Sitting of 22 July 1996

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

    Deregulation
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of deregulation initiatives on small businesses. [36746]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Our assessment is that the package of deregulation measures announced at the "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March was widely welcomed by small businesses.
    Mr. Spring: Given the assistance that has been given to so many small businesses by raising the VAT threshold, cutting corporate taxes and other methods of reducing bureaucracy on small businesses, is it surprising that there has been such a net expansion of small businesses? Given the importance of small businesses in job creation, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when he considers the deregulation initiatives, he will continue to take into account the needs of small businesses and continue to consult them widely?
    Mr. Freeman: We shall certainly continue closely to consult small businesses. Our aim over the coming months
    2
    is to continue the progress already made on simplification of PAYE and national insurance contributions; to ensure that enforcement of the law is uniform and proportionate; and to try to reduce the burdens of forms, surveys and licences on small businesses.
    Mr. Grocott: While everyone would agree that it is desirable to cut unnecessary red tape, does the Minister agree that one discipline that must always remain is the proper keeping of accounts? Will he comment on last weekend's reports that some businesses contributing to the so-called Premier Club, which is a method of financing the Conservative party, have been advised to disguise their contributions by describing them as "entertainment"? If that practice exists, will he condemn it unreservedly?
    Mr. Freeman: It goes without saying that all companies must observe not only the law relating to company accounts but the Inland Revenue's requirements. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would ask me about taxation. Some 500,000 small companies no longer need their accounts audited and more than half a million pay VAT annually.
    Mr. Sykes: Has my right hon. Friend had time yet to assess the impact of the 48-hour week that is likely to be imposed on this country from 23 November onwards? Is he aware that Cleveland Potash, a fairly important employer in my constituency, told me that a 48-hour week would be disastrous for the company, and that it would have to lay men off as a result? What will the Minister do about the 48-hour week?
    Mr. Freeman: Any restriction in terms of hours and patterns of work on companies' flexibility to employ staff is to be deprecated. The Government want our economy to achieve growth and prosperity, which comes about through limiting the burdens of social and employment legislation on our work force.

    HMSO
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what revenue he expects to be raised from the privatisation of HMSO. [36747]
    Mr. Freeman: I am confident that the sale will represent good value for money to taxpayers. However, the hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot jeopardise those benefits by releasing details of bids or estimated proceeds at this stage.
    Mr. Cunningham: How can the Minister say that the sale will benefit taxpayers when his Department has estimated that it should be sold for £100 million and that it will get less than £50 million if it tries to sell it now? Should not the sale be put on freeze?
    Mr. Freeman: Ministers have made no such estimate. The whole purpose of a competition for organisations or agencies that are being privatised is to determine best value for money. HMSO in the private sector can compete with the private sector for private sector business, and can expand without the constraints of operating in the public sector.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the likely side effects of the privatisation of HMSO is that Hansard will be available on the Internet? Does this not demonstrate the Government's commitment to open government?
    Mr. Freeman: With respect, I think that my hon. Friend is a little too enthusiastic about the Internet. I hope that public and private sector agencies—including the House, in due course—will consider the wider use of the Internet.
    Mr. Garrett: Is the Minister aware that the three bidders for HMSO have shown precious little interest in expanding its sales in the private sector? Further, is he aware that it looks as though HMSO will be sold for half what was expected and that there are rumours that there will be 600 redundancies, mostly in the headquarters city of Norwich?
    Mr. Freeman: The Government have consistently made clear that HMSO would have a further programme of redundancies in the public sector. From the responses of the short-listed bidders, I am not aware that they see matters any differently from the forecast by internal management. I have had meetings with the trade unions and I am well aware that the short-listed bidders are proposing more rapid attention to the financial problems of HMSO. The preferred bidder will be announced in the next few weeks and I hope that it will sketch out its aspirations and plans for HMSO in some detail. I hope that that will result in an expansion of work in the private sector, and therefore in employment prospects throughout the country.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Is it not clear that the Chancellor is going to get only half the proceeds that he expected for HMSO and that 600 jobs will be lost, mostly in Norwich? Contrary to his stated reasons for privatising HMSO, is it not clear that all his preferred bidders are far more
    4
    concerned to boost HMSO's puny 8 per cent. share of the £3 billion public sector market than to expand sales in the private sector? Has not the Government's stampede to privatise become a car boot sale of civil service jobs and a hand-out of public sector assets and contracts—including some to his fat cat friends who are payrolling the Tory party through the Premier Club?
    Mr. Freeman: On employment prospects, the 600 jobs that the right hon. Gentleman referred to are, broadly speaking, within the forecast job redundancies in the public sector. As I understand it, there is no great difference between the forecast made by HMSO management and that made by those interested in acquiring the business.
    On the question of business expansion, only in the private sector would a company have the ability to borrow and to invest without the constraints of the public sector and, therefore, to create more jobs.

    Government Business
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements are in place for the co-ordination of Government business during the summer recess. [36748]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The arrangements currently in place will continue to be operated throughout the summer recess.
    Mr. Hughes: Well, that is a consolation. Is it not true that, a year after the Deputy Prime Minister's appointment as the co-ordinator of Government business, he has no more chance of co-ordinating business now than when he started? In fact, he cannot even co-ordinate Ministers to sing to the same tune. The Paymaster General has resigned over a disagreement with the Government on Europe. Is it not true that Government policy is still the same muddle and the same mess? The Government have at least four views on Europe: this year, next year, some time and never. It is a shambles.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is refreshing to hear that there are four views in the Conservative party on this matter. My experience with the Liberal Democrats is that they have more than 20 views on every matter or policy—it depends on the time of day and the part of the country that one is in.
    Mr. Wilkinson: As it is likely that the European Court of Justice will rule against the United Kingdom and require imposition of the working time directive during the summer recess, would it not be better for Her Majesty's Government to come to the House in advance of that with contingency plans by which we can maintain our social chapter opt-out in this sphere and not have it imposed on us?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to clarify the position. As he and the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured an opt-out from the social chapter during the Maastricht negotiations. My right hon. Friend intends to make it absolutely clear to his colleagues in the European Union that that negotiation and deal must be

    5
    honoured. The fact is that my right hon. Friend will take up the matter during the intergovernmental conference, and that we are determined that it will be put right.
    Mr. Skinner: In view of the fact that Ministers will not be answering questions during the parliamentary recess, does not that mean that, by and large, Ministers—including the Prime Minister—will be more available to meet people outside the House and to pick up money on the side? Therefore, according to the market-force philosophy, if Ministers are more available to meet the public and important business people—who are gaining patronage and power, and probably knighthoods and all the rest of it—does it not follow that their price should fall? What is the price of Ministers who resign? Would not it follow that a Minister who has just resigned from the Government should get a better price than a Deputy Prime Minister who is a failure?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in market economics. He has given me an opportunity to reflect on the fact that, fairly recently, to meet the leader of the Labour party, one had to pay £430 a head to go to the Savoy hotel. It has been suggested in some national newspapers that it is rather more expensive to meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. but I think that the relative difference between the figures is a reflection of the quality of the two individuals.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will the Deputy Prime Minister bear in mind the need to continue co-ordinating Government policies to help restore Manchester's bomb-damaged city centre, and, in particular, to cover the extra costs of policing to maintain the very necessary security cordon?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend shares the House's deep interest in the opportunity that, tragically, has now been presented to our great city of Manchester. I have given an assurance that, on behalf of the Government, I shall do all that I properly and reasonably can. The announcement that we are to hold an international competition to attract the most exciting designs for the rebuilding of Manchester has attracted widespread public support from all political sectors and from the entire community. I am delighted that I should have had some small part to play in that.
    Mr. Prescott: Given the Deputy Prime Minister's extraordinary powers of presentation and co-ordination—which today enabled him to announce on television the resignation of a Minister before the Minister had even handed in his resignation to the Prime Minister—can the Mystic Meg of the Tory party tell the House whether anyone else will resign in the next 24 hours? Now that the Paymaster General has resigned, does not the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that that resignation shows that the Tory party is constitutionally unable to row together—in other words, that the Government are deeply divided and totally unfit to govern, and that it is time that they went?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is quite quaint that the right hon. Gentleman should raise issues of membership of the Cabinet, the shadow Cabinet, the Government—
    6
    or whatever it may be—on the very eve of the point at which a prominent member of the Labour party is to be kicked off the shadow Cabinet because she had the effrontery to follow the precedent set by her own leader.
    Dr. Spink: In view of the excellent news that we have heard today about funding for the millennium from business, will my right hon. Friend ensure that all good news—on jobs, on interest rates and on inflation—during the summer recess is disseminated effectively to the country?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. The economy is now moving into one of the most exciting expansionary phases that any of us can remember, and that good news—in jobs and in other opportunities—will increasingly flow through into people's pockets.
    As for the announcement that I was able to make today, I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that five major city institutions—Barclays, National Westminster, Midland, Lloyds and Abbey National—have today authorised me to say that they will be supporting the millennium festival at Greenwich. They are as determined as I am that there will be a clear statement in the festival about the pre-eminence of the City of London as a world financial centre in this and the next century.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of his policies of deregulation or industrial competitiveness. [36749]
    Mr. Freeman: Our policies to push forward deregulation and promote competitiveness are set out in the 1996 competitiveness White Paper, published last month. The White Paper has been widely welcomed by business, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Institute of Directors.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the inevitable consequence of the failure properly to regulate the destruction of not only competitiveness but the product itself? Is not that the core message that comes through the row over bovine spongiform encephalopathy?
    Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will look back to previous Labour Governments before 1979, he will find that the proposals then for draft legislation would not have affected the development of BSE, because they were to do with preventing salmonella. Developments in the rendering industry in the 1980s came about from a decision by the industry itself, not a failure to regulate or deregulate. The hon. Gentleman cannot in any way ascribe the tragic increase in BSE, and now its solution, to a failure to regulate or deregulate.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend make the assessment that educational performance is basic to increasing competitiveness, and that we have a long way to go in the primary sector? May we count on the speedy and extensive expansion of the network of literacy and

    7
    numeracy centres, which is one of the best initiatives that the Government have launched but which is as yet relatively unsung?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree. The skills audit, which was a parallel exercise to the competitiveness White Paper, was valuable and revealing. It shows how far this country has to go in not only primary and secondary education but higher and further education. I understand my hon. Friend's point and will certainly convey it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

    Policy Objectives
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his monitoring of the effectiveness of the Government's policy objectives. [36750]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): The Government aim at combining economic dynamism with constitutional stability and to continue—in stark contrast to the Labour party—our success in communicating those objectives.
    Mr. Miller: In light of the Minister's answer, what impact will the resignation of the Paymaster General have on the Government's ability to achieve their objectives? Will that stability emerge as a result of that resignation, or will it take more resignations before stability emerges?
    Mr. Willetts: The Government will carry on communicating their messages about economic success and continue protecting the British constitution from the Labour party's batty and damaging agenda.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's success in achieving their policy objectives was most recently emphasised by the huge inward investment in Wales announced in the last few days? Will we continue to see the successful implementation of Government economic policies, which could never have occurred if Labour's policies had been followed?
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. More than 40 per cent. of all American and Japanese investment in Europe comes to this country, which is a vote of confidence in the Government's economic policies.

    Competitiveness Unit
    Mr. Touhig: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the competitiveness unit in his Department. [36751]
    Mr. Willetts: As the recent competitiveness White Paper showed, we are doing well in world growth league tables, and our productivity is improving strongly. The best evidence of our success is our record of attracting inward investment—most recently, the Lucky Goldstar plans to invest £1.7 billion in manufacturing in Newport—the largest single inward investment ever in Europe.
    Mr. Touhig: The OECD's latest employment study warned that low pay and the lack of a highly skilled
    8
    work force are combining to constrain our economic competitiveness. What are the Government doing about that?
    Mr. Willetts: Our competitiveness White Paper shows that we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. In addition, within the Group of Seven we moved up from the fifth or sixth place on growth rates that we occupied in the sad days of the last Labour Government to third place in the 1980s. If the hon. Gentleman studies the White Paper, he will find the answer to his questions.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that low pay is not the problem with Britain, but that no pay, through increased unemployment, would be the problem if we proceeded down the road to ruin with the social chapter, minimum wage and 48-hour directive that would be heaped upon us if the Labour party were elected to power?
    Mr. Willetts: The pay of the average production line worker in this country compares very favourably with the pay that the equivalent worker would take home in Germany, France and Spain. The difference is that in Britain we have kept a grip on the extra costs imposed by Government, whereas in Germany, France and Spain, because of the social chapter, the extra costs imposed by Government are much higher. That is why Britain has lower unemployment.
    Mr. Caborn: In view of what the Minister said about the OECD and the White Paper—which drew heavily on statistics from the OECD—does he agree with the OECD's statement that there is a link between our declining national competitiveness and the growth in wage inequality and job insecurity?
    Mr. Willetts: I do not accept that there has been any decline in national competitiveness. The evidence assembled in successive competitiveness White Papers shows precisely that there has been a clear improvement in our position on growth per head compared with other advanced western countries. Of course, one in three of all those leaving school now go on to higher education, as against one in eight under the last Labour Government, which is significant evidence of how educational standards are improving.

    European Union
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his Department's role in the co-ordination of Government Departments in respect of publicising the impact of EU membership. [36752]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has overall responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's policy towards the European Union, including the presentation of that policy.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: On the day of the tragic resignation of a very sincere and truthful Minister, will the Government consider whether, in the national interest—and bearing in mind the deep divides on Europe in both parties—it might be best to resolve the issue by letting

    9
    the people decide for themselves, through a referendum, which way they wish to proceed in Europe? Would not that be the best way of co-ordinating policy and accepting the simple fact that the country belongs to the people and not to the political parties?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that there should be a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, which is how I understood his question, the answer is that that would not be compatible with Government policy. It is clearly the Government's policy that, in the over-arching and overall interests of this country, it is fundamental that we be a leading member of the European Union.
    Mr. Dalyell: What can the Government or the Community do to publicise the guidelines on airport safety and the safety of aircraft, which were formulated after Lockerbie—and which, incidentally, were eloquently outlined in The Sunday Telegraph—so that at least some of the basic principles are implemented, which has not been the case so far? That question is especially relevant in view of the dreadful events in Spain and on the TWA aircraft.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises the latest tragic event in civil aviation. As yet, we do not know the precise causes of that tragedy. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Gentleman's continuing concern in the context of the Lockerbie disaster.
    Mr. Beith: How many Ministers are there left who share the view of the former Paymaster General about the Government's policy on a single currency? How many are there left who think that Britain's participation in the single currency is a genuine option? Are there enough of them to co-ordinate it?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has judged the Government's behaviour in the context of Liberal Democrat policy. The Government's White Paper has clearly set out our policy on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. We have made wide-ranging statements on the fundamental issues relating to Europe. The Government's policy is perfectly clear. If a Minister cannot accept that policy, the honourable course is to resign.

    Policy Objectives
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he next plans to review the presentation of Government policy objectives as they relate to his responsibilities. [36753]
    Mr. Willetts: We regularly review our presentation of Government policies—the presentation of successes such as rising living standards, higher educational standards and a fall in the crime rate.
    Mr. Hanson: When the Minister next takes the opportunity to review the presentation of Government policies, will he rule out their presentation to groups of business men in return for £100,000 donations to the Conservative party?
    Mr. Willetts: I would be interested to hear whether the Labour party will rule out giving trade unions a clear say in its policy in return for direct contributions to party funds. Labour is the party that is funded by outside interests.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy will be firmly to oppose the London Underground strike that is causing such misery to my constituents, the rest of the people of London and the economy? Has my hon. Friend noted that the Leader of the Opposition has made a feeble attempt to oppose the strike, and that the deputy Leader is said to have been so annoyed that he had to be scraped off the wall?
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is quite right: we unreservedly condemn both the tube strike and the Post Office mail strike. The Labour party could do with rather better co-ordination on the matter.
    Mr. Pike: Do the Minister and the Government continue to review the effect of the abolition of the wages councils, and the increased poverty and low pay that many people in Lancashire have had to suffer as a result of that policy?
    Mr. Willetts: I am sure that the abolition of the wages councils is one of the many reasons why this country enjoys a much lower unemployment rate than countries on the Continent. If people are in low-paid jobs, it is much better to help them out with family credit than to introduce a minimum wage and ensure that they have no jobs at all.

    Deregulation
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what amount of time he spent on promoting the policy of deregulation in the last month. [36547]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Promoting the need for fewer, better and simpler regulations is a constant theme of my daily work.
    Mr. Marshall: What a wonderful tune.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the threat to jobs in the United Kingdom comes from the deregulated economies of south-east Asia? Does he agree that those tiger economies have prospered while jobs have disappeared in the regulated economies of western Europe? Does not the threat to jobs come from increased regulation in the form of, for instance, the social chapter and a national minimum wage—the new dangers from new Labour?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I entirely agree. Moreover, the privatisation programme that we have introduced has undoubtedly contributed to a great surge in productivity in British industry, with all the growth implications that that has. All the steps that we have taken to make ours one of the fastest-growing economies in western Europe, with the highest proportion of the work force employed, should be seen in the context of the Labour party's opposition to all of them.
    Mr. Olner: While the Deputy Prime Minister is contemplating that, will he not tell the truth—that more regulatory legislation has been introduced under the present Government than any deregulatory legislation that he has ever introduced? Surely the truth is that there is now more regulation governing small business people than there was before.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is possible to discuss such matters in sensationalised headline terms, and to give an entirely false impression of what has happened. If people recognise that, in order to complete the single market, we have had to harmonise and regulate 400 elements of an agenda that was designed to create the greatest expansion of trade opportunities that the country has ever seen, they will realise that it is often necessary to regulate to create a freer climate and a more harmonious background. If they also take into account the fact that most regulations that pass through the House have nothing to do with small businesses, and are often nothing more than measures to update or uprate existing regulations, they will realise that newspaper headlines can be constructed based on the flimsiest straw.

    Competitiveness
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to improve competitiveness through increasing the availability and accessibility of information technology. [36755]
    Mr. Willetts: The Government's plans are set out in the recently published competitiveness White Paper and include the DTI's information society initiative, which is providing £35 million of new money to help firms capitalise on new technology, and the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that a Green Paper will be published in the autumn on the Government's plans for information technology.
    Mrs. Campbell: When the Deputy Prime Minister finally launches his "IT for All" strategy, perhaps he will remember that he pinched his best ideas from the city and county councils in Cambridge which, as a result of a successful public-private partnership, provide free Internet access through public libraries, council offices and citizens advice bureaux
    Mr. Willetts: I welcome what is going on in Cambridge, which shows what can be done to spread information technology. Part of the secret of Cambridge's success—including, for example, the Cambridge interactive television trial—has everything to do with the favourable environment that the Government have created for cable television, which is threatened by the Labour party's proposed sweetheart deal with BT.
    Mr. Jessel: Is information technology available and accessible in the Treasury? Can my hon. Friend comment on the position in the Treasury of Miss Helen Goodman, who at first denied and later admitted that she was seeking to become a Labour parliamentary candidate, showing that nothing that she has said can be believed, including her denial of knowing anything of the leaked documents that she had helped to prepare?
    Mr. Willetts: That is a matter for internal Treasury management, which is considering the position.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Sudan
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral assistance the Government (i) gave to Sudan in 1995–96 and (ii) plans to give to Sudan in 1996–97. [36801]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): While we have given no aid to the Government of Sudan since 1991, last year—1995–96—we spent an estimated £6 million bilaterally and in 1995 committed more than £2 million through multilateral agencies, including the European Union, on the emergency and short-term rehabilitation needs of the Sudanese people. We are ready to address such needs again this year as they arise.
    Mr. Hunter: In the light of the linkage, which the Government sometimes stress, between overseas aid and civil liberty and human rights, will my right hon. Friend make an assessment of the situation in that respect in Sudan? To what extent is it influencing the Government's overseas aid programme there?
    Mr. Hanley: As I said, the human rights situation in Sudan is extremely serious, but we do not give aid to the Sudanese Government. We are very concerned about human rights in Sudan. It was again condemned at the recent United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Allegations of slavery and genocide have, of course, attracted serious attention. We are also concerned about policies to prevent freedom of speech and the pursuit of Islamisation by force, which are equally unacceptable. The economic situation is dire, and life for ordinary Sudanese people is extremely hard.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of the GATT on agriculture in the poorest countries. [36782]
    Mr. Hanley: In 1994, the Overseas Development Administration commissioned from the Overseas Development Institute a study on the impact of the GATT Uruguay round agreement on developing countries, including studying the effect on agriculture.
    Mr. Corbyn: Would the Minister care to look carefully through the studies that his Department has produced and those conducted by Oxfam? Does he not recognise that, since the GATT agreement, there has been an increase in the export of cereals and other products from the EU and north America, heavily subsidised by taxpayers and often causing enormous ecological damage in both those areas, while farmers in third-world countries who do not enjoy such governmental support are being forced to compete with products whose prices they simply cannot match, and are therefore being pushed out of business? Is that not an

    13
    example of GATT working in the interests of the richest producers in the richest countries, to the detriment of the poorest farmers in the poorest parts of the world?
    Mr. Hanley: I believe that lowering trade barriers, making more efficient use of resources and protecting the environment go hand in hand. The best way to tackle major environmental problems is through multilateral agreements, not unilateral trade actions. The World Trade Organisation is considering whether any further clarification of that is needed in international trade rules, although internationally agreed safeguards are in place to help to deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The decisions commit us to examine the impact of agricultural settlements on countries that are net importers of food and to take appropriate action.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Do not countless impartial studies demonstrate that the common agricultural policy of the European Union is extremely inimical to the interests of primary agricultural producing countries overseas and is a mechanism for their impoverishment? Would it not be a better use of taxpayers' money for Her Majesty's Government to announce to their partners at the intergovernmental conference that they intend not just to reform the CAP but to start its dismantlement by withdrawing?
    Mr. Hanley: Although I agree with my hon. Friend that a reform of the CAP is necessary, I feel that the United Kingdom's membership of the EU helps to influence the Union, and I believe that our share of the EU's aid policy and our influence in it are desirable for poorer countries.
    Miss Lestor: Does the Minister agree that there must be coherence between our aid and trade policies, including GATT? Bearing in mind the recent visit of Nelson Mandela, his tribute to those British people who campaigned for his release and the Prime Minister's promise to support South Africa in its trade negotiations with the EU, what proposals do the Government have to ensure that development objectives are high on the negotiating agenda, and that a realistic long-term timetable for reform—covering at least 10 years, as has been requested—is introduced? Will he ensure that all sectors of the South African economy are considered—particularly the health, housing and education, sectors in which there is urgent need for investment?
    Mr. Hanley: On behalf of the Government, I thank the hon. Lady for her years of service on the Opposition Front Bench. I thank her also for her constant courtesy and for her great dedication to the cause that we are discussing. She will be sadly missed. This may, of course, be my last time at the Dispatch Box also. We have yet to see.
    Mr. Prescott: Oh!
    Mr. Hanley: One never knows, John.
    As to the main matter, the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lester) is quite right, and we must seriously consider these matters. The Overseas Development Institute's recent report on the effect of the Uruguay round on developing countries and agriculture discovered that exports from the Association of South-East Asian Nations
    14
    countries and India were expected to gain from the reduction in tariffs in OECD and other developing countries. But African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—the least-developed countries—may lose the equivalent of approximately 2 per cent. of export earnings in the short term, due to increased crude import prices and the loss of marginal preference to other LDCs for certain goods. We are looking at the report, and we will certainly consider what she said, as it is extremely important.

    Third World (Development Projects)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the United Kingdom representatives on the board of the World bank concerning its policies for financing development projects in the third world. [36783]
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is also the UK alternate governor for the World bank, and her officials have frequent consultations with the United Kingdom executive director and his office.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister recall that, four weeks ago today, I inquired about the policies of the International Monetary Fund in respect of comparable investments? He kindly said that he would make inquiries, particularly with regard to the prejudicial effect of any of the IMF's conditions on Rwanda and former Yugoslavia that may lead to a stoking up of strife in those areas. If such allegations by the debt crisis network have any substance, will representations be made not only to our representative on the IMF, but to the World Bank on comparable activities in that organisation?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sending me the two appendices to which we referred the last time we discussed the issue. I read them and I have replied to him in a letter which he may by now have received. I have put a copy, as I pledged, in the Library. The G7 summit in Lyon at the end of June was a further step in the process of reaching agreement on the multilateral debt initiative. A copy of the communiqué has also been placed in the Library. We hope that final agreement can be reached at the World bank-International Monetary Fund meeting in October. We are working hard with our partners to that end. The British Government have written off the aid debts of 31 of the world's poorest countries, with a value of more than £1.2 billion. All our aid is now on grant terms. We are taking the lead in pressing for solutions to the debt burden of the poorest countries.
    Sir John Stanley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the World bank's valuable initiative to make a line of $200 million available for micro-loans to be targeted on the poorest of the world's poor? Given the critical importance to the very poorest of access to credit, will he give serious positive consideration to launching a similar initiative in the context of the British Government's bilateral aid programme?
    Mr. Hanley: Again, my right hon. Friend is right. I am delighted that the World bank has offered $500 million from its net income this year as its contribution to the multilateral debt initiative, with the prospect of

    15
    substantially more in succeeding years. The IMF and the World bank have identified some eight to 20 countries as candidates for the initiative, which applies only to highly indebted, poor countries that have demonstrated commitment to economic reform.

    Burundi
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in aid projects in Burundi. [36785]
    Mr. Hanley: Britain has committed nearly £8 million in humanitarian assistance to Burundi since October 1993, including £2.9 million through our share of European Union contributions. We are ready to provide further assistance as needs arise.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister accept that a lot more may be needed in Burundi if we are to prevent a repetition of the tragedy of Rwanda? Has he seen the recent comments of Julius Nyerere, the former President of Tanzania, following his investigation in Burundi to try to find a resolution? Does he accept that Julius Nyerere suggests that the EU and the United Nations should become significantly involved in the internal affairs of Burundi and that otherwise the slaughter of 500,000 people that happened in Rwanda is likely to be repeated?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right to be deeply concerned about the recent deterioration in the political and security situation in Burundi. We read only this morning in the newspapers of the massacre of 300 Tutsis and of expulsions. It is a difficult and distressing situation. We condemn politically motivated violence, from whatever quarter. The solution to the problems requires the commitment of Burundi's leaders and the involvement of the international community, as he said.
    We continue to work closely with the UN Secretary-General and his special representatives in the region and we strongly support the international efforts at preventive diplomacy, led by ex-President Nyerere. We contribute to the costs of his mission. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary of State and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development met Julius Nyerere in London on 2 May to discuss ways forward. He recognises the immensity of his task and that durable solutions will require the agreement of the parties in Burundi.
    Madam Speaker: That was a long answer—almost a statement.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the Minister agree that the World Service was particularly important in the transmission of accurate information during the tragedy in Rwanda? Would he confirm, as he has not yet done, despite two questions being asked, that the funding for that World Service network came largely from the voluntary organisations? Does he agree that the World Service needs to be supported and enhanced if it is to assist in tragedies such as that in Burundi?
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is about time the hon. Lady came to the substantive question on the Order Paper.
    16
    If the Minister wishes to answer, I think that the hon. Lady was referring to the World Service as it is received in Burundi. Is that correct?
    Miss Nicholson: Yes.
    Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to be able to say that the World Service will continue to be received throughout the world. Its efficacy in Africa is without question. The World Service carries an extremely important role in Burundi and further afield, and the Government support it—to the tune of more than 50 per cent. in real terms since we came to power in 1979.

    Overseas Aid (Distribution Criteria)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have occurred in the criteria governing the distribution of overseas aid in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [36786]
    Mr. Hanley: There have been no changes in the criteria governing the allocation of bilateral aid; those remain the same as in my answer of 25 March, Official Report, 25 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 416. They are the needs of the country concerned and the effectiveness with which aid can be used. A number of other factors, including good government, the commitment of recipients to political and economic reform and traditional ties with Britain, are also taken into account. There are also our obligations to the multilateral organisations of which we are a member.
    Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate the Minister's response. Agencies and people in receiving countries are concerned that the Government appear to be making changes, for example in some of the approaches being made to help countries in need. When agencies have worries, will the Minister try to erase any concerns that they express?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his question. Obviously, aid cannot be ossified—either the level of aid or the recipients at any one time. One has to look to the needs of countries as they change. We maintain a substantial aid budget. It was more than £2 billion in 1996–97 and we were the sixth largest donor in the 1995 calendar year. We concentrate on the poorest countries, particularly those in Africa and Asia. They need aid, and it is therefore crucial that our bilateral programme concentrates on them.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Statisticians
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many statisticians were employed by the National Audit Office in each of the past three years. [36761]
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The number of staff with degrees in mathematics and statistics in the National Audit Office at end of June was 28 in 1994 and 30 in

    17
    1995 and 1996. Full-time professional statisticians or operational researchers in post at the end of June numbered six in 1994, eight in 1995 and 11 in 1996.
    Mr. Steen: That shows that the National Audit Office, which does a splendid job, is increasing its staff and the number of people on the public payroll. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of the Audit Commission charging the people it audits sufficient money so that it can become self-financing? [HON. MEMBERS: "National Audit Office."] I understand that point. Or, it could contract out to the private sector, so that it does not need an increased number of civil servants. The problem is that it is constantly increasing its bureaucracy and costing the taxpayer more.
    Sir Peter Hordern: What has happened is that the National Audit Office is employing many more professional people. That does not mean that the overall number of people employed there is increasing. The work of the National Audit Office is certainly increasing—not least because of the number of inquiries from hon. Members—and that is wholly to be welcomed. Hon. Members are much more interested in the activities of the National Audit Office, which explains the small increase in the estimates for the next two years. The House may be interested to know that the report of the commission into the activities of the National Audit Office will be available this week.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is not money spent on statisticians a good investment? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the example of the 1980s, when the Government reduced the number of statisticians, which led to Chancellor Lawson making some disastrous economic decisions from which we are probably still suffering?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I do not know that the National Audit Office goes in much for economic decisions. Perhaps it is just as well that it does not. All that I can say is that, the more professional the National Audit Office is, the better it will be for the taxpayer and for the House.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

    Know-how Fund
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the impact of the know-how fund.[36787]
    Mr. Hanley: The know-how fund is making a substantial contribution to economic and political reform. There are many examples of its successful impact in the annual report for 1995–96, which was published on 15 July. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for emphasising the success of the know-how fund. Does he agree that our improving relations with the emerging democracies of central Europe will be fully strengthened only when those countries become members of the European Union and contribute to that body?
    Mr. Hanley: Certainly enlargement is part of our ambition for them.
    Mr. Dalyell: What help is being given to deal with the problems of the crumbling sarcophagus at Chernobyl?
    Mr. Hanley: I am sorry; could the hon. Gentleman repeat the question? I did not hear it properly.
    Mr. Dalyell: What help is being given to deal with the crumbling sarcophagus at Chernobyl, which is creating a real nuclear danger?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for repeating his question. I do not know the detail about the matter. I shall have to find out from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who has responsibility for Ukraine. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him have the answer.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Religious Education
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergy on the commission's payroll are currently estimated to undertake the conduct of acts of worship or the teaching of religious education in schools; and if he will make a statement. [36756]
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): This is not a matter for the commissioners. They are not directly responsible in this area, and I am afraid that we do not have access to the relevant statistics, but I understand that the number is considerable.
    Mr. Greenway: If a considerable number of clergy already teach in schools, could not more do so? Perhaps the Dean of Lincoln and his associates would be better employed in doing that. Is it not important that the teaching of right and wrong should come first in the Church's priorities and that clergy and bishops should take more of an interest in their schools than they do?
    Mr. Alison: I sympathise with what my hon. Friend says, but as he will know, because he is an ex-headmaster, that, for clergy to take part in school assemblies, they have to be invited by the headmaster. If they are likely to be competent and helpful, they will be invited. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that many dioceses, including Lincoln, run in-service courses as part of their programme of continuing ministerial education so that local clergy are fit to take school assemblies—no mean undertaking, as my hon. Friend knows.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the merits of ordained persons conducting services of worship in schools—clearly, denominational schools—that category of person would be regarded by many pupils as having a vested interest? Does he further agree that it is highly desirable that most religious

    19
    education be conducted by lay persons? Does he also agree that religion cannot be taught—it is something for consideration by the person concerned?
    Mr. Alison: I entirely accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Religious education is not an occasion for proselytisation. The participation of lay contributors to RE is of fundamental importance. Many lay parents of children in schools are drawn into RE and school worship to assist precisely in that way.

    Ethical Investment
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what policies are followed by the commissioners in respect of ethical investment. [36757]
    Mr. Alison: It is the commissioners' policy not to invest in any company of which the main business is in armaments, gambling, breweries and distilleries, tobacco or newspapers. I am arranging for a leaflet setting out our ethical policy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Banks: That is very interesting. Does that mean that the 30 per cent. rule still applies, whereby the commissioners are prepared to invest in companies that have only 30 per cent. of their production in arms or some of the other areas that he has just listed? If that is so, does it mean that, provided that we behave ourselves for 70 per cent. of the time, the other 30 per cent. we can have a bit of slap and tickle?
    While I have the right hon. Gentleman there, and as I have been such a strong supporter of the Church Commissioners over the years, is there any chance of his making sure that they offer up a few prayers for me for the shadow Cabinet elections? I suspect that I am going to need some divine intervention this year.
    Mr. Alison: I think that the rules guiding us on ethical investment would deter us from offering any prayers concerning the shadow Cabinet elections. As for the 30 per cent. figure, the hon. Gentleman is a little wide of the mark. If a company's investment in armaments is as high as 30 per cent., the Church Commissioners are uneasy about investing in it. That is why we are in continual dialogue with GEC about the level of its armaments production.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman, before he becomes holier than thou, which I know is not characteristic of him, to remember that many of those companies pay substantial taxation to the Chancellor. He and I should be very careful, when our next salary cheque comes along at the end of July—it will probably be slightly bigger than
    20
    previously—to ensure that it is ethically acceptable, because some of it may come from those companies about which the Church Commissioners have scruples.
    Mr. John Marshall: Why do the Church Commissioners consider that it is immoral to invest in the Daily Mail?
    Mr. Alison: The rule about not investing in newspapers exists purely so that the Church Commissioners do not take sides in the political involvement or the political sympathies of any newspaper. By dint of not investing in newspapers, we do not invest in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent or any others whose politics are different and about whom there might be conflict in Church circles as to the investment made.

    Properties and Land
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to increase the revenue from properties and land held by the Church Commissioners. [36758]
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners seek to invest in quality properties which will secure a reliable and growing flow of income, attracting commercial and agricultural tenants whose businesses appear sound and likely to prosper.
    The commissioners' property portfolio achieved a total return of 19.5 per cent. in 1995, which compared very favourably with industry benchmarks.
    Mr. Flynn: I make a similar plea to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), because my case in the shadow Cabinet election is even more deserving.
    How much of the £228 million increase in the value of the Church Commissioners' portfolio in agricultural land arose from the fact that they allow blood sports on their land? Why do they allow the pursuit of defenceless animals for fun? Do they believe that Christian charity should be limited to one species only?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman must have a very high view of the value of foxes and of the number of foxes that there might be on the land, to work out that that could have a significant effect on the property values of our agricultural holdings. We leave it, and have always left it, by tradition, to the personal views of our tenants as to whether they ban hunting or shooting on their land or whether they regard it as acceptable; but all the blood sports must be conducted within the statutory framework of accepted standards for cruelty to animals.

Postal Services
3.32 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I want to make a statement on the disruption of the postal services nationally as a result of recent and planned future industrial action by employees of the Royal Mail. First, Madam Speaker, I apologise to you and to the House for the fact that news of the Government's intentions was inadvertently disclosed in another place last Thursday.
In the past four weeks there have been three 24-hour national postal strikes, which have caused significant inconvenience and disruption to businesses and to the public throughout the country. In the Government's view, it is unacceptable that the country should be faced with the threat of a series of further strikes in the coming weeks. These strikes are unnecessary and damaging. They harm the industry and the work force, but the real and immediate victims are the customers; and the Government can no longer stand aside.
In the light of the Communication Workers Union announcement on 11 July that the strikes in late June were to be followed by a series of four further strikes, the first of which took place last Thursday, consultations were initiated with the Post Office on 12 July about the implications of a suspension of the statutory monopoly on the delivery of letters for less than £1. I am now consulting the Post Office on a specific proposal to suspend its monopoly for an initial period of one month with effect from 26 July, unless before then the CWU calls off its strike action. If it becomes clear that disruption of the postal services is likely to continue beyond that currently announced, I would propose a further suspension of the monopoly for three months.
The resolution of this dispute is a matter for the Post Office and the union, and I am pleased that they are now talking to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. In these circumstances, it is wholly inappropriate that the planned series of strikes should continue. The Government are concerned to protect the public interest, which is why we now contemplate the suspension of the Post Office's monopoly. If that happens, it will be solely because the union persists with these damaging strikes—strikes which are wrong for consumers, wrong for the economy, and above all wrong for the postal workers themselves. I invite the whole House to condemn the strikes.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Is the Secretary of State aware that most customers will see straight through this piece of transparent dishonesty and will recognise that the Government are trying, yet again, to pursue the folly of Post Office privatisation by any means or on any excuse—despite the fact that it is so unpopular with the public that only 60 out of 16,000 supported the Government's proposals on the last occasion?
The Secretary of State has tried to imply that this action has been forced on him by the announcement of the continuing dispute; but had not the CWU already made public a reduction in its planned action from a 36 to a 24-hour stoppage, and an agreement with the employers to seek conciliation at ACAS, before the Secretary of State made his announcement? He says that he is pleased
22
that the union is now talking to ACAS. Is it not true that it was talking to ACAS before the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement?
Did the Secretary of State rush to make the announcement because he was afraid that the dispute might be settled before he had a chance to use it as an excuse? Is it true that the union and the employer had been with the conciliator for only one hour before the Secretary of State made his intervention?
Does not the pattern of this announcement reveal the right hon. Gentleman's real agenda? He apologised to the House for the inadvertent disclosure of an answer in another place. Will he admit that he told this House that he intended to consult on whether to lift the monopoly; whereas within less than 24 hours, in an answer in another place, he revealed that he was consulting on whether to lift the monopoly on 26 July for one month, with an option on a further period of three months? That made it quite clear that the decision had already been made.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman have a statutory obligation to consult the Post Office; and is not that the only reason why he announced consultation rather than action? Did he in fact consult the Post Office in advance? Is he aware that the Post Office is saying that it is not appropriate for this action to be taken unless there is a continuation of the dispute?
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Post Office is saying that this is not the course of action to take, because lifting its monopoly threatens the universal service at a uniform price, threatens the Royal Mail as we know it, and hence threatens post offices as we know them, with all that that implies for the rural community?
Mr. Lang: I suppose that represents progress of a sort. When I opened my Sunday newspapers I discovered that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was saying on this matter:
"I have nothing whatsoever to say".
In this, she was at odds with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), a member of Unison, who called for the Underground strike to go to binding arbitration. His colleague as employment spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—ironically also a member of Unison—contradicted him by saying that there was no question of forcing arbitration on the unions. Meanwhile, the deputy leader of the Labour party was said to be being scraped off the wall. When he denied that, we had to settle for the idea that he was throwing the teacups around. The rest of the shadow Cabinet coyly claimed suddenly to be bound by collective responsibility.
The fact is that we have heard a great sponsored silence on industrial disputes from the Labour party, and the right hon. Lady today has done nothing to change that situation. We listened to hear her condemn the strikes, but not a word of condemnation passed her lips. She referred to transparent dishonesty. I must ask the House: where is the honesty in a party which pretends to be new Labour, with new policies and friends with everyone, yet which fails to condemn strikes that damage the public interest?
The right hon. Lady referred to privatisation, which has nothing to do with this industrial dispute, and she talked about a reduction in support for the strike. The number of workers who are defying their union and going back to work has doubled since the first strike in June.

23
I welcome the fact—and I welcomed it last weekend—that the unions and the Post Office are both talking to ACAS. There is no question of a decision already having been made, as the right hon. Lady suggests. I have made it clear in all correspondence and statements that our final decision depends on the conclusion of consultations with the Post Office, which are taking place at present, on the specific proposal of lifting the monopoly for one month from 26 July if the strikes go ahead.
I will consider the Post Office view when I receive it, but it is time that the House came together to condemn strikes in public services of this type. We heard not a word of condemnation from the Labour party—not a word of sympathy or understanding for the disruption to the public interest, to business and to members of the public. Is the Labour party indifferent, or is it in the grip of its trade union bosses? People outside will see the new dangers attaching to new Labour.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Points of order are taken at the end of statements.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the issue at the centre of this dispute is the management's attempt to introduce team working both to improve productivity and to devolve decision-making and responsibility to individual workers? Does not that fact show how luddite the unions still are in their attitude to industrial relations?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. Substantial improvements in productivity could be made in the postal services, and the Post Office is seeking to introduce them. It has made good progress in the negotiations, which is another reason for condemning the movement of the unions to strikes. My hon. Friend is right to identify streaming and team working as the two issues that most concern the negotiations at present.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Does the Minister recognise that the Post Office and its workers have achieved record productivity and profits already, and that one of the root causes of the strike is the fact that the Government have decided to take away twice the profits that they had been going to take away through the external financing limit? Should not so important an issue as the Post Office monopoly be reviewed in a strategic and long-term way, rather than in this tactical way? Does he think that the private sector will be capable of responding on such a short-term basis when it does not have the infrastructure to do so? Is not the true motive for the Government intervention in a strike, after years of saying that that was not the role of Government, a combination of pique that they were unable to get privatisation through the House and pre-electioneering tactics?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is talking utter nonsense. Last year, profits fell by £50 million. That underlines the fact that the Post Office must continue to build on the improved productivity that has already been
24
achieved and to which I have paid tribute. Substantial further productivity gain is to be had, not least as a result of the KPMG report. The Post Office is right to press for the modernisation of working conditions, and the union is not doing itself or the public any service by abusing the Post Office's monopoly.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the rumours that the difficulties in the negotiations originated in Glasgow and Liverpool, cities not notable for Conservative representation?
Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is ahead of me with his information. I have not heard that the difficulties were confined to that, but the union's writ runs across the country and, as I have said, support for the strike among union members has diminished substantially since the first strike.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the rural areas that he and I represent will suffer most by the lifting of the monopoly? How can he face his electorate at the next election when he represents a constituency where the universal provision at a uniform rate is the only way of ensuring an efficient service in our rural areas?
Mr. Lang: No one is contemplating the abandonment of the universal service obligation, but how can the hon. Gentleman face his constituents when he supports a strike that denies the collection or delivery of postal services not just in rural areas such as his, but throughout the country?
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the Government's action to protect mail users and the ultimate viability of the Post Office. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is typical of the craven cowardice of the Labour party that it refuses to protect mail users by condemning the strike? Does he also agree that it is now time for the Government to consider lifting the monopoly on mail services so that they can compete properly with overseas interests in providing a service for the 21st century?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend raises a broader issue that can be considered only in the long term. It is important to maintain the universal service obligation at a standard price, which is central to the continuing delivery of mail. Those issues would have to be considered against that obligation. In the meantime, it is important that these unnecessary industrial disputes, which have recourse far too easily to strike action, are condemned by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Miss Kate Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is an empty gesture to threaten to lift the monopoly? Does he realise the repercussions that that would have, particularly on rural areas? Does he not know that the dispute is almost settled? There is agreement on pay and working conditions, and only a minor amount remains to be agreed. He should not stand there posturing but should sit back and hope that the dispute will be settled. He should not interfere with genuine negotiations that are going on at this moment at ACAS.
Mr. Lang: I hope that the hon. Lady is right and that the dispute is almost over. If that is so, why does she not join me in asking the unions to call off their damaging series of strikes?
Mr. James Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this unnecessary strike, which appears to have much to do with a power struggle within the union, will lead to a loss of business, through the use of faxes, E-mail and other modern technologies, which may never be recovered?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. As I said in my statement, the union is damaging the interests of its own work force. Since the last postal strike, there has been a substantial development of E-mail, fax machines and other means of communication. Every time that there is a serious dispute in the postal service, the Post Office loses substantial business, some of which never returns.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the President of the Board of Trade answer the factual point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? Is it true that the unions had been at ACAS for only an hour when he made the announcement from the Front Bench?
Mr. Lang: I understand that the first ACAS involvement was on 17 July—last Wednesday—and the second was last Friday. The unions and the Post Office are speaking separately to ACAS this afternoon.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: In making this welcome statement, is not my right hon. Friend being a little unfair on the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? How can she be expected to take the side of business and the people of this country when later this week she will need the votes of all the trade union-paid poodles to elect her back to the shadow Cabinet?
Mr. Lang: That may be why the Labour party is being so coy about this matter. But the public have a right to know the Opposition's policy on industrial relations. If the spectre of the car park meeting, secondary picketing, secondary strikes, flying pickets and closed shops is to be resurrected, the electorate should know about it, and the sooner the better.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State recognise that his statement will be regarded, and rightly so, as an act of sheer spite against the unions? He clearly took every opportunity to put the employer's side. Some Conservatives—the Secretary of State may be one—would like to see strikes in the public sector banned. Is it not a fundamental right in a democracy to tell one's employer that one does not want to go into work and that one has a right to strike? That is the point that we used to make against dictatorships. What about that right in Britain?
Mr. Lang: I am not taking the employer's point of view. I am not taking a side in this dispute. I am simply taking the side of the public interest, and it is time that those who operate a monopoly service recognised that they must take seriously their obligation to the public.
Mr. Douglas French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposed suspension of the postal monopoly will be a welcome relief to the businesses that rely on the postal service to keep them in business—that is, for the receipt of orders and the execution of orders? His swift action to bring the matter to a head will be welcomed.
Mr. Lang: No one would pretend that the suspension of the monopoly will ensure that the service will continue in the way that the Post Office has operated it—this will be a second-best solution. However, if it enables at least some mail to get through, it will be better than nothing at all.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that this is a dispute, leading to a strike, in which the members of the union have a powerful case? Is he aware that they are trying to get rid of Saturday working? The Secretary of State, as a Member of Parliament, has voted in the House for Members to have a four-day week, to have Friday off, for 10 weeks a year. In this day and age, surely the people who deliver the mail have the right to a five-day week. I believe that they have a powerful case. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that a ballot was decided by Conservative Members of Parliament in debates in the House? It is a moderate union, putting a moderate case. We are beginning to see the real face of the Tory Government—Hitler and Mussolini banned strikes, which is what the Government would like to do.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. The strike is not about Saturday working—it is about team working as an improved mechanism for sorting mail in the post offices, and about how much first-class mail should be delivered in the first delivery and how much should be delivered in the second delivery. These issues could easily be resolved by negotiation and good will on both sides, without the need to damage the public interest.
Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country will regret the decision of the Post Office workers to take industrial action? Does he agree that today's decision may turn out to be an historic one? Perhaps it is time that this country addressed the question whether essential workers in the Post Office, on the tubes and in other areas should have the right to strike, or whether it might be better to replace this outmoded and outdated weapon by a negotiating board and arbitration.
Mr. Lang: I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, and he has expressed a point of view that is held in some quarters. The armed services, the police, prison officers and merchant seamen when at sea are not permitted to strike. These are issues where there are difficulties of definition, of enforcement and of the international law and our obligations under the International Labour Organisation. I have noted what my hon. Friend said, and I have no doubt that the debate will continue.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Government effectively own the Post Office and get about £400

27
million profit from its activities. Which other company, when faced with a dispute in its own organisation, would seek to destroy the organisation? That is precisely what the lifting of this monopoly is all about.
Post Office workers are not the best paid workers in the world. We owe them more than perhaps any other group of workers for the services that they give us as Members of Parliament. We should be supporting them. They will see the lifting of the monopoly as nothing more than stinking blackmail from a stinking Government.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman underlines the fact that the Post Office and the union have an interest in avoiding having the monopoly lifted, which can easily be achieved by the union calling off its industrial disputes—they will be far more damaging to the Post Office and to its staff in the longer term.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: How long does my right hon. Friend think it will take for another U-turn to be performed by the Leader of the Opposition in opposing this strike and splattering his deputy back on that wall?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend tempts me to stray into the private grief of the Labour party. I know that there are shadow Cabinet elections this week. I suspect that union sponsorship affects most of the Labour Members' attitudes in these matters.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As the Secretary of State has intervened in this industrial dispute, will he tell us whether it is now the attitude of Her Majesty's Government that, where workers have a ballot to decide their industrial action, they should be overridden by the particular interests of the Conservative party?
Mr. Lang: The fact that the trade union had a ballot to embark on this series of industrial disputes—a ballot that happened as a result of legislation introduced by this Conservative Government, which has caused industrial relations to improve beyond recognition—does not prevent the union from calling off the strike now. It is to protect the public interest that we are urging the union to call off the strike.
Mr. David Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real threat to the future of the Royal Mail comes from these strikes, which are costing the Royal Mail millions of pounds and threatening jobs—not merely among people employed by the postal service, but among those in companies that rely on a regular and punctual mail service for the future of their business?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why this country's economic performance has improved so dramatically in recent years is the dramatic improvement in our industrial relations. Eternal vigilance is required by us to ensure that the improved industrial relations record that we have achieved is not forfeited, and that it does not fall prey to the Labour party.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not this about dividing up the Post Office, undermining it and
28
reaching a situation in which privatisation is achieved in the end? Once the Government get their teeth into something they never let it go, despite the strength of public opinion. Everyone should be aware of that, and ensure that we do not accept privatisation.
Mr. Lang: This dispute is not about privatisation, but about the abuse of a public monopoly. Where there is a monopoly there are obligations. The union should be more aware of its obligations to the public interest before calling these damaging strikes.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The President of the Board of Trade is to be congratulated on his actions so far, but will he now meet industry representatives to consider a permanent reduction in the monopoly—from £1 to 30p, for example? That would certainly help companies, such as Document Interlink in my constituency, to provide a first-class service for urgent business mail.
Mr. Lang: That is an issue for consideration at a later date. I think that my hon. Friend would agree with me that the current priority is to ensure that this damaging series of strikes is called off. I have made provision for the lifting of the monopoly not to come into force if the forthcoming series of strikes is cancelled, and for the lifting to last for only one month if the series of strikes is not followed by further strikes. If there is a threat by the union of further strikes, however, I shall announce that we are considering extending the suspension for a further three months. I hope that that will not be necessary.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry deny that there have been substantial increases in productivity in the Post Office in recent years, and that the matter that is in dispute is a relatively small one, which is now before ACAS? As for the public interest, will not the whole nature of the historic Royal Mail be changed if the monopoly is taken away? How will the public be assured that the Government are taking away the monopoly in the public interest and not in the interests of a few people who run high-speed, limited mail services, and who may recently have had a dinner with the Prime Minister?
Mr. Lang: My statement today is not about the removal of the monopoly in the long term but about the suspension of the monopoly as a means of ensuring that the public interest is protected. If the dispute is as close to resolution as the hon. Gentleman suggests, clearly he should be pressing the union to call off the strikes so that the matter can be peacefully resolved.
Mr. John Marshall: When my right hon. Friend hears about threats to rural post offices, will he remember that similar fears were expressed when British Telecom was privatised? Those fears were groundless, as are these fears about the future of rural post offices. Will he also comment on the fact that the Communication Workers Union contributes £200,000 to the Labour party?
Mr. Lang: I hear what my hon. Friend says in the first part of his question. As for the second part of his question, that fact speaks for itself.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that none of the business men who have recently paid £100,000 to be members of the Prime Minister's Premier Club will profit from the decision that the right hon. Gentleman has made today?
Mr. Lang: The people who will profit from today's decision—if it brings closer a resolution to this dispute—will be the public.
Mr. Andrew Miller: What contingency plans does the Secretary of State have if, as a result of his interference, the dispute is racked up to a higher level and the Post Office decides to lock out some or all of its employees?
Mr. Lang: I wish that the Labour party, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, would be more positive and constructive in their approach to the dispute. We should be talking about resolving the dispute. Labour Members have the capacity to bring pressure to bear on their trade union masters to abandon the strikes, so that the dispute can be resolved.
Dr. John Reid rose—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): He has just walked in.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not just walked in. He has been in his place—I saw him.
Dr. Reid: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As usual, the Under-Secretary of State has got his facts wrong.
I much regret the inconvenience caused to the public, but if there is one thing that they dislike more than inconvenience, it is corruption. If the Secretary of State gets rid of the monopoly, will he give the public a guarantee that no company whose members have paid large amounts of money to dine with the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister will benefit from the lifting of the monopoly? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer yes or no?
Mr. Lang: The people who will benefit in the short term will be the companies that secure additional business by becoming involved in carrying the mail from which the monopoly has been suspended. The best way in which the hon. Gentleman can deal with his concern is to ensure that the strikes are abandoned. The monopoly would then stay in place.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: As the Secretary of State has failed to answer this question twice, I will repeat it slowly. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical guarantee that no one who is currently paying large sums of money to the Tory party, via the Premier Club or any other means, will benefit from the industrial dispute?
Mr. Lang: I give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and
30
Neston (Mr. Miller). I wish that Labour Members who have benefited from trade union sponsorship and financial support would put aside their commitment to their trade union masters and act for once in the public interest.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not too sensitive a soul, but is not there a convention that Ministers make statements by leave of the House? That implies some kind of condition—that the statement will be about a particular matter. When the President of the Board of Trade answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) we heard a load of pre-packaged abuse that bore no relevance to the legitimate questions that she asked. Do you, have no power to cut short statements that are not about the subject to which they purport to relate?
Madam Speaker: Ministers do not require the leave of the House or my authority to make a statement—they have every right. The words "With the leave of the House" are simply a turn of phrase, and it is quite incorrect for a Minister to use them. Ministers can make statements in the House whenever they wish.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have hardly finished. I was asked whether I can cut short a statement if I felt that it was not dealing with the subject in question. The straightforward answer is no. I do not know with which matters a statement deals until the Minister rises in his place to make it.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We fully understand everything that you have said to this point, but surely it is within your power to cut short any right hon. or hon. Member—whether or not he is a Minister—who fails to answer a question but introduces new material that is abusive and irrelevant? Will you consider that particular power—which I believe you have?
Madam Speaker: I sit in the Chair hour after hour, and I hear Front Benchers and Back Benchers in all parts of the House introduce material that is not relevant. If I were to interfere every time that happened, I would be interfering every three or four minutes. I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously—but the House would hear much more from me if I were to take it to its logical conclusion. I said not too long ago that there have been numerous occasions recently when hon. Members have not dealt with the matter in question, be it a statement or question. Ministers and Back Benchers are drifting too far away from the point, and I will do my utmost to bring them all back to the subject on the Order Paper. I believe that the House requires that of me.

Points of Order
4.3 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, the deputy leader of the Labour party visited Harrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and I are keen that he should visit Harrow as often as possible because it is good for our votes. However, the courtesy of the House is for hon. Members who are visiting the constituencies of other hon. Members to let them know. Not only did the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) not let us know that he was visiting our constituencies, but when my hon. Friend reminded him of the usual courtesy, he used my hon. Friend's letter to ridicule the suggestion that people should abide by such courtesies.
Could you give us your advice, Madam Speaker, on how we might protect ourselves from such an abuse of the courtesies of the House? Perhaps the deputy leader of the Labour party regards himself as too important to abide by such courtesies.
Madam Speaker: This matter is raised with me several times a week. Quite frankly, it is very juvenile to raise such a point of order on the Floor of the House. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could deal perfectly adequately with the deputy leader of the Labour party and not use the time of the House, on a very busy day, to raise such an issue.
Ms Joyce Quin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has there been a request from the Secretary of State for Social Security to make an oral statement about his decision to privatise, against the wishes of the civil servants involved, the child benefit centre in Washington? Surely such an important issue should not be left simply to a written answer.
Madam Speaker: No Government Department has told me that it is seeking to make such a statement. As I explained earlier, I have no control over statements and I cannot demand them from a Minister. I have not been advised that the Secretary of State is seeking to make a statement, at least today, on that issue.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is item 2 on the Order Paper, the Adjournment (Summer) motion, debatable?
Madam Speaker: No, it is not debatable.
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Overnight, there was a break-in at Clyde
32
submarine base, which houses Trident submarines, by seemingly amateur intruders. Had they been armed terrorists, the consequences would be too horrible to imagine. Given that there was a similar break-in seven years ago, when the then Prime Minister ordered a board of inquiry investigation, has the Secretary of State for Defence taken this regrettable incident equally seriously and ensured that a statement will be made to the House?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a statement is to be made on that incident. However, before the House goes into recess, there will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue if he so wishes.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard many references—and no doubt seen reports in the press over the weekend—to the Premier Club, where business people apparently spend large sums of money wining and dining with Ministers. As it is alleged that some people pay up to £100,000 for dinner with the Prime Minister—which clearly cannot be for either the food or the company—do you think you should ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate to ensure that the facilities of this House are not being used for what are clearly party political purposes: to raise money for the Conservative party and to buy influence in Government decisions?
Madam Speaker: I do not have to ask the Serjeant at Arms; I know what the facilities of the House are used for, and it is not for any such fund-raising activities.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
Ordered,
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 24 July, do adjourn until Monday 14th October.—[Mr. Wells.]

Housing Bill
Lords amendments considered.
4.9 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the huge volume of amendments with which the House is being asked to deal this afternoon—no fewer than 329. Some are minor and technical, but many are not. There are 31 new clauses and three new schedules; one of the new schedules is 21 pages long. The bundle of Lords amendments covers 85 printed pages, considerably more than most of the Bills that have been presented during this Session.
Is it not an abuse of parliamentary procedure for such an enormous volume of lengthy and substantial new legislation to be presented at this late stage in the proceedings, when there is no opportunity for detailed scrutiny? Does that not bring into disrepute our procedures, which are supposed to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised? Does it not make it far more likely that—either during the next Session, or during the one after that—we shall have to deal with amendments tabled to remedy defects in legislation that has been drafted hastily, and has not been subject to proper scrutiny?
May I ask you to give the matter some thought and to advise us—not necessarily this afternoon—whether steps can be taken to ensure that, in future, the House is not asked to consider such an impossibly large volume of amendments so late in the process, when there is not adequate time for full and adequate scrutiny of the legislation?
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The number of amendments demonstrates the opposite of what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) suggested. In Committee, when a point was raised that I thought worthy of reflection, I said that I would take it away and look at it. That happened throughout our deliberations. We have shown that the procedures work, if hon. Members on both sides of a Committee want to secure the best possible form of legislation. Most of these measures are technical, and reflect the openness with which we debated the Bill.
Madam Speaker: I have noted the points raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). As he is fully aware, it is the Government who arrange the business of the House—the Minister has just explained that—and the Government will have noted what the hon. Gentleman had to say. Let me say for my part that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is so familiar with the Bill that he is quite capable of coping with the business before us.

Clause 1

  THE REGISTER OF SOCIAL LANDLORDS
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out ("Part") and insert ("section").
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2, 17, 23, 24 and 26.
  Mr. Curry: These are technical amendments, which enable the register to be introduced in an orderly manner on a phased basis.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 2

  ELIGIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 17, at end insert ("which is a housing association").
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9.
  Mr. Curry: Again, this is a tidying-up amendment.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 8

  POWER OF REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD TO DISPOSE OF LAND
  Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 5, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12, 27, 28 and 34.
  Mr. Curry: The purpose of the amendments is to clarify when the Housing Corporation's consent is required by a registered social landlord seeking to dispose of land. Some of them also clarify when the corporation can serve a notice to obtain information, and one would add to the list of topics on which the corporation may issue housing management guidance.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Opposition welcome the amendments, especially Lords amendment No. 34, which increases the number of subjects on which the Housing Corporation may issue guidance. That particularly highlights the issue of devolution to tenants of decisions concerning the management of housing accommodation.
  I put it to the Minister, however, that there is an inherent conflict between this provision—which we welcome—and the extremely restrictive guidance that the Housing Corporation has been issuing on its ability to register as social landlords organisations containing a majority of tenants on the board, or in which the tenants have the major interest in the new social landlord. If the advice that is to be issued by the Housing Corporation is

  35
  to be meaningful and not ridiculous, it will be necessary for it to reconsider that blanket restriction on its ability to register social landlords with the majority of tenant representatives.
  I understand from the Housing Corporation that the decision was not taken by it uniquely or on its own initiative, but that there is a presumption on the part of the Government that such bodies should not be registered. Government action will therefore be necessary in order to avoid the Housing Corporation being put in a ridiculous position.
  Despite the Minister's comments about the reason for the large number of amendments with which we are dealing today, the consequence of the way in which matters have been handled is that an enormous volume of material is being considered at the very latest of stages in the Bill's progress through Parliament, and, sadly, many loose ends of this nature will not be sorted out properly in the time available.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Curry: There is one area in which we have made it clear that we do not expect there to be majorities for any of the constituent parties—the new housing companies. I am willing to discuss with the Housing Corporation any other matter that concerns the guidance it issues, in the context not only of its guidance but of guidance that will necessarily follow this legislation.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 12

  PRIORITY OF CHARGE FOR REPAYMENT OF DISCOUNT
  Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 7, line 24, leave out ("in writing")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 14, 30, 32, 38, 41, 74 to 81, 243 and 271.
  Mr. Curry: This group is technical down to its fingertips.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

Clause 15

  RELEVANT AND EXEMPTED DISPOSALS
  Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 10, line 3, leave out from third ("of') to end of line 8 and insert
  ("any such order as is mentioned in subsection (5A);")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 16, 138 to 140, 167, 168, 242 and 315.
  Mr. Curry: This group is technical. It reconciles the Bill to other housing legislation and other housing legislation to legislation that deals with matrimonial breakdown. I commend it to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17 agreed to.

Clause 17

  RIGHT OF TENANT TO ACQUIRE DWELLING: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 12, line 5, at end insert—
  ("( ) Before making an order which would have the effect that an area ceased to be designated under subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) the local housing authority or authorities in whose district the area or any part of it is situated or, if the order is general in its effect, local housing authorities in general, and

  (b) such bodies appearing to him to be representative of registered social landlords as he considers appropriate.")

  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Some concern was expressed about the possible removal of the exemption from the purchase grant in rural areas for housing association tenants. The fear was that the Secretary of State might act arbitrarily. We have therefore tabled this amendment so that the Secretary of State must consult before there is any removal from the list of settlements that are designated not to have the right to buy. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Opposition welcome the amendment for the reasons that the Minister has made clear. It ensures that the Secretary of State will have to consult the relevant local housing authority or authorities before reaching a decision. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult bodies that appear to him to be representative of registered social landlords.
  I would welcome some guidance from the Minister on what will be the Housing Corporation's broad approach to deciding which organisations are representative of registered social landlords. I assume that the Secretary of State will be seeking guidance from the Housing Corporation on the matter.
  Will every social landlord operating in this area be consulted, or will only a relatively small number be consulted? If the latter, what will be the criteria for deciding which ones are appropriate? In some areas, many social landlords operate, and it might prove completely impractical to consult all of them. On the other hand, if the Secretary of State were arbitrary in his choice of consultees, an entirely fair point of view might not be registered by social landlords in the area. It would be helpful to have an indication as to how this discretion is likely to be exercised.
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: I and my colleagues welcome the amendment also, although I am sorry that it does not go as far as the amendments that I tabled in Committee. But the amendment recognises the importance of the view of local authorities in dealing with the provision of social housing. I look forward to the Minister saying who else he will consult, because, as the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, it

  37
  could be a number of people in some areas, and we need guidance on that. In general, however, I welcome the amendment.
  Mr. Curry: This is a question of common sense. I envisage that the Housing Corporation will wish to consult what will become the National Housing Federation, and it will consult the landlords operating in a particular area. Settlements of 3,000 do not have hundreds of housing associations, nor do rural areas, and a handful will specialise in this field. I do not envisage practical difficulties, and it is our intention to consult fully.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 24

  THE DISPOSAL PROCEEDS FUND
  Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 15, line 39, leave out from ("section") to ("do") in line 40 and insert
  ("27 below (recovery, &c. of social housing grants) and section 52 of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery, &c. of grants under that Act and earlier enactments)")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 22 and 25.
  Mr. Curry: These amendments are absolutely technical, and I commend them to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments No. 20 to 28 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Clause 31

  ENFORCEMENT OF NOTICE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, &C.
  Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 19, line 16, at end insert—
  ("( ) Proceedings for an offence under subsection (I) or (2) may be brought only by or with the consent of the Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions.")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 31, 33, 35, 36, 269 and 270.
  Mr. Curry: These amendments deal with proceedings for offences committed by social landlords, and provide that proceedings for such offences can be initiated only with the consent of the Housing Corporation or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Their purpose is to protect social landlords from vexatious prosecutions, and they are consistent with other legislation covering the matter.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 39

  INSOLVENCY, &C. OF REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD: SCHEME OF PROVISIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 23, line 13, leave out ("(section 47)") and insert
  ("(sections 47 and (Powers of the manager: transfer of engagements))")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 40, 47, 50, 57, 58, 61 to 64, 66 to 69 and 71.
  Mr. Curry: These are minor amendments to improve the way in which the clause works. There is no issue of policy or principle involved, and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Raynsford: I want to draw attention to Lords amendment No. 71, which makes provision for the manager appointed by the Housing Corporation in such cases to arrange a transfer of engagements where a housing association is in financial difficulty. The transfer ensures that the properties can continue to be managed without the risk of the tenants being forced to leave their homes.
  We especially welcome that provision, because, earlier this year, the Government tabled a series of measures in the Housing Bill, which were subsequently withdrawn, that would have put at risk a significant number of tenants whose homes were owned by housing associations that got into difficulty. By applying the Insolvency Act 1986, the Government would have made it much more difficult to use procedures such as those now proposed. A transfer of engagements ensures continuity of management and, more importantly—from the lender's point of view—continuity of income stream.
  Everyone involved with the housing world knows how important it is to ensure that confidence is maintained among lenders, but, equally, how vital it is to ensure that tenants are not put at risk by difficulties that may from time to time confront their housing associations. We welcome Lords amendment No. 71, but regret that the Government have gone a tortuous way to get to it. However, we are moving towards a more satisfactory framework, which should ensure that proper arrangements are in place to deal with housing associations that get into financial difficulty, without putting tenants at risk of losing their homes.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 38 agreed to.

Clause 40

  INITIAL NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CORPORATION
  Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 24, line 10, leave out ("charitable trust") and insert
  ("registered charity (other than a company registered under the Companies Act 1985)")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59 and 65.
  Mr. Curry: These are purely drafting amendments, which I commend to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 51 agreed to.

Clause 43

  PERIOD OF MORATORIUM
  Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 25, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) The moratorium in consequence of the taking of any step as mentioned in section 41—

  (a) begins when the step is taken, and

  (b) ends at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice of its having been taken was given to the Corporation under that section,
  subject to the following provisions.")

  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 53, 55, 60, 70, 72 and 73.
  Mr. Curry: We had a considerable debate in Committee about what would happen in the event of a new social landlord becoming bankrupt or getting into financial difficulty. We provided that the Housing Corporation would be able to step in for a cooling-off period to protect the interests of all the parties—the tenants as much as the lenders. A small problem, rather than a significant one, could arise that could be sorted out shortly after the introduction of the so-called cooling off period.
  The amendments allow the Housing Corporation to suspend a moratorium when the problem that provoked it has been solved, and it no longer needs to make a proposal. The Housing Corporation must consult the lender before calling it off, but this is a common-sense amendment, which I commend to the House.
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 60, 70 and 73. We greatly welcome Lords amendment No. 60, which gives effect to a point that we pressed in Committee. It will ensure that members of the committee of a housing association are not required by the duties imposed by the Bill to act in a way contrary to their fiduciary or other duties towards the proper running and management of their association.
  Lords amendment No. 70 is equally welcome. It specifies that the manager appointed by the Housing Corporation in such cases
  "shall, so far as practicable, consult the landlord's tenants about any exercise of his powers which is likely to affect them and inform them about any such exercise of his powers."
  40
  The Minister will have anticipated my question. Might not the words "so far as practicable" provide an opportunity for some managers to disregard the obligation, which I believe Parliament wishes them to honour, to ensure that tenants are properly consulted?
  I hope that that will not be the case, but sadly one knows of instances in which such words have been used as loopholes. While I understand that the Government do not want to require an absolutely binding obligation, which the manager might not be able to honour in all circumstances, there is a risk that the provision might be used to short-circuit the proper consultation processes with tenants—perhaps if a considerable amount of money is at stake or the lender puts on a lot of pressure to try to resolve the problem quickly and get new arrangements into place without delay. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance on that point.
  4.30 pm
  Amendment No. 73 involves the deletion of subsection 49(3), which simply states:
  "Except as provided by this section, the actions of a manager appointed under section 46 shall not be questioned by any legal proceedings whatever."
  The removal of that subsection raises a question whether the manager might be frustrated in his actions if he were threatened with legal action by one of the parties—possibly an unsecured creditor, unhappy with the approach being taken by the manager, who will be predominantly interested in the point of view of the secured creditors and the lenders in particular.
  The threat of legal action could cut across or interfere with a manager's ability to exercise his powers, which could be damaging. I would welcome some explanation from the Minister of why the amendment appears to delete that proposed immunity.
  Mr. Curry: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must draw amendment No. 55 to the hon. Gentleman's attention. That requires:
  "So far as practicable no proposals shall be made"
  that would leave
  "unsecured creditors"
  worse off than they would otherwise have been. Amendment No. 60 makes it clear that the duty of members, directors and trustees to co-operate with the implementation of the proposal does not require them to act in a manner contrary to their fiduciary obligations.
  The reference to "so far as practicable" in amendment No. 70 is intended to be directed towards taking the action, rather than giving a loophole to enable people not to take it. So the amendment has to be taken at its face value. We would not have proposed it, had we intended it merely to be platonic in its effect. It is intended to make managers have the firm intention of consulting, unless there is a clear reason why that cannot be done.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 81 agreed to.

Clause 64

  MAKING AND APPROVAL OF REGISTRATION SCHEMES
  Lords amendment: No. 82, in page 36, line 51, at end insert
  ("and to renew the registration as and when required by the scheme.")
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State fur the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 83 to 91.
  Mr. Clappison: The purpose of this group of amendments is to improve the working of local authority registration schemes for houses in multiple occupation. They deal principally with the content of schemes, publicity, and appeals against local authority decisions on applications for registration.
  Mr. Raynsford: We welcome the amendments so far as they go. There is no question but that more effective powers are needed to deal with the problems of houses in multiple occupation. It is well known that multi-occupied houses contain not merely the worst conditions of any category of housing, but also the greatest risks to life from both fire and carbon monoxide poisoning. There is widespread agreement that action is long overdue to ensure that the worst conditions are tackled more effectively. We differ from the Government on the best way to do so.
  There is an overwhelming case for a national mandatory licensing scheme to cover all areas and all multi-occupied houses, concentrating in the first instance on those in which there is the greatest risk on a proper risk assessment basis. The Government have proposed a more limited registration scheme instead, which will be discretionary, and so will not apply if a local authority chooses not to operate the scheme in its area, and will apply only to a more limited category of multi-occupied houses.
  We have serious reservations about the likely effectiveness and scope of the Government's scheme. Nevertheless, a scheme is better than nothing, even if it is a limited scheme, so we welcome the amendments made by the other place, which give effect to some of the measures that we advocated in Committee.
  In particular, we welcome amendment No. 88, which inserts as a ground for refusal of registration reference to the person managing or having control of the property not being a fit and proper person.
  We also welcome the arrangements under clause 91 for keeping copies of the registration scheme and making them available to people on request on reasonable terms. Those are important provisions to ensure that people who are not fit and proper persons can be denied registration, and that people involved—I think in particular of the residents living in multi-occupied houses, who have a particular interest in the matter—can seek information from the local authority about how the scheme is framed and how it operates.
  42
  I put it to the Minister that, if there was a national mandatory scheme, life would be much easier, because there would not be the likelihood of variations from area to area in the way in which the scheme operated. The tenant would be able to contact the Department of the Environment, which could issue a national advice leaflet providing information applicable in all areas. That is something which we shall wait for the next Government to introduce, but in the meantime we welcome the steps that have been taken to improve the registration arrangements.
  Mrs. Maddock: I and my hon. Friends welcome the amendments. Like the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), I am disappointed that there will not be a mandatory scheme. I particularly welcome the fact that it will be easier for councils which have a registration scheme to get works done. That has always been a problem in the past. We discussed the matter at length in Committee, and I hope that what the Government propose will work.
  In common with many people outside the House, we would like a mandatory scheme. The local authorities asked for a mandatory scheme. Despite the improvements in the amendments, the scheme will not be mandatory, and that is the real weakness of this part of the Bill. However, the amendments are an improvement on the position that we were left with in Committee, and I welcome them.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 83 to 91 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 92, after clause 72, to insert the following new clause—Section 354 direction to be local land charge—
  ". In section 354 of the Housing Act 1985 (power to limit number of occupants of house), at the end insert—
  "(8) A direction under this section is a local land charge."."
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 320.
  Mr. Clappison: This is a group of miscellaneous amendments relating to houses in multiple occupation. Amendment No. 95 allows local housing authorities eight weeks instead of four to decide whether to make a compulsory purchase order which defers the obligation to prepare and serve a management scheme for a house in multiple occupation, subject to a control order.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 93, after clause 73, to insert the following new clause—Works notices: improvement of enforcement procedures—
  ". After section 377 of the Housing Act 1985 insert—

  "Works notices: improvement of enforcement procedures

  377A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a local housing authority shall act as specified in the order before serving a works notice.

  43
  In this section a "works notice" means a notice under section 352 or 372 (notices requiring the execution of works).
  (2) An order under this section may provide that the authority—

  (a) shall as soon as practicable give to the person on whom the works notice is to be served a written notice which satisfies the requirements of subsection (3); and

  (b) shall not serve the works notice until after the end of such period beginning with the giving of a notice which satisfies the requirements of subsection (3) as may be determined by or under the order.

  (3) A notice satisfies the requirements of this subsection if it—

  (a) states the works which in the authority's opinion should be undertaken, and explains why and within what period;

  (b) explains the grounds on which it appears to the authority that the works notice might be served;

  (c) states the type of works notice which is to be served, the consequences of serving it and whether there is a right to make representations before, or a right of appeal against, the serving of it.

  (4) An order under this section may also provide that, before the authority serves the works notice on any person, they—

  (a) shall give to that person a written notice stating—

  (i) that they are considering serving the works notice and the reasons why they are considering serving the notice; and

  (ii) that the person may, within a period specified in the written notice, make written representations to them or, if the person so requests, make oral representations to them in the presence of a person determined by or under the order; and

  (b) shall consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.

  (5) An order under this section may in particular—

  (a) make provision as to the consequences of any failure to comply with a provision made by the order;

  (b) contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate (including provisions modifying enactments relating to the periods within which proceedings must be brought).

  (6) An order under this section—

  (a) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case (including different provision for different areas), and

  (b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

  (7) Nothing in any order under this section shall—

  (a) preclude a local housing authority from serving a works notice on any person, or from requiring any person to take immediate remedial action to avoid a works notice being served on him, in any case where it appears to them to be necessary to serve such a notice or impose such a requirement; or

  (b) require such an authority to disclose any information the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest."."

  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment embodies the principles of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 in relation to the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Raynsford: This amendment raises a much more problematic issue—the speed with which a local authority will be able to act enforce improvements in properties that are unsatisfactory.
  44
  As the Minister said, the amendment draws on procedures in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Minister will be well aware that precisely this ethos of deregulation, with which the Government are at times obsessed, is a serious problem in relation to multi-occupied houses, where there is a clear need for regulation.
  The risk to human life created by the poor conditions, the threats and the hazards that exist in so many multi-occupied houses makes regulation essential. The Government have had to accept the need for a registration scheme for some multi-occupied houses.
  The risk is that, because of their obsession with deregulation, the Government are putting in place a procedure that will make it slow and cumbersome for local authorities to operate, and so delay the process of improving substandard properties that urgently need improvements.
  The concept behind the new clause that is incorporated in the Bill by Lords amendment No. 93 is that there should be a procedure for serving preliminary informal notices on the landlord before the local authority moves to impose its actual works notices, setting out what is required to be done. In principle, one has no disagreement with giving an informal notice to a landlord at the earliest possible stage, and only then following up with a works notice if the landlord clearly does not intend to act on it, but putting that in the Bill provides an opportunity, which I fear will be exploited by some bad landlords, to frustrate the process by seeking to challenge a local authority that acts reasonably expeditiously because it knows that there is a serious—possibly life-threatening—problem in that property.
  The rogue landlord, advised by clever lawyers who may be less scrupulous than some, might well use the provisions of subsection (4) of the new section 377A, which is being incorporated into the Housing Act 1985 by Lords amendment No. 93, to challenge the validity of action taken by a local authority seeking to serve a notice.
  If that were the case, and the authority were prevented from taking expeditious action because of the need to go through all the legal procedures, which can often be long drawn out and tortuous, and if in the meantime there were to be a tragedy and a person were to be killed because of a fire or die from carbon monoxide poisoning, that would be an unacceptable and unnecessary situation, brought about by the potential for delay.
  We do not object to the principle, as good practice, of serving an informal notice quickly, but there must be no risk of the actual enforcement action being delayed by the opportunity that may be presented to the unscrupulous or disreputable to try to drag out the proceedings and so delay proper enforcement action.
  Mr. Clappison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) to the way in which subsection 93(7) overrides subsection 93(4) and deals with the point that he has just made?
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 94 and 95 agreed to.

Clause 78

  RESTRICTION ON TERMINATION OF TENANCY FOR FAILURE TO PAY SERVICE CHARGE.
  Lords amendment: No. 96, in page 50, line 37, at end insert—
  ("( ) The reference in subsection (1) to premises let as a dwelling does not include premises let on—

  (a) a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies (business tenancies),

  (b) a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 in relation to which that Act applies, or

  (c) a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995.")

  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 97, 98, 24'7 and 322.
  Mr. Clappison: The purpose behind this group of amendments is to change the application of clause 78, which prevents actions for forfeiture of a lease for non-payment of service charges until the amount has been agreed or determined. That removes one of the weapons that has been used by some landlords whose standards have fallen short. Lords amendment No. 98 has been introduced to provide that, if a section 146 notice requiring the tenant to pay the service charge is served by the landlord, it must clearly set out the effect of these new restrictions, and that warning must be given in conspicuous characters.
  Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, this is an important measure relating to problems facing leaseholders who are threatened, or have been threatened in the past, by the prospect of forfeiting their lease because of a dispute about, for example, service charges.
  We very much welcome the steps that have been taken under pressure. As a result of the campaign that the Labour party has maintained throughout the past year on behalf of leaseholders, the Government have moved to some extent to deal with these problems. Later, we shall debate the Government's failure to act adequately in other areas where there is a need for more effective action, but this is a proper and appropriate response to close the forfeiture loophole.
  We very much welcome the requirement that leaseholders be informed, because there is a risk that, despite Parliament's best intentions, leaseholders may find themselves threatened with forfeiture without being told of their right to challenge the landlord's entitlement to seek forfeiture for a service charge dispute.
  We welcome the new clause, which we believe will help leaseholders. It is part of a much wider package of measures of leasehold reform that is necessary, only part of which is addressed by the Bill; nevertheless, the new clause is a step in the right direction.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 97 and 98 agreed to.

Clause 79

  DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS OF SERVICE CHARGES
  Lords amendment: No. 99, in page 52, leave out lines 32 to 47 and insert—
  ("( ) The power to make regulations under section 74(1)(b) of the Rent Act 1977 (procedure of rent assessment committees) extends to prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with any proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Act.
  ( ) Such regulations may, in particular, make provision—

  (a) for securing consistency where numerous applications under this Act are or may be brought in respect of the same or substantially the same matters; and

  (b) empowering a leasehold valuation tribunal to dismiss an application, in whole or in part, on the ground that it is frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the tribunal."")

