, too, from the economies of scale, particularly in specialist services. The proposed change will inevitably cause disruption and loss of economies of scale, both for the new unitary authority and for the residual Kent. There is no evidence that any of those services suffered because of the structure. Indeed, both commissions—there were two: one in 1994 and one in 1995—acknowledged that the present two-tier structure is well capable of meeting the needs of the people. Of course, there will be improvements, but people, not structures, evolve improvements.
Kent has much experience, too, and a good record in the encouragement and co-ordination of economic development county-wide and tackling economic change. A good example was the closing of the Chatham Dockyard and the difficult consequences that followed. Another good example of the way in which economic development problems are tackled in Kent between the districts and the county is the Thames Gateway project. That is a great project which includes areas on both sides of the River Thames and in Kent which go far outside the Medway towns, covering Dartford and Gravesham and parts of the Swale to the east.
It was the importance of the Thames Gateway project that led my right honourable friend Mr. Gummer to call for a second review of the proposal for unitaries in North Kent which the 1994 commission specifically rejected. The 1995 commission said of the Thames Gateway, at page 55 of its final report:
"Although the area [of the Medway towns] is in the Thames gateway, the developments taking place in the Medway are not on the same scale as in the Kent Thamesside and such issues were judged to be supplementary rather than central to the arguments for unitary status".
In its earlier report giving draft recommendations it said the same thing, but more decisively:
"The Gateway is not in itself a sufficient reason for recommending change to local government structure".
That is what the commission recommended to the Secretary of State.
What did the Secretary of State in the other place say in recommending the order on 4th July (Hansard, col. 1067)? He singled out once again the Thames

689
Gateway as one of the two points he wanted to make in support of the order. The other point was the desirability, in his view, of a forced marriage between Rochester and Gillingham because they were squabbling too much. I commend to him the same "Whitehall knows best what is good for you" policy, but I commend to the House the opposite.
Within the present two-tier structure there is the undoubted advantage of a county-wide structural plan which the order would maintain for any plan made before 1998 but not for any plan made after that date. Also, there is the advantage to local people of having the county council championing their cause in Whitehall and co-ordinating strategy that affects where they live, their environment and their jobs.
It is not reality but theory—academic and/or political—that led to the introduction of unitary ideas for Kent—ideas that may well be supported by ideas and opinion in other parts of England. I do not quarrel with that. But in Kent, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", is a saying born of much experience, and the sensible people of Kent, by a large majority, believe that that is fully applicable to their local government set-up. They have twice—in 1994 and again in 1995—been able to say what their wishes were, not just through letters and MORI polls, but through business and other organisations in which they are represented.
What are the consequences for them? First, there is the financial consequence. They would have to pay the cost through council tax—a considerable cost to the taxpayers in the new County of the Medway Towns and a smaller one for the rest of Kent, but nevertheless a cost. Transitional costs are inevitable. We are told it will be between £8 million and £10 million. It is wiser to take the higher figure and add to it, as reported experience of new unitaries show, for example, in Hampshire and Cleveland; there is experience also in Wales.
More significant figures relate to the additional ongoing costs and their continuing effect on the council taxpayer. The best estimate I can give is for an addition each year to the council tax, Band D, in the new Medway district of £190 per household and of £23 per household in the rest of Kent as a reward for losing Rochester and Gillingham. I know it has been said—it has been said to me—that those are small figures that can be speedily offset by savings. But they are not small figures; no increase in tax is small and no reduction in tax is so small that it is not welcome.
If savings are to be made either in the Kent County Council or in any council by greater efficiency, those savings should be available to add to or improve services or to reduce taxes. They should not be used to cover the costs of unwanted reorganisation. That in itself leads to no savings and no improvements. It may interest the House to know that in the past three years Kent County Council has made efficiency savings of the enormous figure of £80 million. I hope that those figures are not challenged by the Government; they have been in the public domain for some weeks and have not been contradicted. I am greatly troubled to work out in my mind how my noble friend can conceivably justify
690
imposing those reorganisation and administrative costs on the unwilling citizens of Kent against the wishes of the great majority.
The great majority have said that they would prefer the structure of local government in Kent to stay as it is; that is, no change. That is the majority view of both the Medway towns and in the rest of Kent. The commission's report shows that. The report of October 1994 gave the figures for 1994 and the November 1995 report in relation to the Medway towns shows the figure to have increased in favour of no change in the course of that year despite the Secretary of State's reference back.
The commission's 1994 report ends with a summary which I believe caused some annoyance to the Secretary of State. It stated:
"There is at present no overall support in the county for a change in local government structure. [The commission] is also satisfied from the huge volume of further evidence and arguments that it has received from special interests as well as from the public at large that the existing structure [Kent County Council and its districts] has the capacity to secure the strategic overview that the county as a whole requires, while reflecting the variety of different communities it comprises".
That is why the Government rejected the idea that had been put out to consultation, of the Medway Town unitary authority and the Dartford and Gravesham unitary authority.
The 1995 report produced no evidence to contradict that clear conclusion. At page 59 of the report the commission contented itself with saying that, although there was an overall preference for the two-tier structure, there was a reasonable measure of support for unitary status. But that disregards the majority altogether, which was 60 per cent. as opposed to 30 per cent. That is a funny conclusion for the commission to reach and it is an even funnier one for the Government to accept.
The MORI poll sets out a number of detailed points on which the citizens of Kent had been asked to give their views, but it is quite clear from that that it is the Kent districts which are more in favour of having a county council than anywhere else in England which was reviewed, just as they reject the idea that a unitary authority would be more in touch more decisively than elsewhere
My noble friend made us all laugh a little the other day at Question Time when he dismissed MORI polls with a mighty sweep. I did not take him seriously and I hope nobody else did. If we do not have MORI polls, how else can we expect the commissioners to make a judgment as to how people feel? I remind the House that they took the MORI poll, and those of us who believe in "Keep Kent" had nothing to do with it.
I wish to detain the House for only a few more minutes. During the reviews following the 1992 Act, "the wishes of the people" were to be a dominant consideration. I have letters assuring me of that. On winding up for the Government in the debate on 30th March 1994, my noble friend Lord Arran used these words at the end of his speech in reply to a typically pointed intervention by my noble friend Lord Peyton, who was reminding him of the tenor of your Lordships' cogent speeches. He said:

691
"Our aim remains to give local people a structure of local government which meets their needs and wishes".—[Official Report, 30/3/94; col. 1157.]
In ordering the second review of a number of districts, I know that the Secretary of State altered the guidelines and moved some of the original commissioners, but I did not know that he decided to move one of the goalposts and to abandon that government undertaking. I cannot believe that he did, because it has been put so very clearly by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister only very recently in a speech in Newcastle as regards what he thinks about changes in the constitution. I shall read his words to the House:
"Look at the history of this century and the changes there have been—not fundamental but significant nonetheless—in Parliament, our electoral system, the Civil Service, local administration, even the Monarchy and Church. Not change for change's sake. Not the result of some technocratic plan. Not to serve the interests of the institutions themselves. They have been changes to strengthen the links with the individual citizen who they are there to serve. That's the kind of constitutional change I support. Practical change, not grand plans. And above all change that is driven by what people want".
Why have the commission and the Government so manifestly disregarded the evidence of those wishes?
The third point in my Motion relates to the structural plan. It is a very important point that there should be in the British peninsula leading to Europe a county-wide strategic plan. The order makes provision for the pre-1980 plan to continue, but makes no provision for a plan after that date to be mandatorily devised by the county council and the Medway Towns authority together. It is very important that there should be no reliance on a voluntary, joint endeavour there; it should be mandatory.
That is the case against this order, asking the Government to reconsider the matter. The Medway towns are not separated from Kent by the North Downs, as was mentioned in one of the commission's reports as though it was the horse and cart era. They never have been and they are not. Kent is a splendid county of diverse communities and it is important that it stays together. I rest my case there. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House declines to approve the draft Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996 and invites Her Majesty's Government, first, to reconsider what is necessary to ensure the provision of efficient local government services throughout Kent without additional administrative costs falling on the taxpayer; secondly, to take full account of researches ascertaining the clear wishes of the local people; and, thirdly, in any order affecting the structure of local government in Kent, to make mandatory the establishment of a procedure for the future of a county-wide structure plan for Kent in accordance with the recommendation of the Local Government Commission.—(Lord Aldington.)
7.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my noble friend has made a speech which is characteristic of him
692
and in which he rightly defended Kent. It was a speech of pride and we all appreciated that. He asked some telling questions and made some telling points.
He has tabled a Motion which is clearly directly opposed to the purposes of my own Motion, which appears on the Order Paper to be dealt with a little later. My noble friend's Motion says that your Lordships should not approve the order in my name. In due course I hope to persuade your Lordships that that would be a pity. I hope that my noble friend will see the wisdom of not pushing his Motion and seeking the opinion of the House for the order to be reviewed. My Motion is to establish a unitary authority for Gillingham and Rochester.
Perhaps I may first respond to the three points in my noble friend's Motion; and then set out some reasons of my own as to why your Lordships should not be persuaded by my noble friend. I shall first address the question which my noble friend raised as to why we accepted the recommendation of the Local Government Commission for a new authority in Kent when it had recommended no change in the original review.
Your Lordships may recall that under Sir John Banham a review was carried out between 1993 and 1994. That was a county by county review of the structure of local government in England. The overall outcome was that the commission recommended, and we accepted, the creation of a number of unitary authorities.
On the commission's recommendation, many areas, including Kent, remained unchanged. However, some districts within these areas appeared to be very similar in nature to others which were to become unitary authorities. Therefore, we asked the commission, under Sir David Cooksey, to carry out a further review of 21 districts, including, in Kent, Gillingham and Rochester, Dartford and Gravesham, in order to test consistency in this matter.
The main outcome was that the commission, following its independent assessment of each of the districts, recommended the setting up of eight unitary authorities, including one for a merged Gillingham and Rochester. It recommended no change for the remaining 12 districts, including Dartford and Gravesham in Kent.
My noble friend Lord Aldington said that that was all theory and that it may be fine elsewhere, but not in Kent. I can understand why my noble friend took that view. That is a view which, in the common parlance of the day, is often known as NIMBY, which means "not in my back yard". It says, "Anyone else can do it, but we do not want it". Although I can understand that view, I do not think that it is a telling reason as to why this should work everywhere else but not, for some extraordinary reason, in Kent.
My noble friend then referred to the costs which might arise from the setting up of a unitary authority for Gillingham and Rochester. I agree with him—I make no dispute about it—that there will, of course, be some extra costs. The commission estimated that the transitional costs might amount to between £8 million and £11 million and that there might be ongoing costs

