Sitting of 23 July 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 15 October.

    BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—-[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Computer Errors
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department takes to monitor the impact of computer errors on claimants' benefits. [36957]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): All new computer systems, and changes to existing systems, are thoroughly tested before they are put into operation, and they are monitored once they are in operation. All errors are investigated and corrected, and their impact on operations is analysed. Errors affecting benefit payments are corrected as soon as possible and steps are taken to identify all customers affected by them.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware of the lengthy correspondence that I have had with his Department concerning my constituent, Mr. Peter Sutton, whose benefit was affected by computer errors, to his detriment? In particular, has the Minister had an opportunity to look at the letter of 16 May, sent from the private office of his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, saying that some 10,200 claimants' benefits had been affected as a direct consequence of computer error? As many of these people are old-age pensioners or on extremely low incomes, this is a serious situation. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that any hardship affecting them is addressed as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Burt: I am aware of the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman has had with my Department. It is important to put this matter into context: some 250 million transactions are produced by computer in the benefits system every year, and 94 per cent. of all benefits are paid right—and right first time. If errors are identified, we do a trawl to find out who else might have been affected. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the trawl of cases similar to that of his constituent was completed last week. The preliminary figures identify some 11,500 cases that have been affected by this type of error. Benefits will be corrected, and compensation is payable in certain circumstances if there have been delays. We try to ensure that all systems are brought up to date, and there are regular audits to try to ensure that errors do not occur. However, when they happen—no system is foolproof—we take all steps possible to put matters right.
    Sir David Madel: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Child Support Agency continues to make computer errors when it sends out demands? In particular, will he ask the agency to be careful not to mix up overtime and basic wages? It often makes errors in that area.
    Mr. Burt: As we know, the calculation of child support is complex, and it must be done correctly. I shall draw the attention of the Minister concerned to the point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: What consideration has the Minister given to the consequences of computer errors if he carries through his intention to sell lists of benefit claimants to private sector organisations, as reported in The Daily Telegraph of 15 May? Would it not be a gross breach of confidence to do so? Is it not an error of judgment on the part of Ministers to expose people in poverty to the temptations and taunts of advertisers? Will the Minister give hon. Members his assurance that the Benefits Agency database of clients will not be made available to outside organisations or to individuals, except for purposes that are intrinsic to—and confined to—the administration of benefits?
    Mr. Burt: We never had any intention of doing any such thing, and the hon. Gentleman might have been better advised to raise the question elsewhere so that I did not need to tell him that in such a public forum.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the annual cost of social security payments to asylum seekers. [36958]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): If I had not introduced the changes to benefits for asylum seekers in February, it is estimated that the cost would soon have exceeded £400 million a year. Our changes will save more than £270 million, but we will continue to spend just over £140 million a year supporting asylum seekers.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the types of abuse of the system that many of us have come to expect from asylum seekers? One came to see me on Saturday and thought that she was eligible for housing benefit of £240 a week, or £12,480 a year. Is that reasonable? Is it not right that the Government have stamped down on such unjustified claims? Is it not irresponsible of the Opposition to have opposed that? Is not that yet another new danger from new Labour?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was only sensible to take the measures that we have taken to prevent the waste of large sums of public money on supporting bogus asylum seekers. The Opposition are grossly irresponsible in pledging to restore that money: they will have to find that £300 million elsewhere in the social security budget—they will take money away from British citizens who are genuine claimants to give to bogus claimants from abroad.
    Mr. Gapes: Will the Secretary of State give careful consideration this coming winter to any representations he may receive from Churches, organisations running night shelters and organisations providing support to the destitute that might lead him to introduce new proposals to deal with the outrageous changes he has introduced which have brought hardship to so many men, women and children?
    Mr. Lilley: Of course I will consider carefully any representations I receive from any quarter, especially those the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I draw comfort from the fact that the frightening prognostications that were
    130
    made when my policies were introduced have not materialised—I do not believe they will materialise. Claimants who are found to be genuine at the end of the process will have their benefits backdated, so that those who support asylum seekers they know to be genuine will have their costs reimbursed.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if total social security spending is not to rise, any increase in spending on asylum seekers would have to be balanced by lower benefits for British citizens? Since the Labour party now claims that it would not increase the total social security budget, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Labour party has told him how it would pay for the extra spending on asylum seekers that it proposes and which British benefits it would cut to pay for it?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The dilemma she points out is exactly that faced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who has pledged to restore those benefits. He has had the rug pulled from under him by his leader, who has let it be known in The Daily Telegraph that he agrees with me and not with his spokesman. An interesting article by Boris Johnson states:
    "What was the Blair view of Peter Lilley's attempt to crack down on bogus asylum-seekers? Was he outraged like the Guardian editorialists … Did he condemn"
    them?
    "Far from it."
    He continues—with words attributed by a Labour source to the Labour leader:
    '"I think Peter Lilley makes a lot of sense… it's a bit much all these people saying they won't be a charge on the state, and then claiming asylum when they get here.' The moment he sees daylight between himself and the Tories, Blair closes the gap."

    Personal Pensions
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his power to determine the levels of fees and charges levied by providers of personal pensions. [36959]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): We have always made it clear that competition and disclosure are the preferred means of ensuring that charges levied are not excessive. We have no plans to use the powers referred to.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given that £16 billion is paid out every year in pension rebates—£4 billion of which goes on fees and charges—and that the people that are most affected are the poorer in society, when will the Minister do something about the 25 per cent. charge?
    Mr. Heald: There are 5.6 million people with personal pensions in Britain, and 99 per cent. of them are as well off—or better off—as if they had remained in the state earnings-related pension scheme, typically by up to £1,000 a year on their pension at today's prices. That is not my view, but the view of the Securities and Investments Board. What is more, in its recent report, "Disclosure: One Year On", the Personal Investment Authority suggests that competition and disclosure are

    131
    working, and that there is evidence of lower charges and better surrender values. The Government's policy is working, and there are no plans to introduce powers of the sort that have been referred to.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend take time during the summer recess, like the Select Committee on Social Security, to go to Chile to see how state-approved personalised pension schemes that are funded really work to provide both a very high level of benefit in retirement and an engine for growth, which has been sustained at over 6 per cent. per annum over the past few years?
    Mr. Heald: Like the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend is considering visiting Chile to see the progress that has been made there. We should not forget that, in the United Kingdom, £600 billion is invested in private pension provision. That gives a much better future for people in this country than would otherwise be the case.

    Income Support
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of children are in households dependent on income support; and, as a percentage of total children, how this compares with 1979. [36960]
    Mr. Burt: In Great Britain, 25.6 per cent. of children are members of families where income support is claimed. A direct comparison with 1979 is not possible.
    Mr. Hutton: I thought that the Minister would say that a comparison was not possible. Is it not clear that such a shameful figure reveals the extent of the failure of the Government's economic and social policies since 1979? Will the Minister take the opportunity now to apologise to the millions of families and children who have been so badly let down by the policies that the Government have pursued?
    Mr. Burt: A direct comparison is not possible because of the different structure of the benefits involved. The hon. Gentleman's point about the number of children in receipt of income-related benefits reflects, first, a rise in unemployment, which was not experienced by the United Kingdom alone, and, secondly, a change in the structure of families.
    The Government's response has been to work hard to reduce unemployment, which is why unemployment has decreased so spectacularly in this country. Our unemployment record is much better than those of our partners in Europe. Secondly, in terms of family structure, we have done all that we can through the benefit system to encourage people into work, and to ensure that there is a benefit structure that assists lone parents to get back into work and finds ways of encouraging people to look after themselves. That is the proper response of government.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something sick and sad about people who do not realise that the take-home money that has been available since 1979—to people from all grades and of all standards—has increased substantially, and that that includes the moneys available to those on benefit? The sadness is that the more we help people, the more we are chastised.
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a more than valid point. Average income has increased for all family types
    132
    since 1979. When a substantial survey was last conducted of couples on income support with children, it was found that they were 19 per cent. better off under our benefits than under those of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Wicks: The Minister says that there is no comparison with 1979. The Library informs me, however, that, in 1979, 7 per cent. of children were dependent on means-tested benefits, whereas 26 per cent. are now. Does not the fact that one in four children are dependent on means-tested benefits show the Government's neglect of Britain's children? Given that, in 1979, Conservatives promised to reduce dependency on the state, will the Minister tell us what has gone wrong?
    Mr. Burt: It seems that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the earlier exchanges. There is no valid comparison, because of differences in benefits. The Government have tried to reduce dependency by getting people back into work and altering the benefit structure to ensure that people go from welfare into work. That is something that the hon. Gentleman should support. It is in direct contrast to the Labour party's policy of work to welfare, first by cutting child benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds and, secondly, by introducing a minimum wage, which would reduce the job opportunities of many families and make their children much poorer.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is the Minister aware that, in France, child benefit can be withdrawn in cases where children persistently truant from school? Will he bear that in mind when considering any new proposals for paying child benefit?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I understand that the provision in France is rarely used. The Department for Education and Employment and local authorities work extremely hard, through their welfare officers, to ensure that children appreciate the benefits of, and the need for going to, school. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it would be a shame if, as children approach further education at the age of 16, they faced a Labour Government who would take child benefit away from them.

    Reduced Earnings Allowances
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about changes in reduced earnings allowances. [36961]
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has had in relation to the implementation of the reduced earnings allowance rule. [36969]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): A number of hon. Members have written to Ministers about these changes.
    Ms Quin: Does the Minister appreciate the distress and hardship that has been caused to many people who have come to rely on this allowance? In my constituency surgery, male pensioners have broken down in tears as a result of the changes. At the very least, could not some transitional help be made available to such people?
    Mr. Evans: I fully appreciate and accept the argument that those who have had the benefit altered are affected adversely by that and are not happy with it, but the position is clear. Reduced earnings allowance is to compensate for reduced earnings, and retirement allowance is to compensate for a reduced retirement pension. The intention of Parliament in 1988 was that, when people passed pension age and ceased to be in regular employment, they passed from one allowance to the other, but the way in which the rules operated were arbitrary and unfair, and a number of people who, for excellent reasons, under the arrangements as they were, have lost reduced earnings allowance and passed to retirement allowance, might fairly complain that some have gained and that they have lost. We have made the scheme reasonable and consistent.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that British citizens such as my constituent, Reg Beck, had the right to expect that, when they were told that they would receive reduced earnings allowance for life, that meant for life—not that it would suddenly be cut off in March 1996 by this gimcrack and mean legislative change?
    Mr. Evans: Reduced earnings allowance should never have been awarded for life. There are only two circumstances in which that can have happened.
    Mr. Flynn: What did the Minister say on "Welsh Lobby"?
    Mr. Evans: I shall come to "Welsh Lobby" in a moment.
    One is when a party had retired before pensionable age and, due to the defects in the rules, could never thereafter pass from one allowance to the other. A number of persons in that category have been so notified. We are also aware of a small number of cases in which the Benefits Agency has erred. There is a scheme for compensation for official error if financial loss can be shown to have arisen directly from it.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the scheme announced by my hon. Friend for rectifying official errors, but does he agree that on this question the Opposition are shedding crocodile tears? When will he take into account their intention, if they are ever elected, to get rid of child benefit for children between the ages of 16 and 18? As always, they say one thing and do another.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must relate directly to the main question. This is a serious issue.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that I have in my hand a letter from his Department to a constituent of mine giving a categorical assurance in black and white that he would receive reduced earnings allowance for life, and that he, like countless others, has undertaken his financial planning on that basis? Given what the Minister has said, and what has been said on the "Welsh Lobby" programme, will he now give an undertaking that everyone, but everyone, who has been losing money under the changes will now receive compensation for those losses?
    Mr. Evans: Ministers have made it clear that each case that is put to us will be looked at most carefully.
    134
    [HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] It means that we shall examine what was said and, if there is a proper basis for saying that the Benefits Agency has made an official error and that there has been reliance upon it, there is a scheme for compensation, but each case will be looked at on its merits.
    Mr. Bradley: May I press the Minister further on that point? Did he say on television that, where the reduced earnings allowance has caused hardship, he will review those cases? What criteria will he use to do that? What level of hardship must have applied? How much money will he put forward to ensure that hardship can be alleviated for the hundreds of people who budgeted to receive the reduced earnings allowance for the rest of their lives?
    Mr. Evans: Some 4 million files are in the process of being looked through and carefully reconsidered, because the test as to whether someone received one allowance or the other after retirement was not working properly under the old regulations. We estimate that about 2,500 people, to whom compensation in the region of about £10 million will be paid, were wrongly transferred under the old arrangements from one allowance to retirement allowance. Every case will be looked at to see whether that happened.
    There are, however, a small number of cases—I stress that it is a small number of cases to our knowledge—where, wrongly or because of an unusual application in certain circumstances of the old regulations, people have grounds for concern that they were promised in writing that they would receive the reduced earnings allowance for life. There is a well-established scheme for compensation if official error can be shown and it can be shown that financial loss has arisen as a result.
    The interesting question, which the hon. Gentleman did not address, is that the cost of reversing the new regulations would be £25 million this year, and £35 million next year and thereafter. Has the Labour party pledged to alter these changes?

    Private Pensions
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of the private pensions sector to discuss improvements in private pension provision. [36962]
    Mr. Lilley: Earlier this month, I addressed two conferences about pensions, and I have frequent contacts with representatives of the pensions industry.
    Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of the industry, will he tell them that the Government have no plans whatever to nationalise private pension funds or to seek to control them in any way as an aid to state spending? That is the policy of the Labour party, and it is another example of new Labour, new danger, new nightmare for pensioners.
    Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly pass on the points that my hon. Friend makes. He is quite right to say that the Opposition have flirted closely with the Singapore scheme, which involves the state running pension

    135
    schemes, to the great disadvantage of pensioners in Singapore, whose return since 1980 was only 2 per cent. a year above inflation, whereas private pensions in this country have returned nearly 10 per cent. a year on top of inflation.
    Mr. Rogers: Private pensions are all right for people who can afford them. Is the Secretary of State aware that some of my colleagues and I met a group of miners today—some of them amputees—who were disabled early in their careers, that their wages dropped considerably and, as a result, they have spent a lifetime on a very low income? They could not make any provision for retirement and private pensions. They relied on a Government undertaking that they would receive a special hardship allowance as a result of the injuries that they suffered, and that translated into a reduced earnings allowance. The Government have betrayed those people, who have acted in good faith and given great service to this country.
    Mr. Lilley: I met some miners myself in Scotland when I was there, and they put their case with impressive eloquence and moderation. I endeavoured to explain, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did, that we are simply fulfilling the original intention of Parliament. When, during their working lives, people are incapacitated by injury, they receive a reduced earnings allowance, as the name suggests; when they retire, they receive a reduced retirement pension to match the fact that they were unable to contribute as much into funds as they would if they had been working all the time. That is a fair and sensible system, but it was misapplied. We have merely put it back to what Parliament always intended.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best improvements that we could make to the personal pension regime to encourage more people to opt for such pensions would be the introduction of a minimum contribution for tax relief, regardless of earnings? That would greatly benefit the self-employed, people on low incomes and, I dare say, those to whom the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) referred. My right hon. Friend may say that this is a matter for our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but his encouragement would be a great help.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right: this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor when he considers his Budget. I know that he has received representations on the subject. As it overlaps with my responsibilities, however, I will certainly discuss it with him.
    Mr. Denham: Instead of scaremongering about plans that he knows the Labour party does not have, will the Secretary of State face up to the reality of personal pensions? Will he confirm that it is eight years since so-called appropriate personal pensions were first on sale? Is it not a scandal that, eight years later, according to the Government Actuary, at least 30 per cent. of the savings of a typical woman with a typical personal pension will be lost in fees and charges by the time she retires?
    Is not that typical of the Tories and their privatisation of the welfare state? Is not the message clear? The Government are prepared to pour savers' and taxpayers'
    136
    money down the drain. Only a Labour Government will provide security in retirement with that money, instead of pouring it down the drain.
    Mr. Lilley: We have arranged a system that gives people the option of remaining in SERPS if their circumstances make that more attractive. If, as in the majority of cases, they can do as well or better outside SERPS, they are encouraged to opt out of it and to build up funded personal and occupational pensions totalling some £600 billion, to the great benefit of the country. That means that, in advance of people's retirement, we have saved more funds than all the other European countries put together. The hon. Gentleman may regret that deeply—I know that he does—but the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has said that the Labour party wants to remove SERPS. In May this year, he wrote, "SERPS must go."