  4.45 pm
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 100 and 101, Lords amendment No. 102, Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof and Lords amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 129.
  Mr. Clappison: We now come to the important subject of leasehold valuation tribunals. I shall invite the House to agree with the Lords in the amendments, save for Lords amendment No. 102, with which I shall invite the House to disagree.
  The amendments make new provision for procedures to be followed by leasehold valuation tribunals when hearing service charge disputes. Lords amendment No. 99 makes provision for leasehold valuation tribunals to secure consistency in handling separate cases about the same issue. For example, if a number of tenants in a block challenge the same service charge, it may be convenient to hear the separate cases together. This mirrors procedures that are often followed in the county court and High Court. It also allows leasehold valuation tribunals to strike out frivolous or vexatious cases or those which are an abuse of process.
  Lords amendment No. 101 allows leasehold valuation tribunals to apportion the reimbursement of fees, as they think appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
  Lords amendment No. 103 allows the court to dispose of that part of the case which it has not remitted to a leasehold valuation tribunal, and to enforce the leasehold valuation tribunal's decision as a decision of the court.
  Lords amendment No. 104 is a consequential amending definitional amendment.
  Lords amendment No. 129 widens the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers to allow the possibility of having a "pre-trial review" before a single member of the tribunal, to clear the ground before the main hearing—another procedure that will be familiar to those who have used the courts, and often a way of shortening cases.
  I shall now discuss Lords amendment No. 102 and Government amendments (a) and (b). I invite the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 102 but to agree with Government amendments (a) and (b). The amendments concern the level of fees that may be charged

  47
  by a leasehold valuation tribunal to an applicant under the new procedures for the resolution of service charge disputes.
  It may help the House if I explain the background to the issues. The proposal to give this new jurisdiction to leasehold valuation tribunals was introduced by Government amendments to the Bill in Committee in this place. The initial provision on fees was that, taking one year with another, they should be sufficient to cover the full costs of providing this service.
  The measures in the Bill to help protect leaseholders of residential properties were prompted by the bad actions of a minority of landlords who were imposing unreasonable, and in some cases outrageous, service charge demands. Any leaseholder who contested those claims was faced in some circumstances with the immediate threat of forfeiture and an action, usually in the High Court. There are measures in the Bill that deal with this abuse and provide that forfeiture proceedings can no longer be taken until the disagreement about service charges is resolved. This is a significant step to help leaseholders, an important part of our package of reforms which will materially improve the lot of leaseholders.
  Leaving the problems of forfeiture to one side, leaseholders currently have the right to challenge unreasonable service charges or to seek to have a new manager appointed if they can show fault with the current manager, but these jurisdictions lie with the county court. The second stage of our proposals is therefore to switch these cases to the leasehold valuation tribunals.
  This move has been widely welcomed, on the ground that the tribunal will offer leaseholders a much more effective and cheap method of taking action against the unreasonable behaviour of landlords. This is because leaseholders have found it extremely difficult to challenge freeholders' actions in the courts. Although the initial court fee may be low, leaseholders often face protracted and potentially expensive litigation, and if they lose the case they are exposed to the risk of paying the costs of both sides. Even in normal cases that last for, say, two days, the likely exposure to costs can run into thousands of pounds.
  The advantages of going to leasehold valuation tribunals are considerable. They have quicker, less formal procedures, and there is no need for full legal representation. The tribunal will include a professional surveyor who is fully qualified to assess the technical arguments that are likely to arise.
  The other important point is that tribunals cannot award costs, so the exposure of leaseholders to the risk of costs will be much reduced.
  Those advantages to leaseholders should be kept in mind when considering the fee that should be paid for access to the tribunals. There was little discussion of the full cost recovery principle when the Bill was originally before the House. The matter arose chiefly in another place, when my noble Friend Lord Lucas explained that it was likely that the daily cost of dealing with service charge cases by a tribunal could be as much as £2,000. That does not mean that the fee for hearing any case would be that much, as a detailed fee structure has not been determined, but there was general concern that full
  48
  cost recovery would lead to fees of a considerable amount that could wipe out much of the cost advantage of a tribunal compared with county courts.
  Various amendments were debated that would seek to limit the amount of fees chargeable. On Third Reading in another place, the Government tabled an amendment to ensure that the fee did not exceed the cost of the service. That would have allowed a considerable element of flexibility to set the fees, either at full cost recovery or at any percentage point below 100 per cent. of costs. A similar amendment was carried in relation to the parallel and new procedures for the tribunal to deal with the appointment of a manager.
  For the procedures on service charge disputes, amendment No. 102, moved by Lord Bledisloe, was accepted. It provides that fees for these cases should be no more than the comparable fees in the county court. That would have the effect of setting a maximum of £120 for each case. Much concern was also expressed by noble Lords on both sides of the other place that our proposals for fees to be levied by tribunals offend the basic principle that there should, allegedly, be no charge for access to justice.
  I emphasise that such fears are not justified—in the sense that the principle of cost recovery is already established. Indeed, Lords amendment No. 102 accepts the principle of charging fees, as it refers to fees paid in the county court.
  It was suggested in another place that it would be breaking new ground to allow tribunals to charge a fee, but that is not so. For instance, if there were an appeal against a case heard by a leasehold valuation tribunal, it would be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal, which has a long-established fee—in these cases, involving a charge of about £250.
  I turn next to our reasons for not accepting amendment No. 102 and for tabling amendment (a), which would allow for a maximum fee of £500. We think, given the great advantages of access to the leasehold valuation tribunal, that it is right that applicants should contribute towards the costs of the service. I fully accept that the point of the leaseholder package is to help thousands of leaseholders who have been the subject of deplorable and aggressive behaviour by their landlords. I think that our package achieves that, but we have to have regard to competing demands on the public purse. I am sure that Opposition Members will agree that it is important to strike a careful balance in that respect.
  As I have said, the Government amendment moved in another place would have allowed for less than full cost recovery, but our amendment today puts an explicit limit on the face of the Bill. A fee of £500 represents a reasonable balance which will still mean that a substantial proportion of the costs will have to be borne by the taxpayer. It represents an affordable amount, particularly as it will usually be shared between a group of leaseholders in a block of flats. The amendment allows the maximum to be changed by order, but only following an affirmative resolution of both Houses, which will offer hon. Members the opportunity for debate before any changes to the limit are made. We intend to use the power in the usual way to reflect cost changes from time to time.
  This does not mean that everyone will pay £500. The precise fee structure has not been worked out and will be subject to wide consultation before this section is

  49
  commenced. The Bill already provides for mitigation of the fee in certain cases with respect to the financial position of the applicant. There is also a provision which allows the tribunal to require the other party to reimburse the applicant with the whole or part of the fee if that seems right in the circumstances.
  Mr. David Ashby: In Committee, we all envisaged that these actions would be like any others—free. Suddenly and most unfortunately, charges are being introduced.
  A fee of about £500 has been mentioned. An arbitrary sum like that is surely very odd. Is it more or less than one could expect if the case were dealt with in the county court?
  Lastly, neither my hon. Friend nor I nor anyone else who served on the Committee seems to have thought of an idea that recently occurred to me—why not use magistrates courts? After all, they do licensing and matrimonial actions, so why cannot they deal with these issues too?
  Mr. Clappison: As I said earlier, the initial provision on fees was that, taking one year with another, they should be sufficient to cover the full costs of providing the service. As for the amount of costs in the county court, my hon. Friend will know that the fees charged for the court service always include an arbitrary element. The advantage of the leasehold valuation tribunal is that the litigant will not be exposed to the risk of costs, as he would in the county court. My hon. Friend, with his long experience of county courts, will know that I refer to the costs of not just the litigant but the other party to action in the county court. That factor weighs heavily with many litigants and acts as a deterrent to their taking action.
  I note my hon. Friend's point about magistrates courts. We believe that the right forum for this type of case is the leasehold valuation tribunal. My hon. Friend will have heard me describe the presence of a qualified surveyor on the tribunal. I am sure that he will agree that it is important for the members of the tribunal to have that sort of expertise. With it, they can make a fair evaluation of the facts much more quickly—another material advantage to be borne in mind.
  When designing the fee structure, we will seek to construct a scale of charges that offers a degree of certainty to the applicant before the case starts; in other words, we will not seek to charge a fee relating to the length of the case. We will also see whether it is possible to design a sliding scale of fees relating to the value of the disputed sums—although in cases of this kind that might not prove straightforward.
  The discussions that have taken place on this issue, particularly in another place, have been of considerable value in focusing attention on this important issue. What the Government propose strikes the right balance of fairness and equity for all parties. It will be vital to leaseholders and, with the maximum fee set at £500, we believe that it will give them a real opportunity for effective justice at an affordable price.
  Mr. Raynsford: This is one of the most important groups of amendments to be considered this evening. It concerns justice for leaseholders and remedies against the abuse of service charges which all too many leaseholders
  50
  have experienced in recent years. Throughout these debates, hon. Members have been all too well aware of the problems brought to our attention by a large number of leaseholders and their organisations, highlighting the way in which they have been exploited by far too many rogue landlords—many of whom bought the freehold for relatively little so as to be able to charge disproportionate sums in management, service and insurance charges.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) highlighted some of those abuses. Other Committee members highlighted similar examples of crude and blatant exploitation of leaseholders by unscrupulous freeholders or managing agents. There was general agreement, I believe, that action had to be taken that provided redress and that made it possible for leaseholders to get redress without being deterred by the cost of challenging a freeholder through a legal system which could be expensive. The idea of going to the High Court, for example, to challenge a freeholder is nonsense. It is simply not possible for leaseholders to meet the costs envisaged in such an exercise.
  5 pm
  There was agreement, therefore, that we wanted a framework that would enable leaseholders to get justice quickly, expeditiously and cheaply. The concept that the leasehold valuation tribunal should be given scope for sorting out such disputes commanded wide support. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire has asked whether a magistrates court might take on the function. Until he raised the point, I had not considered that, because the leasehold valuation tribunal seemed to be the right and appropriate body, but the important point, which undoubtedly underlies his question, is the need for justice to be quick and cheap, and for people not to be deterred by the prospect of large fees or serious costs.
  In Committee, therefore, we welcomed the concept of leasehold valuation tribunals performing these functions. To my knowledge—I will check Hansard carefully—no one raised the prospect of fees being charged for cases taken to the tribunals. Our assumption in Committee was that access to such tribunals would be free, in the same way as access to other tribunals has been free. It has been an important point of principle that people could take their case to a tribunal without being deterred by fees. That was certainly my understanding.
  Mr. Ashby indicated assent.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman nods to show that that was his understanding too.
  For that reason, it was shocking when, in Committee in another place, Lord Lucas, the Government spokesman, announced that he envisaged fees and, when pressed on the scale of fees, said that they could be between £500 and £2,000 a day. The Government justified that by saying that that was the economic cost of dealing with the cases. Frankly, that is a fairly horrifying prospect, but, irrespective of that, fees on that scale would deter any leaseholder from taking their case to a leasehold valuation tribunal, simply because they would be unable to pay such charges.
  Consequently, there was a substantial debate in another place, during Committee and Report and on Third Reading only last week, about the adverse impact of fees

  51
  being charged in leasehold valuation tribunals. During those debates, hon. Members from a wide range of different political parties highlighted the serious consequences of the Government's proposal to charge fees for access to the tribunals.
  First, there is the obvious point about leaseholders not feeling able to take up their right to obtain justice because of a fear of the cost being prohibitive. Secondly, if the fee system were in place, there would be obvious scope for the unscrupulous landlord—we know that these measures are being introduced purely to provide redress against unscrupulous landlords—to intimidate a leaseholder by the prospect of substantial fees and costs. Thirdly—this became increasingly important in the debates in another place—there is the wider point of principle about free access to justice.
  My noble Friend Lord Archer of Sandwell spoke for the whole House, I believe, when he raised the concern that this would be the thin end of wedge, saying that, if the Government got their way on charging fees for leasehold valuation tribunals, shortly, we would be hearing proposals for fees to be charged for other tribunals. Clearly, that anxiety exercised the minds of many Members of the other House.
  Viscount Bledisloe, who moved amendment No. 102, which was ultimately successful, made the point that it was entirely inconsistent of the Government to suggest that, while citizens have access to other tribunals without having to pay a fee, those who wish to challenge service charges should be subject to a fee—a different treatment of leaseholders from that of other people seeking redress through tribunals.
  As the House knows, the Government were defeated. As a result of amendment No. 102, which was supported across the political parties, an amendment in the Bill restricts steeply and properly the fee level that can be charged.
  We have reservations about the whole concept of a fee being accepted at all, because there will still be discrimination. Leaseholders will be subject to fees when they try to get justice, whereas people seeking justice from a different tribunal will not be subject to a fee; but amendment No. 102 restricts the fee level to an amount that is similar to the one that could be charged in a county court.
  There seems to be a measure of common sense behind that, despite my reservation, because a leaseholder would have the option and alternative of seeking justice in a county court instead of in a leasehold valuation tribunal. The restriction to the fee level chargeable in the county court, which I understand is about £115, is clearly a considerable improvement on the Government's original proposal.
  In reaction, the Government have gradually withdrawn from their original position, which I suppose one could describe as the free market position, where the full cost of £2,000 a day could be charged. They are now seeking a limited cost of £500 for a case.
  There is, however, an extraordinary inconsistency about the Government's position. Although they say that they are prepared to limit the cost to £500, they are still leaving in the Bill language that refers to the charge being no more than is necessary to cover the costs. The Minister will recognise that that phraseology still remains.
  52
  It is not only those of us who have reason to be sceptical about the Government's good intentions who will feel nervous about the fact that, while that phraseology is still there, Ministers have scope to come forward with the powers that they are giving themselves under their amendment and to say, "We need to change this figure. It may have been £500 in 1996, but in 1997 there may be a need to increase it because the cost is greater." No doubt we will be given the statistics and figures showing that the costs are higher and justifying an increase from £500. Therefore, the £500 figure, which is an arbitrary figure for which there is no logical justification, cannot be counted on as the maximum cost that a leaseholder might have to face.
  There is still scope in the Bill for the Government to vary that amount by order, and there is provision in the Bill for the fees not to exceed the total cost. That link between the fee and the cost is extremely dangerous, and could lead to proposals to increase the fee. Even if it does not, £500 is a substantial sum, which would seriously deter many leaseholders on low incomes from seeking justice. We have had evidence from many organisations that represent leaseholders highlighting the extent to which people on modest incomes can be intimidated.
  Mr. Ashby: The Bill is extremely important for leaseholders on low incomes, such as pensioners, who are being intimidated. It may not matter to young yuppies earning a lot of money, with properties with 999-year leases, but it means a lot to pensioners on fixed low incomes. The fee could seem extremely high to them.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is precisely leaseholders on middle to low incomes who are most likely to be intimidated and most likely to decline to use a leasehold valuation tribunal if they know that it will cost £500, because that sum might be beyond their means.
  The Minister may say that the charge relates to service charges that could involve several hundred pounds and that it is therefore worth it, but pensioners budgeting on a tight income and worried about an increase in service charges from, say, £600 to £750 might consider the possible saving of £150 not to be worth arguing about if they must pay £500 in fees to take the case to a leasehold valuation tribunal. Why should they have to pay that fee? Why should not they be able to get affordable justice, given that tribunals normally operate on the principle that people should have access to justice and should not be deterred by a lack of means?
  The Minister argued that the fee could be reimbursed if the leasehold valuation tribunal decided that the applicant had a meritorious case and the landlord did not. That might apply in some cases, but no one on a low income who was worried about whether he or she could afford the £500 would take the risk. If such people are worried that they cannot pay, they will not be reassured by the possibility—it is a mere possibility—that, if they are successful, the leasehold valuation tribunal may decide that the fee should be reimbursed.
  The Government's proposal is extremely dangerous. It threatens the basis of what we argued for in Committee and thought the Government had accepted—that people on modest incomes should have access to justice without being deterred by the cost. Once again, it raises the spectre of leaseholders intimidated by unscrupulous rogue landlords being unable to get effective redress.

  53
  By linking the fees to those charged in a county court, Lords amendment No. 102 provides the Government with a modest fee. Although it is higher than we would want, the amendment limits it to a figure that would be, in almost every case, affordable. Moreover, it makes a proper connection between the fees charged in a leasehold valuation tribunal and those charged in a county court, so there is no possibility of inconsistency in the cost of justice between the two. The amendment passed by the House of Lords was important, as it incorporates the principle of affordable justice, and it deserves to be retained in the Bill.
  The Government have been engaged in a retreat. Originally, they proposed large fees; they now propose slightly less onerous fees, but they still seek to impose fees that will deter some people from obtaining justice. They are making a dangerous move, which cuts across the principle that people should have access to justice without having to pay fees through tribunals. Their amendments should therefore be resisted, and I invite my hon. Friends to support Lords amendment No. 102, if necessary, in the Division Lobby.
  Conservative Members often speak about the importance of leaseholders' rights. They must decide whether their loyalty lies with leaseholders or with the Government. Their failure to back leaseholders in the past, particularly in crucial votes on Report two months ago, led to the loss of some of the most important rights that we could have given leaseholders. It will be tragic if, tonight, leaseholders are confronted once again by a betrayal of their hopes for affordable justice because Conservative Members, who speak as though they support leaseholders, are not prepared to express that support in the Lobby. We shall press this issue and invite all those who believe that leasehold justice is important to join us in voting to retain the Lords amendment.
  5.15 pm
  Sir John Hunt: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) referred to a "Government retreat". I would prefer to describe it as a sensible concession in response to concerns expressed by hon. Members here and in another place. I suppose that the nature of compromises means that they do not and cannot fully satisfy either side, but I am reasonably happy with the solution that my hon. Friend the Minister has put forward this afternoon in the form of amendment (a).
  Originally, there were great fears that fees of £2,000 a day would be imposed. That would have inhibited people from going to leasehold valuation tribunals and would have undermined the point and purpose of such tribunals, which have deservedly been given a warm welcome by leaseholders throughout the country. I welcome the fact that the Government drew back from their original intention to impose full cost-basis fees.
  The Government's concession reminds us of the useful role that the other place can play in matters of this kind. Without the debate to which the hon. Member for Greenwich referred, I doubt whether the Government would have made that compromise. I am sure that the concession will be given a qualified welcome by many leaseholders who look at these matters sensibly and realistically. They will not necessarily oppose the principle of levying fees provided that they are moderate and sensible. In many cases, £500 a day would be shared by several leaseholders taking a single case to a tribunal, so the sum would not be punitive.
  54
  The concession will be given a qualified welcome by my constituents, such as those who live on the Fair Acres estate, who have been subjected to a great deal of anxiety and harassment by their landlords over the years. I shall therefore support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
  Mrs. Maddock: Amendment No. 102 is a classic case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. We have seen that happen in Committee and throughout the Bill's proceedings in another place.
  All hon. Members welcome the fact that leasehold valuation tribunals will assist leaseholders if they have severe problems. However, the tribunals will be of absolutely no use to many people if the cost is too high. In particular, I am concerned about elderly people. They worry about money and the hassle of going to the tribunal. If they are worried about whether they can afford to do so, they will not go to the tribunal.
  The matter was extensively discussed in another place and I concur entirely with the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee on this matter. We are talking about access to justice—free access to justice. The Government have retreated on this matter: there will not be free access to justice, as we all thought at the beginning—there will be costs.
  The Government's amendments give Ministers the power to change the limit, although they are trying to convince us that it is £500. That is totally unacceptable. I concur with what was decided in another place. I fully support amendment No. 102, as passed in another place.
  Mr. Ashby: The debate has reminded me of something that happened to me some years ago when I was successfully demolishing a prosecution case. The judge was getting more and more irate as he saw the case disappearing and he said to me, "Do you know how much it costs per minute to run this court?" I replied, "I agree that it costs a large amount of money, but what price justice?" Today, we are dealing with justice; we are dealing with something that the Government have recognised and acted on, to their enormous credit.
  The Government have appreciated that people go to the London auction houses and see freeholds on 999-year leases being auctioned. We are not talking about the great estates or the decent people—we are talking about people who are out to make a fast buck, about the rip-off merchants. It is no good talking about the sanctity of contracts, about people agreeing that they had a 999-year lease and about people being subject to a contract that they are trying to break. We are talking about rip-off merchants who go out and buy freeholds and then see how much they and their successors can rip off the leaseholder in the following 999 years. I am fundamentally opposed to the whole system, but that is not what we are debating today.
  I shall explain to my hon. Friend the Minister why I shall support him in the Lobby today, but I want him to understand what he needs to do in terms of regulation. I declare an interest because I shall talk about my personal case and what I am going to do. I want my hon. Friend to work his regulations so that I can do the best thing possible in my case. That is the best way that I can illustrate what I believe should be done.
  My property was sold off to some rip-off merchants, who formed a company called Raleigh Estates, which is really run by a firm of surveyors called Wallakers—

  55
  I suspect that it owns a number of properties. It purchased a 999-year lease on a small block of four flats. I am incensed by this behaviour, not because I mind—I earn enough money to pay the insurance—but because it is ripping people off. I loathe being ripped off.
  I know that individual flats can be insured for about £180 a year, but that Wallakers has gone to great lengths to ensure that the insurance costs in excess of £390 a year. The terms of the lease say that Wallakers must nominate the insurers and that it is the agent. I believe that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should look at this matter. There is a tie-up between the major insurance companies and companies such as Wallakers.
  The insurance companies do not receive the money direct—they go through Wallakers, and Wallakers gets 15 per cent. I know that 15 per cent. of £180 is not very much, but 15 per cent. of £390 is a good deal more. It is in the interests of the rip-off merchants, such as Wallakers, to get the highest possible insurance they can—they rip us off so that they can get the highest possible return. We have to do something about this.
  There are only four flats in my block. One of the tenants is a young computer man and he can afford it. However, one of the tenants is an old-age pensioner. We tried to buy the freehold and had an enormous number of problems. Wallakers puts in every impediment that it can—it does not reply to letters. I have instructed solicitors in this regard, and they cannot get anywhere. Time and time again, we are getting absolutely nowhere. We are all fed up.
  The solution is to take the management out of the hands of Wallakers—and as quickly as possible. It will be left with £15 a year and it will have to decide whether it is worth it. We will say, "You can stuff it, Wallakers, we will carry on with the management. You can just get your £15 a year." That is what we want to do.
  I want us to get the regulations right. I accept that we must have a limit of £500. The Treasury is giving Departments absolute hell, and I accept that we must have some sort of compromise. Hon. Members have to remember that, in the case that I am talking about, there are not 200 flats—if there are 200 flats, it will be only £5 or £10 a person—but only four, and it costs a lot more.
  I hope that the regulations will cover not only the cost of what we are trying to do but the number of applicants. I hope that there can be a scale of fees that will take those factors into account. One should be able to go swiftly, quickly and cheaply before the tribunal. I should like the management to be in my hands—I would get three quotes from insurance companies and I would not charge 15 per cent. There are only four of us and I shall get the others to pay a direct debit to the insurance company and away we will go. There will be no problems at all and no one will be ripped off.
  I want my hon. Friend to think about the scale of charges and about the limit of £500. He should also think about the bottom end and grade it according to the number and to the scale—according to what is required and what is requested. There are a number of ways of getting it right. I accept that things will change. After all, £500 is a reasonable sum of money today but, in 20 years time—especially if the Labour party gets into power and causes
  56
  inflation to rise—it will seem like only £5. I accept that there will have to be some change in the years ahead to take account of inflation, if nothing else.
  In keeping with everything that we have said, I am sure that my hon. Friend's Department will honour the spirit that it is £500 today and that it may have to be changed in the years ahead. We need justice that is cheap and swift. We need justice in this matter.
  Mr. Dudley Fishburn: The story of leasehold reform is a strange one, and this set of amendments most perfectly typifies what is so strange about it. The push for leasehold reform has come from Conservative voters, home owners and a million people who have sunk a lot of money into their homes and found that their homes, under our leasehold system, are second-class homes.
  Despite the charming words of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), the articulateness of the leasehold reform campaign has been provided by Conservative Members, who enabled the previous three Leasehold (Reform) Acts to be passed.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman argues that the case for leasehold reform has been made by Conservative Members. Perhaps he will tell the House who voted for leaseholders' right to manage and to do away with the low-rent test, and why he voted with the Government and with all his Conservative colleagues against leaseholders' interests on those two issues?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Fishburn: I did not mean to stir up this pot at this time. I divided the House on the low-rent test, and I voted with the hon. Member for Greenwich on the most recent Leasehold (Reform) Bill—which gets to the point that I should like to make. While leasehold reform is in the Conservative interest, and Conservative Members have articulated that interest, often the Government have been the slowest, most reluctant and most diluted in their approach to it.
  The amendments are to be hugely welcomed, as are the concessions that have been gained. However, they should have been in an Act of two years ago. We were told then, of course, that it was completely impossible for leaseholders to have access to the right to manage, in the same way that we were told that the low-rent test was an essential part of leasehold law. Now, courtesy of the good work done by the Government, that low-rent test has been all but abolished, and leaseholders will have a right to go to a leasehold valuation tribunal to win the ability to manage. However, it is little, it is late, and it is not the last word on the subject.
  What is certain is that the topics that we have been discussing as the Bill has passed through the House, and most particularly this set of amendments, will be revisited in the years ahead. That has nothing to do with the ambitions of the hon. Member for Greenwich—who, if ever he does come to the Dispatch Box, will probably come to it as an Agriculture Minister rather than as a Minister for anything to do with the Department of the

  57
  Environment—but it has everything to do with the slow, reluctant and rather muddled way in which we revise property law in this country.
  My guess is that the amendments will return in another Housing Bill, that the Bill is by no means the last word and that, in 2010, leaseholders will not be going to a leasehold valuation tribunal, paying their £500 and winning the right to manage.
  I am delighted that the concessions have been made, that a cap has been established and that Front Benchers have—although it is little and late—done the right thing. As one more step along the path of proper leasehold reform, the measures are much to be welcomed.
  Mr. Clappison: I think that hon. Members are familiar with the background of how some tenants have suffered at the hands of certain landlords. Certainly we believe that our package of reforms will be of real assistance to many tenants who have suffered in that manner. This reform—the establishment of the leasehold valuation tribunal—will be an important part of that package.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) raised the issue of unscrupulous landlords who would try to exploit the provisions in the same way in which they have exploited other provisions, causing fear and trepidation for tenants. I should tell him that the provision to which I referred in my opening remarks is perhaps one that the courts will want to consider, particularly in the context of landlords' behaviour. We have set out a provision that allows a tribunal to require the other party to reimburse the applicant for all or part of the fee if it seems appropriate in the circumstances. There is no doubt that tribunals will want to examine carefully the type of behaviour by landlords that he mentioned.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), mentioned the order and the possibility of increasing the sum of £500. I respectfully draw their attention to the fact that that would require an affirmative resolution and to what I have already said about that matter—that the order will be dealt with in the normal way and that it will occasionally reflect changes in cost. It is sensible to have such a provision for change. It does not mean necessarily that change will be brought in tomorrow, but it is sensible to have such provision for it.
  Various hon. Members have mentioned people on low incomes. The Bill contains provision for the tribunal to mitigate the fee if the applicant is on a low income. We have not yet decided how to implement that provision in detail, but we shall be consulting on it. I can tell the House that it is likely that we will passport the current support regime—such as income support—as a basis for the operation of that mitigation. The fee will be mitigated in full or in part if the applicant qualifies.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) for his expression of support—which, in his case, comes after a very careful consideration of the provisions.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn). It is fair to say, on any view, that he has played a most distinguished and well-documented part in the history of leasehold reform.
  58
  I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), who I know cares deeply about this subject. He put it admirably when he said that justice in such circumstances should come swiftly and cheaply. In response to his concern, I can tell him that the precise fee structure has not yet been worked out. We will, however, of course be guided by the type of considerations to which I have already adverted. He is as anxious as we are that we should have effective justice at an affordable price. We believe that these provisions will achieve that.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment Nos. 100 and 101 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 102, in page 53, line 36, leave out from ("securing") to end of line 39 and insert
  ("that the amount of the fees charged is no more than would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be chargeable for similar proceedings in the county court.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Clappison.]
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 217.

  Division No. 207]

  [5.36 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Clappison, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Ashby, David

  Congdon, David

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cope, Sir John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cran, James

  Bates, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Batiste, Spencer

  Curry, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Elletson, Harold

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bums, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butcher, John

  Forth, Eric

  Butler, Peter

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Freeman, Roger

  Carttiss, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Cash, William

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Channon, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  59

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gill, Christopher

  Merchant, Piers

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Mills, lain

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorst, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Needham, Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Newton, Tony

  Gummer, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Paice, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Patten, John

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pawsey, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pickles, Eric

  Heald, Oliver

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Redwood, John

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Riddick, Graham

  Horam, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Hordem, Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howard, Michael

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunt, David (Winal W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Hurd, Douglas

  Sackville, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shephard, Gillian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Jopling, Michael

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Key, Robert

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  King, Tom

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knox, Sir David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Kynoch, George

  Spteer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lang, Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sproat, Iain

  Legg, Barry

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lennox—Boyd, Sir Mark

  Stanley, Sir John

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lidington, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lord, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Luff, Peter

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Sykes, John

  MacGregor, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thomason, Roy

  Malone, Gerald

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marland, Paul

  Thumham, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  60

  Tracey, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Tredinnick, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Trend, Michael

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilkinson, John

  Waldegrave, William

  Willetts, David

  Walden, George

  Wilshire, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Ward, John

  Yeo.Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Young, Sir George

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Wells, Bowen

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ainger, Nick

  Dewar, Donald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashton, Joseph

  Etherington, Bill

  Austin-Walker, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Berth, A J

  Flynn, Paul

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Benn, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foulkes, George

  Benton, Joe

  Fraser, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Berry, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Betts, Clive

  Gapes, Mike

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Golding, Mrs Lin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Byers, Stephen

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harvey, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Hattersley, Roy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Henderson, Doug

  Church, Ms Judith

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoey, Miss Kate

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cox, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Davies, Denzil (Uanelli)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  61

  Keen, Alan

  Prescott, John

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Randall, Stuart

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Livingstone, Ken

  Reid, Dr John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Rendel, David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McAllion, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, John

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  McKelvey, William

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheerman, Barry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Shore, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Short, Ms Clare

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Alun

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Straw, Jack

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Molyneaux, Sir James

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Timms, Stephen

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Touhig, Don

  Mudie, George

  Trickett, Jon

  Mullin, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Murphy, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Walker, Sir Harold

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Olner, Bill

  Watson, Mike

  Orme, Stanley

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pearson, Ian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pope, Greg

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Eric Martlew.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a), in page 53, line 35, leave out from first 'order' to end of line 39 and insert—
  'subject to this limit, that the fees payable in respect of any one application or reference by the court together with any proceedings before the tribunal arising out of that application or reference shall not exceed £500 or such other amount as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State.'.
  (b), in page 54, line 6, leave out 'which, unless the order' and insert—
  '( )No order altering the limit under subsection (3) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  ( ) Any other order under this section, unless it'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Lords amendments Nos. 103 and 104 agreed to.

Clause 81

  APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER
  Lords amendment: No. 105, in page 55, line 29, after ("made)") insert
  (", in paragraph (a) (breach of obligation by landlord), omit sub—paragraph (ii) (requirement that circumstances likely to continue).
  ( ) In that subsection,")
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 113, Lords amendment No. 114, Government amendments (b) and (c) and Opposition amendment (a) in lieu thereof, Lords amendments Nos. 278 to 285, Lords amendment No. 286 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.
  Mr. Clappison: We now come to a group of amendments that deal with applications to the leasehold valuation tribunal for the appointment of a manager. At the appropriate time, I shall ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 114 and Opposition amendment (a) in lieu thereof.
  These amendments make a number of changes to clauses 81 and 82 and to schedule 5, which establish the right of a tenant of a flat to apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for the appointment of a manager on the ground that the landlord is in some way falling short in his management responsibilities.
  Amendments Nos. 105 and 279 concern the grounds for appointing a manager set out in the existing legislation: that the landlord is in breach of his obligations under the lease and that this breach is likely to continue. The amendment deletes the second part. Also, under the two additional grounds introduced by clause 81, there is no express requirement for the tribunal to take account of the likely future behaviour of the landlord. This amendment therefore ensures a degree of consistency between the three grounds which the tribunal will have to consider and, most importantly, should improve the chances of tenants succeeding in cases where a history of bad management can be demonstrated.
  Amendments Nos. 112 and 285 restrict the right of appeal from an LVT to the lands tribunal in cases for the appointment of a manager, by requiring that leave to appeal must be first obtained from either the LVT or the lands tribunal. An appeal will be possible only with the approval of either tribunal. That parallels the appeal procedures that we have introduced in relation to the new jurisdiction contained in clause 79 for leasehold valuation tribunals to determine the reasonableness of service charges.
  Amendment No. 108 would require the LVT, when considering an application from a landlord for an order appointing a manager to be discharged, to be satisfied that the variation or discharge would not lead to a recurrence of the problems which led to the making of the original order and that it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to vary or discharge the order.
  I intend to ask the House to support Government amendments (b) and (c) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 114; Lords amendment No. 286 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof, and to resist Lords

  63
  amendment No. 114 and Opposition amendment (a) in lieu thereof. In effect, the issues here are very similar to those we have just discussed in relation to the level of fees chargeable by the tribunal for dealing with service charge disputes.
  The new jurisdiction given to the LVT to consider applications by leaseholders for the appointment of an independent manager will run in parallel. This is an important new right for leaseholders to secure the efficient management of their homes, and it offers them a respite from an unsatisfactory or oppressive landlord. We have modified and strengthened the grounds that the LVT can consider when deciding whether a new manager should be appointed, and we have made it more difficult for the old landlord to come back and simply ask for another chance to do the job properly, without demonstrating clearly to the tribunal that he has mended his ways.
  The current position in the Bill on fees for these cases is not the same as for the service charge procedures. A Government amendment on Third Reading in another place was accepted, so the Bill currently states that the level of fees must not exceed the cost of providing the service. As I said earlier, this gives the Government considerable flexibility in setting an adequate fee structure, but there is a very strong argument for establishing a maximum limit of £500 in each case, in exactly the same manner as for the service charge procedures. We will then adopt a closely parallel fee structure for the two procedures, which will be of great benefit in helping leaseholders to understand what is involved and in deciding which procedure would be most suitable for them.
  For the same reasons as I gave at length in relation to the previous group of amendments, I cannot accept the Opposition's amendment, which would establish a very low maximum level of fee of about £120. The issues are similar. I believe that we have struck the right balance to provide for effective justice for tenants at an affordable price.
  Mr. Raynsford: We have before us very clear evidence of the problems caused by large-scale alterations to Bills at the last possible moment. Substantial amendments were made on Third Reading in the other place last Wednesday. Amendments and starred amendments have been tabled, with Government manuscript amendments being submitted only today because, at the last minute, the Government realised that there was an inconsistency between what they are doing in one part of the Bill and what they are doing in another.
  Before we get to the substance of this debate, I must tell the Minister that this is no way to proceed with a crucial issue such as leasehold reform. Once again, last-minute changes are being made in a hurry without proper time to consider them and without opportunity for proper scrutiny. I say clearly tonight that this will not be the last word. The hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) said the same in the previous debate. This cannot be the final word on leasehold reform. We will need to return to the issue, because the Bill goes only some way towards resolving the problems, and does even that in an inherently unsatisfactory way.
  Through this series of amendments, we are dealing with the whole issue of the management of leasehold blocks. We are considering the problems faced by leaseholders
  64
  who have incompetent or, frankly, unscrupulous and dishonest landlords. We know of examples of landlords who have failed to do the things that they ought to have done and who have not maintained their blocks properly. Often, that has been because of incompetence—but we also know of a new breed of rogue landlords who have been determined to abuse their privileges and use their powers as freeholders to intimidate and extort more money from their leaseholders than they should pay for various charges. It is to provide redress against incompetence on the one side and dishonesty and extortion on the other that new measures are required to give leaseholders rights and to prevent landlords from abusing the system.
  When the matter was debated in Committee, thoroughly and in detail, the Committee rightly voted for a simple and effective remedy: the right to manage. That remedy was advocated by the Labour party in its policy paper on leasehold reform issues, "An End to Feudalism", as the simplest and most effective way of giving leaseholders proper redress and ensuring that, if confronted with an incompetent or dishonest landlord, they could take matters into their own hands and take over management of the block, thereby ending the abuse.
  6 pm
  That right to manage mirrors an equivalent right that the Government have given to council tenants. It is a clear, simple, straightforward mechanism, and it would have been the right solution. It is common sense that those who have the greatest interest in the future management of a property—the leaseholders—should themselves be able to take on the responsibility if they feel that they can discharge it better than the freeholder. The remedy is effective, because it sends unscrupulous landlords a clear message that, if they fail to provide a good service, the leaseholders will be able to take over management; but it is not against the interests of good landlords.
  Along with others, I have made that point on many occasions. There is no threat to the good landlord who does not exploit tenants, and charges a reasonable amount for services. In such circumstances, leaseholders would not want to take over management, because they would not be able to make any savings or provide a more efficient service. Equally, given the way in which the right to manage was proposed, it would have provided a proper safeguard for landlords' interests by ensuring their representation on the management company.
  Despite all those strong arguments in favour of a right to manage, however, the Government chose on Report to vote down the proposal, albeit by a narrow margin. We have now been presented with the alternative—which is very much a second best—of an opportunity for leaseholders to seek redress by means of a leasehold valuation tribunal. The earlier arrangement laid down in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, allowing leaseholders to seek redress through the courts, has proved entirely ineffective. It has not enabled leaseholders to get rid of unscrupulous or incompetent landlords; the number of cases in which leaseholders have obtained orders to change the management of their blocks has been derisory.
  This procedure depends on leaseholders' having to demonstrate fault. That will cause difficulties: it is not the simple, clear-cut procedure that applies when leaseholders say that they wish to take over the management of a

  65
  property because they are confident that they can manage it better than the freeholder. They will have to present a case, and demonstrate that the landlord has been at fault. It will be difficult to prove fault, and there will be opportunities for unscrupulous landlords—often aided and abetted by crafty lawyers—to try to get around the provisions. This will not be a satisfactory alternative; moreover, the issue of costs will arise again.
  We have discussed that issue in previous debates, and I will not detain the House by repeating the arguments at length. Suffice it to say that a leaseholder with a bad landlord who is not managing the property decently will be nervous about seeking redress through the leasehold valuation tribunal if the cost will be a £500 fee, with no guarantee of reimbursement. The same deterrent will apply as in the case of service charge disputes, which we debated earlier.
  We are dealing with a serious problem, which requires a proper, long-term solution. The Government are offering only a limited and partial response, which is typical of their approach to leasehold reform. While they, and Conservative Back Benchers, are only too happy to protest their support for leaseholders and to say that they favour leasehold reform, when it comes to the crunch they repeatedly vote for measures that do not provide leaseholders with proper and effective remedies. On Report, when we had the opportunity to keep the right to manage in the Bill, all the Conservative Members who had spoken so passionately about leaseholders' interests voted with the Government to destroy that right. That is an indication of the extent to which the Conservative party has betrayed leaseholders' interests.
  The truth is that the Tory party is still financially dependent on a number of large landowners. Those landowners may not attend meetings of the Premier Club. They probably do not need to: they already have close lines of communication with the party which are, as it were, paved with gold, or at least with financial donations. It is because of its dependence on the money of the big landowners that the Conservative party has consistently failed to defend leaseholders' interests, and has consistently shilly-shallied, and backed away from thorough-going reform. We are seeing the same process tonight: a failure to accept the need for effective, cheap remedies—for justice that is simple, straightforward and inexpensive. Instead, we are being offered a complicated and less than satisfactory alternative, for which leaseholders will have to pay more than they can afford in many cases.
  I invite all hon. Members who really care about leasehold reform to join us in the Lobby to support the principle of genuine reform, and to fight properly for the interests of leaseholders.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I listened with pleasure to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) before we got down to the substance of the Lords amendments. I smiled, because I remembered how often the hon. Gentleman had congratulated the Government in Committee on the manner in which they had responded to arguments, and had said how much the Bill was being improved by our actions. I even remember the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) deriving enormous pleasure from the first concession made to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration.
  66
  I felt some sympathy with the hon. Member for Greenwich in regard to what we were having to cope with today, and thought that he put his point with a degree of charm. He spoke with pride, however, about the behaviour of members of his party and its Governments in connection with leasehold reform. I have represented my constituency since 1977. The leasehold reform legislation passed before then was passed under the auspices of Labour Governments, and the hon. Gentleman deludes himself if he thinks that those Governments did not leave problems behind, with which leaseholders had to wrestle following 1967 and 1974.
  A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman launched an implicit attack on the principle of amendments made on Third Reading in the House of Lords. We fully understand that, were the country to be unwise enough to elect a Labour Government, the constitution would be turned upside down; but I personally consider amendments on Third Reading in the House of Lords to be one of the glories of the constitution. They enable us to make corrections to Bills at the last possible moment, although, on the ping-pong principle, they will return to this House thereafter. I remember that, back in the early days of the 1979 Administration, an amendment on Third Reading to another DOE Bill, which was of immense importance to my constituents, was agreed to. I would be very sorry if such a device disappeared.
  We heard the familiar inveighing of the hon. Member for Greenwich against landowners and their relationships with my party. I referred to it as proto-marxist theory in Committee and I am perfectly happy to do so again. He sought to be disarming in Committee and to say that the Labour party's views had no wider implications for property law or contract law. All I can say is that we will listen to that in future.
  I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Greenwich on one point: the process through which we have all necessarily been put as a result of the manner in which the Bill has proceeded. I would welcome a response from my hon. Friend the Minister on it. It relates simply to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' code, which was alluded to at an earlier stage as being what would inform the conduct of the leasehold valuation tribunal in considering applications for the right to manage.
  My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that there will be a surveyor on the tribunal who will be able to judge the appropriate law and conditions relating to the matters. When we discussed the matters before, the code was very much in draft form and was being discussed with interested parties. Some assurance was given that its final form would either be available before the Bill completed its passage through the House or fairly soon afterwards. I understand that, as a statutory instrument, it is likely to be available fairly soon afterwards.
  I make not a complaint but a point, which is in line with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich. Leaseholders have been in touch with me to ask whether I have seen the code, think it is satisfactory, or agree that it is unsatisfactory. I inquired at the only place where one can inquire—the RICS. It properly says that, because the document is in draft form, it is being discussed with interested parties and is not available to Members of Parliament.
  We therefore find ourselves in the slightly ironical position that, in order for the DOE to come to a conclusion on whether the code—and thus the statutory

  67
  instrument—should be recommended to Ministers, leaseholders are allowed access to it and may hold views on it, but Members of Parliament who represent those leaseholders have no idea what it contains. Although I do not blame the RICS for regarding the draft code as a privileged document that should not be available to us, it is an unsatisfactory element in the evolution of policy that we shall eventually be asked to vote on a document that we cannot amend, when there might have been a better way in which to conduct consultation at an earlier stage.
  Mr. Clappison: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  This has been an interesting short debate. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) that we come to the problem from a common background. The concern among Conservative Members on behalf of leaseholders is no less than he expressed. We certainly recognise the problems that some leaseholders have experienced as a result of the behaviour of certain landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) has spoken eloquently on the subject. The package of reforms that we have introduced, including these amendments, targets the problems caused by bad landlords. That is as true of the provisions that we make for the right to manage when there has been bad practice by landlords as it is with the other provisions that we have introduced.
  I do not want to go over the wider ground of the right to manage, but I take issue with the hon. Member for Greenwich on what he said about leaseholders. We believe that the amendments will be of real benefit to leaseholders who seek the right to manage as a result of bad practice by landlords. It is no use saying that leaseholders who do not have problems with their landlords will not want to take advantage of such provisions, or, indeed, of a general right to manage such as that postulated by the hon. Gentleman.
  We are concerned about leaseholders who we know are experiencing bad practice, unreasonable behaviour, poor standards of maintenance, unreasonable service charges and all the rest. The amendments will give such leaseholders the opportunity to seek the right to manage by challenging what the landlord has done. We do not believe that it will be as difficult as the hon. Member for Greenwich envisages for them to prove that the landlord is at fault. We think that the courts will want to consider the sort of circumstances that we have described and base a finding of fault on them.
  6.15 pm
  My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who has played a most constructive role in Committee and speaks with great knowledge and authority on the subject, raised the important issue of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors code. I can tell him that the code is in the final stage of completion and it is hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will approve it shortly. It has previously been the subject of consultation, and I understand that the RICS has consulted the DOE on it and on its timing.
  68
  I shall certainly take up the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South about privilege and, access of Members of Parliament to the code. He spoke with great authority and clarity on the subject, as he did on the way in which the House must consider the amendments. He was absolutely right to emphasise the way in which we have approached the matter.
  It is rather difficult to listen to debates and to try to respond to meritorious arguments and then be chastised for making changes in the light of such debates. We have taken such a course throughout the proceedings and think that it has borne fruit. The amendments will be an important benefit for tenants who seek the right to manage when they have suffered at the hands of bad landlords.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 113 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 114, in page 57, line 35, leave out ("is sufficient to meet") and insert ("does not exceed")
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 227.

  Division No. 208]

  [6.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Amess, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Cope, Sir John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cran, James

  Bates, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Batiste, Spencer

  Curry, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowis, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Elletson, Harold

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Field, Barry (isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Burns, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butcher, John

  Forth, Eric

  Butler, Peter

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Freeman, Roger

  Cash, William

  French, Douglas

  Channon, Paul

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gale, Roger

  69

  Gallie, Phil

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Merchant, Piers

  Gamier, Edward

  Mills, lain

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gorst, Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Newton, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Norris, Steve

  Gummer, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Patten, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Pawsey, James

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Hawksley, Warren

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Portillo, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hendry, Charles

  Rathbone, Tim

  Heseltine, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Renton, Tim

  Horam, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howard, Michael

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Hurd, Douglas

  Sackville, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shephard, Gillian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Henefd)

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Jopling, Michael

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Key, Robert

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  King, Tom

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knox, Sir David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Kynoch, George

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lang, Ian

  Spring, Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sproat, lain

  Legg, Barry

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Leigh, Edward

  Stanley, Sir John

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Lilley, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sumberg, David

  Lord, Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Luff, Peter

  Sykes, John

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  MacGregor, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maclean, David

  Thomason, Roy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Madel, Sir David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thumham, Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mans, Keith

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Marland, Paul

  Tracey, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Trend, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  70

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Whittingdale, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Waldegrave, William

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Walden, George

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesf'ld)

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Young, Sir George

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Whitney, Ray

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dowd, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Eastham, Ken

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joseph

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bames, Harry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Benn, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foulkes, George

  Benton, Joe

  Fraser, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Berry, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Betts, Clive

  Gapes, Mike

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Byers, Stephen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cabom, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hardy, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cann, Jamie

  Harvey, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hattersley, Roy

  Church, Ms Judith

  Henderson, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, DrJohn

  Jamieson, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dewar, Donald

  Kaufman, Gerald

  71

  Keen, Alan

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Randall, Stuart

  Khabra, Piara S

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rendel, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rogers, Allan

  McAllion, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKelvey, William

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheldon, Robert

  McLeish, Henry

  Shore, Peter

  McMaster, Gordon

  Short, Ms Clare

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Spellar, John

  Maxton, John

  Steel, Sir David

  Meacher, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Alun

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Straw, Jack

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Molyneaux, Sir James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Timms, Stephen

  Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Touhig, Don

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Trickett, Jon

  Mudie, George

  Tyler, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Vaz, Keith

  Murphy, Paul

  Walker, Sir Harold

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Olner, Bill

  Watson, Mike

  Orme, Stanley

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pearson, Ian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pope, Greg

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Mr. Eric Martlew.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made in lieu of the Lords amendment: (b), in page 57, line 33, leave out from first 'order' to end of line 37 and insert
  'subject to this limit, that the fees payable in respect of any one application or reference by the court together with any proceedings before the tribunal arising out of that application or reference shall not exceed £500 or such other amount as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State.'.
  (c), in page 58, line 2, leave out 'which, unless the order' and insert—

  '( ) No order altering the limit under subsection (3) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  ( ) Any other order under this section, unless ie.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 115, before clause 85, to insert the following new clause—Application of right of first refusal in relation to contracts—
  ".—( 1 ) After section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (relevant disposals) insert—
  "Application of provisions to contracts.
  4A.—(1) The provisions of this Part apply to a contract to create or transfer an estate or interest in land, whether conditional or unconditional and whether or not enforceable by specific performance, as they apply in relation to a disposal consisting of the creation or transfer of such an estate or interest.
  As they so apply—

  (a) references to a disposal of any description shall be construed as references to a contract to make such a disposal;

  (b) references to making a disposal of any description shall be construed as references to entering into a contract to make such a disposal; and

  (c) references to the transferee under the disposal shall be construed as references to the other party to the contract and include a reference to any other person to whom an estate or interest is to be granted or transferred in pursuance of the contract.

  (2) The provisions of this Part apply to an assignment of rights under such a contract as is mentioned in subsection (I) as they apply in relation to a disposal consisting of the transfer of an estate or interest in land.
  As they so apply—

  (a) references to a disposal of any description shall be construed as references to an assignment of rights under a contract to make such a disposal;

  (b) references to making a disposal of any description shall be construed as references to making an assignment of rights under a contract to make such a disposal;

  (c) references to the landlord shall be construed as references to the assignor; and

  (d) references to the transferee under the disposal shall be construed as references to the assignee of such rights.

  (3) The provisions of this Part apply to a contract to make such an assignment as is mentioned in subsection (2) as they apply (in accordance with subsection (1)) to a contract to create or transfer an estate or interest in land.
  (4) Nothing in this section affects the operation of the provisions of this Part relating to options or rights of pre-emption.".
  (2) In section 4(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (relevant disposals: excluded disposals), for paragraph (i) (certain disposals in pursuance of existing obligations) substitute—
  "(i) a disposal in pursuance of a contract, option or right of pre-emption binding on the landlord (except as provided by section 8D (application of sections 11 to 17 to disposal in pursuance of option or right of pre-emption));".
  (3) In section 20(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "disposal" for "has the meaning given by section 4(3)" substitute "shall be construed in accordance with section 4(3) and section 4A (application of provisions to contracts)"."
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 116 to 121, 248 and 287, Lords amendment No. 287, Government amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendment No. 321.
  Mr. Clappison: These amendments on the right of first refusal caused some controversy in another place but I hope that I shall be able to do justice to the changes. They would make significant changes to part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and are necessary to accommodate three important elements.
  First, they would make it a criminal offence for the landlord of a block of flats to fail to offer his interest to the tenants when he wishes to sell. The criminal offence was introduced as the Bill proceeded through this House, but was extended by Lords amendment No. 118 to cover a landlord's contravention of any prohibition or restriction imposed on him, such as when a landlord serves a notice but goes ahead with a sale without waiting for the tenants' response.
  The second element provides for certain special cases, such as sale by auction, which was the subject of a commitment given in the House, and deals with grants of options or right of pre-emption and how to manage when the landlord's price includes a non-monetary element.
  Thirdly—this precipitated some significant changes, especially through Lords amendment No. 287—there is the need to specify when a relevant disposal takes place, especially in view of the criminal offence. When a transaction includes an exchange of contracts., that exchange will be the relevant disposal. That will crystallise the offence if the landlord has not offered his interest to the tenants by that stage.
  The necessity for changing substantial parts of the measure also gave the opportunity to recast other parts of the Bill so that it will be easier to follow and to use. It was the accommodation of the principle that an exchange of contracts can be a relevant disposal that required the amendments.
  Mr. Raynsford: We are dealing with a third category of leasehold problems—the failure of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to provide the supposed opportunity for leaseholders to acquire the freehold of their homes when the freeholder chooses to dispose of it. That was the intention of the 1987 Act, but it has not in practice proved an easy or problem-free route for leaseholders seeking to acquire the freehold of their homes.
  The most notable case that demonstrated the failure was that involving Smith's Charity which, despite its benevolent-sounding name, acted malevolently to its leaseholders when it chose to dispose of its freehold interest last summer to a another landowner, the Wellcome Trust, without offering its leaseholders the right of first refusal that it was supposed to offer under the 1987 Act. That prompted a wave of public protest and pressure for changes in the law, which has undoubtedly influenced the Housing Bill towards the changes in the amendments.
  The charity's action also prompted a case against it by the leaseholders affected, which partially overcame the problem but left a highly confusing judgment that suggested that the applicable date for the duty to notify the leaseholders of their right to first refusal was not the
  74
  date at which the contracts were exchanged but that at which the sale was completed. Given that the circumstances of many property sales could mean their not being completed for several years, and that during that time leaseholders would have no opportunity to exercise their rights, that was nonsense.
  Equally, even where the sale occurred without a protracted period before completion, it would be nonsense if leaseholders were not entitled to receive a notice of the proposed disposal at the time at which the contract was entered into. The problem was brought to public attention as a result of the court case, and the issue exercised us considerably in Committee.
  The Minister and other Conservative Members commented on the Opposition's objections to the large number of amendments. We have no objection to the changes being made to improve the Bill; we object only to the procedure, which has involved an enormous raft of amendments being presented to us at very short notice. The Lords Third Reading was last Wednesday. It was only mid-morning on Thursday that we received the list of amendments—329 of them, some very long. To comply with the normal requirements of the House, notice of amendments to the amendments had to be with the Clerks by the end of business that very day.
  To go through such a volume of amendments, seek to make intelligent observations and table amendments to them was quite a process. Lords amendment No. 287 is a new schedule of 21 pages and contains significant changes, many of which were entirely new. While it built on comments made in Committee, it involved forms of legislation that were not already in the public domain. There are new concepts that require careful scrutiny, and we have been unable to give them the scrutiny we would normally like to give them. It is the procedure and the timetable to which we object rather than the fact of the Bill being amended and improved—we welcome the fact that it is being improved.
  There have been a series of last-minute changes to remedy some of the problems of the present procedure and make it easier for leaseholders to exercise their right of first refusal as and when a landowner decides to dispose of a property. We welcome that change and will not oppose any of the amendments in the group, because they take forward a process that should have been completed in 1987, but has required a great deal more attention because of the failure of the 1987 Act.
  We are concerned about the scope that still exists for landlords to abuse the system by devious means, even when notionally complying with the letter of the law. I have received representations from leaseholders living in Connaught mews in the London borough of Greenwich. They live not in the constituency that I have the honour to represent, but in the borough of Greenwich. They have had the most appalling experience when trying to acquire the freehold of their homes.
  I have corresponded with the Minister about the case, so he will be familiar with it. I shall not go through the details now. Suffice to say that, when the leaseholders eventually prised out of the freeholder details of the price that they had to pay to acquire the freehold and got to the stage that they believed they could proceed with the purchase, the freeholder came up with a disreputable device to prevent them from exercising that right, by claiming that they were out of time. While the

  75
  leaseholders sought the information to enable their application to proceed, the clock had continued to tick and the time scale for exercising the right of first refusal had passed.
  Such exploitation of the loopholes by unscrupulous freeholders is characteristic of the problems that leaseholders have confronted; we have exposed them and want to block them. I fear that a loophole that allows freeholders to get around the legislation will not be closed by the measures that we are agreeing. It will be astonishing if legislation that has been prepared in such a hurry, with so little opportunity for detailed scrutiny, proves to be entirely problem-free.
  I remind hon. Members that the 1987 Act was passed in a great hurry, just before the 1987 election, to give the impression that the Government were acting on behalf of leaseholders—and that its failure is the cause of the amendments. That Act was put together in too great haste. There was not proper time for detailed scrutiny, so, sadly, it was not put on the statute book in a form that made it possible for leaseholders to take full advantage of it. It is riddled with loopholes, has proved unsatisfactory and now has to be amended.
  Although what we are doing in this group of amendments is, in principle, the right thing—making it easier for leaseholders to get the right of first refusal so that they can buy the freehold of their home when the freeholder chooses to dispose of it—the way in which we are doing it, through a huge mass of last-minute amendments and without the proper time for scrutiny, will inevitably result in loopholes or legal difficulties, which will prove problematic. I fear that this is yet another area of leasehold reform that will require revisiting. Having said that, we will not oppose the amendments, because they make legislation that is thoroughly unsatisfactory better.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 116 to 121 agreed to.

Clause 95

  RECOVERY OF POSSESSION WHERE GRANT INDUCED BY FALSE STATEMENT
  Lords amendment: No. 122, in page 63, line 37, at end insert (", or
  (b) a person acting at the tenant's instigation.".")
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 147.
  Mr. Clappison: The amendment introduces a new discretionary ground for possession for assured tenancies where the landlord has been
  "induced to grant the tenancy by a false statement made knowingly or recklessly by the tenant."
  It extends the ground to cover false statements provided by a third party at the tenant's instigation.
  76
  Lords amendment No. 147 extends the deceit ground for possession for secure tenancies.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: We agree with the purpose of the Government's actions, but are troubled by the way in which the amendment has been drafted. Lords amendment No. 122 would add a second category to the category of people who knowingly or recklessly made a false statement. It does so by adding to the Bill
  "(b) a person acting at the tenant's instigation",
  without making it clear who is in category (a).
  In Lords amendment No. 147, which is for secure tenancies, it is clear that "(a) the tenant, or" should be inserted in the final line of page 63 of the Bill. On first observation, it is not clear whether that is the correct interpretation for Lords amendment No. 122. If that were not correctly interpreted when the Bill was finally put to bed, we could have a nonsense here.
  I hope that the Minister will assure us that Lords amendment would change clause 95, which deals with ground 17, so that it would read:
  "The tenant is the person, or one of the persons, to whom the tenancy was granted and the landlord was induced to grant the tenancy by a false statement made knowingly or recklessly by the tenant, or
  (b) a person acting at the tenant's instigation."
  I make that point in the spirit in which we have approached the legislation—of seeking to improve the unsatisfactory parts and not wanting legislation to reach the statute book in a form that could be ambiguous or confusing, thereby creating further problems that would have to be amended at some future date.
  Mr. Clappison: I think that ground 17 will become (a) and will deal with the case of the tenant making the sort of representation in question and, as a result of the amendment, (b) will be inserted to cover a third party acting at the tenant's instigation. I must make it clear that the amendment covers a false statement made by (a) the tenant or (b) the third party and that that will be clear when the Bill is printed.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the Minister's initial interpretation is correct, there is a problem. If the Bill were to read
  "Ground 17—(a) The tenant is the person'",
  as he implied, it would make no sense. The Bill would make sense only if it read
  "Ground 17—The tenant is the person, or one of the persons, to whom the tenancy was granted and the landlord was induced to grant the tenancy by a false statement made knowingly or recklessly by
  (a) the tenant".
  If the Minister can confirm that that is the case, we are out of the problem.
  Mr. Clappison: That was what I was trying to convey in my original submission. I am sorry that I did not make it sufficiently clear. Those are the two circumstances contemplated by the clause as amended.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

New clause
Lords amendment: No. 123, before clause 98, to insert the following new clause—Low rent test: nil rateable values—
".—(1) In section 4(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (meaning of "low rent")—

(a) in paragraph (i) (cases where rent limit of two-thirds of rateable value on later of appropriate day and first day of term applies), for the words from "or (where" to "that date" there shall be substituted ", or on or after 1st April 1990 in pursuance of a contract made before that date, and the property had a rateable value other than nil at the date of the commencement of the tenancy or else at any time before 1st April 1990,",

(b) in paragraph (ii) (other cases), for the words from "is entered" to "1990)," there shall be substituted "does not fall within paragraph (i) above,", and

(c) in paragraph (a) (definition of "appropriate day" by reference to section 25(3) of the Rent Act 1977), there shall be inserted at the end "if the reference in paragraph (a) of that provision to a rateable value were to a rateable value other than nil".

(2) In section 4A of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (alternative rent limits for the purposes of section IA(2) of that Act)—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) (cases where rent limit of two-thirds of rateable value on the relevant date applies), for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted—

"(ii) the property had a rateable value other than nil at the date of commencement of the tenancy or else at any time before 1st April 1990,", and

(b) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—

"(b) "the relevant date" means the date of the commencement of the tenancy or, if the property did not have a rateable value, or had a rateable value of nil, on that date, the date on which it first had a rateable value other than nil;".

(3) In section 8 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (leases at a low rent)—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) (cases where rent limit of two-thirds of rateable value on the appropriate date applies), for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted—

"(ii) the flat had a rateable value other than nil at the date of the commencement of the lease or else at any time before 1st April 1990,", and

(b) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) there shall he substituted—

"(b) "the appropriate date" means the date of commencement of the lease or, if the flat in question did not have a rateable value, or had a rateable value of nil, on that date, the date on which the flat first had a rateable value other than nil;"."

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 124, 125 and 128, Lords amendment No. 288 and amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 289 and amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 290 and amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 291 and 292, Lords amendment No. 293 and amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 294 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 295 and amendment (a) thereto.
Mr. Clappison: We now come to the subject of leasehold enfranchisement, including the subject of the
78
low-rent test, which will be familiar to hon. Members in the Chamber who were members of the Standing Committee. I can deal briefly with amendments Nos. 123 to 125, 128, 291 and 292, because they deal with some minor issues relating to leasehold enfranchisements. In particular, it will now be possible for owners of leases with nil rateable values to enfranchise.
I now move on to amendments Nos. 288 to 290 and 293 to 295. The House will recall that, on Report, we abolished the low-rent test for leases over 50 years. We made it clear that we were prepared to be flexible on this figure. We have been persuaded that 35 years would be a more appropriate figure, and we were pleased to accept Opposition amendments tabled in another place by a former distinguished Member of this House to that effect. As a result, we have reactivated the ability of landlords to promote estate management schemes where their properties are newly enfranchiseable.
The other measures in this group are an anti-avoidance device for the rural exemption to the low-rent test, and a transfer of the jurisdiction to rule on the reasonableness of costs for enfranchisement cases under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 from the court to the leasehold valuation tribunal.
Turning to the background to the low-rent test, throughout our debates the Government have maintained a consistent and principled approach. Let me briefly remind hon. Members why we are seeking to maintain a test of this kind. The policy has been to give enfranchisement rights to those leaseholders who might be regarded as owner-occupiers. This is the broad policy behind the Bill, the 1967 legislation introduced by a Labour Government, and the more recent Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
In order to establish whether the leaseholder is an owner-occupier, two tests have been used. First, there must be a long lease—generally more than 21 years. Secondly, the tenant must pay only a nominal ground rent, rather than a market rent. If those two conditions are satisfied, then, except during the final years of the lease, the tenant is likely to have a greater financial stake in the property than the landlord. The hon. Member for Greenwich, with his knowledge of these matters, will be familiar with what I am saying, but the 1967 Act also used as the test a long lease at a low rent.
So, for a long time, there has been a low-rent test. The form differs slightly according to the circumstances, but generally it requires that the rent should be less than two thirds of the rateable value of the property. The purpose of the test is, as I have said, to distinguish between owner-occupier tenants and renting tenants.
There has been pressure to amend or remove the low-rent test. I think that this was not so much because it was thought that renting tenants should be given enfranchisement rights, but because in practice the low-rent test has given rise to difficulties. There are leases where the rent is technically above the low rent limit, but is nevertheless closer to being a nominal ground rent than a full rack rent. In some cases, this has arisen by chance, perhaps because properties were not revalued for rating purposes between 1973 and the end of the rating system in 1990, while ground rents crept up slightly in line with inflation. In other cases, some landlords may have intentionally set rents a small amount above the limit to which I have referred.

79
The Government have accepted that there is a case for reform. As I have already said, we introduced an amendment on Report in this House which would abolish the low-rent test for leases in excess of 50 years, and, following the debate in another place, we have reduced that period to 35 years.
I have to concede that there are no overwhelmingly strong grounds for 35 years, although it is perhaps important—before the hon. Member for Greenwich gets carried away—that eminent members of the valuation profession have said that this is a significant point at which the freehold value rises to about one third of the total interest in the property. I remind the hon. Gentleman that an Opposition Member of the other place tabled an amendment to introduce a period of 35 years. Therefore, that was the time limit lighted upon by a member of the hon. Gentleman's party. That is the background to the 35 years.
We believe that there should be a range of lease lengths—it is now becoming quite a short range, comprising leases of between 21 and 35 years—for which the low-rent test should be retained. I am concerned that there are some leases within this range which are at rack rents, and hence the tenant's stake in them has never been anywhere near so significant as the landlord's. Some landlords wish to let properties on renting tenancies, but equally wish to give the tenant a substantial period of security—for example, in return for the tenant taking on the maintenance and repairing obligations.
We need to recognise that we have responsibilities to both sides, and we need to have regard to equity in the matter. The Government therefore believe that the 35-year rule should be maintained. The vast majority of leases are for more than 35 years. The position for the handful of leases under 35 years is that the low-rent test, which already exists, continues to apply to long leases. That test requires that the lease must be set at a nominal ground rent for enfranchisement to proceed. Only leases of less than 35 years and which are let at rack rents will be excluded.
I hope that the House agrees that we have taken a reasoned and flexible approach, but one which has sought to create equity in a general sense between the two interests. We feel that we have made a compromise at an appropriate point, and we hope that the House will be able to support the Lords amendment and to disagree with the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
Mr. Raynsford: The subject of the low-rent test and the history of what has happened in the past six months as the Bill has progressed through the House is extraordinarily revealing of the Government's attitude to leasehold reform. One could not have a clearer indication of their response. It has not involved, as the Minister claimed, a consistent and principled approach. The Government's approach has been inconsistent and unprincipled. I shall now reveal exactly why.
When we considered the matter in Committee, the Opposition successfully moved an amendment, with the support of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), to abolish the low-rent test. The Government opposed the amendment. They were opposed to any change in the existing low-rent test. They
80
were defeated. When the Bill came to the House on Report, the Government did not accept that defeat. They sought to reinstate a low-rent test, but with a 50-year limitation. They argued that that was an appropriate cut-off point—that 50 years was the right period below which the low-rent test should apply but above which it might not apply.
The Government just managed to get away with reinstating the low-rent test, with a narrow majority—two votes. The amendment would not have been defeated if Conservative Members who pledged their support to leaseholders had joined us in the Division Lobby. Only the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thumham). an independent-minded Member of Parliament in every respect, joined us.
Other Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire, who supported us in Committee, did not support us on Report, so the abolition of the low-rent test sadly was not carried on that occasion, and the Government got away with introducing a 50-year limitation. However, it was pointed out that the 50-year limitation was arbitrary. There was no logic behind it or any particular reason for it, and it created anomalies. We highlighted some of those anomalies and drew attention to people who would suffer as a result of that 50-year cut-off.
So what has happened? The Government, faced with that argument, have made a further modest retreat. They were not prepared to do the decent thing and accept that the low-rent test should be abolished altogether. They have reduced the period during which the low-rent test will apply from 50 to 35 years. Hon. Members heard the Minister say this evening that there was no particularly good reason for 35 years rather than any other figure. We have once again an arbitrary figure.
The Minister prayed in aid some specious evidence about some valuers who said that perhaps a period was appropriate in which the leasehold interest began to reduce significantly as against the freehold interest. To persuade us of that, the Minister must produce convincing evidence that the cut-off point is precisely 35 years rather than 33, 34 or 36 years. Some pretty clever statistics will be needed to convince us that the balance between the leaseholder's and the freeholder's interest magically transforms at 35 years.
The 35 years is yet another arbitrary figure plucked out of the air by a Government who do not have the courage of their convictions to support leaseholders, because they are in hock to the big landowners. That is why we still have a low-rent test. As soon as the Committee had abolished the low-rent test, all the landed interests came flooding into the Department of the Environment, throwing their hands up in horror and saying, "This will be disastrous. This will ruin us. It will destroy the great landed estates"—and probably saying, although I cannot prove it, "And you won't get your donations to the Conservative party any more if you don't do what we want and reinstate some type of low-rent test."
7 pm
As a result of that pressure from the big landowners, the Government embarked on the absurd process of trying to put back a low-rent test for a shorter period, without consistency, principle or logic. Effectively, it has been a retreat under pressure, carried out with little grace, and with a final product that is far from satisfactory.

81
The House should consider why a low-rent test was necessary in the first place. The Minister said, and I am the first to acknowledge, that a low-rent test was introduced by the Labour Government in 1967 when they introduced leasehold enfranchisement for houses. and I would argue that, at that time, a low-rent test was entirely appropriate and proper.
The private rented market then was different from that today. There was detailed and rigorous rent control. Landlords were unable to let on a tenancy giving a rack rent, because they were subject to stringent rent controls, with rents set by rent officers under the provision introduced by the Labour Government in the early 1960s. A landlord who wanted to obtain a larger return often resorted to the device of a lease—notionally a lease—of 12 or 15 years, perhaps longer, to ensure a return that could not have been secured by letting the properly on a regulated tenancy.
In that framework, the lease was used as a device to get around rent control. To distinguish between a property that was let as a tenanted property and one that was truly a leased property for which the leaseholder had paid a substantial premium to acquire as their home, the low-rent test was understandable and justifiable.
The Minister knows that the world has changed. The private rented market has been deregulated. No new regulated tenancies are being created. The framework of assured shorthold tenancies and assured tenancies allows landlords to let, at a rack rent if they want to do so, without risk. There is no longer a need to distinguish between a straightforward tenancy of that nature and a leasehold property where the lease has been granted on a premium. That is why a low-rent test was necessary in 1967 but is unnecessary today.
The overwhelming consensus in the property industry is that 21 years is the proper period to use to distinguish a lease, in the sense in which we all understand it, from a tenancy. People recognise that cut-off point as the borderline between the two.
That is why, in our amendment, we are substituting 21 for 35. There is a logic behind 21 years. It is widely understood that that is the distinction between leasing and tenancy, whereas there is no such justification for the 35-year figure. Our amendment is consistent and logical. It ensures the proper abolition of the low-rent test, without creating the anomalies that have existed to date and which, sadly, will continue if the Government amendments are adopted.
The low-rent test is no longer needed, and should be abolished. Any Government who had the courage of their convictions and were able to stand up to the big landowners and their vested interests, any Government approaching this in a principled and consistent way, as the Minister claimed to do, would agree with the Opposition that the low-rent test should be abolished, and would therefore agree that 21 years is the appropriate figure to use to distinguish a tenancy from a leasehold.
Mr. Clappison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make three brief points.
First, I was not impressed by the explanation offered by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) for the failure of the 1964 and 1970 Labour Governments in this area. In fact, their enfranchisement proposals were restricted to houses, and did not apply to flats. The hon.
82
Gentleman talks about rent regulation. He is aware that that applies to shorter tenancies, not to the leases to which we are referring, and that leaseholders had no opportunity to enfranchise in those periods of Labour Government.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman chastises us for choosing a fixed time limit, and then recommends a fixed time limit—one of 21 years rather than 35 years. That time limit was proposed in an Opposition amendment in another place. The Opposition in another place may have been seduced by the sort of complaints that the hon. Gentleman envisages coming from the great propertied classes.
Thirdly, that is hardly consistent, which is one of the hon. Gentleman's familiar complaints, with the fact that we were at first prepared to introduce a test of 50 years, and then said that we were prepared to be flexible and reduced it to 35. No doubt we have done so over the massed ranks of bodies of the landed estates, the aristocracy and the great landed interests, but only the hon. Gentleman appears to have noticed that.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 124 and 125 agreed to.

New clause
Lords amendment: No. 126, after clause 105, to insert the following new clause—Compensation for postponement of termination in connection with ineffective claims—
". Schedule (Compensation for postponement of termination in connection with ineffective claims) (which makes, in relation to claims to enfranchisement or an extended lease under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and claims to collective enfranchisement or a new lease under Chapter I or II of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, provision for compensation of the landlord where the claim has prolonged an existing tenancy, but is ineffective) shall have effect."
Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 296.
Mr. Clappison: These amendments allow landlords to claim compensation for the market rent forgone when an unsuccessful claim for enfranchisement or a new lease is made during the last two years of the original lease term, and results in the leaseholder holding over their ground rent. This provision will come into force on 15 January 1999.
Mr. Raynsford: This is another amendment that serves the landlord's interest.
A short course of study of the history of leasehold reform would be advisable before the Minister makes further remarks in the House about the merits of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Anyone who has studied leasehold reform knows that that was by far the most effective piece of leasehold reform legislation that has been passed since the war. It resulted in hundreds of thousands of leaseholders being able to buy the freehold of their homes. That was a successful piece of leasehold reform.
All the present Government's measures attempting to bring justice to leaseholders have failed. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

83
and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 have all been seen to fail, because the Government surrendered the principle of support for leaseholders to their financial interest because they are bankrolled by the big landowners. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that they are supporting an amendment that will allow compensation to landowners, which I am sure is dear to the hearts of landowners and dear to the heart of the Government.
We will continue to press for the interests of leaseholders, and, after the next election, when a Labour Government have once again been returned to this country, Labour will prepare a proper and comprehensive measure of leasehold reform, to ensure that leaseholders at long last get a measure to parallel the achievements of the 1967 Act, which achieved very great things for leaseholders in houses. It will be the next Labour Government's historic duty and responsibility to ensure that leaseholders in flats achieve a similar benefit.
Lords amendment agreed to.

New clause
Lords amendment: No. 127, after clause 105, to insert the following new clause—Priority of interests on grant of new lease—
". After section 58 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 there shall be inserted—
"Priority of interests on grant of new lease.
58A.—(1) Where a lease granted under section 56 takes effect subject to two or more interests to which the existing lease was subject immediately before its surrender, the interests shall have the same priority in relation to one another on the grant of the new lease as they had immediately before the surrender of the existing lease.
(2) Subsection (1) is subject to agreement to the contrary.
(3) Where a person who is entitled on the grant of a lease under section 56 to rights of occupation in relation to the flat comprised in that lease was entitled immediately before the surrender of the existing lease to rights of occupation in relation to the flat comprised in that lease, the rights to which he is entitled on the grant of the new lease shall be treated as a continuation of the rights to which he was entitled immediately before the surrender of the existing lease.
(4) In this section—
"the existing lease", in relation to a lease granted under section 56, means the lease surrendered on the grant of the new lease, and
"rights of occupation" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983."
Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment clarifies the position when a leaseholder is granted a renewed lease under the provisions of part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; the charges that applied to the old lease will apply equally to the new one, and with the same priority of interest.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129 agreed to.

Clause 110

  INTRODUCTORY TENANCIES
  Lords amendment: No. 130, in page 72, line 13, leave out ("have been") and insert ("be")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 131, 132, 141 and 301.
  Mr. Curry: This a tidying-up measure, designed to ensure that introductory tenants cannot become secure tenants through default by quitting their tenancies during the introductory period and then returning; or cannot assign their premises to someone and thus endow that other person with a secure tenancy. I believe that the measure commands a consensus.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 131 and 132 agreed to.

Clause 114

  NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION
  Lords amendment: No. 133, in page 73, line 44, leave out from
  ("section") to end of line 45
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 134 to 137.
  Mr. Curry: Some concern was expressed in Committee to the effect that the introductory tenancies internal review might not be as objective or fair as people wanted. We were pressed to give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that laid down basic guidance to that end. The amendment provides for that. It gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that can lay down requirements for the conduct of the internal review.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Opposition support amendments Nos. 135 and 136, which are to do with tenants being informed of their rights to request a review. The Minister has referred to provisions that will ensure that such a review is carried out fairly and properly.
  The idea of introductory tenancies is attractive to some local authorities—but only to some. Others strongly oppose it. The Government have nevertheless proceeded with the idea, so it is clearly right to introduce safeguards against possible abuse.
  Introductory tenancies deny the usual principle of security of tenure to council tenants and enable tenancies to be terminated rapidly if the local authority chooses to do so during the introductory period. Hence it is essential that there be safeguards, because the potential for abuse remains.
  There is widespread concern about people who may display characteristics that are not necessarily attractive or likely to make them popular in a particular area.

  85
  They might fall foul of the provisions if they were granted a tenancy in such an area. One thinks of people housed under the care in the community provisions, who may be a cause of some concern to residents. One thinks, too, of people from ethnic minorities, who may be the subject of crude prejudice or racism.
  If trumped-up complaints were lodged against such people by a majority of tenants in an area who did not want someone with a history of mental illness or with a black face to live there, there would be a real risk of injustice without a proper system of safeguards. That is why we pressed strongly in Committee for adequate time for people to dispute possession actions taken against them. They must have a proper opportunity to have their cases reviewed; such a review should be carried out fairly and reasonably, thus guaranteeing justice.
  We therefore welcome the amendments, which provide the security that we think essential if the introductory tenancy concept is to come in without the risk of discrimination or breaches of natural justice.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 134 to 141 agreed to.

New clause
Lords amendment: No. 142, after clause 123, to insert the following new clause—Jurisdiction of county court—
".—(1) A county court has jurisdiction to determine questions arising under this Chapter and to entertain proceedings brought under this Chapter and claims, for whatever amount, in connection with an introductory tenancy.
(2) That jurisdiction includes jurisdiction to entertain proceedings as to whether a statement supplied in pursuance of section 122(2)(b) (written statement of certain terms of tenancy) is accurate notwithstanding that no other relief is sought than a declaration.
(3) If a person takes proceedings in the High Court which, by virtue of this section, he could have taken in the county court, he is not entitled to recover any costs.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may make such rules and give such directions as he thinks tit for the purpose of giving effect to this section.
(5) The rules and directions may provide—

(a) for the exercise by a district judge of a county court of any jurisdiction exercisable under this section, and

(b) for the conduct of proceedings in private.

(6) The power to make rules is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
7.15 pm
Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 143 to 146, 179, 180, 244, 245, 300 and 305.
Mr. Curry: These are purely technical amendments. No issue of principle or policy is involved—those two being, of course, indivisible.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 143 to 147 agreed to.

Clause 130

  PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION OR TERMINATION
  Lords amendment: No. 148, in page 80, line 3, at end insert
  ("or for the termination of the tenancy, and")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 149 to 156.
  Mr. Curry: These are technical amendments. They concern the notice served on tenants by their landlords to obtain possession. They tidy up current provisions and ensure consistency with the notice provisions in the Housing Acts of 1985 and 1988.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 149 to 156 agreed to.

New clause
Lords amendment: No. 157, before clause 135, to insert the following new clause—Power to grant injunctions against anti-social behaviour—
".—(1) The High Court or a county court may, on an application by a local authority, grant an injunction prohibiting a person from—

(a) engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing in, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in residential premises to which this section applies or in the locality of such premises,

(b) using or threatening to use residential premises to which this section applies for immoral or illegal purposes, or

(c) entering residential premises to which this section applies or being found in the locality of any such premises.

(2) This section applies to residential premises of the following descriptions—

(a) dwelling-houses held under secure or introductory tenancies from the local authority;

(b) accommodation provided by that authority under Part VII of this Act or Part III of the Housing Act 1985 (homelessness).

(3) The court shall not grant an injunction under this section unless it is of the opinion that—

(a) the respondent has used or threatened to use violence against any person of a description mentioned in subsection (1)(a), and

(b) there is a significant risk of harm to that person or a person of a similar description if the injunction is not granted.

(4) An injunction under this section may—

(a) in the case of an injunction under subsection (1)(a) or (b), relate to particular acts or to conduct, or types of conduct, in general or to both, and

(b) in the case of an injunction under subsection (1)(c), relate to particular premises or a particular locality;

and may be made for a specified period or until varied or discharged.
(5) An injunction under this section may be varied or discharged by the court on an application by—

(a) the respondent, or

(b) the local authority which made the original application.

(6) The court may attach a power of arrest to one or more of the provisions of an injunction which it intends to grant under this section.
(7) The court may, in any case where it considers that it is just and convenient to do so, grant an injunction under this section, or vary such an injunction, even though the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as would otherwise be required by rules of court.
If the court does so, it must afford the respondent an opportunity to make representations relating to the injunction or variation as soon as just and convenient at a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court.
In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985."
Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 165 and 302.
Mr. Curry: In Committee in another place, an amendment was tabled to clarify the ability of councils to use section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to curb anti-social behaviour. It transpired that some local authorities using that section had obtained legal advice that they would be unwise to rely on the power to restrain anti-social behaviour in premises that they owned, on the ground that there might not be sufficient public interest to justify its use.
It was clear that local authorities harboured some doubts about whether section 222 enabled them to deal with the problem—hence this amendment. The new clause contains an express power to allow councils to obtain an injunction, in the High Court or the county court, to restrain anyone from engaging in anti-social behaviour on council estates. The power is supplemented by a power for the local authority to request a court to attach a power of arrest. That will enable councils to take effective action.
The amendments will be welcomed by local authorities and by the House. The problem of anti-social behaviour is important, and there is broad agreement on the need to find effective ways to deal with it. I hope that this measure will reinforce the available powers.
Mr. Raynsford: Anti-social behaviour is one of the biggest problems facing communities throughout Britain. The problem must be dealt with urgently, and requires serious attention from everyone concerned, whether in central Government or in local government. We need to ensure that local authorities have effective powers to counter the behaviour of a minority of people who cause disproportionate grief and misery to the communities in which they live. The behaviour is often shocking, involving wanton destruction, vandalism and abuse of neighbours—behaviour that is totally incompatible with the normal decencies of human life. Sadly, many local authorities have found it difficult to take effective action against the perpetrators of such behaviour because of the inadequacy of existing legal sanctions and the extraordinary time it often takes to get cases to court and to get appropriate remedies through the courts.
For that reason, in Committee, the Opposition moved a series of amendments that were designed to give local authorities far greater powers to take action against
88
unruly, disorderly and anti-social elements who terrorise their neighbours, and who make communities hellholes in which it is difficult to lead a normal life. Our proposals envisaged, among other measures, injunctions with the power of arrest, so that a local authority could take effective action against an individual who was causing trouble, without necessarily demonstrating that that person, against whom they had powers to act, was a tenant in the region.
We therefore welcome Lords amendment No. 157, which gives effect to the measures that we were advocating. It gives a local authority the power to seek an injunction against people who are responsible for anti-social behaviour. It enables that injunction to be granted with a power of arrest, so that, if an individual against whom the injunction has been granted subsequently acts in a way that causes anxiety, fear or grief to their community, the authority can seek immediate redress, which is a far more effective deterrent than most.
It is not the whole solution, because other measures are needed to ensure effective action against anti-social behaviour. The long period that it takes to get cases into court requires urgent attention. The difficulties that people encounter because of the reluctance of certain witnesses to come forward because of fear of intimidation and reprisal is another issue. In addition to this amendment, other actions can give greater safety and security to communities.
In government, we will pursue a comprehensive range of measures to bring redress to communities, and to ensure that there is proper sanction against people who make their neighbours' lives a misery and that communities can live in peace and confidence without the fear of their lives being devastated by the actions of a small anti-social minority. Having said that, however, the amendment goes a significant way towards that goal. It gives additional powers. We are delighted that the Government have agreed to our proposals to achieve that, and we therefore warmly endorse the amendment and look forward to its reaching the statute book.
Mrs. Maddock: The amendment is welcomed by all sides, all parties and local authorities, not least because anti-social behaviour has been a great problem. During the passage of the Bill, we have had many discussions on the best way to do it, and giving local authorities the ability to use injunctions against people who behave badly has been the one issue on which there has been agreement. As has been pointed out, however, this applies only to local authority accommodation, and there are problems, particularly on mixed estates. We should be considering, and should have considered, other measures.
We had interesting discussions after the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some interesting proposals which seemed to me, and I think to others, to go a little beyond the mark in giving local authorities the ability to deal with people without their having to be proved guilty. That struck some of us as going a little too far, but, as he has said, all of us agree that injunctions are valuable. We must, however, recognise that, even if a person can get an injunction, he cannot always get things moving through the courts as quickly as he would like. We will probably have to return to this issue, but, as the hon. Gentleman and others have said, this is a welcome first step. I hope that it will be kept under review and that

89
the Minister will consider whether other proposals can be made to ensure that it works in the way that he and I hope it will.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 165 agreed to.