693
of between £3 million to £9 million. Those transitional costs are once-and-for-all costs. They are not ongoing costs.
Although those figures may appear large, in comparison with the overall budget of Kent County Council, they are not. For this year, 1996–97, the county has set a budget of over £1,000 million. Even after the creation of a new unitary authority in the Medway towns, Kent will still be one of the largest counties in terms of its budget. Furthermore, significant economies of scale could still be made. Indeed, I congratulate Kent on having made such economies already, as my noble friend mentioned. Of course, economies can be made by both Kent County Council and the new unitary districts.
As I have said, one must compare that sum of £1,000 million with the transitional costs of between £8 million and £11 million. The authorities will be able to borrow to cover their transitional costs and, in general, authorities will not have to meet borrowing or interest costs for three years, by which time savings should have been realised. I agree with my noble friend that nobody likes extra costs—of course they do not—but if the change will bring local government in those two areas closer to the people—that is the whole point of this—and if it is possible as a result also to make economies, I think that those transitional costs will in time be absorbed entirely.
Much, of course, will depend on the will of the authorities concerned. Rochester City Council, at least, has expressed the view that a unitary Medway would result in considerable long-term savings and that it would be better placed to provide cost-effective services. That is the view of one of those local authorities.
My noble friend's Motion refers to taking account of the clear wishes of local people. The commission, in its review, gave them opportunity for the expression of local opinion throughout Kent as well as commissioning MORI polls on their recommendations. We also allowed a period for representation on the commission's recommendation for change. I know that the opinion which was expressed in general was against change. But neither the commission nor the Government thought that that was conclusive.
One must accept that it is generally the case that those who oppose change are more likely to express their views than those who agree with it. In addition, a whole range of people tend not to be particularly interested and therefore do not feel motivated to vote or to answer a MORI poll. Furthermore, there was, of course, an orchestrated campaign in Kent to keep the status quo. That is fair enough. If people want to make their views known, they are entitled to do so. However, we must recognise that it is sometimes easier to sign a petition or to send a standard letter than to express an independent view. When a great campaign is under way, it is easy to draw people, like iron filings to a magnet, to the cause célèbre and those who have no particular view or who hold a contrary view do not have such a ready or well-made avenue of expression.
My noble friend asked how else one can find out people's views other than by asking them through a poll undertaken by, for instance, MORI. Great campaigns
694
can by themselves sway people's view. Polls are snapshots of opinion on the day when the question was asked or answered. Much depends on the question. It was, of course, up to the commission to find out people's views. It did that. That was part of its responsibilities.
However, local opinion was not the only factor under consideration. The Local Government Act 1992, which set out the framework for the local government review, states that any changes must secure effective and convenient local government which takes account of community identities. Those are fairly complex issues to measure and cannot be judged simply by asking people questions in a poll—important though polls may be.
The third point in my noble friend's Motion concerns the need for adequate structure planning arrangements for Kent. The commission recommended that strategic planning should be retained across the area of the existing county. We have given effect to this in the order, which is laid before your Lordships, by transferring Kent County Council's strategic planning responsibility for this particular area to the new unitary authority. This will enable the two authorities—Kent County Council and the new unitary authority—to make voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan for their combined area.
My noble friend Lord Aldington said that the powers of the Secretary of State are enormous if he can simply make a new county. My noble friend wondered how the Secretary of State got those powers. Parliament gave him those powers. They are explicitly provided for by Section 14 of the Local Government Act 1992 which allows for,
"the constitution of a new local government area of any description".
The provisions go on to make it clear that that could include a new county.
If my noble friend wants the specific details, I can advise him that under Sections 13(1) and 14(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1992, the Local Government Commission may recommend the constitution of a new local government area of any description by amalgamation or separation of any local government area.
Under Section 28 of the same Act, "local government area" is defined to include a non-metropolitan county in England. Under Section 17(1), the Secretary of State may by order give effect to the Local Government Commission's recommendations. That is what the order does.
These provisions are similar to those which appear in other orders for structural change. They will operate in parallel with recent guidance from the local authorities' associations and our own Circular 4/96 on the matter. There is no need for any further legislation to bring that about.
Perhaps I could turn to the reasons why we have brought forward the Kent order. There are considerable benefits to be gained from the joining of Rochester and Gillingham. With a population over 240,000, these two

695
district councils form one of the largest urban areas in the south-east outside London, and they have common physical, economic and community interests.
Putting the area into the hands of one unitary authority, which will have district and county administrative functions, will be simpler and will enable the full range of local services to be provided more efficiently. This area of Kent is just totally different from the remainder of Kent. It is a large urban conurbation. The rest of Kent is not.
The Local Government Commission found that the local rivalry between Gillingham and Rochester is damaging for local interests. It prevents the area from being recognised for what it is: the largest conurbation in the south-east outside London, with all the typical problems of urban areas. In this case, the commission took the view that convenient and effective local government required a merger. Even after the change, Kent County Council will still have one of the largest populations in England, with over 1.3 million people, and it will have the same responsibilities for the county area which, it used to have—other than for Rochester and Gillingham.
The content of the order for Kent is broadly the same as in other orders for structural change which your Lordships have considered in the past. The changes which are proposed by this order—the merging of Gillingham and Rochester and the creation of a new unitary authority to run them—will come into effect on 1st April 1998. It is proposed that at that date the existing Gillingham Borough Council and Rochester City Council will be abolished. The rest of the county of Kent will remain two tier. The authorities concerned will have nearly two years in which to plan for these changes. The order, once it is made—if your Lordships approve that it be made—will confer new powers and duties on the existing district authorities, the county council and the prospective unitary authority, in order that they should co-operate and prepare for the transfer of functions.
The unitary Medway Towns authority will be a new authority. The Kent order allows for elections in May of next year to a shadow authority which will facilitate the changeover, for example, by setting budgets and promoting joint arrangements, during the period until the new Medway Towns authority comes into operation. On 1st April 1998 it will take over as the unitary authority.
The order before you does not deal with ceremonial arrangements which I know tend to be of considerable interest to your Lordships, but we will be making separate provision for this in general regulations in good time for the new arrangements to be in place by no later than 1st April 1998. It is necessary to distinguish between local government and historical purposes. For local government purposes, since the Medway towns will no longer be served by the county council technically that cannot be part of the county. In historical terms nothing has changed. Gillingham and Rochester will still be in Kent. We will be making an order to ensure that the lieutenancy covers both Gillingham and Rochester.
696
The provision which we intend to make will clearly show that the new unitary authority will continue to be part of the historic county of Kent, and it will therefore remain within the jurisdiction of both the Lord Lieutenant of Kent and the High Sheriff.
Another matter for which separate provision will be made is the policing of the area. The intention is that the existing Kent County Police Authority will continue to cover both the area of the new Medway Towns authority and the rest of Kent. We also intend to provide for members of the Police Authority to be appointed by both the County Council and the new unitary authority. This provision is to be made by the Home Office at a later date.
The issue before the House today is whether your Lordships should be permitted to accept this order. If my noble friend's Motion were to be approved, it would prevent your Lordships from accepting the order. The recommendation to set up the new authority was made following an independent review. The Local Government Commission put forward good arguments for the change. They were also consistent with the broader picture for creating unitary authorities elsewhere in England. We have therefore accepted them.
I hope that your Lordships will feel that, with that explanation, it would be undesirable to accept my noble friend's Motion. I hope that my noble friend will not feel that it is appropriate to put the matter to the test. After all, this matter has received the approval of another place. There is a long-standing convention that your Lordships do not vote against secondary legislation which has passed another place, for the reason that both Houses have identical powers in respect of secondary legislation. Both Houses can vote for or against an order but cannot amend it. For that reason, over a period of years the convention has been developed not to vote against orders which have been passed by another place in order to avoid deadlock between the Houses. My noble friend may say that he is not asking your Lordships to vote against the order but simply asking the Government not to lay it and inviting your Lordships to vote for it. The effect is the same. I hope that when my noble friend comes to consider that question he will think it prudent to accept the order and not to press his Motion.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for raising this important constitutional issue. What are the wishes of the people of Kent? How far are their wishes to be brushed aside by a Secretary of State? It is perfectly true that this order was approved in another place. When one considers other orders, plus the one for Berkshire, this matter was dealt with in a most cursory way. Apart from the Secretary of State who spoke at the beginning, and the various speakers called upon by the Deputy Speaker, there was no wind-up and no answer provided to any of the anxieties which were raised in the course of that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is allowing Members of this House to look at the order and decide whether it should be delayed—I shall speak mainly to

697
that—for further consultation with the people of Kent as a whole and the people who are to be in the new unitary state.
I do not say that I am in any difficulty, but my party has taken a rather robust view on unitary authorities. In principle, I am with my party. But two points are required to be satisfied before it can be said that a unitary authority should be imposed. First, there should be a degree of cohesion between those who are being brought together. Secondly, do the parties to this marriage—the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, used the word "marriage"—agree with it? Surely, there have been enough lessons over the past 30-odd years to indicate that where local government reform has been imposed in the end it has failed. One can think of a number of counties that have been abolished and are now being brought back into being because that is the wish of the people in those areas.
The proposed unitary authority does not have that cohesion which I suggest is necessary for a unitary state. If one considers the statistics relating to how people shop, use their leisure periods and where they work, it is clear that there is no cohesion between the areas to be married. If my memory is correct, most of the people work in Maidstone which will remain part of the old Kent. I suggest to the House that this is not a marriage that is being freely entered into by the people of those two areas. I recall that when this matter was put to the people some 63 per cent. of those in Gillingham voted for the status quo and wished to remain part of Kent as a county; some 53 per cent. of those in Rochester also wished to remain part of Kent as a county. I believe that there are sufficient statistics to show that opinion has hardened.
Whatever the Minister may say, this order is a shotgun marriage. It is not an arranged marriage but a shotgun arrangement to be applied to people within what will be a new unitary state; and it is against the wishes of their confederates (if I may so describe them) who are the people of Kent.
Although I support the unitary state, I have no difficulty in supporting the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. The Motion asks the Government to think again. The noble Lord is not rejecting the order. I would not do that myself, having pleaded with the party opposite on so many occasions. This was a device adopted by Conservative Office during my time as a way in which the view of this House could be registered. It was not binding on the Government; it was just asking the Government to consider various issues.
I have listened with the greatest care and attention to the Minister this evening. I could not find one word on the benefits to the people of Gillingham and Rochester of being in the unitary state. All I know is that that will be to the disadvantage of the people of Kent. You cannot take out such a sizeable population and leave the county of Kent as though it had never happened. The people of Kent will still be deeply involved, whether financially with the provision of services, or otherwise, within that new unitary authority. You cannot isolate a unitary authority from the body politic of the county of Kent. Noble Lords who have been listening to this
698
debate will not have heard one single word on the advantages of these dramatic changes which have been imposed, shotgun style, upon the county and the people within the proposed unitary state.
It was—was it not?—the Prime Minister only the other day who spoke about legislation in the future and the need for greater consultation in terms of primary legislation. I have enough experience now—I am a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—to say that these orders have greater significance on ordinary people than any primary legislation. It is true that this House has a convention not to vote against the matter. However, it is a perfectly respectable method—it has happened on a number of occasions—by which this House has said, "Government, have another look at it".
In the light of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, believe that this is an occasion when the matter should be referred back. I had a feeling all the way through the Minister's speech that the matter has been rigged. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, may correct me, but under the proposals of the commission under Sir John Banham, the status quo in terms of Kent had been admitted; it was not an issue to be placed before the people of Kent. Eventually, because of pressure, it was agreed that there should be an alternative, an option. The Minister said that there was a massive public relations exercise to persuade the people of Kent. It was minuscule. With very limited financial resources the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and a few of us across all the political parties, representing industry, the professions, the unions and the like, sought to explain to the people of Kent the implications of the proposal. The answer was so clear that Sir John Banham in his first commission said, "My Lords, leave it as it is". That is how he reported the matter. But it did not suit the Government, so they sacked Sir John Banham, appointed a new chairman, and made clear, as I understand, what was to be expected. We have those proposals now before us.
I do not think that the Government can rely, therefore, on the report of the second commission. What really matters is what the people of Kent themselves want; and what the people within those two areas who will be subjected to a shot-gun marriage think. As the noble Earl does not wish to have the MORI poll, then it is entirely up to him to decide how to ascertain the wishes of the people.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I do so without any question of my allegiance to my party policy because party policy can never have conceived that a unitary state can be set up anywhere at any time. It would require certain issues to be resolved. I hope that the House puts aside all the risks, and what the Minister has said. All the Motion will have done is to say to the Government, "Go away, think about it, consult with the people who really matter in this issue, and then this House will abide by your decision".
8.16 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in the Motion that he has moved