    Occupational Pensions
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the regulation of occupational pensions. [36963]
    Mr. Heald: The Pensions Act 1995 will improve security for occupational pension scheme members and increase confidence in private pension provision, but without imposing undue burdens on employers or schemes.
    Mrs. Lait: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, during the Bill's passage last year, Labour Members tabled more than 700 amendments, the bulk of which would have increased regulation of occupational pensions? Does he agree that that burdensome and over-regulatory approach constitutes yet another new danger from new Labour?
    Mr. Heald: As usual, my hon. Friend is right. In fact, Labour Members tabled not 700 but 740 amendments, most of which would have added to regulation. In the debate the other night, they were doing it again—proposing further regulations. There is danger in this. Over-regulation can put employers off setting up schemes and continuing with them. New Labour, new danger.
    Mr. Clapham: The Minister will be aware that, although salary-based schemes provide a minimum pension, the new money purchase schemes that many people have been encouraged to join since 1988 do not. What steps is he taking to improve the benefits provided by contracted-out money purchase schemes?
    Mr. Heald: All forms of private pension provision have something to recommend them in individual cases. Salary-related schemes provide excellent benefits and, for some people, so do money purchase schemes, which have the advantage of being more flexible. The Government's policy has been to encourage such flexibility while providing the security that pensioners need if they are to have confidence in the system. The rebates announced earlier this year build on that. Let us not forget that the Labour party is talking about introducing schemes run by trade unions, which would undermine what the Government have done, and involve a guaranteed! minimum pension that would cost up to £5 billion and a flexible decade of retirement costing £15 billion.

    Welfare Support
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy in respect of providing support for those who most need assistance. [36964]
    Mr. Burt: Our policy is to focus benefits on those who need them most by improving incentives, bearing down on abuse and encouraging personal responsibility.
    Mr. Viggers: A number of my constituents have complained to me about the generosity of benefits paid to those whom they describe as professional claimants, compared with the meagre benefits available to those who have worked all their lives and have become unemployed for the first time. Does my hon. Friend recognise that contrast, does he think that it is fair, and what further action can the Government take to improve the situation?
    Mr. Burt: Under present legislation, and under the jobseeker's allowance scheme, the Employment Service works hard to distinguish between those who should be entitled to unemployment and income-related benefits and those who for their own reasons have chosen not to work or to avoid interviews and the like. I assure my hon. Friend that we take this matter seriously. It is important that benefit is paid to those who need it and who have not done anything to put themselves out of the labour market. The new jobseeker's allowance will help in that cause.
    Mr. Frank Field: The Government's targeting of benefits means that families who work are penalised, families who save are penalised, and families who tell the truth are penalised. Are the Government proud of the fact that they have doubled the number of families on means-tested assistance, up to one in three of the population?
    Mr. Burt: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premises for a moment. The work that we have done to increase earnings-related benefit, work-related benefit, means that a family in work on family credit are £23 a week better off than if they were on income-related benefit. We have tried to improve the benefits system to make sure that it is worth going into work. Many of the changes announced by the Chancellor a couple of years ago which come into effect this year—earnings top-up and the like—will benefit 750,000 people. That is the right way to set about the problem.
    Mr. Churchill: Given the massive scale of social security fraud, when will the Government introduce a national system of workfare for all able-bodied unemployed so as to guarantee them an income while at the same time smoking out those who make multiple fraudulent claims or who are already employed but also drawing benefit?
    Mr. Burt: The issue of workfare is more a matter for the Department for Education and Employment. First, as I said earlier, the new system of jobseeker's allowance should distinguish rather better between those who want to work and those who choose for some reason not to work. Secondly, the measures that we have introduced this year, particularly earnings top-up, still try to find a
    138
    way to boost the income of those who have just come off benefit so as to make work more attractive. We persist in believing that that is the best way forward.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Minister accept that axing the benefits helpline will cause untold hardship to benefit claimants, especially pensioners, who often do not claim what they are due? Will he reconsider the decision, or does he expect organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux and Age Concern to fill the gap?
    Mr. Burt: No, it is not a question of that. Local Benefits Agency offices now provide a great deal of support and information for people looking for information about their benefits. All too often, callers to the national helpline had to be redirected to the local Benefits Agency office line, and we prefer that to be the process. The benefits inquiry line, which is specifically designed for queries about disability benefits, remains in place. We have substantially boosted the amount of information that is made available through the Benefits Agency and this good policy will continue.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1988 we are spending an extra £1.2 billion on less well-off families and that to claim that more people on means-tested benefits equals increased poverty is a complete distortion of the truth, because in fact it demonstrates that we are helping more and more people in need?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is correct. The changes in benefits in 1988 enabled us to redirect £ 1 billion a year to the poorest families. The Opposition should not criticise that. In contrast with all the difficult decisions that we have made and all the decisions to redirect benefits and target them more effectively, there has been nothing constructive from the Opposition—merely a series of reviews and attempts to think the unthinkable. The Opposition have produced nothing workable, only dissent. It is another example of a party not really ready to govern.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Can the Minister tell us how it can possibly have helped those in need for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have talks about the disposal of DSS offices, as he is reported to have done on 21 February, with Mr. John Beckwith, chairman of the Premier Club, who is usually employed drumming up money in return for the dubious privilege of meeting the Prime Minister? Will the Minister tell us whether such a meeting took place, and will he now rule out Mr. Beckwith's participation in any such disposal?
    Mr. Burt: In the past four or five minutes the House has had a sensible discussion about the targeting of benefits. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot rise to the quality of that discussion.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the impact of changes in the mobility components of disability living allowance on care of residents in residential and retirement homes. [36965]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The changes will affect only people who for benefit purposes are treated as hospital in-patients—that is, where the NHS is responsible for maintaining them free of charge, regardless of where they are receiving treatment.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that one of the privileges of old age is the ability to get out and about? People may be in residential homes because of their age and yet qualify for mobility allowance. Why should they not be allowed to get out and about rather than be prisoners in those homes?
    Mr. Mitchell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I must emphasise that the measure that he has raised brings disability living allowance, mobility, into line with disability living allowance, care. Also, attendance allowance would stop after four weeks in hospital or after 12 weeks for children. It is usual for social security benefits to be withdrawn or downrated when a person goes into hospital.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend discuss with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health the way in which local authorities are manipulating those benefits and old people to the disadvantage of those old people by ensuring that they do not go into private residential homes, but block beds until they can go into the vastly more expensive local authority homes?
    Mr. Mitchell: I will pass on my hon. Friend's comments. I must emphasise that the changes are about targeting disability living allowance, mobility, and not about cutting disability benefits. We now spend about £21 billion on sick and disabled people, and that is a record of which the Government can be very proud.

    Back-to-work Bonus
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a back-to-work bonus. [36966]
    Mr. Lilley: We shall be introducing a back-to-work bonus in the jobseeker's allowance and income support from 7 October. This will allow an estimated 150,000 people per year to receive a tax-free lump sum of up to £1,000 when they leave benefit to take up work.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just one of a number of excellent proposals to help people off welfare and into work? Does he agree that the national minimum wage would have the opposite effect by destroying jobs? Is that not just another example of new Labour, new danger?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is one of an array of imaginative measures to get people off benefit and into work. Almost all the measures proposed by the Labour party—such as the minimum wage and the social chapter, which would destroy jobs—are means of getting people out of work and on to benefit.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Skinner.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister is not ready. [Interruption.] That is better.
    Is it true that the Government, worried by all the ministerial resignations, plan to introduce a back-to-work bonus for Ministers who resign, or will they have to settle for a reduced earnings allowance? Ministers are to get severance pay while the rest of the workers have it taken away from them.
    Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that I nearly missed participating in the Lilley and Skinner show. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are more interested in the serious business of getting people back into real jobs than making petty party political points.

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the Australian JET—jobs education and training—scheme in respect of helping lone parents out of dependency. [36967]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I have examined the Australian JET scheme. We shall be basing our scheme—to be piloted from next April—on more successful models.
    Mr. Thomason: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the JET scheme is inefficient and costly, but it is close to the heart of the Opposition? Perhaps it is an example of yet another new danger. Has my hon. Friend looked at other schemes in other parts of the world?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes. The Opposition have backed the wrong horse. In their lust for glib soundbites, they overlooked the detail. The Australian JET scheme overstates savings and understates the costs involved. They should look to the GAIN—greater avenues for independence—scheme in California if they want the taxpayer to save money through a scheme that is effective in getting people back to work. From next April, the Government will be piloting a state of the art scheme that will have learnt from other schemes around the world and will be successful and effective in helping lone parents back to work.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Lichfield
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what analysis he has made of the effect of the Government's social and economic policies on the people of Lichfield; and if he will make statement. [36986]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Lichfield has benefited fully from Government policies which have given the United Kingdom a stronger recovery than any comparable European country, the longest run of low inflation for 50 years and the lowest mortgage rates for a generation. Unemployment in Lichfield has fallen by 40 per cent. in the past three years.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that businesses in Lichfield are experiencing real problems due to the postal strike? Has

    141
    he been deafened, as I have, by the absolute silence from Opposition Front-Bench Members, who have refused to condemn the postal strike? Might that be because the Communications Workers Union has contributed some £250,000 to Labour party coffers?
    The Prime Minister: The strikes last week were completely unjustified, and I hope that future plans for industrial action will be called off before more damage is done. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sponsored silence by Opposition Members continues on this matter. [Interruption.] The deputy leader does not have a sponsored silence this afternoon, nor did he last week when he apparently told his leader to backtrack on what he had said in public—which is no doubt what the right hon. Gentleman was doing when he met the unions yesterday.
    Mr. Brian David Jenkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the 20,000 residents of Lichfield district who live in my constituency that, under the Tory Government, crime has risen by 147 per cent., education funding from central Government is the lowest in any shire district in England and residential mental health care is being closed for lack of funds? Moreover, when those 20,000 people were given the opportunity to vote in the recent South-East Staffordshire by-election they overwhelmingly turned to new Labour: new life for Britain.
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make that devastating attack on the spending policies of the shadow Chancellor, who has made it perfectly clear that it is not his policy to spend any more money than the present Government. The hon. Gentleman had better discuss his own difficulties with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. As for crime, it is falling throughout the country and has been falling for some time—the first time that that has happened for a long period. No doubt it might have been easier to achieve that if we had occasionally had the support of Opposition parties for the measures that we adopted.

    Engagements
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July. [36987]
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent call by the chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority for the teaching of modern British history to be reinstated for GCSE? Does he further agree that any open-minded student will come to the conclusion that over the years socialism has done this country a great disservice, and that history would be likely to repeat itself should new Labour ever get the chance to implement new dangers?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that young people should have the opportunity to study the history of this country, and I hope that the examination boards will
    142
    be aware of the popular concern among many parents on that subject. Whether students study British history or world history, I think that they will see that policies of high regulation, high spending and high taxes have consistently failed, and that, when people are asked to make a choice between a party that believes in low taxes and one that believes in high taxes, they will choose low taxes yet again at the 1997 election.
    Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I think that people will remember that they were supposed to have chosen low taxes at the last election, but then got the largest peacetime taxes in history. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the following question with an unequivocal yes? Does he agree with his Chancellor's recent statement that he can see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: We have made the position on a single currency entirely clear. I shall make a judgment on what is in this country's national interests, which means that we shall need to know the circumstances of the time, and precisely what a single currency would mean for this country. We need to be engaged in the debate right until its conclusion, whether or not we enter. If we did not enter, a single currency would still have an effect on this country, so it is still important that Britain's voice be heard in the negotiations until they are concluded.
    Mr. Blair: Why could the Prime Minister not simply answer yes to my question? After all, I am only asking him to agree with his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does not his response show precisely the paralysis of policy? Let me offer him another chance. Can he, like his Chancellor, see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether he agrees with the argumentation in the pamphlet that I have here—a pamphlet produced by Labour Members of Parliament which led to Labour Members squabbling in public this morning and denouncing the shadow Chancellor. I have told the right hon. Gentleman what the Government's position is. We have set it out in a White Paper. That is the position, and it has not changed.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister asked me whether I agreed with the pamphlet. The answer is no, I do not agree with it. Now let us have a clear answer from him. What sort of situation are we in when a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot keep his own Ministers, and the Prime Minister's closest political friends are saying that his party cannot row together or work together? Why should the country put up with another nine months of drift and decay? After six years of that type of weak leadership, are not people entitled to say that enough is enough, and that the only reshuffle that matters will be one that reshuffles the Government out of office and gives the country a fresh start?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to commit himself to decisions without the facts that would affect this country. If he will not commit himself to a decision, he had better make up his mind

    143
    whether he is in favour. He won't because he can't, because his party is split from top to bottom on the issue. The reality is that we shall consider the facts—not the prejudices, but the realities—and make a decision on what is right for this country.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this Michaelmas the Treasury will be receiving around £1.5 billion from the sale of the armed forces married quarters estate? What excuse is there for the Chancellor to delay the essential announcement on the procurement orders which we all expected before the House rose for the summer recess? He cannot have it both ways. First, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that we have the best armed forces in the world? Secondly, does he agree with our Secretary of State for Defence that they should also be the best equipped?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of the armed forces. I also invite him to agree that we have provided the resources to ensure that our armed forces have the best equipment. He will recall the announcement a week or so ago and the £500 million committed. We are evaluating our assessment of the bids for the various pieces of equipment now due for replacement. When that evaluation is completed, but not before, suitable announcements will be made.
    Mr. Ashdown: Let me put it to the Prime Minister another way. At the end of a Parliament which began with the farce of devaluation and ended with the fiasco of BSE, which has seen Tory Members leave their party and Tory Ministers desert their Government, and which has gone from cash for questions to cash for dinners in Downing street, is it not time for the Prime Minister to lead his exhausted and divided party out of power to fight their civil wars somewhere else?
    The Prime Minister: I think that in his litany the right hon. Gentleman misses some facts of importance to the British people. He cannot recall an occasion in his political lifetime when the British economy has been in such good shape, when inflation has been so low, when unemployment has been falling so well, when growth has been at the top of the European league and investment is coming into this country as it is coming into no other country in Europe. That is happening because of the policies of this Government—policies that his tiny party has objected to throughout this Parliament.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As next Sunday, 28 July, happens to be the 25th anniversary of my resignation from the then Government over their decision to join the EEC, does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing contempt among the voters for people in all parties who pretend that there are any easy answers to the difficult and complex problems of the European Community? Will he think seriously over the summer recess about the possibility of seeking the advice of the voters of Britain as to which way they wish to proceed on Europe? Would not the best answer to the Opposition be to remind them that the country belongs to the people, not to the political parties?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt from the Opposition's European policies precisely what they would surrender in the European debate. However they try to
    144
    hide it, the veto would go and qualified majority voting would increase. They signed up to the socialist manifesto, and the Leader of the Opposition cannot wriggle away from it now. In answer to my hon. Friend's question, of course we shall consider what is in the interests of the United Kingdom. I do that and I shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July. [36988]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister rule out any bid from Mr. John Beckwith for the £1.5 billion sale of defence homes and the £750 million sale of benefit offices, in view of his role in organising Premier Club dinners where business men pay £100,000 to bend the Prime Minister's ear? Is there not a clear conflict of interest between being premier of Great Britain and the right hon. Gentleman's position as patron of the Premier Club?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all the facts. I saw the story that interested and misled him. No one can buy access to Ministers. [Interruption.] No one is promised favours. [Interruption.] There is one exception in public life: it is possible to buy access to Labour party policy through the trade unions; it is possible to buy votes; it was possible to summon the leader of the Labour party to explain his remarks about the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers last week; it is possible to change Labour party policy, but not ours. As regards Mr. Beckwith, any bid is independently assessed before being approved.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July. [36989]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend condemn from the Dispatch Box the politically motivated strikes by London underground drivers and postal workers? Will he confirm that he has no plans to introduce legislation to give trade unions increased powers or to increase the powers of strikers, which is precisely what is on offer from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. The deputy leader of the Labour party talks about £100,000. Perhaps he will remind the country how much the union that sponsors him pays to the Labour party year after year. Perhaps he will explain that that is why he will not condemn a totally unjustified strike. Perhaps he will explain that not one of the candidates in the shadow Cabinet elections will condemn the strike. If they were standing for election to a Trappist monastery, they could not have been more silent than they have been on the subject of the strike. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) knows that the Labour party's relationship with the trade unions is a disgrace to British democracy: they rule, and the Labour party follows.