Clause 142

  ALLOCATION OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION
  Lords amendment: No. 166, in page 88, line 40, at end insert ("section 144(1A) or")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 169 to 173, 190 to 197, 303, 323, 325 and 326.
  Mr. Curry: We now move to the parts of the Bill reconciling welfare provisions under homelessness with social security provisions as they relate to asylum seekers.
  The Government's policy is that no one who is here temporarily or illegally or who is seeking asylum is entitled to housing through the housing register. The same groups are not entitled to homelessness assistance, with the exception of people seeking asylum at the port of entry, who are entitled to homelessness assistance up to the first decision by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  The Court of Appeal found against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on the ground that he exceeded his powers. The amendments are designed to structure primary legislation to avoid the risk of successful legal challenge in respect of housing legislation. In effect, the prohibitions will apply unless the Secretary of State specifies otherwise by regulation on, for example, people with settled immigration status and people who have been granted refugee status or exceptional leave. The regulations will be made ahead of commencement, so this is a reconciliation measure to ensure that the Bill's provisions equate to the provisions in parallel legislation. I therefore commend the Lords amendments to the House.
  Mr. Raynsford: This group of amendments is a shabby illustration of the Government's continued vendetta against asylum seekers—a vendetta which has brought considerable shame on this country internationally and has tarnished our reputation, acquired over 300 years, for being fair and willing to accept people who have suffered torture and discrimination in other countries, and who have been able to seek refuge here. Now we can no longer hold our heads up high in the international community as a country that is willing to welcome people who have suffered appalling torture in other countries.
  A week ago tonight, I was speaking about one such person who had come to this country after suffering grotesquely at the hands of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. That person, simply because he arrived in London late at night, confused and frightened, and did not speak any English, failed to make his application for asylum at the port of entry. Because of that, had he applied after 5 February, he would have been treated as a bogus asylum seeker, and would have been denied benefits and
  90
  entitlement to any social security assistance or housing. That is a comment on the Government's extraordinarily crude, vindictive and unpleasant values in denying to people who have suffered appallingly elsewhere an opportunity to enter this country, and to be welcomed and helped to establish themselves again on a reasonable footing.
  7.30 pm
  Previous generations of refugees—from Nazi Germany, the pogroms in Russia and eastern Europe in the 19th century, and even before that from the repression in France against the Huguenots at the time of Louis XIV—were welcomed in Britain. Refugees of today, even if they come from vile regimes like that in Iraq, will be treated in the shabby way that the Government seek to introduce.
  In his brief speech, the Minister referred to the Government's defeat in the courts as a result of the implementation of their changed rules affecting asylum seekers. Rather than proposing amendments to the law to overturn the policies that caused those defeats—policies described as draconian in impact—the Government have responded simply by seeking to legitimise the policy that they previously sought to adopt. The amendment is part of that shabby process.
  Quite apart from that wider policy background. there are serious reasons for reconsidering the amendment. While asylum seekers who arrive in this country wait for the Home Office to reach a decision on their application for asylum, they cannot register on a housing waiting list. Many must wait for three years or more because of the Home Office's extraordinary inefficiency in processing asylum cases.
  In areas where people earn additional points for the time they have been on a waiting list, those individuals will be denied the opportunity to obtain points because they will have been ineligible to register on the waiting list. Although at the end of the process, perhaps three years on, the Home Office may grant them asylum and they will therefore become eligible to go on a waiting list, by the very nature of these restrictions, which will be enforced by the amendment, their chance of being rehoused will be put back by that wait. It will not be the asylum seekers' fault but the fault of the Government, because of their slow processing of asylum cases.
  It cannot be right to hit people twice with the double whammy of, first, denying them the opportunity to be considered for housing when they arrive in the country as refugees and, secondly, making them suffer an additional penalty because of the Home Office's failure to process their case expeditiously. I hope that the Government will think again. I fear that they will not. No one can be proud of this chapter in the history of this country's policy towards asylum seekers. It will be frequently recalled in future years as evidence of the Government's inhumanity and political ineptness.
  Mrs. Maddock: This is one of the most mean-spirited parts of the Bill. Outside the House there has been incredible lobbying to get the Government to change their minds and ensure that people who flee terrible regimes are dealt with fairly when they arrive on our shores.
  There has been widespread support from the Church. It is galling to hear the Government say that we need moral guidance from the Church, yet when the Church gives the Government moral guidance, they choose to ignore it.

  91
  We have already heard of the case of people who arrive at a port of entry speaking not a word of English, perhaps having fled from torture and dreadful conditions with their children and family. If they do not do the right thing at the right time, they are penalised for ever more.
  This matter has been debated widely and has had a lot of press coverage. It is sad that, at the Bill's final stages, the Government have still not listened. They could at least have promised that they would ensure that the procedures for dealing with people who managed to have their case heard were dealt with quickly. That would have done far more to alleviate the problems of illegal immigrants than this mean-spirited measure. I feel extremely sad about this. The Minister responsible for the Bill is not mean-spirited, and it is unfortunate that he could not persuade his colleagues to do something better.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 167 to 173 agreed to.

Clause 145

  THE HOUSING REGISTER
  Lords amendment: No. 174, in page 90, line 16, after ("it") insert ("and other relevant matters")
  Mr. Curry: 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. 176.
  Mr. Curry: These two small amendments are intended to improve the provisions about the housing register by ensuring that it is sufficiently comprehensive. Amendment No. 174 will ensure that the register contains information not only about the applicant but about other relevant matters—for example, other members of his or her household and the circumstances in which he or she lives. The information will be confidential because of other provisions in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 176 would give an authority the discretion to remove someone from its register if he or she asks it to do so, where he or she is owed a duty by that authority under the homelessness provisions. At the moment, the authorities have no option but to remove him or her. It is sensible to give the housing authority that option, as it would remove abuses—for example, people seeking to remove their name from the register and then making a new application.
  The amendments are technical but useful improvements to how the register will work, and I invite the House to agree with them.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 146

  OPERATION OF HOUSING REGISTER
  Lords amendment: No. 175, in page 90, leave out line 24 and insert—
  ("( ) When a local housing authority put a person on their housing register (on his application or otherwise), they shall notify him that they have done so.")
  Mr. Curry: 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. 177, 178 and 217 to 222.
  Mr. Curry: These amendments are more substantial, but I think that the House will wish to agree with them. They show my willingness to reflect on points raised in Committee. Having done so, I decided that some of the arguments were substantial and I therefore invited the other place to agree the amendments. I now invite this House to do the same.
  Amendments Nos. 217 to 222 extend the right of internal review to allocations. We are ensuring that there is an effective review procedure.
  Amendments Nos. 220 to 222 allow an appeal on homelessness decisions, on a point of law, to the county court following an internal review. In Committee, I was pressed to do this, and I reflected on it. A review should be rapid, effective and fair. I concluded that some ultimate recourse to the county court was sensible for people who felt that the law had not been followed accurately. There are 21 days in which to do that, which I understand is the normal period for the county court.
  Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, the amendments are an improvement on the original provisions of the Bill and we welcome them. If people are refused access to a local authority housing register, that may have a serious impact on their prospects of securing good-quality accommodation, and they must have an opportunity to challenge a decision to deny them access to the register if they believe that the decision has been taken wrongly or on the basis of incorrect information. An opportunity to appeal, both internally and externally, is proper and correct. We pressed for this right and we are pleased that the Government have agreed that it should be incorporated in the Bill. We warmly welcome the amendments.
  Mrs. Maddock: I also warmly welcome the amendments. I have only one comment: we had a discussion at the beginning of today's debate about how thick the amendments are—this measure could have been dealt with a long time ago.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 176 to 180 agreed to.

Clause 156

  HOMELESSNESS AND THREATENED HOMELESSNESS
  Lords amendment: No. 181, in page 93, line 30, leave out ("there is") and insert ("he has")
  Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 182 to 186.
  Mr. Curry: These are drafting amendments to clarify the law.
  Mr. Raynsford: I agree with the Minister, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without commenting on the obscure processes of legislation. Essentially, the amendment restores to the first clause of the Bill relating to homelessness, a structure similar to the one that was created in 1977 when the Rent Act first reached the statute book. Those who have followed the processes by which the legislation has been attacked by the Government will know that there has been an on-going battle to defend the principles that lay behind the 1977 legislation.
  That Act was a positive and appropriate response to the needs of homeless people, and it provided a framework that has worked well for 18 years. It has ensured that a large number of people have had accommodation—they would have been homeless without it. It is a tragedy that the Government have continued to pursue their vendetta against the homeless by seeking to undermine the provisions of the 1977 legislation.
  The only consolation is that, over the past six months or so, we have been able to mitigate, to a modest extent, some of the damage that has been done by the Government. What I find curious about this group of amendments is, as I have already said, that we are now returning to a format similar to the one that was originally proposed in 1977. The legislation starts with a definition of "homelessness" and includes other categories of people who have accommodation but who cannot secure entry to it or who cannot reside in it because of constraints, such as those identified in amendment No. 182.
  7.45 pm
  Many hon. Members believe that the 1977 legislation should have been left unamended—other than a clarification to ensure that it was interpreted in the way that was originally intended—to guarantee that homeless people receive help in the form of secure accommodation. An element of doubt was cast on that by a judgment in the High Court a year ago. Apart from the need for clarification—to reinstate the original intention of the 1977 legislation—there was absolutely no need to linker with the legislation, and it is a tragedy that the Government have chosen to do so.
  This tragedy will affect the lives of many people. The only consolation that we have is the knowledge that the Government's shortsightedness in undermining the homeless legislation is matched only by their short life expectancy. The next Government—a Labour Government—will reinstate a proper framework of responsibility for the relief of homelessness. The Labour party will ensure that the original intentions.of the 1977 legislation are put back on the statute book. Homeless people will have a guarantee of a proper legal framework of responsibilities backed by law to ensure that they are not deserted in their hour of need.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I ask the Minister to clarify how these amendments will help the homeless, given the number of boarded-up council houses throughout country, particularly in my constituency. I wrote to the Minister last December about the problem of boarded-up council houses in my constituency, and I received a reply from the Under-Secretary on 11 January that assured me that forthcoming legislation would help to meet the problem.
  I see absolutely no reason for council houses to be boarded up. It is a tragedy of incompetence. It is no good for housing the homeless; it is no good for the neighbours
  94
  of the empty houses, who have to put up with the mess, inconvenience and vandalism that can occur; and it is no good for council tax payers, who should be able to look to earnings from valuable assets instead of the liabilities of leaving the properties empty.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the problem still persists in my constituency. On Friday, I visited Beechcroft grove—I would like the Minister to visit Beechcroft grove. From its name, one would think that it is a pleasant, leafy suburban street. Sadly, when I stood in Beechcroft grove I felt as if I was in Beirut, not in Britain. There are 37 houses, 21 of which are empty and boarded up. What confidence can anyone have in a council that persists in such a dereliction? By coincidence, on the day of my visit, three vans arrived with workmen from the council to start cleaning up the mess in the so-called gardens of the empty properties.
  What would my hon. Friend the Minister say to Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, of 27 Beechcroft grove, who have occupied the property for 37 years? It is now surrounded by a desert of derelict properties. Why should they have to pay rent of £1,500 per annum? Would it not be better if they could buy the property under the right-to-buy legislation? It should cost them not much more than £1,500—they should get a full discount on top of the low value of the properties in the area.
  I should like the Minister to assure the House that new provisions will provide an opportunity to bring new, caring owners on to such an estate, whether as owner-occupiers or as landlords.
  On Friday, I was certainly pleased to visit Beechcroft grove with Mr. John O'Donnell of the North West Landlords Association, who is a good example of a caring landlord, and who certainly would not like to leave his properties empty. Bolton council is for ever pleading poverty, yet there it is with 21 houses that should be worth well over half a million pounds. Presumably those houses are now totally worthless, if not a liability.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to mention that issue in the debate. I should be pleased to hear the Minister say that legislation will address the issue and that my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Harrison and their son can look forward to living again in a pleasant Beechcroft grove instead of the derelict mess that it is now.
  Mr. Curry: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) must look to the other Bill on housing—the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill—for specific legislative help. That Bill will enable local authorities to use renovation grants in a strategic manner in housing renewal areas. That may be the answer to his specific concerns.
  Generally, about 2 per cent. of council houses are vacant, and about 1.1 per cent. are management voids and are available. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial that those houses should be brought into use, and the Government are urging on local authorities an empty property strategy. When we do the annual round of housing investment programmes, we always seek to receive from local authorities effective strategies to do the obvious thing—to bring empty properties into use wherever possible.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment Nos. 182 to 186 agreed to.

Clause 157

  MEANING OF ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE FOR OCCUPATION
  Lords amendment: No. 187, in page 94, line 11, leave out from ("that") to end of line 13 and insert
  ("this will lead to domestic violence against him, or against—

  (a) a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or

  (b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.

  For this purpose "domestic violence", in relation to a person, means violence from a person with whom he is associated, or threats of violence from such a person which are likely to be carried out.")
  Mr. Curry: 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. 188 and 210.
  Mr. Curry: The amendments are concerned with the serious issue of domestic violence. During the Bill's passage, hon. Members from both sides of the House expressed their concerns about that issue. In particular, they wanted to ensure that the Bill deals with cases in which violence could be threatened from people who were no longer living with a partner, but with whom there had been a relationship, and that a tenancy could be terminated on those grounds. We have now extended the Bill's scope to encompass a broader definition of domestic violence.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) was particularly concerned about this issue, as were many of our colleagues who worked on the Bill. I hope that the amendments will address their concerns, and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Raynsford: This is one of the few cases in which an amendment to the Rent Act 1977 was necessary, because the original definition of domestic violence was restricted to violence from some other person living in the property. As the Minister said in his remarks on the amendments, there are circumstances in which people can be subject to domestic violence from a former partner who is no longer resident in the property, or from other people who are not resident there.
  Therefore, the changed definition covers violence that might be threatened or perpetrated by a person's associates, who are defined in Lords amendment No. 188. That is a welcome addition to the legislative framework and provides a better basis on which to bring relief to people who are the victims of domestic violence.
  The problem is that, once people have been defined as being in a category of those who should be helped, they will not receive the same degree of help that they would have received under the 1977 Act. They may well find that the improvement worked by this group of amendments is entirely illusory because, despite being included in the categories of those to whom assistance should be given, the other changes to the 1977 legislation will nullify that benefit, and they will find that they are consequently no better off.
  The amendments are one reason to be happy about changes in the legislation, but it is against a background of negative and destructive changes to the framework for
  96
  assisting homeless people. If implemented, the changes will cause a great deal of hardship and many problems to homeless people across Britain.
  Mrs. Maddock: As a result of the amendments, important clarification of those who will be protected from all forms of domestic violence will be provided. I hope that the Minister will consider the way in which the clauses operate and whether they do what we hope they will. All those who work with women—but also with men—who suffer from domestic violence will welcome the clarification. However, they will be concerned whether, ultimately, there will be accommodation to enable such people to escape the violence.
  I hope that the Minister will examine how the provision will work in practice. As with some of the other amendments that we have considered today, he is giving with one hand in one part of the Bill and taking away with another hand in another part of the Bill. I am quite sure that those who work with people fleeing domestic violence will be watching carefully to see whether the provisions accomplish what we want them to, and I hope that the Minister will also be watching.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 188 to 197 agreed to.

Clause 167

  INTERIM DUTY TO ACCOMMODATE IN CASE OF APPARENT PRIORITY NEED
  Lords amendment: No. 198, in page 98, line 15, leave out subsection (4)
  Mr. Curry: 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. 199 to 201 and 205 to 209.
  Mr. Curry: We tabled this group of amendments in response to concerns expressed in another place that clause 196 could be used by less scrupulous authorities as a get-out. The amendments fulfil a commitment to make it clear in the Bill that the authorities must be satisfied that the advice and assistance that they provide is sufficient to enable the applicant to secure accommodation. Therefore, clause 196 is strengthened by ensuring that the authority cannot simply tell someone to go and find accommodation for himself and then declare that the matter is finished.
  The other amendments disapply the alternative accommodation provisions in clause 196 in cases in which only a minor duty is owed to households accepted to be homeless.
  The reason for the amendments is a wish to ensure that the provisions apply only in certain limited circumstance. We do not wish local authorities to be required to consider whether suitable alternative accommodation is available in every single case.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has described the amendments as designed to cover the possibility that some less scrupulous authorities will seek to evade responsibilities to the homeless by use of the original formulation of the alternative accommodation rule.

  97
  I prefer to describe such a provision as the "Wandsworth amendment", and it is necessary to stop that authority from interpreting the provisions in a manner that is hostile to the interests of homeless people.
  Although the changes are welcome, they do not go far enough. The alternative accommodation loophole remains open, and authorities can still reach a decision that someone is able to find alternative accommodation—because the wording of Lords amendment No. 208 makes it quite clear that the decision ultimately belongs to authorities. The amendment states:
  "their duty is to provide the applicant with such advice and assistance as the authority consider is reasonably required to enable him to secure such accommodation."
  That does not effectively close the loophole against Wandsworth or any similar-minded authorities but will allow an authority that does not want to accept its responsibilities to the homeless to refuse to assist them, on the ground that the authority—and only the authority—considers that it is possible for the applicant to find alternative accommodation. That is a dangerous part of the Bill, and if it were to stay on the statute book any length of time, it would allow local authorities to drive a coach and horses through their responsibilities to the homeless.
  The only consolation is that the life expectancy of the changes is short—I have already given a clear sign that a Labour Government will restore a proper statutory framework of responsibility to homeless people that all authorities will have to discharge, including those that are reluctant to do so.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 199 to 201 agreed to.

Clause 172

  DUTY TO PERSONS WITH PRIORITY NEED WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS INTENTIONALLY
  Lords amendment: No. 202, in page 100, line 14, at end insert—
  ("( ) if the applicant was occupying accommodation made available to him under section (Duties to applicant whose case is considered for referral or referred)(3) (interim duty where case considered for referral bat not referred), the date on which he was notified under subsection (2) of that section of the decision that the conditions for referral were not met;")
  8 pm
  Mr. Curry: 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 also Lords amendments Nos. 203, 211 to 216 and 229.
  Mr. Curry: These technical amendments will improve connected clauses.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 203 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 204, in page 100, line 38, after ("satisfied") insert
  ("that the accommodation was suitable for him and")
  Mr. Curry: 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 also Lords amendments Nos. 223 to 228, 304 and 324.
  Mr. Curry: A lot of concern has been expressed about the Bill's provision to place a duty on local authorities for two years, which would be renewable. It was said that such a duty might be difficult to observe in certain areas of housing stress or in respect of persons requiring particular types of property. After much reflection, I decided to meet some of those concerns.
  I am aware that a small number of local authorities could have difficulty, so the amendment provides that, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority cannot manage, he can make a direction applying to it a 12-month derogation in respect of particular properties or persons. The Secretary of State will set the conditions, in liaison with the housing authorities. That welcome flexibility is at peace with that which I have sought to introduce throughout the Bill where a case for it has been made.
  Mr. Raynsford: There can be no clearer illustration of the nonsense in this part of the Bill than this group of amendments. Homeless people need permanent accommodation. The statutory framework that has been in place since 1977 rightly put the emphasis on helping homeless people to secure permanent accommodation. The Government are substituting a concept that only the more loony elements in Conservative Central Office, aided by the extreme fringes of right-wing think tanks, could have devised. Homeless people will have to be shoe-horned into temporary accommodation, even though it is unsatisfactory, more expensive and universally recognised as an inappropriate solution. The Government's dogmatic approach means that temporary accommodation must in the first instance be all that is offered to homeless applicants.
  As a result, the Minister found himself in an impossible position. He was presented with evidence from a large number of local authorities, which demonstrated that it was far more sensible to put homeless people in their own housing stock, rather than in temporary accommodation—probably at far greater public expense. The Minister's first response was to allow a limited period—one year—in local authority permanent accommodation. When it was pointed out that it would be ridiculous to evict people from council housing at the end of one year, the Government responded by extending the period to two years.
  When it was pointed out that a nonsensical situation would still prevail at the end of the second year, the Government came back with the extraordinary provision, in clause 172, of a Lords amendment that states that, although a local authority will not be permitted to house people in permanent accommodation for more than two years in any three, the Secretary of State may, on the application of a local housing authority, allow it discretion to permit homeless persons to remain in permanent accommodation for a further period, provided that it does not exceed one year.
  As with the low-rent test changes, the Government are gradually retreating from an absurd position, to one which is slightly less absurd but still achieves any sensible policy

  99
  objective. The amendment represents a modest improvement on a previously thoroughly unsatisfactory provision, but we will not oppose it as it makes more feasible the ability of local authorities to house homeless persons in their own permanent accommodation rather than in expensive temporary accommodation.
  Mrs. Maddock: Moving homeless people into local authority housing, only to move them out again, is totally ridiculous. We can see how ridiculous, in legislation that gives the Secretary of State power almost to deal with individual properties. That shows how crazy is the measure.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 205 to 245 agreed to.

Clause 203

  EXTENT
  Lords amendment: No. 246, in page 115, line 5, leave out from ("that") to end of line 10 and insert—

  ("(a) amendments or repeals of provisions of the Housing Associations Act 1985, other than in consequence of paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 to this Act (repeal of Part IV of the Housing Act 1988), do not extend to Scotland,

  (b) amendments or repeals of provisions of the Housing Act 1988 relating to registered housing associations do not extend to Scotland,

  (c) amendments or repeals of provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 or the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 do not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, and

  (d) repeals of the following provisions do not extend to Scotland—

  (i) section 24(5)(a) and (c) of the Local Government Act 1988,

  (ii) section 182 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989,

  (iii) paragraph 21(3) of Schedule 6 to the Charities Act 1993, and

  (iv) provisions in Schedule 26 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.")

  Mr. Clappison: 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. 249, 250 and 327.
  Mr. Clappison: These are technical amendments and I ask the House to support them.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 204
  COMMENCEMENT
  Lords amendments Nos. 247 to 250 agreed to.
Schedule 1
  REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS: REGULATION
  Lords amendments Nos. 251 to 269 agreed to.
Schedule 2
  SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR: HOUSING COMPLAINTS
  Lords amendments Nos. 270 and 271 agreed to.
Schedule 3
  SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR: MINOR AMENDMENTS
  Lords amendments Nos. 272 and 273 agreed to.
Schedule 3

  SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR: MINOR AMENDMENTS
  Lords amendment: No. 274, in page 136, leave out lines 42 to 49 and insert—
  ("Realisation of value of Corporation's loans portfolio.
  76A.—(1) The Corporation may, and if so directed by the Secretary of State (under section 76) shall, enter into arrangements of a description approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of realising the value of the whole or part of its loans portfolio.
  (2) The arrangements may provide for—

  (a) the transfer of any estate or interest of the Corporation, or

  (b) the creation or disposal of economic interests not involving a transfer of an estate or interest,
  and may extend to such incidental or ancillary matters as the Corporation or the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

  (3) In this section the Corporation's "loans portfolio" means the Corporation's rights and obligations in relation to any loans or related securities.
  (4) Nothing in the terms of any loan or related transaction entered into by the Corporation shall be construed as impliedly prohibiting or restricting the Corporation from dealing with its loans portfolio in accordance with arrangements under this section.".)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Curry.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 276.
  Mr. Raynsford: This amendment might be described as the one that sells off the family silver. It is concerned with the disposal of the Housing Corporation's loans portfolio. I rise only to draw attention to widely held fears in the housing world that there will be yet further cuts in the budget for housing association investment in the coming year.
  The Government have cut the Housing Corporation's budget in each of the last two years by some £300 million on each occasion, causing enormous damage to the investment programmes of hundreds of housing associations and reducing dramatically the numbers of homes being produced for people in need. If there were to be a further cut in the Housing Corporation's budget in the coming year, that would do even more damage to an already woefully depleted housing programme.
  At a time when the Government are giving themselves powers to dispose of the corporation's loans portfolio, it would be a sensible first application of the funds received to restore the cuts in housing association investment programmes to ensure that, in the years ahead, we can

  101
  look forward to an expanding programme of social housing, rather than facing yet further reductions in an already hopelessly inadequate housing programme.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 275 to 277 agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Schedule 5

  TEXT OF PART II OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987, AS AMENDED
  Lords amendments Nos. 278 to 285 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 286 disagreed to.
  Amendments made in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a), in page 144, line 43, leave out from first `order' to end of line 45 and insert
  'subject to this limit, that the fees payable in respect of any one application or reference by the court together with any proceedings before the tribunal arising out of that application or reference shall not exceed £500 or such other amount as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State.'.
  (b), in page 145, line 1, leave out 'which, unless the order' and insert—

  '( ) No order altering the limit under subsection (3) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  ( ) Any other order under this section, unless it'.—[Mr. Brandreth]

  After Schedule 5
  Lords amendment: No. 287, after schedule 5, to insert the following new schedule—("SCHEDULE—
  AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987

PART I
  RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSAL
  The following sections are substituted for sections 5 to 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987—
Rights of first refusal

  LANDLORD REQUIRED TO SERVE OFFER NOTICE ON TENANTS
  5.—(l) Where the landlord proposes to make a relevant disposal affecting premises to which this Part applies, he shall serve a notice under this section (an "offer notice") on the qualifying tenants of the flats contained in the premises (the "constituent flats").
  (2) An offer notice must comply with the requirements of whichever is applicable of the following sections—

  section 5A (requirements in case of contract to be completed by conveyance,&c.),

  section 5B (requirements in case of sale at auction),

  section 5C (requirements in case of grant of option or right of pre—emption);

  section 5D (requirements in case of conveyance not preceded by contract, &c.);
  and in the case of a disposal to which section 5E applies (disposal for non-monetary consideration) shall also comply with the requirements of that section.

  (3) Where a landlord proposes to effect a transaction involving the disposal of an estate or interest in more than one building (whether or not involving the same estate or interest), he shall, for the purpose of complying with this section, sever the transaction so as to deal with each building separately.
  (4) If, as a result of the offer notice being served on different tenants on different dates, the period specified in the notice as the period for accepting the offer would end on different dates, the notice shall have effect in relation to all the qualifying tenants on whom it is served as if it provided for that period to end with the latest of those dates.
  (5) A landlord who has not served an offer notice on all of the qualifying tenants on whom it was required to be served shall nevertheless be treated as having complied with this section—

  (a) if he has served an offer notice on not less than 90% of the qualifying tenants on whom such a notice was required to be served, or

  (b) where the qualifying tenants on whom it was required to be served number less than ten, if he has served such a notice on all but one of them.

  OFFER NOTICE: REQUIREMENTS IN CASE OF CONTRACT TO BE COMPLETED BY CONVEYANCE, &C
  5A.—(1) The following requirements must be met in relation to an offer notice where the disposal consists of entering into a contract to create or transfer an estate or interest in land.
  (2) The notice must contain particulars of the principal terms of the disposal proposed by the landlord, including in particular—

  (a) the property, and the estate or interest in that property, to which the contract relates,

  (b) the principal terms of the contract (including the deposit and consideration required).

  (3) The notice must state that the notice constitutes an offer by the landlord to enter into a contract on those terms which may be accepted by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.
  (4) The notice must specify a period within which that offer may be so accepted, being a period of not less than two months which is to begin with the date of service of the notice.
  (5) The notice must specify a further period of not less than two months within which a person or persons may be nominated by the tenants under section 6.
  (6) This section does not apply to the grant of an option or right of pre-emption (see section 5C).

  OFFER NOTICE: REQUIREMENTS IN CASE OF SALE BY AUCTION
  5B.—(1) The following requirements must be met in relation to an offer notice where the landlord proposes to make the disposal by means of a sale at a public auction held in England and Wales.
  (2) The notice must contain particulars of the principal terms of the disposal proposed by the landlord, including in particular the property to which it relates and the estate or interest in that property proposed to be disposed of.
  (3) The notice must state that the disposal is proposed to be made by means of a sale at a public auction.
  (4) The notice must state that the notice constitutes an offer by the landlord, which may be accepted by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats, for the contract (if any) entered into by the landlord at the auction to have effect as if a person or persons nominated by them, and not the purchaser, had entered into it.
  (5) The notice must specify a period within which that offer may be so accepted, being a period of not less than two months beginning with the date of service of the notice.
  (6) The notice must specify a further period of not less than 28 days within which a person or persons may be nominated by the tenants under section 6.
  (7) The notice must be served not less than four months or more than six months before the date of the auction; and—

  (a) the period specified in the notice as the period within which the offer may be accepted must end not less than two months before the date of the auction, and

  (b) the period specified in the notice as the period within which a person may be nominated under section 6 must end not less than 28 days before the date of the auction.

  (8) Unless the time and place of the auction and the name of the auctioneers are stated in the notice, the landlord shall, not less than 28 days before the date of the auction, serve on the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats a further notice stating those particulars.

  OFFER NOTICE: REQUIREMENTS IN CASE OF GRANT OR OPTION OR RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION
  5C.—(1) The following requirements must be met in relation to an offer notice where the disposal consists of the grant of an option or right of pre-emption.
  (2) The notice must contain particulars of the principal terms of the disposal proposed by the landlord, including in particular—

  (a) the property, and the estate or interest in that property, to which the option or right of pre-emption relates,

  (b) the consideration required by the landlord for granting the option or right of pre—emption, and

  (c) the principal terms on which the option or right of pre—emption would be exercisable, including the consideration payable on its exercise.

  (3) The notice must state that the notice constitutes an offer by the landlord to grant an option or right of pre-emption on those terms which may be accepted by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.
  (4) The notice must specify a period within which that offer may be so accepted, being a period of not less than two months which is to begin with the date of service of the notice.
  (5) The notice must specify a further period of not less than two months within which a person or persons may be nominated by the tenants under section 6.

  OFFER NOTICE: REQUIREMENTS IN CASE OF CONVEYANCE NOT PRECEDED BY CONTRACT, &C
  5D.—(1) The following requirements must be met in relation to an offer notice where the disposal is not made in pursuance of a contract, option or right or pre-emption binding on the landlord.
  (2) The notice must contain particulars of the principal terms of the disposal proposed by the landlord, including in particular—

  (a) the property to which it relates and the estate or interest in that property proposed to be disposed of, and

  (b) the consideration required by the landlord for making the disposal.

  (3) The notice must state that the notice constitutes an offer by the landlord to dispose of the property on those terms which may be accepted by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.
  (4) The notice must specify a period within which that offer may be so accepted, being a period of not less than two months which is to begin with the date of service of the notice.
  (5) The notice must specify a further period of not less than two months within which a person or persons may be nominated by the tenants under section 6.

  OFFER NOTICE: DISPOSAL FOR NON-MONETARY CONSIDERATION
  5E.—(1) This section applies where, in any case to which section 5 applies, the consideration required by the landlord for making the disposal does not consist, or does not wholly consist, of money.
  (2) The offer notice, in addition to complying with whichever is applicable of sections 5A to 5D, must state—

  (a) that an election may made under section 8C (explaining its effect), and

  (b) that, accordingly. the notice also constitutes an offer by the landlord, which may be accepted by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats, for a person or persons nominated by them to acquire the property in pursuance of sections 11 to 17.

  (3) The notice must specify a period within which that offer may be so accepted, being a period of not less than two months which is to begin with the date of service of the notice.

  ACCEPTANCE OF LANDLORD'S OFFER: GENERAL PROVISIONS
  6.—(1) Where a landlord has served an offer notice, he shall not during—

  (a) the period specified in the notice as the period during which the offer may be accepted, or

  (b) such longer period as may be agreed between him and the requisite majority of the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats,
  dispose of the protected interest except to a person or persons nominated by the tenants under this section.

  (2) Where an acceptance notice is duly served on him, he shall not during the protected period (see subsection (4) below) dispose of the protected interest except to a person duly nominated for the purposes of this section by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats (a "nominated person").
  (3) An "acceptance notice" means a notice served on the landlord by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats informing him that the persons by whom it is served accept the offer contained in his notice.
  An acceptance notice is "duly served" if it is served within—

  (a) the period specified in the offer notice as the period within which the offer may be accepted, or

  (b) such longer period as may be agreed between the landlord and the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.

  (4) The "protected period" is the period beginning with the date of service of the acceptance notice and ending with—

  (a) the end of the period specified in the offer notice as the period for nominating a person under this section, or

  (b) such later date as may be agreed between the landlord and the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of constituent flats.

  (5) A person is "duly nominated" for the purposes of this section if he is nominated within—

  (a) the period specified in the offer notice as the period for nomination, or

  (b) such longer period as may be agreed between the landlord and the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.

  (6) A person nominated for the purposes of this section by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may be replaced by another person so nominated if, and only if. he has (for any reason) ceased to be able to act as a nominated person.
  (7) Where two or more persons have been nominated and any of them ceases to act without being replaced, the remaining person or persons so nominated may continue to act.

  FAILURE TO ACCEPT LANDLORD'S OFFER OR TO MAKE NOMINATION
  7.—(l) Where a landlord has served an offer notice on the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats and—

  (a) no acceptance notice is duly served on the landlord, or

  (b) no person is nominated for the purposes of section 6 during the protected period,
  the landlord may, during the period of 12 months beginning with the end of that period, dispose of the protected interest to such person as he thinks fit, but subject to the following restrictions.

  (2) Where the offer notice was one to which section 5B applied (sale by auction), the restrictions are—

  (a) that the disposal is made by means of a sale at a public auction, and

  (b) that the other terms correspond to those specified in the offer notice.

  (3) In any other case the restrictions are—

  (a) that the deposit and consideration required are not less than those specified in the offer notice, and

  (b) that the other terms correspond to those specified in the offer notice.

  (4) The entitlement of a landlord, by virtue of this section or any other corresponding provision of this Part, to dispose of the protected interest during a specified period of 12 months extends only to a disposal of that interest, and accordingly the requirements of section 1(1) must be satisfied with respect to any other disposal by him during that period of 12 months (unless the disposal is not a relevant disposal affecting any premises to which at the time of the disposal this Part applies).

  LANDLORD'S OBLIGATIONS IN CASE OF ACCEPTANCE AND NOMINATION
  8.—(1) This section applies where a landlord serves an offer notice on the qualifying tenants of the constituent flat and—

  (a) an acceptance notice is duly served on him, and

  (b) a person is duly nominated for the purposes of section 6,
  by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.

  (2) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, the landlord shall not dispose of the protected interest except to the nominated person.
  (3) The landlord shall, within the period of one month beginning with the date of service of notice of nomination, either—

  (a) serve notice on the nominated person indicating an intention no longer to proceed with the disposal of the protected interest, or

  (b) be obliged to proceed in accordance with the following provisions of this Part.

  (4) A notice under subsection (3)(a) is a notice of withdrawal for the purposes of section 9B(2) to (4) (consequences of notice of withdrawal by landlord).
  (5) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the application of the provisions of this Part to any further offer. notice served by the landlord on the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.

  LANDLORD'S OBLIGATION: GENERAL PROVISIONS
  8A.—(1) This section applies where the landlord is obliged to proceed and the offer notice was not one to which section 5B applied (sale by auction).
  (2) The landlord shall, within the period of one month beginning with the date of service of the notice of nomination, send to the nominated person a form of contract for the acquisition of the protected interest on the terms specified in the landlord's offer notice.
  (3) If he fails to do so, the following provisions of this Part apply as if he had given notice under section 9B (notice of withdrawal by landlord) at the end of that period.
  (4) If the landlord complies with subsection (2), the nominated person shall. within the period of two months beginning with the date on which it is sent or such longer period beginning with that date as may be agreed between the landlord and that person, either—

  (a) serve notice on the landlord indicating an intention no longer to proceed with the acquisition of the protected interest, or

  (b) offer an exchange of contracts, that is to say, sign the contract and send it to the landlord, together with the requisite deposit.
  In this subsection "the requisite deposit" means a deposit of an amount determined by or under the contract or an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the consideration, whichever is the less.

  (5) If the nominated person—

  (a) serves notice in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (4), or

  (b) fails to offer an exchange of contracts within the period specified in that subsection,
  the following provisions of this Part apply as if he had given notice under section 9A (withdrawal by nominated person) at the same time as that notice or, as the case may be, at the end of that period.

  (6) If the nominated person offers an exchange of contracts within the period specified in subsection (4), but the landlord fails to complete the exchange within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which he received that person's contract, the following provisions of this Part apply as if the landlord had given notice under section 9B (withdrawal by landlord) at the end of that period.

  LANDLORD'S OBLIGATION: ELECTION IN CASE OF SALE AT AUCTION
  8B.—(1) This section applies where the landlord is obliged to proceed and the offer notice was one to which section 5B applied (sale by auction).
  (2) The nominated person may, by notice served on the landlord not less than 28 days before the date of the auction, elect that the provisions of this section shall apply.
  (3) If a contract for the disposal is entered into at the auction, the landlord shall, within the period of seven days beginning with the date of the auction, send a copy of the contract to the nominated person.
  (4) If, within the period of 28 days beginning with date on which such a copy is so sent, the nominated person—

  (a) serves notice on the landlord accepting the terms of the contract, and

  (b) fulfils any conditions falling to be fulfilled by the purchaser on entering into the contract,
  the contract shall have effect as if the nominated person, and not the purchaser, had entered into the contract.

  (5) Unless otherwise agreed, any time limit in the contract as it has effect by virtue of subsection (4) shall start to run again on the service of notice under that subsection; and nothing in the contract as it has effect by virtue of a notice under this section shall require the nominated person to complete the purchase before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which he is deemed to have entered into the contract.
  (6) If the nominated person—

  (a) does not serve notice on the landlord under subsection (2) by the time mentioned in that subsection, or

  (b) does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (4) within the period mentioned in that subsection,
  the following provisions of this Part apply as if he had given notice under section 9A (withdrawal by nominated person) at the end of that period.

  ELECTION IN CASE OF DISPOSAL FOR NON-MONETARY CONSIDERATION
  8C.—(1) This section applies where an acceptance notice is duly served on the landlord indicating an intention to accept the offer referred to in section 5E (offer notice: disposal for non-monetary consideration).
  (2) The requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may, by notice served on the landlord within—

  (a) the period specified in the offer notice for nominating a person or persons for the purposes of section 6, or

  (b) such longer period as may be agreed between the landlord and the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats,
  elect that the following provisions shall apply.

  (3) Where such an election is made and the landlord disposes of the protected interest on terms corresponding to those specified in his offer notice in accordance with section 5A, 5B, 5C or 5D, sections 11 to 17 shall have effect as if—

  (a) no notice under section 5 had been served;

  (b) in section 11A(3) (period for serving notice requiring information, &c.), the reference to four months were a reference to 28 days; and

  (c) in section 12A(2) and 12B(3) (period for exercise of tenants' rights against purchaser) each reference to six months were a reference to two months.

  (4) For the purposes of sections 11 to 17 as they have effect by virtue of subsection (3) so much of the consideration for the original disposal as did not consist of money shall be treated as such amount in money as was equivalent to its value in the hands of the landlord.
  The landlord or the nominated person may apply to have that amount determined by a leasehold valuation tribunal.

  DISPOSAL IN PURSUANCE OF OPTION OR RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION
  8D.—(1) Where—

  (a) the original disposal was the grant of an option or right of pre—emption, and

  (b) in pursuance of the option or right, the landlord makes another disposal affecting the premises ("the later disposal") before the end of the period specified in subsection (2),
  sections 11 to 17 shall have effect as if the later disposal, and not the original disposal, were the relevant disposal.

  (2) The period referred to in subsection (1)(b) is the period of four months beginning with the date by which—

  (a) notices under section 3A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (duty of new landlord to inform tenants of rights) relating to the original disposal, or

  (b) where that section does not apply, documents of any other description—

  (i) indicating that the original disposal has taken place, and

  (ii) alerting the tenants to the existence of their rights under this Part and the time within which any such rights must be exercised,

  have been served on the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.

  8E.—(1) Where the landlord is obliged to proceed but is precluded by a covenant, condition or other obligation from disposing of the protected interest to the nominated person unless the consent of some other person is obtained—

  (a) he shall use his best endeavours to secure that the consent of that person to that disposal is given, and

  (b) if it appears to him that that person is obliged not to withhold his consent unreasonably but has nevertheless so withheld it, he shall institute proceedings for a declaration to that effect.

  (2) Subsection (1) ceases to apply if a notice of withdrawal is served under section 9A or 9B (withdrawal of either party from transaction) or if notice is served under section 10 (lapse of landlord's offer: premises ceasing to be premises to which this Part applies).
  (3) Where the landlord has discharged any duty imposed on him by subsection (1) but any such consent as is there mentioned has been withheld, and no such declaration as is there mentioned has been made, the landlord may serve a notice on the nominated person stating that to be the case.
  When such a notice has been served, the landlord may, during the period of 12 months beginning with the date of service of the notice, dispose of the protected interest to such person as he thinks fit, but subject to the following restrictions.
  (4) Where the offer notice was one to which section 5B applied (sale by auction), the restrictions are—

  (a) that the disposal is made by means of a sale at a public auction, and

  (b) that the other terms correspond to those specified in the offer notice.

  (5) In any other case the restrictions are—

  (a) that the deposit and consideration required are not less than those specified in the offer notice or, if higher, those agreed between the landlord and the nominated person (subject to contract), and

  (b) that the other terms correspond to those specified in the offer notice.

  (6) Where notice is given under subsection (3), the landlord may recover from the nominated party and the qualifying tenants who served the acceptance notice any costs reasonably incurred by him in connection with the disposal between the end of the first four weeks of the nomination period and the time when that notice is served by him.
  Any such liability of the nominated person and those tenants is a joint and several liability.

  NOTICE. OF WITHDRAWAL BY NOMINATED PERSON
  9A.—(1) Where the landlord is obliged to proceed, the nominated person may serve notice on the landlord (a "notice of withdrawal") indicating his intention no longer to proceed with the acquisition of the protected interest.
  (2) If at any time the nominated person becomes aware that the number of the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats desiring to proceed with the acquisition of the protected interest is less than the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of those flats, he shall forthwith serve a notice of withdrawal.
  (3) Where notice of withdrawal is given by the nominated person under this section, the landlord may, during the period of 12 months beginning with the date of service of the notice, dispose of the protected interest to such person as he thinks fit, but subject to the following restrictions.
  (4) Where the offer notice was one to which section 5B applied (sale by auction), the restrictions are—

  (a) that the disposal is made by means of a sale at a public auction, and

  (b) that the other terms correspond to those specified in the offer notice.

  (5) In any other case the restrictions are—

  (a) that the deposit and consideration required are not less than those specified in the offer notice or, if higher, those agreed between the landlord and the nominated person (subject to contract). and

  (b) that the other terms correspond to those specified in the offer notice.

  (6) If notice of withdrawal is served under this section before the end of the first four weeks of the nomination period specified in the offer notice, the nominated person and the qualifying tenants who served the acceptance notice are not liable for any costs incurred by the landlord in connection with the disposal.
  (7) If notice of withdrawal is served under this section after the end of those four weeks, the landlord may recover from the nominated person and the qualifying tenants who served the acceptance notice any costs reasonably incurred by him in connection with the disposal between the end of those four weeks and the time when the notice of withdrawal was served on him.
  Any such liability of the nominated person and those tenants is a joint and several liability.
  (8) This section does not apply after a binding contract for the disposal of the protected interest—

  (a) has been entered into by the landlord and the nominated person, or

  (b) has otherwise come into existence between the landlord and the nominated person by virtue of any provision of this Part.

  NOTICE. OF WITHDRAWAL BY LANDLORD
  9B.—(1) Where the landlord is obliged to proceed, he may serve notice on the nominated person (a "notice of withdrawal") indicating his intention no longer to proceed with the disposal of the protected interest.
  (2) Where a notice of withdrawal is given by the landlord, he is not entitled to dispose of the protected interest during the period of 12 months beginning with the date of service of the notice.
  (3) If a notice of withdrawal is served before the end of the first four weeks of the nomination period specified in the offer notice, the landlord is not liable for any costs incurred in connection with the disposal by the nominated person and the qualifying tenants who served the acceptance notice.
  (4) If a notice of withdrawal is served after the end of those four weeks, the nominated person and the qualifying tenants who served the acceptance notice may recover from the landlord any costs reasonably incurred by them in connection with the disposal between the end of those four weeks and the time when the notice of withdrawal was served.
  (5) This section does not apply after a binding contract for the disposal of the protected interest—

  (a) has been entered into by the landlord and the nominated person, or

  (b) has otherwise come into existence between the landlord and the nominated person by virtue of any provision of this Part.

  LAPSE OF LANDLORD'S OFFER
  10.—(1) If after a landlord has served an offer notice the premises concerned cease to be premises to which this Part applies, the landlord may serve a notice on the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats stating—

  (a) that the premises have ceased to be premises to which this Part applies, and

  (b) that the offer notice, and anything done in pursuance of it, is to be treated as not having been served or done;
  and on the service of such a notice the provisions of this Part cease to have effect in relation to that disposal.

  (2) A landlord who has not served such a notice on all of the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats shall nevertheless be treated as having duly served a notice under subsection (1)—

  (a) if he has served such a notice on not less than 90 per cent of those tenants, or

  (b) where those qualifying tenants number less than ten, if he has served such a notice on all but one of them.

  (3) Where the landlord is entitled to serve a notice under subsection (1) but does not do so, this Part shall continue to have effect in relation to the disposal in question as if the premises in question were still premises to which this Part applies.
  (4) The above provisions of this section do not apply after a binding contract for the disposal of the protected interest—

  (a) has been entered into by the landlord and the nominated person, or

  (b) has otherwise come into existence between the landlord and the nominated person by virtue of any provision of this Part.

  (5) Where a binding contract for the disposal of the protected interest has been entered into between the landlord and the nominated person but it has been lawfully rescinded by the landlord, the landlord may, during the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the rescission of the contract, dispose of that interest to such person (and on such terms) as he thinks fit.".

PART II

  ENFORCEMENT BY TENANTS OF RIGHTS AGAINST PURCHASER
  The following sections are substituted for sections 11 to 15 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987—
  "Enforcement by tenants of rights against purchaser

  CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH TENANTS' RIGHTS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST PURCHASER
  11.—(1) The following provisions of this Part apply where a landlord has made a relevant disposal affecting premises to which at the time of the disposal this Part applied ("the original disposal"), and either—

  (a) no notice was served by the landlord under section 5 with respect to that disposal, or

  (b) the disposal was made in contravention of any provision of sections 6 to 10,
  and the premises are still premises to which this Part applies.

  (2) In those circumstances the requisite majority of the qualifying tenants of the flats contained in the premises affected by the relevant disposal (the "constituent flats") have the rights conferred by the following provisions—

  section 11A (right to information as to terms of disposal, &c.),

  section 12A (right of qualifying tenants to take benefit of contract),

  section 12B (right of qualifying tenants to compel sale, &c. by purchaser), and

  section 12C (right of qualifying tenants to compel grant of new tenancy by superior landlord).

  (3) In those sections the transferee under the original disposal (or, in the case of the surrender of a tenancy, the superior landlord) is referred to as "the purchaser".
  This shall not be read as restricting the operation of those provisions to disposals for consideration.

  RIGHT TO INFORMATION AS TO TERMS OF DISPOSAL, &C
  11 A.—(1) The requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may serve a notice on the purchaser requiring him—

  (a) to give particulars of the terms on which the original disposal was made (including the deposit and consideration required) and the date on which it was made, and

  (b) where the disposal consisted of entering into a contract, to provide a copy of the contract.

  (2) The notice must specify the name and address of the person to whom (on behalf of the tenants) the particulars are to be given, or the copy of the contract provided.
  (3) Any notice under this section must be served before the end of the period of four months beginning with the date by which—

  (a) notices under section 3A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (duty of new landlord to inform tenants of rights) relating to the original disposal, or

  (b) where that section does not apply, documents of any other description—

  (i) indicating that the original disposal has taken place, and

  (ii) alerting the tenants to the existence of their rights under this Part and the time within which any such rights must be exercised,

  have been served on the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.

  (4) A person served with a notice under this section shall comply with it within the period of one month beginning with the date on which it is served on him.

  RIGHT OF QUALIFYING TENANTS TO TAKE BENEFIT OF CONTRACT
  12A.—(1) Where the original disposal consisted of entering into a contract, the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may by notice to the landlord elect that the contract shall have effect as if entered into not with the purchaser but with a person or persons nominated for the purposes of this section by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.
  (2) Any such notice must be served before the end of the period of six months beginning—

  (a) if a notice was served on the purchaser under section 11A (right to information as to terms of disposal, &c.), with the date on which the purchaser complied with that notice;

  (b) in any other case, with the date by which documents of any description—

  (i) indicating that the original disposal has taken place, and

  111

  (ii) alerting the tenants to the existence of their rights under this Part and the time within which any such rights must be exercised,

  have been served on the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.

  (3) The notice shall not have effect as mentioned in subsection (1) unless the nominated person—

  (a) fulfils any requirements as to the deposit required on entering into the contract, and

  (b) fulfils any other conditions required to be fulfilled by the purchaser on entering into the contract.

  (4) Unless otherwise agreed, any time limit in the contract as it has effect by virtue of a notice under this section shall start to run again on the service of that notice; and nothing in the contract as it has effect by virtue of a notice under this section shall require the nominated person to complete the purchase before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which he is deemed to have entered into the contract.
  (5) Where the original disposal related to other property in addition to premises to which this Part applied at the time of the disposal—

  (a) a notice under this section has effect only in relation to the premises to which this Part applied at the time of the original disposal, and

  (b) the terms of the contract shall have effect with any necessary modifications.

  In such a case the notice under this section may specify the subject-matter of the disposal, and the terms on which the disposal is to be made (whether doing so expressly or by reference to the original disposal), or may provide for that estate or interest, or any such terms, to be determined by a leasehold valuation tribunal.
  12B.—(1) This section applies where—

  (a) the original disposal consisted of entering into a contract and no notice has been served under section 12A (right of qualifying tenants to take benefit of contract), or

  (b) the original disposal did not consist of entering into a contract.

  (2) The requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may serve a notice (a "purchase notice") on the purchaser requiring him to dispose of the estate or interest that was the subject—matter of the original disposal, on the terms on which it was made (including those relating to the consideration payable), to a person or persons nominated for the purposes of this section by any such majority of qualifying tenants of those flats.
  (3) Any such notice must be served before the end of the period of six months beginning—

  (a) if a notice was served on the purchaser under section 11A (right to information as to terms of disposal, &c.), with the date on which the purchaser complied with that notice;

  (b) in any other case, with the date by which—

  (i) notices under section 3A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (duty of new landlord to inform tenants of rights) relating to the original disposal, or

  (ii) where that section does not apply, documents of any other description indicating that the original disposal has taken place, and alerting the tenants to the existence of their rights under this Part and the time within which any such rights must be exercised,

  have been served on the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.

  (4) A purchase notice shall where the original disposal related to other property in addition to premises to which this Part applied at the time of the disposal—

  (a) require the purchaser only to make a disposal relating to those premises, and

  (b) require him to do so on the terms referred to in subsection (2) with any necessary modifications.
  112
  In such a case the purchase notice may specify the subject—matter of the disposal, and the terms on which the disposal is to be made (whether doing so expressly or by reference to the original disposal), or may provide for those matters to be determined by a leasehold valuation tribunal.

  (5) Where the property which the purchaser is required to dispose of in pursuance of the purchase notice has since the original disposal become subject to any charge or other incumbrance, then, unless the court by order directs otherwise—

  (a) in the case of a charge to secure the payment of money or the performance of any other obligation by the purchaser or any other person, the instrument by virtue of which the property is disposed of by the purchaser to the person or persons nominated for the purposes of this section shall (subject to the provisions of Part I of Schedule 1) operate to discharge the property from that charge; and

  (b) in the case of any other incumbrance, the property shall be so disposed of subject to the incumbrance but with a reduction in the consideration payable to the purchaser corresponding to the amount by which the existence of the incumbrance reduces the value of the property.

  (6) Subsection (5)(a) and Part I of Schedule 1 apply, with any necessary modifications, to mortgages and liens as they apply to charges; but nothing in those provisions applies to a rent charge.
  (7) Where the property which the purchaser is required to dispose of in pursuance of the purchase notice has since the original disposal increased in monetary value owing to any change in circumstances (other than a change in the value of money), the amount of the consideration payable to the purchaser for the disposal by him of the property in pursuance of the purchase notice shall be the amount that might reasonably have been obtained on a corresponding disposal made on the open market at the time of the original disposal if the change in circumstances had already taken place.

  RIGHT OF QUALIFYING TENANTS TO COMPEL GRANT OF NEW TENANCY BY SUPERIOR LANDLORD
  12C.—(1) This section applies where the original disposal consisted of the surrender by the landlord of a tenancy held by him ("the relevant tenancy").
  (2) The requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may serve a notice on the purchaser requiring him to grant a new tenancy of the premises which were subject to the relevant tenancy, on the same terms as those of the relevant tenancy and so as to expire on the same date as that tenancy would have expired, to a person or persons nominated for the purposes of this section by any such majority of qualifying tenants of those flats.
  (3) Any such notice must be served before the end of the period of six months beginning—

  (a) if a notice was served on the purchaser under section 11A (right to information as to terms of disposal, &c.), with the date on which the purchaser complied with that notice;

  (b) in any other case, with the date by which documents of any description—

  (i) indicating that the original disposal has taken place, and

  (ii) alerting the tenants to the existence of their rights under this Part and the time within which any such rights must be exercised,

  have been served on the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.
  (4) If the purchaser paid any amount to the landlord as consideration for the surrender by him of that tenancy, the nominated person shall pay that amount to the purchaser.
  (5) Where the premises subject to the relevant tenancy included premises other than premises to which this Part applied at the time of the disposal, a notice under this section shall—

  (a) require the purchaser only to grant a new tenancy relating to the premises to which this Part then applied, and

  113

  (b) require him to do so on the terms referred to in subsection (2) subject to any necessary modifications.

  (6) The purchase notice may specify the subject—matter of the disposal, and the terms on which the disposal is to be made (whether doing so expressly or by reference to the original disposal), or may provide for those matters to be determined by a leasehold valuation tribunal.

  NOMINATED PERSONS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  12D.—(1) The person or persons initially nominated for the purposes of section 12A. 12B or 12C shall be nominated in the notice under that section.
  (2) A person nominated for those purposes by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may be replaced by another person so nominated if, and only if, he has (for any reason) ceased to be able to act as a nominated person.
  (3) Where two or more persons have been nominated and any of them ceases to act without being replaced, the remaining person or persons so nominated may continue to act.
  (4) Where, in the exercise of its power to award costs, the court or the Lands Tribunal makes, in connection with any proceedings arising under or by virtue of this Part, an award of costs against the person or persons so nominated, the liability for those costs is a joint and several liability of that person or those persons together with the qualifying tenants by whom the relevant notice was served.

  DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS BY LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL
  13.—(1) A leasehold valuation tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine—

  (a) any question arising in relation to any matters specified in a notice under section 12A, 12B or 12C, and

  (b) any question arising for determination as mentioned in section 8C(4), 12A(5) or 12B(4) (matters left for determination by tribunal).

  (2) On an application under this section the interests of the persons by whom the notice was served under section 12A, 12B or 12C shall be represented by the nominated person; and accordingly the parties to any such application shall not include those persons.

  WITHDRAWAL OF NOMINATED PERSON FROM TRANSACTION UNDER s.12B OR 12C
  14.—(1) Where notice has been duly served on the landlord under—

  section 12B (right of qualifying tenants to compel sale, &c. by purchaser), or

  section 12C (right of qualifying tenants to compel grant of new tenancy by superior landlord),
  the nominated person may at any time before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the notice, serve notice under this section on the purchaser (a "notice of withdrawal") indicating an intention no longer to proceed with the disposal.

  (2) If at any such time the nominated person becomes aware that the number of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats desiring to proceed with the disposal is less than the requisite majority of those tenants, he shall forthwith serve a notice of withdrawal.
  (3) If a notice of withdrawal is served under this section the purchaser may recover from the nominated person any costs reasonably incurred by him in connection with the disposal down to the time when the notice is served on him.
  (4) If a notice of withdrawal is served at a time when proceedings arising under or by virtue of this Part are pending before the court or the Lands Tribunal, the liability of the nominated person for any costs incurred by the purchaser as mentioned in subsection (3) shall be such as may be determined by the court or (as the case may be) by the Tribunal.
  (5) The costs that may be recovered by the purchaser under this section do not include any costs incurred by him in connection with an application to a leasehold valuation tribunal.".

PART III

  ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS AGAINST SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS AND TERMINATION OF RIGHTS
  The following sections replace sections 16 and 17 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987–
  "Enforcement by tenants of rights against subsequent purchasers

  RIGHTS OF QUALIFYING TENANTS AGAINST SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER
  16.—(1) This section applies where, at the time when a notice is served on the purchaser under section 11A, 12A, 12B or 12C, he no longer holds the estate or interest that was the subject—matter of the original disposal.
  (2) In the case of a notice under section 11A (right to information as to terms of disposal, &c.) the purchaser shall, within the period for complying with that notice

  (a) serve notice on the person specified in the notice as the person to whom particulars are to be provided of the name and address of the person to whom he has disposed of that estate or interest ("the subsequent purchaser"), and

  (b) serve on the subsequent purchaser a copy of the notice under section 11A and of the particulars given by him in response to it.

  (3) In the case of a notice under section 12A. 12B or 12C the purchaser shall forthwith—

  (a) forward the notice to the subsequent purchaser, and

  (b) serve on the nominated person notice of the name and address of the subsequent purchaser.

  (4) Once the purchaser serves a notice in accordance with subsection (2)(a) or (3)(b), sections 12A to 14 shall, instead of applying to the purchaser, apply to the subsequent purchaser as if he were the transferee under the original disposal.
  (5) Subsections (1) to (4) have effect, with any necessary modifications, in a case where, instead of disposing of the whole of the estate or interest referred to in subsection (1) to another person, the purchaser has disposed of it in part or in parts to one or more other persons.
  In such a case, sections 12A to 14–

  (a) apply to the purchaser in relation to any part of that estate or interest retained by him, and

  (b) in relation to any part of that estate or interest disposed of to any other person, apply to that other person instead as if he were (as respects that part) the transferee under the original disposal.

  Termination of rights against purchasers or subsequent purchasers

  TERMINATION OF RIGHTS AGAINST PURCHASER OR SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER
  17.—(1) If, at any time after a notice has been served under section 11A, 12A, 12B or 12C, the premises affected by the original disposal cease to be premises to which this Part applies, the purchaser may serve a notice on the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats stating—

  (a) that the premises have ceased to be premises to which this Part applies, and

  (b) that any such notice served on him, and anything done in pursuance of it, is to be treated as not having been served or done.

  (2) A landlord who has not served such a notice on all of the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats shall nevertheless be treated as having duly served a notice under subsection (1)—

  (a) if he has served such a notice on not less than 90% of those tenants, or

  (b) where those qualifying tenants number less than ten, if he has served such a notice on all but one of them.

  (3) Where a period of three months beginning with the date of service of a notice under section 12A, 12B or 12C on the purchaser has expired—

  (a) without any binding contract having been entered into between the purchaser and the nominated person, and

  (b) without there having been made any application in connection with the notice to the court or to a leasehold valuation tribunal,
  the purchaser may serve on the nominated person a notice stating that the notice, and anything done in pursuance of it, is to be treated as not having been served or done.

  (4) Where any such application as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) was made within the period of three months referred to in that subsection, but—

  (a) a period of two months beginning with the date of the determination of that application has expired,

  (b) no binding contract has been entered into between the purchaser and the nominated person, and

  (c) no other such application as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is pending,

  the purchaser may serve on the nominated person a notice stating that any notice served on him under section 12A, 12B or 12C, and anything done in pursuance of any such notice, is to be treated as not having been served or done.
  (5) Where the purchaser serves a notice in accordance with subsection (1), (3) or (4), this Part shall cease to have effect in relation to him in connection with the original disposal.
  (6) Where a purchaser is entitled to serve a notice under subsection (1) but does not do so, this Part shall continue to have effect in relation to him in connection with the original disposal as if the premises in question were still premises to which this Part applies.
  (7) References in this section to the purchaser include a subsequent purchaser to whom sections 12A to 14 apply by virtue of section 16(4) or (5).".

PART IV

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  1. In section 4(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 ((relevant disposals: excluded disposals), in paragraph (aa) (disposals by way of security for a loan) omit the words "consisting of the creation of an estate or interest".
  2. Before section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, under the heading "Supplementary provisions", insert—
  "The requisite majority of qualifying tenants.
  18A.—(1) In this Part "the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats" means qualifying tenants of constituent flats with more than 50 per cent. of the available votes.
  (2) The total number of available votes shall be determined as follows—

  (a) where an offer notice has been served under section 5, that number is equal to the total number of constituent flats let to qualifying tenants on the date when the period specified in that notice as the period for accepting the offer expires;

  (b) where a notice is served under section 11A without a notice having been previously served under section 5, that number is equal to the total number of constituent flats let to qualifying tenants on the date of service of the notice under section 11A;

  (c) where a notice is served under section 12A, 12B or 12C without a notice having been previously served under section 5 or section 11A, that number is equal to the total number of constituent flats let to qualifying tenants on the date of service of the notice under section 12A, 12B or 12C, as the case may be.

  (3) There is one available vote in respect of each of the flats so let on the date referred to in the relevant paragraph of subsection (2), which shall be attributed to the qualifying tenant to whom it is let.
  (4) The persons constituting the requisite majority of qualifying tenants for one purpose may be different from the persons constituting such a majority for another purpose.".
  3.—(1) Section 20(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (interpretation of Part I) is amended as follows.
  (2) For the definition of "acceptance notice" substitute—
  ""acceptance notice" has the meaning given by section 6(3);".
  (3) For the definition of "constituent flat" substitute—
  ""constituent flat" shall be construed in accordance with section 5(1) or 11(2), as the case may require;".
  (4) Omit the definition of "the new landlord".
  (5) After that definition insert—
  ""the nominated person" means the person or persons for the time being nominated by the requisite majority of the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats for the purposes of section 6, 12A, 12B or 12C, as the case may require;".
  (6) For the definition of "the protected interest" substitute—
  ""the protected interest" means the estate, interest or other subject—matter of an offer notice;".
  (7) After that definition insert—
  ""the protected period" has the meaning given by section 6(4);".
  (8) For the definition of "purchase notice" substitute—
  ""Purchase notice" has the meaning given by section 12B(2);".
  (9) After that definition insert—
  ""purchaser" has the meaning given by section 11(3);".
  (10) In the definition of "the requisite majority" for "section 5(6) and (7) substitute "section 18A".
  4. In section 20(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, omit the words "or counter—offer" in each place where they occur.
  5. In Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (compulsory acquisition by tenants of their landlord's interest), in section 31 (determination of terms by rent assessment committees)—

  (a) for "rent assessment committee", wherever occurring, substitute "leasehold valuation tribunal";

  (b) for "such a committee" or "the committee", wherever occurring, substitute "the tribunal"; and

  (c) omit subsection (5).

  6. In section 52(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (jurisdiction of county courts) for "rent assessment committee" substitute "leasehold valuation tribunal".
  7. After section 52 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 insert—
  "Jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunal under Part I or III.
  52A.—(1) Any jurisdiction conferred by Part I or III of this Act on a leasehold valuation tribunal is exercisable by a rent assessment committee constituted in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 which when so constituted for the purposes of exercising any such jurisdiction shall be known as a leasehold valuation tribunal.
  (2) The power to make regulations under section 74(1)(b) of the Rent Act 1977 (procedure of rent assessment committees) extends to prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with any proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Act.
  (3) Any application under this Act to a leasehold valuation tribunal must be in such form, and contain such particulars, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
  (4) Any costs incurred by a party to any such application in connection with the application shall be borne by that party.
  (5) Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule 22 to the Housing Act 1980 (supplementary provisions relating to leasehold valuation tribunals: constitution, appeals and provision of information) apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal constituted for the purposes of this section.".
  8 In section 53(2)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (regulations subject to negative resolution), for the words from "section 13(2)" to "section 31)" substitute "section 52A(3)".
  9 In section 54(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (saving for power under section 20(4)) for "either of the periods specified in section 5(2)" substitute "any of the periods specified in section 5A(4) or (5), 5B(5) or (6), 5C(4) or (5), 5D(4) or (5) or 5E(3)".
  10 In section 60(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (general interpretation), omit the definition of "rent assessment committee".
  11–(1) In Schedule 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (discharge of mortgages, &c), in paragraph 1 (construction of provisions relating to discharge in pursuance of purchase notice)—

  (a) for the words "the new landlord" wherever they appear substitute "the purchaser";

  (b) in the definition of "consideration payable"—

  (i) for the words "section 12(4)" substitute "section 12B(7)", and

  (ii) for the words "section 16(2) or (3)" substitute "section 16(4) or (5)";

  (c) in the definition of "nominated person", for the words "section 12(1)" substitute "section 12B(2)".

  (2) In paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of that Schedule (duty of nominated person to redeem mortgages, payments into court and savings)—

  (a) for the words "section 12(4)(a)" wherever they appear substitute "section 12B(5)(a)";

  (b) for the words "the new landlord" or "the new landlord's" wherever they appear substitute "the purchaser" or "the purchaser's".")

  Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 183, leave out 'within' and insert
  'at the same time as the acceptance notice is served or at any time after that notice is served and before the end of—'—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 8

  Low RENT TEST: EXTENSION OF RIGHTS
  Lords amendment: No. 288, in page 148, line 4, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("thirty-five")
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), Leave out 'thirty-five' and insert `twenty-one'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 239.

  Division No. 209]

  [8.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Alton, David

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joseph

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim

  118

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  McKelvey, William

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Madden, Max

  Clapham, Michael

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Clelland, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleton)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

  Cohen, Harry

  Maxton, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Michael, Alun

  Cousins, Jim

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Cox, Tom

  Miller, Andrew

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Morley, Elliot

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Dewar, Donald

  Mudie, George

  Dixon, Don

  Mullin, Chris

  Dobson, Frank

  Murphy, Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Olner, Bill

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Pickthall, Colin

  Eastham, Ken

  Pike, Peter L

  Etherington, Bill

  Pope, Greg

  Fatchett, Derek

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Raynsford, Nick

  Gapes, Mike

  Reid, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Rendel, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Hain, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hall, Mike

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Hardy, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Harvey, Nick

  Spellar, John

  Hattersley, Roy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Henderson, Doug

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Heppell, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Timms, Stephen

  Hinchliffe, David

  Touhig, Don

  Hoey, Miss Kate

  Vaz, Keith

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hoyle, Doug

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Worthington, Tony

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Khabra, Piara S

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  McAllion, John

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Atkins, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Brooke, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burns, Simon

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burt, Alistair

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butcher, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butler, Peter

  Biffen, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Booth, Hartley

  Carttiss, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Cash, William

  119

  Channon, Paul

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Jopling, Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Key, Robert

  Clappison, James

  King, Tom

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfd)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Knight Greg (Derby N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Congdon, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Conway, Derek

  Kynoch, George

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lang, Ian

  Cope, Sir John

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Legg, Barry

  Couchman, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Cran, James

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lidington, David

  Curry, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamfd)

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lord, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  MacGregor, John

  Duncan, Alan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Maclean, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Madel, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Malone, Gerald

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mans, Keith

  Evennett, David

  Marland, Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Forman, Nigel

  Merchant, Piers

  Forsyth, Micnael (Stirling)

  Mills, lain

  Forth, Eric

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Freeman, Roger

  Needham, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Norris, Steve

  Garnier, Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gill, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paice, James

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Gorst, Sir John

  Pawsey, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pickles, Eric

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Redwood, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Renton, Tim

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Riddick, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Hayes, Jerry

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heseltine, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Sackville, Tom

  Howard, Michael

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shephard, Gillian

  Hurd, Douglas

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Herefd)

  Jack, Michael

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Jessel, Toby

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  120

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trend, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spring, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sproat, lain

  Waldegrave, William

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Sir John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Stephen, Michael

  Ward, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sykes, John

  Watts, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfld)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thumham, Peter

  Young, Sir George

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Dr. I Jam Fox and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Tredinnick, David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 289 to 296 agreed to.

Schedule 10

  ADMINISTRATION OF HOUSING BENEFIT
  Lords amendment: No. 297, in page 160, line 35, at end insert—
  ("( ) For subsection (5) (agreements with other authorities for carrying out of functions) substitute—
  "(5) Authorities may—

  (a) agree that one shall discharge functions relating to housing benefit on another's behalf, or

  (b) discharge any such functions jointly or arrange for their discharge by a joint committee.

  (5A) Nothing in this section shall be read as excluding the general provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 or the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 from applying in relation to the housing benefit functions of a local authority.".")
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 298 and 299.
  Mr. Clappison: The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the provisions that enable an authority to carry out housing benefit functions on behalf of or jointly with one or more other authorities and to introduce flexibility in the payment of housing benefit subsidy where authorities agree to combine activities.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 298 to 329 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

  WATER POLICY
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5939/96, on European Community water policy, and 8600/94, on ecological quality of water: and endorses the Government's objective of ensuring that the Commission's review of European water policy provides for the proper assessment of water priorities, including the evaluation of costs and benefits of different policy measures.—[Mr. Conway. ]
  Amendment proposed: at the end of the Question, to add—
  'and calls on Her Majesty's Government to invite the Governments of each Member state of the European Community, together with the Governments of adjacent states, to embark on an international study of their respective policies and systems of hydrological regulation, with a view to publishing conclusions on mutually acceptable systems of control, surveillance, specification or standards of water quality.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]
  Question, That the amendment be made, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees), and negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.

  OFFICE COSTS ALLOWANCE
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, paragraph (1) of the Resolution of this House of 10th July 1996 about the Office Costs Allowance should be treated as if the words after '£11,591' had not been included.—[Mr. Conway.]

PETITION

  Bierley Estate
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I present to the House a petition on behalf of the residents of the Bierley estate in Bradford and associated areas, on which there are more than 2,000 names. It declares that they are opposed to Bradford community health trust's proposal to redevelop the site of Bierley Hall hospital as a medium secure unit, and concludes:
  Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to urge the community health trust and the community health council to note the opposition of local residents and local elected Members and consider alternative plans for the redevelopment of the site.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Schools (East Dartford)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Conway.]
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of school places in east Dartford. I do so because I am concerned and alarmed that the educational infrastructure of east Dartford is not apparently being developed as fast as it should, to take account of the current growth in the school-aged population and the tremendous growth yet to occur given the planned expansion in houses and jobs along the Kent Thameside area in my constituency and north of the A2.
  There is a problem in east Dartford, with the demand for places in local primary schools well outstripping supply. In some—in fact, too many—instances, and despite the appeals system, parents with children in primary schools in east Dartford and on Temple Hill have failed to secure placements for siblings in the school attended by the first child.
  For too many parents, places have been made available for second and subsequent children in schools in central and west Dartford, which poses problems for families in which the mother has no private means of transport. The mother is faced with the prospect of collecting and delivering one child to a school on the east of Dartford, while being expected to collect and deliver another at the same or similar time to a school in the west of Dartford. To do so is impossible, yet schools on the east of Dartford are full. At least one school has, through its governing body, made representations to me and the local education authority on the difficulty of coping with over-subscription on a large scale.
  If Dartford were a static community, it would be easy to dismiss the upsurge in the school-aged population as a temporary phenomenon. However, it is not: it is dynamic and, to date, there has been a significant increase in new housing in the eastern and riverside areas of the borough of Dartford—thus the upsurge in the numbers of young children is augmented by families who have moved into the local authority area. The problem exists now, and needs to be dealt with now. It will only get worse in the Thames gateway area, as more and more development proceeds.
  The local education authority has addressed the problem to a point by increasing the size of schools in and around central Dartford, with some enlargement in Stone and at the Brent. A new primary school is planned for the Bexley hospital site to the west, as is one in Swanscombe, but I fear that all this enlargement and new build is inadequate to eliminate the problem. A new secondary school is also planned in the Swanscombe-Greenhithe-Stone area, which is welcome but, I fear, inadequate given the time scale necessary for taking forward new build.
  I hope that I am wrong in my fears, but I am of an age to remember the example of the Kirkby estate in the former Huyton constituency that was represented for many years by the late Lord Wilson. Kirkby was a huge 1950s overspill estate, built to rehouse Liverpool people from the slums and to provide housing for those whose homes had been lost in the second world war. The estate was big, but it was only after some time that the planners

  123
  realised that, although they had built much-needed houses, they had forgotten to provide infrastructure for schools, for leisure and for the elderly.
  It is inconceivable that the problems of Kirkby should be visited upon north Dartford, and I believe that the Thames gateway is a huge success. But equally I would be failing in my duty as the hon. Member for Dartford if I did not remind the House of the need for decisions to be taken now to secure local sites for education, for the elderly and for leisure.
  Much is being done, and has been done, locally, but the co-ordination of forward planning needs to be made crystal clear to the people I represent. Given that from three to five secondary schools and eight to 10 primary schools are needed, I ask my hon. Friend to intervene to help prevent the growth of a problem.
  However, before I list my needs, may I inform the House that I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 26 May 1995 about the implications of the Thames gateway project? My right hon. Friend pointed out in a letter to me on 21 June
  "My role will be to consider on their merits any statutory proposals which result from this and to determine the level of capital support that can be made available to support the expansion of provision. I understand that at least some of the basic need places we recognised in the most recent capital round for the Dartford area were as a result of the initial stages of this development."
  I entirely agree with her, but the problem is now more pressing than when I wrote to her last year, given the rapid pace of development.
  I wish to put three points to my hon. Friend the Minister. Will she commit her officials to a real evaluation of the educational needs in my constituency, given the implications of the Thames gateway project? Will she ensure that, after such an audit, she will arrange such liaison as is necessary between the various agencies so as to minimise the time from concept to school opening? Finally, will she inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who offered on 21 June last year to meet me and such a deputation as I could put together to discuss the problems—that we would like to take up the opportunity to visit the Department to discuss at first hand the particular needs and problems faced by my constituents?
  I wish to assure my constituents that the House is now aware of the problems they face, and that action is urgently needed. I will do all I can to minimise the conflicts that exist, until such time as new provision is made.
  8.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House. He is formidable in pursuing the interests of his constituents on every occasion—not least in education. I hope that, by the time I sit down, I will have answered him fully and given him the help that he seeks.
  I know that this debate has been prompted by issues that have caused my hon. Friend great concerns—the problems that his constituents have experienced in getting
  124
  their children into local schools, and their concerns about the lack of primary school places generally in the east Dartford area.
  It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves just how much progress has been made in this area since the present Government took office in 1979. At that time, of course, parents had no say at all in deciding which school their child would attend. Schools could be kept half-empty, but parents would still not be offered a place, and there was certainly no right to appeal against decisions that others had made about the school placement of their children.
  Under the arrangements progressively introduced by this Government, parents now have a clear and unequivocal right in law to express a preference for the school they wish their child to attend. Admission authorities—that is, governing bodies of grant-maintained and voluntary-aided schools, and the local education authority for county and controlled schools—must comply with that preference if places are available. The only exceptions to this are denominational schools and selective schools, which may keep places open in order to preserve their particular character.
  However, if a school is over-subscribed, it may be that parents do not receive a place since the school can be filled with pupils with better claims for places. It is up to the admissions authority to organise the over-subscription criteria to judge between the claims of candidates for places. Admission authorities may use any lawful criteria in taking decisions about whom to admit.
  Under our policy of more open enrolment, schools must admit up to their standard number, or any higher admission limit set. As a result, admission authorities can no longer keep spare places at popular schools to safeguard the viability of other, less popular ones. The bottom line is that, if a school has spare places, eligible children must be admitted.
  Parents now have more rights, more information and more access to a wider choice of different schools than ever before. What the Government have tried to do is remove the artificial barriers that, in the past, have all too often stood in the way of parental choice. Evidence suggests that some 90 per cent. of first-choice applications are successful.
  Where parents are unsuccessful in gaining a place, they may if they wish exercise their rights to appeal to an independent appeal committee. Appeal committees offer parents an important second chance. They must consider any appeal in the light of the evidence available and the merits of the case before them. Nationally, around 40 per cent. of appeals are successful.
  All appeals committees must now contain a lay member, and representatives of the admission authority cannot be in the majority. As a result, parents can now have more confidence that their appeals will be heard by an independent and impartial panel who will carefully weigh up the needs of the child against the implications for the school.
  I can understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford about the problems that some of his constituents have experienced in getting their children into their local school. I know, too, that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about this matter on several occassions.
  But these problems are not new. It is impossible to guarantee admission where many more parents have expressed a preference for a school than there are places

  125
  available. What we have tried to do is put in place a framework that ensures that responsibility for admissions rests with individual admission authorities, who we believe are best placed to respond to the wishes and needs of parents and pupils.
  As I understand it, parents whose children have been refused admission to schools in east Dartford have been offered places at schools in west Dartford. In some cases, these alternative schools are little more than a mile away from where parents live. However, I sympathise with the travel difficulties of parents, which were described so graphically by my hon. Friend.
  I now turn to the issue of the supply of school places. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford will be aware that Kent is a stage 1 authority for the primary sector. Despite the large number of grant-maintained secondary schools in the county, less than 10 per cent. of Kent's primary school population is in grant-maintained schools. That means that Kent local education authority has sole responsibility for ensuring that there are sufficient primary school places in its area for pupils of compulsory school age.
  The authority estimates that 5,000 primary school age places will be needed over the next 10 years in the Thames gateway area. Clearly, Dartford is in this growth area, and we have recognised this. In the 1994–95 bidding round for capital funding, we accepted a basic need case for 260 additional primary school places in Dartford and a further 300 primary places the following year. In the 1996–97 capital round, Kent LEA was given an educational capital guideline of over £23 million—by far the largest in the country. That represents 40 per cent. of the authority's total bid—significantly above the national average of 23 per cent. and reflects the extent to which its plans for spending on schools matched the national priority criteria.
  Nevertheless, it is for LEAs to decide their capital expenditure priorities and make the best use of the resources available to them. The annual capital guidelines announced are not tied to particular projects, nor do they represent the full total of resources available to LEAs for capital spending: LEAs can invest their capital receipts and can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish. The Government do not control the funding of individual projects at county or voluntary-controlled schools. I hope that the LEA will take note of what my hon. Friend said tonight.
  To fulfil its planning responsibility to ensure a sufficient number of school places, Kent LEA has the power to publish statutory proposals. It can publish them to establish entirely new schools or to make significant enlargements to existing schools. It would be for my right
  126
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider any proposals that fall to her for decision. However, the LEA can, of course, make non-significant enlargements to existing schools without approval from her. I understand that the authority is considering the need for new primary places in the Dartford area and consulting locally on how to provide 210 additional places.
  Governing bodies of grant-maintained schools can make proposals to enlarge their schools. My hon. Friend may recall that two GM primary schools in his constituency followed the statutory procedures and received approval from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for enlargement: Holy Trinity Church of England GM primary, with effect from September 1995; and Horton Kirby Church of England GM primary from September this year.
  As my hon. Friend knows, our recently published White Paper proposes that grant-maintained schools should not in future need approval to enlarge their current capacity by up to 50 per cent. It also proposes that, when a new school is needed to meet a shortage of school places, power is given to the Funding Agency for Schools to submit proposals for a new GM school alongside any proposals from the LEA.
  Although that would not change the planning responsibility of the LEA to ensure the provision of sufficient places in stage 1 authorities, it should help to promote a wider choice in the range of provision available. Of course, we would consider all proposals on their individual merits. Circumstances will vary in each case, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take account of all the relevant factors. However, as a matter of general policy, she would favour proposals that enhance diversity.
  Let me assure the House that it remains our policy to allow schools to have more freedom to develop in response to popular local demand as well as to increase parental choice. Children have different abilities, aptitudes, interests and needs, which cannot all be met by a single sort of school. The Government want parents to be able to choose from a range of good schools of different sorts, matching what they want for their child with what a school offers. I am confident that that can be achieved in the Dartford area.
  Finally, as my hon. Friend appreciates, the issues that he has raised will not be solved overnight, but my Department and my officials stand ready to help. Should he wish to bring a delegation to the Department, I would be only too happy to meet it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Nine o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Internet
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [37239]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 18 July,Official Report, column 621.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister what inquiries to detect fraud by cross-checking his Department's payroll with details of those claiming benefit he has undertaken; when these exercises took place; and how many staff were(a) suspended, (b) dismissed and (c) prosecuted as a result. [37712]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 1996]: None, but where the Benefits Agency had reasonable grounds for suspicion that an individual might be involved in benefit fraud the Cabinet Office would respond to its inquiries. Employees found guilty of fraud or dishonesty are liable to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

  Next Steps Review
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the next steps review; and if he will make a statement. [36660]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: The review will be published in the autumn so as to provide an input into ministerial discussions and subsequent decisions on public expenditure and resource allocation. The 1996 publication will continue the development of the review, providing trend data and other measures common across agencies and will also report on progress towards developing benchmarking or organisational performance.