699
seeking a delay in the Government's application of this order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I have listened very carefully indeed to what the noble Earl the Minister had to say and I think we are all indebted to him for giving us a certain amount of additional information about government thinking on the order. I am bound to say, as I shall seek to argue in my remarks, that nothing he said in any way convinced me that we were wrong in seeking that the Government should have serious second thoughts about imposing this order.
For my part, I speak as a Kentish Scot, somebody who has lived in Kent now for more than 20 years. Kent seems to me to have a unique geographic position that the Government ought to have taken account of as the main strategic route to the mainland of Europe with the Channel Tunnel and in due course the high-speed line. There was therefore in the case of Kent a special case for the county remaining as an entity with a single county council. I am bound to say that Kent County Council, from what I have seen, has impressed me as being a thoroughly effective and efficient county council, both in reasonably healthy partnership with district councils and, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, in showing a strong sense of economy in the savings it has been able to make in order to try to produce the most efficient services for its citizens. These views about the geographic position of Kent are reinforced by the need to have for Kent a county council that can act as a really good centre of the kind of strategic planning that is needed both for the Thames estuary and for Kent as a whole.
As has been said by both the noble Lords who have spoken, the first Local Government Commission finally came to the view that I have just been expressing, despite a considerable amount of government pressure to come to a different view, and felt conscientiously that it had to take account of the overwhelming public opinion that was shown in favour of keeping Kent as an entity. There was then the extraordinary episode which I noticed that Mr. Frank Dobson in another place for the official Opposition, in an engaging moment of frankness, called the setting up of an unholy partnership between the Labour Party and the Secretary of State to get rid of the chairman of the commission and other members who had given such an unsatisfactory verdict in the Government's view and to set up a new commission to look afresh at the case for at least two unitary authorities in Kent.
The debate we are having tonight, and the debate that is going to take place tomorrow on a whole series of other orders, will, I hope, be approached on the basis that the question of unitary authorities should not be a matter of principle at this stage, still less a matter almost of ideology, but a matter of what is best for the circumstances of each area.
I am pragmatic or agnostic about unitary authorities. There are areas where I am sure that they are the most appropriate form of government and there are areas where they are not. It is in that spirit that we should approach the matter. I was rather astonished—if I may say this to the noble Earl—to find that he
700
was arguing that the government's case for having thrown out the first Local Government Commission report was that, above all, the Government must have consistency. Consistency is the language of the commissar, of the central bureaucrat, not, I should have thought, the language appropriate to the kind of claims made in the splendid quotation from the Prime Minister that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, produced about putting the people first.
The noble Earl did his best to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, about not taking account of the MORI polls. It was a fairly weak position. It seemed to be almost the very essence—coming strangely from the Benches opposite—of that famous phrase:
"The man in Whitehall knows best".
Consistency is everything. Whitehall must have consistency over the whole of England in the pattern of local government.
In the case of Kent, the compromise which finally emerged, and which the Government have adopted, is ludicrous. The enthusiasts for the unitary principle may well have felt originally that there was a case for abolishing the county council and replacing it with a whole series of unitary authorities. As we know, that case was examined carefully by the first commission and dismissed on overwhelming evidence. To end up with a surgical operation, cutting up Kent for the sake of creating a single unitary authority, is the worst of all worlds. It sounds like a sop to a Secretary of State who has been suffering—I like Talleyrand's famous phrase, warning all politicians and diplomats to use not too much zeal—from an excess of zeal.
In fact in another place I noticed that the Secretary of State used three arguments to defend his decision. He made some mention, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, of the case of the Thames Gateway, to which I shall come in a moment. He had two main arguments. The first was that he lived in the area as a boy. The Secretary of State was a lucky lad to live in such beautiful surroundings in Kent, but 40 years later it is hardly a basis for public policy as a Cabinet Minister. The second, more substantial but not more credible, argument was the claim that disputes about local planning between the two districts of Gillingham and Rochester/Chatham would be improved by what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, called a shotgun marriage. Experience of shotgun marriages would not sustain that proposition.
The truth is that on the really important planning issues the new unitary authority will do damage instead of good, both to the people of the unitary area itself and to the people of Kent as a whole. In support of that I call in evidence the commission itself which said in September 1995 in its overview report at paragraph 87:
"The prospects for the Thames Gateway goals in North Kent are probably best achieved through the minimum number of councils, or, if a continuing large number of councils is involved, through the continuation of the two-tier situation, in which the County Council can take an over-arching coordinating role. The problem with establishing large unitary authorities is the lack of coherence amongst some of the North Kent communities".
That is strong advice. It disposes of the noble Earl's argument that we should look forward to relying on voluntary arrangements between the new authority and

701
Kent County Council in carrying forward these important planning obligations. Beyond the Thames Gateway, there are the wider considerations of the strategic plan for the whole of Kent which, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, pointed out, is being put seriously at risk. In the noble Earl's winding-up speech we need some reply to the point made by the noble Lord about making mandatory some of the provisions in that respect.
As far as concerns the immediate interests of the citizens of the Medway area, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, made a devastating case with his customary and admirable moderation. I shall not repeat the arguments he advanced. I wish to put forward one particular argument relating to Gillingham and one which relates to our approach to the possibility of delay in imposing this order. In Gillingham about 96 per cent. of those who took the trouble to respond to the commission's inquiries said that they wanted the status quo. I should perhaps add that the only area in the proposed unitary authority in which there has been a local election since the commission reported is in Gillingham, and the view there strongly endorsed the view that the status quo partnership with the two-tier system and the county council should be sustained.
The chairman of the Gillingham council pointed out to me that in determining the electoral wards for the new unitary authority Parliament is being asked by the noble Earl to agree this evening to something that the Government have apparently no intention of implementing. I am not sure whether they have taken this properly on board, but paragraph 9 of the order provides for the next elections in May of next year to be based on existing electoral wards. Separately, I understand that the Government have asked the commission to make a further review of wards for the new authority for a report at the end of December. If that report is going to seek significant changes in the pattern of wards for the new unitary authority, there will be precious little time for the normal decent democratic processes, the selection of candidates and so on, to take place. In any case, as a matter of principle, it is wrong we should be asked to approve an order that apparently the Government do not intend to implement. Provided that the Government are looking for a reasonable way to delay the imposition of the order, that problem may provide them with a way out.
Finally, we have a scheme which is clearly against the wishes of the people throughout Kent, and in particular against the wishes of the people in the area concerned, and which will undoubtedly cost every citizen in Kent increased council tax and reduced services. The noble Earl dealt a little cavalierly, or cheerfully, with the idea that £8 million was just a small sum of money. I do not know how he gets on with that argument when he goes on behalf of his department to meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury these days.
I notice—if I may say this to the official Front Bench opposite—that Mr. Dobson, on behalf of the Labour Party in another place, admitted that common sense says that a change like this is always costly. He based his support for insisting on that change by asking the Government to ensure that the transition is cushioned by
702
adequate funding. I cannot believe that Mr. Dobson had any real belief that in the present atmosphere of the Treasury seeking cuts in public expenditure and local authorities facing cuts in their expenditure there was any hope of that happening.
What we face in this order—if I may say this, lacking the moderation of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington—is a scandalous defiance of local opinion throughout Kent which will damage greatly the effectiveness of one of the best county councils in Britain to serve its citizens. The Government should have second thoughts about this.
Perhaps I may conclude by making some uninformed comments on the noble Earl's constitutional argument. He said that it is a convention of this House that we do not seek to vote against an order which has been passed in another place. He admitted that in the formal sense the two Houses have equal powers in this matter. Can the noble Earl produce any evidence from the Companion showing that such a convention exists? We on these Benches, who sometimes take a more vigorously democratic view of these matters, have on more than one occasion voted against orders—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We had a similar debate relating to the Cleveland order. Members on this Bench were particularly unhappy about the way in which that was handled by the Government. We stated that, were it not for the convention, we should be minded to vote with the rebels, so to speak. We asked the Government what they regarded as the status of that convention and we were assured by either the Deputy Leader or the Leader of the House that it was a convention which operated between the two Front Benches. I know that that is not the view of the minority third party in this House. Nonetheless, the Benches opposite affirmed that that was the practice that they would expect to continue between both Front Benches of this House.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, despite the convention, it is a fact that noble Lords opposite voted against the Rhodesia order in 1965. There was then no question that noble Lords opposite were contravening the agreement within this House as regards orders.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, not for the first time am I indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who is a former distinguished Leader of the House. I noticed that during his main speech tonight he chose his words carefully.
The noble Baroness is right. Indeed, a short time ago the House was assured by the noble Earl that there is a convention. We on these Benches do not believe that there is such a convention. We believe that there is a proposition which is for the convenience of the Official Opposition, who do not wish to get too much into the habit of voting down provisions with which they disagree because when they come into government they may face the kind of problems which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, faced over the Rhodesia order. But that is a different matter.

703
I may be mistaken. I see the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has referred to the Companion. If the noble Earl can assure me that in the Companion there is a convention which has been approved by the Procedure Committee of this House, I shall fully recognise that fact. However, we are ready to contest the matter and I believe that unless the noble Earl can show a willingness to delay these provisions, the opinion of the House should be tested.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Since 1979 there have been more than 200 Acts of Parliament affecting local government. We must all accept evolution and change but not at this frenzied pace. My approach to the Kent order is to test it on four simple grounds. First, is it needed? Secondly, is it wanted? Thirdly, will it make efficient that which is not efficient? Fourthly, will it save resources or at any rate make better use of them? With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, it fails on every test.
Echoing an earlier debate, for the Government, as they have, to lay claim to the virtues of consistency in local government reform is the most hilarious and outrageous claim since Arthur Askey claimed to be Charlie's aunt. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we have not a shotgun marriage but a Kalashnikov union.
Finally, I advise all concerned to look witheringly at the estimates of extra costs. At the time of the Cleveland reorganisation I was advised by the local officers that the extra costs would be about three times those estimated by the Local Government Commission and by my old home in Marsham Street. And so it has very nearly proved to be the case. I warmly support the noble Lord's Motion.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, not for the first time I have the greatest pleasure in applauding every word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I am sure that your Lordships will be overjoyed to hear that I shall endeavour exceptionally to follow his notable example in brevity, which is most welcome tonight.
I support and agree with the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Aldington. There is no need for me to repeat in detail the arguments which he put with such skill and force. I am bound to say that, although I listened with interest to everything that my noble friend Lord Ferrers said from the Front Bench, I saw no trace of an open mind, or perhaps I should say in fairness, no trace of an open mind on the part of those for whom he speaks tonight.
I wish to make two comments. First, when the Local Government Commission was appointed I was inclined to welcome it. I thought, quite mistakenly, that it was a genuine attempt on the part of the Government to try to find out what the people wanted. Gradually the welcome that I initially felt deteriorated into suspicion. In due course, as the recommendations and performance of the
704
commission became clear, the suspicion was replaced with a downright hostility. That is how I view the Government's proposal before us tonight.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that it would be an extraordinary doctrine or convention for us to accept that, although we have the affirmative resolution procedure which requires both Houses of Parliament to approve an order, if another place has agreed an order we must be struck dumb and have no right to express dissent. When I say "dissent" I mean effective dissent in the Division Lobby. I would not find it possible to accept that doctrine for one moment.
If my noble friend Lord Aldington wishes to take his Motion to a Division, I should be happy to support him because it is just one more example of the Local Government Commission and the Government, its ultimate master, overlooking, or not making a sufficient attempt to find out, what the people affected feel about the impact of such proposals. This is a process that I have come increasingly to deplore.
8.42 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Aldington for giving us the opportunity to reconsider the Motion for approval on the proposed changes for a unitary authority in Kent.
It gives me no pleasure to find myself at odds with the Government on their decision to press ahead with their plan, despite the original recommendation by Sir John Banham's Local Government Commission that the status quo should remain. Many noble Lords from all parts of the House expressed their disquiet in the debate that took place on 30th March 1994. The Banham Commission's decision had the overwhelming support of the people of Kent. One is somewhat reminded of the little boy who asked for his ball back when he had kicked it away. If we are bandying about acronyms, I am sure that NODAM—no development after mine—might be said about my noble friend the Minister in another place.
Opinion polls show little support by the residents of Gillingham, Rochester and Chatham for the new authority which is the subject of this order. Support in Gillingham remains steady at 31 per cent., while the opposition has increased from 43 per cent. to 61 per cent. In Rochester and Chatham support has increased from 29 per cent. to 30 per cent., while opposition has increased from 47 per cent. to 53 per cent. Rochester and Chatham council supported maintaining the status quo. The level of opposition to the formation of a unitary authority has grown, despite the commission's and Gillingham's efforts to canvas support for their plan with the residents of Gillingham and Rochester.
It may be of interest to the House that the commission felt that 29 per cent. approval for a unitary authority in Northampton was considered inadequate to warrant one, while in Kent 30.5 per cent. was considered sufficient to press ahead. The district and county councils have been able to review service provision in recent years to make considerable financial savings within the two-tier system, as we have heard other speakers say, through the integration of service provision and economies of