BILL PRESENTED
  RIGHT TO WORK
  Sir Ralph Howell, supported by Mr. Frank Field, Mr. David Alton, Sir Wyn Roberts, Mr. David Howell, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Michael Alison, Ms Angela Eagle, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Hugh Dykes and Mr. Bob Dunn, presented a Bill to establish the right to work and to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to offer work instead of benefit to persons who would otherwise be without work in the United Kingdom; to establish a system of grants to certain parents; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 186]

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 99(2) (Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland).
  That the matter of the 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th and 39th reports from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Coe.]
  Question agreed to.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, in reply to a point of order from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), you advised him to seek to pursue the question of hon. Members visiting his constituency without his knowledge in another way, rather than by raising it as a point of order.
I took your advice, following a visit last Friday to my constituency by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who were presenting industry awards to a firm in my constituency. Neither hon. Member informed me that he was coming. Their visit was accompanied by much publicity.
I took the matter up with the Ministry of Defence, which informed me that the Minister was not on official business but on a Tory party central office visit. Is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to parade himself around the country, at the behest of central office, giving the impression that he is acting in an official capacity, without informing the Member concerned? That is a double disgrace.
Madam Speaker: My only concern is that a Member or Minister should go to another hon. Member's constituency without the courtesy of giving notice. It is my opinion that the hon. Gentleman should have been given notice of the Member or Minister going to his constituency. That is my responsibility, and I try to uphold it.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I recall that it is also an important courtesy of the House that, if one hon. Member intends to mention another hon. Member, he should give notice. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) did not give me notice, and I suspect that he did not give notice to my hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames).
Madam Speaker: The point of order did not relate to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hughes rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is time that hon. Members took their buckets and spades and went off on holiday, if this is all that they can do.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that you signed the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday's business. Item 8 was a Government motion relating to European Community water policy, to which I and two of my hon. Friends moved an amendment that, unusually, was selected—no doubt because it related to the debate Upstairs.
As you will know, under Standing Order No. 102, no debate is allowed on such amendments, even when they are selected. If the amendment had been accepted, it would have had important implications for the European Community and its procedures. Can you tell me whether

147
representations to change that Standing Order should be made through you to the Procedure Committee, by means of an early-day motion or by letters to the Procedure Committee? There is widespread concern about the way in which we handle these matters.
Mr. Tony Banks: Now that is a point of order.
Madam Speaker: It certainly is a point of order, because the hon. Member for Newham, South knows well our proceedings in the House, follows them carefully and makes proper points of order. I think he is aware—if not, I inform him and the House of this most interesting and important point—that the Procedure Committee is at present examining all these matters. The report will be produced as soon as possible.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I ask your guidance on a matter of order relating to the subject of the Opposition debate this afternoon? I presume that the subject was originally precipitated by what was thought to be the leak of a Government document. As it now transpires that the leaked document was produced by a Labour prospective candidate, have you had any representations about changing the subject of the debate this afternoon?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not had any such representations. The debate is on the motion as outlined on the Order Paper.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before we go away with our buckets and spades, is there any way in which we can obtain a statement from the Ministry of Defence about the replacement maritime patrol aircraft? Up to 200 jobs at British Aerospace at Prestwick depend on the decision, and the fear is that it is being delayed to enable the Chancellor to give some pre-election tax cut bribe. That is undermining the position of jobs at Prestwick. Can you force a statement before we go away tomorrow?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I cannot force the Government to make a statement, but he should also be aware that there will be an opportunity in a debate tomorrow for him to raise the matter and obtain a response. I am sure that, if he looks at tomorrow's Order Paper, he will find a method of doing that.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For many years, it was the practice in the House not to name civil servants who could not defend themselves on the Floor of the House. While I understand that a determined attempt by the
148
previous Prime Minister to politicise the civil service has led many civil servants to believe that they have a different role, is it not deplorable that hon. Members should denigrate in the House those who do not have a right to defend themselves?
Madam Speaker: I have always held firmly to the view that those who do not have a platform on which to defend themselves in the House should not be named by hon. Members in that way. I have tried to uphold that principle, and I hope that it will continue.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you have overall responsibility for the papers of the House, could I ask you to be kind enough to speak to those who vet the wording of motions, and ask them to ensure that sloppy phrases such as "knee-jerk opposition" do not occur in official motions again?
Madam Speaker: The point has been taken, Sir Patrick.
Mr. Michael Stephen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. While I am sure that all of us agree with the general principle that one should not refer to civil servants who do not have a right to defend themselves in the House, surely the action of the Opposition Front-Bench team in bringing the matter before the House has brought it into the public domain?
Madam Speaker: I have made my views known on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is like zero hour in India. I do not believe that hon. Members have genuine points of order, but think of them at the last moment.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a genuine point of order, Madam Speaker. Many of us tabled questions to the Chancellor for Thursday in good faith, on the understanding that there had been an announcement and there would be business on Thursday. We are suddenly given notice that we are to be deprived of that opportunity to question the Chancellor or to ask him to answer the charges. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has just defamed a civil servant, and we now have no opportunity to set the record right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, it is a gross discourtesy to the House and to the civil servant.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, and perhaps many more like him, will have to wait until October. I hope that he can keep his cool until then.

Waste Prevention
3.40 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable certain local authorities to investigate what measures are needed to reduce, prevent or avoid waste in their area; to take such steps as they consider appropriate in order to achieve that end; and for related purposes.
Reducing waste can make good economic as well as environmental sense, not just for the country, but for industries and individual companies. Nowhere has that imperative been set out more clearly than by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales in their foreword to the Government's White Paper, "Making Waste Work", a strategy for sustainable waste management, published in December last year. They presented the central message:
"more sustainable waste practices need not entail great expense or restrictive legislation. Indeed they can bring substantial savings to business. We can achieve a long-term sustainable balance between the environmental and economic impacts of different waste management options and feel the benefits now."
The theme of the Bill is in tune with that approach, as it certainly does not involve great expense or restrictive legislation. On the contrary, it contains enabling powers that are intended to encourage waste collection authorities to adopt a proactive stance in their dealings with both the domestic and commercial sectors in their areas.
Co-operation between local authorities and local industry is essential. I am in a fortunate position, as a waste minimisation project has been established, which is being led by the Keighley Business Forum. The forum has been described as
"a dynamic self-help group of 360 companies whose key aims are to regenerate the local business economy and improve performance."
In March this year, it succeeded with a skills challenge bid for its initial project involving 23 companies, both large and small. The bid won a special merit award as one of the six best schemes in the country.
As the forum points out, individual companies are unlikely to have the management skills, systems, resources or technical knowledge to achieve the full benefits in terms of environmental improvements and energy efficiency savings of waste minimisation. At least a further 40 companies are expected to participate in its forthcoming expanded scheme, demonstrating the keen interest that exists in this field. It has already been found that the cross-fertilisation of ideas and approaches is one of the greatest benefits to be obtained.
The waste saving project managed by the forum has gained the support of the Yorkshire and Humberside Government office, the BOC Foundation, the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water, Bradford council, and Bradford and district training and enterprise council. It is also linked to Keighley's successful bid for funding from the single regeneration budget, which has the potential to create many new jobs in the town, as well as greatly improving the infrastructure and environment.
150
In the first phase of the project, a series of nine half-day seminars will take place between September and December this year on a range of different techniques of waste minimisation, including analysing the potential for saving within the production process, better planned maintenance, avoiding unnecessary use of gas and electricity, and taking advantage of opportunities in terms of the recycling and disposal of hard waste, water and effluents.
From that point, with the aid of specialised consultants, companies will be able to carry out waste minimisation audits, and start to formulate their own action plans. For example, Yorkshire Water will be supporting a pilot programme on water minimisation, and will offer a free water audit to companies participating in the scheme.
The initial cost of taking the first steps along the path of eliminating waste need not be great. Companies can participate in the Keighley business forum's project for as little as £60, and there is the possibility of substantial paybacks in due course. However, success demands the continuing commitment of senior management. The forum has stated:
"Waste management is not a destination but a journey."
The Government have set out clear objectives: to reduce the amount of waste that society produces, and to make the best possible use of it. In this way, we can minimise the risks of immediate and future environment pollution and harm to human health. Targets can often help, and we have set clear and realistic ones: to reduce the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent. by 2005, and to recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste by the same date. The worth of efforts to achieve these targets can be better appreciated if we understand that, in England and in Wales, we produce enough waste to fill Lake Windermere every nine months.
Waste reduction is not something that only concerns companies—it concerns all of us as individuals. The Government, in their 1990 White Paper on the environment, set out a household waste target that involves the recycling or composting of a quarter of all household waste by 2000. Among the key factors in achieving that target is joint action by householders and by local authorities. The latter must ensure that bottle banks are available, and must arrange their waste collection and disposal facilities in such a way that material that can be recycled is separated. Many householders are already used to putting recyclable waste into green bins, the contents of which are collected separately.
The Women's Environmental Network, which is supporting me in the drafting of the Bill, has suggested a number of practical ways in which waste saving can be promoted by local authorities: for example, by publicising cheap repair schemes for household items such as vacuum cleaners and washing machines, which may otherwise, be disposed of if they go wrong; by persuading local restaurants to cut down on the unnecessary waste of food; by discouraging businesses from producing unnecessary publications and paper; and by finding ways of reducing product packaging.

151
I stress that waste saving makes good sense: it improves the image of companies, it can increase their income, and it gives individuals a stake in an essential drive towards a more sustainable environment. The Bill sends signals that are right for our time, and I hope that it will be supported.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gary Waller, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Sir John Hunt, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Sir David Knox, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Barry Sheerman.

WASTE PREVENTION
Mr. Gary Waller accordingly presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to investigate what measures are needed to reduce, prevent or avoid waste in their area; to take such steps as they consider appropriate in order to achieve that end; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 187]
Orders of the Day
  Opposition Day
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Welfare State
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.48 pm
    Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
    That this House asserts its renewed commitment to a strong welfare state to provide a platform of opportunity and security for all citizens during those times of their lives when they need it; expresses alarm at recent indications that Her Majesty's Government is considering the privatisation of parts of the welfare system; deplores the Government's stewardship of the welfare state, which has left it more expensive for the nation but more brutal for those who rely on it; believes that the way to reduce welfare expenditure is to help people to move from benefit to work, not to remove or reduce their benefits; and fears that the future of the nation's welfare state is not safe in this Government's hands.
    This debate is taking place because the Government have failed those who depend on the welfare state and the nation. In a world of increasing insecurity, the need for a strong platform on which we can all depend at the times of our life that we need to is greater than ever. We must modernise the welfare state—make it appropriate for a modern world—and we should not dismantle it. That is the crucial difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party.
    The Government's stewardship of the welfare state stands on the record. They have doubled the number of people dependent on state benefits, from one in 12 of the population to one in six.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Smith: So soon?
    Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman alleges blithely that we have doubled this and that. Has he not heard that the entire western world has just come through the worst economic recession since 1929, or was that also the fault of the British Government?
    Mr. Smith: I notice that the hon. Gentleman and his party are quick to claim credit when the global economy is going well, but rather less quick to claim the blame when it is going badly.
    The truth is that twice as many people are dependent on state benefits now as there were when the Government took office in 1979. In addition, they have doubled the amount of means testing in the system: it is up from 16 per cent. of benefit payments to 36 per cent. Now, one in five of all non-pensioner households have no earned income, and that worrying trend—the development of a category of non-earning households—should concern any sensible Government.

    153
    As we learned a few moments ago, one in four of all children grow up in poverty, and, at the same time, the budget for social security across the nation has risen by a third in real terms during the time the Government have been in power.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: How will the hon. Gentleman benefit the families that have 16 to 18-year-olds in further education when their child benefit is removed?
    Mr. Smith: There is no such proposal at the moment, and if the hon. Gentleman listened to what the Labour party has said, rather than paying attention solely to his Conservative central office briefing, he might recognise the truth.
    Every year, we have grand announcements from the Secretary of State about claimed reductions in expenditure from the uprating statement, and then, every year, he overshoots his departmental budget, often to the tune of several billions of pounds.
    On top of all those examples, we see increasing inequality in this country. The Secretary of State tried to tackle that issue in his speech in Southwark cathedral recently. He told us that people who talked about increasing inequality were missing the real picture, and that we were all upwardly mobile now. He said particularly that those at the bottom of the heap were upwardly mobile now. That assertion stands in the same category as his claim to a number of lobbying organisations some months back that there was no poverty in Britain, because it was a problem only for third-world countries.
    The Secretary of State based his evidence on a survey carried out by his Department on the work and earnings experience of men aged 29 to 44 in 1978–79, and their contributions history from then until now.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that—in addition to telling us what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in Southwark cathedral—the hon. Gentleman will tell us how the Labour party proposes to reduce social security spending, about which he has complained; how he expects the reduction of means testing, to which he has also referred, to help that process; and how he will pay for the increase in basic pension and the restoration of the link with earnings, as called for by his predecessor as social security spokesman, Baroness Castle. That has been traditional Labour party policy, from which it has resiled.
    Mr. Smith: Apart from making the obvious observation that Baroness Castle, dear friend as she is to me, does not make current Labour party policy, the hon. Gentleman might be better off in framing his questions if he reads what we have produced as a party in recent weeks—including, for example, the excellent document entitled "Getting Welfare to Work", which was published some weeks ago. By that means, he might learn something of benefit to him.
    In his Southwark cathedral speech, the Secretary of State referred to a departmental survey. That survey excluded women. It excluded also those who were
    154
    unemployed at the beginning and at the end of the period covered by it. It focused on a particular generation. The survey gave the lie to the broad conclusions that the Secretary of State tried to build upon it. A passage on the first page of the survey reads:
    "The findings tell a statistically significant story of the work experiences of a particular group of people, and do not reveal trends in the labour force as a whole."
    Yet the Secretary of State attempted to claim in his Southwark cathedral speech that the survey revealed trends in the labour force as a whole.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The hon. Gentleman has not quoted me. That applies to all his other allegations. He has not presented a single quote to justify them.
    Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman said clearly that those of us who have talked about growing poverty and inequality were practising the politics of envy. The tone of his speech was in support of the thesis that inequality does not matter, because it is superseded by mobility. That is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. If he wants to quibble with my paraphrase of the content of his speech, I am happy to give him the opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Lilley: I thought that it would help Hansard readers if I gave them a shorter version of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and were merely to say that I did not say any such thing.
    Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State has shot a hole through the entirety of his speech. He was clearly arguing that the evidence of mobility that his departmental survey showed, as he claimed, made it clear that we did not need to worry about inequality. He is now telling us that that is not what he said. The right hon. Gentleman should go through his speech and withdraw it in its entirety.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has no evidence that there is anything like the thought that he suggests is to be found in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—the shadow social security team—have sent out a document to Labour Back-Bench Members for the debate. On the second page, near the top, it states:
    "The secret report reveals that Ministers intend to justify these cuts in services by arguing that 'some of the customers had brought these problems on their own heads, by failing to take any responsibility for dealing with their own problems'".
    There is no quote like that, is there? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that he has simply made it up?
    Mr. Smith: I have a copy of the speech made by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman said what I claimed he said. I refer to a section that is headed "Opposition Approach". It states:
    "Indeed, an obsession with equality often displaces concern for poverty by the politics of envy."