  TREASURY

    Customer Charters
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32839]
    2
    Mrs. Angela Knight
    HM Treasury does not have any customer charters nor has it withdrawn any. Of its executive agencies, the customer charters currently in use are listed. Neither the Royal Mint nor the Valuation Office has any customer charters, and no charters have been withdrawn by any of the agencies.

    Office for National Statistics

    Charter Statement for Customer and Suppliers

    Paymaster

    Paymaster Pensions—Assurance of Service

    Paymaster CS Pensions—Standards of Service and what to do if things go wrong.

    European Committee of Central Bankers
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the Bank of England's membership of the European Committee of Central Bankers; and whose policies the bank represents on the committee. [37837]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    The committee of governors of the central banks of member states of the European Community was dissolved on 1 January 1994, in accordance with articles 109f(1) and 109e(1) of the EC treaty.

    Unemployment (Yorkshire)
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what number of people in(a) North Yorkshire and (b) York had been registered unemployed for (i) six months or longer and (ii) 12 months or longer in (1) January 1992 and (2) January 1996; and what proportion these figures were of the total number of people registered as unemployed at these dates; [38030]

    (2) what number of people aged under 25 years in (a) North Yorkshire and (b) York were (i) registered unemployed and (ii) had been unemployed for six months or longer in April 1990 and at each quarter thereafter. [38031]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    The information requested can be obtained from the Nomis database accessed by the House of Commons Library.

    Credit Controls
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce selective controls on credit to reduce the rate of inflation in house prices. [38019]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    I have no intention of introducing selective credit controls for housing. The objective of monetary policy is to achieve underlying inflation in the lower half of the 1 to 4 per cent. range by the end of this Parliament and to keep it at 2½ per cent. or less thereafter. The growth in house prices is one of the many indicators I assess when determining what the appropriate level of interest rates is to achieve the inflation target.

    Immigration
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many reports have been made by marriage registrars, from which registration areas, to the Registrar-General, that marriages are suspected to be
    3
    solely for immigration purposes, in 1994, 1995 and 1996 to the latest convenient date; and in how many of these instances information has been passed on to the Home Office. [38084]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    During 1994 and 1995, superintendent registrars reported 470 and 555 cases to the Registrar-General where they suspected that a proposed marriage had been arranged for the sole purpose of evading statutory immigration controls. Of this number, information in respect of 404 and 467 respectively was passed to the Home Office.

    During the first six months of 1996, 309 reports have been received, of which 232 have been referred to the Home Office. Details of the reports received by registration district are shown in the table.

    District

    1994

    1995

    19961

    Andover

    —

    —

    1

    Barking and Dagenham

    —

    1

    —

    Barnet

    —

    7

    2

    Barnsley

    —

    1

    —

    Belper

    1

    —

    —

    Birmingham

    8

    1

    —

    Blackburn

    1

    3

    —

    Blackpool and Fylde

    —

    —

    1

    Bolton

    1

    1

    —

    Bournemouth

    1

    1

    2

    Bradford

    3

    1

    —

    Brent

    47

    39

    29

    Bristol

    —

    —

    1

    Bromley

    1

    —

    —

    Cambourne and Redruth

    1

    —

    —

    Cambridge

    2

    1

    Camden

    2

    1

    —

    Chichester

    1

    1

    —

    Colwyn

    1

    —

    —

    Coventry

    1

    4

    —

    Croydon

    1

    2

    2

    Dacorum

    1

    1

    —

    Darlington

    —

    1

    —

    Depwade

    2

    2

    —

    Dudley

    —

    1

    —

    Ealing

    10

    12

    1

    Eastbourne

    1

    —

    1

    Fulham

    —

    1

    —

    Greenwich

    3

    5

    —

    Hackney

    67

    142

    92

    Hammersmith

    —

    —

    1

    Haringey

    1

    1

    —

    Harlow

    1

    5

    —

    Harrow

    —

    1

    —

    Hatfield

    —

    1

    —

    Havering

    1

    1

    —

    Hendon

    14

    14

    3

    Hereford

    1

    —

    —

    Hounslow

    —

    4

    3

    Huddersfield

    —

    —

    1

    Hull

    —

    1

    —

    Ipswich

    1

    —

    —

    Islington

    50

    25

    6

    Kensington and Chelsea

    5

    —

    —

    Kettering

    —

    1

    —

    Knowsley

    1

    —

    —

    Lambeth

    1

    7

    —

    Leicestershire Central

    —

    1

    —

    Lewisham

    146

    120

    63

    Lichfield

    1

    —

    —

    Luton

    —

    —

    1

    Manchester

    1

    2

    —

    Mansfield

    —

    1

    —

    Melton and Rutland

    —

    1

    —

    4

    District

    1994

    1995

    19961

    Merton

    —

    3

    —

    Mid Warwickshire

    —

    1

    —

    Milton Keynes

    —

    4

    1

    Newham

    2

    1

    —

    Norfolk

    —

    1

    —

    Northallerton

    —

    1

    —

    Northampton

    —

    1

    —

    Norwich

    1

    —

    —

    Nottingham

    6

    4

    —

    Oldham

    7

    6

    2

    Oxford

    —

    1

    —

    Peterborough

    3

    4

    —

    Portsmouth

    —

    2

    1

    Preston and South Ribble

    —

    1

    —

    Redbridge

    9

    6

    2

    Richmond upon Thames

    1

    —

    —

    Salford

    —

    2

    —

    Sedgemoor

    1

    —

    —

    Sheffield

    1

    1

    1

    Southend on Sea

    1

    —

    —

    South Glamorgan

    1

    —

    —

    Southwark

    16

    14

    —

    Stevenage

    2

    —

    —

    Stroud

    —

    1

    —

    Surrey South Western

    —

    1

    —

    Sutton

    7

    2

    —

    Swindon

    —

    —

    1

    Taunton Deane

    —

    1

    —

    Towcester

    —

    1

    —

    Tower Hamlets

    3

    58

    83

    Trafford

    2

    —

    —

    Waltham Forest

    3

    6

    —

    Weyland

    1

    —

    —

    Westminster

    16

    8

    2

    Weston Super Mare

    —

    1

    —

    Wolverhampton

    2

    4

    2

    Wrekin

    2

    1

    —

    Wycombe

    2

    3

    4

    Total

    470

    555

    309

    1January to end of June 1996 inclusive.

    Footwear Industry
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) males and (b) females were employed in the United Kingdom footwear industry in 1975, 1979 and 1995. [38171]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    The available comparable information is for 1978 onwards. This is provided in the following table:

    Employees in footwear manufacture in Great Britain: June (thousands)1

    Standard industrial classification 1992(SIC92)

    Male

    Females

    1978

    16

    48

    1979

    16

    48

    1995

    14

    15

    Note:

    1 Unadjusted.

    Source:

    ONS.

    House Prices
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to restrain the increase in house prices. [38017]
    5
    Mrs. Angela Knight
    Monetary policy is set in order to achieve underlying inflation in the lower half of the 1 to 4 per cent. range by the end of this Parliament and to keep it at 2½ or less thereafter. House prices are just one of the many indicators used in monitoring the outlook for inflation. House price increases are expected to be held in check as more sellers are encouraged back into the market.

    Abortion
    Sir Graham Bright
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by gestation of the pregnancy of the abortions performed in the Anglia and Oxford region in the latest year for which figures are available. [38163]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    The figures presented give a breakdown of the number of abortions performed to women usually resident in the Anglia and Oxford health region by gestation of pregnancy, for the year 1994.

    Gestation of pregnancy in weeks

    Number of abortions

    Under 9

    5,753

    9–12

    5,841

    13–19

    1,086

    20 and over

    192

    Total

    12,872

    Sir Graham Bright
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions have now been performed in total within the Anglia and Oxford region under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; and how many and what percentage of those abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother. [38026]

    Mrs. Knight
    The total number of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act, to women usually resident in the Anglia and Oxford health region1, from 1970 to 1994 2was 241,882. During this period, 10 abortions, 0 per cent. of the total number of abortions performed, were carried out in an emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary, to save the life of the woman3.

    Notes:

    1 Figures are based, where possible, on 1994 health authority boundaries. Other boundary changes have not been reflected in the figures.

    2 Figures for 1968–69 are not held on a comparable basis.

    3 Abortions performed under statutory grounds 5 (1970–31st March 1991) and F (1st April 1991-present) i.e. where in the case of emergency it was necessary to save the life of the woman.

    Sir Graham Bright
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by technique of the number of abortions performed in the Anglia and Oxford region in the latest year for which figures are available. [38161]

    Mrs. Knight
    It is not possible to give a reply, as abortion data are not routinely collected by technique.

    Sir Graham Bright
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by the procedure adopted of the number of abortions performed in the Anglia and Oxford region in the latest year for which figures are available. [38162]
    6
    Mrs. Knight
    The figures presented give a breakdown of the number of abortions performed to women usually resident in the Anglia and Oxford health region by procedure, for the year 1994, the latest year for which figures are available.

    Procedure

    Number of abortions

    Hysterotomy (only)

    3

    Hysterectomy (only)

    3

    Vacuum aspiration (only)

    10,510

    Vacuum aspiration with dilation and evacuation

    535

    Dilation and Evacuation

    261

    Other surgical

    1

    Prostaglandins (only)

    263

    Prostaglandins with other agents

    199

    Antiprogesterone with or without prostaglandin

    1,078

    Other medical

    16

    Other combined methods

    3

    Total

    12,872

    Dame Jill Knight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions have been performed within the West Midlands region under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; and how many and what percentage of those abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother. [38346]

    Mrs. Knight
    The total number of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act, to women usually resident in the West Midlands health region1, from 1970 to 1994 2 was 351,747. During this period, nine abortions—0 per cent. of the total number of abortions performed—were carried out in an emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary, to save the life of the women3.

    Notes:

    1 Figures are based, where possible, on 1994 health authority boundaries. Other boundary changes have not been reflected in the figures.

    2 Figures for 1968–69 are not held on a comparable basis.

    3 Abortions performed under statutory grounds 5 (1970–31st March 1991) and F (1st April 1991-present) i.e. where in the case of emergency it was necessary to save the life of the woman.

    Dame Jill Knight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by gestation of pregnancy of abortions performed in the West Midlands region in the latest year for which figures are available. [38347]

    Mrs. Knight
    The figures presented give a breakdown of the number of abortions performed to women usually resident in the West Midlands health region by gestation of pregnancy, for the year 1994, the latest year for which figures are available.

    Gestation of pregnancy in weeks

    Number of abortions

    Under 9

    6,560

    9–12

    7,134

    13–19

    2,081

    20 and over

    225

    Total

    16,000

    The annual reference volume, 1994 Abortion Statistics, England and Wales, Series AB No. 21 is expected to be published on the 30 July 1996.

    7
    Dame Jill Knight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by age of the mother of the abortions carried out in the West Midlands region in the last five years. [38348]

    Mrs. Knight
    The figures presented give a breakdown of the number of abortions performed to women usually resident in the West Midlands health region by age of the woman, for the years 1990 to 19941.

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    Under 16

    399

    393

    387

    346

    393

    16–19

    4,322

    3,722

    3,229

    2,918

    2,764

    20–24

    5,716

    5,541

    5,073

    4,901

    4,531

    25–29

    3,709

    3,695

    3,664

    3,651

    3,775

    30–34

    2,277

    2,374

    2,396

    2,437

    2,553

    35–39

    1,368

    1,393

    1,369

    1,474

    1,437

    40–44

    539

    526

    518

    515

    498

    45 and over

    50

    45

    53

    63

    48

    Not stated

    —

    3

    3

    1

    1

    All ages

    18,380

    17,692

    16,692

    16,306

    16,000

    1 Abortion Statistics, England and Wales, Series AB Nos. 17–21.

    Inflation
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect of(a) an increase of 10 per cent. in house prices and (b) an increase of 10 per cent. in the import price of manufactures on the rate of inflation. [38020]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    House prices have a direct impact on retail prices index inflation through their effect on the following components: mortgage interest payments, depreciation, ground rent and estate agents' fees. The weights can be found in the Office for National Statistics RPI business monitor, MM23. These components include lagged values of house prices, so the initial effect of a rise in house prices is much smaller than the sum of the weights of these components.

    The impact on inflation of a rise or fall in import prices depends on the extent to which import costs are passed through to retail prices.

    Deaths
    Sir Robert Hicks
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths have been recorded for each of the past 10 years in the period December to March. [38044]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    The number of deaths in England and Wales occurring from December to March for the latest 10 years for which figures are available are shown in the table.

    December to March

    Deaths

    1985–86

    228,307

    1986–87

    204,090

    1987–88

    212,761

    1988–89

    201,492

    1989–90

    226,373

    1990–91

    214,839

    1991–92

    210,049

    1992–93

    198,124

    1993–94

    208,689

    1994–95

    203,932

    8

    Licences
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the licences issued by his Department; for what purpose they are issued; and what are the administrative costs involved for each. [37598]

    Mrs. Angela Knight
    [holding answer 16 July 1996]: HM Treasury issues licences under the Coinage Act 1971 which permits companies or individuals to melt down or break up metal coin. Two licences were granted during 1995–96 and one during the current financial year. I am unable to give details of which companies the licences were given to as this would compromise their commercial activities. As the granting of a licence involves a simple exchange of letters, the cost is minimal.

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

    Mr. Jack
    [pursuant to his reply, 8 July 1996, c.37–38]: I regret that the answer was incomplete. It set out the position applicable to income tax payers, and to companies before the changes made in the Finance Act 1996 for corporate debt. However, the position for loans made by companies was amended as part of the wider reform of the tax rules for corporate debt included in the Finance Act 1996. Relief remains available for bad and doubtful debt. How it is given will depend on whether the taxpayer uses an "authorised accruals basis" or an "authorised mark-to-market basis": the aim so far as possible is to follow the company's accounts prepared for non-tax purposes. Relief where loans have been extended for non-trading purposes will in future be allowed on essentially the same terms as for trading loans. Anti-avoidance rules apply to loans made between connected parties.

  TRANSPORT

    Coaches (Safety)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate his Department has made of the number of incorrectly fitted seat belts in coaches; [38551]

    (2) what estimate his Department has made of the reduction in injuries likely to occur as a result of the fitting of three-point seat belts in coaches. [38550]

    Mr. Norris
    No estimate has been made.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department is making in relation to the introduction of three-point seat belts in coaches. [38549]

    Mr. Norris
    My Department successfully sought early implementation dates for seat belts in coaches during negotiations on amending the European directive on seat belts. The directive will require three-point seat belts, or lap belts with energy-absorbing seats, from 1 October 1997 for new vehicle types and 1 October 1999 for all new vehicle registrations.
    9
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the safety coach seat designed by the Cranfield impact centre; and what proposals he has to ensure the mandatory introduction of this seat type on new coaches. [38552]

    Mr. Norris
    The Cranfield project demonstrated the technical feasibility of energy-absorbing seats which could be fitted with a three-point seat belt. It resulted in one technical solution, which may not necessarily be a viable commercial product.

    I have no plans to require the mandatory fitment of this type of seat.

    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans Her Majesty's Government have to introduce the compulsory fitting of seat belts on coaches operating in the United Kingdom; [38644]

    (2) what recent changes have occurred in European Union legislation which allow Her Majesty's Government to legislate for the compulsory fitting of seat belts in coaches travelling the United Kingdom. [38645]

    Mr. Norris
    Earlier this year, agreement was reached on an amendment to an EC directive which will require seat belts to be fitted in all new coaches. To comply with the directive, all new types of coaches from 1 October 1997 will be required to be fitted with three-point belts or lap belts with energy absorbing seats. This will be extended to all new registrations two years later. We intend to implement the requirements of the directive as soon as practicable.

    Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if drivers who have passed an HGV test at class 2 or class 3 prior to April 1991 will now be granted category C and E licences without the need to take an additional driving test. [38559]

    Mr. Norris
    We shall shortly be consulting on a range of issues arising from the second EC driving licence directive, including the treatment of these drivers.

    Motorway Traffic
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of(a) all traffic and (b) traffic on motorways and trunk roads is represented by (i) heavy goods vehicle and (ii) public service vehicle journeys of under (1) two miles and (2) five miles in length as shown in chart 1 A of the document "Transport—The Way Forward." [38600]

    Mr. Norris
    The information requested is not available.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles (Safety)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to introduce the compulsory wearing of seat belts by HGV drivers.[38601]

    Mr. Norris
    The wearing of seat belts by HGV drivers is already compulsory in goods vehicles which have them fitted.
    10

    Seagoing Skills
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date his Department received the first draft of the study to assess the shore-based demand for United Kingdom seagoing skills; and if he will give the reasons underlying the interval before publication. [38558]

    Mr. Norris
    The report "A study of the UK economy's requirements for people with experience of working at sea" was commissioned in February 1995 by the Department of Transport, the Chamber of Shipping and The Marine Society. The full draft of the report was delivered in May 1996. It was published on 18 July 1996.

    The intervening period was to allow the Department and the co-sponsoring organisations to digest the report and to make the arrangements for publication.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles (Accidents)
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of road accidents resulting in(a) fatal, (b) serious, and (c) slight injuries, involving (i) articulated, and (ii) draw bar heavy goods vehicles from (A) 1986 to 1990, and (B) 1991 to 1995. [38779]

    Mr. Norris
    The information is shown in the table.

    Number of accidents1 involving articulated and draw bar heavy goods vehicles: GB 1986 to 1995

    HGV—Articulated

    HGV—Drawbar 2

    1986

    3,880

    347

    1987

    4,170

    305

    1988

    4,564

    332

    1989

    4,829

    408

    1990

    4,578

    379

    1991

    4,273

    448

    1992

    4,180

    428

    1993

    4,246

    456

    1994

    4,174

    351

    1995

    4,077

    362

    1 May include double counting—in cases where two or more HGVs are involved in the same accident.

    2 HGV towing a single, double or multiple trailer.

    Wheelchairs
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the safety aspects of carrying occupied wheelchairs in moving taxi cabs. [38785]

    Mr. Norris
    The Department has conducted research on carrying wheelchairs in moving vehicles over a number of years. The results of that work have already been applied to existing designs of purpose-built wheelchair-accessible taxis and will be reflected in the taxi accessibility regulations which we will be introducing under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

    In practical terms, many thousands of journeys have been undertaken by wheelchair users in taxis over many years. The Department is not aware of any incident in which the carriage of a wheelchair, appropriately positioned and restrained, has caused any difficulty.
    11

    Heathrow Airport (Approach Road)
    Mr. Robert Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans exist to improve the approach road to London from Heathrow along the M4 and beyond; and if he will instigate a competition to(a) design landscaping on embankments, (b) improve central reservations and (c) site sculptural works so as to give a better impression to visitors and the pubic. [38422]

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

    Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Robert Banks, dated 22 July 1996:

    The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about visually improving the M4 and A4 from Heathrow.

    In accordance with the Green Corridor Study completed last year, and the Landscape Strategy for London's Trunk Roads launched at the end of last year, proposals are now being developed for the M4 and surrounding area in London. Consideration will be given during this work to opportunities for individual design competitions.

    Much good work has already been completed on the A4, including significant tree planting and three improvement schemes to provide new hardened central reserves and ornate guardrailing between Hammersmith Flyover and Chiswick Roundabout. A fourth scheme, to provide similar treatment from Gliddon Road to North End Road, is planned for September this year.

    Travel Passes
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of travel passes currently issued to(a) deaf and (b) other disabled people in (i) Ealing and (ii) other London boroughs; what were the equivalent figures for 1995; and if he will make a statement. [38264]

    Mr. Norris
    Information on permits issued for the period April 1996 to March 1998 is not yet available. For the period April 1994 to March 1996, London local authorities issued 62,365 permits to blind people and disabled people. The equivalent figure for the London borough of Ealing was 4,986. The number of permits issued to deaf persons is not recorded centrally.

    Railtrack
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to ensure that the majority of shares in Railtrack remain in the ownership of United Kingdom-based investors. [38532]

    Mr. Watts
    None.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to remove Railtracks's operating licence. [38534]

    Mr. Watts
    The terms as to revocation of Railtrack's network and station operating licences are contained in the schedule to those licences. The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the regulator, and in the case of the network licence, the franchising director, revoke the licences on three months notice in certain circumstances including:by agreement with Railtack; or
    non-compliance by Railtrack within three months with an enforcement order in respect of a contravention or apprehended contravention of a licence condition; or
    12
    a person obtaining control of Railtrack which the Secretary of State has not approved and the Secretary of State serves notice of revocation unless that person ceases to have control and the required cessation does not take place; or
    in the case of the network licence only, cessation of licensed activities for a continuous period of one year.

    The Secretary of State may also, after consultation with the regulator and, in the case of the network licence, the franchising director, revoke the licences forthwith if Railtrack commits a serious breach of the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the shares of Railtrack are currently owned by investors based outside the United Kingdom. [38533]

    Mr. Watts
    This is a matter for Railtrack.

    Rolling Stock
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the rail franchises let, the number of mark 1 rolling stock projected to be in operation for the years 1997 to 2003. [38524]

    Mr. Watts
    No. It is not possible to project with accuracy what vehicles will be in service over the period 1997 to 2003. The number and type of vehicles that franchise operators use for services will depend on, among other things, changes in passenger demand, the level of services offered in excess of the passenger service requirement, the productivity improvements that franchise operators are able to achieve, and any safety requirements of the Health and Safety Executive.

    I have set out in the table details of the rolling stock at the time each franchise was offered for tender in respect of its mark 1 fleet and any subsequent obligations that the successful franchise has entered into the respect of these vehicles.

    LTS Rail
    It is expected that the 28 units of the class 302 fleet which are of mark 1 construction will be replaced completely by modern class 317 units displaced from West Anglia Great Northern following the introduction of class 365/5 stock to WAGN in due course.

    South West Trains
    At franchising the South West Trains fleet included seven class 412 units, 34 class 421 units and 77 class 423 units which are all of Mark 1 construction and represent 46 per cent. of that fleet by number of vehicles.

    Network SouthCentral
    At franchising the Network SouthCentral fleet included 15 class 20X units, 78 class 421 units 23 class 422 units and 39 class 423 units which are of mark 1 construction and represent 66 per cent. of that fleet by number of vehicles.

    Gatwick Express
    The existing fleet is not of Mark 1 construction, but the franchise operator is planning to replace it in 1999 with a new fleet as a condition of a longer franchise period.

    Great Western, InterCity East Coast, Midland Main Line
    These Train Operating Companies have no mark 1 vehicles in their existing fleets.

    Railtrack (Debt Management)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements have been made for the management of the debts of Railtrack transferred to a Government-owned company. [38588]
    13
    Mr. Watts
    The Department of Transport is responsible for the management of the Railtrack debts transferred to DoA Ltd., a company wholly owned by the Crown.

    British Railways Board Subsidiaries
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many subsidiaries of the British Railways Board have closed down having failed to find a buyer since 1992; and how many jobs have been lost as a result. [38547]

    Mr. Watts
    The following businesses of the British Railways Board have closed having failed to find a buyer. The number of posts for each of these businesses is also listed; BR's policy is to redeploy staff where possible. The number of actual redundancies would have been less.

    Posts

    Taunton Concrete Works

    37

    Grove Management Development

    25

    Materials Engineering Group

    31

    Rail Privatisation
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount spent on (i) accountants, (ii) consultants, (iii) lawyers and (iv) other professionals in relation to railway privatisation for each year since 1992. [38586]

    Mr. Watts
    Expenditure by my Department, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator since 1992–93 is as follows:

    £ thousand

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–95

    1995–96

    Accountants

    1,702

    1,992

    5,035

    8,837

    Lawyers

    1,393

    4,679

    10,659

    17,479

    Other consultants and professionals

    2,405

    5,757

    11,665

    25,401

    Expenditure by British Rail and Railtrack is a matter for the organisations themselves, but we understand that their total privatisation costs to the end of 1995–96:

    £ million

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–95

    1995–96

    British Rail

    —

    92

    85

    101

    Railtrack

    —

    —

    46

    32

    Any breakdown of the figures for BR and Railtrack would be for the organisations themselves to provide.

    Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the percentage of existing timetables which have been guaranteed in each of the passenger service requirements and draft passenger service requirements so far published by Opraf. [38526]

    Mr. Watts
    No. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Moreover, a percentage for each passenger service requirement—PSR—would be an average and thus not reflect the basis 14
    on which PSRs are prepared. When drawing up PSRs, the franchising director is required by his instructions and guidance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider each service individually and not services for the franchise as a whole. The differing characteristics of the many services operated under each franchise are thus reflected in the individual specifications include din PSRs.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has given to Opraf to ensure that franchise operators provide services which connect with one another. [38527]

    Mr. Watts
    The franchising director is required by his instructions and guidance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to encourage co-operation between operators to preserve and promote arrangements which facilitate the making of journeys which involve the use of services provided by more than one operator. In line with this, each franchise agreement includes provisions requiring operations to co-operate in the development of timetables so as to secure the provision of reasonable connections between services. In addition, the franchising director may specify connections in passenger service requirements where he believes these are of particular importance.

    Aircraft Accident Simulation
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken by(a) his Department and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority into the development of a computer model to simulate real aircraft accident conditions. [38553]

    Mr. Norris
    The Civil Aviation Authority has carried out extensive work in the development of computer models to simulate passenger evacuation in emergencies. To be of use, such models must predict real life with an acceptable level of accuracy. The CAA is currently collecting data from all possible sources to compare the predictions of computer models with actual outcomes. When this work is completed, the potential value of computer models will become clearer.

    Aircraft (Safety)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken by(a) his Department and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority into the benefits of the introduction of (i) rear-facing seats and (ii) three-point seat belts in aircraft. [38590]

    Mr. Norris
    None. The Civil Aviation Authority considered undertaking research into rear-facing seats but this did not proceed beyond the feasibility study stage because of the practical difficulties involved with this seating configuration. However, this subject may be discussed by the international group for cabin safety research of which the CAA is a member.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority into the effect of water misting sprays in aircraft; and what assessment he has made of the effects on evacuation times of such systems. [38554]

    Mr. Norris
    The Civil Aviation Authority participated in the international cabin water spray research management group, which oversaw a programme of
    15
    research in this area. The programme concluded that cabin water spray systems would be of benefit only in specific and rare circumstances and that the costs associated with the installation and operation of these systems cannot be justified when compared with the potential benefits. The conclusions of the research programme were published in June 1993—CAA paper 93012.

    Emergency Towing Vessel Coverage
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to provide year-round emergency towing vessel coverage in(a) the Dover strait, (b) north-western Scotland and (c) the western approaches. [38557]

    Mr. Norris
    There will be trials in the Dover strait, north-western Scotland and the south-west approaches for a period of six months this winter. We will continue to assess the results of the emergency towing trials before deciding on future commitments.

    British Railways Board
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he is making to ensure the British Railways Board maintains expertise in running trains against the event of a franchise being surrendered. [38529]

    Mr. Watts
    None. In the event that a franchise agreement is terminated and another agreement is not entered into at the same time, the franchising director is required under the Railways Act 1993 to secure the continued provision of passenger services. Generally, he would do this by transferring to another company the business in respect of which the franchise agreement had been terminated. It is expected that the staff of the business would also be transferred, ensuring that the expertise needed to run the passenger services safely, and with continuity, would remain available to the business. In the event that any staff of the business who were essential to its safe operation did not so transfer, arrangements are in place to ensure that they would quickly be replaced with suitably skilled staff.

    Channel Tunnel (Safety)
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of a fire aboard a semi-open wagon of a freight train travelling through the channel tunnel; and what assessment he has made of the reduction in the risk to public safety from the introduction of enclosed wagons. [38593]

    Mr. Watts
    An assessment of the likely frequency and effects of a fire on board a semi-open heavy goods vehicle shuttle train formed part of Eurotunnel's formal application for an operating certificate for this service. The intergovernmental commission, having received advice from the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority and from the Maitre d'Oeuvre, independent project managers and advisers to the commission, granted the operating certificate on 14 May 1994.

    The Intergovernmental Commission has not been asked to examine any further risk assessments resulting from the use of enclosed wagons on HGV shuttle trains.
    16
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the results of the tests relating to the evacuation of trains travelling through the channel tunnel. [38592]

    Mr. Watts
    Tests relating to the evacuation of trains in the channel tunnel have been carried out by the operator, Eurotunnel. The methodology and conclusions of these tests were examined and found acceptable by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority. Publication is a matter for the operator.

    Road and Rail Construction Costs
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the average construction cost per mile of the electrification of railways together with rate of construction per mile of new roads built since 1980. [38546]

    Mr. Watts
    The information is not available in the form requested. However, the cost of upgrading the east coast main line, including electrification, was around £360 million at current prices, equal to around £1 million per mile.

    Information on the construction cost per mile of new roads is available only since 1989–90. For the period 1989–90 to 1995–96, the average construction cost per mile of all-purpose dual carriageway trunk roads was around £6 million and the average construction cost per mile of motorways was around £14 million, both at current prices. These figures exclude design fees, VAT, land and other compensation costs, site supervision and contractual claims.

    Rail Vehicles
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new rail vehicles and of what type are currently stored in sidings awaiting Railtrack approval for use. [38589]

    Mr. Watts
    This is a matter for the vehicle owners and Railtrack.

    Le Shuttle Services
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department has taken to implement the recommendation of the first report of the Home Affairs Committee, HC Paper 23 of Session 1991–92, in respect of the separation of elderly and disabled passengers from coaches aboard Le Shuttle. [38591]

    Mr. Watts
    The Government response to the Home Affairs Committee made it clear that the tunnel had been built to provide full access for all passengers, whatever their mobility problems, and that procedures would be devised for routine travel and emergency evacuation for people with mobility problems. These procedures are now complete and are contained in Eurotunnel's safety arrangements.

    When Eurotunnel made its formal application to the Intergovernmental Commission for an operating certificate to enable it to carry coaches in single-deck wagons on tourist shuttle trains, it included supporting evidence showing the results of evacuation tests carried out with the participation of elderly and disabled passengers.
    17
    The Intergovernmental Commission, on advice from the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority and from the Maitre d' Oeuvre, independent project managers and advisers to the commission, gave approval to the application in June 1995.

    A46/A47 Link Road
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if additional information required by his Department on induced traffic for the Leicester A46/A47 link road will cover the wider area set out in the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report. [38918]

    Mr. Watts
    The additional information requested by my officials on the A46/A47 link road relates specifically to the issue of induced traffic as highlighted in the SACTRA report. My Department has issued guidance to all local highway authorities on how best the effects of induced traffic may be assessed. The information, to be provided, by Leicestershire county council, should be in line with that advice.

    Road Link Ltd. (A69)
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the management of the A69 by Road Link Ltd. [38635]

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

    Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 22 July 1996:

    As you know, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for a statement about the management of the A69 by Road Link (A69) Limited.

    The A69 contract is the first to be awarded as a Design Build Finance and Operate (DBFO) scheme. This particular contract was won by Road Link (A69) Limited who are now responsible for the detailed design of the Haltwhistle Bypass scheme and its subsequent construction, together with the day to day operation and maintenance of the A69 between Carlisle and Newcastle. The concession period will last for 30 years during which Road Link will be reimbursed through "shadow tolls" paid by the Highways Agency. The Secretary of State for Transport, however, remains the highway authority for the A69 trunk road and this function cannot be delegated to the DBFO Co.

    Road Link are employing the A69 Construction Joint Venture (a consortium of Morrison Construction, Christiani & Neilson Ltd, Henry Boot Construction and lmpregilo S.p.A, with design support from Pell Frischmann Consultants) to construct the A69 Haltwhistle Bypass.

    The construction of the Bypass is currently making good progress and should be completed as programmed in August 1997. After that, there will be some minor works on the old trunk road once the new Bypass is opened to traffic.

    Bus and Coach Directive
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the companies and organisations he has consulted in connection with preparing a response to the European Commission's draft bus and coach directive. [39132]

    Mr. Norris
    Although we have not yet received any formal proposals from the Commission, my Department has been widely consulting with organisations, including the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which 18
    represents major UK manufacturing interests, and the Coach and Passenger Transport Executive Group, which represents the major bus and coach operators in the UK.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Repossessions (York)
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many actions for repossession of a mortgaged home were started, and how many repossessions were granted, in York county court in each of the last seven years. [38873]

    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. Hugh Bayley, dated 22 July 1996:

    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about repossession proceedings at York County Court.

    The following table shows the number of possession actions started and the number of possession orders made at York in the last seven years. As not all orders result in the issue and execution of a warrant of possession, I am unable to tell you how many properties were repossessed in this period.

    Actions commenced

    Orders made

    1989

    368

    193

    1990

    505

    314

    1991

    577

    455

    1992

    456

    405

    1993

    346

    316

    1994

    358

    274

    1995

    332

    237

    Offenders(Psychiatric Assessments)
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many offenders have been referred for psychiatric assessments from magistrates courts for each of the last five years(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; and at what cost. [37733]

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

    Children Act 1989
    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library a copy of all guidance issued by his Department concerning implementation of section 8 orders under the Children Act 1989. [37585]

    Mr. Streeter
    The Lord Chancellor's Department produced guidance on the provisions of and procedures under the Children Act for court staff and judiciary at the time of its implementation in October 1991. Similar information was produced in conjunction with the Home Office for the use of practitioners and other relevant
    19
    professionals. These refer to section eight orders in general terms, but do not give specific guidance on their implementation.

    The Children Act Advisory Committee, an independent body to which the Department provides the secretariat, has responsibility for monitoring the operation of the Act and issues guidance on its provisions. The committee publishes an annual report, copies of which are already held by the Library.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Quota Hopping
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government propose to table treaty changes at the intergovernmental conference to regulate quota hopping; and if he will make a statement. [39014]

    Mr. Baldry
    A proposal to add a protocol to the treaty of the European Community to enable member states to take appropriate action to regulate quota hopping is being tabled at a working meeting of the inter governmental conference today. The protocol provides that"nothing in the Treaty establishing the European Community shall prevent any Member State from distributing the fishing availabilities allocated to it under the common fisheries policy to vessels flying the flag of, or registered in, that State in accordance with such requirements as the Member State considers appropriate to ensure that such vessels have a real economic link with the populations dependent on fisheries and related industries in that State including, for example, all or any of the following requirements:
    a requirement that a minimum proportion (determined by the Member State concerned) of the legal and beneficial ownership of such vessels should be held either by nature persons residing permanently int he territory of that State, or by companies or firms which have their principal place of business or central administration (or both) in the territory of that State, or by a combination of natural persons and companies or firms fulfilling the above criteria;
    a requirement that a minimum proportion (determined by the Member State concerned) of the membership of the crews of such vessels should reside permanently in the territory of that State;

    a requirement that such vessels should depart from a port situated within the territory of the Member State concerned on a minimum proportion (determined by that State) of the fishing trips undertaken by such vessels;
    a requirement that a minimum proportion (determined by the Member States concerned) of the catches of all or any of the different fish stocks which may be made by such vessels should be landed within the territory of that State."

    Copies of the full text of the proposed protocol and of the covering memorandum to the IGC are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses for information.

    Veterinary Medicines Directorate
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the 1995–96 annual report and accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is due to be published. [39013]

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    I am pleased to report that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's annual report and accounts for 1995–96 was published today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.
    20
    The report charts the continuing success of the directorate as a next steps agency, and I would like to congratulate the chief executive and his staff on their considerable achievements during the year.

    British Beef
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote a public relations campaign extolling the safety of British beef. [32780]

    Mrs. Browning
    Product promotion and advertising is primarily a matter for the industry. The Ministry is actively involved in a programme to help promote beef. I am pleased that the Meat and Livestock Commission is running a campaign to reassure consumers about minced beef.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commission and (b) evaluated to establish the route by which contaminated feed was fed to bovine animals after the 1988 ban. [35000]

    Mrs. Browning
    Results of the investigation of risk factors for cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy born after the introduction of the ruminant protein feed ban were published in the "Veterinary Record" on 1 April 1995—pages 312 to 318. A copy of the report can be found in the May 1995 progress report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to locate those animals which are within a condemned cohort which were previously sold on from the farm where they were bred; and what assessment he had made as to whether those who purchase cattle are keeping records in the same way as those responsible for dairy herds. [38098]

    Mrs. Browning
    Animals in the same cohort as a BSE case will be traced using farmers' records for cattle, which legislation under the Animal Health Act 1981 obliges them to keep.

    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will revise the arrangements for the destruction of whole cohorts of cattle where one animal within that cohort is found infected with BSE; and what is his latest estimate of the number of cattle which will have to be destroyed under the proposed arrangement. [38107]

    Mr. Baldry
    The Government issued a consultation document on the accelerated slaughter scheme on 3 July. They are considering responses to this. The maximum number of cattle likely to be slaughtered under the arrangements set out in the consultation document is 120,000 and in practice is liable to be somewhat lower.

    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect upon the price of replacement cattle if the numbers of cattle to be destroyed under the BSE eradication arrangements are at the highest level of his estimates. [38097]

    Mrs. Browning
    The accelerated slaughter scheme is not expected to involve more than about 1 per cent. of the total UK cattle population—although it is likely to have a
    21
    greater effect on dairy than beef herds. Details of the scheme, and therefore estimates of its likely effects, are yet to be finished.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [35761]

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    I have visited the following constituencies on official business in the last three months:

    Constituency

    Event

    Date

    Gainsborough and Horncastle

    Lincolnshire Show

    19 June 1996

    Cirencester and Tewksbury

    Royal Show

    1 July 1996

    Lincoln

    Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board

    8 July 1996

    Stamford and Spalding

    Elsoms Seeds Ltd.

    8 July 1996

    During the next three months I plan to visit:

    Constituency

    Event

    Date

    Eddisbury

    Reaseheath College (Meeting with Beef/Dairy Fanners)

    15 July 1996

    Congleton

    Wimboldsely Hall/Weaver Bank Farm

    15 July 1996

    Stamford and Spalding

    CLA Game Fair

    26 July 1996

    Cattle Slaughter Scheme
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, under the accelerated slaughter scheme, compensation for cattle slaughtered will be to the value of a replacement heifer of the same breed and standard of the culled cow. [36837]

    Mr. Baldry
    The Government issued a consultation document on the accelerated slaughter scheme on 3 July. The deadline for responses was 9 July, and we are considering those we have received.

    EU Standing Veterinary Committee
    Dr. Strang
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the United Kingdom was represented at the meeting of the EU Standing Veterinary Committee meeting of 9 and 10 October 1990; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions concerning BSE arising from the meeting. [37866]

    Mrs. Browning
    The United Kingdom was represented at this meeting. Our record of the meeting shows that, although BSE was discussed, no conclusions were reached.
    22

    Fisheries Committee (European Parliament)
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many seats the UK is entitled to on the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament; and how many seats the UK currently occupies. [38404]

    Mr. Baldry
    The UK is entitled to have five full members on the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament and two substitute members. UK members of the European Parliament currently occupy all five full seats.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Postage Costs
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how much has been spent on postage costs for the House in each of the last five financial years. [38637]

    Mr. Michael J. Martin
    Postage costs for the House of Commons for the last five financial years are as follows:

    1991–92: £1,304,419

    1992–93: £1,451,836

    1993–94: £1,760,770

    1994–95: £1,771,183

    1995–96: £1,710,899.

    Members' Salaries
    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members notified the Fees Office after each increase in salary during the past 17 years that they did not wish to accept an increase in their salary; and for how long they maintained such decisions. [36772]

    Mr. Newton
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 10 July,Official Report, column 238. I have asked the Fees Office to write to the hon. Member with such additional information as it feels can properly be provided without incurring disproportionate cost, bearing in mind also its obligation to preserve confidentiality in its dealings with individual hon. Members.

    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Lord President of the Council when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his question, for answer on 11 July, in respect of salaries. [38789]

    Mr. Newton
    I have replied to the hon. Member today.

    Mail
    Mr. Donohoe
    To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many items of mail were delivered to the House in each of the last five financial years. [38638]

    Mr. Michael J. Martin
    This information is not recorded. Royal Mail estimates that 35,000 items are received on each sitting day and that this figure has not changed significantly over the last five financial years. This does not include items delivered via courier and messenger services.
    23

  ENVIRONMENT

    Air Pollution
    Mr. Barry Porter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account the Environment Agency is obliged to take of(a) general air quality standards in a locality and (b) the cumulative effects of other emissions into the atmosphere in determining whether to grant an authorisation. [37839]

    Mr. Clappison
    Under section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Agency is obliged to set such specific conditions as it considers appropriate to achieve any quality standards or quality objectives prescribed by the Secretary of state under any relevant enactments.

    Asbestos
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with other European Ministers on the production and use of asbestos-based building materials; and if he will make a statement. [38188]

    Mr. Clappison
    No discussions on the use of asbestos-based building materials have taken place at ministerial level, but our officials continue to play an active part in EU negotiations and to promote awareness and understanding in EU discussion of asbestos issues.

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department has taken to ensure asbestos-based building materials are clearly marked. [38186]

    Mr. Clappison
    The Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985 as amended require that any products containing asbestos are labelled in accordance with the schedule to the regulations. The label serves as a warning that asbestos is present, and gives details of precautions to be taken in handling the product.

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the use of asbestos-based building materials in house building. [38185]

    Mr. Clappison
    The Department of the Environment has commissioned research on fibrous materials in the non-workplace environment. This includes a review of the past and current uses of asbestos in products and building materials. A report on this research will be published early next year.

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to promote a ban on the import and use of asbestos-based building materials; and if he will make a statement. [38187]

    Mr. Clappison
    The United Kingdom takes the view that prohibitions on the marketing and use of asbestos, including asbestos-based building materials, should be based on agreements within the European Union. The Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992 and their Northern Ireland equivalents implement EU legislation which totally prohibits the use of blue and brown asbestos, and some uses of white asbestos, in building materials. At present, the UK has no plans to promote an EU discussion for an extension of the existing ban.
    24
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statistics he has collected on the number of deaths from exposure to asbestos products. [38184]

    Sir Paul Beresford
    The Health and Safety Executive maintains a register on the number of deaths from mesothelioma and asbestosis, which are mostly related to exposure to asbestos fibres. This is published in "Health and Safety Statistics", the statistical supplement to the Health and Safety Commission's annual report.

    Merseyside Development Corporation
    Mr. Parry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, to discuss matters affecting his constituents living in the Merseyside development corporation area; and if he will make a statement. [38863]

    Sir Paul Beresford
    I assume that the hon. Member is referring to his constituents living at the Albert dock. For the most part, the issues raised by the residents at the dock have been matters for the residents to resolve themselves with the Merseyside development corporation or Arrowcroft. In those circumstances, I cannot see a meeting would be helpful. A meeting has, however, been arranged between Merseyside development corporation, the Government office for Merseyside and the Albert dock residents association to hear views on the proposed management company.

    Albert Dock Company
    Mr. Parry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the owners of the Albert Dock Company; and if he will make a statement. [38839]

    Sir Paul Beresford
    The Albert Dock Company is owned by Arrowcroft.

    Rising Sun Sports Ground, Wallsend
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in for determination planning application NT074496DM made to North Tyneside council for development at the Rising Sun sports ground, Wallsend. [38787]

    Sir Paul Beresford
    The Secretary of State is aware of this application for five houses and two bungalows at Kings road, Wallsend and has asked the council for more information about it. When he has received this, he will consider the issues raised by the application and decide whether to call it in. I have asked the Government office for the north-east to write and let the hon. Member know his decision.

    Planning Inspectorate
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate for the financial year 1996–97; and how these compare with targets and outturns for earlier years. [38262]

    Mr. Robert B. Jones
    I have today set new performance targets for the Planning Inspectorate which reflect changes in the content and priorities of its work load. Since its launch in 1992, the proportion of inspector resources devoted to development plan inquiries has
    25
    grown rapidly from just under 20 per cent., to 32 per cent. last year. The new targets announced today reflect this change. Taken as a package, they are demanding and will require the agency to work more effectively if they are to be met.

    In particular, the timeliness target has been extended to embrace the three different methods of handling appeals. This replaces the previous target which was confined to written appeals and which did not take into account the more difficult appeals which take longer.

    The principal objectives will be to continue to preserve the impartiality and quality of the inspectorate's work while seeking further to improve efficiency.

    In detail, the key targets for the agency's work in England for 1996–97 are as follows:

    Timeliness

    (a) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by written representations to be determined in 22 weeks, reducing to 18 weeks by 1998–99;

    (b) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearings to be determined in 43 weeks, reducing to 24 weeks by 1998–99;

    The above targets are compared with previous targets and outturns in the Table below: Planning Inspectorate: targets for England

    Outturn 1993–94

    Outturn 1994–95

    Outturn 1995–96

    Proposed 1996–97

    aims, by 1998–99

    Casework targets

    Determine 80 per cent, of written appeals within 18 weeks

    achieved, 17 weeks

    missed, 19 weeks

    missed, 24 weeks

    22 weeks

    18 weeks

    Determine 80 per cent, of hearing appeals within set time

    not set, 25 weeks

    not set, 22 weeks

    not set, 37 weeks

    43 weeks

    24 weeks

    Determine 80 per cent, of inquiry appeals within set time

    not set, 40 weeks

    not set, 35 weeks

    not set, 41 weeks

    51 weeks

    36 weeks

    Provide an Inspector for Development Plan inquiry within 26 weeks of end of objection period

    achieved

    achieved

    achieved

    same

    Deliver 90 per cent, of reports on Development Plans to local authorities by dates agreed in service agreements

    not set

    not set

    not set

    new target

    Determine 19,500; 15,500, 14,900 appeals respectively, subject to intake not declining

    intake declined; no fault miss

    intake declined; no fault miss

    intake declined; no fault miss

    not set

    Financial targets

    Unit costs of written planning appeals not to exceed £690

    achieved, £683

    achieved, £689

    achieved, £673

    same

    Recover 90 per cent, of receipts written eight weeks of invoice

    achieved

    achieved

    achieved

    same

    Generate a 3 per cent, efficiency improvement in use of running costs compared with previous year

    achieved

    achieved

    achieved

    same

    Quality of casework targets

    The number of justified complaints about the way Inspectors have carried out their duties to be below 1 per cent, of decisions issuedmissed 1.3 per cent.

    missed 1.1 per cent.

    missed 1.5 per cent.

    new target

    Information and guidance targets

    Carry out set tasks to improve information about or guidance given to customers

    achieved by customer survey

    achieved by customer survey

    not set

    new "Plain English" task

    Offensive Poster Advertising
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to strengthen safeguards against offensive poster advertising. [37755]

    Sir Paul Beresford
    The display of all outdoor advertisements is subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. Among other matters, these powers control the location, size and design of posters in relation on amenity and public safety. They do not extend to consideration of whether the subject matter of an advertisement would offend public decency or moral values, since these matters are outside planning control.
    26
    (c) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiries to be determined in 51 weeks, reducing to 36 weeks by 1998–99;
    (d) to provide an inspector for local plan inquiries or request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period and to deliver 90 per cent. of inspectors' reports to local authorities by the dates agreed in service agreements;

    Financial

    (a) unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £690;

    (b) recover 90 per cent. of receipts due within eight weeks of invoice date;

    Efficiency
    generate a 3 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of running costs compared with 1995–96;

    Quality
    to satisfy the advisory panel on standards, and thus the Secretary of State, annually and following rigorous monitoring, that the quality of the inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard with 99 per cent. of its casework free from error;

    Information and Guidance
    to secure a plain English campaign crystal mark award for 50 per cent. of the Planning Inspectorate's key publications.

    These factors are separately addressed by a voluntary code of practice supervised by the Advertising Standards Authority, to which all reputable advertisers, including all the major outdoor poster companies, subscribe. There is no evidence to suggest that these arrangements have proved unsatisfactory or that legislative regulation is required.

    Towing Caravan Exemption Certificates
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue a statement in
    27
    conclusion of the review of the touring caravan exemption certificate system which operates under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. [39056]

    Mr. Clappison
    We have today issued a statement announcing the conclusion of the review of the touring caravan exemption certificate system. Copies have been placed in the Library.

    Local Government Pension Scheme
    Mr. Jacques Arnold
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made to take forward his proposals for change initiative for the local government pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [39055]

    Sir Paul Beresford
    Earlier in the year, we consulted widely on our proposals for change initiative for the local government pension scheme—LGPS—in England and Wales. There was wide support for our consultation proposals, which we have decided to adopt.

    The LGPS will remain a public service pension scheme prescribed in regulations. The scheme's provisions will be streamlined and local authorities will be able to manage more of the scheme for themselves. We intend early in 1997–98 to make and lay before the House regulations giving effect to these changes. Our aim will be to provide

    Largest

    Smallest

    District

    Ward

    Population

    Ward

    Population

    Greater Manchester

    Bolton

    Deane-cum-Heaton

    13,082

    Central

    7,608

    Bury

    Ramsbottom

    11,028

    Unsworth

    7,667

    Manchester (City)

    Longsight

    11,876

    Hulme

    5,468

    Oldham

    Saddleworth East

    9,948

    St. James

    5,742

    Rochdale

    Norden and Bamford

    9,400

    Middleton West

    5,277

    Salford

    Walkden South

    11,390

    Ordsall

    5,473

    Stockport

    East Bramhall

    12,768

    Brinnington

    7,692

    Tameside

    Audenshaw

    10,140

    Ashton St. Peters

    7,688

    Trafford

    Mersey St. Mary's

    9,564

    Park

    6,025

    Wigan

    Winstanley

    11,863

    Norley

    7,541

    Merseyside

    Knowsley

    Roby

    6,719

    Cantril Farm

    3,984

    Liverpool

    Warbreck

    14,223

    Everton

    4,544

    St. Helens

    Binge and Seneley Green

    10,570

    Marshalls Cross

    5,959

    Sefton

    Park

    11,618

    Netherton

    7,543

    Wirral

    Clatterbridge

    13,974

    Bidston

    8,446

    South Yorkshire

    Barnsley

    Darton

    10,400

    Wombwell North

    5,173

    Doncaster

    Armthorpe

    13,233

    Intake

    8,396

    Rotherham

    Bramley, Ravenfield and Wickersley

    13,617

    Central

    6,289

    Sheffield

    Mosborough

    25,069

    Manor

    9,134

    Tyne and Wear

    Gateshead

    Wickham South

    8,855

    Bensham

    5,106

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    Dene

    10,759

    Scotswood

    5,414

    North Tyneside

    Weetslade

    7,842

    Longbenton

    5,892

    South Tyneside

    Cleadon and East Boldon

    7,387

    Simon Side

    4,772

    Sunderland

    Washington South

    14,171

    South wick

    7,379

    West Midlands

    Birmingham

    Sutton Four Oaks

    24,484

    Kingsbury

    13,223

    Coventry

    Woodlands

    14,356

    Westwood

    11,108

    28
    easy-to-read regulations in plain English to assist administering authorities and employers in the operation of the scheme and, in particular, to help scheme members to understand better the benefits available to them. We shall be consulting the local authority associations and other interested parties on drafts of the regulations, which we intend to bring into force on 1 April 1998. This will allow adequate time for all the necessary administrative and other changes to be put in place and ensure a smooth implementation of the new scheme provisions.

    I believe these measures will be welcomed by local government employers and employees alike and will provide a satisfactory and secure long-term basis for the LGPS.

    Metropolitan Authorities
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the size of the electorate, and the name of(a) the largest and (b) the smallest of the three member wards in each of the metropolitan authorities in England; and which is the party of the councillors in each of these wards. [38753]

    Sir Paul Beresford
    All wards in metropolitan authorities in England are three-member wards. The table shows, for each authority, the name and size of electorate of the largest and the smallest ward. Electorate numbers are based on 1995 electoral registers.
    29

    Largest

    Smallest

    District

    Ward

    Population

    Ward

    Population

    Dudley

    Amblecote

    14,309

    Netherton and Woodside

    7,201

    Sandwell

    Tipton Green

    11,146

    St. Paul's

    8,147

    Solihull

    Shirley South

    13,510

    Kingshurst

    6,227

    Walsall

    Bloxwich West

    11,424

    Pheasey

    7,393

    Wolverhampton

    Bilston North

    10,991

    Heath Town

    8,123

    West Yorkshire

    Bradford

    Odsal

    12,790

    Keighley South

    9,816

    Calderdale

    Greetland and Stainland

    9,056

    Illingworth

    7,429

    Kirklees

    Birstall and Birkenshaw

    13,931

    Deighton

    10,067

    Leeds

    Morley South

    20,691

    Hunslet

    11,086

    Wakefield

    Stanley and Altofts

    13,773

    Castleford Whitwood

    9,776

    The Department does not keep records of party political affiliations.

    Office of Water Services
    Dr. Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Water Services publish(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) the minutes of meetings, (d) the agendas of meetings and (e) a register of members' interests; and if he will indicate in each instance whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary; [37876]

    (2) if the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Water Services are subject to (a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) provisions for open government and (e) performance indicators; and (f) provisions under the citizens charter; [37877]

    (3) what is the statutory basis of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Office of Water Services; if they (a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings and (b) hold open meetings for the public; and if he will indicate in each instance whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37880]

    Mr. Clappison
    [holding answer 18 July I996]: The 10 customer service committees—CSCs—of the Office of Water Services are statutory bodies, independent of the water industry, established and maintained by the Director General of Water Services under section 28 of the Water Industry Act 1991. CSCs fall outside the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Audit Commission, but are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office. CSCs have the status of executive non-departmental public bodies but are administratively integrated with Ofwat. They operate to performance standards agreed with the director general and apply the same provisions for open government and the citizen's charter as does Ofwat itself.

    Meetings of the CSCs are held in public in accordance with the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. Further details of the practices followed by the CSCs in undertaking their business are contained in the annual reports of Ofwat and the CSCs, copies of which are in the Library.
    30
    Dr. Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the Ofwat national customer council(a) holds public meetings, (b) conducts public consultation exercises, (c) conducts consultation exercises with outside interests, (d) publishes a register of members' interests, (e) publishes agendas for meetings and (f) publishes the minutes of meetings; and if in each case this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary; [37909]

    (2) what is the statutory base of the Ofwat national customer council; if it (a) publishes its advice, (b) publishes an annual report and (c) lays an annual report before Parliament; and if he will indicate in each instance whether this is (i) under a statutory requirement or (ii) voluntary. [37910]

    Mr. Clappison
    [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The Ofwat national customer council is a non-statutory body, independent of the water industry, established by the Director General of Water Services. The manner in which it conducts its business is a matter for the council, and is described in its annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Tied House System
    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make representations to the European Commission about the benefits to customers, tenants and independent brewers of the tied house system. [37551]

    Mr. John M. Taylor
    The block exemption which deals with the tie between brewer and landlord will first be considered as part of a wider debate on the treatment of distribution agreements under EC competition law. The Commission will publish a Green Paper on this issue later this year. Consideration of specific types of agreement such as the tie will follow on from this Green Paper. At that stage, I will be making representations to the European Commission on the tie.

    To that end, I am inviting those involved in the beer industry to provide me with their views on the future of this important regulation.

    Contracts
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number, nature and total value of contracts awarded by his Department to
    31
    (a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b)KMPG,(c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) Deloitte and Touche, (f) Arthur Andersen, (g) Grant Thornton, (h)BDO,(i) Stoy Hayward, (j) Pannel Kerr Forster and (k) Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates during 1995 and 1996. [37336]

    Mr. Lang
    Only data on external consultancy contracts are held centrally and the following information for the companies in question is available:

    Company

    Number of contracts in 1995

    Coopers and Lybrand

    1

    KMPG

    4

    Price Waterhouse

    0

    Ernst and Young

    4

    Deloitte and Touche

    3

    Arthur Andersen

    0

    Grant Thornton

    0

    BDO

    0

    Stay Hayward

    2

    Pannel Kerr Forster

    2

    Robson Rhodes

    0

    The total value of the contracts was £3,613,000.

    Company

    Number of contracts in 1996

    KPMG

    1

    Ernst and Young

    1

    The total value of the contracts is £104,000.

    Commercial sensitivity prevents the disclosure of individual contract details. Information on other contracts can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    The information does not include contracts let by the Department's executive agencies, and I have asked the chief executives to reply separately to this question.

    Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 22 July 1996:
    I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about contracts placed with various named consultants.

    Firms

    Purpose

    1994–95

    Value of contract (including VAT) 1995–96

    Coopers and Lybrand

    Accountancy support

    £60,000

    —

    Price Waterhouse

    User survey

    £124,800

    —

    Ernst and Young

    Accountancy support

    £13,100

    —

    CSL (subsidiary of Deloitte and Touche)

    Contracted out accounting services

    —

    £88,812

    Stoy Hayward

    Contracting out and management consultancy

    £94,150

    —

    Total

    £292,050

    £88,812

    The £60,000 payment to Coopers and Lybrand for accountancy support for the Agency was in and about the setting up of systems to enable it to produce commercial style accounts. The £13,100 paid to Ernst and Young for accountancy support was to provide independent professional assurance that financial data had been properly transferred to The Service's new computer system for its Central Accounting Unit.

    The contract with CSL is for 5 years from 1 April 1995. The £88,812 paid in 1995–96 is for services provided in the year. The costs of the services are largely volume related.

    32
    The Patent Office has used two companies listed. In 1996 KPMG were given a single contract valued at £5000 for training advice on job search workshops. In the years 1995 and 1996, Coopers and Lybrand have been used for two contracts. The first addressed the contractorisation of our London Front Office and was completed this year. The total cost of this contract amounted to £55,700 of which £30,000 related to 1995 and £27,500 to 1996. The second was for advice on the possible contractorisation of IT services and has totalled £58,000 so far in 1996.

    Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 22 July 1996:
    The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about the Agency's use of various firms.2 In 1995 the Agency contracted with the following subsidiaries of Deloitte and Touche:CSL Managed Services Ltd for the provision of accountancy and financial services valued at between £800-£1m ex-VAT over a period of five years; and
    Touche Ross Management Consultants for a study into the development of channel communication quality limits valued at £56.5k ex-VAT

    Letter from John S. Holden to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 22 July 1996:
    You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information about contracts awarded to various organisations. I am replying as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.
    No contracts were awarded by Companies House to any of the firms listed in 1995 or 1996.

    Letter from Zélie Armstrong to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 22 July 1996:
    The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your questions about the number, nature and value of contracts awarded to those companies listed for the years 1995 and 1996.
    This Agency has not awarded a contract to any of the companies listed in your question.

    Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 22 July 1996:
    The President of the Board of Trade has asked Peter Joyce, The Insolvency Service Agency Chief Executive, to reply to your question about expenditure on external consultants and the number, nature and total of contracts awarded to named firms in 1995 and 1996 by The Insolvency Service. I am replying in Mr. Joyce's absence on leave.
    Details of contracts awarded to the named firms are:
    33

    Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
    Mrs. Beckett
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when the Government were notified that Hinckley Point B and Hunterston B were to be shut down on 10 July; [37833]

    (2) what discussion (a) Ministers and (b) civil servants had with British Energy prior to the announcement of the shutdowns of Hinckley Point B and Hunterston B regarding (i) the timing of the closure and (ii) of the announcement; [37832]

    (3) when the problems at Hinckley Point B and Hunterston B leading to the shutdown on 10 July first came to the attention of (a) British Energy and (b) his Department; what assessment was made of the impact of these problems on the flotation of British Energy; and if he will make a statement. [37834]

    Mr. Lang
    I have nothing to add to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy made to the House on 16 July,Official Report, columns 1013–22.

    Labour Unit Costs
    Sir Irvine Patnick
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of relative labour unit costs for each European Union country, the United States of America and Japan; and if he will make a statement. [38612]

    Mr. John M. Taylor
    The most comprehensive data which I have available is drawn from the Bank for International Settlements, and is shown on the table.

    Country

    Manufacturing Unit Labour Costs in October 1993

    United States of America

    100.0

    Japan

    165.9

    France

    142.2

    Germany

    171.2

    Italy

    107.4

    United Kingdom

    126.3

    Belgium

    125.2

    Netherlands

    129.1

    Sweden

    106.0

    Notes:

    Figures rebased so that USA=100. Figures above 100 show higher unit labour costs than the USA, e.g. Japan's unit labour costs are 65.9 per cent. higher than the US in October 1993.

    Source:

    'Measuring International Price and Cost Competitiveness' Turner and Van 't Dack. Bank for International Settlements, Economic Papers No. 39, November 1993.

    The figures show that the UK's unit labour costs are relatively low. It is important that we maintain this good position. Companies and their employees have the crucial role of ensuring that we remain competitive.

    Advertising Standards Authority
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to replace the Advertising Standards Authority with a statutory body. [37754]

    Mr. John M. Taylor
    No. The Advertising Standards Authority was established to supervise the advertising code of practice. Self-regulation backed by the Control of 34
    Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 works well and is the most effective way to protect consumers against misleading and offensive advertising.

    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures are available to people who wish to make complaints about decisions made by the Advertising Standards Authority. [37783]

    Mr. Taylor
    Anyone who wants to complain about a decision made by the Advertising Standards Authority can apply in the first instance to the independent chairman, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for a review of that decision. They can also refer their complaint to the Director General of Fair Trading.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Nigel Evans
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to promote Government policy in relation to industry. [36808]

    Mr. Eggar
    DTI Ministers seize every opportunity to further Government policy in relation to industry, to promote the interests of British business and to promote the UK as a location for business investment. Recently, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has set out our policies in relation to industry in a series of keynote speeches, including one in June to the Engineering Employers Federation on the subject of setting enterprise free.

    Briefly, the essence of our policy is to promote free enterprises and free trade, with vigourous competition as the driving force.

    At home, we adopt a rigorous approach to competition policy, and continue to drive forward the deregulation process. The Department has repealed or amended over 50 pieces of burdensome legislation in the last year alone.

    In Europe and beyond, we promote an open trading environment. We have launched a reinvigorated unit—action single market—charged with overcoming illegal barriers and unfair subsidies encountered by British firms in the single market. We are continuing to work with our European partners and in the World Trade Organisation to further the process of multilateral trade liberalisation.

    As a result of our commitment to free enterprise, we have seen another record year for inward investment, with over 48,000 new jobs expected to be created as a direct result of investments notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau in 1995–96.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what policies the Government have put in place to improve investment in United Kingdom manufacturing. [36797]

    Mr. John M. Taylor
    We are providing a stable economic environment with low inflation, low corporation tax rates, historically low interst rates and profits are high. The Treasury summer forecast expects that business investment—which includes manufacturing investment—will rise by over 7 per cent. both this year and next.
    35

    Fuel Consumers
    Sir Robert Hicks
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that fuel consumers who use pre-payment meters are not required to pay a surcharge on standing or unit prices. [38043]

    Mr. John M. Taylor
    Subject to their licence obligations to avoid undue discrimination, this is a matter for the public electricity suppliers and gas suppliers. I understand that they have been able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the regulators, that there are additional costs involved in operating pre-payment meter systems for electricity and gas customers.

    Statistical Forms
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the forms his Department issues annually to businesses to gather statistics, indicating the number of each distributed. [37812]

    Mr. John M. Taylor
    [holding answer 19 July 1996]: A list of regular surveys which gather statistics from business, together with the number of questionnaires distributed, is shown in the following table.

    Name of Survey, by Periodicity

    Number of forms per year

    Annual and Quarterly

    Inquiry into Electricity Generated3

    799

    Annual

    Renewable Energy Statistics (RESTATS)

    255

    Landfill Gas Monitoring

    49

    Census of Hospital-treated Firework Injuries

    442

    Quarterly

    Fuels Inquiry3

    1,200

    Inquiry into Oil and Natural Gas3

    900

    Monthly

    Price of Fuel for PPI

    672

    Biennial

    IT Security Breaches Survey1

    10,1252

    1 A mixed survey of both business and local authorities.

    2 Number of forms every other year.

    3 Surveys conducted for DTI by ONS.

    The table is based on records of regular statistical surveys going to 25 or more businesses only. Information on surveys with smaller samples is excluded. In addition, 34 ad hoc surveys were conducted during 1995, some of which collected statistical information.

    Trade and Human Rights
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy towards discussion of the linkage between world trade and human rights in developing countries at the World Trade Organisation. [36784]

    Mr. Nelson
    The UK Government are firmly opposed to abuses of fundamental human rights such as forced labour and the exploitation of child labour, wherever this occurs. But we believe that these should be tackled within the appropriate UN framework, which is the International Labour Organisation, and not by the World Trade Organisation.
    36

    Terrorist Damage
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackey (Mr. Eastham) of 27 June,Official Report, column 202, what additional steps he will take to ensure that equivalent assistance in respect of terrorist damage is made available on the British mainland.[38263]

    Mr. Nelson
    The situation in Northern Ireland is not comparable with that in Great Britain. Compensation schemes operate in the Province because insurance cover against losses arising from terrorist activity is not available. As such cover is fully available on the British mainland in relation to industrial and commercial property, the question of equivalent assistance in respect of terrorist damage does not arise.

    Coal Authority
    Mr. John Marshall
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the annual report and accounts of the Coal Authority will be laid before Parliament. [39009]

    Mr. Lang
    I have today laid a copy before each House of Parliament.

    Brick Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what share of the brick supply industry would be held by(a) Ibstock plc, and (b) Hanson plc, were the proposed acquisition of Redland Brick plc by Ibstock Buildings Products Ltd. to be allowed to proceed. [38038]

    Mr. John M. Taylor
    [holding answer 18 July 1996]: I am advised by Ibstock that it would have approximately 30 per cent of UK brick manufacturing capacity after the proposed divestment of the plants to which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade referred in his announcement of 11 July and that it believes Hanson has approximately 31 per cent.

    Mr. Winterton
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total output and product range of each of the brick plants which it is proposed by the Director General of Fair Trading should be divested under the terms of undertakings to be given by Ibstock Building Products Ltd. in connection with the proposed acquisition of Redland Brick plc by Ibstock Building Products Ltd. [38037]

    Mr. Taylor
    [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The total manufacturing capacity of each of the plants is as follows:

    Toddhills: 51

    Eldon: 20

    South Holmwood: 42

    Funton: 11

    Chailey: 13

    Steerpoint: 40

    Million bricks per annum: 177

    Each of the plants produces a full range of facing bricks for housing and commercial use. In addition, Chailey produces a range of pavers.

    Source:

    Ibstock.
    37

    Tender Documents
    Mr. Tipping
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tender documents were produced by the Government office for the east midlands in February calling for a strategy for marketing the competitiveness agenda for the east midlands; if he will place copies in the Library; how many companies responded to the request; what framework was used to evaluate the bids; which companies were successful; and if he will make a statement. [38344]

    Mr. Page
    On 7 February 1996, the Government office for the east midlands,GO-EM, telephoned four local companies, inviting them to provide quotations for a small, short-term contract to help develop a plan for marketing competitiveness in the region. Each company was given the same oral briefing on GO-EM's requirements. Two of them requested—and were granted—meetings to discuss these requirements in more detail.

    Three of the companies provided quotations. These were evaluated on the basis of value for money—that is, price and suitability. The contract was awarded to Audax Communications.

    I am satisfied that GO-EM's actions in this case were wholly in accordance with the Government's public purchasing policy.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Anti-racist Year
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now support the European Union proposal to nominate 1997 as an anti-racist year; and if he will make a statement. [38224]

    Mr. David Davis
    We support the draft resolution designating 1997 as the European Year against Racism. We expect the resolution to be adopted by the Council in the near future.

    Bermuda (Asbestos)
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Bermudan authorities about disposal of asbestos; what has been his response; and if he will make a statement. [38226]

    Sir Nicholas Bonsor
    The Bermudian authorities have asked the United Kingdom on a contingency basis to consider the possibility of disposing of asbestos by landfill in the UK. The Bermudians are also investigating other possible landfill options outside Bermuda. The feasibility of disposal in the UK is being considered as an option.

    Royal Visits
    Mr. Alan Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official visits aborad were made by Prince Michael of Kent in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; on what dates; at what cost; and which visits were made by use of the Royal Squadron. [38441]
    38
    Mr. Rifkind
    Prince Michael of Kent made no official visit overseas during this period.

    Entry Clearance
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applicants for visit entry clearance during 1995 and 1996 to the latest convenient date were dealt with under the pre-sift procedure at the British post in(a) Bombay, (b) New Delhi, (c) Islamabad, (d) Dhaka, (e) Manila, (f) Moscow, (g) Kingston and (h) in total; how many people at each post were (i) informed they could proceed to make application, (ii) informed they should not proceed with the application and (iii) asked to produce more documents; how many people in (ii) and (iii) proceeded with the application; and how many of them were (1) granted and (2) refused entry clearance. [38427]

    Mr. Hanley
    The following are the figures for entry clearance applicants dealt with under the pre-sift procedure during 1995:

    Number

    Bombay

    4,260

    New Delhi

    6,101

    Islamabad

    13,717

    Dhaka

    419

    Manila

    209

    Moscow

    0

    Kingston

    1,254

    The information required to answer the remainder of this question is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Western Sahara
    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons his representative at the United Nations Securities Council voted in May to suspend the MINURSO votes registration project in Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [37724]

    Mr. Hanley
    We, and other members of the Friends of the Secretary General on the Western Sahara, agreed with the UN Secretary-General's recommendations temporarily to suspend the voter registration process in view of the lack of progress.

    We continue to urge Morocco and Polisario to co-operate with the UN and its operation in the territory, MINURSO, so that voter registration can proceed and lead to a referendum on self-determination.

    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the suitability of the United Nations voter registration project in Western Sahara for creating the conditions for a fair referendum on the future of Western Sahara. [37726]

    Mr. Hanley
    We believe that the UN operation in the Western Sahara,MINURSO, has developed strict criteria which should result in only those being eligible to vote being included in the electoral register for the referendum.
    39
    We urge both parties to put their trust in the process and co-operate with the UN Secretary-General and MINURSO so that voter registration can be resumed.

    We continue to believe that a referendum of self-determination represents the best solution to the conflict in the Western Sahara.

    Equal Rights
    Mr. Gunnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the provisions in the Euro Mediterranean Association agreement in respect of the equal rights of all peoples to self-determination; and if he will list the states which are signatories to the treaty. [37725]

    Mr. David Davis
    The Euro-Mediterranean Association agreements, so far concluded with Tunisia, Morocco and Israel, state that respect for human rights and democratic principles constitute an essential element of the agreement. The principle of self-determination is not specifically mentioned in the association agreements, but in the declaration which was adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean conference at Barcelona in November 1995, 15 EU member states and the 12 Mediterranean partners undertake"to respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter to the United Nations and with the relevant norms on international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States, as reflected in agreements between relevant parties".

    Indonesia
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have recently made to the Government of Indonesia concerning human rights abuses; and if he will make a statement. [38199]

    Mr. Hanley
    We regularly raise our concerns about human rights with the Indonesian Government. Most recently I discussed human rights on 15 July in Jakarta with the Indonesian Foreign Minister and others.

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits have been made by (i) Her Majesty's ambassador to Indonesia and (ii) embassy staff to East Timor; and what reports have been made available to him concerning East Timor. [38115]

    Mr. Hanley
    Since 1994 British embassy staff in Jakarta have visited East Timor three times: twice in 1995 and once in 1996. On the most recent visit the FCO desk officer accompanied. Her Majesty's ambassador to Indonesia has not visited East Timor. We have received numerous reports concerning East Timor, including from non-governmental organisations and other Governments, in addition to those from our embassy in Jakarta.

    Antarctic Treaty
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reach agreement with other signatory nations on the location of the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [38198]
    40
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor
    The United Kingdom is keen to see this issue resolved, but the Antarctic treaty consultative parties have yet to reach an agreement by consensus on the location of the Antarctic treaty secretariat.

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Japan concerning their policy in respect of the Antarctic treaty; and if he will make a statement. [38102]

    Sir Nicholas Bonsor
    At the recent annual meeting of the Antarctic treaty consultative parties in Utrecht, the United Kingdom urged Japan and the other three states that have not yet ratified the environmental protocol to do so at the earliest opportunity. Officials have also been in correspondence with their Japanese counterparts on a range of detailed technical issues relating to the protocol.

    Nicaragua
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist independent monitoring of the forthcoming elections in Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement. [38103]

    Sir Nicholas Bonsor
    The EU will send a team of observers to monitor the Nicaraguan elections in November. Dr. David Browning will be the UK observer assisted by the staff at the embassy in Managua.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has issued to British posts overseas regarding(a) the acceptance and recording of applications for political asylum, (b) the consideration of such applications, (c) the granting of such applications, (d) the refusal of such applications, (e) the right of appeal against refusal to grant asylum; if exceptional applications are considered at posts from women claiming they are victims of or threatened with forcible abortions or sterilisation; and if he will make a statement. [38582]

    Mr. Hanley
    Entry clearance officers at British posts overseas are guided by the following advice on asylum matters:

    In accordance with the 1951 Geneva convention and the 1967 New York protocol on the status of refugees the United Kingdom is under no obligation to accept a request for asylum overseas. Entry clearance officers have discretion, however, to accept outside the immigration rules an application for entry clearance for the United Kingdom where a foreign national demonstrates his circumstances meet the definition of the 1951 convention, he has particularly close ties with the United Kingdom and this is the most appropriate country of long-term refuge. Any such application is to be referred to the Home Office for decision.

    Rahmana Bibi
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application to the British post in Islamabad by Rahmana Bibi, Ref. D3059 to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [38580]
    41
    Mr. Hanley
    I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

    Falkland Islands Company
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subsidies Her Majesty's Government pay to(a) the Falkland Islands Company (b) its subsidiary and (c) related companies; what was the value of these subsidies in each of the last five years; to what use they were put; and if he will make a statement. [38783]

    Sir Nicholas Bonsor
    HMG have paid no subsidies to the Falkland Islands Company or any subsidiary or related companies in the last five years.

    "A Partnership of Nations"
    Sir Peter Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to table United Kingdom Government proposals for the European Union intergovernmental conference foreshadowed in "A Partnership of Nations". [39236]

    Mr. David Davis
    The United Kingdom negotiators are today tabling the following proposals in the IGC working party.

    (a) a memorandum on the European Court of Justice working up in detail the proposals outlined in paragraph 37 of "A Partnership of Nations";

    (b) the addition of a protocol to the EC treaty enabling member states to take appropriate action to regulate quota-hopping in the common fisheries policy. The details of this are set out more fully in a written answer to today's date from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).

    (c) a package of measures to improve the quality of EC legislation, including Commission legislation;

    (d) an amendment to article 42 of the EC treaty to provide for the state aid provisions of the treaty to apply to all agricultural products;

    (e) an amendment to article 129c of the EC treaty to make clear that private sector projects are eligible for Community budget support under the financial regulation on trans-European networks;

    (f) the addition of a protocol to the EC treaty which will place a formal legal obligation on Community institutions to give full regard to considerations of animal welfare in the exercise of their powers on agriculture, transport, research and the single market.

    These proposals were placed on the House Libraries this morning.

    The Government are currently working up a number of other proposals including on the health and safety article and on subsidiarity which will be tabled in due course.
    42

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance in order to seek asylum in the United Kingdom were(a) received and (b) granted by country during 1995 and the first quarter of 1996. [38070]

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of days asylum seekers have been held in custody in 1995–96; and at what aggregate cost. [38105]

    Mr. Kirhope
    This information is not available.

    Immigration
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance from(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiancés,(d) fiancees made at British posts in (1) New Delhi, (2) Bombay, (3) Calcutta, (4) Madras, (5) Dhaka, (6) Islmabad, (7) Karachi, (8) Colombo, (9) Accra, (10) Lagos, (11) Manila, (12) Bangkok, (13) Washington and (14) Ottawa for (y) each quarter since January 1995, and (z) in total, were (a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused; how many refusals at each post were (i) wholly and (ii) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration; how many refusals at each post were (i) wholly and (ii) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the couple could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds; what was the refusal rate at each post; and what percentage of those refusals were (x) wholly and (y) partly on primary purpose grounds. [38074]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    Information for the Indian sub-continent for each quarter of 1995 and the first quarter of 1996 is given in the tables. As they are lengthy, copies of these have been placed in the Library. Where numbers are small, figures for individual posts have been combined. Information on reasons for refusals is not complied for periods shorter than 12 months. Corresponding information for Colombo, Accra, Lagos, Manila, Bangkok, Washington and Ottawa is not available centrally.

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting for special quota vouchers in(a) India, (b) east Africa and (c) the rest of the world in (i) June 1995, (ii) December 1995 and (iii) June 1996; when those issued with vouchers on those dates had applied; how many vouchers were issued in (1) India, (2) east Africa and (3) the rest of the world in (A) 1995 and (B) the first half of 1996; when those applying now can expect to receive vouchers; and how many applicants there were for vouchers in (v) India and (w) east Africa and (x) the rest of the world in (y) 1995 and (z) the first half of 1996. [38078]

    (c) Mr. Kirkhope
    The available information is given in the tables.
    43

    Persons applying for a special voucher of entry to the United Kingdom, 1995 and 1996

    Persons

    Applications newly received1

    Vouchers issued

    Applications awaiting a decision at the end of:

    1995

    Ql 1996

    Q2 1996

    1995

    Ql 1996

    Q2 1996

    Q2 1995

    Q4 1995

    Q2 1996

    India

    290

    80

    50

    180

    50

    50

    90

    120

    140

    Kenya

    130

    n/a

    n/a

    120

    n/a

    n/a

    120

    90

    n/a

    Tanzania

    20

    2—

    2—

    2—

    10

    2—

    40

    40

    30

    Malawi

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    nil

    nil

    2—

    2—

    Zambia

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    Rest of the world

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    2—

    n/a

    2—

    2—

    n/a

    1Includes applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.2 5 or fewer.

    n/a = Data not available.

    Waiting times for persons applying for a special voucher, 1995 and 1996

    Months

    Waiting times to first interview for persons at end of:

    Persons applying at end of:

    June 1995

    December 1995

    June 1996

    India

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Kenya

    1.00

    0.25

    n/a

    Tanzania

    1.5

    1.00

    1.00

    Malawi

    0.25

    0.25

    0.25

    Zambia

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Rest of the World

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a = Not available

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken by his Department to investigate cases referred from overseas posts in order to assess whether the maintenance and accommodation requirements of the immigration rules have been met. [38066]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The information requested is not available centrally.

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate as to how many applications for(a) adult registration with entitlement,(b) naturalisation and (c) registration of minors his Department (i) will receive and (ii) expects to grant in 1996–97. [38072]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The latest estimate of the number of citizenship applications likely to be received and granted in 1996–97 is as follows:

    Intake

    Applications granted

    Adult registration

    3,800

    3,300

    Naturalisation

    40,500

    32,200

    Minor registration

    11,000

    10,400

    Total

    55,300

    45,900

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many operations against people alleged to be in the United Kingdom illegally, involving both immigration officers and police, took place during 1995 and 1996 to the latest convenient date; and for each operation by date and by name, how many(a) immigration officers and (b) police officers were involved, how many people were arrested and found to be (i) legally in the United Kingdom, (ii) in breach of
    44
    immigration conditions, (iii) alleged illegal entrants and (iv) British citizens; how many requested and were granted legal advice before interview; how many were detained for (x) one day or less, (y) between a day and a week and (z) over a week; and how many have subsequently left the United Kingdom. [38060]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) single entry and (b) multiple entry visit visas were (i) received, (ii) granted and (iii) refused at each post in the Indian sub-continent, Ghana, Nigeria, the Philippines and Jamaica in each quarter of 1995 and the first quarters of 1996; and what was the delay between application and interview for those whose applications were felt to need a second or long interview at each of those posts in (i) June 1995, (ii) January 1996 and (iii) June 1996 or the nearest available date. [38069]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question on 9 January,Official Report, columns 191–92.

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) husbands, (b) wives and (c) dependent children have been refused (i) extension of stay and (ii) settlement in the United Kingdom on the grounds that he is not satisfied that they can be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds, in each quarter since January 1995, and in total. [38083]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The available information relating to after entry cases is given in the table. Information on dependent children is not readily available.

    Refusals1 on grounds of maintenance and accommodation, of after-entry applications by husbands and wives (numbers of persons)

    Refusals to grant probationary year on grounds of:

    Accommodation

    Maintenance

    Maintenance and accommodation

    Refusals of settlement after probationary year2

    1995

    Quarter 1

    Husbands

    —

    2

    —

    10

    Wives

    —

    2

    —

    5

    45

    Refusals1 on grounds of maintenance and accommodation, of after-entry applications by husbands and wives (numbers of persons)

    Refusals to grant probationary year on grounds of:

    Accommodation

    Maintenance

    Maintenance and accommodation

    Refusals of settlement after probationary year2

    Quarter 2

    Husbands

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Wives

    —

    2

    2

    2

    Quarter 3

    Husbands

    1

    —

    —

    6

    Wives

    2

    1

    2

    5

    Quarter 4

    Husbands

    1

    1

    2

    6

    Wives

    1

    2

    4

    3

    1996

    Quarter 1

    Husbands

    —

    —

    —

    3

    Wives

    —

    1

    2

    2

    Quarter 2

    Husbands

    —

    —

    —

    6

    Wives

    —

    1

    —

    1

    Total

    Husbands

    2

    3

    2

    33

    Wives

    3

    9

    10

    18

    1 Excluding dependants.2 Refusals of settlement after probationary year on general considerations, including recourse to public funds.