705
scale. The creation of the unitary authority will not be able to sustain these savings. The cost of implementation will further exacerbate the problem, with increased costs for both the county council and the new unitary authority. Shared arrangements are unlikely to be a reality, given the concerns of councillors and the differing policy aims.
The commission has had to admit that the cost of service provision will be greater with the split between a unitary and county council rather than the existing two-tier system. As my noble friend Lord Aldington has pointed out, the extra cost to a Band D taxpayer in the new unitary authority is likely to be £190, while the extra cost to a county council taxpayer will be an estimated £23. Conversely, it should be possible to continue making savings through the two-tier system.
The commission has recommended that a county-wide structure plan be put in place. Noble Lords will recall that concerns over the strategic planning were raised on 30th March 1994. If Kent as a whole is to move forward into the next century with strengthening ties to Europe, both in the growing transport links which pass through the county and the proposed unitary authority and the development of the Thames corridor, strategic planning is an essential ingredient of that structure plan. I wish to support my noble friend Lord Aldington.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I, in company with many other Members of your Lordships' House, must be appalled by the Government's decision to implement what my noble friend Lord Shepherd has already adequately described as a shotgun marriage, a marriage which appears to have little contingency for divorce and which, therefore, surely we must seek to abort.
For the Government to make this decision at a time of great change, challenge and commercial pressure, in the face of public opinion, in an area of Kent in which the decision will materially affect both the county and the country, on a very wide basis, must be lunacy. The greatest possible co-ordination and co-operation will be needed in the sensitive and imaginative management of the various high profile, and possibly controversial developments on the horizon in the area.
The Thames Gateway, the Channel Tunnel rail link, the ensuing motorway and other rail communications, and the possibility of a major new cement works in the area, must all require a united front and a unity of purpose to both planning and conservation. Why put all of this at risk now?
The only benefit which would seem to accrue from this exercise is the unification of Chatham Dockyard. Yes, that is a major conservation site which will be put under one authority. The Minister in another place greeted this achievement with such spectacular enthusiasm that I am led to believe that this was the cornerstone of the entire decision: surely, a very large sledgehammer to crack a very small nut, a nut which, in fact, is largely cracked already.
That would be more than enough reason not to proceed with this unitary authority, even before consulting public opinion. Yet on top of all this, public
706
opinion from every quarter, business, industry, planning, conservation, and the man in the street, has come out in a ratio of two to one against this proposal, and that ratio is strengthening.
The opinion was, of course, partially ascertained by polls. Polls these days are highly sophisticated accurate assessments with very small margins of variation. They are welcome, particularly if they say what you want to hear. Strangely, if the opposite is the case they become notoriously unreliable and volatile, whatever the result or interpretation.
Of course the Government can say that they have consulted. But have they genuinely consulted? Are they aware of the real tears in Gillingham, that they may be about to be submerged by the will of Rochester, a fear increased by the proposed distribution of seats on the new council: 42 to Rochester and 29 to Gillingham. It is not just Gillingham, of which so much has been made, which finds Rochester City Council difficult to get on with. The city council is a by-word for insensitivity and lack of consultation, and is widely considered the most difficult local authority in the county.
Such is the fear that people in parts of Gillingham are already trying to negotiate their own town councils in order to have some say in their own local affairs. They are only too well aware of how little say is allowed to any one in the outlying areas of Rochester. Can the Government really force this through in the face of so much genuine concern? Do they dismiss that concern as mere opposition to change? I assure your Lordships that it is genuine and deep-rooted. Or do the Government not care anyway?
I am afraid that I have reached the conclusion that that decision was made long before the Local Government Commission reported. The first report was sent back solely to activate this particular decision. In some places I have heard it suggested that the Minister, rejoicing in the happy days of his youth spent in the area, was anxious on behalf of the Government to reward the citizens of Rochester and Gillingham with a very expensive present. That is something in which we all delight to indulge from time to time, but generally it is the donor who pays for the present and not the recipient. In this case, not only the recipient but the whole county will pay harshly for this decision. If the experience of Cleveland is anything by which to go, the costs will have been underestimated three times over.
Doubtless, those citizens who have had 3 per cent. pay rises and 25p on their pensions may find those costs rather excessive, while those who have been more successful in their recent financial arrangements will be able to manage. The difficulties and deficiencies, both financial and administrative, which both the authority and the county will face, have been well rehearsed by previous speakers.
However, if this order goes through, there is a further proposal about which the House may not be aware. It is a proposal by the Boundary Commission to incorporate the parishes of Newington and Boxley into the new authority. Newington is at present in the district of Swale and Boxley in the district of Maidstone, which is some five miles distant from its centre and an area I know well.

707
Boxley Valley is a designated area of outstanding natural beauty. It is also the only open space between Maidstone and the Medway towns. It is already threatened with rape by the Channel Tunnel rail link. Plans of 200 years ago compared with aerial photographs of today show clearly that the farming and field pattern in the valley is virtually unchanged over that period. It is a unique piece of unspoilt countryside, the preservation of which is being strongly contested with Union Rail. To hand that over to Rochester would be disastrous. Maidstone can expand to the south. Rochester cannot expand to the north. It would place that wonderful area under even greater threat.
I had always thought that the bedrock of support for the Conservative Party was in the rural areas of England. The fact seems to be that over the past 20 years, the party has done everything in its power to urbanise and suburbanise the countryside. There are a diminishing number of places where the rural voice has any chance of being heard or understood. Local government is almost entirely town-controlled. It is now to the shire counties to which we must look for sane and sensible management of the countryside, and this order will achieve the opposite.
It seems strange to me, as someone who has welcomed at all times the interventions of the noble Earl, that he should spend 17 minutes telling us that the Government are not going to change their mind; they are not listening; and so what are we doing here? I should have thought also that someone would have told him that "Gillingham" is in Dorset, yet "Jillingham" is in Kent.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, I wish to support the Motion moved so cogently by my noble friend Lord Aldington. I have a declarable interest, in that my wife is a Kent County Councillor of some 15 years standing. I shall pass on the glowing words of praise of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, regarding Kent County Council.
The plain fact is that nearly 70 per cent. of Kent residents do not want change; and there is no case for it. The unique challenges and opportunities faced by Kent, as a peninsular county and the main axis between the UK and Europe, emphasise the need for a coherent and consistent structure of local government. The existing structure has the capacity to secure a strategic overview that the county as a whole requires while reflecting its different communities. That has been acknowledged by the commission.
The final recommendations do not meet that requirement. There will be no ongoing savings from the setting up of the new unitary council in Kent. My noble friend Lord Aldington dealt with the costs to taxpayers but the figures are worth repeating. There will be costs to all Kent taxpayers—£190 per Band D council tax payer in Medway towns and an extra £23 per Band D tax payer in the rest of the county. The Local Government Commission's own estimate of the additional cost for changing Kent is between £3.2 and
708
£9.4 million. In addition, there will be transitional costs, again estimated by the commission at between £7.8 million and £11.2 million. None of that money will go directly towards improving services. Given the high costs of change, there will be great difficulty in protecting existing levels. Both the county council and the new unitary council will suffer from a loss of economies of scale in relation to services.
In a nutshell, the proposals put to us mean higher rates and a lower level of service for Kent taxpayers. The facts and wishes of the people of Kent beg retention of the existing structure—the status quo.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I believe that I am the only participant in this debate who is a native of north Kent. I was Recorder of Rochester for five years in the 1960s and, when the Second World War started, I was with our territorial unit doing our annual training on Bluebell Hill, which is just within the boundary of what was Chatham and which has a wonderful view over the Medway Valley. When war broke out we moved our regimental headquarters to Gillingham. Therefore, I know that area very intimately.
But I must tell your Lordships that I came here, as I told my noble friend Lord Ferrers, with an open mind. My mind has been influenced a great deal by this debate. It always seemed to me when I was Recorder of Rochester that Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham were a large coterminous urban area where the people had much in common. In fact, sometimes when one wandered through that area, one did not know which of those three towns one was in.
Therefore, it seemed to me for many years that it should form some kind of united urban council. The question in modern terms is whether it should be a district council or a unitary authority. Before I go any further, perhaps I may say how much I appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said about the Medway Valley. He spoke about the possible danger involved if it, or much of the part south of that urban area, were incorporated in the unitary authority; namely, that there would be a very great temptation to develop it towards the south. That would be an environmental tragedy.
As Kent is—thank goodness—to remain a county broadly as we know it and not be split into a number of unitary authorities, my strong inclination is towards that group of towns, so to speak, being a district council within Kent. The people of that district would then have the advantage of the excellent work of the Kent Education Authority, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Of course, from the point of view of ratepayers, we simply must consider their financial position.
My noble friend Lord Aldington mentioned—and this cannot be contested because, as I understand it, it is stated in the report—that, if the unitary authority proposed were to come into being, each household would have to pay £190 a year. It would not stop there because, as time went on, the improvement of services might lead to an increase. I understand that that £190 is simply a result of transition; indeed, mere transition.