    155
    That is precisely what I said the Secretary of State was saying. The right hon. Gentleman continued. In another section is headed "Average Incomes Have Risen." He continued by claiming:
    "Our policies are working. The vast majority of people in this country are better off now than their counterparts were in 1979."
    Another section is headed "Improvements for People in the Bottom Tenth of Incomes". It states:
    "It is significant that claims that the 'poor have got poorer' do not generally focus on benefit levels. Instead they largely relate to statistics for households with the lowest tenth of reported incomes."
    He goes on to talk about how people in that decile have seen their position become upwardly mobile. Case after case in the Secretary of State's speech supports the paraphrase that I have just made of it. If the Secretary of State wants to intervene to tell me that he did not say the things in the printed text of his speech, I shall happily allow him to do so.
    The Department's survey, which excluded women and people who were unemployed at the beginning of the survey period, does not bear out the construction that the Secretary of State put on it. For example, the survey reveals that more than two thirds of those out of work in 1978–79 were still out of work in 1992–93. It shows that less than half of the lowest paid in 1978–79 had climbed into a higher earnings bracket in 1992–93.
    The report is specific about the most recent period, under the present Prime Minister, in relation to people at the bottom of the pile. It says:
    "Earnings growth over the period varies directly with the decile position, with the highest growth occurring in the upper deciles … What growth there was in the lower deciles occurred mainly in the first two thirds of the period"—
    back in the 1980s.
    "growth in the last third of the period is lower, with no apparent growth at all in the bottom decile".
    It is clear from the Department's own study, which the Secretary of State prayed in aid in his speech at Southwark cathedral, that, during the Government's stewardship, the people at the bottom of the pile have seen no apparent growth at all in their incomes and standard of living.
    The Government must recognise that inequality and poverty in Britain are real and should not be brushed aside, as they constantly have been by the Government. Not content with having presided over that trend to poverty, inequality and dependency, creating a divided Britain, the Secretary of State is now setting about making it worse.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
    Mr. Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has spent about five minutes attempting to argue that somehow the rich have become richer and the poor poorer. Yet he finished up resting on a phrase tendentiously suggesting that the bottom 10 per cent. are "no better off". That does not mean that they have become dramatically poorer, as the Labour party's propaganda constantly seeks to suggest.
    Mr. Smith: First, the phrase that I quoted came from the Secretary of State's own Department's study.
    156
    Secondly, as I explained at the outset, that study ignored women and those who were unemployed at the beginning and at the end of the survey, so it was a distorted picture anyway. Thirdly, the Joseph Rowntree Trust's report of a year ago showed clearly that the income, after housing costs, of the bottom tenth of the population had fallen by 17 per cent. during the past 17 years. The hon. Gentleman should look more carefully at the figures before he makes such an intervention.
    Mr. Stephen rose—
    Mr. Smith: I shall give way for one last time.
    Mr. Stephen: On the subject of distortions. I have in front of me a draft Labour press release which was no doubt left on a photocopier by a prospective Conservative candidate in the hon. Gentleman's office. It says:
    "Last Wednesday we saw the plans that have been under discussion in the Treasury … It is a nightmare vision of what would happen if the Tories are re-elected. The scrapping of the basic state pension; forcing people to take out private insurance for unemployment or sickness benefit".
    Surely it was an act of gross negligence to prepare a press release for Labour Members without checking that it was prepared by one of their own prospective parliamentary candidates. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the text of that press release will be amended to read, "It is a nightmare vision of what would happen if Labour were elected"?
    Mr. Smith: I had expected better even of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Denham: I had not.
    Mr. Smith: I bow to my hon. Friend's wiser judgment.
    The hon. Member for Shoreham must get it right. The lady in question, who has been traduced several times by Conservative Members, is not a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Labour party, although she is, I understand from press reports, a member of the Labour party, and that should make no difference whatever to her capacity to provide impartial service as a civil servant at the request of her superiors in the Treasury, and to provide that advice, with others, to the permanent secretary at the Treasury, answerable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not yet a member of the Labour party.
    Not only are the Government presiding over a trend towards poverty, inequality and dependency, but they are setting about making it worse. In the past few days, we have had announcements from the Secretary of State about the ending of the freephone advice service, and the Government are considering ending direct payments to people on income support to cover their gas and electricity bills, which would make budgeting for low-income families much more difficult than it is at the moment.
    We have also had further announcements about increasing non-dependant deductions on housing benefit, which will inevitably lead, as the Social Security Advisory Committee has constantly pointed out, to the increasing break-up of families. All of that is on top of the various measures that the Department announced earlier in the year in the uprating statement.

    157
    A sensible Government would not go about controlling the social security budget by chopping and slicing people's benefits and removing and reducing the money that people need to survive on and live. A sensible Government would, of course, get people back to work.
    Many of the measures that the Government recently announced make the move from benefit to work more difficult rather than easier. The Government propose to cap housing benefit for under-25s at the level of shared accommodation rather than for ordinary property that someone of that age group can rent, and which is available. How will it encourage someone of that age group who is considering taking a risky or possibly temporary job, which may last only six months but will take them off housing benefit for that period, if, when they come back on to benefit at the end, they will be on the lower rate, and so might well face losing not just their job but their home at the same time?
    Mr. Lilley: I should have thought it was self-evident, and that is why we introduced it. If people who are unemployed are able to get 100 per cent. of the housing benefit for properties that they would not be able to afford if they were in work, they will be trapped in unemployment. That is why we try to restrict them to housing benefit that is equal to the sort of shared accommodation that most people of that age can afford in work, so that they do not get trapped out of work on benefit, which is what the Labour party wants.
    Mr. Smith: It appears that the Secretary of State's solution is to make the trap that he has identified twice as bad. The change that he is making means that someone who takes a temporary job will receive less housing benefit when he or she stops doing the job. Far from relieving people of that trap, the right hon. Gentleman is making the position much worse. The sooner Conservative Members realise that the better.
    It is not only the creation of divisions in society and the removal of incentives to work that make the Government's stewardship of the welfare state incompetent; it now seems that their drafting of legislation is also incompetent. The Pensions Act 1995 demonstrates, fundamentally, the way in which the Government get it wrong. I am given to understand that, owing to a technical defect in its drafting, all the orders and regulations made under the Act so far—including commencement orders bringing various parts of it into effect—are legally invalid, and that there is no legal basis for bringing any of it into force, short of a retrospective enabling statute.
    The defect is in the commencement section, section 180. As is usual in such cases, it provides for most provisions in the Act to be brought into force by order of the Secretary of State on such days as may be appointed. That is in subsection (1). Section 180 goes on to say that certain specified provisions—not including the section itself—will come into force on the day on which the Act receives the Royal Assent. The usual drafting of a commencement provision of this kind specifically includes the coming into force of the commencement section itself on the day on which the Act is passed. Section 180, therefore, is not one of the sections that came into force on the day of Royal Assent, but it is the only section that contains the power to make the orders necessary to bring the rest of the Act into force.
    158
    The only way out of the dilemma, which poses a real problem—it means that the Government cannot implement any of the Pensions Act—is to ensure that powers are validly exercised, and that the Act comes into force, by passing an amending Act declaring that section 180 came into force, and shall be deemed for all purposes to have done so, on Royal Assent. I look forward to hearing that the Government intend to do precisely that. It seems that, even when they are making changes, they do not make them properly and competently.
    Mr. Jenkin: Devastating.
    Mr. Smith: It is indeed devastating to the implementation of the Pensions Act. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he ought to go back to the Act and read carefully what it actually says and does.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Smith: No. I have given way a good deal, and I want to make some progress.
    Let me now turn to the issues that have been uppermost in people's minds during the past week. I refer to the signs that are now emerging from the Government and their supporters about a further agenda for wholesale privatisation of key parts of the welfare state.
    The first piece of evidence dates from August 1993, when the No Turning Back group published a series of proposals for changes to the benefits system. Its proposals were in three phases—that is important, because much of what it proposed in the first and second phases has already come to pass.
    Mr. Jenkin indicated assent.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) nods assent. Of course, he was one of the authors of the document.
    In the first phase, the group suggested cutting the period of unemployment benefit entitlement from one year to six months, and equalising the state pension age for men and women at 65. Both those suggestions have been implemented. The second phase suggested allowing management buy-outs of jobcentres. The private sector has been invited to run area offices together with the Benefits Agency. The group also suggested market testing of benefits administration. I shall turn shortly to what is happening about child benefit administration.
    The first and second phases of the No Turning Back group document have been implemented. The third phase includes a proposal to give people the opportunity to contract out of unemployment and invalidity insurance and out of the basic state pension. The group said that employers should be made to insure employees against industrial injuries. It suggested abolishing mortgage interest tax relief, rent rebates and rent allowances. Given the Government's record in implementing the first two phases, we can only fear their intentions on the third.
    Mr. John Sykes: How can we be sure that, in six months, those will not be the policies of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    Mr. Smith: Those are not the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, and will not be—in six months' time or thereafter.

    159
    After the No Turning Back group, the next organisation to get in on the act was the Adam Smith Institute. It held a conference early this month which was chaired by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), a former Secretary of State for Social Security and was attended by the present Secretary of State to launch its concept of a fortune account. The idea was that it would be an individual insurance account to replace the basic pension and other national insurance benefits.
    It is noticeable that the news release that was published by the Adam Smith Institute to coincide with the conference mentions replacing
    "a state system that is already compulsory but provides poor value for money."
    Mr. Jenkin: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to agree with that proposal. In his speech at the London School of Economics, on 6 February he said:
    "The social security system has been outstandingly successful in providing an income in those periods of life when people cannot earn because of sickness, disability, unemployment, caring for relatives or old age."
    Those are completely contradictory statements. The Adam Smith Institute says that a state system provides poor value for money, and the Chancellor says that the system has been "outstandingly successful." I agree entirely with the Chancellor, who, on this matter at least, has greater validity than the Adam Smith Institute.
    Following hard on the heels of the Adam Smith Institute, we had the news that there is a private sector welfare reform group on the go, meeting representatives not of the Department of Social Security but of the Department of Trade and Industry, and involving the heads of a number of Britain's insurance companies. We have no knowledge of what is happening in those meetings or what proposals are coming forward from them, but it would be interesting to know.
    We then had the famous "kids in the office". I have no objection to serious, intelligent thinking about the future going on inside Government—heaven knows, it is rare enough under this Government. I have no objection to the use of impartial civil servants who happen to be members of the Labour party. However, the thinking revealed in the memorandum provided to the permanent secretary and generated within the Treasury was certainly not intelligent. I notice that parts of that Treasury memorandum have, even now, not been dismissed by the Chancellor and, indeed, have been supported by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who chairs the Back-Bench finance committee of Tory Members.
    What of the specific suggestions in the paper? They echo remarkably the proposals made by the No Turning Back group, and include opting out from the basic state pension and the provision of private insurance for unemployment and sickness cover. Do the Government realise how expensive such proposals would be for those who have to take out private insurance, and how much of a sink system would be left for those could not afford or obtain an insurance offer?
    Let us take one example of where the full-blown privatisation, which now seems to be under consideration by the Government, fails: that is, in the Government's
    160
    drive for personal pensions. We saw an advertising binge some time ago, and misselling that ensured that many hundreds of thousands of people left occupational schemes and took out personal pensions that they would have been better off without. There are still inordinate delays in sorting out the compensation to which they are entitled. Now we see that fees and charges are levied at rates of 25 or 30 per cent. on personal pensions, so that many people see the money they are saving from their hard-earned cash going down the drain.
    That does not mean that there should be no private sector involvement, but putting the entire provision out to individual supply by the private sector is not the sensible way forward. There is a world of difference between using the skills of the private sector to improve collective provision and individualising that provision to an entirely commercial transaction. That is the key difference between modernisation of the welfare state and privatisation of the welfare state.
    Our proposals for a new framework for second pensions contrast with the Government's hell-for-leather drive for personal pensions, which provide much worse value for money.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has already had ample opportunity to intervene.
    The same issue can be seen again in the announcements that the Secretary of State made on Friday about the wholesale privatisation of parts of the benefit administration.
    Of course there is scope for sensible involvement of private sector expertise in the administration of the benefit system.
    On Friday, the Government made three announcements, the third of which is a classic demonstration of how the private sector can sensibly be involved in the administration of the welfare system. The Secretary of State's press release states:
    "The third initiative is to launch the procurement process for an Information Systems/Information Technology strategy to enable greater sharing of data between benefit systems, working closely with the private sector to provide the most up to date technologies, expertise and funding."
    That is entirely sensible, but why on earth are the Government proposing to put the entire administration of child benefit out to the private sector? Is it badly run? Of course it is not.
    It is extremely well run, as the letter from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to staff at the child benefit centre makes clear:
    "The hard work and commitment of staff in the Child Benefit Centre has been recognised not just within the Agency, with the award of the Benefits Agency Quality Award, but externally too in the achievement of the Charter Mark."
    Child benefit is effectively and efficiently administered, as the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) clearly demonstrates.
    What could be the Government's reason for putting it out to the private sector? Perhaps the administration of benefits has been proved to be better run in the private sector. I invite the Secretary of State to look at the

    161
    evidence of how the administration of housing benefit in Croydon, Bromley and Wandsworth changed when it was transferred to the private sector.
    I also draw attention to the shambles of BET's three-year contract to run the back offices of the Benefits Agency in Lancashire and Cumbria. The consultant's report prepared just a few months ago on the operation of that contract stated:
    "BET's brief was to handle typing, open the mail, run the messenger service, ensure stationery supplies were up to demand and operate security for the Agency's branches across the region."
    The report concluded that the result was disaster:
    "Benefits Agency staff were left without stationery, and last September BET failed to meet 43 per cent. of the targets set for opening post from claimants."
    That is the record of private sector involvement in benefit administration, yet the Secretary of State plans to privatise the most efficient part of the Benefits Agency, supposedly in order to save money and improve efficiency.
    I am afraid that it is quite clearly not about improving efficiency, because the system is already efficient. It shows that the Secretary of State is driven not by efficiency, but by dogma. Why does he not turn his attention to the parts of his empire where there are enormous failings in efficiency, such as the administration of the social fund that costs 61 per cent. in administration, or the Child Support Agency, where there is £1 billion of uncollected arrears?
    I have two further points about the administration of child benefit. First, confidentiality is enormously important. If confidential information is placed into the hands of private companies, one can never be absolutely certain that it will not leak out.
    Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been relying on the leaks of confidential documents by public servants in the public sector, is it not absolutely contemptible for him to suggest that people in the private sector are less to be relied on?
    Mr. Smith: I know of no instance in which an official of the Benefits Agency in the child benefit centre has ever revealed the personal details of any customer with whom the centre has had dealings. That is the answer to the Secretary of State's question.
    A clear path is being mapped out within the Conservative party's ranks for what it sees as the future of the welfare state. First there was the No Turning Back group, then the Adam Smith Institute, then the welfare reform group meeting with the Department of Trade and Industry. Then came the kids in the office doing work at the behest of the Chancellor and his permanent secretary, and then the Secretary of State himself came out with his announcements last week.
    Those are all signs of the direction in which the Government want to head. They herald not the sensible sharing of skills and practice between public and private sector, but a wholesale disposal of segments of the welfare state into private hands—not a modernisation of the welfare state, but a privatisation, not a sensible welfare-to-work strategy, but a chopping away, piece by piece and year by year, of citizens' entitlements.
    162
    Government policy represents not an endorsement of the social insurance principle that has rightly underpinned the welfare system since the days of Beveridge and Attlee, but a move towards private individualised insurance cover for some, and poorer provision for the rest. In short, that is not a welfare state that is safe in the Government's hands. It is time for a new Government to take over.
    Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) referred to a draft core press release issued by the Labour party for use by Labour Members of Parliament. It contains long quotations, seemingly purporting to come from a speech already delivered in this debate in the House of Commons, which it is suggested that Members circulate to their local newspapers.
    I draw the matter to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is surely a deplorable practice for such a press release to be circulated in draft form in advance of the debate's taking place, and for words to be put into people's mouths that they have not yet uttered in this place.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am afraid that that is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take it up in other ways.
    4.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the substantial progress made by Her Majesty's Government in ensuring that the welfare state continues to be affordable by focusing help on those with genuine need or entitlement; agrees that Her Majesty's Government should continue to seek positive and imaginative ways of ensuring that the welfare state continues to be both effective and affordable; supports Her Majesty's Government in striving to make the administration of the welfare state as effective and efficient as possible; notes that the Labour leadership is now criticised even by its own supporters for being vague and ineffectual on welfare issues; condemns the Labour Party's readiness to criticise people who do think radically about social security; deplores the Labour Party's knee-jerk opposition to the improvement of the benefit delivery system; and opposes the Labour Party's expensive and irresponsible plans for a new means-tested system Pension Entitlement and a flexible decade of retirement.'.
    When the Opposition chose this subject for debate, I thought that, from their point of view, they were making a mistake. Now that we have heard the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) make his speech, we know that they were.
    The central issue facing every developed country is reform of the welfare state to make it affordable, and the Opposition have demonstrated that they cannot rise to that challenge because they face it like an ostrich, with their head in the sand, rejecting the need for change, along with every positive suggestion for change and all the savings measures that we have adopted. They turn their eyes against any new thinking. Where they do suggest any policies, those are at best woolly and at worst dangerous. I shall actively encourage people who still think that the new Labour party brings no dangers to read the hon. Gentleman's speech, because then they would realise how dangerous Labour would be if it got into office.