    Applications for entry clearance for settlement made by wives and children in Dhaka and Islamabad, 1995 to 1996

    1995

    1996

    Year

    Q1

    Q2

    Q3

    Q4

    Q1

    Applications newly received1

    Dhaka

    540

    750

    580

    500

    2,370

    440

    Islamabad

    1,080

    960

    900

    900

    3,840

    1,110

    Applications granted2

    Dhaka

    330

    360

    370

    460

    1,510

    320

    Islamabad

    590

    770

    620

    540

    2,530

    820

    Applications refused initially

    Dhaka

    260

    310

    410

    340

    1,320

    250

    Islamabad

    260

    250

    320

    320

    1,170

    420

    Applications withdrawn or lapsed

    Dhaka

    4—

    4—

    10

    4—

    20

    20

    Islamabad

    50

    100

    80

    60

    290

    70

    Applications outstanding at end of period

    Dhaka

    2,190

    2,320

    2,160

    1,880

    1,880

    1,760

    Islamabad

    2,830

    2,810

    2,800

    2,870

    2,870

    2,790

    Applicants awaiting first interview at end of period

    Dhaka3

    30

    20

    nil

    nil

    nil

    nil

    Islamabad

    970

    1,290

    1,440

    1,280

    1,280

    1,340

    1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

    2 Granted initially or on appeal.

    3 In Dhaka the majority of applications are resolved without interview.

    4 Five or fewer.

    46
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people during 1995 and the first quarter of 1996 were(a) required to undergo a medical examination and (b) refused entry clearance abroad and in which countries, for (i) settlement and (ii) other purposes on medical grounds; and what are the most common medical grounds for refusal. [38061]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for settlement by wives and children in(a) Dhaka and (b) Islamabad were (i) received, (ii) granted, (iii) refused, (iv) deferred at first interview, (v) lapsed and (vi) outstanding and awaiting first interview for each quarter since the beginning of 1995. [38071]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The available information is given in the table.
    47
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding immigration applications there are at Lunar house from(a) students, (b) family members in the United Kingdom applying for variation of stay, (c) settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas post and (d) asylum seekers; and what are the average times applicants in each category might expect to wait before a decision. [38067]

    Mr. Kirhope
    The available information is that at the end of June 1996 there were in total about 21,500 cases in the general immigration and settlement caseworking groups of the after entry and appeals directorate—including referred entry clearance applications—the majority of which were under consideration of the subject of further inquiries, and about 64,700 cases in the asylum directorate caseworking teams.

    The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision for cases in AEAD caseworking groups, in the second quarter of 1996, was about three months for students. The waiting time for asylum applications is on average about 11 months for post-Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 cases and 45 months for those made before. Information on average waiting times for family members in the United Kingdom for variation of leave and for settlement entry clearance application referred from overseas posts is not available.

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British citizenship under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 have been(a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused in each quarter since January 1994; and how many of those granted have been on the grounds of service in the armed forces. [38073]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    One application was received in each of the months April, September and December 1994, June 1995 and June 1996. Of these, one has been granted, three have been refused and one has not yet been decided. The application which was granted was made on the ground of service in the armed forces.

    Detainees (Suicide Attempts)
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicide attempts there have been since 1994 by people being arrested in the presence of immigration officers. [38200]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The hon. Member has corresponded with me about the circumstances in which, on 17 November 1995, one of his constituents who was to be detained for removal as an illegal entrant took up a position on the balcony of his flat and threatened to jump. In the event, he did not do so.

    We know of no similar suicide threats since 1994, although comprehensive inquires could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

    Deportation
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's current policy on enforcing deportation decisions against genuine students who have been found to be working in breach of their conditions of entry; how many deportation decisions 48
    have been made on the grounds of working without permission in each quarter since January 1995; what is his definition of a genuine student; and if he will (a)list the colleges which he does not recognise as providing courses of study for overseas students acceptable under the immigration rules and (b)give the criteria he uses to decide on such colleges. [38068]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    Any overseas student who wishes to work during his free time or vacation may do so by obtaining permission from the Department for Education and Employment. Each case where a student is found to be working without such permission is considered on its individual merits. As required by the immigration rules, the case for deportation is considered in the light of all known relevant factors. Records are not kept in a form which would enable the number of students made subject to deportation decisions to be identified.

    The immigration and nationality directorate collects information which comes to light about individual colleges, and account is taken of this by staff when dealing with applications from students. Staff are made aware of what information is available by means of internal notices which are part of staff instructions and are not published.

    Prisons (Self-inflicted Deaths)
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many self-inflicted deaths have occurred in each year since 1992(a) in each prison and (b) by security category in each prison. [37978]

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

    Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, Dated 22 July 1996:
    The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about self-inflicted deaths in prison.
    The attached table shows the number of self-inflicted deaths that have occurred each year since 1992 in prisons in England and Wales by security category.

    Establishment

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Acklington

    —

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    Albany

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    —

    Ashwell

    2(C, C)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Aylesbury

    —

    —

    —

    1(U)

    —

    Bedford

    —

    —

    1(U)

    2(U, U)

    —

    Belmarsh

    —

    1(A)

    —

    2(U, U)

    —

    Birmingham

    1(U)

    —

    1(D)

    2(A. U)

    1(U)

    Blakenhurst

    —

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    Blundeston

    —

    —

    —

    2(C. B)

    —

    Brinsford

    1(U)

    —

    1(U)

    —

    1(U)

    Bristol

    1(U)

    2(U, U)

    —

    1(C)

    1(U)

    Brixton

    1(U)

    1(U)

    3(U. B, U)

    —

    1(U)

    Bullingdon

    1(U)

    —

    —

    1(U)

    1(B)

    Canterbury

    —

    1(U)

    —

    —

    —

    Cardiff

    —

    —

    2(U, U)

    —

    —

    Chelmsford

    —

    —

    1(C)

    1(U)

    —

    Dartmoor

    —

    1(B)

    1(C)

    —

    2(B)

    Deerbolt

    1(U)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Doncaster

    —

    —

    2(U. U)

    2(U. U)

    1(U)

    Dorchester

    1(C)

    —

    —

    —

    2(U, U)

    Dover

    —

    —

    —

    1(U)

    —

    Downview

    —

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    Durham

    2(U. U)

    1(U)

    —

    —

    1(U)

    Elmley

    1(U)

    —

    1(U)

    —

    —

    Erlestoke

    —

    —

    —

    2(C, C)

    —

    Exeter

    —

    4(C. U x3)

    1(B)

    2(U, B)

    —

    Featherstone

    —

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    Feltham

    2(U, U)

    —

    —

    —

    1(U)

    Frankland

    —

    —

    —

    1(B)

    —

    49

    Establishment

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Full Sutton

    —

    1(A)

    —

    1(B)

    1(B)

    Garth

    —

    —

    1(B)

    1(B)

    —

    Gartree

    1(B)

    —

    1(B)

    —

    1(B)

    Glen Parva

    1(U)

    —

    —

    —

    1(U)

    Gloucester

    —

    —

    —

    1(U)

    —

    Grendon

    —

    —

    2(C, B)

    1(B)

    —

    Haverigg

    —

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    Highdown

    —

    1(U)

    1(C)

    4(B, C. A, U)

    1(C)

    Hindley

    1(U)

    1(U)

    —

    —

    —

    Holloway

    1(U)

    1(U)

    —

    2(U, U)

    —

    Holme House

    —

    2(D, C)

    —

    —

    1(C)

    Hull

    2(U. U)

    1(C)

    2(C, U)

    1(U)

    1(U)

    Kirkham

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1(U)

    Leeds

    2(U, U)

    2(U. U)

    1(U)

    1(U)

    —

    Leicester

    1(U)

    3(U. U. C)

    3(U x3)

    1(B)

    —

    Lewes

    1(U)

    1(U)

    —

    1(D)

    —

    Lincoln

    —

    3(U. C, U)

    1(D)

    2(C, C)

    1(U)

    Lindholme

    —

    1(C)

    —

    —

    1(C)

    Littlehey

    1(C)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Liverpool

    1(U)

    2(U. U)

    5(U x3. B. C)

    1(U)

    2(U, U)

    Long Lartin

    1(A)

    1(B)

    1(B)

    1(B)

    1(A)

    Low Newton

    —

    —

    2(U, U)

    2(U, U)

    —

    Maidstone

    1(D)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Manchester

    —

    2(U. U)

    2(U, C)

    —

    4(Ux4)

    Moorland

    —

    —

    3(U x3)

    —

    —

    New Hall

    —

    —

    1(U)

    —

    —

    Norwich

    2(U. C)

    2(U. U)

    —

    4(U x3, B)

    —

    Nottingham

    —

    1(B)

    —

    1(B)

    —

    Parkhurst

    1(C)

    1(C)

    2(B. B)

    —

    —

    Pentonville

    4(U x4)

    —

    —

    2(U, B)

    1(U)

    Portland

    —

    —

    1(U)

    —

    1(U)

    Preston

    —

    —

    1(U)

    1(U)

    —

    Risley

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    —

    Shepton Mallet

    —

    1(C)

    —

    —

    —

    Shrewsbury

    —

    —

    1(U)

    —

    1(U)

    Stafford

    1(C)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Stocken

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1(C)

    Stoke Heath

    —

    —

    —

    1(U)

    —

    Styal

    1(U)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Swaleside

    1(C)

    —

    1(U)

    —

    —

    Swansea

    —

    —

    1(U)

    1(U)

    —

    The Mount

    —

    —

    —

    1(C)

    1(C)

    The Verne

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    —

    Usk

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    —

    Wakefield

    1(B)

    3(B. B. D)

    1(B)

    1(B)

    —

    Wandsworth

    —

    2(U. B)

    4(U x3, D)

    —

    —

    Wellingborough

    1(B)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Wetherby

    —

    1(U)

    —

    —

    —

    Whatton

    —

    —

    —

    1(C)

    —

    Whitemoor

    —

    —

    —

    1(B)

    —

    Winchester

    —

    1(U)

    1(U)

    —

    2(B. C)

    Wolds

    —

    1(U)

    —

    1(U)

    1(B)

    Woodhill

    —

    1(U)

    1(U)

    —

    —

    Wormwood

    Scrubs

    1(U)

    —

    4(B, B. U. U)

    —

    1(U)

    P.E.C.S. (Prison Escort Court Custody Service)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1(B)

    Key to security classification:

    A = Category A; B = Category B; C = Category C; D = Category

    D; U = Unclassified.

    N.B. Unclassified refers to the following categories: unsentenced on remand; sentenced but awaiting categorisation; young offender; females non category A.

    Prisons (Staffing Levels)
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the minimum staffing levels required to ensure that the protection of the public and staff and prisoner safety is maintained at(a) all privately operated prisons and (b) for the Prison Service operated comparator group prisons; [38181]

    (2) if he will list the minimum permitted staffing levels at (a) all privately operated prisons for the next financial year and (b) for the prison Service operated comparator group prisons for the same period; [38179]

    (3) if he will list the lowest and highest staffing levels at (a) all privately operated prisons since commencing
    50
    operation and (b)for the Prison Service operated comparator group prisons for the same period; [38177]

    (4) if he will list the minimum permitted staffing levels at (a)all privately operated prisons and (b)for the Prison Service operated comparator group prisons in relation to the number of prisoners held; [38180]

    (5) if he will list the average staffing levels at (a)all privately operated prisons since commencing operation and (b)for the Prison Service operated comparator group prisons for the same period; [38176]

    (6) if he will list the minimum permitted staffing levels at (a)all privately operated prisons since commencing operation and (b)for the Prison Service operated comparator group prisons for the same period. [38178]

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

    Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 22 July 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about staffing levels at contracted prisons and their public-service comparators.
    Where minimum staffing levels are set by the governor of a Prison Service establishment this is done in consultation with the area manager concerned after consultation with staff. They are set at a level to ensure staff and inmate safety, security and control. Operational requirements will differ depending on a number of factors including the build and function of the prison and the size and mix of the inmate population.
    Contracts for the four privately-managed prisons also do not prescribe minimum staffing levels. Staffing levels and the deployment of staff are therefore a matter for the contractor concerned who must meet the standards required by the contract to ensure safety, security and control.
    For these reasons, I cannot provide minimum required staffing levels.
    Figures for the average, the highest and the lowest staffing levels at prisons are not available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

    London Fire Service
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 34, which hon. Members have made representations to him regarding (a) proposed changes in the level of London's fire service and (b) closure of fire stations. [38159]

    Mr. Sackville
    A list of the hon. Members referred to in my answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 34, has been placed in the Library.

    Departmental Visits (United States)
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97 on

    51
    which (i) he, (ii) other Home Office Ministers and (iii) officials visited the United States of America on matters of criminal justice policy; who made each visit; what was the purpose of each visit; with whom meetings were held; what were the outcomes of these meetings on each visit; and what was the cost to public funds of each visit. [37975]

    Mr. Howard
    During the period in question there have been four ministerial visits to the United States of America on criminal justice matters as follows:

    (a) 1 to 8 January 1994: I undertook a visit covering prisons, police, crime prevention and drug trafficking matters;

    52

    (b) 24 to 27 April 1995: The former Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) accompanied by a private secretary and the Director General of the Prison Service, undertook a visit to high-security prisons;

    (c) 12 to 17 November 1995: I undertook a visit, accompanied by a private secretary and the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, covering prison and terrorism matters;

    (d) 12 to 15 December 1995: The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), accompanied by a private secretary, undertook a visit covering police and terrorism matters.

    The other details requested are either unavailable or could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    53

    Refugees
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996 to the latest convenient date with (i) European Union partners, (ii) other countries and (iii) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about possible alterations to the UN convention relating to the status of refugees; what has been the outcome of these discussions; and if he will make a statement. [38428]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    No proposals have been advanced for amendment to the 1951 convention.

    DNA tests on children under the Government scheme, results received and outcomes, 1995–1996

    Number of children

    Country/post where application made

    Number of tests carried out

    Tests offered but not taken

    Number awaiting results at end of period

    Number of results received

    Related as claimed to both parents

    Outcomes Related as claimed to one parent but not other

    Not related as claimed to either parent

    1995

    Indian sub-continent

    1,617

    23

    535

    1,772

    1,509

    160

    103

    Bangladesh (Dhaka)

    1,125

    19

    212

    1,270

    1,107

    88

    75

    Pakistan (Islamabad, Karachi)

    404

    —

    280

    424

    332

    66

    26

    India (Bombay, New Delhi, Calcutta, Madras)

    88

    4

    43

    78

    70

    6

    2

    Outside of Indian sub-continent1

    202

    1—

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    41

    Ethiopia

    62

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    31

    Egypt (Cairo)

    10

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Ghana (Accra)

    16

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    1

    Guyana (Georgetown)

    1

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    —

    Kenya (Nairobi)

    6

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    —

    Nigeria (Lagos)

    29

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    5

    Philippines (Manila)

    23

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    1

    Sierra Leone (Freetown)

    32

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    2

    Sudan (Khartoum)

    4

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Sweden (Stockholm)

    1

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Thailand (Bangkok)

    3

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Turkey (Istanbul)

    14

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Yemen (Sana'a)

    1

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    1

    Q1 1996

    Indian sub-continent

    320

    1

    511

    326

    286

    12

    25

    Bangladesh (Dhaka)

    227

    nil

    171

    268

    238

    10

    17

    Pakistan (Islamabad, Karachi)

    63

    nil

    278

    50

    43

    2

    5

    India (Bombay, New Delhi, Calcutta, Madras)

    30

    1

    62

    8

    5

    nil

    3

    1 Refers to the number of tests for which an invoice has been received.

    Immigration Rules
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans to make to paragraph 2 of the statement of changes in the immigration rules, HC 395 of Session 1994–95; what consultation he is having with interested organisations; and if he will make a statement. [38432]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    None.

    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been (i) granted and (ii) refused (A) entry clearance and (B) leave to enter the United Kingdom in (1) 1994, (2) 1995 and (3) 1996 to the latest convenient date
    54

    DNA Tests
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many DNA tests to prove family relationships for immigration purposes have been carried out under the Home Office-funded scheme during(a) 1995 and (b) the first quarter of 1996, listed by country of origin; what was the average waiting period for the test and for its origin; what was the average waiting period for the test and for its results; and in how many of those tests the family relationships proved to be as claimed by the applicants. [38054]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The available information is given in the table.

    In 1995, the average waiting time from the taking of a blood sample to a decision being made on DNA tests was six to eight weeks.

    under the provisions of paragraphs 246 and 247 of the consolidated immigration, rules HC 395 of Session 1994–95. [38430]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The information requested is not collected centrally.

    British Citizenship
    Mr. Henderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many minor children born to a British overseas citizen parent outside the United Kingdom have(a) been registered and (b) been refused registration as (i) a British citizen and (ii) a British overseas citizen in each year since 1 January 1994. [38075]
    55
    Mr. Kirkhope
    The information is not available in the form requested. Minor children may apply for registration as British overseas citizens under section 27 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The numbers of grants made under this section, most of which will have been made to minor children born abroad to a British overseas citizen parent, are as follows:

    1994: 2

    1995: 1

    1996: 1 (to date)

    Prisons (Assaults)
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (i) the latest available figures, (ii) the figures for 1992, (iii) those for 1988 and (iv) those for 1987 for(a) the prisoner-on-prisoner assault rates and (b) prisoner-on-staff assault rates, for each category C prison. [38746]

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

    Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 22 July 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for assault rates in each category C prison.
    Provisional figures for 1995–96 are shown in the attached table. Statistics for assaults in each Prison Service establishment are published each year in 'Statistics of offences against prison discipline and punishments England and Wales'. The latest edition for 1995 (Cm.3316) and earlier editions are available in the Library.

    Assaults per 100 population in category C training prisons 1995–961

    Establishment

    Staff/others

    Prisoners

    Total

    Acklington

    2.2

    0.6

    2.8

    Aldington

    —

    1.7

    1.7

    Ashwell

    4.4

    0.3

    4.6

    Blantyre House

    —

    —

    —

    Brockhill

    4.5

    3.8

    8.3

    Buckley Hall

    7.3

    1.4

    8.7

    Camp Hill

    2.3

    4.1

    6.4

    Channings Wood

    0.5

    0.5

    1.1

    Coldingley

    4.6

    0.7

    5.3

    Downview

    —

    —

    —

    Erlestoke

    1.1

    0.8

    1.9

    Everthorpe

    1.4

    1.0

    2.4

    Featherstone

    3.4

    2.2

    5.6

    Haverigg

    1.8

    1.3

    3.0

    Highpoint

    3.4

    0.8

    4.2

    Kirklevington

    —

    —

    —

    Lancaster

    0.9

    0.9

    1.8

    Latchmere

    House

    —

    —

    —

    Lindholme

    1.8

    1.1

    3.0

    Littlehey

    2.7

    1.1

    3.8

    Moorland

    11.3

    6.1

    17.4

    Mount (The)

    1.8

    1.4

    3.2

    Ranby

    2.0

    0.3

    2.3

    Risley

    10.8

    6.0

    16.8

    Send

    —

    —

    —

    Shepton Mallet

    0.5

    4.0

    4.5

    Stafford

    4.1

    1.9

    6.0

    Stocken

    4.3

    0.5

    4.8

    Usk

    0.8

    1.7

    2.5

    Verne

    0.9

    0.7

    1.7

    56

    Assaults per 100 population in category C training prisons 1995–961

    Establishment

    Staff/others

    Prisoners

    Total

    Wayland

    0.9

    1.9

    2.8

    Wealstun

    0.2

    0.9

    1.1

    Wellingborough

    1.6

    —

    1.6

    Whatton

    0.5

    2.4

    2.8

    Wymott

    0.5

    1.2

    1.7

    Average

    3.0

    1.7

    4.7

    1 Provisional.

    Election Register Sales
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to stop the sale of election registers to commercial organisations; and under what authority such sales are presently authorised. [38259]

    Mr. Sackville
    None. Under regulation 18(2) of the Representation of the People Regulations 1990, the electoral registration officer appointed by each London borough or district council is required to sell the register upon publication to anyone who has ordered copies before 1 November in the previous year.

    Prison (Visiting Entitlement)
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the of State for the Home Department if he will list (i) the latest available figures, (ii) the figures for 1992, (iii) those for 1988 and (iv) those for 1987 for the average percentage of prisoners who exceed minimum visiting entitlements for each category C prison. [38750]

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

    Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 22 July 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me. in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average percentage of prisoners who exceed the minimum visiting entitlement for each category C prison.
    The information is not collected in the form requested. The Prison Service had however a key performance indicator (KPI) which measured the proportion of prisoners held in establishments which gave all prisoners the opportunity to exceed the minimum visiting entitlement, subject to qualifying for this under the earned incentives scheme.
    Last year the Prison Service succeeded in meeting this target in every establishment, for the second year running. In view of this achievement, Ministers agreed that this KPI should be dropped and replaced by other more challenging ones.
    Performance on this KPI since the beginning of agency status is shown in the attached table.

    Prison service key performance indicator—minimum visiting entitlement, 1992–1996

    Performance of population with opportunity to exceed the minimum visiting entitlement

    1992–93

    84

    1993–94

    99

    1994–95

    100

    1995–96

    100

    57

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary questions to his Department have been referred for answer to non-departmental public bodies for which he has responsibility, in each the last six parliamentary Sessions, and so far in the 1995–96 Session; and if he will make a statement. [38699]

    Mr. Howard
    No parliamentary questions have been referred for answer to non-departmental public bodies for which I have responsibility in each of the last six parliamentary Sessions or so far in the 1995–96 Session.

    High-intensity Training Programme
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when preparations for the high-intensity training programme at Her Majesty's young offenders institution Thorn Cross will be completed; and what target has been set for(a) the selection and (b) the reception of the first group of offenders; [38045]

    (2) if it is his policy (a)that the high-intensity training programme, as well as being physically demanding, will focus on the education and social requirements of the inmates and (b)for intensive support to be provided to offenders on release from the high-intensity training programme; [38046]

    (3) if he will outline the procedures by which the high-intensity training programme will aim to reduce recidivism; and how the success or failure will be monitored (a)in general and (b)in individual cases; [38047]

    (4) what were the results of research carried out by members of the Prison Service senior management programme on boot camps in America; and how the schemes for the high-intensity training programme at Her Majesty's young offenders institution Thorn Cross will differ from schemes run in the USA. [38049]

    Miss Widdecombe
    The high-intensity training programme at Thorn Cross young offender institution receives its first intake of young offenders today.

    As well as being physically and mentally demanding, the programme aims to address the educational and social needs of the inmates. The level of supervision after release will be higher than that experienced by inmates who serve their sentence in a normal young offender institution.

    High-intensity training aims to reduce recidivism by combining:

    a demanding and disciplined approach;

    effective activities designed to bring about positive behavioural change;

    education and skills training;

    help into employment and good after release support.

    Changes in the attitudes and behaviour of young offenders during their time at Thom Cross will be assessed and re-convictions after release will be monitored. The results will be compared with those from
    58
    a control group of similar young offenders who experience conventional young offender institution regimes.

    Members of the 1993 Prison Service senior management programme, a training course for newly promoted senior staff, visited an American boot camp and other establishments as part of their training. An article by three of them was published in the May 1995 issue of the "Prison Service Journal", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. It represents the views of the writers and was not commissioned as a piece of research by or for the Prison Service or the Home Office.

    American boot camps vary considerably in terms of their regimes and performance. High-intensity training is not a copy of an American boot camp but combines positive elements to be found in prison regimes both in America and in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the Army to be involved in running high-intensity regimes for civilian offenders(a) at the military corrective training centre, Colchester, and (b) elsewhere. [38048]

    Miss Widdecombe
    I announced our plans for a new young offender institution at Colchester in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on 17 April Official Report, column 511. There are currently no plans for similar initiatives involving the Army.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Pupil Level Data
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will amend the Education (National Curriculum) (Assessment Arrangements for the Core Subjects) Order 1995 to require external marking agencies to provide pupil level data to local education authorities when requested to do so. [38258]

    Mr. Paice
    It would not be possible to amend the Education (National Curriculum) (Assessment Arrangements for the Core Subjects) Orders in this way. The powers under which the orders are made would not extend to such an amendment.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average pupil-teacher ratio of(a) schools providing education under the assisted places scheme and (b) of comparable state schools. [38431]

    Mrs. Gillan
    Separate information for schools participating in the assisted places scheme is not readily available, nor is it possible to identify a set of maintained schools comparable in all relevant aspects with those within the scheme. Pupil-teacher ratios for different types
    59
    of schools were published in statistical press notice 205/96 on 25 June. A copy of the press notice is available in the Library.

    Free School Meals
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the percentage of pupils(a) taking and (b) entitled to free school meals in(i) grant-maintained and (ii) local education authority-maintained schools. [38023]

    Mrs. Gillan
    The information requested is shown in the table:

    Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals in England1: January 1996 (provisional)

    Primary

    Secondary

    All2

    LEA-maintained schools

    22

    20

    22

    Grant-maintained schools

    16

    13

    13

    1 Number of day pupils who were known to be eligible for free school meals expressed as a proportion of the number of day pupils on roll.

    2 Includes maintained special schools.

    Schools (Commercial Advertising)
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will consult by letter the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority concerning the proposed sale of space on school noticeboards and walls for commercial advertising; and if she will publish its reply; [37756]

    (2) what assessment she has made of the effect of the use of space on school noticeboards and walls for commercial advertising on the promotion of moral education in schools; [37757]

    (3) what is her policy in respect of schools selling space on walls and noticeboards for commercial advertising; and what procedures are available to people who wish to make complaints about specific instances of such advertising [37758]

    Mr. Paice
    The extent to which an individual school enters into such an arrangement is a matter for the head teacher and governors of the school concerned. Anyone who wants to complain should address themselves to the head teacher and governors.

    My right hon. Friend has made no assessment of the effect of such arrangements and does not propose to write to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority about it.

    Grant-maintained Schools (Devon)
    Mr. Jamieson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each grant-maintained school in Devon(a) the amount of carry-forward in their budgets from 1995–96 to 1996–97 and (b) the amounts of special purposes VAT grant which each school received. [37868]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    These matters are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the agency to arrange for a reply to be sent to the hon. Member.
    60

    Schools (Parents' Choice)
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of appeals made by parents against the non-admission of their child to the school of their choice in 1994–95; how many appeals were considered by a statutory committee; and, of these, how many were (i) rejected and (ii) found in the parents' favour. [38576]

    Mrs. Gillan
    The available information is shown in the table:

    Number

    Total appeals lodged1

    54,427

    Appeals heard by a statutory committee2

    38,032

    Appeals rejected

    23,169

    Appeals found in parents' favour

    14,839

    1 Includes appeals which were withdrawn by parents or settled to mutual satisfaction before reaching a statutory committee.

    2 Includes appeals heard by a statutory committee for which a decision was still to be made at the end of the academic year.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the average class size and (b)the pupil-teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in North Yorkshire in 1978–79, 1992–93 and 1995–96. [38872]

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

    Average class size1 and pupil-teacher ratios in maintained primary and secondary schools in North Yorkshire local education authority area: 1979, 1993 and 1995

    Position in January each year

    Pupil-teacher ratios

    Average class sizes1

    Primary

    Secondary

    Primary

    Secondary

    1979

    22.5

    17.1

    24.6

    20.8

    1993

    22.6

    15.8

    25.4

    20.3

    1995

    23.3

    16.3

    26.2

    20.7

    1 Average size of single teacher classes as taught during a single selected period on the census day.

    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number and percentage of primary school children in classes of 31 or more, per local education authority and nationally, in(a) maintained schools, (b) grant-maintained schools(c)independent schools and (d)in total for the maintained sector. [38864]

    Mr. Squire
    The latest available information for all maintained and GM schools is shown in the table. Information on class sizes in independent schools is not collected centrally. Information for LEA-maintained schools is not given to avoid disclosure of information for individual GM schools, through deduction.

    Authority area in

    Number and percentage

    All maintained

    Of which

    Pupils

    Percentage1

    Pupils

    Percentage1

    Corporation of London

    2—

    2—

    n/a

    n/a

    Camden

    605

    6.7

    n/a

    n/a

    Greenwich

    2,555

    14.5

    2—

    2—

    61

    Authority area in

    Number and percentage

    All maintained

    Of which

    Pupils

    Percentage1

    Pupils

    Percentage1

    Hackney

    569

    4.0

    2—

    2—

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    1,294

    16.6

    n/a

    n/a

    Islington

    1,055

    8.1

    n/a

    n/a

    Kensington and Chelsea

    221

    4.5

    2—

    2—

    Lambeth

    540

    3.4

    190

    10.9

    Lewisham

    1,192

    6.4

    2—

    2—

    Southwark

    2,483

    12.7

    221

    14.3

    Tower Hamlets

    778

    5.1

    n/a

    n/a

    Wandsworth

    1,459

    10.3

    2—

    2—

    Westminster

    646

    9.4

    n/a

    n/a

    Barking

    1,317

    8.7

    n/a

    n/a

    Barnet

    2,291

    10.9

    2—

    2—

    Bexley

    7,834

    39.2

    434

    63.9

    Brent

    2,444

    13.0

    164

    22.5

    Bromley

    11,596

    51.8

    1,035

    45.5

    Croydon

    5,973

    23.7

    611

    42.5

    Ealing

    4,137

    19.2

    0

    0.0

    Enfield

    8,192

    39.7

    2—

    2—

    Haringey

    1,045

    6.0

    n/a

    n/a

    Harrow

    4,152

    25.5

    n/a

    n/a

    Havering

    4,662

    24.1

    n/a

    n/a

    Hillingdon

    4,833

    26.4

    406

    13.9

    Hounslow

    5,691

    34.1

    n/a

    n/a

    Kingston upon Thames

    6,216

    64.0

    2—

    2—

    Merton

    3,299

    26.2

    n/a

    n/a

    Newham

    2,680

    11.3

    n/a

    n/a

    Redbridge

    8,337

    51.5

    n/a

    n/a

    Richmond upon Thames

    2,040

    20.4

    n/a

    n/a

    Sutton

    4,328

    35.7

    392

    51.8

    Waltham Forest

    3,330

    18.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Birmingham

    28,251

    29.2

    923

    53.9

    Coventry

    7,875

    29.4

    n/a

    n/a

    Dudley

    6,935

    28.5

    2—

    2—

    Sandwell

    10,815

    39.1

    n/a

    n/a

    Solihull

    7,506

    40.3

    2—

    2—

    Walsall

    6,428

    27.9

    2—

    2—

    Wolverhampton

    5,846

    26.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Knowsley

    6,300

    34.7

    n/a

    n/a

    Liverpool

    12,541

    27.0

    n/a

    n/a

    St. Helens

    5,507

    37.4

    n/a

    n/a

    Sefton

    8,793

    35.1

    n/a

    n/a

    Wirral

    6,076

    20.7

    n/a

    n/a

    Bolton

    10,366

    45.9

    2—

    2—

    Bury

    6,434

    41.1

    2—

    2—

    Manchester

    10,211

    24.2

    n/a

    n/a

    Oldham

    8,823

    41.0

    n/a

    n/a

    Rochdale

    8,102

    41.8

    924

    56.9

    Salford

    6,975

    30.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Stockport

    7,858

    31.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Tameside

    11,291

    51.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Trafford

    9,689

    51.1

    n/a

    n/a

    Wigan

    11,375

    42.7

    n/a

    n/a

    Barnsley

    6,201

    30.9

    n/a

    n/a

    Doncaster

    8,338

    31.7

    n/a

    n/a

    Rotherham

    3,269

    14.4

    n/a

    n/a

    Sheffield

    11,119

    28.3

    317

    23.5

    Bradford

    10,707

    32.4

    448

    28.9

    Calderdale

    5,666

    30.9

    393

    32.1

    Kirklees

    12,290

    38.2

    n/a

    n/a

    Leeds

    21,245

    35.1

    2—

    2—

    Wakefield

    10,544

    37.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Gateshead

    2,237

    13.2

    n/a

    n/a

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    6,744

    33.1

    n/a

    n/a

    North Tyneside

    4,930

    32.7

    n/a

    n/a

    South Tyneside

    3,618

    24.7

    n/a

    n/a

    Sunderland

    3,601

    13.5

    n/a

    n/a

    Isles of Scilly

    0

    0.0

    n/a

    n/a

    Avon

    26,919

    34.5

    n/a

    n/a

    Bedfordshire

    10,328

    26.7

    276

    42.1

    Berkshire

    15,605

    26.8

    299

    13.7

    Buckinghamshire

    21,248

    35.6

    785

    30.4

    Cambridgeshire

    14,946

    26.8

    31

    1.6

    Cheshire

    30,315

    35.5

    201

    39.1

    Cleveland

    13,859

    23.7

    n/a

    n/a

    Cornwall

    14,004

    35.6

    n/a

    n/a

    62

    Authority area in

    Number and percentage

    All maintained

    Of which

    Pupils

    Percentage1

    Pupils

    Percentage1

    Cumbria

    11,452

    29.0

    814

    28.0

    Derbyshire

    32,959

    42.7

    757

    36.5

    Devon

    23,659

    29.8

    2—

    2—

    Dorset

    18,038

    42.8

    2—

    2—

    Durham

    15,455

    29.5

    n/a

    n/a

    East Sussex

    19,691

    40.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Essex

    31,875

    25.8

    7,213

    35.6

    Gloucestershire

    11,595

    26.7

    1,073

    23.2

    Hampshire

    43,976

    33.9

    963

    25.3

    Hereford and Worcester

    10,533

    21.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Hertfordshire

    23,054

    29.0

    831

    37.2

    Humberside

    26,842

    33.8

    39

    10.7

    Isle of Wight

    1,860

    26.4

    n/a

    n/a

    Kent

    44,208

    34.4

    2,350

    35.0

    Lancashire

    48,832

    40.4

    474

    59.0

    Leicestershire

    17,567

    23.6

    n/a

    n/a

    Lincolnshire

    14,632

    29.8

    1,547

    20.3

    Norfolk

    12,066

    20.5

    312

    9.3

    North Yorkshire

    17,758

    31.3

    2—

    2—

    Northamptonshire

    10,576

    21.9

    348

    10.8

    Northumberland

    8,030

    41.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Nottinghamshire

    23,142

    27.8

    n/a

    n/a

    Oxfordshire

    6,422

    16.4

    2—

    2—

    Shropshire

    9,972

    29.0

    65

    8.5

    Somerset

    10,776

    30.1

    136

    26.7

    Staffordshire

    31,147

    35.3

    0

    0.0

    Suffolk

    6,396

    15.1

    n/a

    n/a

    Surrey

    12,118

    17.7

    765

    18.1

    Warwickshire

    13,980

    32.9

    n/a

    n/a

    West Sussex

    12,879

    24.2

    2—

    2—

    Wiltshire

    14,703

    31.0

    1,093

    29.7

    England

    1,155,715

    29.6

    28,293

    27.9

    1 Number of pupils in.

    2 Figures suppressed.

    n/a = not applicable.

    Nursery Voucher Scheme
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the advantages of extending the nursery voucher scheme to include child minding facilities. [38407]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    My noble Friend the Minister of State and I recently met the National Childminding Association. We are presently considering the association's framework document with the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the Office for Standards in Education.

    Modern Apprenticeships Scheme
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons are presently on the modern apprenticeship scheme(a) nationally and (b) by training and enterprise council area; and if he will list for each subject area the number of modern apprenticeships and in each training and enterprise council area the percentage taking each subject area. [38784]

    Mr. Paice
    As the reply will consist of a large amount of data, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

    Schools (Expenditure)
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was spent in state
    63
    schools and colleges in 1995–96 per pupil or student in (a) nursery classes, (b) primary classes, (c) secondary classes and (d) further education funding council colleges in (i) North Yorkshire and (ii) England. [38871]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    Information on spending in maintained schools in 1995–96 is not yet available and information on the spend per student in further education colleges is not available in the form requested.

    Schools (Statutory Duties)
    Mr. Sutcliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many complaints were made under section 99 of the Education Act 1944 in each of the years 1990 to 1996; in respect of how many of these complaints she was satisfied that a local education authority or school governing body had failed to discharge a statutory duty; and in how many cases she made an order declaring the local education authority or the governors to be in default of that duty. [38667]

    Mrs. Gillan
    My right hon. Friend receives many representations about the functions of local education authorities and governing bodies of schools and they are followed up where it seems appropriate to do so. The Department does not maintain a register of all complaints.

    Departmental Budget
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 330, what factors led to a running cost underspend of £94,889,000 in the Department of Education and Employment. [38812]

    Mr. Squire
    The Department for Education and Employment has an entitlement to end-year flexibility on running costs of £94.9 million. This amount comprises underspends from 1995–96 and previous years.

    The 1995–96 underspend was £55 million. Of this amount, £36 million was the result of reducing work loads in the Employment Service, largely because of falling unemployment.

    The main factors giving rise to the balance of the 1995–96 underspend were payments falling due later than expected and the early achievement of some efficiency savings planned for 1996–97.

    Employment Service
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the work of the Employment Service in 1995–96; and if she will make a statement. [39237]

    Mrs. Gillian Shephard
    I am pleased to announce that the Employment Service—ES—achieved excellent results in 1995–96. It has met or exceeded all but two of its targets this year, giving record levels of help to unemployed people. I have today placed a copy of the ES's annual report and accounts in the Library. It shows that over 1.93 million unemployed people were placed into work, of whom almost 566,000 had been out of 64
    work for six months or more. They exceeded their targets for placing people with disabilities and people in inner cities.

    I want the ES to continue to work as hard this year, as it has an important part to play in the successful delivery of the jobseeker's allowance. I have set the ES targets for 1996–97 that will require it to build on last year's extremely good performance; in the light of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance in October, they will be especially challenging.

    The targets include placing 1.97 million unemployed people into jobs, over 580,000 of whom will have been out of work for six months or more.

    Medical Teaching and Research
    Lady Olga Maitland
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total allocation for 1996–97 of the service increment for teaching and research in England; and what proportion is allocated to the costs of general practice teaching in each medical school and university. [38395]

    Mr. Malone
    I have been asked to reply.

    In 1996–97, £458 million has been made available through the service increment for teaching in England to support the clinical teaching of medical and dental undergraduates in trusts and general practices. It is for regional offices to agree with each medical school dean an indicative budget and to agree what proportion of this will be used to support teaching in general practice.

    Information is not yet available centrally on the proportion of medical SIFT which has been used to support clinical teaching in a general practice setting.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that housing benefit will continue to be available to provide staff and support services to residents of local authority sheltered housing. [38256]

    Mr. Roger Evans
    We have recently commissioned an interdepartmental review of the funding of services in supported accommodation. This will consider whether it is appropriate that housing benefit should meet charges for personal services in sheltered housing. We will consider the position when the review is complete.

    Benefit Fraud (Nottingham)
    Mr. Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on commercial advertising for the campaign "Help Us Pick Out Nottingham's Benefit Cheats"; and how much has been spent nationally on the campaign. [33873]
    65
    Mr. Heald
    Forecasted expenditure is £26,000 locally and £440,000 nationally for this financial year.

    Benefits
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those benefits which have

    Benefit

    Current rate (£)

    November 1979 rate at April 1996 prices

    Difference between the two rates

    Number in receipt in 1979

    Latest available numbers in receipt

    Date of latest available numbers

    Child Special Allowance1

    311.15

    17.98

    6.83

    825

    55

    1 January 1996

    Child Dependency increases—

    Retirement

    Pension, Widows Benefit,

    63,520 (RP and WB only)30

    Unemployment Benefit2

    311.15

    17.98

    6.83

    192,870

    September (RP and WB only)

    Guardians

    Allowances1

    311.15

    17.98

    6.83

    3,669

    2,147

    1 January 1996

    One Parent

    31 December

    Benefit1

    36.30

    6.33

    0.33

    381,000

    941,000

    1994

    Retirement

    Pension Age

    30 September

    Addition

    0.25

    0.63

    0.38

    1,467,000 9,159,000 RP/WB 729,000

    2,294,000 9,995,000 RP/WB 2,015,000

    1995

    Christmas Bonus

    10.00

    25.33

    15.33

    IVB/SDA

    IVB/SDA

    Note 4

    Maternity Adult

    Dependency

    Increase5

    28.55

    29

    0.45

    1,000

    —

    —

    War Pensions:

    Unemployment

    Allowance

    Increase for 1st child

    339.9

    17.98

    808

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Unemployment Allowance

    increase for other children

    311.15

    17.98

    6.83

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    WWP increase for 1st child

    314.10

    25.33

    11.23

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    WWP increase for subsequent child

    315.35

    25.33

    9.98

    n/a

    n/a

    n/a

    Orphans Pensions increase for 1st child

    315.85

    26.85

    11

    6n/a

    6n/a

    6n/a

    Orphans Pensions increase for subsequent child

    17.103

    26.85

    9.75

    6n/a

    6n/a

    6n/a

    1 The figures are for the number of families who receive the benefit.

    2Current figures for Unemployment Benefit Child Dependency Increases (UB CDI) recipients are not available. The 1979 figures are produced from an average of May 1979 and November 1979 based on a 5 per cent, sample of unemployed claimants. UB CDls were abolished for claimants under pensionable age in November 1984. Consequently, the numbers receiving a CDI are very small and cannot be identified separately.

    3The formula used for calculating these allowances takes account of the Retail Prices Index and any increase in Child Benefit. Child Benefit, however, is paid in addition to the allowances.

    4Source for Retirement Pension/Widows Benefit recipients of the Christmas Bonus is the biannual enquiry using a 10 per cent, sample in November 1979 and a 5 per cent, sample in September 1995. Figures for Invalidity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance recipients are based on a 1 per cent, sample in June 1979 and April 1995. They do not take into account entitlement conditions i.e. the residence test, the effect of overlapping benefits, or the number of adult dependants as they are purely numbers of beneficiaries at the given dates.

    5The rate of the Maternity Allowance Adult Dependency Increase was abated by 5 per cent, at November 1980 reflecting the intention to make Maternity Allowance taxable. The 1979 figure includes the 12 months to 31 March 1980 rounded to the nearest thousand. No reliable data exists for the latest period.

    6Individual figures are not available. However, the combined total of orphans pensions in payment to both first children and subsequent children was 400 in 1979 and 528 on 31 March 1996.

    n/a = Figures are not available.

    66
    fallen in real terms since 1979; and if he will list (a)the size of each shortfall and (b)the number of people currently claiming each benefit now and in 1979. [35647]

    Mr. Roger Evans
    [holding answer 4 July 1996]: The information is set out in the table:
    67

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Hinchcliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what entitlements, and when, persons in private hospital or nursing home care, outside the NHS, will lose to mobility component disability living allowance as a result of proposed changes to benefit entitlements; and when this will apply. [38113]

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    The changes, which come into effect on 31 July, will apply only to people regarded, for benefit purposes, as hospital in-patients maintained free of charge by the NHS. Those affected by the change will have the payment of the mobility component of disability living allowance interrupted but underlying entitlement will not be affected.

    Mr. Hinchcliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what research he has conducted into the effect of proposals to change regulations for mobility component disability living allowance and the potential change to transport costs within the national health service following the response of the Social Security Advisory Committee on SI, 1996, No. 1436; [38111]

    (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and(b)evaluated into the effects of proposals to change regulations for mobility component disability living allowance concerning transport costs which may be claimed under social fund rules, for persons wishing to visit hospitalised relatives. [38112]

    Mr. Mitchell
    None. Social security benefits have never been available to meet NHS costs. Disability living allowance is an extra-costs benefit intended to help individuals meet the additional expenses associated with their disability; the mobility component is primarily intended to help them become independently mobile. Changes to the payability of a personal benefit should have no significant impact on help which is already available for fares to visit relatives in hospital.

    Mr. Hinchcliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the proposed transitional protection conditions for mobility component disability living allowance to persons detained under part II or part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 require such people to be treated under social security regulations in an identical manner to persons committed to hospital following involvement in criminal proceedings; and if he will make a statement. [38114]

    Mr. Mitchell
    No.

    The Department's position is explained at paragraphs 28 to 31 of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement in response to the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations, contained in Cm 3233, published on 7 June, a copy of which is in the Library.

    Operation Spotlight
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will(a) list the figures for weekly benefit savings achieved in each area where Operation Spotlight has taken place, (b) give a breakdown of these savings by the initiative which detected the fraud and (c) indicate how long each person from whom benefit was withdrawn remained out of receipt of benefit. [35975]
    68
    Mr. Heald
    [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

    Where the spotlight on benefit cheats campaigns have finished, and the majority of results are available, the total amount of benefit savings achieved so far for the relevant months is as follows. The final savings for the area in 1995–96 are also shown to give a comparison of the relative success of the spotlight campaign.

    £ million

    Total savings in spotlight period (4 weeks)

    Full-year fraud savings for 1995–96

    Croydon

    1.6

    2.6

    Haringey and Enfield

    4.1

    5.6

    Edinburgh

    3.6

    9.0

    Glasgow

    3.2

    25.7

    Westminster and Camden

    0.8

    3.5

    Leeds

    3.2

    6.4

    1 Figures as at 5 July 1996.

    2 There are variations in the size and composition of the spotlight areas and the type of anti-fraud activities in each place. Simple comparisons of on area's results with another's would therefore be misleading and should be avoided.

    3 The savings shown are from fraud detection activity, and do not take account of any deterrent effect that may have resulted from the surrounding publicity. Spotlight has also generated additional savings from housing benefit fraud detected by local authorities, and extra activity for other agencies and departments, such as the Contributions Agency, Child Support Agency, Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, and the immigration service.

    4 Although spotlight operations have now finished in Birmingham, Nottingham and Bristol, cases referred during the operational period continue to be processed, and results are still being evaluated. Spotlight operations also continue in the Isle of Wight, Lancaster and Barrow in Furness. Cardiff. Plymouth, Great Yarmouth. Brighton, Darlington, Rhyl and the Medway towns.

    5 The individual savings figures have been calculated using the normal 32-week methodology, which is approved by the Treasury and the National Audit Office.

    Weekly benefit savings for other areas are not yet finalised, but the total estimated savings for the campaigns so far, including the above, now exceed £27 million.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Alan Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many maintenance accounts held by the Child Support Agency were in arrears between April 1995 to the end of March 1996; and what was the amount outstanding. [37421]

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter front Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 19 July 1996:
    I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency accounts.
    The total maintenance debt outstanding as at 31 March 1995 was £525.187m. The number of cases with maintenance outstanding recorded against them is not available as the Agency's Financial Management System could not provide this information at that time, although it has since been developed to do so.
    69
    As at 31 March 1996 the number of cases with at least some amount of maintenance outstanding recorded (even if this was the subject of an agreed repayment arrangement) was 267,720. The total maintenance debt outstanding at this date was £895.569m, an analysis of which is included in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts published on 16 July 1996.

    I hope this is helpful.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  To identify the total number of cases would incur disproportionate cost.
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Competitive Tendering
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he plans to introduce during the current round of competitive tendering for health and education services in Northern Ireland on the basis of recommendations made by the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland on equal opportunities and the competitive tendering process. [38100]

    Sir John Wheeler
    Any such changes will be considered in the context of the Government's response to the Equal Opportunities Commission regarding its report and recommendations.

    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to the recommendations made by the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland in the report on its formal investigation into competitive tendering in health and education services. [38099]

    Sir John Wheeler
    I have not yet responded to the report and recommendations and will do so as soon as is practicable.

    Terrorist Crime (Prison Releases)
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons convicted of terrorist crimes have been released since the IRA and

    Access fund allocations made by Higher Education Institutions and Education and Library Boards

    1990–91

    1991–92

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–95

    Number

    Expenditure £000

    Number

    Expenditure £000

    Number

    Expenditure £000

    Number

    Expenditure £000

    Number

    Expenditure £000

    Institution/Board

    Academic year

    Financial year1

    Academic year

    Financial year

    Academic year

    Financial year1

    Academic year

    Financial year1

    Academic year

    Financial year1

    Queen's University

    2,230

    173

    2,196

    191

    1,964

    186

    1,882

    228

    1,807

    229

    University of Ulster

    1,185

    150

    1,583

    151

    1,252

    152

    1,575

    193

    1,727

    215

    Stranmillis College

    6

    4

    48

    12

    81

    17

    18

    9

    38

    9

    St. Mary's College

    153

    14

    269

    23

    350

    23

    52

    15

    50

    14

    Belfast Board

    79

    24

    154

    85

    135

    77

    160

    81

    161

    88

    North-Eastern Board

    25

    8

    93

    35

    103

    52

    163

    59

    141

    74

    Southern Board

    67

    25

    182

    55

    n/a2

    65

    35

    72

    153

    91

    South-Eastern Board

    32

    23

    79

    48

    43

    38

    106

    47

    110

    75

    Western Board

    175

    28

    209

    59

    181

    62

    343

    68

    215

    83

    1 Figures for universities and colleges relate to their financial year i.e. August to July while figures for boards relate to the Government financial year.

    2 The records are not available.

    70
    loyalist paramilitary ceasefires began; how many of these were connected with each terrorist/paramilitary organisation; what percentage of their sentence they had served; and how many of those released were serving a life sentence. [38617]

    Sir John Wheeler
    Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. A. Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Alan Shannon to Mr. William Ross, dated 22 July 1996:
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question regarding the number of persons convicted of terrorist crimes who have been released since the IRA and Loyalist paramilitary ceasefires began; how many of these were connected with each terrorist/paramilitary organisation; what percentage of their sentence they had served; and how many of those released were serving life sentences.
    The information that you are seeking is not readily available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, I can confirm that since 17 November 1995, 131 scheduled offenders have been released on licence, between the half way and two thirds part of sentence, as a result of the changes in remission rules brought in by the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentence) Act 1995. I can further confirm that since 1 September 1994, 41 life sentence prisoners convicted of scheduled offences have been released on licence in accordance with the normal life sentence review procedures. All other prisoners released during the relevant period were released "time served"
    I hope this information is helpful.

    Access Funds
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number and value of access fund allocations made by education and library boards and higher education institutions since their introduction. [37211]

    Mr. Ancram
    The information requested is given in the table.
    71

    Contracts
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list showing the number, nature and value of contracts award by his Department to Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young, Deloitte and Touche, Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton, BDO Stoy Hayward, Pannel Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37322]

    Sir John Wheeler
    The total value of contracts awarded by the Northern Ireland Office and the Departments of Economic Development, of Education, of the Environment and of Finance and Personnel to all the companies listed and their subsidiaries and associates in 1995–96 was £1,962,095. The information is not available in the form requested in the Departments of Agriculture and of Health and Social Services. However, these Departments paid £474,326 to these companies and their subsidiaries in 1995–96. The value of contracts awarded and payments made to individual companies cannot be provided for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

    The total number and nature of contracts awarded in the Northern Ireland Office and the Departments of Agriculture, of Economic Development, of Education, of the Environment, and of Finance and Personnel are as follows:

    Company

    Number

    Nature of contracts

    Coopers and Lybrand

    53

    Management Consultancy Financial Consultancy Information and Control systems Evaluation Projects Training Project Research/Review Investment Appraisal Miscellaneous

    KPMG

    9

    Management Consultancy Projects Surveys Market Testing Marketing

    Price Waterhouse

    12

    Management Consultancy Financial Consultancy Production Management

    Ernst and Young

    7

    Financial Appraisal

    Deloitte and Touche (including Touche Ross)

    23

    Management Consultancy

    Financial Consultancy Evaluation Projects Investment Appraisal Market Testing Miscellaneous

    BDO Stoy Hayward

    4

    Management Consultancy Financial Consultancy Market Testing

    Pannel Kerr Forster

    1

    Prior Options Study

    72
    Information on the number of contracts awarded in the Department of Health and Social Services is not available. However, the nature of contracts awarded is as follows:

    Company

    Nature of Contracts

    Coopers and Lybrand

    Management Consultancy Financial Consultancy Project Research

    KPMG

    Financial Consultancy

    Price Waterhouse

    Management Consultancy Financial Consultancy Evaluation Projects VFM study

    Ernst and Young

    Financial Consultancy

    Deloitte and Touche (including Touche Ross)

    Management Consultancy

    Financial Consultancy Evaluation Projects

    Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton and Robson Rhodes were not awarded any contracts.

    Education (Expenditure)
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current annual expenditure by(a) Department of Education and (b) each other education administrative body in Northern Ireland; and what percentage this constitutes of expenditure on education. [37219]

    Mr. Ancram
    The administrative and other running costs are as follows:

    1996–97 £(000)

    DENI

    16,047

    Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

    1,450

    Education and Library Board:

    Belfast

    3,935

    North-Eastern

    5,239

    South-Eastern

    3,897

    Southern

    4,312

    Western

    3,775

    NI Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

    1,751

    NI Council for Integrated Education

    378

    Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

    194

    40,978

    This represents 2.92 per cent. of overall expenditure on the relevant areas of education. The figures given are estimates for the 1996–97 financial year and those for the education and library boards exclude the costs of earmarked initiatives which formerly were included as part of headquarters administration costs and which in 1994–95 amounted to £4.1 million. The administrative costs of DENI relate not only to the services provided by the other bodies listed but to higher education, the museum service, the arts and sport.
    73

    Non-fossil Fuel Obligation Order
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland when the next NFFO order is due to be published. [38619]

    Mr. Ancram
    Consideration of the composition of a second non-fossil fuel obligation order is nearing completion. An announcement is likely to follow within the next two weeks.

    Student loan percentage take up rates by Institution

    Institution

    1990–91

    1991–92

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–95

    Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education

    19

    35.5

    61.25

    78.3

    100

    East Antrim Institute of Higher and Further Education1

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    20

    Fermanagh College

    Nil

    Nil

    20

    5

    40

    Greenmount College of Agriculture

    Nil

    6

    14

    10

    24

    Lisburn College

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    25

    Loughrey College of Agriculture and Food Technology

    8

    12

    30

    30

    60

    Newry and Kilkeel College of Further and Higher Education

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    70

    North-Down and Ards Institute of Further and Higher Education

    6

    Nil

    25.0

    32.5

    100

    North-East Institute of Further and Higher Education2

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    90

    Northern Ireland Hotel and Catering College, Portrush

    2

    2

    12.5

    14.3

    29.3

    North-West Institute of Further and Higher Education

    22

    26

    12

    14.6

    19.2

    Portadown College3

    8

    16

    24

    30

    20

    Queen's University, Belfast

    22.8

    34

    42.9

    49.6

    55

    St. Mary's College, Belfast

    7.8

    24

    35.7

    44.6

    49.9

    Stranmillis College, Belfast

    7.6

    10.6

    14.1

    20.4

    25.6

    University of Ulster

    21.3

    30.6

    37.1

    37.8

    54.8

    Sex Offenders
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the offences in Northern Ireland law which are analogous to those covered by the proposals on address registration in the Home Office consultation paper "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders"; how many people in Northern Ireland were convicted of those offences over the last three years; of those how many received a custodial sentence; and of those so gaoled, how many were convicted of crimes which did not involve minors and an absence of consent. [36661]

    Sir John Wheeler
    I have placed in the Library a list of Northern Ireland sexual offences, analogous to those included at annexe A of the Home Office consultation paper "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders".

    Details of persons in Northern Ireland convicted of such offences and sentenced to immediate custody are as follows:

    Persons convicted of sex offences and those sentenced to immediate custody in Northern Ireland 1993 to 19951

    Total convicted of sex offences

    Total given immediate custody

    1993

    125

    65

    1994

    147

    61

    1995

    179

    77

    Total

    451

    203

    1 The statistics relate to convictions where the sex offence was the principal offence.

    74

    Student Loans
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list student loan take-up rates in Northern Ireland since their introduction expressed by institution, sex, and age group. [37214]

    Mr. Ancram
    Available information is given in the table. Information by sex and age could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Statistics are not collated on those convicted of crimes which do not involve minors and an absence of consent and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Civil Service (Terrorist Damage)
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) claims and or (b) counter-claims each of the Northern Ireland civil service departments and agencies has commenced in the last five years in relation to damage and injury caused by individuals because of their involvement in terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [36662]

    Sir John Wheeler
    The Northern Ireland departments and agencies have not commenced any claims or counter claims in the last five years in relation to damage and injury caused by individuals because of their involvement in terrorism. For the Northern Ireland Office and its agencies the information is not available in the form requested. However, the total value of recoveries under the criminal injuries and criminal damage schemes in the last five years is:

    Amount recovered £000

    1991–92

    182

    1992–93

    232

    1993–94

    246

    1994–95

    376

    1995–96

    356

  Wind Farms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the costs of the transmission lines from a wind generation farm to the Northern Ireland grid are included in the capital costs; and who is responsible for(a) erecting the line and (b) maintaining it. [38618]

  Mr. Ancram
  The transmission line and connection facility cost of a renewable energy scheme is treated as a capital cost element and payment for it is made in full to Northern Ireland Electricity plc, before the project commences. NIE is responsible for erecting and maintaining transmission lines.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost of the wind farm being installed at the new Causeway hospital; what is(a) the height of the tower, (b) the highest point of the blades and (c) the size of the turbine; and what were the original dimensions proposed. [38620]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Health Estates under its chief executive, Mr. R.H. Browne. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from R. H. Browne to Mr. William Ross, dated 19 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the proposed Wind Turbine at Causeway Hospital.
  The estimated cost of the turbine, including installation and associated builder's work is £280,000.
  The dimensions of the proposed Wind Turbine based on an individual manufacturer's specification are as follows:

  Height of Tower = 30.5m

  Height of blades from ground at maximum position = 46.0m

  Size of Turbine = 300KW rating

  These dimensions have not changed since the original design.
  It is hoped that the above information fully explains the situation but should you require any further details I will be happy to provide them.

  Mourne Conduit
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what extra costs have been incurred as a result of the decision not to lay asbestos cement pipes in the contract for the Mourne conduit. [38813]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Water Service under its chief executive, Mr. H. R. F. Plester. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from H. R. F. Plester to Mr. William Ross, dated 22 July 1996:
  Mr. Moss has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question asking what extra costs have been incurred as a result of the decision not to lay asbestos cement pipes in the contract for the Mourne conduit.
  The decision not to lay asbestos cement pipes in the contracts for parts of the Mourne Conduit was taken after consideration of the implications of a detailed report prepared by the Water Research Centre. Taking into account the estimated whole life costs of installation, maintenance and decommissioning it is considered unlikely that any significant additional costs will accrue.
  76

  Cattle Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions apply to the interval between export and slaughter in respect of cattle exported(a) for further fattening and (b) for breeding from Northern Ireland. [38416]

  Mr. Ancram
  Prior to the present ban on the export of bovines, Commission decision 94/474 permitted only the export of calves less than six months old to member states providing they were slaughtered before the age of six months. Such calves are required to remain on the premises designated on the export health certificate until moved directly to slaughter.

  Animals born in Northern Ireland are not exported to member states for breeding purposes.

  There are no restrictions on the interval between export and slaughter in respect of cattle exported for (a) further fattening and (b) for breeding from Northern Ireland to third countries.

DEFENCE

  Tornado GR4 (Logistic Support)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place a contract for the logistic support of the Royal Air Force's Tornado GR4 aircraft. [38909]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has negotiated a major contract with British Aerospace for the logistic support of the new equipment on the RAF's Tornado GR4 aircraft over the next five years, and will sign a contract very soon. The contract will be worth well over £100 million to BAe and its major sub-contractors, GEC-Marconi Avionics and Smiths Industries. It will help to sustain approximately 400 to 500 jobs, primarily at sites in Warton, Edinburgh, Rochester, Portsmouth and Cheltenham.

  The contract will introduce a new degree of industrial support to front-line aircraft, embracing training, spares, technical publications and ground equipment. It will transfer financial risk to industry and this, with the exacting performance targets we have agreed, will provide the RAF and the taxpayer with a high-quality and cost-effective service.

  Equipment Co-operation
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 March to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans),Official Report, columns 648–49, what recent developments have taken place on the development of a new armoured vehicle in co-operation with France and Germany and on wider defence equipment co-operation with those two nations; and if he will make a statement. [38805]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Agreement has now been reached with France and Germany to amend tender documents to reflect the UK's requirement for a multi-role armoured vehicle. I have therefore written to my French and German colleagues confirming that we will join an international competition that is planned to lead to a
  77
  tri-lateral collaborative programme to design and produce an armoured utility vehicle. I have also informed them that the UK is pleased to join the armaments co-operation agency which the two nations decided last year to set up. We will now participate in the work necessary to establish the agency.

  The new armaments structure offers the opportunity to improve the effectiveness of co-operation between our countries to meet the requirements of our armed forces. It will also provide a platform for the development of a more efficient and competitive European defence industry.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 July to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane),Official Report, columns 27–28, if he will make a statement on the mission and function of the Anglo-French Army Equipment Commission. [38497]

  Mr. Soames
  The Anglo-French Army Equipment Commission—AFAEC—is a bilateral Army-level forum chaired at major general level. It exists to identify opportunities for co-operation, with the aim of achieving standardisation and interoperability objectives agreed by the two armies. In particular, AFAEC activity seeks to promote collaboration in the areas of research and operational analysis thus promoting cost-effective, collaborative equipment programmes.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 July to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane),Official Report, columns 27–28, if he will make a statement on the mission and function of the Anglo-French future land systems study group. [38499]

  Mr. Soames
  The Anglo-French future land systems study group—AFFLSSG, or Groupe Franco Britannique d'Etude de Systemes Aeroterrestres Futurs—exists to provide a mechanism for exchanges between the UK and France in the areas of land systems operational analysis, military history, and the performance of army equipment and its cost. The group's UK activities are managed by the Directorate of Science (Land), and it reports to the Anglo-French Army Equipment Commission, AFAEC. It has an active programme of work, concentrating on exchanges of information and joint symposiums and studies.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 July to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)Official Report, columns 27–28, if he will make a statement on the mission and function of the European co-operative long-term initiative for defence. [38498]

  Mr. Soames
  The European co-operation for the long-term initiative for defence—EUCLID—programme operates under the auspices of the Western European Armaments Group. Its mission may be described as the co-ordination of joint research and exploratory development programmes, involving defence industries, in a number of common European priority areas, CEPAs. It functions by establishing a number of research and technology projects, RTPs, within each CEPA by multi-national industrial consortiums representing the participating nations led by a single lead industrial entity, SLIE. RTP participation is undertaken on the basis of equal Government cost shares and with the expectation 78
  that additional industrial private venture contributions will be provided by the consortiums, and is subjected to competitive bidding. Full and active participation of nations with developing defence industries is encouraged, and nations that participate in an RTP have free use of the results obtained.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 July to the hon. Member for Rotherham, (Mr. MacShane)Official Report, columns 27–28, if he will name the 14 separate working groups under the Anglo-French defence research group; and if he will make a statement on the missions and functions of each. [38496]

  Mr. Soames
  I regret that the answer I gave on the 8 of July to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was inaccurate in identifying 14 separate working groups when in fact there are only 13.

  The 13 working groups which are responsible to the Anglo-French defence research group—AFDRG—are as follows:

  WG01—Aeronautics

  WG02—Human Factors

  WG03—Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence

  WG05—Structural Materials

  WG07—Energetic Materials

  WG08—Electronic Systems

  WG09—Electronic Components

  WG10—Nuclear Blast Effects

  WG11—Operational Research

  WG12—Guided Weapons

  WG13—Directed Energy Technology

  WG14—Land Systems

  WG15—Naval Research.

  The mission of each is to initiate, sponsor, and monitor the progress of collaborative defence in the areas stated, a co-operative activity which takes place under the auspices of the Anglo-French memorandum of understanding, MOU, on defence research of 24 October 1989.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 July to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane),Official Report, columns 27–28, if he will list where each of the 60 officers on exchange/liaison are based; and if he will make a statement on the roles and functions of each. [38495]

  Mr. Soames
  The following is a list of the UK/French exchange and liaison officer posts based in France and the UK.

  FRENCH OFFICERS IN UK

  FRENCH NAVY

  Exchange Officers

  HMS Sandown: Lt.

  Britannia Royal Navy College Dartmouth: Lt.

  Principal Warfare Officer (PWO) at sea (Type 42): Lt.

  Fighter Controller (FC) at sea (aircraft Carrier): Lt. (aircraft carrier)

  S03 G3 Plans 3 Commando Brigade RM: Capt. RM

  79

  Project Related Posts

  3 Posts "Horizon" Frigate programme: 1 x Capt. (Navy)

  2 x Lt. Cdrs.

  FRENCH AIR FORCE

  Liaison Officers

  HQ Infantry, Warminster: Lt. Col.

  Signal school, Blandford: Lt. Col.

  Director General Development and Doctrine

  UPAVON: Col.

  HQ Quarter Master General Andover: Col.

  Army Staff College Camberley/RMAS: Lt. Col. (TA)

  Exchange Officers

  SO2 HQ Directorate Army Aviation, Wattisham: Capt.

  1RHA Tidworth: Lt.

  RCDS/London: Col.

  FRENCH AIR FORCE

  Liaison Officers

  HQ 11 Group, RAF Bentley Priory: Lt. Col.

  Empire Test Pilot School Boscombe Down: Cdr.

  RAF Wyton: Cdr.

  Exchange Officers

  Staff Post RAF Brampton: Comdt.

  Tornado GR1A Pilot, RAF Marham: Capt.

  Tucano Qualified Flying Instructor (QFI), RAF Linton on Ouse: Lt.

  F3 Pilot, RAF Coningsby: Capt.

  Hawk (Qualified Flying Instructor (QFI), RAF Valley: Capt.

  Gazelle Qualified Helicopter Instructor (QHI), RAF Shawbury: Capt.

  Fighter Allocator, RAF Neatishead: Capt.

  E-3D Pilot, RAF Waddington: Capt.

  RAF Bracknell: Lt. Col.

  UK OFFICERS IN FRANCE

  ROYAL NAVY

  Liaison Officers (LO)

  French Jt. Planning Staffs International Dept. Creil: Cdr.

  Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) Officer; Paris (2 Posts): Cdr.

  Exchange Officers

  FNS Persee: Lt.

  Ecole Navale, Brest: Lt.

  Principal Warfare Officer (PWO) at sea: Lt.

  Fighter Controller (FC) at sea: Lt.

  9e Dima, Nantes: Capt. RM

  ARMY

  Liaison Officers

  Army Headquarters, Metz: Col.

  SO1 Commandement de la doctrine et de l'entrainement (CBE), Metz: Lt. Col.

  SO1 Joint Service Staff College, Paris: Lt. Col.

  School of Infantry, Montpellier: Lt. Col.

  Engineer School, Angers: Lt. Col.

  Ecole de St. Cyr, Coetquidan: Lt. Col.

  Artillery School, Draguignan: Lt. Col.

  Armoured School, Saumur: Lt. Col.

  Exchange Officers

  Pilot Aviation School, Le Luc: Lt. Col./Maj.

  11 Airborne Div., Toulouse: Capt.

  80

  Project Related Posts

  Tripartite Guided Weapon Project Office, Ruiel-Malmaison: Maj.

  Trigat Tripartite Guided Weapon: Lt. Col.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

  Liaison Officers

  HQ Strike Command, Tavernay: Sqn. Ldr.

  Merignac, Bordeaux: Sqn. Ldr.

  Merignac, Bordeaux: Flt. Lt.

  Exchange Officers

  Airborne Equipment Officer L'Armee de L'Air, Paris: Sqn. Ldr.

  Mirage 2000 Pilot, Nancy: Flt. Lt.

  Qualified Hying Instructor (QFI), L'Ecole de L'Air. Salon: Flt. Lt.

  Mirage 2000 Pilot, Orange: Flt. Lt.

  Alphajet Instructor, Cazaux: Flt. Lt.

  Alouette Qualified Hying Instructor (QFI), Toulouse: Flt. Lt.

  Intercept Controller, Tours: Ht. Lt.

  E-3D Pilot, Avord: Ht. Lt.

  The role of a liaison officer is to act as a link between the two organisations. The role of an exchange officer is to work alongside the national officers of the host country and to perform a specific function within the host organisation.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number, nature and value of contracts awarded by his Department to Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG, Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young, Deloitte and Touche, Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton, BDO Stoy Hayward, Pannel Kerr Forster, and Robson Rhodes and their subsidiaries and associates, during 1995 and 1996. [37318]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is shown in the table. The details have been extracted from my Department's central contracts database; there may, however, be other contracts, such as those placed by defence agencies, which have not been included. The central database does not include details of the specific nature of the contracts, and further details could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is the policy of this Department not to release details of individual contract values and, as there have only been one or two contracts with some of these companies, to overcome this problem the following table includes some "banded" figures.

  Financial year

  Contracts

  Approximate value

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1994–95

  11

  £2 million

  1995–96

  10

  £1 million

  KPMG

  1994–95

  8

  Less than £1 million

  1995–96

  7

  Less than £1 million

  Price Waterhouse

  1994–95

  15

  £4 million

  1995–96

  28

  £2 million

  Ernst and Young

  1994–95

  Fewer than five

  Less than £1 million

  1995–96

  Fewer than five

  Less than £1 million

  81

  Financial year

  Contracts

  Approximate value

  Deloitte and Touche

  1994–95

  No contracts

  1995–96

  Fewer than five

  Less than £1 million

  Arthur Anderson

  1994–95

  Fewer than five

  £2 million

  1995–96

  Fewer than five

  Less than £1 million

  Grant Thornton

  1994–95

  No contracts

  1995–96

  Fewer than five

  Less than £1 million

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  —

  No contracts either year

  Panel Kerr Forster

  1994–95

  No contracts

  1995–96

  Fewer than five

  Less than £1 million

  Robson Rhodes

  —

  No contracts either year

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the results of the current market testing of ABRO workshops; and if he will make a statement. [37889]

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

  Letter from Jim Drew to Mr. David Faber, dated 22 July 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about when he expects to announce the results of the current market testing of ABRO workshops as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO).
  You may already be aware that a key target for the Agency in financial year 1996/97 is to recommend the results of the ABRO Land Command Support Service Market Test to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces by 31 January 1997. This service is currently delivered through a national network of workshops and contract repair offices—the ABRO Land Command Support Group. The approach adopted for the market test has been designed to ensure that bidders are encouraged to meet the full requirements of the service in the most cost effective way. Bidders are not confined to utilising the existing facilities employed by the Agency for this task; instead they may put forward their own innovative solutions.
  Invitations to tender were issued in October 1995 but, because of the difficulties associated with competing this vast and complex activity, the date for tender returns has been extended and they are now due on 6 August 1996. Two commercial consortia and an in-house team are still in the running in the competition.
  Because of the difficulties encountered thus far the timescale to meet the key target is very tight. Moreover the scope for innovation may produce some novel and unconventional proposals for evaluation when bids are received. Nevertheless it remains my objective to submit recommendations as early as possible in the New Year.

  Greenham Common (Contamination)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the paper by Cripps and Stimson on uranium and plutonium contamination around Greenham Common air force base has been reviewed with 82
  a view to its release since July 1995; and if he will make a statement on the criteria adopted to judge of its suitability for publication. [38220]

  Mr. Soames
  The report in question has been reviewed twice since July 1995, using Cabinet Office guidelines. On the first occasion, it was not considered suitable for its classification to be downgraded. The second review was prompted by recent public interest relating to Greenham Common: in these circumstances, it was judged appropriate to release the document.

  Nuclear Co-operation Agreement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, columns 163–64, if the United States Government have offered to provide Her Majesty's Government with a copy of the US-France nuclear co-operation agreement; and if the Government have requested of the United States Government details of what nuclear information or technology has been shared with France as a result of the arrangement. [38501]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have neither asked for, nor been given, a copy of the memorandum of understanding signed on 4 June 1996. Nor have we sought details of what information or technology has been shared. Bilateral nuclear co-operation between the United States and France is a matter for the Governments concerned. Under the provisions of the UK-US 1958 mutual defence agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for defence purposes, the agreement of the United Kingdom would be required before any transfer by the United States of any nuclear weapons information of British provenance to France.

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors were taken into account by his Department in deciding not to prescribe lariam as an anti-malarial prophylaxis for service pilots and air crew. [38425]

  Mr. Soames
  Lariam is not prescribed to pilots and air crew because of the possible side-effects of dizziness or distorted sense of balance, as advised by the manufacturer.

  Military Bases
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what revenue has been received in each of the last three years from the selling of former military bases in England and Wales. [38315]

  Mr. Soames
  Records are not separately maintained for military bases, as distinct from other forms of property, or by individual countries, and the information could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. The overall receipts from the disposal of surplus property were £70.7 million in 1993–94, £64.3 million in 1994–95 and £63.4 million 1995–96.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responsibility his Department retains for removing asbestos from redundant former military bases in England and Wales which have been sold. [38332]
  83
  Mr. Soames
  None, unless a legal liability to do so can be shown to exist in any specific case.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the RAF's nuclear weapons role after the WE-177 is withdrawn from service. [38490]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF aircraft will have no operational nuclear role after WE177 is withdrawn from service.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nights in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96 a member of the royal family spent aboard the royal yacht during official visits. [38503]

  Mr. Soames
  During the period 1994–95, members of the royal family spent 13 nights aboard HMY Britannia. In 1995–96, the total was 23 nights.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the origin and destination of the low-level flight northward over East Bessacarr and Carltey at 16.13 on 8 July; who authorised it; and what considerations led to its authorisation. [38326]

  Mr. Soames
  Two Tornado aircraft from the standards squadron, Tri-National Tornado Training Establishment, TTTE, normally based at RAF Cottesmore, but temporarily operating from RAF Marham, were conducting a circular low-level navigation training sortie. The sortie was authorised by the formation leader who is an instructor at the TTTE. As with all military low-level sorties, the authorising officer was responsible for ensuring that the flight complied with the regulations and procedures in the United Kingdom military low flying handbook and that the aircrew were suitably qualified to execute the planned sortie. Since Bessacarr is listed for avoidance by low-flying military aircraft, the RAF police are making further inquiries into the alleged overflight. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member when these have been completed.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those companies which have expressed interest at any stage during the proposed sale of married quarters estate for whom an hon. Member acts as an advisor, consultant or director. [38613]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I am unable to disclose the identity of companies or other parties who have expressed an interest in the sale of the married quarters estate. However, the successful bidder will of course be announced when the sale is complete, and we shall at that point disclose as fully as possible the details of the transaction. Meanwhile, a copy of the preliminary information memorandum, which sets out the main features of the sale of the married quarters estate, is in the Library of the House. Further detailed information on the sale is contained in the 84
  Defence Committee's sixth report of Session 1995–96, published on 16 July (HC 424). The registered interests of hon. Members is a matter of public record.

  Remploy Ltd.
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of all contracts placed by his Department with Remploy Ltd. in each of the last five years, in 1996 prices. [38345]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The following figures have been extracted from the central contracts database and are based on the financial year from 1 April to 31 March of the years in question. The values have not been converted to a 1996 baseline. It is possible that there may be other contracts placed in recent years by various Defence agencies which are no longer recorded on the central database. Identifying these could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost and it should be noted that as a result of this, a direct comparison from year to year may not show an accurate picture of the pattern of business with the company.

  1991–92: £18.7 million

  1992–93: £14.2 million

  1993–94: £19.9 million

  1994–95: £8.4 million

  1995–96: £13.5 million.

  Public Assets (Sale)
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will ensure that all information which is made available to those tendering for the sale of public assets held by his Department is also available to hon. Members before any debate on such a sale; [38614]

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that all hon. Members have equal access to information about the disposal of public assets held by his Department. [38615]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information that is made available to those tendering for the sale of public assets held by my Department is also available to third parties except where such information is security classified or commercially confidential. Such information may not be passed on without the prior approval of my Department. Access to information provided by those who are responding to tenders for the sale of assets is a matter for the company concerned. The release of information in either direction to hon. Members will be determined by their status in relation to the bidding company.