709
In my opinion, my noble friend Lord Ferrers had an exceedingly difficult task to perform tonight. All of us on both sides of the House admire his conduct in the many situations in which he has had to advise the House. However, I do not believe that he ever had such a difficult task as the one he had tonight. Of course, he did not mention the question of £190 per household. If he is able to do so in his reply, I am sure that it will be much appreciated.
My noble friend the Minister mentioned that Kent is a big area with a big population. That is very true; so it is. Indeed, as a native of Kent, I have been very sorry to see so much development taking place there. It used to be called the "Garden of England" but it is rapidly becoming a suburban area, as well as having such large towns. We need to be very careful about that aspect.
If Kent is too big an area with too big a population, making this one unitary authority will not help. If anything were to be done along the lines of reducing its size and the responsibilities involved—and I speak as one whose father was on the Kent County Council for many years—the obvious thing would be to divide it into two counties, east and west of the Medway. We would then have Men of Kent and Kentish Men who would be able to understand each other at last! However, I do not think that that is a necessary solution.
I shall not detain your Lordships very much longer because, quite frankly, I have already said the things that need saying. However, I have one comment to make in conclusion. It is a good Conservative principle that I hope all of us on this side of the House will observe; and, indeed, perhaps noble Lords opposite may occasionally do so. I say this: if change is not necessary, it is necessary not to change.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak in the gap. I can speak in support of this Motion. I can declare my interest as I am a member of a county council; namely, Lancashire County Council. Both today and tomorrow there will be debates to varying degrees in your Lordships' House, depending on the extent of representation that there is from different counties, about the proposals that are coming before us.
The history of these proposals leads me to the conclusion that this has been a shoddy, ill-thought-out exercise. It did not begin with finance, functions or democratic accountability; it began when the Bill was first put before Parliament to set up the commission with my honourable friends in another place seeking to require a unitary local authority solution to be brought from the commission. That was refused by the Government. Secretaries of State came and went.
Sir John Banham was asked to chair that commission—a man who has been criticised for doing what he was asked to do by the then Secretary of State; namely, listen to the views of the people at the time. Indeed, the Secretary of State's words were that the views of the people "shall be paramount". Sir John produced reports which the Government did not like, with some exceptions, and they were sent back to a
710
newly-constituted commission. We have seen the tragedy brought about by local government reorganisation imposed on people in Scotland, people in Wales and in counties that have been abolished. With the Government failing to fund in order to protect services, what has happened?
Local government is too important to be dealt with in such a way. Democratic accountability is also too important. I speak as one who totally supports a policy of unitary local government with a democratically elected and accountable tier of regional government between Whitehall and people in the English regions and those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—such a system as was proposed by the Government for Northern Ireland but which, allegedly, is seen by the Government as something that would break up the United Kingdom if it were implemented in England, Scotland and Wales.
I shall not speak and then vote in favour of the Motion. The reason why I shall not vote is that I believe in the conventions of this House. I believe that it is the right amendment that is being put before your Lordships in the wrong Chamber. I believe that the opportunity to do this should have been taken in another place and voted on in another place and that the nonsense of what is happening with this local government reorganisation should have been stopped there.
I think it is a tragedy. I cannot possibly vote in favour of the Government's position. I will abstain and I will not speak on every order before your Lordships' House but obviously I shall speak tomorrow at greater length on the subject of the order affecting Lancashire, of whose county council I am a member.
9.8 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the views of the noble Baroness on the convention. There has been some debate on the subject of the convention, that we do not vote on the statutory instrument. In the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I thought I should make a brief contribution. I suggest that we know very well that we have a convention on the secondary legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, from time to time successfully invites the House to reaffirm his unfettered ability to reject secondary legislation. But I would suggest that that power should only be used if the secondary legislation is ultra vires or otherwise defective and not because it is unattractive. I would therefore always vote in support of approval of secondary legislation unless it appears to be ultra vires. This would even be the case if I spoke against the secondary legislation in the debate. If any noble Lord—unwisely in my opinion—forces a Division, I should have to support the Government.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too wish to speak in the gap. I was not going to intervene but I feel it would be right and proper for me to do so because I too intend speaking tomorrow on the Lancashire debate. I intend to support the Government, but that matter will be dealt with tomorrow.

711
Tonight, I think that we need to look at each one of these cases on their merit. I too shall not vote. I shall abstain from voting on this because, again, I believe in the traditions of the House and I accept that the House's traditions on this one are the conventions of the House, whether that suits any particular party or not. It is interesting to see how many people have been lobbied to get here tonight, one way or another. I have not lobbied anyone for tomorrow, and I give you notice about that. I shall speak as I feel tomorrow but, my word, it is interesting to see what can be done tonight and I welcome so many people being here so late in the evening on certain Benches.
But, looking at these orders in their merits, if I had been voting, I should have supported the Motion because I think it is quite right in many ways. I know the area very well. The views of the local people are definitely against this. Even though one has three towns together—and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in some ways that there is a likeness—they are different. They are three villages in many ways—yes, three villages, because they have different ideas, different teams, and, of course, if you watch their football, you will find that that is different too. They do not all support Gillingham either.
One has this difference and, therefore, when we are looking at the orders as they come before the House, I think we shall have to look at them on their merits. And in this case I think that it is quite right for your Lordships to think again and go back and look at the matter again. But I shall not vote for the Motion because of the convention.
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a unitary authority—a London authority. I have, sadly, little knowledge of the great county of Kent. It seems to me that the only matter to welcome this evening is an end to uncertainty after reorganisation having been in prospect for six years. Reorganisation in prospect I say, but, of course, there was a period when it seemed that there would be no change. The most important objection—to me the overwhelming objection—is public opinion which, in itself, is overwhelming.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that we should not dismiss opinion research. The comment has been made that its beauty is rather in the eye of the beholder. I take that point, but good opinion research—and I believe that what has been undertaken in connection with the reviews has been good opinion research—is not a matter of putting an advertisement in the local paper and seeing what responses flow in. It does test opinion properly. That, I believe, is the approach of MORI. We seem to be talking tonight as if MORI research was the only sort of research, MORI the only polling organisation. My noble friend Lord Tope has commented that it seemed to be used in the way that Hoover and Thermos are used. MORI is not the only polling organisation, but it is a reputable one. I do not believe that it would want its findings to be dismissed
712
on the basis that it had not undertaken the research thoroughly and sought adverse opinions as well as support. It is clear that the great majority of local people are opposed to the proposal. The Local Government Commission in its first response to this matter—or in its first incarnation, if I may put it that way—took that into account.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I, too, had high hopes of this process in its early days. I thought that the commission would undertake to seek opinion and then implement that opinion. It certainly tried to. It stated in its 1995 report:
"There was very clear support for the commission's alternative"
structure of no change. That is, the alternative to its draft recommendation for two unitary authorities and no change in the rest of the county. Therefore its final recommendation at that stage was for no change to the existing arrangements.
The Minister's explanation as regards the second round seems to me to be an admission that either the original guidance to the commission was wrong, or that the outcome was not what the Government wanted. The honourable Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—as my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth said—referred to the unholy partnership when he spoke in another place. He referred to an unholy partnership to put things right. That gives a clue to what underlies the proposal. Your Lordships have heard from the Government that Rochester and Gillingham are different from the rest of Kent. They are urban areas, not rural. I began to wonder whether this was a suggestion that the earlier transfer from Kent of largely rural Bromley into Greater London had been misconceived, but I shall not go down that path.
The Thames Gateway, to which reference has been made, does not in my view require a unitary authority. The Thames Gateway is essentially a partnership—an agglomeration almost—of a large number of authorities. It would not be possible to create one authority to cover the whole of the Thames Gateway. Because of that the logic fails in suggesting that a unitary authority, as proposed tonight, is required for the success of the Gateway project. Certainly the Local Government Commission did not regard it as necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, has referred to the additional and continuing costs that will arise as a result of the proposal. The county has done well in keeping cuts to a minimum and in reducing its budget. That, I believe, is the result of good management and economies of scale. The economies of scale will certainly be jeopardised, if not lost. The county will lose SSA out of proportion to its continuing responsibilities. The increase in tax which is projected has been drawn to your Lordships' attention. I agree with the comment that if economies are to be found, they should be found in any event. They are quite a separate matter from structure. All of us involved in local government should continually look for economies.
There came into my mind a comment that I heard yesterday on one of the Sunday television programmes where newspapers are reviewed. The commentator had seen a headline which referred to the need to find

713
£17 billion. He thought it must be something to do with the Royal divorce settlement, but then realised it was the amount by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adrift.
The electoral arrangements have been referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Cornwallis. I ask the Minister to explain how the re-warding—I emphasise that word—will affect the 1997 election. I have heard there are local objections to moving from a system of elections every three years to elections only every four.
Finally, I refer to structure plans. The Minister dismissed the difficulties in his comments on this matter. However, his department has recognised that there is a gap in the legislation. Having admitted there is a gap, sadly it has not taken the opportunity to cure it. In a two-tier authority, as Kent will be if this order is agreed tonight, there is no mechanism for "knocking heads together" if voluntary joint working is not achieved. In an area with the peninsular features that have been described, one where I imagine there is considerable regional significance in the waste and minerals, and in the Medway Valley (this was not a matter that I had appreciated before this evening), noble Lords have very vividly shown what scope for argument there will be between the successor authorities. I repeat my point that under their arrangements the Government have failed to provide the mechanisms for proper structure planning.
Whatever the convention or convenience, my honourable friends in another place required a vote. They voted—and they alone—against what I had regarded before this evening as a shotgun divorce rather than a shotgun marriage, although I see it has aspects of both. I am delighted to have heard the robust speeches from around the Chamber. They were not, I think, the result of lobbying. I have nothing against lobbying; we are here to be lobbied. But I believe they were a result of the interest that noble Lords have in the subject. If the matter is tested, we shall follow the noble Lord into the Lobby.
9.21 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House oppose the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. We do so on two main grounds.
Let me make the position of the Labour Party quite clear. The Labour Party regards much of the 1974 reorganisation of local government as misguided and misconceived. Since the late 1970s, the Labour Party has sought to reorganise local government and in broad terms has favoured unitary authorities. That is Labour Party policy which has gone through several conferences. We believe it makes local government more streamlined, more accountable, more democratic and more transparent. All the evidence shows that under a two-tier structure people do not know who does what, to what level of service, to what specification, at what cost and under whose authority. Two-tier structures stand in the way of clear and accountable local government.
714
Unitary authorities allow for local communities to have their own voice, to be accountable and not to find themselves subsumed in the interests of a larger and wider authority. Such a view is especially important where the county includes several distinctive communities. One of the MPs representing Gillingham and Rochester said that Kent was divided into north Kent, east Kent and what he called "posh Kent".
Like my noble friend Lady Farrington, I support unitary authorities within a democratically elected regional tier of government. I am sure that she is entirely right. However, I am struck that in the other House the two local MPs, with, I presume, the greatest knowledge and the greatest degree of responsibility for the views of their constituents, both supported the order—Mr. James Couchman and Dame Peggy Fenner—not merely by voting but by speaking. I take the views of the Members of Parliament elected to represent those areas very seriously indeed, whatever their party.
The second general point I wish to make is that, as I understand it, for 30 years since the Rhodesia statutory instrument order, which I believe was passed around 1965, this House has respected the convention that we do not vote against statutory instruments; nor do we support any fatal Motions or amendments to them. Let us be very clear. To do so would be for this House, an unelected Chamber, not merely to ask another place to think again. I have no problems with that at all. I should be delighted for us to amend Bills, with this House asking the Commons to think again.
We know that, if the other place, having thought again, overturns what this House has supported, then ultimately—if necessary, with the authority of the Parliament Act behind it should we decide to push it further again—it has the definitive and last word. The elected House has the hegemony in Parliament.
However, if this House votes against and overturns a statutory instrument, the House of Commons cannot vote again. It is unable to think again. That instrument is dead. If Parliament so wills, the whole business has to start all over again.
On many occasions I have found myself entirely in support of every word of Motions or fatal amendments on social security matters moved from the Liberal Front Bench. Though I agreed with every word in that Motion or fatal amendment and agreed with every word spoken very eloquently to it by movers from the Liberal Front Bench, and indeed supported it word for word, we have abstained with respect for that convention. We do not believe it right for an unelected House not merely to ask the other place to think again but to overturn the will of the Commons.
In our two-day debate on the constitution, in which every speaker in the debate in your Lordships' House mentioned the pleasure, the joy, the status and the prestige of this House, that was essentially because we accepted our, so to speak, inferior status in the sense that the elected House has hegemony. We spent two days debating those matters and one week later we appear to be suggesting that we ignore that debate and again threaten to challenge the democratic will of the elected House, including the local Members of