    163
    The hon. Gentleman rested his basic attack on four planks, all of which have given way. Indeed, most of them gave way before the debate began. First the Opposition tried a spurious attack on the Government's alleged plans to dismantle the welfare state. The first basis of that attack was a condemnation of the measures that I announced to privatise the administration of child benefit.
    That turned into something of an own goal. We seek to make savings by improving the administration of the benefits system because we want to maintain the value of benefits. The Opposition are determined to cut benefits and to take child benefit away from more than a million families, because they refuse to face the need to make savings in the administration. They refuse because they are so dominated by the public sector unions that they are committed to a unionised, monopolised state delivery throughout the system.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State assure us that any savings that he makes by privatising parts of the administration of his Department, rather than going back to the Exchequer, will be used to upgrade and improve benefit levels?
    Mr. Lilley: I should have thought that it was self-evident to anyone who takes a serious interest in the welfare state that the pressures for increased spending are such that we have to make the savings if we are to maintain a decent level of provision for people in need—and that is the Government's objective and why we do not flinch from taking difficult decisions. It is clear why the Labour party flinch from doing so.
    The second plank of the Opposition attack was the leaked Treasury document, which was alleged to give an insight into Tory thinking, but turned out to give us an insight into the thinking of a wannabe Labour candidate, who claims, incidentally, according to the Daily Express, to be an "adviser" to the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be interesting to know whether the Opposition agree that that civil servant has been an adviser to the shadow Chancellor, or are they casting doubt on her integrity in making that claim in her curriculum vitae?
    The third plank was that of the allegedly sinister meetings taking place between leaders of the insurance industry and Government officials in recent months to consider ways to extend private provision in the welfare system. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury does not seem to be aware that those meetings began not three months ago, as he suggested, but a year ago, when I called together the leaders of the insurance industry to discuss that issue.
    Admittedly, the meeting was held privately and in confidence, but because I wanted it to be well informed, I invited the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and members of the Social Justice Commission. I also invited the former shadow spokesman for social security, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and I am pleased to be able to say that he accepted. Nothing was discussed at subsequent meetings that was not discussed at that excellent conference on the divide between the public and the private sector in the welfare system.
    The final plank was the Adam Smith Institute's proposal for a fortune account. It launched that, not at its recent conference, but at the end of last year, when it
    164
    published an interesting document developing the idea—on the basis of the Singapore measure—that everyone should have a separate account so that the individual citizen has not just an insurance policy but his or her personal stake in an insurance policy.
    When the hon.Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was asked about that subject in a television interview at the turn of the year, he said:
    "that is certainly one of the models we are looking at very seriously indeed … The beauty of that system is, of course, that it provides the individual citizen with not just an insurance policy but their own personal stake in that insurance policy, which they can use as a financial asset and in many cases they use it, for example, for house purchase in Singapore."
    Far from being some madcap idea that I am associated with, it is an idea proposed by the Adam Smith Institute, and the hon. Gentleman has flirted with it, as he has flirted with so many ideas from far afield.
    What has become dramatically apparent, not merely from this debate but from all the debates that we have had in recent weeks, is the Opposition's knee-jerk reaction to any plans to save money and target spending better. Since the start of this financial year, the Opposition have opposed or promised to reverse every measure that I have announced or introduced to focus benefit on those in need. Last week, the Opposition said that they would restore benefits to bogus asylum seekers. That would cost a Labour Government the best part of £300 million a year and rising.
    Mr. Chris Smith: When did we say that?
    Mr. Lilley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is saying that he is not committed to restoring them. What a moral cripple the hon. Gentleman is. What humbug he has displayed at the Dispatch Box, saying that it was the end of civilisation to withdraw those benefits. He is now casting doubt on a future Labour Government's commitment to restore them.
    Mr. Smith: I am glad that the Secretary of State has sat down, because we could do with less childish abuse across the Dispatch Box. We have said clearly that we will speed up the processing of asylum applications and use the money that we save by doing so to restore a proper benefit arrangement for people who are in need and genuinely seeking asylum.
    Mr. Lilley: If the availability of those benefits attracts so many people, as it will, that it is impossible to speed the process, as we have found, it will cost what suggested it would, or Labour will leave our present system as it is.
    Last week, it was £300 million on asylum seekers. The week before, the Opposition opposed plans to reduce housing benefit to households where someone has gross earnings of more than £200 a week. That would throw away £35 million a year. The same week, they opposed my plans to align increases in allowances for children with the start of the school year. That will save £115 million, and they are throwing it away. The week before that, they opposed plans to reduce benefits for parents who seek to avoid their responsibilities for pursuing child maintenance, which would save £15 million a year.

    165
    In June, the Opposition opposed plans to restrict reduced earnings allowance to people of working age, as Parliament had always intended. That would save £30 million a year. They are throwing that away. In May, they opposed plans to align the mobility component of disability living allowance more closely with the care component and with most other benefits that are withdrawn during hospital stays. That is another £40 million that they would throw away. In April, they opposed measures to narrow the gap between benefits for single parents and for two-parent families. Over time, that could save as much as £600 million a year.
    In just over four months, the Opposition have rejected well over £1 billion of savings without giving any indication of how they would replace the lost money. On top of that, they reject more than £750 million of efficiency savings from the change programme that I introduced. They have repudiated more than £1.75 billion of savings.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What the Secretary of State refers to as savings is taking money from the pockets of the poorest people in society, including, as we heard, the miners who came here today. He is taking money from the meagre income of disabled pensioners. Is he proud of that?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has a long and proud record of advocating increased expenditure on almost everything, but he is not a Front-Bench spokesman. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen pretend that they would not spend any more on social security but would cut it more effectively than would we.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: While the right hon. Gentleman is on this theme, does he accept that the people in most need, by the Government's criteria are, those who are on income support? Does he agree, that when such people have used the social fund, it is outrageous that more than 40 per cent. of its costs still go on administration? Should we not get more of that money to the people who desperately need help?
    Mr. Lilley: That is right. That is why I am seeking through the change programme to streamline all benefit administration and why I thought that it was extraordinary that it was rejected root and branch by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. He has continued to object to every concrete measure in the general programme, despite the fact that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted in a leaked letter that my proposed savings were perfectly feasible.
    When it comes down to it, the Government cut administration costs to avoid cutting benefit, and Labour proposes to cut benefits for pupils who stay at school after 16 because it is not prepared to cut administration costs. Labour is not only opposed to all the reforms that I have been introducing recently; it has opposed almost all the changes that I have introduced in this Parliament. It is also committed to increased expenditure. Almost every possible proposal that it has put forward involves increased expenditure, even when dressed up as a savings measure.
    166
    Of course, the Opposition are coy about their old pledges. Their document, "Security in Retirement", recently issued by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, talks about ensuring
    "that all pensioners, today and tomorrow, share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation".
    When they talk privately to the financial press, they say that that does not mean that they are committed to the old link between pensions and earnings. Pensions will be uprated only in line with prices. When they talk privately to their activists, Back Benchers and constituents, they hint that they are committed to expensive increases in pensions after the election.
    No wonder sharp-eyed commentators have called for more clarity. Lady Barbara Castle said:
    "The Labour party's policy statement—Security in Retirement—does not provide a plan of action or detailed and costed proposals about how to achieve adequate pensions … In too many respects the document is ambiguous and inconsistent … Labour must commit itself to the earnings link … But there is no such commitment in the document."
    I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will warmly support her campaign to persuade constituency Labour parties to commit the Labour party to that pledge.
    Whether or not the Labour party implements its old pledge, it is certainly committed to new, expensive and dangerous pledges. The first is a guaranteed minimum pension. That was proposed by the leader of the Labour party in his party conference speech last October. He made it a defining characteristic of new Labour, and said:
    "The aim of our policy is to guarantee a minimum income that provides dignity in old age. That is New Labour."
    Of course, we already guarantee a minimum income of more than £100 for a couple via income support. If Labour's minimum pension guarantee were only 10 per cent. higher, it would cost £3 billion a year, discourage saving and extend means testing. As Lady Castle and Peter Townsend pithily put it:
    "It is difficult to see how in practice the Minimum Pension Guarantee would differ from Income Support … it is the same old hated and unworkable means test in disguise."
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend missed one element of the equation. If many more people were put on to means testing, by the measure that the Opposition tend to use, many more people would be in "poverty". The system they advocate undermines the statistical basis on which they attack the Government.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition are being hoist by their own petard. As they refuse to make any savings on administration, they would probably have to cut benefits elsewhere and doubtless, on the same measure, claim that they were reducing poverty.
    The other main Opposition proposal is to introduce a flexible decade of retirement, allowing people to draw their pension at the age of 60 instead of 65. People can already defer taking their pensions and be rewarded by a 7 per cent. increase for every year that they defer. However, 90 per cent. of people take their pensions at the first opportunity. If they continue to do so under Labour's proposal, it would cost £15 billion a year extra. The hon. Member for Islington, South and

    167
    Finsbury put out a press release to criticise me when I last pointed out that his document says that that will be done only in a way that will mean no extra cost to the Treasury. The only way that the right to a pension can be extended by five years with no extra burden to the Treasury is by reducing the value of the pension. I will happily give way to Opposition spokesmen if they can suggest one.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Use the same formula that was introduced by the Government most recently for Ministers and Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Lilley: Unfortunately, that was not costless to the Treasury, which is why the Government opposed it. I would still be happy to give way to the Opposition's pensions spokesmen so that they can tell us, in qualitative terms, how they can make the flexible decade of retirement no extra burden on the Treasury without cutting the basic rate of pension. It cannot be done, and the Opposition ought to realise it.
    My ultimate objective is an affordable welfare state which provides decent benefits to those who need them and are genuinely entitled to them. Therefore, my first objective is to save money without affecting benefit levels. That means cracking down on fraud and streamlining administration. Most organisations in the private sector have achieved dramatic improvements in efficiency. I believe that we can do likewise, especially if we learn from and, where appropriate, work with the private sector. That is why I launched my change programme, which aims to achieve a 25 per cent. increase in efficiency. That means savings worth £0.75 billion.
    The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury condemned my programme as damaging, dangerous and impossible when I announced it. His colleague the shadow Chief Secretary concluded that it was perfectly feasible. None the less, he has continued to attack each concrete step forward that I have announced. Indeed, he declared on the "Today" programme that he has an "ideological" objection—I use his word—to private participation in the administration of benefits. That would seem to mean that Labour would not continue to use the 19,000 sub-post offices, all of them private, to deliver benefits. I take it that it is not Labour's intention to nationalise them.
    If not, how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the continued use of a private sector delivery mechanism with his ideological objection to the private sector playing any part in the administration of the core benefits provided by the Department? The fact that the hon. Gentleman says mutually contradictory things on odd and even days of the week does not help the House elucidate exactly what he is committed to.
    My second objective in reforming the welfare state has been to focus benefits on genuine need. Savings from my reforms will reach £5 billion a year in the next Parliament and £15 billion a year thereafter. The Opposition have opposed them all. They have not told us where they would get the extra money, so they start off that far behind, with that obligation to raise taxes. Finally, it is essential to encourage self-provision. We believe in a welfare society in which both the state and the private sector play full roles.
    168
    The role of the private sector is already enormous. Eighty-five per cent. of employers run their own sick pay schemes. Fifteen million households, that is two thirds, have life assurance, and 1.3 million people have permanent health policies. We have friendly societies with 8 million members which manage funds worth about £3.25 billion. The proportion of people who have insured their mortgages against periods of sickness or unemployment is rising sharply.
    All that private provision is capped by the enormous private pension provision in Britain, which has enabled us to build up some £600 billion of pension funds to pay for future pensions. That is not only more than any other country on the continent has built up in similar funds, but more than all the other countries of the European Community put together have bothered to save and invest to meet the growing number of pensioners in the years to come.
    Mr. Stephen: Is it correct that the unfunded liability of Germany will be equal to its gross national product by 2030? By contrast, have not we in Britain built up a vast fund—my right hon. Friend tells us that it is £600 billion—which not only will provide security for people in their old age but provides an enormous fund for investment in British productive industry?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the case. It is something in which we take great pride and on which we have been determined to build by introducing measures to encourage further growth of occupational and personal pension schemes. If they did not exist, and if none of the private provision that I mentioned earlier did not exist, we would have to pay out some further £25 billion a year to take over on behalf of the state what is currently provided by the private sector. That would increase the state's budget by about a third.
    So it is absurd to take the "ideological" position—I use the word of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—of hostility to the development of private provision not only for administration but for general provision of insurance and saving products to allow people to boost their position in times of need.
    The Labour party has finally destroyed any claim it ever had to be able to reform the welfare state. It has set itself rigidly against any serious change or reform. It opposes every savings measure. It is opposed even to making savings on running costs. It is opposed to sensible private sector involvement even where it will give value for money. It repudiates any expansion of private sector provision of benefits. The reason why it does so is clear—a mixture of ideological hostility to the private sector and subservience to the public sector unions which insist on monopoly state provision, and which, of course, sponsor so many Front-Bench Opposition Members.
    As I said at the beginning of my speech, welfare reform is the key issue worldwide. We are leading Europe in sensible and imaginative reforms. I believe that welfare reform will be a key issue at the next election. The voters will utterly reject the Labour party's ostrich-like approach to the issue and endorse our sensible steady, caring and effective approach.
    4.55 pm
    Mr. David Winnick: When the Secretary of State talks about reform of the welfare state, he means substantial undermining of the welfare state. That is how he conceives reform. However, he was right in one thing. He said that the matter would be decided at the general election. Indeed it will—the sooner the better.
    It is always useful when we have such debates to recognise that there is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition on state provision in welfare and related matters. The Secretary of State nods in approval. At one time, the situation was different. In the early post-war years, when the Labour Government built up the welfare state—one of the greatest blessings that this country has known—the Conservative party took a different view. It took the view that, if it was to win back and hold on to office, it had to accept what had been legislated for between 1945 and 1951. For some years in government, the Tories more or less accepted the welfare provisions. That changed about 30 years ago.
    The Tory party has been under mounting pressure from right-wing think tanks to do away with a great deal of what was achieved by the Labour Government in the early post-war years. For example, in 1990, before the Secretary of State occupied his present position, what I describe as the wrongly named Adam Smith Institute argued in a pamphlet that unemployment benefit should be privatised. That led to quite a row in the House at Social Security Question Time on 2 July that year.
    A pamphlet, with which the Secretary of State perhaps privately agrees, argued that unemployment benefit should be a matter for the private sector, not the state sector, and that sudden increases in unemployment, which would be a burden on the private sector, could be dealt with by not paying unemployment benefit in the first few weeks. That was suggested as one way of saving money.
    The pamphlet also said that people should be able to tide themselves over short periods. When people with family responsibilities and the rest of it, including my constituents, lose their jobs, few of them are in a position to tide themselves over until they can find another job without unemployment benefit and, where appropriate, income support. Bearing in mind the low pay that so many people receive in this country, that is hardly surprising. The people who write such pamphlets live in a different world. They do not live in the real world that we know about and a large majority of our constituents have to endure.
    It is interesting that the pamphlet six years ago said that unemployment benefit should be paid for less than 12 months. I am sure that those who were responsible for the pamphlet will be pleased that the Tory Government have implemented that aspect of it by introducing the jobseeker's allowance, an entirely unjustified measure to reduce unemployment benefit from 12 to six months. When the constituents of Conservative Members become unemployed, I wonder how many of them will applaud what the Government have done with the jobseeker's allowance.
    Mr. Sykes: Why can the hon. Gentleman not persuade Opposition Front Benchers to promise to reverse the measure?
    Mr. Winnick: The question comes from two quarters. Tory Members want us to make commitments so that they
    170
    can then ask where we shall get the money to pay for them—of course they will. Likewise, somewhat to my surprise, the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), made the same point. If the Liberals stood a chance of forming the Government, they would understand the position, which my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench already understand.
    The state pension is vital for millions of people: it is not some sort of extra, but the core amount for millions of people who retire. If there is any dispute about that, I refer the House to a parliamentary reply about the state pension that was recently given by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), on 11 July. Anyone who suggests that the pension does not amount to a large proportion of a retired person's income should consider that written answer. It said that 72 per cent. of pensioner households relied on the state pension for 50 per cent. of their income—quite a large amount—and 51 per cent. of pensioner households in the country relied on a state pension for 75 per cent. of their income.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Why should we take lessons from a Member of Parliament whose party twice stopped the Christmas bonus for old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Winnick: It is rather an impertinence—
    Mr. Sykes: Apologise.
    Mr. Evans: Apologise.
    Mr. Winnick: If there are any apologies to be made, they should come from the Conservative Government who, in 1980—I was in the House when it happened—decided that they would no longer increase the pension in line with earnings, and pensioners lost out. Before I am asked again the inane question why the Labour party does not make a commitment, I can say that I have already given my response.
    The Labour Front-Bench team recognises that, when there is a Labour Government, Labour Members will use every opportunity to try to see to it that pensioners' income is substantially increased whenever possible. I do not notice any pressure being exerted by Tory Members on Ministers to increase the state pension other than in line with inflation. That is an important difference which the country recognises: the commitment of Labour Members to improve the living standards of those who have retired.
    I do not accept that the private sector can provide adequate pensions for the large number of pensioners. In his concluding remarks, the Secretary of State paid lip service to the private sector and all that it can do. It cannot provide anywhere near adequate pensions for the large number of people on low pay—I am talking not about 100,000 or 500,000 people but about millions of people.
    I do not believe that the private sector is interested in such people. The private sector cannot provide pensions for those people who are often in and out of work through no fault of their own or for the long-term unemployed. Ministers and Tory Members refuse to recognise that, time and again, it is the state that provides the core support that people would not otherwise have. That is why the Labour party is committed to building up the welfare state, and that is why reforms have been carried out by successive Labour Governments.