  Defence Postal and Courier Services
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of publishing and distributing the annual report and accounts for 1995–96 of Defence Postal and Courier Services; and how many copies were printed. [38575]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Postal and Courier Services under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.
  85
  Letter from T. McG. Brown to Mr. Robert Key, dated 22 July 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency I am responsible for the production and distribution of my Agency's annual report and accounts and I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt. Hon Michael Portillo MP, regarding the cost of publishing and distributing the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency's 1995/96 annual report and accounts, and the number of copies printed.
  The number of copies printed was 2,000. The cost of publishing the report, which is borne by the Agency, was £11,627 and the cost of printing the report, which is borne by HMSO. was £11.600. Distribution costs will amount to around £40. Additionally MOD staff time and other minor costs were incurred, but these have not been quantified. Copies of the report are available from HMSO at £11.40 each.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the correct postal address of the Defence Postal and Courier Service's mail 2000 centre at Plymouth. [38574]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Postal and Courier Services under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from T. McG. Brown to Mr. Robert Key, dated 22 July 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency I am responsible for Defence Mail Centres and I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt. Hon. Michael Portillo MP, regarding the correct address of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Mail 2000 Centre at Plymouth.
  The correct address is:
  Defence Mail Centre Plymouth

  Average monthly wind speeds for 1995 (in knots)

  Altitude (ft)

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Ballykelly

  39

  11.8

  14.0

  12.2

  9.1

  7.7

  7.2

  7.0

  5.9

  7.1

  10.2

  8.4

  5.5

  Hillsborough

  154

  8.8

  9.5

  8.9

  6.7

  6.6

  6.8

  6.3

  6.0

  5.6

  8.5

  7.3

  6.3

  Aldergrove

  262

  10.7

  12.0

  10.5

  8.5

  7.9

  8.6

  8.8

  7.0

  7.4

  10.1

  8.7

  7.4

  Ballypatrick

  545

  11.4

  11.0

  10.2

  9.5

  8.4

  7.7

  7.7

  6.7

  7.1

  9.0

  11.0

  11.4

  Gelnnanne

  561

  12.1

  12.0

  12.0

  9.0

  8.9

  7.8

  7.4

  6.2

  7.7

  11.3

  9.0

  7.0

  Lough Fea

  771

  0.1

  9.4

  10.4

  8.5

  7.6

  7.2

  6.6

  5.7

  6.8

  7.9

  6.8

  5.2

  Chemical Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent volunteers in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, are informed before experiments of the possible long-term health effects of the chemical or chemical agent which is to be tested on them; and when this practice was introduced. [37621]

  Mr. Arbutnot
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the information provided to service volunteers about possible health effects from participation in studies at Porton Down. The Chemical
  86

  Building N161

  HM Naval Base

  Devonport

  Plymouth

  PL1 4SL

  Although the establishment of Defence Mail Centres was part of the Mail 2000 plan, the centres themselves are correctly known as Defence Mail Centres, without reference to Mail 2000.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Average Wind Speeds (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average wind speed in Northern Ireland for each month of the last available full year at(a) sea level, (b) between 200 and 300 ft altitude, (c) at 600 to 700 ft altitude, or as much of such information as is readily available to him. [38639]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Meteorological Office under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of the Meteorological Office to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. A. Bittleston to Mr. William Ross, dated 22 July 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about wind speeds in Northern Ireland as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office.
  Average surface wind speeds (measured at 10m about ground level) are given below for each month of 1995 at 6 stations with heights above sea level between 12 and 235 metres.
  There is no clear relationship between wind speed with height of the station above sea level. This is because surface wind is highly dependent on the geographical position and the local topography.
  I hope you find this information useful.
  Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  All work involving the use of volunteers at Porton Down is subject to considerable scrutiny before a study can begin. Proposals for studies are examined by an internal review committee which must be satisfied that the proposed work is necessary, requires the use of volunteers and is not likely to have long term effects of the health of the volunteers. The study protocol must then be reviewed by the independent Ethics Committee who will recommend whether it should be accepted for inclusion in the volunteer programme. Only when this recommendation has been received can a study begin. The committee will not give their recommendation to any protocol where, in their judgement, there is likely to be long term effects on the health of the volunteers.
  Prior to participating in a study, volunteers have the purpose of the study, the procedures to be carried out, any expected reactions they may experience and any risks the scientists involved in the study have identified explained to them so that the volunteers can give fully informed consent to participate in the study. This

  87
  procedure has been followed for many years but has been formally documented and included in submissions to the Ethics Committee since this was established in 1991.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out by the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, to investigate if(a) delayed recurrent keratitis of the eye, (b) chronic bronchitis and (c) emphysema can be caused by short-term exposure to mustard gas; when this research was carried out; and what were the results. [37618]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning research conducted on health effects caused by exposure to mustard agent. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  Scientists at Porton Down are not aware of any research having been carried out at Porton Down to investigate whether delayed recurrent keratitis of the eye, chronic bronchitis or emphysema can be caused by short-term exposure to mustard gas.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is provided to the War Pensions Agency by the Chemical Defence Establishment when individuals who took part in experiments at Porton Down claim disablement arising out of these experiments; if this information is available in its entirety to the claimant; and to what extent it includes(a) technical reports produced by Porton Down and (b) Porton Down's original laboratory data of the relevant experiments. [37619]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the information provided to the War Pensions Agency by staff at Porton Down. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  CBD provides a range of information to the War Pensions Agency (WPA) in response to enquiries from individuals who took part in experiments at Porton Down. Typically information provided to the WPA confirms the dates of attendance of the volunteer and, when available, an outline of the type of study in which he/she participated and the substances to which she/he was exposed. Where the service volunteer records provide any information regarding the results of such exposures this is also supplied. Relevant extracts from technical reports of original laboratory data, where they exist, would be included if considered helpful. Similar material is provided to the volunteers when they write directly requesting this information.
  A copy of the material provided by Porton Down to the War Pensions Agency is not usually revealed to claimants unless an appeal against the WPA decision is made. In such circumstances a document called a "Statement of Case" is prepared to contain the relevant facts as known by the Secretary of State. This Statement of Case will be made available to the appellant. However Rule 22 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (England & Wales) Rules 1980 applies to any case where the medical history of the appellant
  88
  comprises of material which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it would be undesirable in the interests of the appellant to disclose to him. This information will be marked for the Tribunal by broad "black lining" but will be omitted from the appellant's copy of the Statement of Case.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many scientific papers in the Porton memorandum series were produced by the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down; when the first paper in the series was produced; when the series was closed; and how many papers in this series are currently unclassified. [37616]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning papers in the Porton Memorandum series. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  The Porton Memorandum series contained a total of 42 reports. The first of these was published in August 1939 and the last in April 1951. According to the records held by the Porton Down Information Centre fourteen of these reports are currently unclassified.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the ban on military and civilian aircraft flying over the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down began; and what factors underlay the decision to ban flights. [37615]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning flying by military and civilian aircraft over the Porton Down site. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  There is an air exclusion zone (EGD 127) over the Porton Down site. This imposes the same restrictions on flights by military and civilian aircraft as are imposed in the large number of similar exclusion zones across the United Kingdom. It extends from the surface to 12,000 feet and its co-ordinates are defined in the Aeronautical Information Publication. The zone has been in force for over forty years and is in place because of the use made of the range area for experimental purposes.
  Planned flights may be made by military aircraft taking part in trials on the range area and are restricted to predefined routes. Any civilian aircraft breaching the exclusion zone may be reported to the Civil Aviation Authority so that action can be taken against them.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Chemical Defence Establishment's assessment of the effect on human health, in the(a) short-term and (b) long-term, of one-off exposure to Adamsite; and what research the establishment has conducted into such exposure. [37613]
  89
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question concerning effects on human health of exposure to.Adamsite. The Chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  CBD Sector at Porton Down has undertaken no research on the toxicology of Adamsite since the 1920s.
  It is not our practice, for obvious reasons, to make available details of our assessment of the effectiveness of chemical warfare agents. The Ministry of Defence circulates to military medical staff descriptions of the symptoms of exposure to such substances. The symptoms of exposure to Adamsite (DM) consist of acute pain in the nose and sinuses with a sense of fullness in the head and headache. There is a burning sensation in the throat with tightness and pain in the chest, accompanied by violent sneezing and uncontrollable coughing. The eyes are affected with irritation, pain and lachrymation. Nasal secretions and salivation are greatly increased and nausea and vomiting develop. People who are exposed to Adamsite in the field suffer these symptoms for several hours but they then disappear leaving no obvious long term effects.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what studies have been carried out by the Chemical Defence Establishment Porton Down since 1966 to evaluate the long-term health effects of short-term exposure to the nerve agent Tabun; when these studies were conducted; and what were their conclusions; [37612]

  (2) how many volunteers in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, have been exposed to the nerve agent Tabun since 1966; when was the last time that volunteers were exposed; and what was the conclusion reached following these experiments. [37620]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: These matters are for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 July 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your two questions about how many volunteers have been exposed to the nerve agent Tabun since 1966 at Potion Down and what work has been done to evaluate the long term health effects of short term exposures. I am replying to both questions in this letter since the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Potion Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  Mr. Harry Cohen MP asked a similar question earlier in the year and in my reply to him printed in the Official Report 16 January 1996, Column 529, I stated that work on Tabun had been conducted following the discovery of shells containing this agent after the collapse of the Third Reich. Work with volunteers ended over forty years ago and it would involve disproportionate costs to attempt to identify the precise date in the 1950s on which the last test was conducted. I also told Mr. Cohen the purpose of these studies was to evaluate the incapacitating effects of sub-lethal doses of this agent. The results of these studies were helpful in formulating appropriate defence measures against the threat nerve agents presented. No studies have been conducted since 1966 to evaluate long term health effects of exposure to this nerve agent.
  I hope this information is helpful.
  90

  Shoeburyness Range
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received from the public about noise from the Shoeburyness range and locally related facilities in each of the last five years and 1996 to date. [37916]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 22 July 1996:
  1. I have been asked to reply to your question about complaints from the public about noise from the range at Shoeburyness. I am Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA) which includes a trials and evaluation range at Shoeburyness, Essex.
  2. As far as I am aware all the complaints about noise in the area relate to activities at the DERA Shoeburyness Range. This undertakes essential ammunition & gun proof testing, trials and evaluation of equipment and ordnance disposal activities on behalf of the Armed Forces and Ministry of Defence. The numbers of complaints over the period 1990 to 1995 are as follows:

  1990: 73

  1991:47

  1992: 223

  1993: 420

  1994: 912

  1995: 635

  The total number of complaints received so far in 1996 is 453, the monthly breakdown being as follows:

  Jan: 236

  Feb: 77

  Mar: 39

  Apr: 19

  May: 60

  Jun: 20

  3. DERA has introduced a number of measures to mitigate the effects of noise on the local population. Sound propagation predictions are made twice a day, based on up to date meteorological data and trials activities are curtailed if predicted noise levels over inhabited areas exceed certain limits. One exception occurred in January 1996 where an operationally urgent trial related to the IFOR deployment of UK forces in Bosnia had to be conducted. In addition where a particular trial may result in loud noise, and many do not, advance warnings are given in the local press and on Essex radio. There is also a telephone enquiry service which gives notice to callers of daily range activities.
  4. DERA is also looking at new methods to reduce the noise at source including enclosing firing points within earth ramparts or straw filled containers.
  5. I hope this is helpful.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the link between the Church Commissioners and(a) archbishops, (b) bishops, (c) deans and provosts and (d) sub-deans and vice-provosts. [36759]
  91
  Mr. Alison
  The 95 Church Commissioners include the two archbishops, the 41 diocesan bishops and five deans and provosts.

  The commissioners are required by statute to provide the stipends of the archbishops, diocesan bishops and the dean or provost and two residentiary canons at each cathedral. No distinction is drawn in this respect between a dean or a provost or whether a residentiary canon whose stipend is provided by the commissioners is, or is not, a sub-dean or ice-provost. Under current arrangements, the commissioners also meet the full cost of the pensions of all clergy including those referred to.

  The commissioners are by statute responsible for the housing and expenses of all diocesan bishops, including the archbishops. They also accept responsibility for the expenses of suffragan bishops.

  Church Halls
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many church halls and community facilities have been disposed of in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [36760]

  Mr. Alison
  The Church Commissioners do not have responsibility for the disposal of church halls or community facilities. There are no central records of such disposals.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Agencies
  Mr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had over the regulation of aid agencies. [36788]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are in regular touch with aid agencies, but we have had no recent consultations over the regulation of aid agencies.

  Central Europe
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what responsibilities he has for aiding and assisting the economies of the countries of central Europe. [36789]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development have responsibility for assistance to central European countries in transition, through the know-how fund, our emergency aid to Bosnia and our contributions to multilateral programmes of assistance.

  Zambia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of(a) total aid provided by Britain to Zambia and (b) programme aid provided by Britain to Zambia. [38403]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1995–96, estimated expenditure on the British bilateral aid programme to Zambia was £29 million. Of this, £10 million was programme aid.92
  Britain also provided substantial aid via the multilateral agencies, including the European Community, the World bank, and the UN agencies. Valuable assistance is also provided through the investments of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the provision of aid to Zambia; what conditions are attached to the granting of such aid; and if he will make a statement. [38402]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our aid programme to Zambia addresses four key objectives: economic reform, direct assistance to poor people, human development—health and education—and good government. A country aid policy statement is available in the Library of the House. Each project will support specific action towards these ends. We have not provided programme aid this financial year, pending resolution of concerns over economic and governance issues in Zambia.

  Conference of Cambodian Donors
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent conference of Cambodian donors and the role of the British delegation. [38222]

  Mr. Hanley
  The outcome of the Cambodia consultative group meeting was successful. Along with the leading donors—Japan, the World bank and the Asian development bank—the UK and other bilateral donors secured commitments from the Royal Government of Cambodia in the fields of human rights and economic policy, including steps to combat illegal logging, while donors pledged their continuing support for Cambodia's development.

  The RGC committed itself to implementing the recommendations on forestry policy made by the World bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation and requested international experts and advisers to assist it in this process. In addition, the RGC stated its willingness to appoint a reputable international company to verify the export of logs and ensure transparency and accountability of revenues.

  The RGC also committed itself to the democratic process, a free mass media, the rule of law and combatting corruption. Most donors, including the UK, in pledging further aid, made it clear that they expected to see further progress in these areas. The widespread presence of donors and non-governmental organisations in Cambodia and the UN centre for human rights in Phnom Penh—to which Britain has provided financial support—we will help to ensure the monitoring of progress.

  Liberia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of assistance is currently being made available to the people of Liberia; and by what means it is being distributed. [38104]
  93
  Mr. Hanley
  Latest reports from the United Nations indicate an easing of the security situation throughout Liberia, enabling agencies such as the World Food Programme, Medecins Sans Frontieres and Caritas to allocate and distribute sufficient food and medical supplies to currently accessible areas of Monrovia and its environs, plus Montserraclo, Margibi and Bong counties. Basic needs are being addressed.

  Since May 1995, the UK has provided over £3.3 million in emergency relief to Liberia through non-governmental organisations, UN agencies and the International Federation of the Red Cross.

  West Bank and Gaza Strip
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he has given to date to help Palestinians on the west bank and the Gaza strip. [36781]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since the signing of the declaration of principles on 13 September 1993, total British bilateral assistance for the west bank and Gaza is estimated at £12 million. Additionally, we are providing one sixth of the EC's 500 mecu—£417 million—programme over five years and contributing to the support of Palestinian refugees through the EC and by directly contributing £6 million annually to the UN Relief and Works Agency.

WALES

  Banned Animal Feeds
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how his Department plans to enforce legislation making it illegal for farmers to have outstanding stocks of banned feed on their premises; when that legislation comes into force; and if he will make a statement. [37357]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19 July,Official Report, column 699–700.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each occasion in the last two months in which his Department has consulted farmers directly about policy development concerning BSE and the beef crisis; and if he will make a statement. [37364]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  We have issued consultation documents to the farming unions on the following policy developments in the last two months:

  3 May 1996: Mature beef assurance scheme.

  6 June 1996: Proposals for compulsory cattle passports.

  7 June 1996: Specified bovine material controls in abattoirs.

  10 June 1996: Mammalian meat and bonemeal (MBM) legislation and MBM feed recall scheme.

  12 June 1996: The fresh meat (Beef controls) Regulations 1996.

  3 July 1996: BSE: accelerated slaughter proposals.

  Welsh Office Ministers and officials have met farmers and their representatives on numerous occasions to hear their views on these and other issues.
  94

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of those remaining in full-time post-16 education were last year in(a) further education colleges, (b) tertiary colleges and (c) school, (i) in Wales and (ii) in each county. [37554]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Proportion of 16–18 Year Olds remaining in Full-time Education in Wales at Further Education Colleges or Schools, 1994–951

  Further Education

  Colleges2

  Schools3

  Local Education Authority

  Clwyd

  54

  43

  Dyfed

  37

  45

  Gwent

  53

  44

  Gwynedd

  47

  37

  Mid Glamorgan

  37

  51

  Powys

  38

  62

  South Glamorgan

  34

  36

  West Glamorgan

  63

  20

  Wales

  45

  40

  Source:

  Further Education Student Record, Higher Education Statistics Agency and Schools Census.

  Notes:

  1Ages as at 31 August 1994. Counties current at time of survey. Excludes students aged 16 to 18 on courses at higher education colleges (15 per cent. of 16 to 18 year olds in full-time education in 1994–95).

  2Provisional. Includes a small number of students on higher education courses at further education colleges. Includes further education colleges formerly designated as tertiary. At November 1994.

  3Includes all maintained and independent schools. At January 1995.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the relative public examination results performance of(a) grant-maintained and (b) locally managed schools. [38882]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  School performance tables covering the results of grant and locally maintained schools are published annually. The record of the former is pleasing: for example in 1994–5, 46 per cent. of 15-year-olds achieved five GCSE A*C, compared with 40 per cent. in locally maintained secondary schools.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 July to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, (Mr. Rowlands)Official Report, column 776, what are the private finance initiatives which will allow his Department to make greater investments in education. [38885]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have announced radical measures to help local authorities harness private sector finance and management expertise and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 21 May 1996 by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for the Environment,Official Report, column 164.
  95
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each project currently under consideration through the private finance initiative, indicating the value in each case. [38874]

  Mr. Jones
  Projects being looked at currently by the Welsh Office, which have been made public, and their estimated capital value are as follows:A55 Anglesey (£125 million); M4 relief road (£375 million); A465 heads of the valleys road (£175 million); Easter Bay link of the Cardiff peripheral distributor road (£108 million); Bute avenue, Cardiff (£50 million); North Meirionnydd/East Dwyfor community hospital (£7 million); University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff (£21 million); staff residential accommodation, district general hospital, Llantrisant (£4.5 million); day surgery unit, Nevill hall, Abergavenny (£1.8 million); mental health development, Nevill hall, Abergavenny (£6 million); community hospital, Chepstow (£5 million); replacement of radiotherapy equipment, Velindre (£4 million); new general hospital at Baglan (£63 million).

  Information on schemes costing less than £1 million is not collected.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children had statements of special educational need in each of the old county councils at the date of their abolition. [38875]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The available information is as follows:

  Number of pupils with statements of special educational needs under section 168 of the Education Act 1993 at 16 January 19961.

  LEA

  January 1996

  Clwyd

  2,732

  Dyfed

  2,454

  Gwent

  12,475

  Gwynedd

  11,087

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,721

  Powys

  733

  South Glamorgan

  1,967

  West Glamorgan

  1,886

  1 The figures shown for Gwent and Gwynedd relate to January 1995.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local authority the sampling sites for air pollution measurement, indicating at which sites the European Union guide levels have been exceeded; and what action has been recommended as a result. [38883]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government air quality monitoring sites in Wales are as follows:

  Local authority

  Site name

  Cardiff

  Cardiff Centre

  Cardiff East

  Ceredigion

  Cwmystwyth

  Flintshire

  Shotton

  Gwynedd

  Waunfawr

  Neath Port Talbot

  Cwmgwrach

  Glyn Neath

  Port Talbot

  Newport

  Marshfield

  Newport

  96

  Local authority

  Site name

  Pembrokeshire

  Cresselly

  Powys

  Aston Hill

  Welshpool

  Swansea

  Swansea Centre

  Torfaen

  Pontypool

  Wrexham

  Wrexham

  There are currently four European directives on air quality which set mandatory and non-mandatory limits for lead, sulphur dioxide and suspended particles, nitrogen dioxide and ozone levels in the air. The only exceedences of the relevant thresholds at Government sites in Wales in the last three years for which figures are available were as follows:

  Limit

  Site

  Number of exceedences (days)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Daily basis:

  Ozone information threshold

  Aston Hill

  3

  1

  1

  Cardiff Centre

  2

  —

  1

  Annual basis:

  Guide value for SO2

  Cwmgwrach

  Exc.

  —

  —

  Glyn Neath

  Exc.

  Exc.

  Exc.

  Port Talbot

  Exc.

  —

  —

  Guide value for suspended particles

  Wrexham

  —

  Exc.

  —

  Exc. = Exceeded the guide values, based on the average daily readings taken over the year.

  Further information is available in the "Environment Digest for Wales" and the report "Air Pollution in the UK 1994", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  The Government will shortly be publishing a consultation draft of the national air quality strategy as required by the Environment Act 1995. It will include air quality standards and objectives and set out the measures required to meet those objectives.

  The Environment Act 1995 also introduces a duty on local authorities to assess and review air quality in their areas, and to establish local air quality management areas where standards or objectives are being or likely to be breached. In such areas authorities must draw up action plans to help bring ambient pollution down to acceptable levels. The Government are currently developing guidance for local authorities sot help them discharge those duties.

  School Improvement Index Initiative
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schools which received awards under the voluntary school improvement index initiative; and if he will make a statement about the factors which were significant in accounting for their success. [38881]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The school improvement index is a Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales initiative sponsored by the Midland bank. It is part of our "Bright Future" programme which, among other things, encourages all schools in Wales to set targets for improved performance, year on year.
  97
  Awards are made on an area and national basis to those participating schools with the most improved GCSE results over the last three years. The award winners for 1995 were;

  National

  1st: most improved school 1995—

  Aberdare girls' comprehensive school.

  2nd: Tonypandy comprehensive school

  Regional

  North Wales—Eirias high school, Colwyn bay

  South Wales—Aberdare girls' comprehensive school

  South-East Wales—Bettws high school, Newport

  South-west Wales—Ogmore comprehensive, Bridgend

  Mid and West Wales—St. John Lloyd RC comprehensive, Llanelli

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money his Department contributed towards each of the projects which were successful in the closed circuit television competition; and what percentage this was of the total cost of each project. [38876]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The majority of funds for the closed circuit television competition were provided by the Home Office. From the Department, additional money was provided so that seven school-only bids, which would not otherwise have been successful, could also be funded.

  Highways
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much in(a) cash (b) real terms each highway authority spent on (i) highway maintenance and (ii) road safety improvements. [38884]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on expenditure by local highway authorities is published each year by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in Highway and Transportation Statistics. Expenditure by my right hon. Friend on trunk roads in Wales is detailed in the Welsh Office departmental report (Cm 3215). Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Education and Training
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 426, if he will list those applications for education and training funds from the European Union of which he has been informed. [39018]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Food Strategy
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to monitor the progress of a food strategy for Wales. [39333]

  Mr. Hague
  The food strategy advisory group which I set up in March will continue to meet on a regular basis in order to monitor the implementation of the strategy.
  98

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate agency's work in Wales for the financial year 1996–97. [39334]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The key objectives for the agency in 1996–97 continue to be to preserve the impartiality and quality of the inspectorate's work while seeking further to improve its efficiency. I have set the following key targets for the agency's work in Wales, in particular the timeliness target has been extended to include the three different methods of hearing appeals:

  Timeliness

  (a) Eighty per cent. of all planning appeals decided by written representations to be determined within 17 weeks;

  (b) Eighty per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearings to be determined within 22 weeks;

  (c) Eighty per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiries to be determined within 30 weeks;

  (d) To provide an inspector for local plan inquiries on request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period and to deliver 90 per cent. of inspectors' reports to local authorities by the dates agreed in service agreements;

  Financial

  (a) Unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £690;

  (b) Recover 90 per cent. of receipts due within eight weeks of the invoice date;

  Efficiency
  Contribute to the generation of a three per cent. efficiency improvement in the agency's use of running costs compared with 1995–96;
  Quality
  To satisfy the Advisory Panel on Standards and thus the Secretary of State, annually and following rigorous monitoring, that the quality of the inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard with 99 per cent. of its casework free from error;
  Welsh Language
  To respond in Welsh to all inquiries, written or oral, received in Welsh within the same timescales as allowed for responding to inquiries generally.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 10, on the millennium exhibition if he will make a statement on the outcome of his work with Sir Peter Levene. [36791]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Many leading companies have already pledged their support for the millennium exhibition. Sir Peter is continuing discussions with other interested concerns, and encouraging progress is being made.

  Civil Servants
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants were employed by the Government and by Government agencies at the most recent count; and what was the figure in May 1979. [36792]
  99
  Mr. Willetts
  In 1979, when we came to office, there were 735,000 civil servants. There are now 494,000: a fall of 33 per cent.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new proposals he has to reduce harmful effects arising from deregulation. [36793]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am satisfied that deregulation does not diminish necessary protection whether for consumers, employees, or the environment. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 includes safeguards to ensure that any necessary protection under existing legislation is maintained.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the work undertaken by(a) the deregulation task force and (b) the deregulation unit in the last 12 months; and what has been the cost to the public purse of each. [36806]

  Mr. Freeman
  The deregulation task force's first report recorded its work up to September 1995 and its programme for the following 12 months. A copy is available in the House Library. The work of the deregulation unit is shown in the Cabinet Office departmental report published as Cm 3220 in March 1996. Direct expenditure, excluding overheads, for the deregulation task force and the deregulation unit for 1995–96 was £14,700 and £1,480,600 respectively.

  Government Policy
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what have been the main changes he has made to the presentation of Government policy. [36795]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I chair the Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy. The committee considers all aspects of presentation and works to ensure that the Government take every opportunity to emphasise the benefits of their policies for the UK.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the principal Government policy with which he was concerned in the week beginning 8 July. [36802]

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

  New Policies
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of his Department's time is spent in developing new policies for other Departments of state. [36796]

  Mr. Willetts
  None. However, the work of the Office of Public Service impacts across all Government Departments because it promotes competitiveness, deregulation, improving standards in public services and greater efficiency and effectiveness throughout the civil service.
  100

  Policy Initiatives
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the three policy initiatives which will constitute his Department's priorities for the next six months. [36798]

  Mr. Willetts
  The priorities for the Office of Public Service will be to promote the competitiveness agenda, the deregulation initiative and the effective administration of the services for which the Department is responsible.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the three policy initiatives to which his Department has devoted most resources since the creation of his office. [36805]

  Mr. Willetts
  The priorities for the Office of Public Service have been to promote the competitiveness agenda, the deregulation initiative and the effective administration of the services for which the Department is responsible.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to promote competitiveness. [36799]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The wide range of measures we are taking to promote competitiveness are set out in the 1996 competitiveness White Paper published last month.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to help small businesses improve their competitiveness; and if he will make a statement. [36804]

  Mr. Willetts
  The wide range of measures we are taking to help small firms are set out in the 1996 competitiveness White Paper. The benefits of our approach are clear. More than a million new businesses have been created since 1979, and our small businesses are more optimistic than their European counterparts: 70 per cent. of UK businesses expect to increase turnover this year, compared with less than half on the continent.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his latest assessments of the impact of his competitiveness campaign. [36810]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I believe that our annual analysis of the UK's competitive position, through the competitiveness White Papers, is now widely accepted, and having an increasing impact on national performance. The 1996 White Paper, published last month, has been widely welcomed by business, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Institute of Directors.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minster if he will make a statement on his responsibilities in respect of the promotion of the private finance initiative. [36800]

  Mr. Freeman
  The central IT unit, which reports to me, is responsible for advising Departments, HM Treasury and agencies on the best application of the private finance initiative in the provision of information technology-based services.
  101

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the measures he is taking to deregulate the activities of small businesses. [36790]

  Mr. Freeman
  We are pressing ahead with the package of new measures for small business announced at the "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March. These include a draft Bill on industrial tribunals, a single notification point for tax and national insurance, and new rights for business in enforcement actions.

  Food Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent steps he has taken to improve the presentation of Government policy in so far as it affects the food industry. [36803]

  Mr. Freeman
  On 5 June, my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary and the MAFF deregulation Minister hosted a food and drink seminar in Leeds for business and enforcement officers. Delegates supported our goal of fewer, better, simpler regulations which ensure consumer safety and choice while strengthening the competitiveness of the food and drink industries.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his responsibilities in respect of information technology policy. [36807]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am responsible for the work of the central IT unit, the principal task of which is to advise Ministers on the development of an IT strategy for improving the internal efficiency of government and the delivery of public services. It is also responsible for advising Departments and agencies on the application of the private finance initiative to information systems and information systems and information technology projects.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the use of performance-related pay in his Department. [36809]

  Mr. Willetts
  For this purpose, the Deputy Prime Minister's office forms part of the Cabinet Office.

  The White Paper "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", published in 1994, set out the Government's intention to proceed with comprehensive pay delegation from 1 April 1996. Since then, the Cabinet Office has been adhering to the principles set out in the White Paper

  Longitudinal body mass index data for adolescents and adults in Scotland showing percentage in each BMI category

  Age

  Year

  Number assessed

  <20 Under-weight

  20–24.9 Normal

  25–29.9 Overweight

  <30 Obese

  Adolescents

  Boys

  15

  1987

  462

  50.9

  43.1

  5.2

  0.9

  18

  1990

  422

  19.2

  64.2

  14.5

  2.1

  Girls

  15

  1987

  494

  38.7

  51.2

  8.5

  1.6

  18

  1990

  470

  22.3

  55.3

  16.4

  5.7

  102
  for its own staff—that there should be a clear link between an individual's pay and their contribution to the achievement of the Department's objectives.

  European Union
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on co-ordinating Government policy initiatives between member states. [36794]

  Mr. Freeman
  During the past year, I have had regular contact with the Commission and with Ministers in other member states pressing the case for fewer, better and simpler regulations in Europe. Progress to date includes the SLIM—simpler legislation in the internal market—initiative to review and simplify areas of existing legislation, and a recently agreed Council resolution to help ensure that future rules from Brussels are proportionate, goal-based and small firm friendly.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many appeals mechanisms in accordance with statutory instrument 1678 he expects to incorporate into new and existing legislation by 1 January 1997. [38408]

  Mr. Freeman
  The model appeals mechanism will be considered for all appeals against enforcement action in appropriate legislation put before the House before January 1997, and thereafter. The recently enacted Chemical Weapons Act 1996 contains provision which will allow the appeals mechanism to be utilised for enforcement.

SCOTLAND

  Obesity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the estimated percentage of(a) men and (b) women, aged (i) 16 to 64 years and (ii) 64 years and over, who were obese for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [37368]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available for all the years and age groups requested. Such data on obesity in Scotland as are currently held are given in the following table.

  Physical measurements, including obesity, are included in the current Scottish health survey and the resultant data will be published in the first report, which is expected in spring 1997.
  103

  Longitudinal body mass index data for adolescents and adults in Scotland showing percentage in each BMI category

  Age

  Year

  Number assessed

  <20 Under-weight

  20–24.9Normal

  25–29.9 Overweight

  <30 Obese

  Adults

  Men

  35

  1988

  420

  6.4

  43.3

  41.7

  8.6

  40–59

  1985

  4,676

  3.2

  36.5

  49.5

  10.8

  45–69

  1989

  115

  3.5

  42.6

  46

  7.8

  55

  1988

  396

  3.8

  34.1

  51.5

  10.6

  55–75

  1988

  808

  3.3

  40.6

  48.3

  7.8

  Women

  35

  1988

  516

  12

  56.4

  22.1

  9.5

  40–59

  1985

  4,225

  6.1

  49

  32.4

  12.4

  45–69

  1989

  127

  4.7

  44

  27.5

  23.6

  55

  1988

  528

  5.3

  44.1

  33.1

  17.4

  55–75

  1988

  782

  5.9

  44.6

  33.5

  16

  Banned Animal Feeds
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how his Department plans to enforce legislation making it illegal for farmers to have outstanding stocks of banned feed on their premises; when that legislation comes into force; and if he will make a statement. [37356]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19 July 1996,Official Report, column 699.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the overall cost of management staff and administrative staff in the NHS in Scotland in(a) 1989–90 (b) 1995–96. [37372]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The overall cost of management staff and administrative staff in the NHS in Scotland in(a) 1989–90 was £130,055 million and (b) 1994–95 was £255,732 million. The figures for 1995–96 are not currently available. The expenditure shown for 1994–95 includes senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred to the general/senior mangers' pay scales.

  Abortions
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of States for Scotland if he will give a breakdown, by procedure, of the number of abortions performed in Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available. [37553]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provisional number of abortions performed in Scotland in 1995 was 11,136. Of these, 7,868 were performed using surgical methods, 3,266 using medical methods and two cases had no method recorded.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions have been performed in Scotland under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; and how many and what percentage of these abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother. [37562]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of abortions performed in Scotland between 1968 and 1995 was 233,805 including provisional figures for the last 104
  year. During this period 17 abortions—0.007 per cent. were performed in emergency to save the life of the woman.

  Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many readmissions to the Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline there have been over the last three years. [37847]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total number of patients readmitted within 28 days of discharge from Queen Margaret hospital for the only two available years is given in the table. The reason for a patient being readmitted is not necessarily related to the reason for original admission. The longer after discharge that a patient is readmitted, the less likely it is that the reasons are related.

  Period2

  Total readmissions within1 28 days of discharge

  April 1993-March 1994

  2,105

  April 1994-March 1995

  2,880

  1Includes both planned and emergency readmission with any diagnosis at any hospital in Scotland.

  2Hospital officially opened 28 June 1993 with first patients admitted in April 1993.

  Missionaries
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place for grants to be provided for university education for the children of missionaries who have been working abroad. [37968]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In Scotland, the provision of student grants for full-time courses of higher education up to first degree or equivalent level is governed by the Students' Allowances (Scotland) Regulations 1991. To be eligible for an award, a student must normally have been ordinarily resident in the British Islands for at least three years immediately preceding the academic year in which the course starts; and also be ordinarily resident in Scotland on 30 June of that year.

  In the case of children whose parents are employed outside the British islands, including those employed as missionaries, eligibility would depend on the nature of the

  105
  parents' absence. A student may be considered for a fees and maintenance award if the absence can be clearly demonstrated to be temporary, by way of fixed-term contracts, continuing links with the UK, and a clear intention at the outset to return to the UK at the end of the contract or contracts. The temporary absence provision is not specifically defined in terms of time and each case is decided on its merits.

  There is also provision for a student to be considered for a full award where the parents have returned from employment in the European economic area and are resident in Scotland on the relevant date. Where the parents continue to be ordinarily resident in the European economic area at that time, the student may be considered for an award of tuition fees only.

  Fife Health Board
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by the Fife health board in the financial year 1995–96 on(a) tendering for services, (b) tendering for the north-east Fife services and (c) administrating the general practitioner fundholding scheme within the health board. [37863]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The additional costs incurred in 1995–96 by Fife health board on tendering for services in north-east Fife and for other services were around £4,000 and £1,100 respectively.

  The work involved in any tendering process arid in administering the general practitioner fundholding scheme is regarded as part of the normal duties of relevant staff in Fife health board and no additional staff were employed specifically for this work.

  Glasgow Boundaries Act
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if section 43 of the Glasgow Boundaries Act 1912 is still in force. [37973]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No.

  Sport and Physical Recreation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the national planning policy guidelines on sport and physical recreation; and what changes are proposed to the section on open space in the draft document published in August 1995. [37075]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Following wide-ranging consultation last year on draft guidance, on 27 June 1996 the Government published national planning policy guideline (NPPG) No. 11: "Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space". Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about plans to develop wind farms at West Gaily and Gartymore in Sutherland; and if he will make a statement. [37727]

  Mr. Kynoch
  To date, my right hon. Friend has received a total of 613 letters of which 440 are opposed to the development. The applications for planning 106
  permission have now been notified to my right hon. Friend. He will consider these and decide whether they should be called in for his own determination.

  Shared Parenting
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of the recent legal decision on the principle of maternal preference relating to the custody of children on shared parenting as provided for by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. [37869]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provisions in part I of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 are not due to come into force until 1 November of this year. Accordingly, it is not known what attitude the courts will take to the existing case law on custody of children when deciding whether or not to make an order under section 11(2)(c) of the 1995 Act regulating the arrangements as to the persons with whom a child is to live. Under the present law, and under the provisions of the 1995 Act, the court is required to regard the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) pursuant to the letter from Mr. N. D. MacLennan of the Scottish Office development department to Mr. Alan Patterson, of the Wishaw Business Group dated 3 July, under what powers central Government bears three quarters of the cost of relief from rates on grounds of hardship granted by rating authorities under section 156 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994; and what has been the cost to central Government of doing so; [38577]

  (2)which rating authorities have used their powers to remit payment of rates on grounds of hardship under section 156 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994; [38579]

  (3) what steps have been taken to inform small businesses and rating authorities of the powers under section 156 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994 to grant remission from non-domestic rates on grounds of hardship. [38578]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The cost of any relief borne by local authorities under section 156 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 is borne in the ratio 25:75, by local authorities and central Government respectively, in accordance with regulations made under schedule 12 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Figures are not yet available on the cost to central Government or the numbers of authorities granting relief under this provision which was introduced with effect from 1 April 1995. All local authorities were informed of the commencement of this provision by circular on 12 January 1995.

  Speeding Fines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate for the last financial year for each of the police forces in Scotland(a) the total amount raised through the payment of fixed penalties for speeding, (b) the total of fixed penalty fines for speeding levied and (c) the average amount levied for each speeding fine. [38646]
  107
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the last financial year, the total number of fixed penalty fines levied for speeding were:

  Number

  Central Scotland police

  4,205

  Dumfries and Galloway constabulary

  3,478

  Fife constabulary

  3,113

  Grampian police

  5,871

  Lothian and Borders police

  112,768

  Northern constabulary

  3,582

  Strathclyde police

  31,494

  Tayside police

  5,276

  Total

  69,787

  1 January 1995-December 1995.

  The value of each fixed penalty fine was £40 but the total amount raised is not readily available since the calculation is affected by a number of fines which could not be collected.

  The average amount levied for each speeding fine is not readily available. Speeding fines are often levied along with fines for other offences such as reckless driving and are not readily separately identifiable.

  Vehicle Damage (Police)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will indicate for the financial years(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1995–96 for each of Scotland's police forces the amount paid out in insurance claims against these bodies in respect of damage to vehicles; [38648]

  Total hip replacement

  Cataract operations

  Hospital of treatment

  Median wait (days)

  Median wait (days)

  1993

  1994

  19951

  1993

  1994

  19951

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  53

  46

  65

  Albyn Hospital

  —

  —

  24

  —

  —

  —

  Ayr Hospital

  95

  75

  65

  207

  197

  153

  Borders General Hospital

  57

  66

  72

  43

  77

  174

  Bridge of Earn Hospital

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  City Hospital

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  Crosshouse Hospital

  57

  64

  69

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  78

  79

  73

  Dumfries and Galloway Infirmary

  197

  255

  183

  194

  136

  121

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  71

  93

  90

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfermline and West Fife Hospital

  75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  87

  71

  198

  —

  —

  —

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  110

  —

  —

  27

  —

  —

  Gilbert Bain Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  150

  75

  58

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  93

  159

  150

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow Western Infirmary

  120

  133

  134

  49

  45

  54

  Hairmyres Hospital

  49

  43

  74

  —

  —

  —

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  78

  110

  106

  164

  148

  208

  Kings Cross Hospital

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Law Hospital

  194

  180

  210

  —

  —

  —

  Monklands District General Hospital

  89

  111

  67

  —

  —

  —

  Ninewells Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  67

  50

  55

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  98

  126

  94

  —

  —

  —

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  101

  133

  143

  —

  —

  —

  Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline

  72

  12

  90

  80

  65

  55

  108
  (2) if he will indicate for the financial years (a) 1991–92 and (b) 1995–96 for each of Scotland's police forces the number of claims against vehicle insurance lodged against the police giving the total number of police vehicles insured during each of these periods. [38647]

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

  Health Boards and NHS Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when(a) health boards and (b) NHS trusts in Scotland will be in a position to publish their annual reports and accounts; and what instructions these bodies have been given about the time scale for publication of these documents. [38649]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Health boards are required to publish their annual reports by the end of October, and to include specific financial information in these reports. It is for each NHS trust to determine the timetable for publication of its annual report and accounts, but there is a statutory requirement on them to hold a public meeting to present audited accounts and annual reports not later than six months after their respective accounting dates.

  Operations (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current median waiting periods for patients needing(a) hip replacements and (b) cataract treatment at (i) each hospital where this operation is provided and (ii) in Scotland indicating the equivalent waiting times for the two preceding years. [37495]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]The information requested is in the table:
  109

  Total hip replacement

  Cataract operations

  Hospital of treatment

  Median wait (days)

  Median wait (days)

  1993

  1994

  19951

  1993

  1994

  19951

  Raigmore Hospital

  121

  138

  178

  123

  116

  126

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  73

  27

  5

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  59

  69

  77

  62

  82

  84

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill

  —

  —

  —

  39

  50

  21

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  12

  14

  17

  191

  105

  94

  Southern General Hospital

  95

  64

  93

  304

  293

  188

  St. John's Hospital

  78

  24

  7

  345

  9

  26

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  133

  187

  196

  99

  102

  91

  Stobhill Hospital

  56

  62

  74

  92

  137

  199

  Stonehouse Hospital

  106

  101

  120

  129

  138

  146

  Stracathro Hospital

  51

  50

  76

  —

  —

  —

  Victoria Hospital

  117

  124

  98

  79

  —

  —

  Victoria Infirmary

  99

  153

  141

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles Hospital

  21

  40

  67

  —

  —

  —

  Woodend General Hospital

  66

  71

  63

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  88

  103

  99

  90

  86

  88

  1Provisional data. — No relevant operations performed.

  Asbestos (East Kilbride)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current legal action being taken against the former East Kilbride development corporation by residents of the Telford road area on the question of liability for the removal of asbestos from their properties. [38448]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: It would be inappropriate for my right hon. Friend to comment while the matter is before the courts.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board in Scotland the number of acute beds for each of the last five years and the projected number for 2000. [38398]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: The total number of average available staffed acute beds for each health board for each of the last five years is given in the table. There is no central projection for the number of acute beds in the year 2000. It is for health boards and NHS trusts to determine the number of beds required to deliver services taking into account their own local circumstances.

  Average available staffed beds in Acute Specialties1

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19962

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,286

  1,248

  1,204

  1,188

  1,140

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,152

  1,136

  1,107

  1,075

  971

  Borders

  354

  354

  348

  335

  338

  Dumfries and Galloway

  435

  419

  406

  405

  416

  Fife

  851

  800

  791

  774

  754

  Forth Valley

  605

  600

  588

  592

  573

  Grampian

  1,640

  1,918

  1,885

  1,843

  1,804

  Greater Glasgow

  4,194

  4,036

  3,899

  3,651

  3,581

  Highland

  740

  743

  729

  724

  796

  Lanarkshire

  1,665

  1,632

  1,592

  1,550

  1,526

  Lothian

  2,659

  2,577

  2,455

  2,397

  2,298

  110

  Average available staffed beds in Acute Specialties1

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19962

  Orkney

  62

  62

  97

  91

  85

  Shetland

  49

  46

  46

  46

  46

  Tayside

  1,801

  1,748

  1,622

  1,589

  1,540

  Western Isles

  85

  97

  103

  100

  95

  Scotland

  17,580

  17,414

  16,873

  16,360

  15,963

  1 Includes Acute, Supra-area and Special categories specialty groups. Excludes obstetrics.

  2 Provisional.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when NHS waiting list figures for March 1996 will become available in(a) unpublished form and (b) published form; [38400]

  (2) when NHS waiting list figures for March 1995 (a) became available in unpublished form and (b) were published; [38397]

  (3) when NHS list figures for September 1995 (a) became available in unpublished form and (b) will be published. [38399]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: Waiting list figures as at 31 March are published annually in December by the information and statistics division of the Common Services agency of the national health service in Scotland in "Scottish Health Statistics". Information on waiting list figures at other dates is held by the information and statistics division of the Common Services agency, but is not routinely published.

  Student Awards
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions apply to the payment by local authorities in Scotland of awards to students equivalent to education maintenance allowances paid by local authorities in England and Wales; if he will list those local education authorities in Scotland which pay such awards:
  111
  how much is currently paid by each; if he will list the practice of each authority as to when the allowance is paid; and if he will make a statement. [38446]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: The equivalent of education allowances in Scotland are higher school bursaries. All the education authorities in Scotland have the power to offer these bursaries, and to determine the circumstances in which they will do so. Details of the policies and expenditure of individual authorities are not held centrally.

  Summary Case Costs
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he issued regarding the timing of the comparative research into summary case costs in different jurisdictions, referred to in paragraph 6.12.3 of the White Paper "Crime and Punishment"; who conducted the research; when the research was completed; and when he proposes to publish it. [38442]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: The research was conducted by Ms T. Goriely of TPR Social and Legal Research and Professor A. Paterson and Mr. C. Tata of the University of Strathclyde law school. The contract required the first draft of the research report to be provided to the funding bodies—that is, the Scottish Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Scottish Legal Aid board—by 30 April 1996. The draft report was provided on time and it is intended that, following further work, a short research findings summary will be issued towards the end of 1996.

HEALTH

  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of mentally handicapped children currently in NHS hospital care in(a) the north-west and (b) nationally. [36262]

  Mr. Bowls
  The table gives the number of children resident in national health service hospitals and units and under the care of a mental handicap consultant at 31 March 1995.

  Age at 31 March 19951

  0–14

  15–19

  North Western and Mersey2

  10

  20

  England

  120

  190

  The figures are estimates based on a combination of data from the hospital episode statistics system and data obtained directly from regional offices (and the former RHAs) and are rounded to the nearest 10.

  1 Estimates of those in hospital under the care of a learning disability consultant.

  2 All health authorities under North Western and Mersey regional health authorities including South Cumbria merged to form North West regional office.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that junior doctors gain clinical experience at specialist locations and district general 112
  hospitals with particular reference to (a) accident and emergency, (b) paediatrics and (c) maternity departments; and if he will make a statement. [37178]

  Mr. Malone
  The content of postgraduate medical training programmes, taking into account the needs of individual trainees, is the responsibility of the relevant royal college or faculty and the postgraduate deans. Opportunities exist to gain clinical experience in the specialties referred to in most district general hospitals.

  Tranquillisers and Anti-depressants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total cost and the cost per head of population of expenditure within the GP prescribing scheme for(a) tranquillisers and (b) anti-depressants for each health district in England and Wales for the year 1995–96. [37565]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library. Questions relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when was the most recent review of registration and inspection of privately run nursing homes. [37860]

  Mr. Bowis
  The review of the regulation and inspection of social services, launched in September 1995, covers the regulation and inspection of nursing homes which provide care of a kind which local authorities may be required to arrange under their community care responsibilities.

  Contract Settlements
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the principles used by each NHS region in its arbitration process on contract settlements between NHS purchasers and providers; and what measures are taken by the NHS executive to ensure that these principles are consistent between regions. [38032]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on the resolution of disputes and setting out the principles for arbitration was issued in March 1991 as EL(91)11 and copies were placed in the Library.

  DIY-related Accidents
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) in total and (b) over the age of 50 years have been injured in do-it-yourself-related accidents in each of the last five years. [37897]

  Mr. Horam
  The data requested are contained in the Department of Trade and Industry's consumer safety unit "Annual Report on Home and Leisure Safety Research; Home Accident Surveillance System Monitoring Product Safety" reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to the NHS of treating people injured in do-it-yourself-related accidents in each of the last five years. [37896]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available.
  113

  Bed Blocking (Geriatric Wards)
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an assessment of the extent of bed blocking in geriatric wards of NHS hospitals caused by patients being unable to obtain places in extra care homes run by charitable organisations, with particular reference to the Abbeyfield Society; if he will initiate discussions with the Secretary of State for Social Security to obtain authorisation for the provision of beds in registered extra care homes; and if he will make a statement. [37902]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for health and local authorities to make an assessment of any factors affecting delayed hospital discharges locally.

  Abortion
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the Anglia and Oxford region after the 24th week of pregnancy in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of(a) the age of the woman, (b) marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds on which the abortion is performed. [38028]

  Mr. Horam
  The statistically most likely candidate for an abortion for each of the variables listed is the category with the highest recorded frequency of legal terminations. The percentages are based on all legal terminations in the Anglia and Oxford region in 1993.

  The categories with the highest frequencies found in each of the variables were:
  age of the woman 30 to 34 age group comprised 46 per cent. 6 of all post-24th week gestation terminations;
  marital status of the woman; married women comprised 85 per cent. 11 of all post-24th week gestation terminations;
  number of previous children of the woman; women with no previous live and still born children comprised 53.8 per cent. of (7) of all post-24th week gestation terminations; and
  legal grounds under the abortion is performed; statutory ground E alone comprised 100 per cent. (13) of all post-24th week gestation terminations. Ground E is defined as meaning that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the statistically most likely candidate for an abortion within the Anglia and Oxford region in the latest year for which figures are available in terms of(a) the age of the woman, (b) marital status of the woman, (c) the number of previous children of the woman and (d) the grounds on which the abortion is performed. [38027]

  Mr. Horam
  The statistically most likely candidate for an abortion for each of the variables listed is the category with the highest recorded frequency of legal terminations. The percentages are based on all legal terminations in the Anglia and Oxford region in 1993.

  The categories with the highest frequencies found in each of the variables were:
  age of the woman: 20 to 24 age group comprised 28.7 per cent. (3,397) of all terminations;
  marital status of the woman: single women comprised 62.2 per cent. (7,356) of all terminations;
  114
  number of previous children of the woman: women with no previous live and still born children comprised 54.8 per cent. (6,483) of all terminations;
  legal grounds under which the abortion is performed: statutory ground C alone comprised 91.5 per cent. (10,821) of terminations. Ground C is defined as meaning that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

  Disciplinary Hearings (Northern Region)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list (i) the number of(a) medical and (b) nursing staff suspended or dismissed at each NHS trust in the Northern region since 1 January 1993 and (ii) the number of staff in each category heard by disciplinary hearings of trusts who were not so suspended or dismissed in this period. [38160]

  Mr. Horam
  Such information on nursing staff is not available centrally. The information available is set out.

  Decisions on employment matters rests with the employing authority or national health service trust. Since 31 March 1995, national health service employers have reported cases of suspension of hospital and community medical and dental staff lasting more than six months. Information is, therefore, available only on those cases of suspension over six months and from that date.

  In the Northern and Yorkshire region only one such case of suspension was reported for medical and dental staff between 31 March 1995 and 20 June 1996.

  Dental Health (Morecambe Bay)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number of teeth affected by decay in five-year-old children and what number of decayed, missing and filled teeth in 14-year-old children are found in the Morecambe Bay health authority's area; what is the national average for five and 14-year olds; and what changes, using the model of South Cheshire where fluorine is added to the water, he would expect to find in Morecambe Bay if water was similarly treated. [38223]

  Mr. Malone
  Every two years, the British Association for the study of community dentistry conducts a survey of dental caries prevalence in children aged five throughout Great Britain, and every four years for 14-year-olds. The 1993–94 figures for five-year-olds' dental caries experience, and 1994–95 figures for 14-year-olds in the Morecambe Bay health authority show mean values for decayed, missing and filled teeth for five and 14-year-olds to be 2.28 and 2.22 respectively. The comparative five and 14-year-old figures for England are 1.74 and 1.67 respectively. Studies have consistently shown that the prevalence of dental decay in fluoridated areas is between one third to one half lower than in comparable non-fluoridated water areas.

  Doncaster Family Health Services Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the payments made to Mr. Ray Hemming on the termination of his employment as chief executive of Doncaster FHSA. [38392]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 27 November,Official Report, column 519.
  115

  Psychiatric Patients
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collates about the number of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 who go absent without leave from psychiatric hospitals. [38437]

  Mr. Bowis
  This Department collates no such information centrally.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric patients were admitted(a) compulsorily and (b) voluntarily to (i) NHS and (ii) private hospitals in each of the last five years. [38438]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available is set out in the tables. Information is not available centrally on admissions to private hospitals.

  Formal admissions to national health service facilities of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation1

  England

  Year

  Numbers2

  1990–91

  18,500

  1991–92

  21,100

  1992–93

  22,100

  1993–943

  24,000

  1994–95

  26,300

  Source:

  KH15.

  Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Notes:

  1 Figures refer to the financial year.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3 Admission figures includes estimated data from East Anglian regional health authority.

  Mental Illness: All admissions, including formaI admissions to NHS hospitals1

  England

  Year

  Numbers2

  1990–91

  185,500

  1991–92

  192,500

  1992–93

  212,800

  1993–94

  224,200

  1994–953

  214,000

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Notes:

  1 Figures refer to the financial year.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority the number of short and long-stay beds in(a) NHS local psychiatric hospitals and units and (b) water tower mental hospitals in England, between 1982 and 1995. [38436]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. The number of short-stay and long-stay mental illness beds is contained in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Casualty Departments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that nurses are not hired solely to greet patients within five minutes of arrival in casualty departments. [38321]
  116
  Mr. Horam
  The patients charter states that patients going to an accident and emergency department can expect to be seen immediately and have their need for treatment assessed. In the period January to April 1996, 94 per cent. of such patients were assessed within five minutes. This patients charter standard has resulted in improved standards of practice and patient satisfaction. However, many clinicians would like this standard to be refined to fit more closely with clinical practice and a revised standard is being developed after consultation with the national health service.

  Health Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to discuss with his Austrian counterpart the health care from Austrian Gemeindeartz for British holidaymakers; and if he will make a statement. [38325]

  Mr. Malone
  Details of the way in which the reciprocal health care arrangements with Austria operate, including general practitioner services, are contained in leaflet T5 "Health advice for travellers", which is available from post offices. Copies of this leaflet are available in the Library. These arrangements generally work well and Ministers have no plans to discuss them with Austrian counterparts.

  Crisis Accommodation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers to the hon. member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) of 18 March and 24 April,Official Report, columns 79 and 172, what factors led to the omission from guidance in LASSL (96) 16/HSG (96) 6 of references to crisis accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [38493]

  Mr. Bowis
  A clear and explicit reference to crisis accommodation is made in "The Spectrum of Care" which was issued under cover of health service guidelines LASSL(96)16/HSG(96)6. copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health Authority Overspends
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health how many health service commissioner authorities in England(a) have had previous years' overspends written off and (b) been given additional funding to compensate for previous overspends; and if he will make a statement. [38439]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held centrally.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 319, what progress has been made in tracing the illegally dumped clinical waste; and if he will make a statement. [38237]

  Mr. Horam
  Following action by the relevant waste regulation authorities to trace the producers of the clinical waste dumped in Hertfordshire, two summonses have been issued and further summonses are likely. Investigations by the Hertfordshire police fraud squad and Environment Agency continue.
  117

  Safety Glass (Licensed Premises)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential savings to accident and emergency and surgical departments if toughened safety glass were to be introduced across the licensed victuallers' trade. [38322]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Water Tower Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, column 111, when he expects the national survey by the NHS executive of the water tower mental hospitals in England to be completed; and if it will be published. [38433]

  Mr. Bowis
  The survey by the national health service executive of the water tower mental hospitals in England should be completed around the end of October 1996. A decision on publication will be taken nearer the time.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the annual report and accounts for the Medical Devices Agency. [38993]

  Mr. Horam
  I have received the report and accounts which has today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Winter Mortality Rates
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the excess winter mortality rates over average annual mortality rates, have been for each of the last 10 years expressed(a) in numbers and (b) as percentages. [37997]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information is shown on the table.

  Excess Winter Mortality, England and Wales

  Period

  Excess winter deaths

  Excess winter death index1

  1985–86

  49,446

  27.7

  1986–87

  26,449

  14.9

  1987–88

  33,089

  18.4

  1988–89

  21,235

  11.8

  1989–90

  47,083

  26.3

  1990–91

  37,845

  21.5

  1991–92

  24,845

  19.9

  1992–93

  25,656

  14.5

  1993–94

  25,890

  14.2

  1994–95

  27,512

  15.6

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Note:

  1 The excess winter death Index is the number of excess winter deaths expressed as a percentage of the average of the number of deaths in the autumn and summer periods.
  118

  Hepatitis
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence in the United Kingdom of(a) hepatitis B and (b) haemophilus influenzae type B— Hib—meningitis (i) at the time of the introduction of Hib vaccination to the immunisation schedule, (ii) in each of the five years before that introduction and (iii) at the latest available date. [38465]

  Mr. Horam
  Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine was introduced into the United Kingdom childhood immunisation programme in October 1992. Comparable and complete information for the periods specified is available only for England and Wales. This information is in the table.

  Laboratory reports for England and Wales to the public health laboratory service1

  Year

  Bacteraemia and meningitis of Haemophilus influenzae type B

  Hepatitis B

  1987

  n/a

  785

  1988

  n/a

  641

  1989

  655

  583

  1990

  658

  618

  1991

  667

  572

  1992

  627

  531

  1995

  2239

  2612

  1 Laboratory reports are made to the public health laboratory service under a voluntary and confidential reporting system.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the World Health Organisation's recommendation on the integration of hepatitis B into national vaccination programmes by 1997; and if he will make a statement. [38486]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department's current policy is to recommend immunisation against hepatitis B 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.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of health authorities screened pregnant women for hepatitis B in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [38460]

  Mr. Horam
  The public health laboratory service carried out a survey of English and Welsh district health authorities' hepatitis B ante-natal screening policies in September 1991. In England, there was a response rate of 81 per cent. All the health authorities responding carried out ante-natal screening for hepatitis B. Seventy-seven per cent. of those which responded had a selective screening policy, 21 per cent. had a universal screening policy and 2 per cent. had a mixed policy of selective and universal screening depending on the individual screening centre.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) EU and (b) Group of Seven member countries have introduced national policies for routine vaccination of (i) infants and (ii) adolescents against hepatitis B; and if he will rank them according to the prevalence of hepatitis B, with rates of incidence. [38471]
  119
  Mr. Horam
  Member states are asked to report the number of cases of certain infectious disease to the World Health Organisation European regional office. These include cases of acute hepatitis B. It should be noted that methods of surveillance, case definitions and completeness of reporting vary between European member states and that caution should be observed when making comparisons. The WHO European office does not hold data of the seroprevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection in member states.

  The number of cases of acute hepatitis B reported to the WHO European office by European Union member states in 1994, the latest for year for which most complete data are available, are given in the table. The incidence of acute hepatitis B per 100,000 for EU member states who have provided data to WHO has been calculated using population figures as at 1 January 1994 taken from EUROSTAT (Demographic Statistics).

  Country

  Number of cases of acute hepatitis B

  Population in millions

  Incidence per 100,000

  Austria

  241

  8.0

  3.0

  Belgium

  51

  10.1

  0.5

  Denmark

  127

  5.2

  2.4

  France

  —

  57.8

  —

  Finland

  192

  5.1

  3.8

  Germany

  5,166

  81.3

  6.4

  Greece

  222

  10.4

  2.1

  Ireland

  —

  3.6

  —

  Italy

  2,733

  57.1

  4.8

  Luxembourg

  72

  0.4

  18.0

  Netherlands

  213

  15.3

  1.4

  Portugal

  1,114

  9.9

  11.3

  Spain

  —

  39.1

  —

  Sweden

  264

  8.7

  3.0

  United Kingdom

  1535

  [58.3]

  1—

  1 This figure includes only cases from England. Using a 1994 population for England of 48.7 millions the rate of acute cases of hepatitis B in England for that year was 1.1 per 100,000.

  Seroprevalence rates for chronic hepatitis B infection in other countries are not held centrally.

  We understand that in Europe, Italy and France have implemented national policies to immunise infants and adolescents, Spain and Portugal have implemented policies for adolescents; and Belgium has recently begun to introduce a policy for infant and adolescent immunisation.

  For the three non-European members of the Group of Seven, we understand that the United States has introduced a universal infant programme, Canada has mainly a universal adolescent policy but with some provinces favouring infant immunisation and Japan has not implemented a universal programme having a selective immunisation policy with particular focus on prevention of perinatal transmission through screening in pregnancy.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which Government policy has reduced the incidence of hepatitis B; and what new measures he plans to reduce such incidence. [38470]
  120
  Mr. Horam
  Reports of acute hepatitis B to the public health laboratory service have fallen from a peak of just under 2,000 reports in England in 1984 to 612 reports in 1995—provisional figure. This decrease occurred in most groups at increased risk of infection.

  This may be linked to the modification of risk behaviours in response to Government initiatives to promote safer sexual practices and recognised techniques for reducing the risks associated with injecting drug misuse, such as needle and syringe exchange schemes, in the light of HIV-AIDS, as well as our immunisation policy targeted at those at increased risk of infection.

  These initiatives will continue and hepatitis B immunisation policy will be kept under review.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the hepatitis B vaccination coverage rate for(a) GPs, (b) nurses, (c) police, (d) homosexual males, (e) drug abusers and (f) babies born to carrier mothers. [38461]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of hepatitis B cases in each of the last three years fell within the definition of at risk categories in each(a) health authority and (b) region. [38485]

  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. The information requested, which is available only by regional health authority, is given in the table.

  Regional Health Authority

  Total reports of acute hepatitis B infection

  Number of reports with information about the patient

  Number of cases identified from information given as falling with defined risk groups

  Percentage of reports with information about the patient which fall within defined risk groups

  1993

  Northern

  15

  10

  10

  100

  Yorkshire

  49

  29

  29

  100

  Trent

  25

  18

  17

  94

  East Anglia

  19

  14

  12

  86

  North-west Thames

  64

  46

  45

  98

  North-east Thames

  74

  48

  45

  94

  South-east Thames

  67

  49

  44

  90

  South-west Thames

  29

  19

  18

  95

  Wessex

  23

  19

  18

  95

  Oxford

  25

  21

  20

  95

  South Western

  47

  45

  44

  98

  West Midlands

  47

  27

  26

  96

  Mersey

  56

  53

  42

  79

  North Western

  68

  50

  45

  90

  Total

  607

  448

  415

  94

  121

  Regional Health Authority

  Total reports of r acute hepatitis B infection

  Number of reports with information about the patient

  Number of cases identified from information given as falling with defined risk groups

  Percentage of reports with information about the patient which fall within defined risk groups

  1994

  Northern

  17

  12

  12

  100

  Yorkshire

  66

  55

  55

  100

  Trent

  49

  31

  28

  90

  East Anglia

  19

  14

  12

  86

  North-west Thames

  35

  24

  23

  96

  North-east Thames

  41

  27

  26

  96

  South-east Thames

  71

  60

  56

  93

  South-west Thames

  29

  20

  19

  95

  Wessex

  28

  20

  18

  90

  Oxford

  24

  19

  15

  79

  South Western

  50

  46

  45

  98

  West Midlands

  45

  8

  7

  88

  Mersey

  59

  47

  40

  85

  North Western

  69

  44

  41

  93

  Total

  601

  427

  397

  92

  1995

  Northern

  21

  9

  9

  100

  Yorkshire

  102

  67

  67

  100

  Trent

  49

  38

  38

  100

  East Anglia

  23

  9

  8

  89

  North-west Thames

  26

  11

  11

  100

  North-east Thames

  27

  15

  13

  87

  South-east Thames

  62

  40

  37

  93

  South-west Thames

  32

  20

  20

  100

  Wessex

  21

  19

  16

  84

  Oxford

  35

  23

  21

  91

  South Western

  21

  18

  14

  78

  West Midlands

  40

  18

  15

  83

  Mersey

  80

  65

  60

  92

  North Western

  45

  21

  20

  95

  Total

  584

  373

  349

  92

  1. The public health laboratory service reporting system records reports under the following risk groups: injecting drug users; sex between men; sex between men and women; sexual contact unspecified; children of hepatitis B carrier mothers; family/household contacts; medical treatments; occupational exposure; and institutional exposure.

  2. Approximately two thirds of reports received by PHLS provide information relating to risk groups.

  district Health Authority Finance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each district health authority for each of the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 and subsequent 122
  years for which figures can be given or estimated (a) the recurrent deficit, (b) the non-recurrent surplus deficit, (c) movements in balances, (d) the cash deficit and (e) those deficits expressed as a percentage of revenue or expenditure. [38788]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is based on estimates subject to revision. It is not suitable for publication.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what informed consent is sought from, and what information is given to, blood donors concerning circumstances in which their donation may be sold(a) outside the NHS, (b) into the private sector and (c) outside the United Kingdom; [38469]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which the NHS patients charter commitment that blood donations will not be sold (a) applies fully, (b) applies with qualifications and (c) does not apply. [38472]

  Mr. Horam
  The consent of donors is not required for the national blood service to make supplies of donated blood available outside the national health service. Blood itself is never sold, although a handling charge is made to cover the costs of collecting, testing, processing and delivering blood. The commitment given in the blood donors charter therefore applies fully. However, as is also stated in the charter, surplus blood products derived from donations of whole blood may be sold to any other country after NHS demand has been satisfied. This avoids waste of a valuable resource and keeps down costs to the NHS. Details of what happens to donations is made available to donors through leaflets produced by the NBS and through the charter.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many units of each type of blood product were(a) supplied to private hospitals and (b) used by private patients within NHS units for each of the last three years; for which figures are available; [38516]

  (2) what is the order of priority for the supply of blood products for supply to (a) the NHS, (b) the private sector and (c) overseas users in times of acute United Kingdom or regional shortage; [38467]

  (3) what is the method of invoicing and payment for blood products supplied for private sector use; [38468]

  (4) what charges are levied on (a) private hospitals and (b) private medical practitioners for the supply of blood products for use outside the NHS. [38515]

  Mr. Horam
  Information about the amount of blood products supplied to private hospitals and to private patients within national health service units is not collected centrally. Blood products manufactured from plasma derived from freely donated blood in the United Kingdom may be exported only if they are surplus to NHS requirements.

  Methods of invoicing and payment and fees charged are a matter for suppliers.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to comply with the commitments given in the NHS patients charter in respect of blood donors; and if he will make a statement. [38466]
  123
  Mr. Horam
  As part of the national health service patient's charter programme, an interim blood donor's charter was published last November. The National Blood Authority is working towards the implementation of the targets for improved services to blood donors set out in that charter and will publish performance results each year. The charter will be reviewed after a year, taking account of the comments being invited from doctors.

  Growth Hormone
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy with regard to the financial compensation of those treated with contaminated pituitary-derived human growth hormone and gonadotrophin. [38616]

  Mr. Horam
  We will study last Friday's judgment in detail and consider what response is appropriate. We remain committed to providing, through the national health service, suitable support and counselling to all patients treated with human growth hormone, or gonadotrophin, and their families.

  Regional Health Authority Functions
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the functions previously carried out by regional health authorities which have been(a) transferred to the NHS executive, (b) transferred to district health authorities, (c) contracted out and (d) abandoned. [38870]

  Mr. Horam
  The functions of the national health service executive and new health authorities are set out in the statement of responsibilities and accountabilities published on 24 May 1995, copies of which are available in the Library. Regional health authorities were abolished on 31 March 1996, and on 1 April 1996 district health authorities and family health services authorities merged to form new health authorities. Prior to the abolition of the RHAs, the NHS executive issued guidance to the NHS, health service guidance (94)22 and (94)53, on the disposition of RHA functions.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts(a) are already paying nurses a locally negotiated pay award, (b) are negotiating with nurses over a local pay award, (c) have made an offer on which negotiation has yet to begin and (d) have not yet made an offer on which to negotiate locally. [38886]

  Mr. Malone
  The timing and structure of local pay offers is a matter for national health service management. It is for each trust to decide whether to make public the position it has reached.

  Health Care (Students)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State Health (1) how many staff are employed to assess eligibility for free prescriptions, dental work, eye tests and spectacle vouchers for students; and at what annual cost; [38405]

  (2) what is the estimated cost of extending free prescriptions, dental work, eye tests and spectacle vouchers to (a) all students within higher education and (b) all students entitled to a full student grant. [38406]
  124
  Mr. Malone
  Claims for entitlement to spectacle vouchers, free national health service prescriptions, dental treatment and sight tests under the NHS low-income scheme are assessed by the health benefits division of the Prescription Pricing Authority. Costs and staffing figures in respect of claims by students are not separately identified.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish a breakdown of members of ethnic minorities employed in the NHS as(a) ancillaries, (b) nurses and (c) doctors for each of the past five years and the grades held by these staff; [37034]

  (2) if he will publish a breakdown of members of ethnic minorities employed in health authorities as (a) executive members, (b) non-executive members, (c) senior officers, (d) managerial staff and (e) clerical/administrative staff; [37026]

  (3) if he will publish a breakdown of members of ethnic minorities employed in NHS trusts as (a) executive members, (b) non-executive members, (c) senior officers, (d) managerial staff and (e) clerical/administrative staff. [37027]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: Information about nursing and midwifery staff by grade at September 1993 was published in the Department of Health statistical bulletin "NHS Hospital and Community Health Services Non-Medical Staff in England" in November 1994, copies of which are available in the Library. Information about the ethnic origin of all non-medical staff as at September 1994 will be published shortly and placed in the Library.

  Information about medical staff for 1992/3/4 is published in the Department of Health statistical bulletins "Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Service Medical and Dental Staff in England" and is held in the Library. Data for 1995 will be placed in the Library shortly.

  These are the latest figures available; figures for earlier years are not available.

  Information about executive members and senior officers is not available centrally.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 12 July, Official Report, column 334, for information about non-executive members.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) ethnic minority and (b) white nurses there were in the NHS in each of the last five years (i) by grade, (ii) by region and (iii) nationally; [37142]

  (2) how many (a) ethnic minority and (b) white nurses there were at grade G in each of the last five years. [37141]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: Information relating to the ethnicity of national health service nursing and midwifery staff in England in 1993 by grade was published in the Department of Health statistical bulletin 1994/11, copies of which are available

  125
  in the Library. This is the latest information available. Information relating to earlier years is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure equal access to the delivery of services within the NHS for ethnic minority groups. [37033]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: a number of measures are in place to ensure equal access to those from the ethnic minority communities: i) the patients charter, which aims to provide better information and health services to everyone (including ethnic minority groups) by meeting their religious and cultural needs. The patients charter has been produced in several ethnic languages; ii) in the last five years, the Department has made around £6.5 million available in direct grants to demonstration projects and ethnic minority voluntary groups to improve ethnic health—for example, it has funded a number of linkworker and advocacy schemes which improve access to services to ethnic minority groups. Copies of relevant reports published recently—"Consumer Empowerment" and "A Case For the Provision Of Bilingual Services Within The NHS"—have
  126
  been placed in the Library; iii) the NHS ethnic health unit has been established to work with health authorities, national health service trusts and general practitioners to experiment with new ways of improving services in partnership with local ethnic minority people.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current percentage of(a) midwives and (b) health visitors who are from ethnic minorities. [37100]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: Information relating to the ethnic origin of midwives and health visitors is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on the ethnic minority health unit in his Department in each of the last five years; and what is the budget for the next three years. [37094]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The national health service ethnic health unit was established for three years by Ministers in 1993, to work with NHS organisations to improve services for black and minority ethnic people by harnessing current Government health policies. This followed the report of a task force on how good practice might be spread throughout the NHS. The unit began a focused programme of work in March 1994 which is due to conclude, as intended, in March 1997. The unit's annual budget is of the order of £1.3 million

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Police Force: Recruitment
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to fulfil the pledge given at the last Conservative Party Conference to increase the police force by 5,000.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government are providing an additional £180 million in funding to enable chief constables in England and Wales to recruit 5,000 more constables over the next three years.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for standing like Casabianca on the burning deck, when five of her Conservative predecessors have fled quite recently from the debate. I once again commend her gallantry. Is the noble Baroness aware that in the past statistical year there was a decrease in the total police population of over 300? I spoke to the Police Federation this morning and I was told that there is much concern as to whether the Government will live up to their promises.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government will definitely live up to their promises. The sum of £180 million is a 100 per cent. specific grant so it is over and above the capping rules that operate for police authorities. The money will be given over three years. We have given chief constables the freedom to choose how they spend that money. Last year 845 new constables were recruited, which is not up to the full 1,000. There is the money for the constables and some of that money went on high-tech equipment and more scientific systems for helping the police to detect crime. The money is pledged for next year and the year after and so the money for 5,000 policemen is pledged and will be honoured.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the police of this country are beloved—
Noble Lords: Oh, oh!
Lord Molloy: They are! They may not be to the party opposite, but we on this side of the House believe that our police are beloved. Noble Lords opposite can have their views and say so. Does the noble Baroness agree that their loyalty to all parties, the people and particularly to Parliament are factors of which we can
1164
be proud? Is the noble Baroness aware that we are pleased to hear that she will be examining any points which the British police submit to the Government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I carry all my colleagues with me and, indeed, the whole House when I say that we have the finest police force in the world, which is loyal to the country, to Parliament and the Queen, and long may it be so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister checks her figures very carefully before she gives them. I do not quite understand how the figures she has given square with the recent statistics of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in that the number of constables increased by only 544 between March 1995 and March 1996, which I believe is the relevant year. In the letter from the Home Secretary to Sir Michael Shersby of 30th May, he spoke about additional funding of £20 million in 1996–97. Does the noble Baroness agree that that does not appear to square with the figure of 800 police officers which the Minister gave, or indeed with the figure of £180 million for the five-year period?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we can play with statistics as much as we like, but I can say that the money for 1,000 police officers has been made available to the police. The chief constables use that money to the best effect. We now have over 16,000 more police than we had when we came to office in 1979. The chief police officers themselves are predicting that there will be over 1,600 more in this present financial year, 1996–97. If I have got the noble Lord's figure wrong for the precise size of the increase for 1995–96, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I understand the noble Baroness to be saying that chief constables may use the money as they think fit and that they need not employ extra constables if they are short of money for other equipment?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords. They will make operational decisions about where the money is best spent. They will be held to account for spending that money by the inspectorate, which will be the eyes and ears of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to make sure that the money is going towards front-line policing activities.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, although the noble Baroness tell us never to believe what we read in the newspapers, is she aware of the concern felt by many at a report in tonight's Evening Standard that there are to be substantial cuts in the resources of the Metropolitan Police in the next year? Can she comment on that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers. It is for the Commissioner of Police in London to decide how resources made available to him are best deployed.

1165
There is nothing in the budget plans for the Metropolitan Police that will cause front-line policing to suffer. The commissioner assures us that operational activity is unaffected. Indeed, I understand that the performance of the Metropolitan Police has improved and continues to do so; and with my right honourable friend's support it will continue to improve. It may well be that there is some restructuring going on in London, which is all part of the operational activity of the chief commissioner. There may well be people within the police force who are not happy about that. The budget for the Metropolitan Police this year has increased.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the fact that it is now the policy of many police forces, and in particular of the Metropolitan Police force, to seek to recruit mature entrants and that as a result of government policy mature recruits to the police service in London, with family responsibilities, now have to apply for housing benefit to be able to live? Are the Government satisfied about putting recruits to the police service in that position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, recruitment policy is a matter for the police authorities. They will recruit from across the age range. They need young people because policemen and women have to be physically fit to be able to carry out the job. Is the noble Baroness implying by her question that we pay the police so badly in this country that they require housing benefit in order to live? I think that the noble Baroness overstates her case. Is the noble Baroness advocating that the police should have more money?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help me. I have been listening to her answers and I am a little puzzled. Last year, while watching the Conservative Party Conference on television, I heard the Home Secretary claim that there would be an additional 5,000 bobbies on the beat. I said, "Hooray, that is just what people want", but now I understand from the answers given to questions that that is not quite the case and that instead of providing the bobbies on the beat, which everyone likes to see, chief constables are using that money for other purposes. Can the Minister explain that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's confusion. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister pledged the money for 5,000 more policemen. He wanted the policemen to be constables. He wanted the constables to be front-line and on the beat. That was my right honourable friend's priority. However, we have also given chief constables the freedom to deploy their budgets. We shall be looking carefully at how they deploy them, which is why I said that 845 of those 5,000 have been recruited. The chief constables have been asked how many they predict will be employed in this financial year, the first of the years in which the money is available—there will be £20 million this year, £60 million next year and £100 million in the third year—and they predict that a further
1166
1,600 policemen will be employed. They will be constables and they will be constables on the beat. The money for 5,000 policemen will be made available. We expect the police authorities as far as possible to spend that money on policemen.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, am I not to have another go? Will the noble Baroness confirm or otherwise my original statement that last year, after 17 years of Conservative rule, the total number of police decreased by 300?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, after 17 years of Conservative rule, we have 16,000 more policemen than when we came to office in 1979.

Display Screen Equipment: Sight Tests
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 are being fully observed by employers; and what steps are being taken to ensure that they are doing so.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, recent research on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive showed that there was adequate compliance with the regulations. Inspectors continue to help employers to comply with the regulations—both during their visits, and on request.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware that the Trades Union Congress recently undertook a survey into the way in which the regulations are working, from which it transpired that a number of employers were failing to comply with the regulations, particularly in the area of sight testing and in making available free sight tests? Does the Minister agree that one of the ways in which employees can make absolutely certain that these very important regulations are being complied with is to belong to a union and to ensure that their union makes it clear to their employer that the regulations must be complied with?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Baroness says that, but I do not know that I can confirm what she has said. If a person wants to join a union, he may do so, but I would not suggest that he should do so. That is a matter for him. I know that the TUC carried out a survey, as did the Health and Safety Commission. Its survey covered 1,200 employers, 660 employees and 100 union representatives. It found that over 95 per cent. of employers said that intensive users were allowed to

1167
take breaks; that 80 per cent. had made alterations to work stations; that 39 per cent. had made formal risk assessments of work stations; and that 35 per cent. had arranged eye tests, but eye tests only have to be provided on request. As a result, 1 million people have had their eyes tested. I do not think that is a bad record.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there have been any prosecutions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in the period 1993–95 six improvement notices have been served by the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain why employers have to pay for the eye tests and not the National Health Service? Are the Government secretly planning to sign up to the social chapter, which would mean that all kinds of burdens that are not normally placed on employers would be placed upon them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord lets his imagination run ahead of himself. There is no suggestion that we should sign up to the social chapter. The fact is that we were obliged to comply with this directive which was passed by qualified majority voting. It was brought into effect in regulations on 1st January 1993. We were against the directive because we thought that it was unnecessary. Employers have to provide proper work places and proper conditions for their employees. If an employee requires his eyesight testing—not because he thinks he is short-sighted, but because he thinks that his eyes have been damaged as a result of working with a screen—the employer is obliged to arrange such an eye test.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am responsible for employing several hundred people who require eye tests because they work on computers. Why does the employer and not the National Health Service have to pay for them? That places an additional burden on employers which they would expect to have only if this country had joined the Social Chapter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord should worry too much. If he has hundreds of people working for him who require lots of tests presumably he must be arranging fairly good ones. But, so the theory goes, if people feel that their eyes are being damaged as a result of the circumstances in which the noble Lord obliges them to work, it is right that the noble Lord should arrange for them to have their eyes tested to make sure that they are all right.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that in this country we no longer have free eye tests? I hope that is right because only the other day I was charged for such a test. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, is unaware of what this Government have done. Does this particular set of regulations apply to employees in your Lordships'
1168
House? Is this House meeting all of the standards set out in the regulations, whether or not they apply to the employees?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is probably in a better position to answer that question than I am. He is chairman of the Refreshment Department. I am sure that all of the people who look into his computers as well as frying pans have had their eyes properly looked after. I cannot tell your Lordships whether or not that is so in this House, but these regulations apply to all people who work for employers where visual display units are used.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Earl satisfied that Regulation 6 is being fully observed by employers? That regulation obliges employers to provide users of this equipment with adequate health and safety training.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when the inspectors visit premises they ensure that people are given proper facilities. They are obliged to make sure that the working environment is good: in other words, that the employees have chairs which are properly adjusted, that their working routine is correct, that they have breaks and that they have training for the machines and systems. They are also required to arrange eye tests. The inspectors have found that, on the whole, it has worked sufficiently well, such that only six people have had improvement notices placed upon them. Of course, when inspectors make visits, they give advice to employers where that is necessary. I have no reason to believe that the position is other than satisfactory.

Social Security Benefits: Administration
2.52 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the plans reported in The Guardian on 29th June and 18th July to transfer social security functions to the private sector are correctly reported.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on Friday three initiatives for further involvement of the private sector in delivering social security benefits. These are the administration of the child benefit centre; management partnerships in three Benefits Agency areas; and the launch of the procurement process for a new information technology strategy. These improvements to administration will not change any individual's benefit entitlement. As I announced on 28th June, we are also seeking to transfer ownership and management of the department's estate to the private sector.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as the Secretary of State so generously timed his Written Answer at 4.30 p.m. last Friday to allow us to question it today, can the Minister explain how the Secretary of State has discovered the

1169
philosopher's stone, which has eluded his predecessors for four centuries, so that it is possible for a monopoly provider to provide a public service for private profit without ripping off the consumer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suppose that the noble Earl is referring to the decision to see whether it is possible to outsource the administration of child benefit. We on this side of the House, unlike the noble Earl, believe that private enterprise has a lot going for it that state suppliers do not have. One of them is efficiency and effectiveness. We will be looking at the possibility of putting out a contract with the private sector to administer this benefit to our specification. From previous experience, we are likely to achieve savings in administration. In addition, as the IT system of child benefit requires to be updated and modernised we will have the expertise of the private sector to help us to do it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Mr. John Beckwith, chairman of the Premier Club, which offers to provide lunch with the Prime Minister for £100,000 and advises businessmen on how to break the law by not declaring these as political contributions in their accounts, is on the short list of bidders for the DSS premises? How does the Minister square that with his conscience?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. A short list will not be drawn up until after 2nd August. Mr. Beckwith and a number of other companies have expressed an interest in the project and have asked for papers. Whether or not he returns those papers or makes the short list remains to be seen. With regard to the other part of the Question posed by the noble Lord, I did not think there was anything illegal about individuals helping political parties. Perhaps the noble Lord is jealous that his own leader cannot command the kind of dinner party interest that would bring in the level of funds that has been talked about.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the magic words to be uttered in response to the original Question are perhaps "direct labour organisations"? Does my noble friend recollect that only a few years ago most noble Lords on the opposite side of the House regarded direct labour organisations as wonderful things and said that if anything was done to them the whole fabric of government would collapse? They have just moved their ground a little. In another five years they will have caught up with this initiative, too.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend reminds me of wider issues. For many years the parties opposite appeared to believe firmly in the public sector. Over the past 17 years we have privatised many companies, much to the disgust of the parties
1170
opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, still appears to believe in nationalisation and that the public sector is much better than the private sector.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, exactly why do the Government seek to privatise the administration of child benefit? It cannot be to save money, because child benefit is the cheapest of all benefits to administer. The cost of administration is now only 2p. in the pound. It is hard to believe that anyone in the private sector can emulate that. Clearly, there is a hidden agenda—perhaps it is not well hidden—for the breaking up of the Civil Service. Is this also a back-door method of closing rural post offices because they will lose important chunks of business?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am delighted by the last part of the Question put by the noble Baroness. This matter was dealt with in the press release which the noble Earl leaked to the world on Friday. Rural post offices are already in the private sector. The proposals that we have made with the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. in order to pay benefits by the plastic card method reinforce our commitment to keeping open rural post offices. Further, the administration of child benefit at Washington has absolutely nothing to do with the payment of child benefit at rural post offices. It is a pity that the noble Baroness does not recognise that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister guarantee that mothers will still be able to collect their child benefit in cash from post offices?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, what mothers will get is a card which looks very much like the one I have in my hand. That card will enable them to go along to any post office or sub-post office the length and breadth of this country and receive the child benefit to which they are entitled. I am appalled that the noble Baroness should be raising scares like this.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that one of the front-running contenders for the contract for the administration of child benefit is a company called EDS which previously ran the Child Support Agency payments and is currently before the courts in Florida for the way in which it has handled affairs over there? Can the noble Lord assure the House that those facts will be taken into consideration before any decision is made?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the announcement seeking expressions of interest was put out only on Friday. I do not have a clue who will respond to it. I can neither confirm nor deny what the noble Baroness said because no one has yet responded.

1171
It is only Monday. In any case, it seems to me that the noble Baroness, like other noble Lords opposite, is pretty conditioned to being hostile to private enterprise.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, if privatised, would those staff continue to have discounted terms at the Westminster gym?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have to admit that I would never go near a gym, Westminster or anywhere else, so I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
Earl Russell: My Lords, instead of generally philosophising about the private sector, will the Minister address the question I asked in my first supplementary about the monopoly provider? Does he recall on Second Reading of the Water Bill the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, saying that he was in favour of a private monopoly if it could be done without injuring the consumer? Has it been?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as far as concerns child benefit, what will be asked of any company which is invited to do that work will be that it pays the right benefit to the right person at the right time. We shall be monitoring that carefully. We shall lay down the standards. We will ensure, as we all do when we employ the private sector to do whatever it is, that the project is delivered at our specification and at our price.

Burma: Human Rights
3.1 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the Danish proposal for sanctions against Burma, having regard to the widely condemned human rights record of the State Law and Order Restoration Council which governs that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we do not believe that we should impose economic sanctions on Burma. Our trade with Burma is negligible and such a measure is unlikely to be effective. There is also little international support for sanctions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since this Question was put on the Order Paper has not a further request for sanctions come from Burma itself in the name of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the only really elected party in Burma, who should be in government at this time? In those circumstances is there not a moral duty on the Government at least to consider the
1172
question, irrespective of the size of present trade with Burma? In any event, does the Minister agree that no steps should be taken to increase that trade?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, we maintain close contact with all the pro-democracy groups, including Aung San Suu Kyi. Our ambassador in Burma meets her regularly. Not only is the UK/Burma trade negligible, we do not wish to see a country cut off totally, because then we do not have a critical dialogue. The DTI does not intend to provide financial support for any trade missions to Burma during the course of this year. Any future requests for such assistance will be assessed most carefully against the circumstances obtaining at that time, including the political and human rights position in Burma. I hope that it is now clear where we stand on the trade issue.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is it not a great pity that many of the ASEAN countries seem too scared to put upon Burma the pressure that they should be putting?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. He may recall that when answering a recent question on Burma I said exactly that. We shall be raising the issue of Burma this week at the ASEAN meetings which are to be held in Jakarta, because it is for the ASEANs too to use their influence with the SLORC. That is the critical way that dialogue should be pursued.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given the lack of success of critical dialogue so far with Burma, I am a little surprised by the Minister's confidence that that will have any impact in future. Will she tell the House why a DTI official was in Burma last month investigating possible business opportunities there on the very day that her right honourable friend Mr. Hanley in another place said that trade missions to Burma had been cancelled?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question, but I shall find out because I, too, wish to know. Perhaps I may underline that we are not providing any financial support for any further trade missions to Burma. That is clear. We may have received requests in the past. We cannot say for evermore that we shall not support them, but each and every one will be assessed carefully, especially against the political and human rights situation in Burma. No one wishes more than the Government to see that the rightly democratically elected government are in power in Burma. We have to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that a dialogue begins with the pro-democracy groups, in particular with Aung San Suu Kyi.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister seen the reports of the death of Mr. Nichols, the Danish honorary consul in Rangoon? Has she noted the protests which have been made not just by Denmark but by Australia, the USA and a number of other countries which have asked for a full inquiry into the circumstances of his death in custody? Will the UK join in that initiative?