715
Parliament. Irrespective of the issue, we on this side of the House will not take part in seeking to overturn a statutory instrument or supporting a Motion which, I have been advised, is effectively fatal. It is not a matter of government convenience—apart from the jibes from the Liberal Benches which I take in the spirit in which they were offered: fatally, I do not doubt. It is in my view a matter of democratic principle.
However, having said that, I do not believe that the local government review has been well handled. The first commission was whimsical and opinionated. The second under Sir David Cooksey was very much more professional. But even so, some of its theories—for example, the difference between periphery and centrality—were deeply implausible to all but paper geographers. This commission has been bedevilled by legal challenges from county councils (which they have every right to make). They were able to make a challenge to the Government because the Government's own legal framework was fallible. That, in turn, if I may say so, was because the Government on a previous occasion resisted amendments from my noble friend Lord McIntosh and me in this House and my honourable friend Mr. Blunkett in another place to make the guidelines legally watertight. The Government rejected our amendment to do so and as a result faced legal challenges. Had the Government accepted those amendments, the commission would not have been derailed and it would not have cost local government a year and much uncertainty.
Nor have the Government been as helpful as they should have been in terms of the situation in respect of staff. They have been nowhere near as helpful as in 1985 when we got rid of the metropolitan counties at that stage. In saying that we shall not oppose the Government, that we shall oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and that the official Labour Party will support the Government on this Motion, we do not in any sense believe that the Government have handled this matter wisely or well.
I turn now to Kent itself. I believe that the Kent reorganisation, like the Berkshire reorganisation that we shall discuss tomorrow, has been especially confusing, in part because the recommendations of the local government commission have changed. The original proposals of the commission were for two pairs of unitary authorities within the county of Kent: Dartford with Gravesham, on the one hand, and Rochester with Gillingham, on the other. In consequence, the MORI polls about which we heard tonight on whether unitary status was desirable have become hopelessly entangled with another issue; namely, whether the merger of two adjacent and sometimes competitive district councils was desirable or popular. In the event and in the face of bitter resistance from Gravesham, the Local Government Commission did not proceed with the Dartford-Gravesham merger into a unitary authority—something that Dartford and Gravesham will come to regret when they see themselves outbatted in economic development by an adjacent large unitary of Rochester with Gillingham.
716
In relation to Rochester and Gillingham, the LGC proceeded and the other place supported. First, it supported on the issue of size; that is, that the new unitary authority will be almost 250,000 people. No one in your Lordship's House can say that an authority of 250,000 people is not competent to organise and manage its own affairs.
Secondly, the Local Government Commission said that the area was to the periphery rather than to the centre of Kent and therefore could come out of Kent without in any sense damaging the integrity of Kent County Council. I believe that it was right on that. The Local Government Commission was influenced by the separate economic and geographic identity of the Medway towns, with a green belt to the west, open countryside to the east, the rivers of the Thames and so forth to the north and the North Downs to the south.
The Local Government commission also stated, and the other place agreed, that the new unitary authority shared a common economic framework—one, I am sorry to say, of decline to a degree; that is, of a falling population, the closure of the naval dockyard, the loss of the BP oil refinery and high unemployment. But what the other place believed, and I share that view, is that the three key issues facing local government, not just of the 1980s and 1990s but of the year 2000 and beyond, are care in the community, economic regeneration and the development of physical infrastructure.
In all three key issues facing local government the electors of those authorities will find that they have a more effective and accountable service if the responsibilities are not splintered between two tiers of local government. I refer to care in the community being splintered between district housing and council social services; economic regeneration splintered between district planning and a county education and training service; and physical infrastructure splintered between local planning and a county highways authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, raised the question not just of economic efficiency but also of cost. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the ongoing cost will represent around 0.5 per cent. of the expenditure involved. That is not an insubstantial sum but in comparison with the total cost it is not a high one either.
There has been wide public consultation and I worry that the proposals do not have majority support. I believe that that may be because the MORI polls inevitably tapped an issue of anxiety about merger as much as they did about unitary status. That confusion was certainly compounded by what the Local Government Commission described as the "particularly voluminous campaigning activity" by Kent County Council. My experience has been that where the authority had been a previous county bearer and had experience of unitary status, the population for the most part has been in favour of returning to that status. Where an authority has grown over the past 30 or 40 years and has not had that experience or assurance of unitary responsibility and county bearer status, those populations are somewhat fearful of change, particularly where the county council—perfectly properly—was aggressive in its campaigning.

717
But I am also not persuaded by the argument on the structure plan. Certainly, I believe that what the Local Government Commission and the Minister have said is correct—that they are recommending voluntary joint structure planning. Again, in my experience those joint arrangements which have been entered into voluntarily are very much more effective than statutory ones, which may be a shotgun arrangement. We are assured by the Minister that the department has fallback reserve powers, as he described tonight.
I believe that at the end of the day this new arrangement for Gillingham and Rochester will be welcomed. I accept that it is not yet welcome. I hope that the Local Government Commission and the other place will have been shown to be right. I believe that it will offer the residents of those two towns of the Medway authority clear, coherent and transparent local government. It will give them the competence and the capacity to tackle the problems that they will undoubtedly face over the next quarter of a century. I wish them well, as I am sure do other Members of your Lordships' House.
9.35 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton who said that I was having a difficult time tonight. He is perfectly right. I do not like having a difficult time. I like being surrounded by my friends and sometimes it is a little difficult to tell where they are. Sometimes one looks across the Dispatch Box and finds one or two over there. Change is always difficult and everyone knows that. Everyone hates it and they would rather have what they have got used to. That is a perfectly natural phenomenon.
I believe that almost everyone who has taken part in this debate is involved with Kent. Obviously, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hollis of Heigham, are not. All speakers have put their cases very plausibly, clearly and very well and not offensively. It has been a good-tempered debate.
My noble friend Lord Peyton was worried. He queried the fact that this measure has been passed in another place. He said that if another place had spoken, then we must be struck dumb. All I can say is, heaven help us when my noble friend finds his tongue! He said that I did not have an open mind. I thought that that was a bit hard. I could have said the same thing to him and almost to every other noble Lord who took part in the debate. Noble Lords had their points of view to put across and I put mine over.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said that we were going at this at a frenzied pace. He said that it was a Kalashnikov union and not a shotgun union that was being used. That compared with the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, who said that the decision was taken long before the commission was set up. You can have one or the other but you cannot have both. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, was using slight exaggeration. He said that this matter was being conducted at a frenzied pace. It has taken three years since the start of the review. The first order was introduced in 1994; it is six months since the commission produced recommendations, which we are implementing; and it is going to be almost two years before the changes take place. So it must be a funny old Kalashnikov that the noble Lord uses.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is not deliberately misunderstanding. My reference to the frenzied pace was the fact that we have had well over 200 Acts of Parliament affecting local government in the past 16 years.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought that he was referring to a frenzied pace over this matter. All those Bills were necessary, and that deals with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked what was so good about consistency and that it was the language of the commissar. That is fairly flamboyant, too. We should not mix up consistency with uniformity. The outcome will not be uniform. We shall have two-tier areas and unitary areas. We are not imposing a master plan on anyone. When the commission under Sir John Banham recommended unitary status for some large urban areas and not others with apparently similar characteristics, we asked it to look again because we did not believe that that was consistent.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that there are no benefits. He said that we had not said what benefits there might be. One benefit is that the unitary authority will have greater accountability. There will be less duplication because there will be one authority as opposed to two. There will be greater efficiency and less bureaucracy. The authority will be nearer to the people. There will be one authority for a single contiguous urban area with the same economic and community interests. That should end the current disputes between the two authorities. There will be a new sense of common purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, went on to say that this has all been rigged—
Lord Strathclyde: Rigged?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, rigged. That was the word that the noble Lord used. I did not think that that was a very worthy suggestion. Indeed, I thought that it was rather insulting to Sir David Cooksey and his fellow commissioners. Sir John Banham's first review was widely criticised—not just by the Government, but also by the Opposition and most independent commentators. Sir David Cooksey was asked to review 21 districts. He recommended unitary status for only nine, including these two. Nine out of 21 does not sound particularly "rigged" to me.
My noble friend Lord Aldington was also concerned about my right honourable friend's powers to make a new county. Our interpretation of the Local Government Act 1992, which I set out earlier, has been tested by judicial review in a previous case, and upheld.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, liked the speech of my noble friend Lord Aldington. He would, wouldn't he? He particularly liked his quotation from what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said. It is always dangerous to start quoting things. I should now like to quote an extract from the Prime Minister's speech. My right honourable friend said:
"The Conservatives believe in giving citizens the reins wherever possible".

719
How do you do that if you do not bring authorities closer to them, as we are doing in this order through a unitary authority?
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also said:
"We believe in moving power from centralised bureaucracies to smaller structures closer to their local communities and consumers".
That is what we are doing here.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, also said that there was no time to reflect on the results of the electoral review. We think that it is important to start the unitary authorities on a sound electoral basis. We expect the result of the commission's further electoral review in time for arrangements to be in place before the shadow elections in May 1997. Local interests have already been alerted to, and have consulted on, the changes through review.
We expect county and unitary authorities to make voluntary arrangements for working together over planning provisions. We consulted the local authority associations on this. The associations themselves took the initiative to produce guidance in support of that approach. The parties interested in planning provisions in other orders are also supportive of the approach. I think that the provisions for the Kent order, with the guidance in our circular, are quite satisfactory.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is the Minister not aware of the very strong representations made by the Association of County Councils which identified a gap in the legislation in the case of hybrid authorities—in other words, those authorities where a county remains and there is a two-tier structure in part, but a unitary structure in another part? Is the Minister not aware of the strong representations that have been made, backed up by arguments which, as I understand it from correspondence that I have seen, are entirely accepted by his department as amounting to a gap in the legislation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure that there is a gap in the legislation. Clearly, there is an overlap and we have to ensure that the two authorities work together. I hope that we shall.
The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said that polls are reliable. I wonder whether he has witnessed what happens with polls before general elections. If he looks back to the past few general elections, he will find that polls have not been all that reliable—
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I said that polls are reliable when they say what you want them to say. They are unreliable when they say what you do not want them to say.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite agree. But that is the trouble. That is what happened at the last general election. The Labour Party listened to the polls. It listened too hard and the polls were wrong. The noble Lord makes a good point as well as an entertaining one. Of course, when the polls are on one's side, one uses them. When one is trying to deal with the complexity of local government reorganisation one cannot rely only on
720
polls. I believe that the noble Lord was slightly unfair when he said that it took me 17 minutes to say that I would not listen. Half of the complaint has been that matters have not been explained in another place. If I had come to this House and not explained what the Government intended to do, the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, would have given me stick and, if he had not done, both noble Baronesses would have done so. I thought it only right to try to explain what was intended.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was worried about re-warding. The order makes provision for the new authority to have a total of 68 councillors. This is 24 fewer members than at present who serve in the two existing authorities, but it follows the commission's recommendations. The order also makes provision for transitional arrangements to return the new authority for a full four-yearly term, as it at present applies to Rochester City Council.
I know that your Lordships are anxious to come to a conclusion on this matter. I know that your Lordships, particularly those who live in Kent, are very concerned about this. That is perfectly understandable. But your Lordships also have a perfect right to vote for this. Your Lordships have a perfect right to vote against an order.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Motion before the House is not voting against the order. As I suggested earlier, it is a procedural device which was devised by the party opposite to enable the House to express a view and urge the Government to reconsider the matter. We are not voting against the order.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had listened a little more carefully. I said that your Lordships were perfectly entitled to vote for or against this Motion. Noble Lords are perfectly entitled to vote for and against an order or anything: First Readings, Second Readings, Third Readings, Committee stage, Report stage, amendments—the lot. But there must be some kind of order if we are not to fall foul of the elected Chamber. The noble Baroness was quite right. She said it was funny that we had had a debate on the constitution only about two weeks ago and possibly the first thing we did was to vote against a Motion, which would have the same effect as annulling the order because we could not oppose the order. This is a matter of convention in the House. The noble Lord was quite right to refer to the Rhodesia Order of 1968. That caused such a row that it was decided to have some kind of convention not to vote against orders—I say that this has the same effect—which had been passed by another place, for the very reason given by the noble Baroness: it would overrule another place.
Your Lordships are perfectly entitled to vote for the Motion moved by my noble friend, but, having had such a debate, I believe that we would be testing the patience of another place a great deal if we did that. The noble Baroness laughs. The Liberals are all gung-ho; they do not mind what they do because they are not in government or in opposition. They do what they like—even whip for it, which is a most extraordinary thing to do.