    171
    Many people were actively encouraged to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and to take up personal pension schemes—we know what has happened to a large number of those schemes. Many Conservative Members would not, on reflection, try to defend or justify such schemes—I leave aside pension swindles and the other matters that we know about.
    I want the state pension to be improved. I hope that it will be possible for the Labour Government to do so in the way previously undertaken. I understand the difficulties and I shall not say from the Back Benches what I would not be able to say from the Front Bench. To make commitments at this stage would only play into the hands of the present Government.
    We owe a responsibility to the retired population and to all those people who have had difficulties in the past, certainly before the second world war, in finding work. We have a commitment as well to those who worked in the post-war years, believing that, when they retired, they would have an adequate pension on which to live.
    I sometimes get the impression that Conservatives believe that it is undignified to rely on the state, and that one should always have one's own private means. I shall relate a personal experience, when I felt no loss of dignity when I had to rely on the state. As some of my hon. Friends know, I was recently in hospital and, having paid my insurance contributions all my employed life, I felt no indignity when I relied on the hospital and the medical staff—I relied on them for my life. I was very pleased at what the medical staff were able to do when it came to my NHS operation, which I hope will have lasting effects. I felt no indignity because I did not reach for my chequebook; I had paid already and will continue to pay through my national insurance contributions, as I am fortunate enough to earn my living—many people in this country are denied that opportunity.
    That episode illustrates the welfare state. Unlike other countries such as the United States where there are private insurance schemes—many of which are inadequate—in this country, when I required state help, it was there. Conservative Members will probably say that the NHS continues. I know that the Secretary of State does not have direct responsibility for the NHS, but he is a member of the Cabinet.
    One of the lessons that. I learned—if I needed to—from first-hand experience during my first two days in hospital earlier this year involved the tremendous financial pressures under which the hospital operated. There had to be negotiations between hospitals when patients needing needed to be operated on, which was not dignified—I shall use the word, as I have used it earlier—for the surgeons and others involved. We should have no complacency about what has happened to the NHS in the past 17 years.
    The Treasury leaked document gives a good sign of what the Government are thinking. It shows that civil servants respond to the Government; they do not respond to this Government by writing a report on how to restore full employment or how to restore adequate state provision. The leaked document, whether the work of Treasury kids or others, is genuine—the Secretary of State would not wish to deny it—and is based on Government thinking. It is the duty and responsibility of civil servants to act accordingly and to place on paper the options that are open to the Government. given their political line
    172
    The welfare state, which I described earlier as one of this country's great blessings, has undoubtedly been undermined. The NHS has been undermined; pensions have been undermined. People's security has been undermined—the security people felt because, when, in their old age, they were no longer able to look after themselves, they would be able to go to a local authority home. We know that that no longer happens in most instances—increasingly, one has to pay for oneself. If someone does not have a spouse and is an owner-occupier, his house will be sold from under him.
    Mr. Stephen: How can the hon. Gentleman say with a straight face that the NHS has been undermined, when he knows perfectly well that it now treats more patients to a higher standard than ever before in this nation's history?
    Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is not facing reality—he should visit a number of hospitals. Drawing on my experience, I told the Secretary of State about the pressure on hospitals; I should add that there is now even greater pressure as a result of the changes that have been made in the past two or three years. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept my word, I suggest that he talk to some of the doctors, surgeons and nurses in the national health service, who will confirm what I have said.
    Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Winnick: No. I wish to conclude my speech.
    The Government have undermined the welfare state in all the areas that I have mentioned—including through the jobseekers' allowance, reduced housing benefits and much-increased prescription charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the leaked document and to related matters. In every constituency, especially in marginal constituencies, we have to get the point across in relation to what a re-elected Tory Government would do.
    We should have a general election now. If what I am saying is not true, why are the Government terrified? Why are they not calling an election until the last possible moment? They know what would happen if there were a general election now, which is why they are holding on. The Government know that people accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, other Labour Members and I have been saying: the welfare state is being eroded and undermined because the Government have no serious commitment to it. When Labour is in office, we will try to help in every way we can the people who elect us to the House of Commons. We have a duty and a responsibility to the ordinary people of our country. A Labour Government will carry out their responsibilities accordingly.
    5.11 pm
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate the Opposition on choosing this important subject for today's debate. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has said, this is one of the most important topics with which Governments in the developed world are grappling—they are wrestling with the cost of providing welfare against a background of demographics that involves fewer people providing for more people.

    173
    This is an international trend and it is facing every single Government. It is right for the Labour party to bring this subject before the House.
    Mr. Sykes: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the hospital that treated the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), as it obviously did a good job? However, will he remind hon. Members that it was not that long ago—perhaps 1978 or 1979—that members of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and other unions were picketing the hospitals?
    Mr. Ainsworth: Yes, I remember those dark and terrible days. The hon. Member for Walsall, North seems to be in sparkling form, but, alas, his hospital treatment seems to have done nothing to improve his judgment.
    It is important to put any debate on welfare in its proper context. Any welfare state depends on the wealth creators in society. If we impede their ability to prosper—if we hinder their enterprise by excessive regulation, by state interference or by bureaucracy, or if we tax them too highly—they will suffer, as will the most vulnerable people in society who depend on the whole process of wealth creation. The ability of the state to provide depends on the ability of individuals to prosper.
    I ask one key question about the welfare state in Britain: is it working? I understand that, since 1949, spending on welfare in this country has increased by 5 per cent. over and above inflation every year—in fact, it has grown by double the rate of the national economy. This has created an enormous burden for this generation and for future generations of taxpayers. The welfare budget is currently costing the average working person £75 a week. Therefore, one would expect the problems that the welfare state was set up to tackle too have been eliminated—but that is far from the case. Despite the excellent efforts of my right hon. Friend to rein back future growth expenditure, the overall rate of expenditure on welfare is projected to increase. It is quite clear from that fact alone that the welfare state is not working as it should be or as was intended.
    Any civilised society that can afford to do so should establish the sort of safety net that Beveridge intended when he established the welfare state. There should be a set of basic provisions to protect the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable and the weak in society. Is it right that the welfare industry should stretch so far beyond that? Is it not the case that, to the extent that the state acts as a surrogate for individual responsibility, it diminishes individuals? It closes off options, it increases dependency and, eventually, it undermines humanity's basic right to choice.
    The arguments for reducing the scope of the welfare state, for encouraging greater self-reliance, greater individual and family responsibility, are not only economic—important though the economic arguments are—but moral. Some hon. Members thought that the Labour party had grasped this essential point—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) appears to have grasped it, and he speaks with great authority on the subject of welfare and social services. If he had not grasped that point, he would not be leading his Social Services Committee on a delegation to Chile in September
    174
    to learn the lessons of the most privatised pensions system in the world. He is at least prepared to explore alternatives and to think radically about these important issues. I think that some of this radicalism lay behind the thinking of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when he instructed the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to go out and think the unthinkable.
    I fear that very little progress has been made, and I am depressed. It seems to me that one of the things that is unthinkable about the current welfare state is that it should continue as it has over the years—that it should get more and more expensive and not solve the fundamental problems that it was set up to tackle. In so far as Labour policy appears simply to advocate a further increase in spending and more of the same, that is certainly thinking the unthinkable. The Labour party's proposals, such as are visible, increase spending dramatically and do nothing to lessen dependency.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the guaranteed minimum income for pensioners—if set at 10 per cent. above income support—would cost no less than £3 billion more than it currently does. In addition, it would bring more pensioners on to income support, increase costs and increase dependency. The flexible decade of retirement would cost another £15 billion a year, or there would be much lower state pensions.
    Far from thinking the unthinkable in the terms that the Leader of the Opposition had in mind, the Labour party is committed to doing away with the excellent reforms that my right hon. Friend has been working on. They are aimed at reducing the cost of welfare and at targeting those in real need. As my right hon. Friend said, they amount to around £5 billion of savings in this Parliament. We are already up to £20 billion on Labour's spending plans but, oddly, we hear of absolutely no plans to increase taxation. I simply do not understand how the Opposition have the gall to come forward with proposals that will cost billions of pounds and not tell a soul how they will fund their proposals.
    I began by congratulating the Opposition on choosing this important subject for debate and, as we have heard, they obviously prepared their ground carefully. I suspect that they were inspired to choose the subject by the so-called leaked Treasury document about which we have heard so much. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), among others, has drawn attention to the extraordinary draft press release that seems to have found its way into the wrong hands. It is entitled "Tories Set to Dismantle the Welfare State". It states:
    "Speaking on the day the House of Commons debates the future of the welfare state"—
    blank—
    "MP for"—
    blank—
    "spelt out today his/her fears about secret Tory plans to dismantle the welfare system on which we all depend.
    "Last Wednesday we saw the plans that have been under discussion in the Treasury," said"—
    blank—
    ""It is a nightmare vision".
    So it continues.
    Oh dear. It turns out that the author of the Treasury document was one Helen Goodman, a Labour party activist who is seeking selection in a safe seat in the north

    175
    of England. When the subject was raised earlier, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury leapt to her defence and said that everything was all right because she was an unsuccessful Labour party activist who had not been chosen for the safe seat of Barnsley, East. That will not wash.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to imply that Helen Goodman is not capable of showing due impartiality in her duties as a civil servant? If he is, he is traducing her reputation as a professional civil servant.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman would do better to address his question to "blank", Member of Parliament for "blank".
    The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has said of the work by that Labour party activist that it
    "provides an insight into a Tory fifth term that would be not just a lurch, but a stampede to the right."
    The issue has more to do with the debate between new Labour and old Labour than with the Conservative Government's policy. The lady in question—perhaps because of her embarrassment—seems, properly, not too keen to own up to being a Labour party activist. When she was asked by The Sunday Times whether she was seeking to be a Labour party candidate, she replied evasively several times and finally said:
    "No, I am four months pregnant."
    Since when was being four months pregnant an effective bar on becoming a Labour party candidate? That is not very new Labour.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: New Labour, new labour.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I shall resist the temptation to make an inappropriate and politically incorrect jest. The lady was at least thinking the unthinkable in the way that the Leader of the Opposition had in mind, and perhaps that is why she was unsuccessful in her bid for a parliamentary career.
    We must continue to work to reduce the welfare bill. It is too high and it is unsustainable. We must work to continue to make welfare and benefits more effective where they are most needed. We can do that by focusing on those who are in real need, by encouraging personal responsibility and by improving incentives to work and to save. The Opposition will do none of that, partly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, because they are too dependent on the public sector unions to get away from the old ways of state provision for everybody and partly too, I suspect, because in many areas they have a vested interest in the dependency cycle and in the votes that come from dependency.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is making excellent progress in delivering a more effective and cost-efficient welfare state. I urge him to continue with his work, because there is much more to do.
    5.24 pm
    Ms Liz Lynne: Whenever we talk about the future of the welfare state, value for money is hardly ever mentioned and it has not really been mentioned in the debate today. We have heard a lot about the total cost of the welfare budget, but nothing about what it buys or provides for people.
    176
    We have heard so much talk about private provision, but quite apart from the fact that the weakest will fall through the net if we change to private provision, we should consider the cost to the individual. If people have to buy private provision, their bills at the end of the week or month will be far greater than under the welfare state run by the Government. I know that the Government want to cut back on the welfare bill so that they can offer tax cuts before the next election. That is fine, but they should be honest and say how much a change to private provision would cost a family at the end of the month.
    Let us take the example of health provision. In America now, people get a lesser service and have to spend more on it. Many Americans find it difficult to manage, but still people say that private provision is the best way forward for welfare benefit. Surely the basic principle of insurance is to spread the cost, and how better to spread the cost than through a Government-run scheme?
    The next problem, if we introduced private provision, would be the social consequences. Anyone who thinks that private provision can replace the welfare state should consider the joint study published by the Disability Alliance and the Disablement Income Group entitled "There May Be Trouble Ahead". The report's conclusion is that occupational pensions and health insurance are no substitute for a state disability income scheme, especially for the most vulnerable in society.
    Occupational pensions have their place—I do not dispute that—but that place is as an addition to the basic state pension. We believe that income support should be replaced by a top-up to the basic state pension, with occupational pensions in addition, not as a replacement for the current provision.
    Other bodies are saying that private provision will not work. The 1994 report by the Social Security Advisory Committee suggested that those most at risk would get either inadequate cover or none at all. The report states:
    "Unless the insurance industry produced a package which, in effect, replicated the wide coverage of risks accepted by the state scheme, we see little prospect of a greater involvement of the private sector in provision for sickness, disability and unemployment in such a way that it would supplant state provision for the majority of the population and for high risk vulnerable groups in particular."
    So many people have said in the media and in the House that a demographic time bomb is ready to explode because of our aging population, but the reality is slightly different. The Department of Social Security's own statistics show that 15 per cent. of the population were over 65 in 1990 but that 14 per cent. would be over 65 in 2000—a decrease of 1 percentage point. The figure is projected to rise to 16 per cent. by 2020; that is worrying, but it is far from alarming.
    Hon. Members may claim that the problem will be the proportion represented by the work force as compared with retired people, but that figure is not so bad as we have been led to believe by all the people in the media and the politicians who have gone on television talking about a demographic time bomb. There will not be a sizeable increase until the year 2020. After that, however, the increase will be substantial.
    I accept that there is a problem, but it will not begin to bite for another 24 years. That being so, we should plan rather than panic. Unfortunately, however, people are panicking about the budget for the welfare state. Some are running from one television studio to another. Many