1173
Will it ensure in particular that the violations of human rights which continue to be extremely serious in Burma are raised at the human rights sub-committee in Geneva next month?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, we were to the fore in getting the EU declaration sent on 5th July last which called on the SLORC to provide a full and satisfactory explanation of Mr. Nichols' death. We have not yet seen the full report. We were deeply sorry to hear of his death. He was not a fit man before he was put into prison, but the conditions there probably contributed towards an earlier death than would otherwise have occurred. I assure the noble Lord that we shall continue to make representations about detention. Although some 200 people have been released, 37 people are still detained. We shall continue to do all we can to see that they are released.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether this matter has been raised at the Security Council? If so, who raised it? In informal discussions at the Security Council what view did other countries take of the matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the matter has been discussed informally, but it has not been raised in the Security Council. I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer of who said what to whom, but I shall make further inquiries and let him know what I can tell him.

Business of the House: SSRB Recommendations
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to redeem my undertaking given last week to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and make a brief Statement about the position in regard to your Lordships' reaction to the recommendations of the SSRB. When I moved the Motion to approve the Ministerial and other Salaries Order last Tuesday, a number of your Lordships understandably raised questions about Peers' expenses. I indicated then that I was looking to hold discussions with the other leaders and Whips and with the Convenor of the Cross Benches. I indicated also that I hoped to be able to give a progress report of those discussions before the House adjourned for the Summer Recess. It is for that purpose that I crave your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon, although I hope your Lordships will understand that I cannot be too specific at this moment.
The meeting to which I referred has now taken place. I was most grateful to my opposite numbers for the constructive view that they took and the number of suggestions that they made. A number of concerns were of course raised. I have undertaken to consult further on those particular matters. In particular, I have agreed to explore, through the appropriate channels, whether it would be possible for the SSRB to look further at a
1174
number of those points. I hope therefore that your Lordships will be content to leave the matter there for the moment, on the clear understanding that in the light of progress, or indeed the lack of it, I should be able to report further to the House in due course.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say on behalf of this side of the House that we are grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for making that Statement. He is accurate. The meeting did take place. I am glad that he thought that it was helpful. I thought that it was helpful. I hope that he came out of it feeling that his elbow had been strengthened. I hope that he will now continue to use his elbow in the direction that the people who took part in that meeting obviously thought that it should be used. Having said that, I wish him joy!

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (123) as first printed by the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Schedule 4, page 29, line 3, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 60, paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proviso to subsection (4).'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. Since all the amendments are of a similar technical nature, I believe that it would be appropriate to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
All of the amendments concern purely consequential repeals. Amendment No. 1 provides for the repeal of provisions in Section 60(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 which require fewer words in the deed creating an entailed interest than was the case before 1925. Since it will no longer be possible to create entailed interests in future, these provisions will become superfluous and the amendment removes them in order to avoid confusion. Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 are necessary to ensure the repeal of certain provisions in other legislation which operate by reference to trusts for sale and the doctrine of conversion and which will accordingly become obsolete as a result of the conversion of trusts for sale into trusts of land and the abolition of the doctrine of conversion by this Bill. They are necessary because the provisions which they affect are either contained in or provided for by the Housing Bill and Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, both of which will, as regards the relevant provisions, be in force before the

1175
trusts of land reforms. Had the order of commencement turned out to be the other way around, it would have been the other Bills which required amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Schedule 4, page 33, leave out lines 19 to 22.
3 Page 33, line 37, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 93A(4)—the words ", or by that section as applied by section 28 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to trusts for sale", the words ", or by that section as so applied,", and the words "or by trustees for sale".'.

4 Page 33, line 54, at end insert—

'1996 c. 00.

The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

Section 55(4)(b). Section 73(3)(b). In section 98(2)(a), the words "or to the proceeds of sale of the dwelling".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Damages Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (148) as first printed by the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 5, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
'(8) Where—

(a) an agreement is made settling a claim or action for damages for personal injury on terms whereby the damages are to consist wholly or partly of periodical payments;

(b) the person against whom the claim or action is brought (or, if he is insured against the claim, his insurer) purchases one or more annuities; and

1176

(c) a subsequent agreement is made under which the annuity is, or the annuities are, assigned in favour of the person entitled to the payments (so as to secure that from a future date he receives the payments as the annuitant under the annuity or annuities),

then, for the purposes of section 4 above, the agreement settling the claim or action shall be treated as a structured settlement and any such annuity assigned in favour of that person shall be treated as an annuity purchased for him pursuant to the settlement.
(9) Subsections (2) to (7) above shall apply to an agreement to which subsection (8) above applies as they apply to a structured settlement as defined in subsection (1) above (the reference in subsection (6) to subsection (1)(b) being read as a reference to subsection (8)(b)).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
This is a technical amendment to ensure that the enhanced policyholders protection conferred by Clause 4 will apply regardless of when the person entitled to the payments becomes policyholder of the annuity which is central to the structured settlement. It was moved in the other place when it became apparent that Clauses 4 and 5 might not be effective when that person became the policyholder by assignment after the structured settlement was first set up.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 8, page 5, leave out lines 25 to 28.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, which is a privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deer (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS AND AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (51) as first printed by the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 3, page 3, line 33, after ("under") insert ("Part II of the 1971 Act (appeals: general) or")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu—
6A 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'.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6A in lieu thereof.
When a third country certificate is issued an applicant will, of course, have an appeal under Clause 3 of the Bill against the Secretary of State's third country certificate. In certain limited cases he might also seek to appeal on non-asylum grounds and we need to ensure that third country removals should not be delayed by unrelated appeals. Previously, the Bill provided that in third country cases an applicant could not bring an asylum appeal under Section 8 of the 1993 Act unless or until the third country certificate had been set aside by a special adjudicator.
The Government brought forward, and this House adopted, amendments which adjusted the Bill slightly to provide that an applicant could not bring either an asylum appeal under Section 8 of the 1993 Act or a non-asylum appeal under the 1971 Act unless or until the third country certificate had been set aside by a special adjudicator. However, it became apparent that Amendment No. 6 could be construed as preventing a person who has been removed under a third country certificate ever exercising an immigration right of appeal in the United Kingdom again. For instance, an asylum applicant who was removed to a third country might some years later obtain an entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as a student. If the student was refused entry on arrival he would not be entitled to an appeal against that decision because the third country certificate had never been overturned.
It is arguable that Amendment No. 6 could not be construed as having such an extreme result, but we wish to make absolutely sure that the provision cannot be misinterpreted. We are, of course, seeking only to prevent applicants lodging non-asylum appeals against decisions made prior to removal which would have the effect of delaying or preventing removal. Therefore, the Government brought forward Amendment No. 6A in another place to make it clear that we are not removing immigration appeal rights for ever from applicants who are removed to a third country.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 8, page 6, line 2, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (2A) and (3)")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
9A Because it does not address such problems as may be faced by domestic workers from overseas.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 9A.
The effect of Amendment No. 9, which together with Amendment No. 11 was successfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would have been to exclude from the provisions of Clause 8 those employers who employed an overseas domestic worker in respect of whom a police officer, doctor or solicitor had certified that he or she had suffered substantial physical abuse or serious economic exploitation arising from what was described as "previous bonded employment". In practice, that would have meant that the second and any subsequent employer of a domestic worker who fell into that category could not commit the offence of employing someone not entitled to work here, yet the domestic workers themselves would still not be entitled to take the employment in question and they would either be working in breach of their immigration conditions or they would be overstayers.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is a vigorous and respected campaigner on behalf of those domestic workers who are abused by their employers. I wish to put on record my admiration for the way in which he has doughtily supported the cause of those people, many of them very young.
However, the amendments would have done little to minimise the risk of abuse occurring in the first place, whether by the first or any subsequent employer. The amendments and the debates which were stimulated in your Lordships' House and in another place have served to highlight the plight of those who are abused. But the Government's view is that it is quite properly a matter to be dealt with by our criminal and employment laws, under which domestic workers, in common with all other employees, have full protection while they are in this country.
The right way to minimise the risk of abuse occurring in the first place is to sift out those cases where the arrangements fall short of the criteria which have been established for entry clearance in this capacity before they even come here. The Government have said, and I repeat it, that we will gladly consider any suggestions for further refinements to these pre-entry arrangements which might help to weed out unsatisfactory cases.

1179
The Commons disagreed to these amendments because they did not address such problems as may be faced by domestic workers from overseas. I hope that in view of what I have said the House will take a similar view.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 9A.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 8, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("(2A) Nothing in this section applies to an employee who was employed as a domestic worker and in respect of whom a police officer, doctor or solicitor has certified that he has previously suffered substantial physical abuse or deprivation, or serious economic exploitation, arising from previous bonded employment.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
11A Because it does not address such problems as may be faced by domestic workers from overseas.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 11A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 11A.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
24 After Clause 10, 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

(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,
1180
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.").

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
24A Line 3, after 'exclude' insert 'any person who has made a claim for asylum'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24A to Lords Amendment No. 24. At the same time, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 24B, 24C, 28 and 28A and 28B.
We have discussed on a number of occasions the issue of benefits paid to asylum seekers and, in particular, the considerable and increasing numbers who are paid benefit and who turn out not to be genuine asylum seekers and not entitled to any money from the taxpayer. The Government remain convinced that it is right to clamp down on this abuse. We are also convinced that we should continue to oppose any weakening of the policy.

1181
The policy was first announced in October last year. It was subject to a full public consultation through the Social Security Advisory Committee. It formed part of the social security uprating Statement given on 29th November to this House by me and to another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Draft regulations embodying the policy were debated and agreed in this House and in the other place in January. The regulations were discussed in the other place on 23rd January and accepted by a clear majority of 279 to 264 votes.
Here in your Lordships' House there was a full and wide-ranging discussion on 30th January, and the House voted by majorities of 43 and 49 not to accept resolutions calling on the Government to consider alternative means to support asylum seekers.
The policy came into effect on 5th February and ran until the Court of Appeal decided on 21st June in a majority decision that these changes could only be introduced by primary and not by secondary legislation. In order to obey the judgment of the court, I announced to your Lordships' House on 24th June that I would introduce a new clause and schedule to the Asylum and Immigration Bill in order to place the policy in primary legislation. The party opposite divided the House on a procedural vote which the Government won by 135 to 100 votes. At the same time my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lilley, made a Statement to the other place which was subject to the scrutiny and question that such Statements receive.
On recommitment and on Third Reading your Lordships discussed and voted on a number of amendments but agreed the main thrust of our policy. However, an amendment was carried by three votes which gave those who did not claim asylum on arrival three days to make an in-country application. It also provided for benefit entitlement right up until the end not only of the Home Office decision-making process but also to the end of any subsequent appeal, no matter how long and drawn out it was.
Last Monday the other place voted on your Lordships' amendment and rejected it by a majority of 21. There is no argument in favour of giving them a further opportunity to reconsider. Your Lordships will, I am sure, wish to reflect in the light of all the consideration and reconsideration already given to the issue whether this House wishes to continue to dispute this issue with the elected Chamber.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships why we felt it necessary to restrict benefits in February, and why we felt it necessary, as a result of the Court of Appeal's decision, to incorporate the new clause and the new schedule into the Bill. Over the past two years claims across the main western European countries, have nearly halved—I repeat, nearly halved—but, here in this country, they have doubled. Ten years ago, as I have told your Lordships on a number of occasions, claims in the UK were running at a level of 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000; in the past two years they have been running at a level of 42,000 and 56,000 respectively. That is quite out of line with trends in the rest of Europe.
1182
Over the same period, the proportion of those actually succeeding in their application fell from 21 per cent. to 5 per cent. Moreover, in 1995, as noble Lords will recall because I have said it many times before, out of every 100 applications for asylum considered, only seven were accepted as genuine refugees, either at the initial decision stage or on appeal. Indeed, 93 were found not to be refugees under the Geneva Convention. Some 16 of those 100 applicants (almost all of them from Bosnia, Somalia or Afghanistan) were granted exceptional leave to remain. That means that the vast majority of those who apply for asylum are not fleeing persecution but seeking to improve their economic circumstances.
Although there has been broad agreement, with some exceptions, that we have a problem here, the only solution that I have been offered by noble Lords who oppose the measures brought forward by the Government is that we should put more resources into the process of dealing with asylum applications in order to speed up the clearance times. However, we have already done that; indeed, we have taken a range of steps to speed up the asylum process. We are investing £37 million over three years in more caseworkers and adjudicators, and asylum staff are up eightfold since 1988. Those steps have produced results; for example, the number of decisions rose by 21,000 in 1994 to 27,000 in 1995, and we are on course to take over 37,000 decisions in the current financial year.
However, the simple fact of the matter is that, until the February regulations were introduced, any improvements in the asylum process were quickly swamped by the ever-growing tide of asylum applications that I have mentioned.
The February regulations removed benefits from three groups of asylum seekers: first, those who enter illegally or overstay their leave to remain, and apply for asylum; secondly, those who enter the country claiming to be business people, tourists or students giving assurances that they have the means to support themselves and that they will not rely on the British taxpayer but who later change their minds and claim asylum; and, thirdly, those who have already been found by the Home Office not to be refugees and who are appealing.
Our intention was to remove the incentive for economic migrants to come to our country and abuse our asylum system. As I explained three weeks ago to your Lordships, the policy has worked. Noble Lords may recall that, at the time, I was asked what had happened since February. I then explained the comparison between last year and this year, month by month. When comparing January 1995 with January 1996, we saw a 7 per cent. decline in the numbers. In February we saw a 6 per cent. decline and in March we saw a 5 per cent. reduction. However, in April we saw a 27 per cent. decline and, as your Lordships will recall, the figures that I had on the last occasion when we dealt with this matter were those for May which showed a decline of 49.16 per cent.—that is, 3,450 applications in May 1995, compared with 1,754 in May 1996. I can tell your Lordships today that the June figures follow exactly the same pattern; namely, 3,630 for June 1995 compared with 1,730 for June 1996, making a fall of 52 per cent.

1183
Why have those figures fallen so dramatically? The only possible reason is the one that I have claimed all along. Very many asylum applications are in reality benefit applications: nothing more, nothing less. It is access to our benefit system which drives them and not a genuine fear of persecution. The genuine asylum seeker comes here not to get benefits but for safety and protection from persecution. It is not the genuine refugee who responds to economic incentives; it is the economic migrant masquerading as an asylum seeker who responds to such incentives.
The three-day amendment which your Lordships passed and which the Commons have overturned would reward those who entered this country claiming to be coming here on business, for a visit, on holiday, or to study. One, two or three days after giving an assurance that, while here, they would have no recourse to public funds, they would be able to change their story and gain immediate access to our benefits system and to the very public funds that they said they did not require.
The argument in favour of three days is that people are so frightened when they arrive at immigration that they do not tell the truth. They therefore require three days to calm down and make contact with friends and advisers who will help them claim for asylum.
That is the point made by Mr. John McCarthy in a letter which I and a number of your Lordships received at the weekend. But it is a misunderstanding of what the amendment is about. The amendment is about benefit claims, not claims for asylum. The idea that asylum seekers have to address the complex application procedure and reveal the full details of their circumstances on arrival is, quite simply, false. All they need to do is to say that they want to claim asylum. It is wrong to suggest, as John McCarthy does in his letter, that they will not have the opportunity to put their case later. I can assure your Lordships that they will be able to discuss their case after seeking the support and advice of friends or support agencies.
I have also checked the statistics. Your Lordships will recall that in 1995 out of every 100 applicants, only five were accepted by the Home Office as fulfilling the requirements for asylum. Moreover, the figure does not rise, as your Lordships might expect if the three day argument was sustainable, but actually falls to 3.5 in 100. Therefore, the number of bogus asylum seekers in the three day sub-set is actually greater than the total population of genuine asylum seekers.
As I have assured your Lordships on many occasions in the past, there is nothing—absolutely nothing—to stop, inhibit or frighten anyone who is asking for asylum the moment that they arrive on these shores.
So why do they delay? One reason is the influence of agents—particularly the racketeers of the asylum industry who advise that it is best to claim in-country. This is because those who claim in-country are much more difficult to remove at the end of the asylum process than are those who claim on arrival. Those who seek to abuse the asylum process as a means of prolonging their stay in the UK clearly have an incentive to delay their claim until they are already in this country.
1184
Genuine refugees need no such incentive. They come to this country purely to seek asylum and can reasonably be expected to do so on their arrival here.
Your Lordships' House has considered this issue on six different occasions including today. The other place has considered the issue on four different occasions. There is neither the need nor the justification for your Lordships to take the highly unusual step of sending another amendment back to the other place. I commend the acceptance of the Commons' clearly arrived at decision not to accept your Lordships' three day amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24A to Lords Amendment No. 24.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 24B TO LORDS AMENDMENT No. 24, AS AMENDED
24B Leave out lines 10 and 11.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24B to Lords Amendment No. 24.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24B to Lords Amendment No. 24.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 24B
24BA At end insert ("and insert—
"(1A) An asylum seeker (as defined in regulations) who—

(a) makes a claim for asylum within three working days of the day of his arrival in the United Kingdom; and

(b) is able to satisfy the Secretary of State as to the date of his arrival in the United Kingdom,

shall for all purposes be treated as if he had made a claim for asylum immediately upon his arrival in the United Kingdom."").
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 24B, Amendment No. 24BA. The Minister, in addressing the first amendment in this group of amendments, told your Lordships that the matter has been before this House six times and before the House of Commons four times. That is stretching it a bit. The House will recall that the Government's intention to implement these changes by order was ruled to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal between the Report stage and Third Reading in this House, the Bill having already passed through all its stages in the House of Commons. Therefore, in order to make lawful what had been declared unlawful, the Government were obliged to bring amendments to the Bill in the form of a new clause, at Third Reading—in other words, at the last stage in the second Chamber.
Under pressure—and it was only under pressure—they agreed to a recommitment of this part of the Bill so that the matter could be discussed with rather more freedom than was possible at Third Reading. Under pressure—and only under pressure—they agreed that the Third Reading should not take place on the same

1185
day as the Committee on recommitment. Therefore, as far as the Government are concerned, these precise measures have been debated only once in your Lordships' House, and the Opposition succeeded in achieving a little more—a very modest amount more—flexibility. Of course, earlier versions of the regulations had been debated before by the House of Commons but these amendments were considered only once—on Monday last—on a consideration of a Lords amendment.
This is a revising chamber. In the classical expression of the duties of a revising chamber, it is the responsibility of this House to ask another place to think again. That is exactly what is proposed in the amendment before your Lordships today. The House of Commons has had only one opportunity to consider this matter. I seek to show—and believe I can show—that the basis of that debate was considerably mistaken and that a much better debate on the amendment which is now before the House can take place.
It is entirely proper—without in any way challenging the primary right of the elected Chamber to have its way in the end—to say to the House of Commons that on this occasion it is possible to do better, either than we did in our first amendments or than it did when it considered the matter for the first time on 15th July.
The whole basis upon which the Government are approaching this matter is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that there is something more genuine about an asylum application at the port of entry rather than a subsequent application. We all know that there will be—as the Government persist in calling them—bogus applications. At any time there will be people who will seek economic rather than political asylum, but that can happen whether at the port of entry or later.
But the evidence of the success of applications for asylum goes, if anything, in the other direction. In the first four months of this year there were 775 successful applications for asylum, of which 610 were in-country applications—in other words, after the time of entry—and only 165 were made at the port of entry. It may be said that the first four months of this year were not typical, but in every single one of the past four years the proportion of in-country applicants who, in the end, are granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain is higher than the comparable proportion of applications at the port of entry.
It must be abundantly clear from the evidence that a comparison between in-country applications and port of entry applications does not in any way form a distinction between genuine and bogus applications.
What the Government are doing, at the very best, is a crude attempt to cut down on the number of applications by starving people out—that is what it comes to—without regard to the justice of those applications and without regard to the likelihood of them succeeding. The Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Lilley, was of course addressing a rather different amendment when he made his speech to the House of Commons last Monday. It is nevertheless necessary to
1186
consider in detail the arguments that he put and to consider the way in which they are answered by the amendment before your Lordships today.
The first point he made concerned illegal immigrants. He went on about illegal immigrants. In common parlance everyone knows what illegal immigrants are. Illegal immigrants are people who come in in small boats off the coast of Dorset, or in containers. The term used in immigration law is nothing to do with illegal immigrants; it is illegal entrants. The Secretary of State appears to mean people who say something different when they arrive to what they said before, or say subsequently.
The vast majority of people who reach this country at all—whether or not they tell the truth about being asylum applicants when they arrive here—have had to do something in order to reach our shores in the first place. They have had to tell lies to someone to get out of their countries and to obtain a visa for this country which gets them onto a plane or a ship and into the tender hands of our immigration officials at the port of entry. However, the Secretary of State seems to think there is something magical about the words "illegal immigrants" which applies only to those people who arrive in this country and do not immediately declare themselves to be asylum seekers. He also made the point—which was valid for the previous amendment—that there is no secure way of telling whether someone has arrived in this country within the relevant past three days. I acknowledge that point. It could have been amended by a further amendment in the House of Commons. It has been corrected by our amendment which requires that the asylum seeker,
"is able to satisfy the Secretary of State as to the date of his arrival in the United Kingdom".
He could do that by means of a passport stamp, a travel document or other means, but it is the Secretary of State who has to be satisfied. The onus is entirely on the asylum seeker. If it is argued that there might be an appeal to the social security appeals tribunal—although I notice the Minister did not make that point—the appeal can only be made on a matter of fact. I remind the House that benefit is not payable while that appeal is awaiting decision.
The second point the Secretary of State made was that somehow the availability of immigration law appeal rights would stop the Government from returning an applicant to a safe third country. The amendment deals with that point by stating that the asylum seeker,
"shall for all purposes be treated as if he had made a claim for asylum immediately upon his arrival".
In other words, he has no rights other than asylum rights. He certainly has no rights beyond those of any port of entry asylum seeker. It has been confirmed by learned counsel that this means that a claimant who takes advantage of this amendment could indeed be returned to a safe third country. The only right gained under this amendment is the right to benefit. That right to benefit is, of course, means tested. I shall return to that matter.
Mr. Lilley also said that the Government are not allowed to discriminate against illegal immigrants under the terms of the Geneva Convention. That is indeed the

1187
case. I remind the House that the Geneva Convention states specifically that unorthodox or even illegal means of exit or entry should not debar an applicant from the right to apply for asylum, or indeed to be given asylum. There is no distinction at all as regards discrimination against illegal immigrants or illegal applicants in the amendment as drafted.
Mr. Lilley made a point of referring to the availability of benefit throughout the appeal process as well as regarding the original application. Our amendment removed the discretion for the Government to apply regulations to make sure that that was not the case. It was never our intention that benefit should be paid throughout an appeal process. As Ministers made clear in response to a later amendment, that would have been an open invitation to everyone to appeal. Therefore the amendment before the House today describes an asylum seeker "as defined in regulations". In other words, it returns to the Secretary of State and the Government the power to insist that those who appeal against an adverse decision are not therefore entitled to benefit.
The Secretary of State—and the Minister today—talked about the means of support which an applicant may claim to have when he comes to this country and subsequently makes an asylum application. I remind the House that these benefits are means tested. Mr. Lilley confirmed that to the House of Commons last Monday. If the applicant has convinced immigration officials that he has adequate means of support, he will not obtain benefit when he comes to this country. If that is not the case, the investigation carried out by immigration officials at the port of entry is not detailed enough and is based on inadequate evidence. The benefit is based entirely on a means test and those who have means of support—and can show they have means of support—will not get benefit. Every single argument that the Government have put against our previous amendments is either not true or has been answered in the amendment which is before your Lordships today.
The Minister may point to the cost of these amendments. The figure has varied a great deal. It started at £80 million a year on the basis that it would include benefit while a rejected applicant was appealing. Therefore we can take off at least half of that and we are down to £40 million a year. We should consider the fact that only 5 per cent. of in-country applications are made within the first three days. I acknowledge that the number of applications made in the first three days would increase if this amendment were carried but we are still talking about a small proportion of the total number of applications. It may emerge on proper investigation that the figure would be £10 million a year. I think that is probably a high figure. I say without fear even of the spin doctors in Conservative Central Office when they come to write their election manifestos that if it costs £10 million a year for us to be a civilised society and to prevent people in our country living in destitution when they have done no wrong and have committed no crime, that is a price worth paying. It is up to the Government to make sure that the cost is as low as possible. It is up to us as civilised people to make sure that there are not destitute people in our society.
1188
Moved, That Amendment No. 24BA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 24B, be agreed to.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I make no apology to the House for returning to this subject. The Minister has pointed out that it is an issue which we have discussed on a number of occasions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, emphasised, the specific amendment we are now considering has not been considered frequently in this House. Indeed it has been considered on only one previous occasion and in a somewhat different form.
I therefore make no apology for returning to this subject even though I recognise that the House has spent a great deal of time on it. I can think of few Bills with which I have been associated—either in this House or another place—where there has been such a wide sense of concern and disquiet and a real effort made to try to modify its terms. The opposition to the Bill goes far beyond the traditional parties who undertake that role. The opposition—the attempt to alter the Bill—includes almost all the Churches, large numbers of non-governmental organisations, large numbers of people directly concerned with the welfare of refugees and large numbers of members of the party opposite in both Houses of Parliament. This is not simply a normal party argument. It has elicited, I believe much to the credit of this country, a large degree of anxiety and concern. All the argument has in effect boiled down to the one amendment that we are considering this afternoon. I shall make my remarks brief but I hope to the point, supplementing what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
First, those moving the amendment have attempted to meet the objections raised in another place by the Secretary of State for Social Security. The objections were, first, that there was no way of guaranteeing that we would know within three days that an asylum seeker had entered this country. We believe that we have met that argument by laying the burden of proof on the person seeking asylum. It will be up to him or her to show when he or she entered the country. If he is unable to do so, this amendment will not benefit him.
Secondly, it has been argued in another place that a further difficulty arose from the original amendment; namely, that those who made in-country applications would obtain a degree of additional protection which they would not receive if they applied at the port of entry. That has been dealt with precisely in the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, we have had the powerful advice of learned counsel that the amendment meets that difficulty.
When objecting to the amendment in another place, the Secretary of State for Social Security made two substantial arguments: first, that to distinguish between what he described as illegal immigrants and those whom we attempt to protect in the amendment would be contrary to the Geneva Convention of 1951. This very

1189
morning we have had a fax directly from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees giving its opinion that there is no such conflict.
The second objection related to the difficulty of people arriving at an airport not making an application at the airport or port of entry because they did not understand the specific procedures of this country. The simple case is that asylum seekers from countries with a long history of torture and of fighting against the human rights of their citizens are the least likely to have any idea about the procedures of this country. How are they supposed to learn what those procedures are? How are they supposed to read Hansard of the House of Commons of 15th July, since in most cases they do not even speak our language?
A question was raised in another place by the honourable Member for Finchley (at col. 850 of the Official Report) in the debate of 15th July 1996. The Member for Finchley asked how people who arrive in this country in a state of fear and trauma understand that they have to claim asylum at the airport. In responding to that simple and direct question, the Secretary of State for Social Security referred only—I repeat "only"—to the difficulties that might arise if an airport or a port of entry had no interpreter able to interpret the language of the person seeking asylum. He did not address the issue raised by the honourable Member for Finchley.
I hope that we may receive an assurance from the Government that notices will be put up in airports in the main languages of people seeking asylum—those include the tribal language of Rwanda and Burundi—telling them that they must make application immediately if they wish to have their case considered. I have seen no such notice in Heathrow and I do not believe such notices are available generally. As regards the first problem—of how the genuine asylum seeker is to be able to satisfy the rules now laid down—I suggest that we have had no satisfactory reply.
The distinction frequently made by Ministers between those who apply in-country and those who apply at the port of entry has been dealt with in part by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He pointed out that out of 775 successful asylum seekers in the first four months of this year, no fewer than 615 made their claims from inside this country. The reason is plain. Most asylum seekers not knowing our procedures turn to a Church, a voluntary organisation or other members of their community for advice. To do so is the simplest thing in the world. But how do they seek that advice until they are able to get hold of a telephone in this country or an address? On common sense grounds, it is unreasonable not to give some time for people to be able to approach those organisations which can help them. We on this side of the House have continually insisted that we are only too happy to help in any way we can where there is reason to believe that there are improper or fraudulent organisations operating in this field, as indeed there are. There are also many outstanding and decent bodies.
Let me give a couple of examples of the kind of people who apply within three days but not at the port of entry. The examples are drawn from a refugee legal centre—a thoroughly resectable body which has public
1190
finance to assist it. One is an Angolan youngster under the age of 18 who applied two days after arriving in this country for the straightforward reason that he did not know what to do. The adjudicator found that it was wholly reasonable for a young person to seek advice before making an application and upheld his case.
The second example was a badly tortured Iranian. He had had his legs broken in torture in Iran for the reprehensible crime of supporting democracy in that country. In prison he had his crutches taken away from him so that he had to crawl everywhere. Having finally reached this country, after advice he made an application within three days.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. Can she tell the House what the young man told the immigration officers as he entered this country?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will know. He may have details of the case that I do not have. He shakes his head happily. I also know that the decision finally was made in the young man's favour.
Perhaps I may continue with the arguments that I wish to put before the House. A further argument is that in some countries there is nowhere to apply for papers to enter this country. For example, for many months there was no British Embassy in Bosnia—yet Bosnia was one of the countries most afflicted by refugees seeking in some cases to flee from genocide.
Finally, I turn to one other issue which is extremely disturbing. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on it. We understand that on 4th June 1996 a draft resolution was put forward by the steering committee of senior officials which serves the so-called K4 Committee of the third pillar—the pillar concerned with internal security. I remind the House that this is not within the European Union structure. It does not involve the European Commission. It is the intergovernmental structure on which the British Government insisted at the Maastricht discussions and under the Treaty of the European Union was protected as an intergovernmental structure within which individual governments were free to exercise a veto. It is not a European Community structure. That draft resolution, promulgated on 4th June, called upon all countries involved to ensure that full information was available at ports of entry and that a co-ordinator was appointed to concern himself or herself with procedures for asylum. The draft resolution indicated that there ought to be adequate maintenance—and I emphasise the phrase—for those seeking asylum status when they reach the country concerned. It also indicated that there should be information in all the most probable languages available to refugees.
That was a draft resolution, not a final resolution. To the best of my knowledge it has never been mentioned to either House in the course of our debates. It might conceivably have influenced our view, especially on the claim that Britain is in some sense a peculiarly soft touch, since it affected all the other countries of the European Union as well as ourselves. The resolution has never been part of the discussions in which we have

1191
been able to take part. In my view, in democratic terms it is disturbing that both this House and another place should not have been aware of that draft resolution. Our Government were clearly participants, as a member of the steering committee of senior officials.
The amendment is the end of a long process of attempting to make the Bill more humane and compassionate. We believe that it richly deserves your Lordships' support, not only for the arguments behind it but also because noble Lords have repeatedly attempted to amend the Bill and draw the attention of another place to those attempts. The amendment should be supported not least because of the tremendous breadth of support far beyond this House for an attempt to qualify the more brutal and sharp-edged elements of the Bill. I support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister has an answer to the two well argued speeches to which your Lordships have just listened. It seems to me that both the noble Lord opposite and the noble Baroness made a strong case for the amendment, although naturally I, and no doubt, many others will have to reserve a decision as to how we vote, if there is a Division, until we have heard my noble friend's answer. I warn him, however, that he has a strong case to answer. I wish him well.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, in the absence of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Runcie—I am sorry, I see that he is here, and I shall therefore re-phrase the remark, as the last claim I would ever make is to be able to replace or represent him. In the presence of the noble and right reverend Lord, I wish to say that it was thanks to the enormous kindness of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Third Reading of the Bill in this House, that I had an opportunity to give my general reflections more extensively in favour of the spirit of the amendment and of the Bill in general. Therefore, I can content myself with a few brief remarks.
Having either listened to the entire debates in both Houses or having read them in Hansard, I am deeply impressed at the degree of agreement between the two sides on the general thrust of the Bill. Both sides wish to favour the admission of genuine asylum seekers; both sides wish to exclude frauds. On that, there is a remarkable measure of agreement from all sides. The only remaining argument concerns the three days of grace—whether to have the cut-off at the moment of entry or three days later.
Surely, on a matter of such relatively limited consequence it is not worthwhile spoiling the national reputation that we have in this country for humanitarian attitudes. I fear that if the amendment is voted down, that is precisely the message we will send to the world; quite unnecessarily, because there is little difference of substance involved. It may be that the reason some people are so concerned or even disturbed over the policies favoured by the amendment is that we, as a nation, have never in our lifetime faced the need to be political refugees. Therefore, we do not know what it feels like. We should consider that large parts of the
1192
world today are, alas, deeply afflicted; a few people, by chance, reach our shores and seek the normal courtesies of a welcome. Just in case they are genuine refugees, surely we should not wish to deny them the benefit of the doubt for three days. Therefore, I appeal to the Government not to allow the matter further to divide us and harm the reputation of our country throughout the world. I appeal to them to support the amendment, considerably modified as it now is, and allow it to pass without further Division in the House.
Lord Runcie: My Lords, I do not wish to remain silent since I might otherwise be suspected of being a bogus amendment supporter. Since attention has been drawn to my presence, I wish to state that the point made by those proposing the amendment seems so precisely drawn that I would not wish to enter again into general arguments which I agree have been thoroughly rehearsed in this House. The Secretary of State in another place made some good points rejecting certain arguments that we advanced. However, he said quite precisely that if he had had more time and if the request for the benefit of three days had been more precisely drawn, he might have allowed it.
I believe that those who framed this amendment have met the reservations which the Secretary of State advanced. We have now drawn it very precisely in regard to meeting his arguments. Those who are closest to the suffering and the serious problems of a small but significant number of people are gravely disturbed. I mean Church groups, local community groups, voluntary societies and ethnic groups who know that there is a real problem. It has not been thoroughly tackled by the argument that if we clear away the bogus applications, the others will all receive fair treatment. There remains a problem which is not answered by the statement—which is reasonable and which I personally accept—that much of the help will be made easier to provide if bogus asylum seekers are dealt with firmly. But there remains a group of people that could be attended to by passing this amendment. It is up to us to treat the case on its merits, and treat the amendment on its merits. I ask the Government to think again.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to support this amendment. I say to them and to my colleagues on these Back Benches that I do not use this amendment as a back door through which to attack the whole principle of the Bill; nor, so far as I know, do other noble Lords who support it. I accept strongly and completely that the trends of asylum seeking in recent years have been such that any government would have felt compelled to take strong measures to bring it to order. I regret that that is so, but I believe it is. I wish that it were not necessary; but it is necessary. It is necessary to switch from our previous principle to the principle of saying that asylum seekers must declare themselves to immigration officers at the moment of entry, or almost at that moment. The point under debate is: "almost at that moment".

1193
With respect, it is all very well for those of us who are sitting reasonably comfortably in this House to imagine that people can simply arrive, go to an immigration officer and say that they do or do not want to seek asylum. None of us would have any trouble.
I wonder, however, how many of us have been at the point of entry. I must confess that for some 22 or 23 years I have not. Things may have changed a lot in that time. However, when I was Home Secretary, on more than one occasion I deliberately visited our ports of entry when I received information that a large number of immigrants were due to arrive, to see what it was like. I do not for one moment criticise the actions and intentions of our immigration officers. At that time I was merely extremely glad that I was not one of them. You see those large numbers descending upon you. Some of them no doubt deliberately wish to take you in; but many are pretty helpless and incapable of explaining what they want, even in the simplest terms. All our human instincts tell us that we owe it to them to say that they ought to do it at the point of entry or almost at the point of entry. If this amendment referred to a period of three months, or even three weeks, I should not support it. But I believe we can tolerate three days.
I was disappointed when the Government and the other place decided not to accept your Lordships' amendment, which I supported a week or two ago. I accept that one or two potential loopholes in it were pointed out which I had not perceived at the time. However, the amendment as now drafted blocks those up. If my noble friends on the Front Bench say that it does not block them up and in some way they should be blocked up, all well and good. But I believe that we owe it to our own reputation to give a maximum of three days, with the added safeguards, including this amendment. I for one could not do anything but vote for it, although I hope that it will not come to a vote.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am conscious that I have sat through much of this debate without taking part in it. I have not spoken before. However, this is a rather special issue. I apologise for doing what I would not normally do and joining in at this point in the debate.
It is a tragic fact that for the vast majority of people in the world the lowest levels of social security in this country would be bliss. I think we are all agreed on that. Everybody on all sides accepts that there have to be controls. The only argument is an extraordinarily narrow one. It fascinates me, and it has been mentioned by several speakers. What we are discussing is whether we should give people this very small period of three days to sort themselves out, get over their confusion and declare themselves as seeking asylum.
The problem is not the failure to seek asylum. At every airport in the world you have to say why you are coming. It is not just a matter of stating that you are here on business—because the next questions, if you are a six-foot Aryan looking perfectly respectable, are: "What sort of business? How long do you propose to stay? Do you have a return air ticket?".
1194
The alternative is to lie. I do not say that in a pejorative sense. I understand someone lying if he sees the possibility of a different life for himself and, later, for his family if he can introduce them. I should do so myself in that situation. But the fact is that that person would have to lie consistently over a number of areas.
I cannot believe that a person seeking asylum in a foreign country, where he has never lived before and where he will have to spend a great deal of money, does not have some idea of which country he is going to. I find it difficult to believe that in most cases such a person does not have some idea, from his associates for example, of the sort of questions that will be asked. He must have thought of nothing else on the aircraft or the ship but what he is going to say. Rightly or wrongly, when he arrives he has the choice of saying, "I seek asylum", or, "I am a student; a businessman; I am joining somebody or other; yes, I do have money; I won't be a charge on the state", and a whole pile of things which he knows perfectly well are not true.
What then happens if he goes away and is given three days to apply? I repeat that I do not criticise the man for doing that in the situation from which he no doubt comes and for the reasons he seeks to come to this country. But what does he do then? He does not book into a local hotel and leave his address; he goes underground.
A case can be made for saying that the method of entry into the country should be easier. That can be argued indefinitely. It can certainly be argued that more should be done: notices should put up; more people should be available; and a number of other measures should be taken. I find myself unable to accept with any degree of logic that it makes any sense to have controls and then to allow people who have demonstrably lied in order to get round those controls, albeit for the best of reasons, to have a three-day start on the authorities. It is something I do not understand. For me, it stretches credibility too far.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, the question is whether we intend to ask another place to think again. That entitlement is very rarely used. This is a particularly sensitive time. The party opposite has certain proposals that will affect the ethos and independence of this House, and there are constitutional consequences which urge a degree of caution.
I am grateful to see the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his place. I wish to refer to his letter in The Times today. The noble Earl says that to accede to this amendment and to ask another place to think again would be a mere exercise of executive control. It would be far more than that. Let us face it; in effect we should be running the gauntlet of confrontation with another place which has, in substance, already considered this argument and expressed its will.
Lord Renton: By a big majority.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That does not matter, my Lords. It has expressed its will. The other place has expressed its will—at a sensitive time, in view of the

1195
policies of, I hesitate to say, destruction of your Lordships' House. This is a sensitive time when we should walk with care and caution.
The name of the game this afternoon is not ping-pong. It is much more akin to Russian roulette. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seems to ignore all the sensitive constitutional considerations which must be taken into account in this matter. There is a paradox here. Perhaps, if I may say so without offence, it is an apparently somewhat cynical paradox. The party which, if it gets the chance, is moving towards a form of instant government without the Parliament Acts—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the noble Lord accusing me of being cynical? He used the word "cynical" about what we are doing this afternoon.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In my respectful opinion, my Lords, much as I respect the noble Lord, I feel that if he would open his mind to the situation, he might see that there is an appearance of cynicism behind this. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to explain. What in effect is happening is that the party opposite, for which the noble Lord speaks presumably on this occasion, is committed—unlike the noble Earl, Lord Russell—to the formation of a form of instant government without the Parliament Acts, and on this occasion, he now has resort to the Parliament Acts to delay and defeat the will of the elected Chamber. If we were to accept this amendment, the effect could but be to add grist to the mill grinding away at our own delaying powers. So much for the constitutional position.
As to the merits of the argument, I totally accept what my noble friend the Minister said about the tide of applications, the abuse, the benefit applications by economic migrants and the racketeers. In a previous debate, with other noble Lords I supported the idea that there should be clear, precise, cautionary information given at all ports of entry. I believe that on that matter I join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. But I oppose this amendment, which extends benefit rights so widely—indeed to illegal entrants. Every word that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, rings only too true to my ears.
Fewer than one in 10 have been found to be genuine asylum seekers. Only 3 per cent. of asylum appeal decisions result in the grant of refugee status. With the greatest respect and humility before the noble and right reverend Lord, I wonder whether in regard to constitutional consequences he truly knows what he does. He, of us all, will remember Ecclesiastes, Chapter III. Perhaps he may ponder on a time to insist and a time not to insist. I most respectfully suggest that this of all times is a time for restraint.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I think that it would be good if your Lordships' House came back to the subject of asylum seekers. I support the amendment. I believe that it is a genuine attempt—and the Government should recognise it as such—to meet the detailed objections that were made in another place to the amendment which was carried with support from
1196
all sides of your Lordships' House. Like other noble Lords, I have read Peter Lilley's letter to Julian Brazier, in which he set out his detailed reasons for opposing the amendment. Putting—as the amendment does—the onus of proof of date of arrival on the applicant would meet his main objections and the subsequent wording:
"shall for all purposes be treated as if he had made a claim for asylum immediately"
prevents the door from being opened more widely.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, spoke of someone entering as a businessman being rewarded. Does he truly believe that someone would be admitted today as a businessman and successfully apply on Thursday as an asylum seeker? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rightly drew attention to the higher proportion of in-country applications. Noble Lords will see the force of that and the danger that genuine asylum seekers will be returned to countries where they are in great danger.
This is a very modest amendment which speaks of "within three working days". Do we have to speak all over again of people who may have been the victims of torture or have reason to flee for their lives, who come, not knowing the language, to a country which has, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, regulations that are just as difficult as sheer language problems? Of course many are scared when they face officialdom again. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, made it clear that it is not a calm and easy situation. The Minister spoke logically and coolly, as though it were a calm and straightforward situation when someone is desperately hoping that he might be able to find a place of refuge. I regret that in his description he made no reference to the kind of situations from which asylum seekers may have come. Three days to take some advice does not mean a change in principle from applying at the port of entry.
I led an ecumenical delegation to see Mr. Howard last autumn. This withdrawal of benefit was still only an idea at that time but we questioned him about it. He told me that he believed that Britain was regarded as a soft touch. Perhaps he feels that something good has been achieved now that Britain is regarded as a brutal touch, and fewer asylum seekers, including fewer genuine asylum seekers, try to come here. I am dismayed that Britain is regarded as a brutal touch.
I am very disturbed to note that in the letter to which I have already referred from the Secretary of State for Social Security to Julian Brazier, a Minister of the Crown continues to use the loaded word "bogus"— I regret that the Minister used it again today—to describe those who do not qualify by the Home Office rules as asylum seekers. Ministers repeatedly quote the figures that 4 per cent. are granted the status of genuine asylum seekers and therefore 96 per cent. are bogus. It is a classic case of putting up a new set of hurdles and then declaring that anyone who fails to leap over them is bogus. We should stop using the word in that context.
The Government claim too that our fears of many genuine asylum seekers being made destitute by the withdrawal of benefit have proved to be exaggerated. The Refugee Council assisted over 1,000 asylum

1197
seekers who lost benefits. Together with other bishops, I wrote a letter to The Times in which we quoted a church in north London. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford visited that church, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. Twelve asylum seekers were being given refuge at the time.
It interested me to discover that the Daily Mail ferreted out where the church was and sent a team to spend the day checking up on what we had said. No doubt it would have splashed the story across the paper if it could have disproved our letter. But it was just as we had said and the Daily Mail printed nothing. Do not let facts disturb a campaign!
I am thankful that non-governmental organisations and Church bodies are offering support to some of those distressed people. The minister of the United Reformed Church said:
"I simply cannot recognise the picture presented by the Government of the 'bogus' asylum seeker, the 'economic refugee' here to take advantage of our 'honeypot' of generous benefits, as in any way an accurate description of the people who have passed through our church. None of them would put up with the hardships, indignities and sheer discomfort of this situation purely voluntarily. Words fail me to describe the demeaning and humiliating experience undergone by these people, most of whom have left families, friends, homes, jobs and roots in order to endure this miserable existence".
I hope people will see that it is not a change of the principle already agreed by the Government and will support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is an uncomfortable position in which to be as a Back-Bencher when one's head and one's heart pull in opposite directions. In private life one responds almost inevitably to the heart; in government affairs one must keep them in balance, and that is what we on the Back-Benches are seeking to do. I find the names subscribed to the correspondence about these amendments and some of the speakers to be people for whom I have an extremely high regard. But perhaps my noble friend the Minister can help some of us in our difficulties.
First, we must forget the issue of the economic refugee; compelling though it is, it is not the question before this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, rightly said. It is an emotive issue but it is not relevant to our present debate. We are discussing a relatively small number of people who come to this country in search of freedom from fear and persecution and who satisfy the criteria set, as I understand it, by the United Nations.
Is it the case that every airline is under a duty to secure that the passengers coming to this country have legitimate papers to gain them entry? If so, presumably those people had to go to a British diplomatic power based abroad in order to secure those papers. That is the first opportunity at which, without any stress or duress, the terms under which entry to this country is accepted can be made clear to them. It may be that because local people are employed by those embassies, the prospective refugees may feel that such a declaration of interest imperils them and will keep it to themselves.
1198
Next, the prospective refugees board the aircraft and before they can land in this country they must complete a landing card. It is a simple document. Is that document—if not, can it be?—presented in such a way that it contains, in most of the languages likely to be spoken by refugees, a description of the process to the extent that either one declares one's hand at the port of entry or one loses one's chance? It is against that loss of chance that this amendment is directed.
We next come to the point of entry. It would be helpful to know what are the conditions there. My noble friend Lord Carr spoke of his sight of it many years ago. It would be helpful to know whether things are the same now and whether translation services are readily and easily available. That is the point at which those who have not declared their hand at the embassy, who obtained entry papers perhaps under false pretences to gain access to the aeroplane and who were not persuaded by the landing card that they should declare their hand at once may be retrieved.
Those are the safety nets. Another one was usefully made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams; that is, appeals after entry against an unreasonable requirement to make a declaration. Two cases were cited which I should have thought exactly match the criteria which describe the people the amendment seeks to protect.
It seems to me that there are at least five levels of protection in existence. My noble friend the Minister must convince your Lordships that those levels of protection exist and work. I found the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, coming as he does from the Cross-Benches and not always a friend to the Government, to be a practical illustration of real life; and it is real life we are talking about and not the heart.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I intervene briefly on the constitutional and parliamentary situation. Your Lordships heard the other considerations admirably and indeed movingly presented.
What has happened is that your Lordships carried an amendment. The other place disagreed with that amendment so that at the outset there is a collision. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, spoke of the elected Chamber as though election were the sole source of political legitimacy, particularly when the Chamber was elected many years ago and quite inconsequent of the issue before your Lordships.
The Minister suggested that the amendment was unprecedented. On the contrary, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would have been fully entitled to ask your Lordships to insist on the amendment passed last time, it having been only once considered by the other place. That is a generally accepted constitutional parliamentary precept, though it is not one which I am prepared to accept. I do not believe "the other place" is the right term. It is almost always "the Government".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put forward a compromise which meets the points made by the Secretary of State in the other place. That is entirely in accordance with precedent and with practice. The

1199
amendment seeks to narrow the difference between the two Houses, and I hope your Lordships will accept it in that spirit. It will be open to the Government, if they wish, to fine tune the difference still more, though it seems to me, as at present advised, that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, met the point that the Secretary of State made.
I repeat that what the amendment is doing is seeking to minimise and, in the end, to eliminate the difference between the two Houses. That is entirely in accordance with parliamentary propriety and with your Lordships' role in the constitution. On the contrary, if noble Lords were to accept that once the elected Chamber has expressed a view that is an end of the matter it would be an abnegation of your Lordships' role in the constitution; indeed, it would concede a good part of the argument that is at present being levelled against your Lordships' Chamber. For those various reasons as well as the powerful arguments that your Lordships have heard from the Front Benches on my right and from a former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, I hope that your Lordships will support this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, it was far more important that your Lordships should hear that magnificent contribution than anything from me. It is crucial to realise that the greater number of those whose applications for admission to asylum have been accepted are people who could not bring out the truth about their position at the point of entry. That is not because they are congenital liars. I know a number of these people; I have met them and many of the people working with them in the Churches and voluntary agencies. They will echo the minister from the United Reformed Church who was movingly quoted to us. It is absolutely clear that at that time they cannot properly articulate. They may even have prevaricated with a British embassy abroad in order to get here at all.
But numbers of those applying within three days have had their applications accepted. They have been recognised as genuine refugees who are absolutely within the terms of the Government's guidelines. It is extremely important to acknowledge that fear is a vastly paralysing and inhibiting emotion. Many people watching refugees arrive have seen the kind of state they are in. To criticise and cavil at them in those circumstances for not being totally honest is fatal. The three days provide precisely the kind of security which the right person will be able to use. They will be able to come to their senses and express their application properly within the time. That is the whole spirit of the amendment. Surely, most of us who have had anything to do with these people personally will eagerly accept the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has made a speech as valuable as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I have no higher praise. I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Runcie, and the right reverend Prelate, how deeply grateful I am to the Christian Churches for what they have contributed in this debate in helping to restore my pride in my country.
1200
We have had a fascinating debate. I was particularly struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. What he said is in effect the words of Article 31(1) of the UN convention: people should not be penalised for illegal entry if thereafter, without delay, they put in a claim for asylum. The noble Lord is able to produce agreement out of dispute. He is able to spot the point of reconciliation in argument. His speech illustrates why I still believe that politics is not merely a skill but an honourable profession. I am most grateful.
To the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I shall quote the remark made in this House by the first Lord Shaftesbury in 1675:
"My Lords, if you grow useless, you will soon grow burdensome".
I listened with care to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to restrict applications to the ports. But, regrettably, what the noble Lord is proposing is illegal under international law. It is illegal under Article 31(1) of the UN Convention on Refugees, which I quoted a moment ago.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may clear the noble Earl's mind. I have not proposed anything except that the Minister shall make a clear exposition of certain points, which, I hope, cannot be illegal.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am glad to hear that he was not in fact, as I imagined he was, proposing a restriction to the ports. That we cannot do not only because it is illegal, as incorporated in British law by Section 2 of the 1993 Act, but also because the Home Office, by its own admission, in speaking to the Social Security Advisory Committee, states that it is not able to keep a continuous 24-hour watch on all ports and airports. In those circumstances it is cruelty beyond compare to penalise people for not doing what the Home Office has not made it possible for them to do.
The Refugee Council found that 57 per cent. of people who did not benefit because they did not claim at the ports failed to do so out of ignorance. There are a great many other good reasons for not claiming at the ports. There is the need for advice, which has been touched on many times. The Refugee Legal Centre, representing people on appeal, says that its success rate is 20 per cent. compared with the normal rate of 3 per cent.—in other words, the chance of success is multiplied more than six-fold. That is one good reason for making an application in-country.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and I take the point he makes. But as my noble friend Lady Seear has told me many times, in politics one must choose the lesser of two evils. The noble Lord has drawn my attention to an evil, which I accept. However, I believe that starving innocent asylum seekers with a genuine claim is a worse evil. It is on that issue of priority that I take my stand.
The Minister made a great deal of the attraction of our benefits. He overrates them. There are two points here. The first is quantity and the second is access. In terms of quantity our benefits are now down to the

1201
mid-EU level, below the Netherlands and, to my surprise, I discovered, below those of Ireland. So people who come here because of the quantity of our benefits are misinformed. In terms of accessibility, refugees to this country now have worse access to benefits than in any other European country except Greece.
When the Minister boasts at having reduced the number of applications since January, he comes perilously close to appearing to admit the central contention of the Court of Appeal that the withdrawal of benefits threatens the right to seek asylum itself. That is a finding which the Government have not yet taken on board.
If, as the Minister claims, people who are deterred from seeking asylum here seek it in other countries in Europe, it means that we, by making ourselves less attractive and sending people to other countries, are not only performing a hostile act against those other countries but are also infringing the principle of the level playing field. The Minister knows how the European Union feels about that. My noble friend Lady Williams quoted a draft EU directive which would make illegal what the Government are now proposing to do. As things stand the Prime Minister needs another quarrel with the European Union as he needs a hole in the head.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I supported the Government last time with a heavy heart. I did not vote on the merits of the amendments in isolation but in the context of the Bill as a whole, balancing the Government's intentions overall. However, I recognise that the amendment that we are considering today has been restructured.
The Bill is to be applauded for getting to grips with the situation as it stands. However, the question is whether the root cause has been addressed. The unacceptable delays created by current procedures must disappear, preferably speedily. If that were done, I believe that it would greatly obviate the need for the benefits proposed in the amendment. However, I can reconcile myself to the backdating of claims in the event of a successful application. That is a good point. I have listened to the steps that are being taken to expedite current applications. However, I wish to press for further clarification. Are there any plans to introduce further procedural overhauls or is it considered that sufficient has been done? For my part, I do not want to see people on the streets as a result of cumbersome procedures. I should like those concerns to be allayed before I decide which Lobby to enter.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, I should welcome guidance from my noble friend the Minister on two matters. First, can he give adequate assurances that no one will be sent back to a country with a bad human rights record? Secondly—this point was raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—will prominent notices be displayed in a variety of languages, and will interpreters be available, at ports of entry to point out to people the requirements of what will soon be the Asylum and Immigration Act?
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is late in the day and I shall be brief. But many people outside the Chamber, as well as inside, believe that this House has both a duty and an opportunity to put right what has been left undone by another place. Like other noble Lords, I believe that this is a reasonable, simple, honest and courteous amendment. It does not seek to upset the Government, only to present in a new way an argument which has already found favour with the majority in your Lordships' House.
This is not an amendment which fully reflects the views of that majority. We would have preferred our amendment in its original form. This is a fall-back position. Nonetheless, it is important: first, because it shows the strength of feeling in this House; secondly, because it meets the Government's principal objections; and, finally, because it shows genuine asylum seekers that this House, after all the speeches that have been made and all the votes that have been cast, still demonstrates the concern which the nation should reasonably expect of its Parliament. I say "concern" because I do not believe that we have yet reached the point of compassion which the Minister mentioned and, for lack of any further government support, the Churches and voluntary agencies may again be left to pick up the pieces.
If the amendment is not passed, I do not see how we can face genuine asylum seekers who seek our protection under a UN convention. I do not see how we can face the vast number of people in the voluntary sector who have supported, and campaigned for, genuine asylum seekers. I do not see how, hand on heart, we can say to them that we have achieved substantial changes to the Bill.
As your Lordships know, the amendment has all-party support—and not only in this House. Senior Members of the Conservative Party in another place want to see some of the improvements that have been made to the Bill carried forward to its enactment, including some made by this House, such as this amendment. I am not sure whether the Minister is supporting the amendment, but he may well plead that the Government are trying to be realistic and that they cannot afford to be charitable when they are perched between the cliffs of the Treasury on the one side and the deep blue sea of the general election on the other.
I remind the House that good housekeeping and charity are one thing; justice is another. This is an occasion when the Government could yet salvage some credit, and possibly some Conservative votes, from a Bill which has already tarnished Britain's generally good race relations and harmed its international reputation. I sincerely hope that the House will consider the wider implications and vote for the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have heard the case made for the amendment which would return the issue to the Commons for its further deliberation. I was slightly intrigued and not a bit amused that one of the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was that he wanted to give the other place the opportunity to have a much better debate. I found that a bit insulting to those of his

1203
right honourable and honourable friends who took part in the debate in another place. I listened to that debate and the other place seemed to go over all the issues and to debate all the ins and outs of the issue before arriving at its decision. I do not think that it is a good argument to say, "The other place did not have a very good debate last time; let's give honourable Members the opportunity of another debate." Although it is true that the House of Commons has considered this amendment only once, it has considered the policy on a number of occasions, going all the way back to the social security Statement of last November.
Before I turn to the detail of the amendment, perhaps I may say a word about the EU resolution because the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made quite a lot of it. It is a non-binding resolution. It requires unanimity. I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords, but we shall not be agreeing to anything which is not compatible with this country's arrangements, and that includes our benefit arrangements in relation to asylum seekers.
The amendment would extend the right to benefit from those who apply on arrival to those who apply within three days of arrival. The matter has been argued almost entirely on the grounds that it is unfair to expect a genuine asylum seeker to apply on arrival. That point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. The whole case has been predicated on disturbing descriptions of an asylum seeker's state of mind and the manner in which he is greeted on his arrival in this country.
Today, as at other stages, a picture has been painted for your Lordships of the manner in which genuine asylum seekers are greeted. I am sure that your Lordships have a pretty frightening mental picture of people in uniform, probably with guns, facing queues of frightened, traumatised people who are unable to think straight or even to speak—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Well, that is what your Lordships have been saying—
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us any other country which has attempted to restrict in-country applications as we are now doing?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, what I can do is to tell the noble Earl, as I have told him on a number of occasions, that most other countries in Europe—in fact, all other countries in Europe—have seen a decline in asylum applications while we have seen a considerable increase. We have to deal with the situation that confronts us. Other countries have chosen to cut down on immigration in other ways. We are doing it by this means. I believe that it is the right means.
Perhaps I may continue. That is the picture—
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am sorry to have to interrupt my noble friend, but I was the noble Lord who referred to conditions at airports. I said that I had visited them. I went out of my way to paint exactly the opposite picture to the one that my noble friend has just mentioned and I resent his remarks greatly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if my noble friend had waited just a second, he would have realised that I was about to turn to what he said. I was not referring to what my noble friend said, but to the picture that I have heard painted over many weeks whenever the subject has been discussed. My noble friend rightly painted a different picture because he has been there—although not recently. I can advise my noble friend that I made such a visit last week because I found it difficult to listen to the accusations that were being made without being able to say from the Dispatch Box that I had been to see for myself. I do not know where my noble friend Lord Can went. I went to Heathrow Terminal 3, which is quite a busy entry point into the United Kingdom from all corners of the globe. I did not see any uniforms, perhaps apart from a few aircrew passing from their aircraft through the special channel into the UK. I certainly did not see any guns. I saw lots of people dressed in various costumes from the four corners of the world. I saw people on business, holiday and visits.
5 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister which noble Lord referred to guns.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, today nobody has. However, a certain picture has been painted. Noble Lords do not like it when they get some of it back. I have listened to suggestions about how awful it is for somebody from abroad when he meets immigration staff. I am attempting to explain to your Lordships what it is actually like. Some of your Lordships may not like it, but here it is. Lots of people who pass through Heathrow come to visit or are in transit to other parts of the world. The atmosphere is quite relaxed; the queues are orderly. When one reaches the top of the queue two young ladies direct one to the next free desk in a long line of desks. The people behind those desks look ordinary. On a warm summer's evening last week the men were in shirt sleeves; the women wore summer dresses. From looking down the list of officers it was clear that a few had their origins in the very parts of the world from which the people coming off the aircraft had come. There was nothing in any way frightening about it.
Passports and landing cards are asked for. While the officer checks the passport and the name against his computer he asks two basic questions. He may ask other questions but he asks two basic questions: "How long are you here for?" and "What is the purpose of your visit?". He listens to the answers, and perhaps asks some more questions. It was for this reason that I intervened in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I asked what the young man had said in reply to those

1205
two questions and any others that he might have been asked. Clearly, if he was in a poor physical state he would be asked other questions. What did he say? That is the point at which the individual says that he is here to claim asylum. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in a very powerful intervention, highlighted those questions and others which were asked to elicit those facts.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I was the rapporteur of the Council of Europe committee that looked into this very point. It was found that many of the economic refugees who had been briefed by people who took money from them were absolutely pat in their answers to the questions that were asked. However, many of the genuine asylum seekers were confused and did not give the right answers.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has, perhaps accidentally, made my case for me. If they are genuine refugees and are disturbed and have not been well briefed by agents—as the noble Lord rightly points out, many people who arrive at the immigration desk have been well briefed—it is the easiest thing in the world to tell the truth and say that they are here to seek asylum.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, the discussion rather depends on how the questions and answers proceed. For example, one lady from Australia was here to visit for the first time since she had gone to Australia as a wartime bride. That came out in the discussion. Another man with a well-travelled passport worked for the International Planned Parenthood Organisation. Another couple were on their way to New York. They were here for a week and showed their onward tickets. There was nothing forbidding or frightening to prevent someone coming here for asylum from saying so, as indeed many do. Therefore, if the suggestion that they cannot do so is right, none would do so, but many do apply for asylum at the point of entry.
Another point that arises is the language difficulty. If an individual cannot speak English and there is no one immediately available in the line who can speak the relevant language the individual is taken to a special suite with a waiting room and a series of interview rooms. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that there is a well-oiled machine for finding an interpreter. Sometimes one is immediately available, because immigration authorities know those areas in the world from which people most commonly need the services of an interpreter. Sometimes it takes a few hours and the individual waits in the waiting room with a cup of coffee or whatever it may be, until an interpreter arrives. In a very few cases an interpreter cannot be found that day. In those circumstances, the person may be given temporary admission with an appointment to return to complete the formalities perhaps the next day. When the interview takes place, whether a few hours later or even the next day, with the interpreter present, the immigration officer can establish through the questions that I have already mentioned the length of stay and the reason for the visit. If the person is looking for asylum he or she can say so and the
1206
application is treated as an on-arrival application for benefit purposes. Even if the individual has to go away and return the next day because he does not speak English, or there is no one available who can speak his language, at that point it is still considered to be an at-port application and benefit will be granted.
I can stand at this Dispatch Box and say to those of your Lordships who are understandably concerned about genuine asylum seekers who pass through that hall at Heathrow that I saw absolutely nothing which would do anything other than reinforce in a genuine asylum seeker who had chosen this country as a safe haven his belief that he had indeed arrived in that safe country. Immigration officers are trained to look out for all kinds of people, including those who are fleeing. In particular, they want to help people who flee from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or Somalia, to name today's horror hot spots. They have probably heard more harrowing tales than most of us; and they told me a few.
One understands that people may have had to invent stories in order to leave their homeland, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, they do not need to repeat them when they arrive in this country.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, people who have had to tell lies to leave their country do not know that when they get here they will be treated differently.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if they do not believe that they will be treated differently when they get here why do they seek to come here in the first place? That just proves my point. If these people have selected this country as a safe haven, surely they believe that when they arrive here they have arrived at a safe haven.
I underline that the issue before us does not actually concern asylum. Whether someone makes an application on' arrival or after he has been here for three days, three weeks, three months or even longer, or whether he has entered legally or illegally, his claim for asylum will be treated fairly and judged according to this country's international obligations. I can assure my noble friend Lord Wolfson that there is nothing in what we are discussing today that will send back someone who is a genuine asylum seeker. We are discussing solely access to the benefits system. I have said on a number of occasions that seven out of every 100 cases are found to be genuine asylum seekers and asylum is granted.
I can tell the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that we want to improve the system. We have gone a long way to making considerable improvements. In 1994 there were 21,000 decisions; there were 27,000 in 1995; and we hope that there will be 37,000 this year. But if the numbers continue to rise the problem will become greater. We will have to run faster to stand still. Over the past six months there has been a considerable decline in the number of asylum seekers. We are beginning to make real progress with applications. That can only be to the benefit of genuine asylum seekers. In addition, we look sympathetically, in accordance with our long tradition as a safe haven, at those whose lives have been shattered by war and civil strife. Sixteen out of every 100 are so treated and are granted exceptional

1207
leave to remain. I am afraid that the remaining 77 have gained access to our benefits system on the back of the genuine few whom we all want to help.
The opposition amendment is presented as a modest change with limited consequences which will be of primary benefit to genuine refugees. I am afraid that that is not quite the case. While it remedies some of the defects of the amendment proposed three weeks ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham—I have rather missed her this afternoon as my normal sparring partner—it leaves a number of unresolved problems. It still rewards those who have entered illegally. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh, that there is no distinction between an illegal entrant and an illegal immigrant, as he suggested had been implied in the speech of my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Lilley. In both cases people enter this country in breach of immigration law either because they avoid control completely or because they deceive the immigration officers at passport control by means of false passports or whatever it may be.
With the best will in the world, when dealing with such a group it is just not possible to establish the three-day period. We can hardly be expected to take the word of someone who has already deliberately and knowingly broken the law. The organised racketeers of the asylum industry—I am afraid that they do exist—would soon tap a new and lucrative trade, providing people with bogus papers, helping to back their claim to have entered the previous day or the day before that. Even scrupulous pressure groups and lawyers would find much to dispute and litigate in a three-day decision. In practice, the only watertight way of operating a three-day grace period would be to exclude all illegals by demanding a stamped passport as proof of entry. Even that, I can assure noble Lords after my visit to Heathrow Terminal 3, would require careful scrutiny because forged and tampered passports do exist.
I do not believe that people who genuinely tell immigration officers that they are here on a visit, on holiday, on business, to study and will have no recourse to public funds while they are here will within three days decide to claim asylum with genuine reasons. Things do not change that fast. The reality is that they have used those reasons to gain benefit and then they change their position.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool may be confused, because if you need permission to enter you must either claim asylum or satisfy the authorities that you are here on business, as a tourist, to study or whatever it may be. The great majority of in-country applicants—excluding those who are here illegally—have said that they here on business, as tourists, to study. They would not get in if they had not said that. So, as I have said before, they have said something to the immigration authorities which just is not true. We should be encouraging them to tell the truth at the point of entry.
My noble friend Lord Elton asked me what information is available. Posters have been placed airside at Heathrow and Gatwick by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association advising passengers of
1208
the importance of claiming asylum on arrival in order to secure benefit entitlement. My noble friend's suggestion—I believe that my noble friend Lord Wolfson also suggested it—that we should perhaps place warnings on landing cards merits further consideration, but landing cards are not issued to people claiming, as some do, to be EU nationals and who walk through the blue channel. Of course they are not issued to clandestine illegal entrants. The people who receive landing cards are those who come to the desk, as I have explained, and have a conversation with the immigration officer. It is at that point that they should claim asylum. My noble friend has made an interesting suggestion, and we should give it consideration.
I do not like disagreeing with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry but I have to say to him that the statistics do not bear out his statistics that the great majority of people who claim within three days are genuine asylum seekers. As I said in my original speech, in comparison to the five in every 100 who are granted asylum by the Home Office, it is 3.5 in every 100 in the three-day group. The right reverend Prelate shakes his head, but I am afraid that those are the statistics for granting asylum during this three-day period.
The amendment is designed to appeal to those of your Lordships who basically agree with me that our benefit system is being abused by bogus asylum seekers but who are still concerned to do the decent, charitable thing in line with our common Jewish and Christian traditions. The amendment creates a confused and disputed borderline. It would cost at least £30 million a year. It would be more if the three days were to recreate the incentive to economic migrants that we fear it would.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he was quite prepared to pay £30 million if it would keep Britain's good name, but what he seems to miss out is that we are paying a good deal more than that in order to keep our good name—because, as I have explained, many of the people who will claim at the port will not be found to be genuine, nor will they be granted exceptional leave to remain. So a good deal of the roughly £140 million—perhaps £100 million—in benefit expenditure that we envisage we should continue to have to spend will still be going to people who turn out not to be genuine asylum seekers, nor people who merit exceptional leave to remain. I believe that £100 million is not a bad price—it is a good deal better than the £30 million that the noble Earl was prepared to pay. I am going three steps further than he is in being prepared to contemplate paying benefit to people who do not turn out to be genuine.
Our proposal creates a clear and distinct borderline as far as concerns the benefits system. It says clearly that those who apply for asylum when they arrive here do not have to go into detail; they do not have to give a great story; they just need to say, "I am applying for asylum", and they will be allowed in. Their story will come at a later stage. That is all they need to do. That gives a clear-cut borderline for people getting into the benefit system.

1209
As I have explained from the evidence of my own eyes, there is nothing to prevent an asylum seeker at the immigration desk on his arrival in this country, saying, "I have arrived in a safe country. I have planned and schemed to get here. Here I am. I am here for asylum". There is no reason at all. There is nothing here to justify the amendment.
As I explained, the statistics tell us that those who apply within three days are less likely to be genuine. So there is nothing there to justify the amendment. Those who have entered the country illegally will still be able, through a bit more illegality, to gain access to and to abuse our benefits system. So there is nothing there to justify the amendment. Further, there is absolutely nothing here, and in the arguments that your Lordships have heard, to justify this House overturning the considered decision taken by the elected Chamber. If the amendment is put to the vote, as I suspect it will be, I hope that my noble friends and other noble Lords who are prepared to look at the arguments in an open-minded way, and look at the facts before us, will join me in the Lobby.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful that in this long and keenly argued debate so much of the time has been spent on the merits of the issue rather than the proprieties of the relationship between this House and the other place. I am grateful that in the end the Minister himself conceded in his winding up speech that the issue of the three-day amendment had been before another place on only one occasion. He put into my mouth words about the quality of the debate which I do not think he will find when he looks in Hansard, because it would never be my intention to criticise the quality of debate in another place. I believe that we are in almost universal agreement—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who saved himself by accusing me only of an appearance of cynicism rather than cynicism—that it is entirely proper for us to do what we are doing today.
So let us turn then to the merits of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, described it as a potential conflict between the head and the heart. I hope that he will think that most of us have argued the case for the amendment on the grounds of the head rather than the heart. Of course there have been references, although relatively few, to individual hard cases. In particular, those on the Bishops Bench who know what happens to asylum seekers when they arrive in this country and are faced with destitution have made well-argued and convincing attempts to show noble Lords what destitution can mean and what it would mean if the system were allowed to continue for very much longer.
But I do not believe that the arguments of the head should be neglected, because they are fundamental. In opening the debate on the first amendment, the Minister sought to claim that the orders had been successful because the number of applications had gone down. He
1210
invited the House to draw the conclusion that they had gone down because the right to benefit had been taken away.
That raises a whole series of questions, which were best expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool when he talked about the difference between a soft touch and a brutal touch. When one changes regulations, in particular when entry conditions differ as between one country in the European Union and another, that will have an effect on the number of applications. After the passing of the 1993 Act the number of applications went down dramatically but then went up again.
The Minister has shown the House—and I do not dispute his figures—that in April, May and June the number of applications went down further. He is suggesting—and it may well be that it is a significant part of the argument—that that is because the possibility of benefit has or had been taken away. But surely it is not the number of applications which shows whether taking away benefits is right; it is the number of genuine refugees which matters. We simply do not yet know that. We do not know whether those who have been turned away or who have failed to apply for asylum are more or less likely than before to be genuine refugees and worthy of asylum in this country. Until we know that, surely, without being a soft touch, we ought to be pulling out all the stops that we can in order to avoid being the brutal touch in Europe. That is what we threaten to be. The test is not in the numbers; it is in the success rate.
We return to what are in almost all cases secondhand accounts of what happens at the points of entry. I pay tribute to the Minister for having gone to see what happens. That was the right thing to do and he was right to describe it to your Lordships. But, of course, what he saw was what happens everywhere at all points of entry. Ninety-nine out of every 100 people coming to this country needing landing cards—in other words, coming from outside the European Union—are genuine people who have genuinely obtained visas by telling the truth that they are coming here as visitors, tourists, students, business people or whatever. The 1 per cent., who are those in difficulty and those about whom we are talking are those who have to tell lies on their application forms for a visa, because they all come from countries which require visas. They then have to come to this country and say not only, "I am an asylum seeker" but also, "I told a lie when I stated on my visa application that I proposed to come here as a visitor", or a student or on business.
I do not know how many asylum applicants the Minister saw during his time at Heathrow's Terminal 3. But he and all noble Lords ought to put themselves in the position of people who, in order to leave their country, have to falsify some aspect of their relationship with their country of origin and the country to which they intended to go. That is the best answer that I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who seemed to believe that it was a conscious and rational decision to tell a lie at the point of entry. I suggest to your Lordships that that is far from being the case.

1211
I am confirmed in that view by a letter written only this morning by the representative for the United Kingdom and Ireland of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. He writes:
"UNHCR's general concerns over the withdrawal of welfare support for certain classes of asylum seekers have already been expressed in its comments to the Social Security Advisory Committee late last year. Notwithstanding these general observations, UNHCR is of the opinion that the present amendment",
and he is speaking specifically about our amendment,
"ameliorates the hardships to some of those genuine asylum seekers who, for a variety of valid reasons, do not claim refugee status immediately upon arrival. At the same time, the amendment will not undermine the Government's legitimate endeavours to curtail procedural abuse from those who have no claim to refugee status. The amendment is not inconsistent with the United Nations' obligations under the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and UNHCR is supportive of it".
What is being done by this part of the legislation, what is proposed by the Government, is to cut a swathe through our international obligations on the spurious claim that those who apply after arrival in this country are less likely to be genuine refugees than those that apply at the port of entry. The effect will be that we will exclude people who are genuine refugees. Our reputation as a civilised country cannot support that.
I had genuinely believed that we had gone so far in meeting the Government's arguments that it might be possible to reach agreement without a Division today. I wish that were so, if only by a pause. I can tell from the Minister's speech that it is hopeless for the Government to say that the differences between us are not that great and that we could retain our reputation as a civilised country at a relatively low cost and without compromising any of the principles which they seek to achieve by this legislation. I have no such response. I must seek the opinion of the House.
5.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (Amendment No. 24BA as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 24B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 168; Not-Contents, 182.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Addington, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Annan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Avebury, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Carter, L.

Barnett, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Beloff, L.

Chorley, L.

Berkeley, L.

Clancarty, E.

Birk, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Birkett, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cobbold, L.

Borrie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Brentford, V.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Briggs, L.

Coventry, Bp.

1212

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McNair, L.

Dainton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

Meston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dubs, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Eatwell, L.

Palmer, L.

Elles, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gillmore of Thamesfield, L.

Richard, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rix, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gregson, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Halsbury, E.

Runcie, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Haskel, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hayman, B.

Seear, B.

Headfort, M.

Serota, B.

Healey, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Henniker, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sherfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howell, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Hughes, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strafford, E.

Inchyra, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thurso, V.

Judd, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Kennet, L.

Tope, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kintore, R

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kitchener, E.

Warnock, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Liverpool, Bp.

Wigoder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Barber, L.

Ailsa, M.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Belstead, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Berners, B.

Attlee, E.

Birdwood, L.

1213

Blaker, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blateh, B.

Ironside, L.

Boardman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bowness, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brain, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Lindsay, E.

Burnham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carver, L.

McConnell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Chancellor.]

Clark of Kempston, L

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marsh, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monson, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Deedes, L.

Mountevans, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Derwent, L.

Moyne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Downshire, M

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dudley, E.

Nelson, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Newall, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Nickson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Eme, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Feldman, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Ferrers, E

Orkney, E.

Finsberg, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goold, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Goschen, V.

Prentice, L.

Gray, L.

Prior, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Quinton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rees, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Renton, L.

Hanson, L.

Renwick, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Romney, E.

Harlech, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmsworth, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hesketh, L.

Shannon, E.

Hindlip, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hogg, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hothfield, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange, B.

Ilchester, E.

Strathcarron, L.

1214

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sudeley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Swinfen, L.

Vivian, L.

Tebbit, L.

Weatherill, L.

Teviot, L.

Westbury, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wise, L.

Tollemache, L.

Wolfson, L.

Torrington, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 24BA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 24B, disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 24B, as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 24, agreed to.
FURTHER COMMONS AMENDMENT TO LORDS AMENDMENT No. 24
24C Line 12, leave out 'as is mentioned in subsection (1) above' and insert 'who is so excluded'.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24C to Lords Amendment No. 24 and to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24C to Lords Amendment No. 24.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
28 Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
("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);

1215

(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. 46
General
5.—(1) 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);

1216

(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. 91
General
9.—(1) 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.").