721
I come back to the quite surprising speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He is an ex-Lord Privy Seal and ex-Leader of the House. When he was Leader of the House he always took great care about the relationship between another place and this House. Even his party says that it will not vote for this Motion but will abstain, for the very reasonable and proper reasons advanced by the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has, however, slipped the painter and parted from his party in this respect.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Earl looks at me and refers to me as an ex-Leader of the House. In a sense it is probably more important that I should be referred to as an ex-Chief Whip. If it was a Motion against the order I would not support it. But this is not a Motion which destroys the order. The order can be re-introduced. We are a revising Chamber. If we think that there is something wrong here, we have a duty to say to the Government, "Think again".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is careful with his words and persuasive. He has said that if this were a vote against the order he would not support it. However, he is quite happy to vote for the Motion which says we may not lay the order. The effect is exactly the same. Another place has passed the order and we in that case will not.
In conclusion, despite the anxieties which your Lordships have expressed and which I understand, I very much hope that my noble friend will not put this Motion to the test for the reasons I have given. It is unsatisfactory and undesirable that we should find ourselves in any form of conflict there. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made a very important point when she said that this is the right amendment but it should have been discussed in another place. I do not know whether it is the right amendment, but that is where it ought to have been discussed and not in this House. I hope that my noble friend will consider very carefully before he presses his Motion.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, my noble friend expects and hopes that I shall consider very carefully. I seem to have two seconds in which to consider very carefully. However, I have been listening very carefully throughout to the debate.
First, let me deal with the arguments about the convention. As I understand it, there is no convention in the book. There is no rule. There is an understanding between the Front Benches and that is all. If the Front Benches want there to be a convention and a rule, let the Procedure Committee consider the matter and let the House debate it, but that has not happened so far.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for whose support I am always very grateful and whose experience is considerable, is quite right in what he has said about the purpose of my Motion, which I was very careful to put to the House right at the start of my opening speech. It is to give the Government an opportunity to think again and to give the other place an opportunity to think again. There is no reason at all why they should not take the
722
order back, have a look at it in the light of what has been said in this House, resubmit it to the other place and resubmit it to us. If there is delay, that time will perhaps have been well used. It seems to me nonsense to say that this is provoking a clash between the two Houses as if we were turning down the Second Reading of a major Bill or the whole of a major Bill. This is just the same as making an amendment to a Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, monopolises the attentions of the House and she wags her head there. She has given me a great lecture today. I have listened to her moving amendments to the House and insisting on them. She must now allow me to propose to the House that we ask the Government to think again. That is what I say about the convention and it seems to me from what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and other noble Lords have said that those of us who are not in on this understanding between the two Front Benches on the matter of the convention have a different view from them on the matter.
I think the same applies to the merits of the Motion. It seems to me that there is a very close link between the two Front Benches as to how you deal with unitary government. There is a feeling expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that there is some particularly strong theoretical merit in it and that this really is more important than the review of the facts of each case. But it is the facts of the case that matter and we say that the facts of each case were looked at by Sir John Banham's commission. That commission came to a conclusion based on what it found and on local opinion. The new commission came to a different conclusion on different guidance, disregarded local opinion altogether, disregarded the cost and disregarded the importance that it had itself attributed to the county-wide strategy. That is a great mistake. If the House believes that it is a mistake, as it manifestly does, because the vast majority of noble Lords who have spoken have kindly supported me today, for us not to show that we think that it is a mistake would be an enormous error, and bad for the House—as bad as breaching a convention. So, I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one thing. He said that we had the right to do this. This is not like passing an amendment. It is secondary legislation. If my noble friend thinks that carrying this Motion is just like passing an amendment and that it will have no effect, I can assure him that it will have an effect. I hope that he will think hard before putting this matter to the House, not so much because of the content of the order, but because of the effect that it will have on secondary legislation which has been accepted by another place and which your Lordships might reject. It will have the effect of overturning that which another place has accepted.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I have thought. I do not want to weary the House. My noble friend has said that on a number of occasions. I understand that the other place has made up its mind. It did so after listening to the Secretary of State for about a quarter of a column of Hansard, and after listening to my honourable friend the Member for Gillingham for about two minutes, with

723
an interruption from my honourable friend Dame Peggy Fenner. On that, it made up its mind. If noble Lords look at the Division Lists they will see that practically no other Kent MPs were present. The other place did not pay regard to the county of Kent. This place has. That is why I wish to test the opinion of the House.
9.57 p.m
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 60.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Aldington, L. [Teller.]

Kintore, E.

Bancroft, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Palmer, L.

Carlisle, E.

Pender, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Perry of Walton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Colgrain, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cornwallis, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Renwick, L.

Cross, V.

Rochester, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Shepherd, L.

Falmouth, V.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Geraint, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Greenway, L.

Thurso, V.

Hamwee, B.

Tope, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Inglewood, L.

Annaly, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Kingsland, L.

Attlee, E.

Leigh, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsay, E.

Berners, B.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bowness, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Northesk, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Prior, L

Cumberiege, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Seccombe, B.

Selsdon, L.

Elton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Harris of Peckham, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Waddington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilcox, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996
10.05 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Overpayments) Bill
10.06 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the introduction of a measure to amend Sections 71(2) and 71(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the need for which has arisen following a decision by a Social Security commissioner in a recent appeal case.
The Bill is not a contentious one. The legislation before the House is not for the purposes of amending the direction of policy, but to enable this Government to maintain a longstanding and reasonable practice which has been seriously undermined by the commissioner's decision. The Bill has been motivated by the need to provide legislation for continuing the very practice which this and previous administrations have followed since the Labour Government introduced the National Assistance Act in 1948. While there is little doubt that the commissioner's decision is correct in its interpretation of the statute we have concluded that the Department of Social Security is unable to live with the implications of that decision which has meant that, as a consequence, we must amend the legislation in order to uphold the current practice.
The commissioner's decision has effectively made it impossible, in the short term, to recover new overpayments of social security benefits from claimants who have—whether fraudulently or otherwise—misrepresented the facts of their case or failed to disclose details or changes of personal circumstances which have an impact on the amount of benefit to which they are entitled.
The practice, which has been followed by the Department of Social Security for many years, under Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments, is a perfectly reasonable one. When an overpayment has been identified the appropriate adjudicating authority corrects the amount of award being paid immediately and, at a later date, will reach a decision on the amount of the overpayment and whether or not it is recoverable. Handling this process in two separate stages is a sensible and practical way of

725
proceeding, but in so doing the commissioner has decided that we are not acting according to the statute and must, as a consequence, correct the award and reach a decision on the amount and recoverability of the overpayment concurrently as part of a single process. Failure to do so will, in many cases, lead to the loss of the right to recover the overpayment.
Perhaps I may illustrate by using a hypothetical example. Let us assume that a claimant has been awarded income support on the basis that he or she is without work. If it is later discovered that the claimant has in fact been working and has had earnings sufficient to warrant a reduction of the amount of benefit he or she is legally entitled to then an overpayment has most probably occurred. The amount of award in payment can, of course, be amended to the correct amount immediately to take into account the changed circumstances, but a decision on how much overpayment has been made and whether or not it is recoverable may require further evidence which is not always readily available. It may be necessary, for example, to approach an employer to verify details of earnings and hours worked, and in some cases we may even need to visit that employer to obtain this evidence. Evidence may also be needed to establish whether the claimant deliberately misrepresented the facts or to clarify the particular circumstances which gave rise to a duty to disclose.
In any system there will always be a minority of people who do not play by the rules. I must emphasise that this Bill is not introduced with the specific intention of counteracting fraudulent claims for benefit but with, as I have already stated, the intention of maintaining the status quo of current practice. However, this Bill does serve to protect our rights to recover public money paid erroneously through claimants' misrepresentation and in some cases that misrepresentation will be deliberately fraudulent. Your Lordships will, of course, be gratified to hear that by far the more usual reason for overpayments occurring is due not to fraudulent misrepresentation but to claimants' errors or oversights concerning what it is their duty to disclose. Having said that, however, if this legislation is not carried we are effectively endorsing what will amount to little more than a charter for fraud which leaves our social security system exposed to that element who will deliberately commit acts of fraud knowing that in most instances we shall be unable to recover that money which has been criminally obtained.
The Department of Social Security considered with utmost care the options available to it which would avoid the need for bringing legislation before this House. Legal advice has been that there are no sensible grounds on which to appeal against the commissioner's decision. We have considered whether the decision could be implemented through operational means but have concluded that this cannot be done except at prohibitive cost.
The financial implications and savings arising from this Bill are not trivial: in 1995–96 more than £122 million was recovered from benefit overpayments. In the current financial year we expect to identify £135 million of recoverable overpayments on income support
726
alone. Each month that passes without this legislation in place means a significant loss of recovery of public funds which it is our obligation to avoid. In addition, without this legislation, the necessary changes in working practice to ensure that we retain the right to recover overpayments would increase the Department of Social Security's administrative costs by about £30 million in the first year and by around £25 million in each subsequent year.
However, such a solution could not be implemented immediately, indeed it would take nine months to realise and in that period we would lose approximately £100 million of recoverable overpayments. These costs would arise through the necessary restructuring of the working practices of the Benefits Agency, substantial redesign of the income support computer system and the consequent massive retraining programme. It cannot be just that the taxpayer should bear these costs. I commend this Bill to the House and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
10.13 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we shall not oppose the Social Security (Overpayments) Bill. I promise the Government that after two such events in one evening, we do not propose to make such support or abstention a habit.
On this side of the House we accept that overpayments through misrepresentation—that is, through fraud rather than error—should not be tolerated. We accept, as the Minister outlined, that it would be difficult to compress the two decisions into one; that is, the fact of overpayment and its correction and the amount to be recovered. We accept that it is difficult to do that in one stage in view of staff implications and the problems for the computer system. We accept that it would probably make it more difficult for the claimant to appeal. And, as the Minister explained, because of the court cases, we need primary legislation to remedy the situation. Otherwise, the Government may face overpayments of £100 million which are unrecoverable. I am sure that we would all agree that that money should be spent more appropriately elsewhere in the social security system.
We believe that having a two-stage process may very well be beneficial to the claimant as well as to the officer dealing with the claim, rather than seeing both steps compressed into one. However, I have some slight concern about how this may operate in practice. In the other place a distinction was drawn, which was certainly convincing to me, between three kinds of error. The first is innocent misrepresentation—a straightforward error, misunderstanding or whatever. The second I would describe as negligent misrepresentation, to which I shall return. The third I would describe as a fraudulent representation. I believe that I am using the language which the Minister used in the other place. Clearly, innocent misrepresentation is where someone has failed to understand what the forms require and has simply made an error, perhaps by way of memory or whatever.