    177
    commentators are saying that we face a crisis and others are writing to that effect in the press. But we are not at that stage. The problem will not be reached until 24 years have passed, when there will be more people of pensionable age than of working age.
    We must defend the basic principle of the welfare state. At the same time, we must make the system more efficient and effective. We must have a war on waste, and one consideration should be benefit overpayments. We know that income support overpayments amounted to £546 million last year alone, mainly due to official error. The Government must recognise that problem. There are all the other benefit overpayments. We must cut overpayments and benefit fraud, and I welcome some of the measures that the Government are taking to reduce benefit fraud.
    We must also have a proper back-to-work strategy. Some politicians say that such a policy would slash the social security budget, but they seem to forget that more than half that budget is directed to pensioners, so there would not be the dramatic slash that some envisage. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the need to get people back into work.
    It will not be an easy task to return people to work. No one in any political party argues to the contrary. There will be no real savings in the short term because child care and proper training cost a great deal of money, but a policy to return people to work will be a good investment for the future, and we must look to the future—especially to the year 2020. Investment must take place now to ensure that we can afford our pensions bill and the welfare state generally in the future.
    One way of getting people back to work cheaply is the benefit transfer scheme whereby employers are paid the benefits that would otherwise go to keeping someone unemployed. Another approach is to merge income support and family credit so that people are always better off in work. The family credit taper could operate with one merged low-income benefit.
    We must help disabled people into work. Many say that that is not a priority, but I believe that it is. We greatly need a civil rights for disabled persons Bill, and Liberal Democrats are committed to that. We must ensure that we get disabled people into work. It would also cut the benefits bill. It makes sense to help disabled people with transport and other access problems.
    Child benefit must be protected. The Labour party is desperately wrong in proposing to cut child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. That will not encourage young people to stay on at school. The key feature of the benefit is that it is received by the mother. How are poorer families to support a young person at school? How will they support their children by providing food and clothes? The bills are enormous.
    The Government are also wrong to have in mind privatising the delivery of child benefit. Are we at the start of the slippery slope? Are the Government starting with child benefit because it is fairly easy, but with the intention of moving on to other benefits thereafter? Are they saying that Government Departments cannot run the system well and cheaply? Are they saying that the private sector can run it more cheaply, notwithstanding profit
    178
    margins? It seems strange that the Department of Social Security does not have its own house in order. I am also worried about the confidentiality of records.
    We need definite assurances that those on low pay will continue to be paid child benefit on a weekly basis if that is their preference. I have heard rumours that it is to be paid straight into bank accounts. The Government must understand that many people still do not have bank accounts. People should not be excluded from child benefit because they do not have a bank account. Similarly, it should not be made more difficult for them to receive it: they should not have to run around trying to open an account.
    The Government and the Labour party are so keen to cut costs and to save money for the Treasury that they forget the bills that a household faces at the end of the week. They also forget that our welfare state works well—extremely well for some people, including some who are disabled. I strongly believe that the welfare state is under threat from the Government and from those on the Opposition Front Bench. All of us in the House who are like-minded must fight to save the welfare state.
    5.35 pm
    Mr. Michael Stephen: It is characteristic of new Labour, as it was of old Labour, to make wild and unsubstantiated allegations. We heard the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has since left his place, allege that the Conservative party is undermining the national health service. I challenged him by pointing out that the NHS now treats more patients to higher standards than ever before. The hon. Gentleman could not deny that.
    Likewise, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said in his opening speech that the Government are dismantling the welfare state. What nonsense that is. Are the Government really dismantling a welfare state on which they spend £90 billion a year? That is more than a third of all Government spending—spending which costs every working person in the land £15 every working day. How can that level of expenditure possibly show that the Government do not care about the welfare state?
    What do the Opposition want us to spend? Do they want us to spend 100 per cent. of the gross national product on the welfare state? If not, how much do they want us to spend? When it comes to spending, Labour is coy: whenever we challenge Labour Members to say how much tax they would levy and how much public expenditure there would be under a Labour Government, they say, "We are having a review." They have had 17 years to have a review. Is it not about time they came to some conclusions?
    We on the Conservative side accept the responsibility of the welfare state. We accept that, through no fault of their own, there will always be people in our society who need the help of the rest of us as taxpayers. We are committed to providing that support, but we are certainly not committed to providing support for scroungers and fraudsters. Nor are we committed to providing support for those who work in the administration of the benefit system just because they are employed there: the benefits system exists to deliver benefits in the most cost-effective way, not just to employ people.
    We on the Conservative side accept responsibility to those less fortunate, and that is why we have increased taxes. It is much to our electoral disadvantage to increase

    179
    taxes, but we had to do so because the alternative was to cut spending on pensions, hospitals, schools and the welfare state. Those vital services had to be maintained by the Government, and they were.
    We have also had to increase borrowing. We did it much against our will, and again much to our electoral disadvantage, but we did it because we accept our responsibility to those less fortunate.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the £17.5 billion that the Government wasted on the poll tax, which failed after one year. What does he say about that waste of money, which was the result of the dogma of the then Prime Minister?
    Mr. Stephen: I do not want to dispute figures with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we can check them later. However, whether they are true or not, I entirely agree with him that any waste and any inefficiency is to be deplored. There will be mistakes, of course. Mistakes have been made by Labour Governments and by the present Government. I do not say that the Government are infallible. Unfortunately, at the moment the public are inclined to compare the Government with a party of paragons which never makes a mistake, when what they should be doing is comparing the Government with the real Labour alternative.
    Private provision has been talked about a great deal and it has its place. Private pension provision has been an enormous success. It has built up a fund of £600 billion to provide security for people in their old age and an enormous fund for investment in British industry. The Government have helped people to make that provision for themselves by giving generous tax relief.
    Private provision, whether for pensions, unemployment benefit or hospital care, is only for those who can afford such provision. I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends accept that there will always be people who cannot afford that, and we accept our responsibility for ensuring that they are looked after.
    It lies ill in the mouth of the Opposition to complain about the administration of the benefit system when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said earlier, it was the Labour party that so mismanaged the economy that it could not even pay the £10 Christmas bonus. Meagre as it was, they could not pay it. The Opposition talk about how well they will look after pensioners, but when they are put to the test, they fail, as they have failed in almost every area of policy.
    The Opposition talk about the number of people on benefit and allege that the Government have doubled the number. They have forgotten about the recession which laid waste the economies of France, Germany, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and others, and when they do not forget about it, they blame it on the British Government. That is nonsense.
    The Opposition have also forgotten about technology. I am sure that Opposition Members will have visited factories in their constituencies. Five years ago they would have seen people bent over the workbench. Today, the factories in my constituency and theirs have hardly anyone in them. Rows and rows of robot machines are tended by a few people in white coats. Technology has destroyed a whole range of jobs which existed five or 10 years ago.
    180
    The Government have had to pull Britain not only through the worst economic recession since 1929 but through the second industrial revolution. That we have managed to do that without cutting spending on the national health service but increasing it, without cutting spending on schools but increasing it, without cutting pensions but raising them year upon year, in the light of those two factors of world importance, shows that the Government have got it right.
    We are accused of leaving children in poverty. Opposition Members may not realise this, but the main cause of child poverty is marriage break-up. Marriage break-up is a phenomenon of our time that we all deplore, but to lay that at the Government's feet is fatuous. The Opposition talk about children in poverty in the same breath as their policy, which from time to time they deny, to deprive 16 to 18-year-olds of child benefit.
    The Opposition say that we must get people back to work. That is another characteristic of new Labour, as of old Labour—vacuous, well-meaning phrases that mean nothing and contribute nothing to the debate. Time and again, we ask Labour Members how they actually propose to get people back to work and they answer, "We are having a review."
    Why on earth should a person under 25 receive housing benefit sufficient to cover the cost of an entire flat when they could share accommodation? Almost all hon. Members here would have shared a flat when we were under 25. It is absurd to expect low-income taxpayers to provide such people not just with shared accommodation but with flats of their own. It is ridiculous.
    That leads to the general point that, the closer the standard of living for a person on benefit is to the standard that he would have if he were in employment, the less incentive there is for that person to take employment.
    The Government are tackling the problem of fraud. Housing benefit probably suffers from some of the worst fraud. We have all heard of the person who draws housing benefit for a flat, moves out of the flat and in with his girl friend, lets the flat to somebody else and pockets the money. Such fraud must be rooted out.
    The Opposition also expect the low-earning taxpayer to subsidise the asylum seeker. We are all prepared to subsidise the genuine asylum seeker, but the Opposition want our hard-working constituents to dig into their pockets to subsidise the bogus asylum seeker: the person who comes to Britain and tells the immigration officer a pack of lies, saying that he is here as a student or a business man, or on holiday, and then three weeks later says that in reality he is an asylum seeker. Such people do not deserve benefit, and I do not think any hon. Member could ask a low-earning taxpayer in his constituency to subsidise such people. It makes no sense at all.
    Labour Members talk of pensions at 60. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, most people, given the chance, will take their pension at the earliest opportunity. That would cost the taxpayer huge amounts of money; yet we hear nothing from the Opposition about where they will find it.
    We can sum up the situation by saying that the Labour party has an investment in dependency. It is dependent on those who work in the public sector and deliver the benefits. It has a vested interest in keeping people in dependent poverty. They are the Labour party's

    181
    constituency. They are the people who the Labour party thinks will vote for it. By contrast, the Conservative party is committed to a safety net for those genuinely in need—a safety net which does not smother people but provides an incentive for them to stand on their own feet. We are committed to a benefit system which is not riddled with fraud and which delivers taxpayers' money in the most cost-effective way.
    5.47 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Of all the contributions to today's debate, that by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) was one of the more fatuous. I hope shortly to demonstrate that the thrust of new Labour's policy has, for some years now, been exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman implied.
    Earlier, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) made it clear that the leaked document was an anticipation of Conservative policy. If the Government have given up on the United Kingdom's economic performance and accepted that decline is inevitable, it is not surprising that they see a major reshaping of the welfare state as an unavoidable consequence of that failure of their economic policy.
    During the Conservative Government's period in office, we have had the lowest growth in GDP and the lowest growth in employment of any of the major European Union countries, and we have slipped from 13th to 18th in the prosperity league. That is hardly a record of which any Government could be proud. They are the three basic indices of prosperity—GDP, ranking in the league and the ability to create jobs. I have not invented the figures. They are published regularly, by the Government and reputable international organisations.
    Conservative Members do not want to face up to the fact that, in the foreseeable future, we shall be overtaken by Thailand, Brazil and Indonesia. [Interruption.] Those are the facts. We do not produce them; they are produced for us. Conservative Members may not like those facts, but they will have to listen to them. That is why they are confronted with this radical restructuring, privatisation and downgrading of the welfare state.
    The figures make the point for them. Since the Conservatives have been in office, the number of households with no wage earner has increased from one in 12 to one in five—20 per cent. Spending on means-tested benefits has increased from 17 to 35 per cent. Welfare spending on non-pensioner households—it is nothing to do with pensions, where we are relatively well funded; I do not try to deny that fact—has increased by 250 per cent. since 1979.
    One can see the massive impetus that has been given to the leaked document. That is why various Conservative Members have come to their point of view, as was made clear in their speeches. The Government will start with the privatisation of invalidity benefit, which is clearly on the cards. I do not think that any hon. Member would try to deny that. They will then move to unemployment benefit, and with the insecurity of time—I say insecurity because it will not be vouchsafe for the Government to implement it—they will even look in due course at privatising the old-age pension itself.
    For the Labour party, and for all parties, really—although I was surprised by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who tried
    182
    to associate new Labour with the policies of the present Government—that is totally unacceptable. We are not defeatist about our country. We are not pessimistic about it.
    We believe that there are still things that can be done to get the welfare system to promote employment instead of being merely a safety net. We must recognise that, if we continue to regard it as such—passive, there just to support—it will never perform its proper function, which is to be a spur to employment. Only by promoting policies in that direction will we ever be able to afford it. Clearly, if the Government continue with their present policies, it will be impossible for us to do so.
    Lastly, we must remember that we owe it to taxpayers, who have to pay for it. They do not want a passive system that merely supports a very heavy social security burden. They want us to ensure that we put it to productive use and get down the cost of the system as a whole. That is what we should aim to do. With that in mind, the Labour party has made a number of proposals, many of which still need to be costed and the details worked out, but at least we are considering it. We have not given up on it. Indeed, we believe that we can do it.
    Let us take one example—youth unemployment and the long-term unemployed. I think that the House will agree that those are two evils in society. They are things that none of us would like to live with or be part of. None of us likes having to pay for them, and neither does the country—but they exist, and provision is made for them. Unless we tackle them, they will not get any better.
    That does not just mean paying for them. It does not mean trying to make the savings that the present Government are trying to make. It is about tackling them at the core, to come up with proposals that will lead to people moving out of welfare and into work. That is why we came up with proposals for youth unemployment, to which the Government immediately say, "How are you going to fund them?"
    Mr. Stephen: What are Labour's proposals?
    Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman cannot read, I am sorry. If he does not want to read them, I understand that, but the proposals are quite clear. I am not speaking to the hon. Gentleman; I am speaking to the House, most of which is better informed than the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Stephen: Come on, tell us what they are.
    Mr. Robinson: I am coming to them. Do not worry. Keep calm.
    We have made it clear that we shall fund our proposals for youth employment from a very modest levy on the privatised monopolies, which is all they are. The programmes will be directed at getting youngsters back into work.
    Mr. Stephen: How?
    Mr. Robinson: We will pay a subsidy to private sector employers. Many distinguished private sector employers welcomed our proposals only last week. We have made it clear that they can have a role with the voluntary organisations on the same benefit. We have made it clear that they can be part of our youth employment plan for

    183
    the community scheme as a whole. We have made all these things perfectly clear. We believe that they can greatly benefit the youth unemployed.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on one simple fact: in many inner urban areas, in London in particular, black youth unemployment can be as high as 60 per cent. He might believe that that is acceptable, that it is something that, in the quiet of his conscience, he wants to live with, because he is defeatist and he has been there far too long—we all know that—to do anything about it; butt for us it is not an acceptable position.
    Mr. Stephen: Of course I believe that there is a problem with youth unemployment. Every hon. Member knows that. What I do not believe is that the Labour party has any constructive policies to do anything about it. and all that the hon. Member has said is just the vacuous nonsense to which I referred in my speech.
    Mr. Robinson: The vacuous nonsense was the hon. Member's own speech, and because it was such vacuous nonsense, he could not understand anything in it or after it, and he still does not want to. We have heard no proposals whatever from the Government or Conservative Back Benchers. We have to live with what we have and make peripheral savings where we can, some of which may be welcome—I shall not comment on that at the moment—but nothing goes to the heart of the problem.
    The next thing we say is that we must provide opportunities to upgrade skills for all those who are in employment, but, as I have made clear, it must he a two-pronged attack. We have to believe that we can improve our economic performance and not just accept decline in the way in which current Government and Treasury thinking do. We need measures that improve economic performance.
    That is why we continue to place overriding emphasis on two aspects: first, investment and the overriding need for it; and, secondly, improving skills. We have set that out in document after document, and in policy statement after policy statement. We await the opportunity to enact them.
    Why do the Government do nothing about the poverty trap? It is more in individuals' interest in so many cases to remain on benefit than go to work. That is not something that has just happened in the past two or three years or in this Parliament. It has been growing and getting worse over the last decade or more. Yet the Government still cannot find any innovative or imaginative policies do deal with it. Why not? Because we all know that they are tired, worn out and without ideas. [Interruption.] I challenge the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) to give us a single idea for dealing with the poverty trap. I shall willingly give way, but he does not have one, so he will not rise.
    I now come to the personal tax and benefit rates of people at the lower end of the scale. I happen to believe that, at the top end, one cannot impose penal tax rates. I think that that was a mistake. [Laughter.] I agree, and I have no personal interest. I do not necessarily believe that they should stay where they are, and that is a view that I can present on another occasion, when we discuss tax policy.
    Equally, I do not believe that we can expect people at the low end to accept in effect 80 per cent. marginal tax rates, which can occur in some situations. That is why we
    184
    have come up with a series of proposals to restructure the tax system to give a much greater incentive to those who are at the bottom end.
    Those are our policies. They are clear, they are coherent, and they address the heart of the issue. We want to deal with the long-term unemployed, youth unemployment, the poverty trap, the enormous disincentives of high marginal tax rates for those who are at the bottom end of the scale. We say that because the structure of work and employment in this country have so radically altered, which, in themselves, probably have nothing to do with the Government over the past 20 years.
    In the past, long-term unemployment was rare. It was hardly known. Jobs were long-term. Jobs were pretty much at standard rates. It was largely men who were at work. Each one of those definitions of the economic situation our country was in some 20 years ago has quite dramatically changed over the last period of the Government in office. I do not attribute that to them, nor do I try to blame them for it. What they have to be blamed for, however, is not realising what is happening and adjusting their policies to take account for it, and to have left us now with the heavy burden of a welfare state that is not attuned to the needs of those who are living off it.
    We believe that we can change that. We do not think that our proposal amounts to the dismantlement of the welfare state, which is what the Government want, or that it will lead to its privatisation. What it must lead to is its modernisation. On that, of course, the Government have given up the ghost—and the sooner they give up office, the better.
    5.59 pm
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I am not so sure about all that. Again and again, it comes down to perception and reality. I am not certain whether we have sunshine and apple pie, but if we listen carefully we can hear the thunder—and a great deal of fudge from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson).
    It is a shame that Labour Members are concentrating on documents leaked by potential Labour candidates rather than looking at the reality of the social security budget, which has been hurtling towards £100 billion. The extra costs imposed on taxpayers are already running at an enormous £15 a day for every working person. We must get to grips with the budget—and that is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been doing since he took up his post, with the full support of not only all Conservative Members but the 92 per cent. of people who are working and paying taxes. Those people expect the Government to spend their money responsibly, and to ensure that they are not paying too much.
    As we know from announcements already made, we shall be curtailing social security expenditure by £5 billion by the end of the century, and by £15 billion by 2030. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said that there was no crisis and no need to worry, but we must act now to ensure that we do not waste money that we should be passing back to taxpayers. We must not put that off for another 10 or 15 years, as the hon. Lady seemed to suggest.
    Ms Lynne: I said that it was time to plan now, but not to panic. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get my words right.
    Mr. Evans: Now is the time both to plan and to act. No one is asking us to panic. If we waited until the time when the hon. Lady suggested we would start to act, we would be in a panic—and so would every taxpayer who opened his wage packet and discovered how much extra money the Government were having to take for non-essential social security spending.
    As I have said in the Chamber before, I hope that there will be no changes in expenditure on child benefit, especially for those whose children—16 to 18-year-olds—are in further and higher education. We want to encourage such youngsters to take advantage of further and higher education. If changes were made, thousands of them would be affected, in all our constituencies. They would be deterred from attending schools such as Clitheroe Royal grammar school in my constituency, and sixth form colleges.
    Seven million families receive child benefit for 13 million youngsters. More than 1 million of those youngsters would be affected if child benefit were taken away from them. The last thing we want is for the Government to raid the child benefit kitty to save money so that it looks as though they were being careful. Youngsters who could not proceed to further education could be damaged for life. We should encourage them to take up the opportunity. In effect, a tax of £560 would be levied on all those 16-year-olds, and a tax of more than £1,000 would be levied on 16 to 18-year-olds in further education.
    If we accept the principle that child benefit should be taken from that age group, we are attacking the very soul of the child benefit system that has proved so effective over the years. If we accept that principle, there is no reason why child benefit should not be means-tested—or, indeed, removed from children in education per se and replaced by some form of income support. Is this the real agenda behind some of the proposals that we are hearing from Opposition Members?
    Currently, 72 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds stay at school; in 1979, the figure was only 59 per cent. The number of youngsters with unskilled parents has risen from 20 per cent. in 1979 to 56 per cent. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West talked of a skilled and educated work force. Would it not be a tragedy if some of those youngsters were denied the opportunity to stay in education just because their parents could not afford it, and if those parents ordered them to go out and get a job irrespective of how low paid it was?
    For many families—especially low-paid families—child benefit, as a percentage of their incomes, is far more important than it is for those who earn a great deal more; but they would be hit. The "nearly poor" would be hit. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the poverty trap. If his party implemented its proposal, a fresh poverty trap would be created for many families with youngsters wishing to proceed to further and higher education.
    I know that not all Opposition Members believe in the policy. Not all of them believe in clobbering 16 to 18-year-olds and their families. They must speak now: they must not remain silent. During today's debate, there has been a conspiracy of silence among Opposition
    186
    Members who are not prepared to make real spending commitments. From so many of them, it has all been apple pie and sunshine, but we need to get to grips with real commitments from the Labour party. We need to know exactly what its spending pledges are. There is no point in being presented with a menu with no prices; we need to know all the items and all the prices, so that the public can be made aware of what lies ahead.
    One justification that has been advanced for withdrawing child benefit from 16 to 18-year-olds taking advantage of further and higher education is that a number of people benefit who ought not to—youngsters in private schools, perhaps, receiving the sort of education that is frowned on by Opposition Members. Those Opposition Members fail to recognise that a number of youngsters who attend private schools have assisted places, or are receiving bursaries or grants. It would be spiteful to damage such education and deprive youngsters of it.
    It is no wonder that the Child Poverty Action Group is against the Labour party's proposal. Child benefit as it is currently paid has proved extremely beneficial and effective. Labour's proposal would mean a tax increase of 5p in the pound for families during the two years in which their youngsters continued in full-time further education.
    When we are considering ways of reforming the welfare state, we should not attack child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. We have been very productive in saving money in other areas. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned fraud, and I agree that we need to get to grips with that problem, but we are talking about expenditure of more than £90 billion. Various estimates are thrown around about the true level of fraud—it has been estimated at between £2 billion and £9 billion—but paying more attention to the problem would certainly pay greater dividends, and would have the full backing of the public.
    The telephone number on which people can ring the Department of Social Security when they know that fraud is taking place should be more widely available. Every pound saved in that way can be targeted more efficiently towards those who desperately need benefits, or returned to those who paid in the first place—the taxpayers. I hope that more benefit claimants will use identity cards bearing photographs, so that they can show that they are entitled to benefit.
    Housing benefit has been mentioned time and again. It seems to have gone completely out of control. More checks are needed on claimants to ensure that the money goes to those who genuinely need it. We must end the scams that we read about in the newspapers, in which thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money is ripped off every week by people who ought to be put away rather than allowed to steal money from taxpayers and those who deserve benefit.
    We have again heard much about all the wonderful sights that Opposition Members expect to see if the nightmare happens and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) gets his hands on the key to No. 10. We want to control expenditure through the reforms that have already occurred in the social security and welfare systems, but we also want as much encouragement as possible for the economy to grow. I think that is what the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West spoke about. He is a business man, and if he