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—
28A 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)".'.
28B 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)".'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nursery Education and Grant Maintained Schools Bill
5.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason be now considered.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (62) as first printed by the Lords.]
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
  ("(2A) No arrangements may be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act on or after 1 April 1997 before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of twelve months of any grants for nursery education in the area of any local education authority made during the financial year 1996/7.')
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  1A Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 1A.
  The amendment which we passed in Committee seeks to require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the operation of phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme, over a period of 12 months, before making any arrangements for phase 2.
  The Commons have now considered this amendment and have disagreed with it,
  "Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient".
  I urge your Lordships to agree with the Commons.
  We have considered very carefully indeed the points made in this House. We too believe that the nursery education voucher scheme should be evaluated—so much so in fact that we are already undertaking evaluation exercises and we are reaping the benefits and learning the lessons to inform phase 2 of the scheme.
  First, we commissioned a survey of parents in the phase 1 LEAs. We made the results of that survey available in the Library of both Houses two weeks ago. The findings are as follows. First, 60 per cent. of parents interviewed rated the scheme positively. In Norfolk, where the survey found that parents were most likely to know the key facts about the scheme, 87 per cent. of parents rated it "quite good" or "very good". Parents have not had difficulty with the applications; 72 per cent. found the forms "very easy to complete".
  These findings echo the findings of a survey undertaken by the Pre-school Learning Alliance which surveyed its member playgroups to see how parents in phase 1 are benefiting from the scheme. That survey found as follows: 80 per cent. of groups think that parents value vouchers; 27 per cent. of the playgroups had increased the number of sessions they offer, even in the first term of operation.
  Since your Lordships last debated this issue, the results of a second survey in the phase 1 areas have been completed. We have surveyed the views of providers and the results of that survey have been placed in the Library. The findings are as follows. The providers found registration easy and 60 per cent. found the administration
  1218
  "very easy" or "quite easy". Three-quarters found voucher redemption "very" or "fairly easy", and a similar proportion found the self-assessment schedule helpful.
  Your Lordships have also been concerned to ensure that only good quality nursery education is supported through the scheme. Perhaps I may give the House some of the findings of the providers' survey in this respect. Four in 10 providers agreed that quality of nursery education would improve in their area in the longer term. Over half of the providers in Norfolk were of that view. Nine in 10 providers favoured the desirable learning outcomes and one in five thought they would make good quality provision even better. More than eight in 10 providers welcomed the inspection proposals and almost all had a good grasp of the inspection criteria.
  This is all very good news and in my view demonstrates that our proposals will mean a significant levering up of the standards of nursery education on offer.
  As we have said throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government believe that the scheme should be evaluated. But let us consider the real motive behind the amendment that we discussed on another occasion. It is not to ensure full evaluation; it is to postpone implementation of the scheme. That delay is simply not necessary and it is damaging.
  I hope that all I have said so far will allow the House to see that the amendment is not necessary because we already have full and thorough evaluation plans in hand. But the amendment is damaging because, quite simply, it deprives children of the benefits of vouchers.
  In April 1997 more than half a million children will be eligible for nursery education vouchers. This amendment will deprive those children and their parents. The Government's position is clear. We want to allow those children to use those vouchers. We want to give parents the wherewithal to exercise choice of nursery education provider for their child. We want to start addressing the levering up of the quality of provision by introducing inspection and by providers starting to use the SCAA desirable learning goals. We want to give those parents who are hard-pressed to meet even the modest cost of pre-schools, the opportunity to use their voucher. And we want to do all this as quickly as possible. There is no possible reason for delay.
  I shall conclude my remarks by reminding the House of the key principles underlying the nursery voucher education scheme: first, parental choice; secondly, raising educational standards; thirdly, the injection of substantial amounts of new money.
  With those key principles in mind, together with the opportunity for those half-a-million four year-old children next April to benefit from good-quality nursery education, I urge the House to agree with the Commons. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 1A.—(Lord Henley.)
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is a long-standing convention of your Lordships' House that

  1219
  if a Bill originating in another place is examined and amended by your Lordships' House, and that amendment is disagreed to when the Bill returns whence it came, that is the end of the matter.
  I admit that the Companion to the Standing Orders allows that even when the disagreement of another place is on the grounds of privilege, as is the case with this amendment, it is permissible for an amendment in lieu to be tabled in your Lordships' House which, if it were passed, would require the other place to think again and vote again. But the tradition is that to take this extreme action is against the ethos of this House. It is rocking the boat; it is not cricket; it is not done. We are the non-elected, revising and debating Chamber, and if our advice is rejected then the will of the elected body should prevail.
  At Committee stage of the Nursery Education and Grant Maintained Schools Bill, your Lordships passed an amendment which required that no grant should be made until Phase I of the scheme had run for 12 months and an evaluation of it had been brought to Parliament. That amendment was duly debated in another place, after dinner, late in the evening of last Wednesday, 17th July. I listened to the debate. I was not greatly edified by it. At the end of it, however, our amendment was disagreed to by 270 votes to 251, and the reason given, was:
  "Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons".
  This is of course as superficial as it is specious because our amendment was designed to save expenditure, not to waste it. But in this particular convention the Reason given does not have to be, in itself, reasonable in any way.
  So the problem before us on Thursday, 18th July, was whether to express our dissatisfaction by tabling an amendment in lieu and forcing a Division today, which would at least register our very real sense of anger at the way this Bill has been treated, or to abide by the convention, bow to the will of the elected Chamber, fold our tents and steal away. After discussion, the view was taken that we should follow the latter course, and so I stand before you with nothing more than a neatly folded tent.
  This action—in response to the convention of your Lordships' House and nothing else—should not be interpreted as in any way a weakening of our implacable opposition to nursery vouchers. I said at Third Reading that, in our opinion, nursery vouchers are a waste of effort, a waste of time and a waste of money. I would not alter one word of that and, in saying so, I know that I have the support of the whole of the Opposition and, I suspect, very many of those on the Cross Benches. I speak also for the vast majority of governors, headteachers, teachers and parents of the schools concerned, who are appalled at the unnecessary and divisive bureaucratic nightmare which this pointless procedure will produce.
  I know that because of the gigantic postbag I have received. I speak for many other Members of these Benches, and of the Cross Benches, and of the Benches Spiritual. It has gone so far that this last weekend my personal telephone number at home was found by a large number of people, who have rung me up in fury at the rumour that we were not going to divide the House again
  1220
  on this issue today. Several of them were under the impression that we were in a position of power and could overturn the amendment again. It took a considerable portion of the Sabbath day—I regret to say—to disillusion them about that. They see this scheme for what it is—an open attempt to bribe the eligible voters just before an election by stuffing a paper promise of £1,100 through their letter boxes. For anyone to say that the majority of parents want this scheme is quite frankly rubbish. The proof will be found in the ballot boxes. If nursery vouchers are ever issued nationally—and I pray God they will not be—the Labour government will honour those that have been issued but scrap the nursery voucher scheme. That is a promise, and unlike this Government we shall keep our word.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise more in sorrow than in anger, as they say. I am sad that what I think the noble Lord, Lord Morris, described as the powers that be in the Labour Party have decided not to pursue this matter further. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, explained carefully and clearly why that is. I understand why the Labour party in particular would have an interest in ensuring that what he described as the conventions of the House—I think they are more correctly described as the conventions between the two Front Benches—should not be upset at this time. I do not want to say any more about that. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Morris, any more, because he and I have worked closely on this Bill. I have come to respect his views and I think I know what his views are.
  However, it is not just a matter of personal sorrow and regret that we cannot take this matter any further. It may be no consolation to the noble Lord to know that he was not the only one whose telephone was disturbed. I, too, was tracked down at home. Perhaps, unlike the noble Lord, I have an answer machine which helps in that it refers people to my secretary, who was also tracked down. We received the same lobbying. Someone went to the considerable trouble of finding a fax number to send me a fax before the weekend. It is not someone from my part of the world or someone I have ever heard of before. As far as I know I have not heard from this person before although, like many other noble Lords, I have received so many letters I may well have done so. The fax was sent to me immediately after the decision in another place. It stated:
  "I feel very strongly that parents will feel let down if the Commons are not challenged on their overthrowing of your amendment for evaluation".
  I think that person speaks for a large number of people. That certainly has been the reaction that I have encountered since last Thursday. Sadly, she concludes the fax by stating,
  "Excuse my interference when I am only a parent but we feel so strongly".
  This Bill is all about parents, and their children who are as yet too young to hold their own independent views. For that reason I am sad that we are now coming to the end of the process.
  I wish to say just a few words about what the Minister said in his opening remarks. He accused us of using the amendment as a delaying tactic. The amendment may

  1221
  have caused a short delay, but that was not its principal purpose. Its principal purpose was as stated; namely, to ensure that there is a full evaluation. People out there who describe themselves as "only parents", people who teach in the schools, head teachers, governing bodies, local education authorities and even those within large parts of the voluntary sector, simply do not understand why the Government have set themselves against your Lordships' amendment to undertake an evaluation after a full year. It seems to them to make no sense whatsoever to have a pilot phase in the first place if it is not then to be fully and properly evaluated.
  We have said all this before. I do not wish to take up valuable time in saying it again. However, as we have not fully debated evaluation in this House, certainly since the amendment was defeated, I hope the Minister can say a little more about what sort of issues the further evaluation he has now promised will cover. I hope he will say when it will be available and where it will be available. I am sure it will be available in this House but it needs to be more widely available. I conclude as I began by professing more sorrow than anger. I am sad. This is a sad end to a sorry business. Above all, I believe this whole voucher scheme is an enormous wasted opportunity to bring about an end which all of your Lordships wish to achieve but which this scheme will not achieve.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I too find this a deeply disappointing occasion for many in the education service. Of course I do not like the mechanism of vouchers as a way of increasing provision because, for all that it involves choice of a kind, it serves to fragment and complicate the system and move even further away from the concept of a local community of schools. I believe that this has served us better than most current commentators will allow, and that it would have been the better route by which to increase publicly-funded provision.
  But it is not as if we were attempting to wreck the voucher scheme. In Committee we sought, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, emphasised, to ensure that this would not be one of those reforms that, in common with others in recent years, would have to be remodelled later in the light of experience, by providing for a proper evaluation period so that the thing was more likely to be right first time.
  I cannot believe that this is a bad principle. The Minister said he wanted to bring in vouchers as quickly as possible. How often have we heard that ill-advised phrase in recent years? I am often horrified at the neglect of sound evidence for the basing of educational policy. Dogma, hunches, reference back to one's own golden school-days, are not good guides to what is best for the citizens of tomorrow. I do not say that the present party in power is uniquely prone to these, but the sheer volume of its reforms means that we have had our fill of them in the last 16 years.
  The Government, as ever, are convinced they are right on the issue in front of us. I only hope for the sake of the children that the scheme will work out for the best.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too express regret that here is an objective on which everyone in this Chamber could have agreed; namely, that it is desirable that all children of four years whose parents wish them to have access to a variety of nursery provision should have that access. However, the golden opportunity has been lost because the Government have decided on the means of achieving that provision in the face of overwhelming criticism from over 80 per cent. of parents whose children in this age group already attend their local schools and who have exercised that parental choice for which this Government claim credit; namely, choice in access to nursery education.
  For those parents who would prefer not to exercise that choice, the Government could have introduced a scheme. The only change that this voucher scheme introduces is giving money to those who choose an alternative, for example a playgroup in the voluntary sector, or those who choose to pay for private provision. For once I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who has said that if we have limited public funds they should be targeted at those most in need. For those parents who want access to their local maintained, voluntary aided or voluntary controlled nursery school, the £1,100 will not pay for that. The opposition has not come from Members on these Benches, but from hundreds of people involved in pre-school provision for four year-olds. Letters have been received from dozens of people representing thousands of others who have expressed deep concern. There is agreement that four year-old children should have such access if their parents wish; and that that access should not damage the existing provision for three year-olds or the quality or quantity of the range of education on offer at present.
  Vouchers are not popular. I have yet to meet a parent in the pilot area whose four year-old child goes to the local school who has a good word to say for vouchers. The parents who believe that vouchers are popular are those who do not have access at present and believe that the voucher is a guarantee of a place. I hope that in the coming few months, the Government will not put forward a voucher as representing a place. It does not. If the local school is overcrowded and there is no provision, the voucher is worthless. One cannot exchange it for the provision that one desires.
  There is, too, the messing about with local government finance. During various stages of the Bill, one of the Minister's supporters from the Benches opposite, in response to a challenge about changes in local government and local government finance, said rather proudly, "Yes we did pass all that legislation; and, yes, it was all necessary". I refer to the poll tax. The poll tax was a much worse mistake. There is strong hostility to the proposal in the Bill.
  The second golden opportunity that has been lost is the failure by the Government to recognise the benefit of partnership between central government and local government but, more importantly, at local level to ensure that all children's needs are met. Market forces do not meet the needs of the child who may be difficult to provide for, or the child in an out of the way place. It is sad that governors and teachers up and down the country, the people of Wales who have expressed objections, and

  1223
  (I suspect, although I cannot prove it) the people of Northern Ireland where all four year-olds are in school, are being consulted about extending the voucher scheme. A full year will be necessary to consider the effect on local government finance, and the problems that the proposal creates for the very governors to whom the Government have handed the responsibility of the funding. Why do the Government not listen when concerns are expressed about what is being provided?
  My worry among others is this. Let us consider Wales, and Northern Ireland where the Government are consulting at present. The vouchers are still being brought in in areas where all children are in schools. I am deeply suspicious that it is the beginning of a thin edge of the wedge. I cannot see any reason to be pleased that the Government chose to claim privilege as a reason. I accept the legitimacy of the other Chamber. I accept that finance is involved in the Bill. But we could have been celebrating one of the few achievements of partnership, unanimity and consensus. Instead I take part in the debate on the Bill with a heavy heart. If I had been told even three years ago that this Government would come up with a proposal for nursery education that brought in new money and that it would leave me with a heavy heart I should not have believed it. Perhaps I should have believed anything of this Government.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have not taken part in the discussions although I have listened to them all. Perhaps I may say one thing. The sad aspect is that even if the voucher scheme is the most enormous success, and enormously popular, should the Labour Party ever be elected, it will abolish it.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, can unfold his tent because he has other business beyond this, and I hope to see him for that. Perhaps I may say this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. She seemed to be criticising another place for claiming financial privilege. That is entirely a matter for another place. It is not a matter for us to question. The fact is that it has claimed financial privilege and there is an end to it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris complains—I believe that it was slightly unfair—that the debate after dinner in another place was somewhat unedifying. Perhaps I should remind the noble Lord of the form which the debate took on this amendment in this House at Committee stage. I seem to remember that the noble Lord got to his feet and said, "I beg to move", and that was the sum total of the debate on the amendment. If the noble Lord will remember, we earlier debated the subject of evaluation; and the Committee came to a view which was completely contrary to the view to which it came after the rather odd procedural gambits of the noble Lord at ten o'clock that night. We had the rather unedifying spectacle of the Committee of this House making a decision on the same matter with completely contrary views on the same day. Perhaps that is a matter that we should consider. It is something that this House should not try to do again. I appreciate that in moving this first amendment, the noble Lord rather sotto voce informed the Committee that
  1224
  he would be coming to other amendments later, despite the fact that they were grouped with that amendment. But the noble Lord knows perfectly well, with his hand on his heart, as I know, that the whole of that first debate was on evaluation. He knows perfectly well that the Committee came to a clear decision on evaluation. It was not a decision that he liked, and so he came back to the issue at a later stage and used devices which I think were not entirely edifying.
  My honourable friends and right honourable friends in another place, as did his honourable and right honourable friends, had an edifying debate last week on this subject. They came to a clear conclusion that they did not want this amendment. That is why it has come back to us; and that is why I ask the House to agree with the views of another place.
  I wish to add a word or two about evaluation. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about evaluation. We have said a great deal about evaluation both in this place and in another place at all stages of the Bill. We take that evaluation seriously. It will cover a wide range of aspects of the scheme. It will become available from now and over the autumn. So far as possible all of it will be published, and inspection evidence will be available from late autumn. There will be a survey of parents and of providers. We have already mentioned those. There will be an analysis of the issue of vouchers and an analysis of the redemption of vouchers. I believe that lessons are already being learned. I do not think that it will be necessary at this stage to continue to make the points that we have made at Committee and other stages as to how thorough that evaluation will be.
  We believe that it is important, as I said, that half a million four year-old children have the benefit of those vouchers, as do the children of Norfolk, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Wandsworth at present. They should have the benefits of those vouchers and of the good quality nursery education with the inspection that will come with it, which will lever up standards, as soon as is reasonably practical, which is next April. That is why I now ask the House to agree with the Commons in their rejection of Amendment No. 1 for the reason given in Amendment No. 1A.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, so that the record may be correct perhaps I may point out that at Committee stage in your Lordships' House the first amendment in the first group was on an order, not on evaluation. The Government chose to read that group otherwise after we had given them the grouping in the middle of the previous week.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is being somewhat disingenuous. We had a group into which all those amendments were put. It was obviously open to the noble Lord, as he will remember from the form of words that appears on the top of the groupings, to move them at a later stage if he so wished, and he exercised his right. However, if the noble Lord reads through that debate, he will find that every single argument put forward from this side and the other side was entirely on evaluation, and nothing but evaluation. That is what the Committee of the House decided at something like

  1225
  4.30 on that Monday afternoon. For some odd reason, the Committee came to a different conclusion on the same subject later on. The noble Lord knows that. I commend the Motion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1996
6.9 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that we introduced the Assisted Places Scheme in 1981 for the purposes of opening up educational opportunities for able children from less well-off families. The draft regulations before the House this evening cover England and Wales. Separate arrangements were made for a corresponding scheme in Scotland. Before I explain the draft regulations, I should like to restate why the scheme exists and why it is a remarkable success.
The Government are committed to raising standards in education. The Assisted Places Scheme plays a key part in promoting excellence in academic achievement and enhancing choice and diversity. We want all parents and children to have a rich variety of good schools from which to choose, regardless of income. Through the assisted places scheme, we are making opportunities at top independent schools more widely available. In contrast, noble Lords opposite would remove these opportunities from thousands of children. Their stated intention to abolish the assisted places scheme would restrict access to thousands of children and make independent schools solely the preserve of those who can afford the fees. It would remove the ladder of opportunity from these talented children.
Independent schools themselves wish to see the benefits of an independent education made more widely available. Many are reaching out into the community and enjoying a greater social and cultural mix within their walls. They have a long and honourable tradition of offering scholarships. But there are limits to what schools can do by themselves. The Assisted Places Scheme builds on and extends the schools' own contributions. It is a shining example of partnership between the state and the independent sector.
Since this excellent scheme was introduced, almost 80,000 children in England and Wales have benefited. There are now well over 30,000 pupils in the scheme. Four out of 10 assisted pupils enjoy totally free education because their family income is below the threshold of £9,572 a year and eight out of 10 are from families with incomes below the national average of £18,540 a year. Eighty per cent. come from the lower middle, skilled and unskilled working classes.
We want to widen access still further to 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, there are 5,900 entry places
1226
available each year in 300 schools in England and Wales. From September 1996 there will be almost 10,000 places available to some 370 schools. Over 60 new schools will join the scheme, selected on the basis of their record of academic achievement. For the first time the scheme will support children under the age of 11. This new development extends the ladder of opportunity to younger children, an initiative we hope to build on in the future.
All the schools in the scheme have been carefully selected on the basis of their records of academic achievement. In 1995, over 94 per cent. of assisted pupils doing GCSE achieved grades A* to C, with some schools getting 100 per cent. pass rates. Ninety-four per cent. of assisted pupils entering for A-level received grades A to E, with some pupils achieving four grade A passes. Recent independent research by the London School of Economics confirms that, first, assisted pupils entered for significantly more A and AS-levels than their counterparts of similar ability in the maintained sector. Secondly, they achieved higher total points scores than pupils in the maintained sector. Thirdly, their average points score per examination entry was higher than for maintained sector pupils. Fourthly, overall the benefit of an assisted place is between 3.2 and 6.2 A-level points. Translated into grades, the advantage is between one-and-a-half and three A-level grades over all subjects taken.
Despite this overwhelming evidence of the success of the scheme, noble Lords opposite are committed to abolishing it. The Labour Party has said that the funds released would be used to reduce class sizes in the maintained sector. But pupils who would otherwise have benefited from the scheme would need to be educated in the maintained sector. That would largely swallow up their planned savings.
The average net annual cost of an assisted place in England in 1995–96 was about £3,700. This is very roughly only £800 a year more than the equivalent average annual recurrent cost of a maintained secondary school place. This differential is more than justified by the better results for assisted places scheme pupils.
Abolishing the APS and educating all assisted pupils in the maintained sector would eventually save only about £24 million a year at current prices. That ignores the capital costs of building extra places in the maintained sector for the displaced pupils: £24 million would provide fewer than 1,000 extra primary school teachers—quite insufficient to fulfil Labour's pledge to eliminate classes of over 30 in the first three years of primary schooling. Indeed, it would reduce the average Key Stage 1 class size by less than half a pupil.
Phasing out the APS by stopping new intakes but letting pupils already in the scheme continue would save less than £5 million in the first academic year. Even that could not be realised for three years under existing legislation. The Education Act 1980 requires the Secretary of State to give schools three years' notice of any unilateral termination of their participation agreements. Furthermore, the under £5 million would pay for only 200 extra primary teachers—about one for every 90 primary schools. Any gain of that kind would be minimal compared with the loss of opportunity for the 10,000 pupils about to enter APS schools each year.
Turning now to the detail of the regulations before the House, these amendments have a very specific, straightforward purpose. They simply update the principal regulations, which are the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995. Essentially, they implement the annual uprating of the parental contribution tables, and thus set out the amounts parents must pay towards their child's assisted place at a participating independent school in the coming year. If approved, the amended regulations will come into force on 25th August 1996.
Regulation 4 of the draft regulations increases the allowance made for each dependent child from £1,165 to £1,200. This is in line with inflation and will maintain the level of help for families with more than one child.
Regulation 7 similarly uprates the income bands used for assessing parents' contributions towards fees. The income threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from £9,572 to £9,873 a year. There are corresponding increases in the thresholds for the higher income bands.
Regulation 3 permits schools to offer an assisted place to a child from the very beginning of his or her compulsory eduction. We are making places available, for the first time, to children in the junior and preparatory departments of some of our best independent schools.
Regulation 5 sets out a technical change to the requirement that at least 60 per cent. of all assisted pupils in a school should have been recruited from publicly maintained schools. The 60 per cent. rule would not be appropriate to children entering school at the start of their compulsory education. Regulation 5 therefore provides for five and six year-olds to be excepted or omitted from the calculation. There are no other substantive changes. I beg to move.
Moved,
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I hope that all of your Lordships are regular readers of that very readable organ, the House Magazine. There is much wisdom to be gained in perusing it and the current issue is no exception. In the "Commons Diary", for example, on page 2, the honourable Member for Leominster tells us how he recently attended a meeting of the Malvern College Council, his old school. He says:
"The interesting point involves the difficulties being faced these days by many traditional public or boarding schools. The market for boarding is shrinking and schools need a varied base. In Malvern's case that base is boys and girls from the pre-prep to 18 with a lot of pupils from mainland Europe into the bargain.
It is all a sign of the times and the possible ending of assisted places will strike a near mortal blow to some private schools".
There is the heart of the matter. The assisted places scheme was not introduced in 1981 with the prime object of introducing the ragged-trousered offspring of some poverty-stricken, horny-handed son of toil to a benevolent Mr. Chips who would guide this nascent Newton, this emergent Einstein to heights of intellectual development beyond his parents' wildest dreams. No, it was introduced because then, and since, a number of independent boarding schools were in imminent danger of going bust.
1228
And they still are—even with the exorbitant fees of over 30,000 children now in the system being paid to these independent schools by a benevolent government. We have the honourable Member for Leominster's published words for that.
Every summer just before we reach for our buckets and spades, we go through the ritual dance of considering how this scheme is faring. So I will only briefly rehearse the reasons why we on these Benches opposed it, have always opposed it and will continue to do so.
Suffice it to say, first, that we consider it entirely unjust to penalise the many for the advantage of a selected few. Secondly, we consider it unfair to cream off some of the most academically able children in the maintained sector and place them in independent schools, where they will unquestionably do very well. So they should. That will distort the picture of the academic achievements of that independent school, to the detriment of the academic results of the schools from which those children are taken. Thirdly, we oppose the scheme because it seems to us a totally unwarranted subsidy by the state of the private sector.
Is it not a fact that an essential difference between independent schools and local authority schools is that the former are far less accountable than the latter? I asked the Minister last year, and I ask him again: will he tell the House what degree of accountability, and in what form, is required from the 300 or so schools in the assisted places scheme which receive at the present moment something over £100 million of public money? Indeed, as is regularly pointed out in another place, the taxpayer also contributes more than £130 million to independent schools by virtue of the service boarding scheme. We are not opposed to the service boarding scheme as such, though we would very much like to see more extensive use made of the state boarding schools. But the assisted places scheme and the service boarding scheme together contribute a little more than £¼billion of public money to the independent education sector—yet independent schools are not accountable in anything like the same way as local education authority schools. Only a very few of them have had Ofsted reports. Is it not time that much stricter controls were imposed upon this very considerable amount of public money?
What is new in this year's regulations? Three things: the government proposal to double the number of places, the annual uprating and the decision to bring preparatory schools into the scheme for the first time. The real reasons for the first are not difficult to find. Boarding schools are finding it harder and harder to put paying bodies into beds. I was recently told, and I have heard it many times, that the first criterion of a successful head teacher in an independent boarding school is the ability to fill all the boarding places. The fashion for sending your children away from home to be educated is visibly waning, and it seems that more and more parents realise—as the Secretary of State for Wales is reported as realising—that good comprehensive school education makes private education a waste of money.
The annual uprating is not a contentious issue, and the regulations for it seem sensible and acceptable. I only wonder whether it will mean that more or less money will

1229
be left in the scheme when an incoming Labour Government inherit it, and turn the resources to better and more equitable use.
The extension of the scheme to what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State described in another place as,
"the junior and preparatory departments of some of our best independent schools",
would be amusing if it were not so sad. One can almost hear the howls of protest from those preparatory departments which have not been selected and which wish so fervently to get their trotters into the trough. And one can aurally perceive the sighs of relief from those which have been selected, and so saved, at least for the moment, from the rigours and humiliation of what we may refer to, euphemistically, as Carey Street.
There is nothing more to say about this year's regulations, except farewell, because it may well be that this is the last time we shall need to discuss these matters.
The Labour Party's position and policy on the assisted places scheme are transpicuously clear, and I can offer the honourable Member for Leominster and former pupil of Malvern College no crumb of comfort. The assisted places scheme is no part of our policy, and we shall abolish it. I refer noble Lords to our recent publication, New Labour, New Life for Britain, obtainable from Walworth Road at the bargain price of £10, where, on page 40, the first of Labour's early pledges is to,
"cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7 year-olds by using money saved from the assisted places scheme".
That is a promise. And, unlike the Government, we shall keep our word.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, began by referring to the annual "ritual dance". Last year was the first year that I joined the dance. As a new boy, somewhat naïvely, I looked back at the previous 14 years of annual debates on this subject. I have to say that I did not feel greatly edified as a result of that research and I have not bothered with such detailed research this year. The noble Lord concluded by saying that next year's debate on this subject may be—just may be—a little different. I hope so, for many reasons—not least a degree of boredom in having to say the same things over and over again.
I need to put on record again this year that the Liberal Democrats continue to oppose the assisted places scheme. It continues to be our policy that we would phase it out. We would of course honour existing commitments, but it would be phased out over a period of time.
Before I go on to state the reasons for that, I must again put on record—as continually seems necessary—that we have no problem at all with, and no opposition to, independent schools. Indeed, our party conference in September will debate an even better education paper, available from our party headquarters. (I do not know the price). One proposal among many others will be the retention of charitable status for independent schools. It will also propose to extend charitable status to all schools. It will oppose any suggestion as to the imposition of VAT on school fees. Even more importantly, we shall be encouraging independent schools to work in partnership
1230
with local education authorities; to open up their facilities to wider use; to buy in services from LEAs; and indeed to sell services to LEAs where that is appropriate. It will seek to allow LEAs to set up locally determined partnership schemes to support pupils at independent schools—for instance, where there is seen to be a particular need, locally determined, perhaps on the part of those with special needs, perhaps in art and sport. I hope that that is evidence that the Liberal Democrats at least have no problem with independent schools and wish to work more closely and positively with them.
So why do we oppose the assisted places scheme? We oppose it first and foremost because it is a wrong use of public funds. As was stated earlier this evening, scarce public resources need to be targeted where they are most needed. In my submission, they are most needed in the provision of teachers, books and equipment, and long-overdue repairs to buildings. The Minister in his concluding remarks, which were intended, I think, more to rubbish the Labour Party's scheme than otherwise—stated that abolition of the assisted places scheme would save only £24 million; that would provide only 1,000 teachers. That is only a small drop of what is needed, but it is a very important drop. It is a much better use of those resources than the assisted places scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that the principal purpose of the scheme is to prop up the independent schools. I believe that to be the case. I suspect it is no coincidence that, as pupil numbers in independent schools are declining, so we are seeing an extension of this scheme.
As I said, I have no problem with independent schools. I wish them well. I hope they succeed. My problem is that I do not believe that the scheme is a proper use of scarce public funds at a time when I know only too well that education budgets, funded publicly, are being cut, and cut, and cut. The need is enormous. Abolition of the scheme will not begin to solve the problem, but it is a step in the right direction. At the moment we are taking another, slightly larger step in the wrong direction.
The next question that we have to ask is whether the scheme achieves what it is intended to achieve. In his opening speech the Minister gave some very impressive figures and statements of achievement by pupils on assisted places. I do not for a moment want to belittle that achievement. But these are children who have been chosen specifically for their academic ability. They have been put in smaller classes than would have been the case if they had stayed at an LEA school. They have been better resourced with books and equipment and undoubtedly they have been taught in better premises and better buildings. It would be remarkable indeed if they were not achieving better results. I do not believe that that proves that the scheme is working. It simply proves that it would be remarkable if it were otherwise.
I turn next to inspection, which we touched on last year. In his reply to last year's debate the Minister said that there would be appropriate inspection. I wonder whether in his reply the Minister would tell us what he considers to be "appropriate inspection". Is it correct that only three independent schools this year are likely to be inspected by Ofsted? Is that adequate? Is it appropriate? He said last

1231
year that it monitors the results of assisted places pupils. Of course it does, but that monitoring comes after the event and even then, as I said, those pupils are among the brightest. It does not monitor whether they are doing as well as they could or should do under such a scheme. I am seriously concerned about the very little inspection that appears to take place in relation to independent schools and particularly those which benefit from the assisted places scheme.
There seems to be much conflicting evidence about who exactly are the parental beneficiaries from this scheme. The Minister quoted figures that suited his case. I shall quote some that suit mine. Two years ago research showed that 50 per cent. of parents benefiting from the scheme themselves had been to independent schools. That may have changed but I doubt whether it has changed significantly in two years. The research showed that only 10 per cent. of those parents were in manual work. It showed that a very much smaller percentage even than that came from ethnic minority backgrounds. There is evidence to suggest—I choose my words carefully—that many, not all but many, of the parents who benefit through the assisted places scheme could and would afford to pay for a place at an independent school if they were not fortunate enough to benefit through this scheme.
I conclude by stressing, as I did earlier, that my party is keen to co-operate with the independent sector and support it in that way, but we do not believe that a scheme which applies to less than 1 per cent. of school-age children is the right or appropriate way to widen that co-operation with the independent sector. The assisted places scheme is simply not the way to forge wider and better co-operation with the independent sector. Above all, it is not the best use of public funds. That money is small compared with what is needed. The "only £24 million" to which the Minister referred goes only a little way towards solving the problems that we have debated before in your Lordships' Chamber. But that sum of money is much needed and it is much better and more effectively targeted as public funds to support publicly funded schools. We oppose the order.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as always, we have had a very interesting debate—what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, calls a ritual dance. He has taken part in that dance for a number of years longer than I have, but I hope to outlast him and look forward to debating with him again next year and the year after from this side of the Box.
As we go through this "ritual dance", we hear ritual noises from the parties opposite, and particularly from the Liberal Party, of alleged cuts in education at a time when this year we were able to find an extra £878 million for education as a whole.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He should not perhaps try to quote such figures to me. Is he aware that Ministers in another place have accepted that the additional money that the Government made available does not even reach the amount of money that the local education authorities themselves were already providing and that therefore no
1232
additional money has gone into the publicly funded education sector this year? In fact, there has been another reduction.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is absolute nonsense. An extra £878 million has come from the central taxpayer and has gone to local authorities in the form of whatever the grant is called and made available to schools. One simply cannot say that there has not been extra money. I reject the allegations of cuts. We have seen considerable increases in the size of the education budget over the years. As I have made clear to the House on a number of occasions, throughout the United Kingdom we now spend something of the order of £35 billion on education at all levels. That is a very considerable sum indeed.
I totally reject the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that this is some form of charitable relief for the independent sector and particularly the boarding part of it. First, let me make clear that, despite what he said, the assisted places scheme does not cover boarding fees. If a child is in receipt of an assisted place and is boarding, the boarding fees will come from somewhere else. So this is not outdoor relief or charitable relief for the maintained sector.
Let me also make clear the size of the sector about which we are talking. On average, less than one in seven of all pupils at assisted places schemes are government assisted pupils. Assisted pupils make up less than 0.4 per cent. of the total maintained and independent sector school population. So to say that they are keeping together the independent sector—or rather the 300 schools that benefit from the scheme—is quite simply nonsense. Also, to say that they will have an undue effect on the maintained sector by creaming off those from locally maintained schools is again nonsense and does not take us any further forward at all.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Tope, made much of inspection. I can assure them that Ofsted will continue to inspect as and where appropriate and will conduct those inspections in as rigorous a manner as in the maintained sector. But it is obviously a matter for Ofsted, which is an independent body, and not one for the Government to direct, to decide exactly which schools it should inspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, also tried to make out that those who benefit from the scheme were not those who ought to benefit from it. Let me make it quite clear that we have conducted quite an amount of research into the socio-economic background of parents and children who benefit. We know from an independent survey carried out by MORI for the Independent Schools Information Service that 80 per cent. of parents in the scheme—not the 40 per cent. claimed by the noble Lord—come from socio-economic groups which have not traditionally been associated with private schooling; that is, the upper and middle classes. I can also assure the noble Lord that again some 80 per cent. come from classes C1, C2 and DE—again, not those associated with private education.
I accept that the party opposite, like us, believes that we ought to extend opportunities for all pupils. But unlike that party, we believe in doing so by expanding choice and diversity and by placing choice in the parents' hands. That

1233
is why earlier this afternoon we debated the nursery voucher scheme and I am grateful that it has now completed its course through this House. The assisted places scheme also plays a vital part in this process. It is plainly achieving its objective of giving access to some of the best independent schools for children who would not otherwise have been able to contemplate them. We on this side of the House believe that that can only be to their and the nation's advantage. That is why I quoted the figures earlier. We intend to give twice as many children this opportunity and will expand and extend the scheme accordingly. The draft regulations before the House help to achieve just that. I commend them to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Overpayments) Bill
6.40 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Recovery of overpayments of social security benefit: amendments]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) At the end of subsection (1), there shall be inserted "; so, however, that in a case where the misrepresentation or failure in question was not fraudulent, the Secretary of State shall only be entitled to recover the amount which is referable to the 12 months immediately preceding the determination.").
The noble Earl said: If the Minister will forgive me, a moment ago he said something to me which was a little unwise. He suggested that we should call it a draw. But the Minister knows the next thing that happens when there is a draw. It is a little late at night for a replay so I hope that we shall not have to have one. And I can assure my noble friend that there is no need for a penalty shoot-out on this Bill. This is an uncontentious, relatively calm part of tonight's business and I am glad that it is so.
The effect of Amendment No. 1 is to provide that the DSS should not be able, except where there is a case of fraud, to recover overpayments over a period longer than 12 months. The Minister knows perfectly well that the DSS has a rule that people who have had underpayments can recover them only for a period of 12 months; indeed, if they have the misfortune to be involved in a test case, not even for 12 months.
I do not maintain that there is anything in the least sacrosanct about the period of 12 months. I can remember some time ago, before the Minister was with us, arguing against that rule. I lost the argument and accepted it. My point is that if a period is stated, it should be the same
1234
period for both the DSS and the claimant. That is the principle on which the amendment rests; that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Even if there is not an equal period, there is no case, if there is a variation, for the department being able to recover overpayments over a longer period than the claimant. The Minister may not yet have been able to look at Elaine Kempson's book, Life on a Low Income, published by the Rowntree Trust. I hope that he will have time to look at it over the summer because we shall hear a lot more about it in time to come. The book deals at some length with a subject that I have often called to the Minister's attention; that is, the subject of debt on benefit; the problem of juggling with bills while the debt builds up; the problems of disconnection of water, electricity and so forth with which we are all familiar. It can be a serious problem and the intrusion into that pattern of heavily and barely manageable debt of a large overpayment over a period longer than 12 months can be crippling.
I am not suggesting that anyone who has been guilty of fraud should be spared that penalty. But where they have not it would seem harsh, especially when the department itself does not pay beyond the 12 months. In Elaine Kempson's book, in a study of 74 households on ordinary benefit without penalties, she found that 20 out of 74 seemed to be drowning in financial problems. I see no sense in deliberately thrusting them further under water. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The purpose of this amendment is, with the exception of fraudulent or negligent overpayments, to restrict the period of a recoverable overpayment to 12 months from the date on which it is determined that a recoverable overpayment has occurred.
As the noble Earl has said on many occasions, the social security system is complex and difficult to understand—a sentiment with which I agree. The present test of misrepresentation or failure to disclose is relatively simple. To impose a test which required adjudication officers to decide on fraudulent intent or negligence in respect of overpayments going back over 12 months would be to add significantly to the complexity of deciding whether or not overpayments are recoverable. What adjudication officers would have to do is to try and understand the thought processes and knowledge of the person claiming benefit when they failed to disclose or misrepresented a material fact. That would indeed be an extremely difficult and complex thing to do and would provide huge scope for those claimants who were deliberately abusing the social security system to limit their potential financial liability.
In any case, I can see no reason why the period of recoverable overpayments should be restricted to 12 months from the date that a determination is made. The test as applied, that overpayments are recoverable where a claimant has fraudulently or otherwise misrepresented or failed to disclose any material fact, is a reasonable one. It was first introduced by the government in 1948—not of my party—and has been reconfirmed by successive governments in subsequent Acts, none of which restricted the period of recoverable overpayments.

1235
It is important to remember that when people claim benefits they are receiving public money which the taxpayer has worked hard to provide. It is therefore incumbent on claimants to ensure that they have reported everything that they should regarding their claim to benefit. Even where we are dealing with innocent misrepresentation where the claimant knew the facts but failed to report them—and those cases are rare—the claimant has benefited from public money to which he or she was not entitled. It can certainly be argued that asking for the overpayment to be repaid is hard on the claimant, but it is equally hard on the taxpayer—many of whom are not wealthy—if we do not seek to recover the overpayment.
I believe that the Bill as it stands strikes a fair balance between the person claiming benefit and the taxpayer. Even when it is decided by an adjudication officer that an overpayment is recoverable—and there is a right of appeal against such a decision—the Secretary of State can, and does, exercise his discretion where serious hardship would be caused and can waive in whole or in part his right to recover the overpayment.
I hope that, with that explanation and the assurance that the Secretary of State has a discretion which he can exercise where there will be serious hardship, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I was interested to hear the Minister say that it was difficult to judge the existence of fraud. I wish he had said that to the House when he was on his feet about an hour ago. Nevertheless, I concede that what he says is true. And yet, he must also concede that in the ordinary courts of law the question of judging whether or not an intention is fraudulent comes before them almost every day. I agree that it is difficult, but I do not believe that the difficulty is insuperable.
I agree with everything that the Minister said about public money. But he should put into the scale against that the fact that those who are receiving benefits are receiving an entitlement. To deprive people of an entitlement which is also a subsistence is something which ought to be weighed in the scale even against public money. I was wondering whether to ask the Minister for an assurance about the Secretary of State's discretion, which he then gave in the last part of his speech. I think that is all I am going to get out of him but I ask him, when he exercises his discretion, to remember mercy as well as justice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("( )The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) A person shall only be taken to have failed to disclose a material fact within subsection (1) if—

(a) he knew the fact in question; and

(b) it was reasonable in all the circumstances, including but not limited to his mental state) for disclosure of the fact to be expected of him,

whether or not the failure also constitutes a misrepresentation of a material fact within subsection (1)".").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 2 is a rather more technical amendment. It deals with the case of Jones v. Chief Adjudication Officer which came before the Court of Appeal in 1993, though it was not reported until 1994. The amendment seeks to assimilate the threshold for misrepresentation to the threshold for failure to disclose. As the law stands at present, the threshold for misrepresentation is very much lower. Therefore, by using the declaration that all material facts have been reported, the department can assimilate every failure to disclose into a misrepresentation and thus make it easier to prove.
The case of Jones v. Chief Adjudication Officer was a difficult one. I believe that the case itself was correctly decided, but some of the things that were said in the course of it, possibly obiter—not being a lawyer I would not be too insistent on the point—are capable of giving some ground for anxiety. It is entirely reasonable to say that people should not be required to disclose what they do not know. I was a little perturbed by Lord Justice Evans saying that,
"when a person has misrepresented a material fact, his knowledge of that fact is irrelevant so far as Section 53 is concerned. It is sufficient that there was the misrepresentation, whether the fact was known to him or not".
Most of us can disclose everything we know. I have never found a way of disclosing what I do not know because if I do not know it I do not know that I am failing to disclose it. It seems to be a fairly fundamental objection, which is not to say that it needed to be asserted, as the learned judge asserted it, in order to decide the case of Jones.
Mr. Jones had claimed unemployment benefit but had not received it. He filled in his form correctly at the time. He subsequently received unemployment benefit but failed to disclose that he had subsequently received it. Obviously, he had been incorrectly in receipt of benefits. There were other ways of arriving at the conclusion that he had received a payment that he should not have done and that he should repay it other than that of requiring that he disclose what he did not know. He obviously should have completed the declaration when he received the unemployment benefit and said that he had done so. That is where Mr. Jones's failure lay. It was not in any failure to disclose something that he did not know.
The amendment would also allow people to take into account the mental state of the claimant. For example, one can imagine the existing law about failure to disclose being applied to a patient with as yet undiagnosed Alzheimer's disease. The effects of that could be absolutely catastrophic. So where a person is subsequently discovered to have contracted Alzheimer's disease, it might be reasonable not to insist on recovery of overpayment when they might have failed to disclose a material fact simply because at the moment they were actually incapable of remembering it. That is a point worthy of thought.
The learned judge I have quoted was not the only one who discussed this case. A different line was taken by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith. He made the crucial point that knowledge is not needed in innocent misrepresentation. It is the word "innocent" which is really crucial. Clearly, a misrepresentation is a misrepresentation, whether one

1237
knows it or not. But one can argue that if it is an innocent misrepresentation, it should not necessarily—with a person whose income is as low as that of someone on benefit—give rise to the right to require the recovery of overpayment. So in that way I believe that one might reconcile what the two learned judges said, the one with the other. One might perhaps incorporate this amendment into law without actually meaning to reverse the case, which I believe was correctly decided. This amendment would save the day. It would require that people should not be penalised for failure to disclose what they do not know. It is a simple principle and I hope that the Minister will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The purpose of this amendment, as the noble Earl has described it, is to limit the Secretary of State's right to recover overpayments in certain circumstances where it would not have been reasonable to expect the person to have known that a change in circumstances must be reported to the department. In my view the amendment is not necessary. Case law already deals with cases of mental incapacity, illiteracy or educational or linguistic difficulties. Therefore, it would encompass, I suspect, the case that the noble Earl made about Alzheimer's disease. Indeed, perhaps I may go further and give the noble Earl an assurance that the mental state at the time of the claim is taken into account in deciding whether a person had knowledge of a relevant fact. The Secretary of State could decide not to pursue overpayment if Alzheimer's disease was subsequently discovered. No obligation can be imposed to disclose something that a person does not already know and an overpayment arising in such circumstances is not recoverable.
More importantly, case law does not limit consideration of failure to disclose in the way the amendment would do. Rather than benefiting claimants, which I am sure the noble Earl intends to do, it could have the effect of narrowing the interpretation of these provisions as established by the case law over a long period. Even in those cases where the right to recover is undisputed the Secretary of State maintains a power of discretion to waive recovery in whole or in part.
The noble Lord mentioned at length the case of Jones v. Chief Adjudication Officer. I am aware of that case. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Earl that the latest authoritative position is a decision made in December 1995 by the Court of Appeal in Franklin v. Chief Adjudication Officer. Mrs. Franklin was overpaid income support because there was no disclosure that the interest rates on her mortgage had reduced. The social security appeal tribunal found that Mrs. Franklin had not known of the decrease in her mortgage interest rate. The court determined that the overpayment was not recoverable under Section 71 on the grounds that Mrs. Franklin had not misrepresented a material fact and also that she had not failed to disclose a material fact since the fact was outside her knowledge. I do not particularly want to read out some of the relevant parts of the case, but, if the noble Earl looks at the judgment, which was given on Wednesday, 13th December 1995, it may help with the problem he brings to our attention in this amendment.
1238
Where a person has no knowledge of a fact, there will be no recovery if he either fails to disclose it or misrepresents it. That has long been the position for failure to disclose. The Franklin case, which was decided last December, shows that a person is only required to report a relevant fact of which he has knowledge. There is no misrepresentation if he completes the standard declaration without reporting a fact of which he had no knowledge. With those assurances and with the recommendation of a little light reading for the noble Earl of yet another legal judgment, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: In answer to the noble Earl's amendments my noble friend has mentioned the Secretary of State's discretion to waive the refund of overpayment either in whole or in part. Surely, there is a third course. It would be helpful to me at least, and, I hope, to the noble Earl, if we can be told that where a substantial sum of money is due to be repaid, this can be done over a period of time and settled in the adjudication.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As we are in Committee, perhaps I may respond. The period of time during which the overpayment can be paid back is, in the first instance, a matter for negotiation between the person and the Benefits Agency. If no agreement can be arrived at, there is a limit to the amount of weekly overpayment which can be imposed. If my memory is correct it is £7 and £9—odd if the claim was fraudulent. Obviously, depending on the size of the overpayment, that will have some bearing on the length of time during which the overpayment is made. If it is felt that that would be too much for the person, it can be reduced to a lesser amount as long as the overpayment is made. I think that it is fair to say that the Secretary of State tries to take a reasonable view of repayments.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I was aware of the case of Franklin and I am encouraged by the Minister's reading of it. If that is indeed the law, I am satisfied, but I ask the Minister to continue to watch the situation to see whether the cases which caused so much confusion in Jones continue to arise and, if they do, to reconsider whether the law may be in need of clarification.
On the question of mental state, it is not quite so simple. It is clear that a person's mental state is relevant to the question of whether the claimant knew the facts in question, but there is a commissioner's decision—the reference is CA/303/92—which holds that the question is only whether the claimant knew the fact in question, not whether he understood that it was reasonable to require him to disclose it. There are a number of cases of mental impairment—severe brain injury after a road accident comes to mind—where that distinction might be vital. I hope that the Minister can again tell me, as he has on other issues, that he has discretion and that he will exercise it with mercy. Can he help me that far?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that I can help the noble Earl that far, but I am prepared to say

1239
that there have been cases—I am not sure that I can refer to them by name because I have only a code in front of me—where it was decided that a person must be reasonably expected to disclose a material fact. If the person may not reasonably be expected to know of the material fact because of his or her mental state, there is no failure to disclose.
I do not think that we are far apart. However, as we cannot continue to bat previous cases back and forth, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that I am content to consider what he has said and to write to him with clarification of the cases that he has drawn to my attention.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Earl said: This is a comparatively small amendment. It covers the point of vires for an appeal. If there is to be an appeal against an overpayment, it must cover the matter which came up on the review. That is inevitable. It is in the necessity of the case. However, the effect of the Bill has been to separate the review from the overpayment for reasons which I believe are good and which I accept.
Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 10 of Commissioner Mesher's judgment which gave rise to the Bill. It is the same passage which I believe also gives rise to the case for the amendment. He said:
"It would be most unfair to a claimant if an adjudication officer could … after the time for appealing against the review decision has expired, decide that a resulting overpayment was recoverable".
That was why Commissioner Mesher found there was a problem about recovery after the period of the review was over. As that problem has been met, Commissioner Mesher's other problem needs to be met also. The amendment is simple and equitable and will, I hope, save confusion. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Earl said, the purpose of the amendment is effectively to reopen the appeal rights of a decision to revise or vary an award where a decision on the overpayment aspects are considered at a later stage. The noble Earl quoted Commissioner Mesher's decision in the Mustard case about the problem of separating the review of the payment from the decision on whether there has been an overpayment; to what extent; and why it arose. They have always been separated and our purpose is to place the legislation in exactly the position that absolutely everyone considered it to be in since 1948.
A person has the right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal against a decision of an adjudication officer. He has three months in which to exercise that right. The period can be extended by the tribunal chairman in very exceptional circumstances. However, in the interests of good administration, there must be a point where a matter about entitlement to benefit is considered closed. If a person has been receiving an amount of
1240
benefit for three months without appealing, it is only right to consider that the amount in payment is accepted and that there cannot, unless there are exceptional circumstances, be a longer period in which that appeal can be made. If a determination on an overpayment is made after the expiry of the time in which an appeal against the revised or varied award can be made, there will still exist a right of appeal against the overpayment decision. That seems to me right. We are talking about where the person fully accepts the amount currently in payment—he has not appealed within the three-month period allowed—but disputes the overpayment part. If he chose not to exercise his rights of appeal when the award was revised in the first instance, I do not see that he can expect the matter to be reopened at a later stage—after the initial three-month period has expired.
In any event, giving a person what effectively amounts to an extended period in which to appeal, in circumstances where his own misrepresentation or failure to disclose led to the award being revised, is manifestly unfair to those who report the facts about themselves correctly and promptly and who do not have extended appeal rights. That is why I think that it is important that we do not extend beyond three months the initial ground for appeal (against the actual decision to vary the weekly or monthly payment), although I accept that beyond that period of three months the person may wish to appeal against the decision on overpayment. The two are separate. I think that the fact that there is a cushion of three months in which someone can appeal against the recalculation of the weekly benefit that is in payment is more than sufficient. To go further would be to go too far. Having listened to that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I must confess to being rather disappointed by that answer. It seems to me to amount to a total denial of the possibility of an appeal against recovery of overpayment. I cannot see how you can appeal against recovery of overpayment without questioning the assessment of the overpayment which led to the recovery. I think that Commissioner Mesher was quite right: the two matters necessarily become involved with each other.
I take the Minister's point that when you are found to have been receiving an excess of benefit, obviously you should take it up and, if you think that it is wrong, you should appeal immediately. However, if one talks to people on benefit, one realises that they spend a lot of their lives in what I can best describe as a "fog" about why the DSS does to them what it does. A great many of them, without understanding, accept that the DSS moves in a mysterious way and they grit their teeth and bear it. However, if one suddenly faces a demand for recovery of a four-figure sum which one has no chance of producing, that may be a very different matter. I think that the Minister is risking making the right to appeal against recovery of overpayment practically nugatory. Will he read Commissioner Mesher's judgment again and reconsider the matter in the light of what he said? Is the Minister prepared to go that far?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am reading the appropriate paragraph of Commissioner Mesher's

1241
judgment. I have been studying it. Even in the interests of being as generous as I can to the noble Earl, I do not think that I can go any further than I have gone because that might lead the noble Earl to think that I was being more generous than I intend to be on this matter.
I am perfectly clear that if, over a period of three months, a person has accepted a reduced payment, there is no case for extending the period in which he can appeal against that reduced payment beyond those three months. Obviously I appreciate that that person may wish to appeal against the size of the overpayment demanded, but that may be on other grounds. He has already accepted that new conditions and new information leads the Benefits Agency rightly to a new conclusion on the amount of the new weekly payment. He can dispute whether he knowingly misrepresented the facts or knew the facts. He can certainly dispute these other matters in an appeal against a decision for overpayment, but I do not believe that it is right that we should extend the three-month period for an appeal against the decision on the recalculation of the benefit itself.
Earl Russell: It is an illness of office that one tends to believe that everybody else is wrong. Briefs come back marked "Resist". I understand perfectly well why that is so. I hope that if I remove myself with my amendments and I leave the Minister so that I am no longer here to say "no" to, the Minister may just think again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Report received.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996
7.12 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 and to lay amended regulations making the power to increase the benefit penalty discretionary and therefore to be exercised with regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by the decision, as required by Section 2 of the Child Support Act 1991.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to offer my thanks to the Minister's honourable colleague, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, first, for a great deal of kindness over correspondence; secondly, for giving me a meeting in which we discussed these new regulations in some detail; and, thirdly, when I asked for additional information on some of the points covered in the CSA research, for sending me a very large quantity of material.
I have read it all but it does not answer any of the questions about which I asked Mr. Mitchell for further information. I regret to say that I shall have to ask those questions again.
We are familiar with the proverb, "Give a dog a bad name and hang him". We have seen that done today to asylum seekers. It is being done under these regulations in very much the same way to women with children. The idea is being put about that they must be fraudulent and therefore outside our mercy. It is a wonderful way of denying sympathy to people in need. I find it extremely disturbing.
In the course of preparing this speech I looked back at our debates on the Child Support Act 1991. I found I had said then that if a benefit penalty was needed as large as the one that we have now, it would mean that the resistance among women to the Child Support Act was so great that the Act would be unenforceable. I believe that that was a good judgment. The Minister has decided that the present benefit penalty on women who do not co-operate with the CSA of losing 20 per cent. of their benefit for a year and 10 per cent. for a further six months is not enough. He says that that level of benefit penalty fails to provide a sufficient incentive to co-operate with the CSA. I cannot help wondering whether the conclusion that I drew in 1991 may be rather more appropriate. The Government have concluded that there is a need to make the benefit penalty more effective if they are to tackle abuse.
What are the real causes of women's failure to co-operate with the CSA? Surely the Child Poverty Action Group is right that in the context of the requirement to co-operate there will always be a margin for error. That emerges from a case in the book by Elaine Kempson. She quotes the case of a woman who left her husband after a particularly bad beating. She did not qualify for income support because he was supposed to be paying her maintenance, which she never received. That is a familiar story, too. Mounting money problems forced her to return to her violent husband. That woman did not have sufficient confidence in the good cause procedures to go anywhere near them. I wish that the Government were as alert to those cases as they are to the very few of fraud.
In a crucial passage in paragraph 43 of the CSA's research, a distinction is drawn, which the CSA regards as fundamental, between those who have genuine concerns and those who do not co-operate with the CSA. It assumes that these are two fundamentally different groups. There is a refutation of that on page 131 of the very same research. One would have thought that the authors might have noticed what they had themselves published. That case concerned a woman who refused to co-operate with the CSA and would not give any reasons. But the relevant officer, who fortunately had scholarly instincts, looked up the old liable relative documents and found that, although she had not claimed this, she had left her husband because of repeated incidents of violence. Because he happened to be a genuine scholar, the woman was found to have good cause. But that violence would have been just as genuine if the officer had not happened to look up the documents. It would have been just as genuine if it had

1243
not found its way in the first place into the liable relative papers. We do not know how many causes of that kind may be being missed.
Another common cause for failing to co-operate, which is perhaps not as bad a cause as the Minister believes, is a desire to protect a second family. It so happened that on Saturday evening very occasionally I took a little time off and watched a film on television. It emerged that the brother of the heroine suddenly discovered that the man he believed to be his father was not. His response was to take to heroin. That was a fictional case, but I am sure that it is possible to find real cases which can go with it. That may be a good cause for not co-operating, even if the CSA does not find it. It may be a common cause that to co-operate with the CSA will disrupt an amicable arrangement between divorced parents. The example of Mrs. Smith in the CSA's model cases in the appendix to this research is a typical case in point. It is a fictional case, but I believe that it is very accurately delineated.
God knows, it is hard enough for couples who have split up to reach amicable arrangements and keep them going. They may perfectly well dislike having the CSA marching in and putting its muddy boots all over those arrangements. Even if the Minister does not accept that that is so, he must accept that there is a limit to the practical powers of the state to force people to act against their own interests as they perceive them. That has always been so, and, thank God, it is.
The commonest reason: Professor Craig's report for the Rowntree Trust studied the cases of 53 women who had been subject to the CSA. Not one of those women was better off as a result. So, in this benefit penalty regime, we have a regime which is all stick and no carrot. If the Minister is keen for more women to co-operate with the CSA, he might think about a tiny little bit of carrot. The Minister knows perfectly well what we shall be asking him for. I shall not labour the point. It is a maintenance disregard, better arrangements for passported benefits, and, above all, some way of dealing with the frequent failure of maintenance to arrive. That is something that many other European countries have done, with profit. We have not done it here, and we are paying for it.
Another common reason, as one of the women in the Rowntree study said, is that she has refused to co-operate because she does not want to go into, as she put it, "the gory details of a rotten marriage". People coming out of a marriage, like people coming out of a party, tend to be suffering from centrifugal force. Requiring those people to resume a relationship with their former partners could be rather like an administrative requirement to require Dr. David Owen to return to the Labour Party. I do not think that it would be particularly effective.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the noble Earl inviting us to a Dutch auction?
Earl Russell: My Lords, no, I do not conduct my auctions on Dutch principles. I think that the House takes my point. When a woman says that she is going to wash this man right out of her hair, that is a force which the state cannot change.
1244
I remember saying in 1995—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, opened his eyes wide with astonishment—that in some of these cases even the death penalty would not be a sufficient inducement to make the woman go back into a relationship with her former partner and co-operate. Those were considered words. I know actual examples. I shall not go any further. In those cases I believe that there is no penalty which is sufficient to make the woman co-operate.
Again it is vital that though violence is regarded as sufficient cause, fear of violence is not. The case of Miss Rogers in the CSA's model cases is a classic case in point. She said, "I fear he will hurt me one day. So I want to go where I will never see him again". When a woman decides that, it is hard to make her change her mind, but she can find it difficult to offer proof. Let us take this:
"It was the way he looked at me. It was very difficult to put into words. He had a strange and odd effect on me".
That is actual evidence. It is the evidence of the WPC who had to go to see Thomas Hamilton of Dunblane about his gun licence. She was right. That instinct is part of a woman's survival kit in the world. Anyone who tries to make her abandon it will fail. So the Minister is barking up the wrong tree. However fierce his penalty, he will never get to the top of it. He can go on and on producing fiercer penalties.
Among all those possible causes for not co-operating, the only one that the DSS can see is fraud. I wish the DSS were as worried by its own errors as it is by those of claimants. The research offers a weak foundation indeed for that belief in fraud. It admits itself that it is not a statistically significant sample. It quotes the belief of staff that there is a great deal of fraud. But I did discover one interesting thing from the large mass of material that I was sent. It is the comment in paragraph 3.75 that that belief of the staff in a large level of fraud was perception rather than fact. That I believe to be correct.
The sample was untypical in that only one member of it had appealed against a reduced benefit direction. It was unscholarly in that it lumped together confirmed fraud and suspected fraud. I have had no additional evidence about cases of suspected fraud. Taking those two as one and the same thing is legally totally unsound. Of the 38, 26 are alleged to have told the research that a 40 per cent. benefit penalty had no impact. That is literally totally unbelievable. I have asked to see the words of the question to which that was a reply. I have not seen them. I can only translate that comment, saving your Lordships' presence, as, "… off". I think that that is all it means.
I do not believe the Minister realises quite how tight life is on ordinary levels of benefit: not being able to buy a wreath for a father's funeral. In Elaine Kempson's words:
"Insufficient income to cover even their basic needs".
She stresses that the hardship of being on benefit grows, often in geometrical proportion, as you are on it longer. So if you are on a 40 per cent. reduction for the whole of your children's youth, that will grow very heavy indeed.
It must affect the children also. We were told in 1991 that it affected only the mother and not the children, but you do not divide the pat of butter into one half which is for the mother, which shrinks, and another half which

1245
is for the children. I know that mothers try to do that to the point of malnutrition, but even beyond the point of malnutrition, if you switch off the heating, you switch it off for everyone. The children must suffer too. And the problem goes on to the next generation.
They tell me that a 40 per cent. benefit penalty or a 20 per cent. benefit penalty have no impact. I find that an insult to my intelligence. In saying that, the Minister is flinging a pot of ink in the face of the public. If he wants a farthing, I am willing to repeat it outside the Chamber.
Moved to resolve, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 and to lay amended regulations making the power to increase the benefit penalty discretionary and therefore to be exercised with regard to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by the decision, as required by Section 2 of the Child Support Act 1991.—(Earl Russell.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for allowing us this debate in this form tonight. The regulations reduce benefit for the parent with care who fails to co-operate with the CSA without good cause by some 40 per cent. for a three-year term, which is renewable. I take it, but it would worth the Minister confirming it, that at any point that the parent with care co-operates with the agency the full benefit is promptly reinstated. The regulations are to take effect from October.
Perhaps I may start with the point that the noble Earl made last. We are talking about a significant sum: a loss to a family of nearly £20 a week, leaving her—I may not be a WPC, but I shall use the word "her" in this case—if she has one child with just £60 a week to live on if she is over 25 and £50 for a mother and child to live on if the mother is, say, 24. That is based on a review of just 72 cases out of the 27,000 cases in which there were benefit deductions.
The sampling evidence upon which this new practice has been constructed seems to me to be exceedingly unreliable, particularly when it is done by an agency which is notorious for its inaccuracy and error. Even after improvements during the past year, over one assessment in five is inaccurate. Improvements have been made, and we welcome them, but I should be somewhat more comfortable with all of this if I felt that the agency's procedures and processes were to be relied on rather more faithfully than we have so far been led to believe.
We do not doubt that there is a problem of collusion. While in 1974 there was a deduction of about 4 per cent. in benefit, it was double that last year. We know that the very act of triggering child support assessments has encouraged some parents with care to stop claiming income support, suggesting that their claim for income support may not have been legitimate; for instance, they may have been in work, living with a partner or claiming as a single parent. It is also sometimes the case that when child support assessments are made, allegations are made by one parent that the other is fraudulently claiming benefit.
1246
There is also some evidence, which we must accept, that some parents collude in order to avoid payment. Obviously, it is in everyone's interest, except that of taxpayers, that the parent with care should refuse to name the absent father and that in return for his avoiding formal maintenance he will pay informal maintenance of a lower figure which goes entirely to her and the children and none to the Treasury. That too is fraud.
It is also the case that some parents with care fail to co-operate with the CSA because they are genuinely bewildered. The noble Earl's description of them being in a fog in terms of the wondrous workings of the agency was most apt. They are bewildered and baffled by the whole process. Many find the forms very difficult to understand. Their English may be poor. Many parents with care may have minor learning difficulties. At present, the CSA makes no personal contact, such as a visit, and therefore it is difficult to know the extent of the problem.
Other parents may refuse to co-operate, not because they are confused but because they are all too clear that they do not want the absent parent back in their lives. They believe that if the absent father pays maintenance he will want access. For whatever reason, good or bad, they prefer to accept a benefit penalty rather than to allow that. The Minister, the noble Earl and I know that paying maintenance and rights to access are not the same, but that is not what is believed outside this House in many broken families.
Other parents with care may have a friendly relationship with the absent father. Their children may often stay with him in his new family and get on with the new half-brothers and half-sisters. They may not wish to threaten that relationship by appearing to hound him for maintenance. It is decent that they prize the good relations between their children and their father and have no wish to appear to jeopardise them at the cost to the children.
Finally, some parents with care are genuinely fearful of violence from an abusing partner. There is no doubt that for very good reasons many women do not co-operate with the agency. The test of the agency is whether it is sufficiently skilled and sensitive to recognise when such a real fear exists.
What is our position? We are emphatic that we do not tolerate fraud, nor do we accept collusion. I accept that there may be a case for some benefit reduction having a role to play in stopping fraud in particular. However, I believe that much of the blame for the present situation lies fairly and squarely with the practices and procedures of the CSA. Parents with care find themselves dealing with an anonymous, bureaucratic, error-ridden and deeply flawed organisation. It is wrong that the parent with care can suffer benefit reductions without having the opportunity to meet and discuss the case with the CSA official. We believe that home visits are essential if one is to determine the true situation and to assure a woman who is threatened with violence that she should be protected and to encourage the woman who may have learning difficulties and who is baffled and frightened by the whole system that she need have no fear in co-operating with the agency. We shall reinstate home

1247
visits. We believe also that there may be other and safer methods of tracing the absent father without jeopardising the well-being of the mother. Whatever our concern to eradicate fraud, there is no way in which we shall be party to putting women at risk.
Therefore the Government and the agency must be able to distinguish between a mother who is being deliberately fraudulent—possibly because she is working, which, clearly, must be stopped and a benefit penalty or the loss of benefit if her work takes her above that level should be considered—and the mother who is colluding with the absent father and enters into an informal arrangement with him. That, too, should be stopped. I hope that in the case of the first situation, if there is any question of misunderstanding and the woman should be on family credit, the agency will accept the fact that not everyone has such a clear distinction between income support and family credit and the 16-hours rule as do your Lordships.
The Government have only themselves to blame for the mother who colludes with the absent father. While not tolerating collusion, we know why it happens. It happens because the Government do not permit the parent with care to retain a single pound or a single penny of the maintenance paid in the form of disregard if he or she is on income support. We hope and expect to introduce such a disregard, thus making it more financially attractive for women with children to co-operate.
We must also distinguish between the woman who is confused and fails to co-operate with the agency, to which we believe the right response is home visits, and the mother who refuses to co-operate with the agency as a result of genuine fear. We all accept that the CSA staff have a difficult job. All of us would wish to pay tribute to the fact that, so far, in no case in which it has been reported that the CSA has refused to accept a fear of violence as good cause has there subsequently been violent assault or abuse. The staff are to be commended for that.
We shall restore home visits and we shall have a greater confidence in the system of penalties. Until they and a disregard are in place, and until alternative and safer means of tracing the father are in place, we oppose the Government's policy of increasing benefit deduction. It is wrong. It may, though I doubt it, succeed in getting more women to co-operate with the agency. However, it will plunge more children of lone parents into deeper poverty. Their health, education and well-being will suffer. Perhaps your Lordships will try to imagine a mother and a five year-old child living on £50 a week. Your Lordships might spend in one night that on a dinner for two. The health of those children and their education and well-being will suffer. Truly, the Government are insisting that we visit the sins of the father all too literally on the father's child.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this Motion is unnecessary for two reasons. First, although the Government are satisfied that child support provisions are entirely consistent with the welfare of children, child support legislation, in fact, imposes no requirement on the Secretary of State to consider these
1248
issues when bringing forward regulations. I recall, as I am sure does the noble Earl, that this matter was debated extensively during the passage of the 1995 Child Support Bill.
Parliament has decided that child maintenance should be set within the clearly defined framework of a formula which takes into account the needs of all parties involved: the children, their parents and the taxpayers. The foundations of the scheme are rooted in the belief, endorsed by Parliament, that the welfare of the child is best served through the support of his own parents based on their ability to pay.
It is also the case that there are already established and well-used safeguards to ensure the proper use of regulation-making powers, such as those relating to the vires of the powers or the unusual or unexpected use of powers. There can be little doubt that it was the will of Parliament in passing what is now Section 46 of the 1991 Act that parents with care should face a benefit reduction if they failed without good cause to co-operate with child support provisions. These regulations simply seek to make that penalty more effective.
Secondly, in accordance with Section 2 of the Child Support Act 1991, the welfare of the child must be considered in connection with all good cause decisions. Both the requirement to co-operate and reduced benefit direction decisions are discretionary decisions and will continue to be, as they have been so far, subject to welfare of the child considerations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister says that it was the will of Parliament to impose a benefit penalty, is he aware that he means that it was the will of another place?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that the other place was included in the term "Parliament". I presume that the noble Earl is pointing out to me, although I do not believe that I was here at the time, that this House did not perhaps agree with the Government's proposals but that the other place did. However, I do not wish to rehearse the arguments we had earlier today in that respect. Clearly the end part of the Bill—now the Act—was as I have stated.
In deciding whether to impose a requirement to co-operate the person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State must consider if there is any evidence of risk of harm or undue distress to the child. Welfare of the child is, therefore, already considered.
The reduced benefit direction is intended to ensure that parents with care consider carefully their decision not to co-operate without good cause. To be effective, a sanction must be applied in cases where co-operation is refused for no good reason. In deciding whether to impose such a direction regard must be had to the welfare of the child. But the welfare of the child cannot be considered in isolation and it is not the paramount consideration. Regard must also be had to the purpose and principles of the child support Acts; the obligation of both parents to support their children; and the advantages of receipt of maintenance. The

1249
child support scheme would be seriously undermined if the imposition of a reduced benefit direction was considered, in every case, to so adversely affect the welfare of the child that it should not be made. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Motion.
I turn now to the regulations which also formed part of the noble Earl's speech and that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The regulations make important changes to underpin the Government's commitment to the principles of child support, as well as making a number of minor changes to improve child support operations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that it would be a great deal better if the CSA was doing better; indeed, the agency has had difficulties and we have never made any secret of that fact. However, it is improving year by year. In March 1996 an accuracy rate of 79 per cent. was achieved. Therefore, progress is being made but, of course, that is being made against the background that there are many men out there who do not want to pay and who are pretty unwilling payers. In such circumstances there will always be difficulties for the agency.
The most substantial changes in the amending regulations which have been mentioned both by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness are those to the reduced benefit direction provisions. Many noble Lords will recall that Section 46 of the 1991 Act provides that a reduced benefit direction may be imposed on a parent with care in receipt of an income related benefit who fails to co-operate with the Child Support Agency without good cause. The regulations make important and, in our view, necessary changes to those provisions. First, they increase the amount and duration of the benefit reduction; secondly, they remove, in certain cases, the six-week cooling-off period given to parents with care before a reduced benefit direction is considered.
The regulations also include a provision to amend the confidentiality rules to ease the appeals process; provisions to enable the agency to gather information to decide whether a case should be taken on, and to decide the best way of enforcing a maintenance assessment; and a number of minor and technical amendments to ease administration and underpin existing policy.
Perhaps I may turn first to the reduced benefit directions, which are really the key to the whole debate. We have been increasingly concerned about the large numbers of parents with care refusing to co-operate for no good reason. In the year 1995–96, the Child Support Agency investigated over 112,000 cases where the parent with care had responded to the agency's initial inquiries indicating an unwillingness to co-operate. In the same year, administrators accepted the parent's reasons for not co-operating in just under 39,000 cases, and no further action was taken. In just over 27,000 cases the parent with care refused to authorise maintenance action despite being required to do so and a reduced benefit direction was imposed.
1250
Of even greater concern is the number of parents with care who do not make any contact with the agency to say why they do not feel able to co-operate. Following the recommendation of the Select Committee, the Child Support Agency recently undertook a detailed investigation of the operation of the requirement to co-operate. In the sample survey used for the report, the parent with care had failed to make contact with the agency in no fewer than 45 per cent. of cases where a reduced benefit direction was issued.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that that represents 34 people out of the 27,000 cases?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come to that matter later. I referred to 45 per cent. of the sample. One can hardly move from the sample to the total number involved.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that the sample was 72, therefore the Minister has evidence on 34 cases and from that he is speculating as to the situation of the other 27,000.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said, I had intended to deal with that point at a later stage. However, perhaps the noble Baroness would prefer me to deal with it now. I quite agree that the sample was not a big one; indeed, it was a sample of 72 cases. That sample illustrated a problem for which there is wider and statistically valid evidence. The Benefits Agency review, which was based on a sample of over 1,600 cases, showed that almost 20 per cent. of lone parents had claimed benefit fraudulently or were strongly suspected of doing so. Therefore, there is some evidence to show that this is a problem. In fact, I believe that the Select Committee was thinking along those lines when it suggested that we should look at the issue.
It is clearly unacceptable that there are people who are not telling the Child Support Agency what the position is and who are just leaving it at that. The agency has a very good record in handling good cause interviews, and complaints have been very few. Indeed, I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned that point in her speech. The good cause procedures are designed specifically to establish whether the parent with care has genuine concerns. There is no evidence that anyone has suffered harm from the absent parent as a result of being required to co-operate. Again, I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned that fact.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect a parent with care to make her case to the agency. However, this high non-compliance rate must lead to the conclusion that, in at least some of these cases, there may be fraud or collusion between the parents to avoid child support liability.

1251
It also appears that the problem is getting worse. In 1994–95 19 per cent. of cases investigated resulted in a reduced benefit direction, and last year the figure was 24 per cent. I do not believe that we can allow that trend to continue. Accordingly, we are forced to the conclusion that current penalties are inadequate and provide insufficient incentive to those minded to abuse the child support system.
Just as an absent parent should pay maintenance if he can afford to do so, so a parent with care should co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance unless she has a good reason not to do so. Currently, a parent with care who refuses to co-operate with the agency without good cause may have her benefit reduced by 20 per cent. for six months, followed by a reduction of 10 per cent. for a further 12 months. It is regrettable that these penalties are necessary at all; in an ideal world they would not be. It is essential that the level of the benefit reduction reflects the seriousness of the parent's decision not to comply. The regulations before the House today will encourage the parent with care to think more carefully about her decision.
We achieve that aim by means of the following changes. First, Regulation 14 provides that the reduced benefit direction will be increased to 40 per cent. of the adult income support allowance for three years. The direction will be immediately renewed if the parent with care continues to fail to comply.
Secondly, Regulation 13 provides that only parents with care who give their reasons for not co-operating in writing will have the benefit of the six-week cooling off period. In all other cases, the Secretary of State will refer the case to a child support officer to consider imposing a reduced benefit direction immediately the parent with care fails to respond to the relevant notices. Even parents with care who fail to make any contact at all will still have ample opportunity for reflection and time to contact the agency if they choose to do so. No parents with care will have their benefit reduced before they have had a minimum of nine weeks to consider their position. During that period they will have received an offer of an interview and no less than five written communications from the agency. In addition, it will still be necessary for two agency officials to consider the case.
Perhaps I may explain the new procedure to the House. As now, when a parent with care applies for a relevant benefit she will receive the CSA 12C letter which explains that she may be required to co-operate with the agency and asks her to return a declaration saying whether she intends to claim good cause. If she returns the declaration to say that she thinks she, or any child living with her, will be at risk of harm or undue distress if she co-operates, this is considered. If she returns the declaration to say that she is prepared to authorise the recovery of maintenance, or if she does not return the declaration at all, a maintenance application form is sent after 14 days. She will then be given 14 days to complete that form, after which a reminder is issued giving her another seven days if the form has still not been returned. She will then receive a letter asking her to return the form, or give reasons in writing as to why she thinks she should not have done so
1252
within two weeks or the case will at the end of that two-week period be referred to a child support officer to consider a reduced benefit direction.
If within two weeks she gives her reasons why she should not be required to co-operate, she will be given six weeks before the case is referred to a child support officer to consider a reduced benefit direction, even though officials may not think that the reasons that she gives are sufficient to justify good cause. Once the case has been referred to a child support officer, he will allow the parent with care a further two weeks to make representations before he makes a decision on a reduction of benefit.
So noble Lords can see where the nine weeks arises. It will take at least nine weeks before a parent with care receives a reduced benefit direction. There is therefore plenty of opportunity for the parent to get in touch with the agency or attend an interview to explain her circumstances. A reduced benefit direction is the last resort and the agency's procedures and letters make this very clear.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister says that there will be five or possibly six communications in writing to the parent with care. Clearly, if she is competent, she will at least know what the situation is and take some responsibility for it. I apologise to the Minister if I am anticipating him, but will he comment or give guidance on the proposals about home visits?
A lot of this endless to-ing and fro-ing of paperwork is directed at women who may have fairly low literacy levels, who may not speak English as their first language or who feel themselves almost frozen into apathy after being bombarded by the system. Can the Minister comprehend that situation? As a councillor, I have known people in my ward in that situation who could not cope with the papers and letters coming through the door.
Will the Minister consider restoring home visits before going through to the child support officer to make the final decision?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, obviously, given the number of problems that we have in this regard with parents not returning their forms even at the end of quite a long procedure, it would be quite expensive and difficult to say that we could have home visits in every single case. In any case, all of the parents we are talking about have actually filled in income support application forms and perhaps been to the Benefits Agency office. I find it hard to believe that somehow they are unable either to fill in the form or go to the agency office to seek help and advice.
While we are interested in increasing the number of home visits across the whole benefits area, I cannot promise that we will particularly concentrate on home visits in this area. Most of the people we are considering are people who have income support and, therefore, they have made applications and know how the system works. They know where they can go for help.
Let me answer one point that the noble Baroness raised. Even after a reduced benefit direction has been imposed, a parent with care may at any time come forward to make

1253
her case and this will be considered. If she co-operates, or gives acceptable reasons why she should not be required to co-operate, the direction will be lifted immediately.
We are determined that parents with care will co-operate with the agency unless they have genuine reasons not to do so. We are matching the legislative changes proposed today with improved procedures to ensure that all parents with care understand what is required of them. They will be given every opportunity to state their case. Any parent with care who will genuinely be at risk from co-operating and explains this to the agency will continue to be exempted.
However, those parents with care who never contact the agency after being requested many times to do so, and those parents with care who have no reason—or a reason which does not involve harm or undue distress—for not co-operating should now do so. It is not right that taxpayers, many of whom have children of their own, should be expected to support children simply because they are not living with a parent who can support them. We believe that these changes will encourage parents to comply with the agency and, where they have genuine reasons not to comply, will encourage them to discuss these reasons with the Child Support Agency.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the case about a parent with care who was not on income support but who had a violent partner. I am a bit puzzled about this. If the parent with care is not in receipt of any relevant benefit, such as income support, the agency will only become involved at the behest of the same parent with care. So the good cause process does not apply in those circumstances as the Child Support Agency is only brought into the picture on a voluntary basis by the parent with care.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the parent was in receipt of maintenance—or was supposed to be in receipt of maintenance—which was not coming. She had failed to explain to the agency that she had good cause—presumably because she did not trust the agency with her explanation. That was my point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I misunderstood the point and I apologise to the noble Earl. But my point still stands for the circumstance that I thought was being referred to by the noble Earl.
I come back to it. There is no reason why a parent with care who is fearful about her ex-husband or her still-current husband should be frightened to tell the agency why she does not want the agency to approach this particular man. We look very sympathetically at those cases and we now have a lot of experience of judging them. But, as in all these cases, and in all instances of social security, one eventually has to make a judgment or no one would co-operate with us and everyone would say, "Yes, please, I will have the taxpayers' money".
The CSA does not force a woman to strike up relationships with ex-partners. The good cause process is not about forcing women to go back to their old relationships; it is about ensuring that the agency gets the information it requires to make sure that—as in most cases it is—the father of the child actually pays his whack
1254
for the child. He should not look to other people, who have their own children to look after, and say, "Please, will you look after my child as well", because for whatever reason he does not want to bother doing it.
Turning to the easing of the confidentiality rules during the appeals process, the regulations before us today include provisions for changes to be made to the way the child support appeal papers are handled when appeals are made. The agency takes very seriously its responsibility to protect personal information given in the course of assessing child support maintenance. When an appeal is made by one of the parties to a child support appeal tribunal, it is in the interests of natural justice that all parties to the appeal are copied the relevant papers. This is the responsibility of the independent tribunal service. It is very important that the whereabouts of a party to the appeal are not revealed where there is a risk to that party, and this vetting action will continue.
At present it is assumed that all parties will want this information protected unless they say otherwise. This results in all the appeal papers being edited—often to the point where they are meaningless—despite the fact that most parents are well aware of each other's whereabouts and many spouses remain in the marital home.
It is right that documents should be edited only if that is requested. This regulation change means that the parties to an appeal will tell the independent tribunal service if they want their address and other location details kept secret. If so, the papers will be edited to protect this information.
There are other minor amendments which have not been raised. They are minor and corrective amendments and I need not trouble your Lordships with explanations of them.
I shall wind up by making one or two points in direct response to some of the questions I was asked. It was suggested by the noble Earl that I should apply a little carrot as well as a lot of stick. Proper arrangements for child maintenance are obviously in the interests of the overwhelming majority of parents and their children. That is the carrot. They provide a stable income on which a return to work can be contemplated by the parent with care. The child maintenance bonus will provide a clear financial gain to those who move off income support into work. We have had discussion before on maintenance disregard. We believe that it is likely to be a disincentive to return to work. The parent with care has to earn a great deal more to be better off. We believe it is better to focus our limited resources on helping the lone parent to return to work. For example, those in receipt of family credit already receive a £15 disregard.
I think we all appreciate the problems of a parent with care being exposed to a violent ex-husband after a marriage has broken up. We believe that if the parent with care tells the Child Support Agency she has a genuine fear of violence and states that that is why she does not wish the Child Support Agency to contact the father, that will be accepted as good cause. If, however, she does not have good cause and if she does not bother to reply—as I have said, a fair number do just that—I am afraid the penalty already in existence is clearly inadequate for a number of reasons, possibly (in some cases at least) because there is collusion between the parents.

1255
This package of regulations contains important improvements to the scheme which will improve compliance, encourage clients to contact the agency and ease administration. They reflect our determination with respect to the basic principle of child support; namely, that all parents should support their children whenever they are able to do so. As always I am pleased to acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and the main party opposite—although we do not agree on all the details of the Child Support Agency—agree with the fundamental principle that ex-husbands have a responsibility to their children, and that they should not become ex-fathers, as it were.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must confess to being disappointed with that reply. It was a reply which took place entirely within the confines of the office. It was a series of rational, bureaucratic, systematic calculations of logical principles. At no point in the Minister's speech did he appear to realise that he was dealing with the raw stuff of human emotions. At no point did he appear to realise that he may—in what appears perfectly logical within the departmental computer—nevertheless be tearing apart human happiness. People do not always behave in precisely the manner that the Department of Social Security believes to be logical. When I referred to a relationship, I was not attempting to suggest he thought the couple should be put back together again. For many people who have come out of a relationship even having to enter into correspondence with the other person can become quite unbearable. The Minister will not change that.
The Minister said he is determined that these people will co-operate. That begins to sound a little hysterical. It is the voice of the defeated bureaucrat who knows that he cannot do what he wants. In order to hear a voice from outside politics altogether I have tried to discuss what the Government are doing with a number of people who have absolutely no connection with politics at all. What I have heard from them is the voice of absolute cold shock and horror at what the Government are doing. That was a great deal stronger, I may say, than anything the Minister has heard from me because I understand the bureaucratic side of the argument as well, and that is also real.
I do not think the Minister understands at all what a powerful weapon he is wielding. In my book a 40 per cent. reduction in benefit takes you to the point at which you cannot live legally. For myself I would regard imprisonment as a less severe penalty. So women who do not co-operate with the agency are, in my book, being treated more severely than convicted murderers. I cannot believe that that is right. I am a taxpayer. However, I do not want to increase my comfort in other people's blood, and I do not believe I am the only taxpayer who thinks that way. I have told the Government before that I do not think they can make this Act work without the co-operation of at least one sex. If they do not get the support of women for the Act, the Act fails. They are doing everything they can now to throw it away. I listened with great care to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I agreed with a large part of what she said and enjoyed listening to it. I heard nothing about the attitude of the noble Baroness to my Motion. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
1256
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996
8.6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee,].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
8.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 17.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E.

Moyne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Newall, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nickson, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Palmer, L.

Goold, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Renkeillour, L.

Grantley, L.

Rawlings, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees, L.

Harlech, L.

Rennell, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Stewartby, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strange, B.

Lindsay, E

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hamwee, B.

[Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E. [Tiller]

Lawrence, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thurso, V.

McNally, L.

Tope, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tordoff, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Cameroon Republic: Assistance with Elections
  Cameroon Republic: Assistance with Elections
  Northern Iraq: KDP Actions
  Northern Iraq: KDP Actions
  Indonesia: Death of Journalists, Balibo, 1975
  Indonesia: Death of Journalists, Balibo, 1975
  Rwanda: Human Rights Abuses
  Rwanda: Human Rights Abuses
  Burma: Sanctions Proposal
  Burma: Sanctions Proposal
  Former Yugoslavia: Arrest Warrants
  Former Yugoslavia: Arrest Warrants
  Albania: Conduct of Elections
  Albania: Conduct of Elections
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  General Affairs Council and IGC Ministerial Meeting, 15th-16th July
  General Affairs Council and IGC Ministerial Meeting, 15th-16th July
  Intergovernmental Conference: UK Proposals
  Intergovernmental Conference: UK Proposals
  CSA: Computer System
  CSA: Computer System
  Teacher Training: Children with Special Educational Needs
  Teacher Training: Children with Special Educational Needs
  Microbial Culture Collections: Response to Report
  Microbial Culture Collections: Response to Report
  Gas Services: Standards
  Gas Services: Standards
  Unfair Dismissal Rights
  Unfair Dismissal Rights
  Joint Rapid Deployment Force: New LPDs
  Joint Rapid Deployment Force: New LPDs
  Civil Service Code
  Civil Service Code
  MoD Contracts
  MoD Contracts
  Child Employment Controls
  Child Employment Controls
  Alzheimer's Disease
  Alzheimer's Disease
  Touring Caravan Exemption Certificate System Review
  Touring Caravan Exemption Certificate System Review
  Negative Equity: Policy of Mortgage Lenders and Insurers
  Negative Equity: Policy of Mortgage Lenders and Insurers
  British Ships: Statistics
  British Ships: Statistics
  Scotland: Fires in Large Compartmental Single Storey Buildings
  Scotland: Fires in Large Compartmental Single Storey Buildings
  Prisons: Drug Misuse
  Prisons: Drug Misuse