727
However, what I am rather more worried about is the border-line between negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. As I understand it, at present someone may sign a form and neglect to supply appropriate information which may lead to an overpayment based on negligence. He may then face a huge bill for recovery even though he has spent the money in good faith.
Can the Minister say whether the department expects to make any distinction in its quest to recover overpayment between those three forms of misrepresentation; namely, the innocent, the negligent and the fraudulent? In other words, will the debts be topsliced? How will recovery operate? Will it be a small sum topsliced? How will it stand in terms of the priority of other debts—for example, repayments to the social fund or to other utilities? Further, how long will it go on? Will it be any different from recovery mechanisms where the overpayment has been due to departmental error as opposed to innocent misrepresentation by the claimant?
As I said, we do not oppose the Bill. We recognise that government need to correct a situation and that that correction may well be to the benefit of the claimant. However, we shall be glad to receive some assurance in that respect, especially where the misrepresentation has not been fraudulent. Of course, it may have been negligent; but it was not fraudulent. Such situations often concern people whose literacy skills may not be high or who may be fairly old or frail and seeking disability payments or the like. We need some reassurance that such claimants will not suddenly, out of the blue, receive a bill for a huge sum of money which they would find very difficult to make good in a reasonable time and in a reasonable way. I hope that the Minister can at least reassure us to that extent.
10.17 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe the Minister knows that, when I think he is right, I am prepared to say so. This strikes me as a reasonable Bill to meet a necessary objective. None of us is in favour of money which has been obtained by fraudulent means, by failure to disclose or indeed by misrepresentation, being irrecoverable. If that was the effect of the ruling of Commissioner Mesher, then that effect needs correcting. I take the Minister's point about the need to gather evidence in order to understand and calculate the extent of the overpayment that has taken place. That was a powerful point in favour of a two-stage process and it is well taken.
However, I should like the Minister to consider a point which relates somewhat to those just raised by the noble Baroness; namely, the difference between misrepresentation and failure to disclose. In principle those are two different cases. The threshold of proof which the department carries is different for those two cases. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that, under the Bill, he will ensure that the department is careful not to proceed on misrepresentation when failure to disclose might be more appropriate?
728
The Minister is asking us to reverse a court judgment. It is not the first time this month that he has asked us to do so. I am taking very different attitudes to the two cases. Therefore, it might be worth thinking just for a moment about the general principles involved in the reversing of court judgments. First, we should all agree that it is something which should be done reasonably sparingly. Secondly, it is best when it can be done, as is the case on this occasion, by all-party agreement reached behind the scenes before the Bill comes forward. I should like to express my gratitude for the fact that that procedure has been followed on this occasion.
When there is a technical difficulty in the way of a policy intention which all parties agree to be proper but which, nevertheless, cannot be pursued for a purely technical and drafting reason, I believe that a reversal of a judgment need not cause us any misgivings. I believe that to be the case in this particular instance. However, that is a very different case from one where the court has found the policy intention itself to be unlawful. A case where that is found is one which must involve, at the very least, bad drafting. Also, reversal of court judgments in areas where there is very strong party disagreement is again something to be undertaken sparingly. It is a subject about which we all need to think a bit further. But certainly, whatever general principles we arrive at, this case would be likely to be within them.
I have read with a great deal of interest the ruling by Commissioner Mesher which has given us the subject of this Bill. I have no doubt it was correct. I understand that the Government have received advice that it would not be right for them to consider pursuing an appeal. But that case is an interesting one. I do not always agree with everything that Mr. Frank Field says, but on this occasion the circumstances of the case must make us think about some of the points he has been making.
It is a case of housing benefit, where Ms. Mustard, the subject of the case, had been getting money from her brother towards the payment of her rent, trying to scrape money together to pay her brother back and not on all occasions succeeding—just the sort of thing one might have expected and just the sort of sharing of responsibility between members of a family which in other circumstances the Government like to encourage. But, inevitably, it gave rise to a problem on this occasion because it brought her over her applicable amount for income support.
We have here two contradictory policy objectives, and in any long-term review of the social security system, those two objectives will need thought. One of them is the desire—inevitable and necessary in means testing—to ensure that money goes to people in proportion to their means. The other is the desire not to discourage people from helping each other out. I must admit that I cannot yet altogether see my way round that dilemma. But I wonder whether slightly more gentle housing benefit tapers might have solved some of the problems which gave rise to that case in the first place. There is a problem here. I do not see the solution to it and I hope that all of us will give it further thought.

729
I also hope when we come to Committee stage of this Bill to put down three small amendments. I understand that the Minister and his officials have only just received notice of these. That is the result of a misunderstanding for which I must make my apologies to the Minister and, through him, to his officials.
These three amendments would provide, first, that overpayments can be recovered only over a period of 12 months. That is the same rule that applies to people claiming arrears of benefit. It is a case of the principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It would be a reasonable, equitable provision and would make the operation of this provision more manageable, more practical and perhaps more humane than it would overwise have been.
The second amendment, which is perhaps a more interesting one and will perhaps take a little discussion, would be to reverse the judgment in the case of Jones v. Chief Adjudication Officer in 1993; and if reversing one judgment, why not consider reversing another? That is the case that hangs on the point I have touched on before, that the threshold of proof for the department in misrepresentation is a great deal lower than it is in failure to disclose.
What arose from the judgment in Jones is that a person may be found guilty of misrepresentation for failing to disclose a fact of which he was quite unaware. Now that really is a matter of hard cases making bad law. It seems to me that if you are not aware of a fact, then in sheer common sense you cannot be required to disclose it. Maybe when it comes to light it may affect the level of your benefit. Indeed, it should. But we can only disclose what we know. That amendment would also deal with the problems of disclosure in cases of mental impairment of various sorts. It is difficult enough for most of us to find our way through the labyrinth of social security benefit regulations, but if one is suffering from severe mental impairment of one sort or another it can be difficult indeed.
The third amendment I hope to put forward is a purely technical one about the vires for appeal. Now that we are to have a two-stage process it will be inevitable, as Commissioner Mesher pointed out in paragraph 10 of his ruling, that any appeal will have to encompass both stages of the process. It is my understanding that that will require a further amendment to the legislation simply to make that possible, because one cannot appeal against the requirement of overpayment without appealing at the same time against the review which gave rise to the requirement. That, I think, is a simple, practical point. I hope it will so appear to the Minister. With those provisos, I am happy that this Bill should go forward.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl for their general support and welcome for the Bill. As I believe I indicated, it is not a contentious Bill. However, I have learnt to know better than even to think for a moment that one contentious Bill will necessarily make a summer, so to speak. There will be others. The Bill
730
we are discussing is indeed not contentious. All of us who are concerned with good government and with the proper administration of the department understand the need to ensure that if overpayments are made because of misrepresentation, or, even worse, because of fraud, the department, and hence the taxpayer, can claw back the money lost due to that misrepresentation.
I shall try to answer some of the points that were made by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. Decisions on whether an overpayment is recoverable are, of course, made by an adjudication officer. In reaching a decision he or she must be satisfied that there has been—fraudulently, or otherwise—a misrepresentation, or failure to disclose a fact. He decides on the amount of overpayment and who made the misrepresentation, or failed to disclose. When an adjudication officer determines that, he also determines whether the Secretary of State is entitled to recover the overpayment, and from whom the recovery should be sought. The Secretary of State then decides whether the repayment is required, and the method of recovery where no suitable offer is forthcoming.
I listened with interest to the noble Earl's suggestion as regards tabling three amendments. It might be sensible not to discuss those this evening if we are not to fall into the trap that we fell into as regards the other Bills which have just finished being a source of disagreement between us. We seemed to talk about the same subject on three, if not four different occasions. I now turn to the vires for the appeal, and what one can appeal against, and how the two appeals relate to each other; that is, the appeal against the decision that there has been an overpayment, and the separate issue, which concerns the decision as to whether it is an overpayment which should be recovered. We can perhaps discuss that matter when the noble Earl moves his amendment. We can also discuss the interesting case of Jones v. The Chief Adjudication Officer. I look forward to discussing those matters.
The noble Earl referred to a third amendment. He discussed whether or not we should stipulate that recovery of the overpayment should occur over at least a 12-month period. I believe that was what he said. We can discuss that matter too. The noble Baroness referred to my next point. The standard rate of recovery from income support is normally £7.20. However, where the overpayment has been caused through fraud, the level is raised to £9.60. No recovery rate is specified for other benefits but guidance suggests that up to one-third of the rate of personal benefit should be deducted. Overpayments below £25 are treated as small overpayments and recovery is not normally pursued as it is estimated that each overpayment recovery, including the adjudication officer's decision, costs at least £25, making the recovery not cost effective.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is that £7.20 through to £9.20 of the personal allowance? I should know this point but perhaps the Minister will forgive me. Is that the personal allowance only of the

731
adult concerned? There is no proportional top-slicing from the children's benefits, for example. I am trying to protect the position of the children.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand that. The figures I am looking at show the maximum reduction from income support in IS cases. I do not know whether that answers the noble Baroness's question. If indeed the figures relate to the personal rate of income support to which the noble Baroness refers, it is £7.20. I imagine that if someone has income support for themselves and their children, he or she has a totality of income support and the maximum is as I have suggested: £7.20 or £9.60. However, I will check on that point before the next stage.
The noble Baroness asked me about the discretion. If recovery is likely to be detrimental to the health or welfare of the debtor or a member of the family, then the Secretary of State exercises discretion to abandon or reduce the rate of recovery. Recovery is automatically waived in the following circumstances: if income support is in payment and if the claimant is 70 or over and is senile or has long-term physical or mental illnesses and does not have capital in excess of £500 and has no disregarded income. The Secretary of State also has the power to waive recovery of an overpayment in exceptional cases where recovery would be harsh or unjust.
Normally, a person is invited to make a voluntary offer to repay. If no offer is forthcoming, or any offer that is forthcoming is not acceptable, the Secretary of State may then make compulsory deductions. Those deductions usually start 28 days after the adjudication officer's decision, so as to allow the claimant time to consider appealing against the overpayment decision. The claimant has the right to appeal for up to three months after the decision is made.
On the question of the order of priority on deductions from weekly entitlement, the recovery of overpayment is tenth on the list. It comes after a fair number of other deductions: mortgage interest direct; housing costs; service charges for fuel and rent; fuel debts; water charges; community charge/council tax; repayment of fines; child support maintenance; and social fund loans. Recovery of overpayments is at the bottom of the list. I hope that that answers the direct question that the noble Baroness put.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, am I therefore right in believing that, if it comes to that, it is not actually repaid, because there is a general cut-off point beyond which no more top-slicing may occur?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if someone is making some of the payments I listed above
732
and the recovery of overpayments reaches the total amount that we allow for deductions, then the recovery of overpayments will have to wait for a better day; or, depending on its size, on the decision of an adjudication officer, the recovery may be waived.
The general policy on recovery is well-established. If an overpayment is determined to be recoverable, we seek to recover it without causing undue financial hardship. Discretion arises on the implementation of this policy, and the Secretary of State may decide not to pursue his right to recover if representations are made either by the customer or by someone on his or her behalf.
Each case is judged on its merits. As a general guide, where recovery of the overpayment is likely to be detrimental to the health or welfare of the debtor, as I explained in one particular example, or is considered excessively harsh or unjust, it is likely that it will be abandoned or mitigated in some way. The policy is pursued in a sensitive way. However, as we have all agreed, it is right and proper that it should be pursued in those cases where it can be and where it is quite clear that fraud or misrepresentation has taken place.
I hope that I have answered the points raised. I look forward to what I trust will be a short Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Civil Aviation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) (No.2) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Party Wall, etc. Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Energy Conservation Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Noise Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Sales Licensing Policy
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Sales Licensing Policy
  EU and NATO Enlargement Costs
  EU and NATO Enlargement Costs
  UN Dues: US Arrears
  UN Dues: US Arrears
  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Tritium
  Tritium
  Nuclear Proliferation: Prevention Measures
  Nuclear Proliferation: Prevention Measures
  Outer Space Treaty
  Outer Space Treaty
  Mr. James Nichols: Death in Rangoon
  Mr. James Nichols: Death in Rangoon
  Burma: GSP Preferences
  Burma: GSP Preferences
  Human Rights Violation: European Commission Findings
  Human Rights Violation: European Commission Findings
  Passports
  Passports
  Military Museums: Funding
  Military Museums: Funding
  The Sevso Hoard
  The Sevso Hoard
  The St. Thomas a Becket Chasse
  The St. Thomas a Becket Chasse
  BSE and Scrapie
  BSE and Scrapie
  Scrapie in Lowland Sheep
  Scrapie in Lowland Sheep
  Scrapie Strains: Comparisons
  Scrapie Strains: Comparisons
  Pesticide Combinations: Synergistic Effects
  Pesticide Combinations: Synergistic Effects
  BSE Countermeasures: Cost and UK Contribution
  BSE Countermeasures: Cost and UK Contribution
  Foot and Mouth Disease in Imported Elephants
  Foot and Mouth Disease in Imported Elephants
  Meat Hygiene Service: Targets
  Meat Hygiene Service: Targets
  BSE in Bulls and Steers
  BSE in Bulls and Steers