    187
    took an honest, stark look at the proposals by his leader, he would see that they will merely add to the welfare system and the social security budget.
    The social chapter, the 48-hour directive, a minimum wage and the differentials that people would start to claim would have an effect. It is not just a question of £4 or £4.50, or whatever the figure per hour would be, because differentials would grind their way through the system. No wonder the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has talked about a massive shake-out in the economy if a minimum wage is introduced. That will be the real problem.
    Germany has more than 4 million unemployed, France has more than 3 million, and in Spain youth unemployment is about 30 per cent. Those are horrific figures and, if we introduced Opposition policies, unemployment, which has been falling dramatically for over two years, would go up again. That would add to the social security budget, and we would have to turn yet again to the taxpayer and ask him for more money to dole out to other people.
    We need to take measures that will continue to attract inward investment. Deregulation must continue, so that businesses are able to flourish, take people into work and use some of their profits to train the work force and invest in people, which has been particularly successful. Those are the measures that we should take, but we have heard drivel from Opposition Members about policies that would increase the social security budget. We know what the Opposition stand for, because they have not changed their spots. New Labour would mean new spending and new taxes for everybody.
    6.12 pm
    Mr. John McAllion: This is a more serious debate about an extremely serious subject than might be deduced from speeches by Conservative Members or from the general attitude that they have displayed.
    At the start of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke about the reality of poverty and inequality in Britain today, and there was an immediate response by Conservative Members. One of them piped up that at least the poor were richer than they used to be. He had no sooner closed his mouth than another said that at least the poor were not dramatically poorer than they used to be. Another Conservative Member tied himself in statistical knots trying to prove that poverty does not exist in Britain, that it is all a matter of definition.
    In terms of complacency, smugness and dismissiveness about poverty, Conservative Members should be utterly ashamed of themselves. I remind them about the reality of poverty. Some months ago, I had the privilege of attending the national poverty hearings which were organised by Church Action on Poverty. They were held in Dean's yard and were different from any hearings that I had ever attended. They were attended by about 300 leading figures. As well as hon. Members, there were leading churchmen and heads of national charities—the sort of people who normally talk about the poor and make decisions about them. However, on that occasion, they were there not to talk but to listen, because on the platform were poor people from every corner of Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland.
    188
    One by one those people described what it is like to be poor in Britain in the 1990s. Almost any one of those contributions would have shed light on our debate, but one sticks in my memory. It was made by a disabled single mother on income support who lives in an inner-city area of London. It is the usual sort of poor area to be found in inner cities throughout the country and they are characterised by poverty, crime, vandalism and drug taking. Her son had special educational needs but, because her local education authority was strapped for cash—or should I say starved of cash by the Government—it could not meet her son's educational needs other than through its residential budget.
    The woman was told that, if she wanted her son's needs to be met, he would have to be taken into local authority care and put in a residential home. She explained to the meeting that she had no choice; that she was a concerned mother who wanted the best for her son; and that the only way she could get that was to put him into local authority care. Her son was very young and she described how difficult it was to explain to him that his mother was putting him into care, forcing him to live in a local authority home.
    Of course her son did not understand why his mother was turning him away and putting him into local authority care, and she spoke about the damage that was done to the relationship between her and her son. She was not describing a scene from a 19th century novel by Charles Dickens or from a third-world country but speaking about what is happening in Britain here and now. She depends on the welfare state and is not worried about its cost: she is worried about how poor it is at looking after people.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: What kind of mother would push her child out into care and not want to look after him at home? Even if she could not give him the best of everything, she should still want to care for him, and the welfare system would help her to do that. It is a travesty for the hon. Gentleman to give such examples.
    Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Lady had come to the national poverty hearings and had taken the trouble to listen to poor people, she would understand what kind of mother that woman was. She is a caring mother who cares about her son, and she wanted the best for him. She was forced into her action by people such as the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends in government. She should not try to talk down the poor. This country has too many people like the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends.
    I am trying to get Conservative Members to understand what we are debating when we speak about poverty. At the heart of the debate is the cold question whether we can afford the welfare state in its present form—whether it is sustainable and affordable. In his tawdry contribution, the Secretary of State said that the central issue facing every developed country was the reform of the welfare state to make it affordable. There is nothing new or surprising in Tory Ministers making such statements.
    Hon. Members have mentioned the infamous Treasury kids whose document expresses the unthinkable—the break-up and the privatisation of large parts of the welfare state. There is nothing new in that document, because the break-up and privatisation of the welfare state has begun. That can be seen in the private finance initiative in the

    189
    health service. A whole new generation of privately owned and privately managed hospitals will replace the existing network of NHS hospitals if the Tory party is re-elected to government.
    Future health services will be delivered by private companies profiteering on the backs of contracts that have been taken from NHS hospitals. That is already happening, and the kids in the Treasury do not have to write about it. The Government are doing it at Stonehaven in Scotland, for example. There is competitive tendering throughout the health service, and swathes of the NHS are disappearing into the private sector. Privatisation of care for the elderly proceeds apace in every part of the country. Local authority homes have been forced to shut so that elderly people can be transferred to private-sector nursing and residential homes where the workers and the cost of care are cheaper.
    The jobseeker's allowance is the latest in a long list of Government changes to deprive the unemployed of benefits to which they used to be entitled. In the Government amendment, the aim is
    "to seek positive and imaginative ways of ensuring that the welfare state continues to be both effective and affordable".
    That sentence could easily be replaced by a sentence which said, "to seek ways of privatising the welfare state." That is exactly what it means, and that is what the Government are about.
    It is often forgotten that arguments about the affordability of the welfare state are as old as the welfare state itself. There have always been fainthearts who argue that the country cannot afford a welfare state. At least those who argued that back in the 1940s had more weighty arguments on their side than those who argue it in this day and age. For example, last week, during the debate on the economy, the Chancellor told the House that the British economy was now entering its fifth year of economic expansion. He said that living standards were rising, unemployment was falling, output was up, inflation and interest rates were low, investment prospects were good and profits were up. In other words, everything in the economic garden was rosy.
    This afternoon, at Question Time, the Prime Minister said that the country is in the best economic circumstances that we could hope for. Yet, having been told about that prosperous economy, suddenly we hear that we cannot afford the welfare state that we have had for the past 50 years.
    Let us compare the allegedly favourable circumstances that we now have with the circumstances that faced the Labour Government who created the welfare state in 1945. At that time, John Maynard Keynes described the circumstances as the equivalent of a financial Dunkirk. During the war, Britain had lost a quarter of its entire national wealth—a loss estimated at that time at £7,000 million. It had sacrificed its export trade, which was down to £400 million in 1945. It had been forced to sell off many of its overseas assets. At the same time, it was required to import goods costing £1,200 million a year just to maintain wartime levels of consumption. It faced a vast burden of overseas indebtedness—£1,750 million was owed to Egypt, and to India and other Commonwealth countries. It faced a balance of payments deficit which was estimated at £1,200 million over the first three post-war years.
    190
    The Labour Government inherited a country and an industrial and economic infrastructure which were ravaged by war and geared for war. They faced massive problems of demobilisation and reconstruction which no Government have had to confront since. To cap all that, the lend-lease agreement with the United States, which was worth £1,350 million a year, was suddenly cut off after victory over Japan.
    History would have understood if that Government, facing those economic problems, had backed off from their commitment to establish a welfare state. Far from backing off, the Labour Government went forward even more enthusiastically in their determination to do that. Let us remind ourselves of the scale of the changes introduced. They introduced not just a social revolution but a socialist revolution.
    That Government introduced a free and comprehensive national health service to be funded not out of insurance but out of general taxation. They rehoused millions of displaced people through a public programme of new and renovated housing. They introduced a comprehensive national insurance scheme for sickness, unemployment and old age, all based on a clear principle of universality. There was a 44 per cent. increase in the basic rate of insurance payments, a new maternity benefit, the scrapping of the six-month limit on unemployment benefit, a new benefit for widows, old-age pensions above the levels recommended by Beveridge in his report, industrial injuries benefits which were 70 per cent. above existing levels, and a new system of national assistance to help the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society.
    In the best of economic circumstances, it would have been a difficult task to introduce those changes, but that Labour Government introduced them in the face of the worst economic circumstances imaginable.
    We are often told that the golden rule of borrowing is that the Government should borrow only to invest and never to finance current expenditure. It is often described on both sides of the House as "spending wisely". I thank God that nobody had heard of that rule in 1945, because the welfare state into which I was born and from which I and many millions of others have benefited was created by that Labour Government's determination to build on the back of borrowing. They negotiated a multi-billion dollar loan from the United States Government, and, on the back of that loan, established the national health service, launched the massive house building programme and set up the comprehensive system of social insurance from the cradle to the grave which is so familiar to many people in this country today.
    I am not suggesting that today's welfare state can be sustained simply by increasing levels of borrowing. Public borrowing is already out of control because of the Government's incompetence. In present circumstances, it would be economic and social madness massively to increase the level of borrowing. However, I suggest that, if today's Government showed the same political will and determination as that Labour Government in 1945, new solutions, appropriate to our times, could be found to fund the needs of the welfare state. I will mention just a few of them.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend concede that one of the greatest problems facing Britain today is the vast gap between the rich and the poor and the fact that, according to OECD figures, it is the fastest growing gap between rich and poor in any

    191
    industrialised country? Does he agree, therefore, that what we need is increased Government income from a higher rate of taxation for the very richest within our society?
    Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point, and I was about to come to that.
    Nobody would suggest that taxation should be increased for the vast majority. It has already been increased to penal levels by the Government. What about the small minority who have grown fat on the tax cuts of the 1980s? The richest tenth of the population have seen their real incomes increased by 61 per cent. through the 1980s and into the 1990s. Under a fair and progressive tax system, would it not be right for those people to start to pay out more of the wealth that they were given for nothing during those years? Would it not be right for the redistribution from the poor to the rich that occurred under the Tory Government to be reversed under a Labour Government through the medium of the welfare state?
    I am being told that I should finish, so I do not have time to outline the other ways that could be used to fund the needs of the welfare state. There are other—[Interruption.] If the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People wants to speak to me afterwards, I will be happy to give him further details. However, he should not get too near me. For once, I have realised the value of the red line on the Floor of the Chamber that keeps me apart from Tory Members. Some of the comments that I have heard from Tory Members today have been so incendiary that it is lucky that they were a good distance away from me.
    The intellectual climate in which these debates are held is important. One of the things that we are often told is unrealisable today is what is known as equality of outcomes. It is no longer meant to be practical to argue that in this society we can afford equality of outcomes for everybody or that we should all get the same share of the country's wealth. We are told that there should be equality of opportunity, which allows for inequality of outcomes. That is the Government's argument, but I cannot agree with it.
    I am from Scotland, and one of my heroes is Jimmy Maxton, the red Clydesider, who was one of the greatest Members that the House ever had. Throughout his career, he wanted to see a welfare state established in this country. At the end of his career, he was asked, "What does socialism mean to you?" He said:
    "Socialism means nothing to me if it does not mean that as I have a house to live in, you also have a house to live in; that as I have food to eat, you also have food to eat; that as I have education, recreation and leisure, you also have education, recreation and leisure."
    Jimmy Maxton had never heard the phrase "equality of outcomes", but that is what he was talking about. That is what the welfare state is about. Nobody in this society should be denied the benefits that come from the wealth that is generated. It should be shared as fairly and equally as possible. We want to see a welfare state that begins to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 17 years. That will not happen unless there is a change of Government and, thank God, there will be a change of Government soon.
    6.18 pm
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his determination to see that the £90 billion that we
    192
    spend on our massive welfare programme is correctly spent. I welcome his stringent attitude to his job arid compare it favourably to the sloppy, sentimental and patronising attitude of the Labour party to people who depend on welfare in one way or another. The Labour party treats them as if they are somehow different from the rest of humanity, are unable to look after their lives and manage their affairs and must be treated as wards of the state.
    I remind the Opposition that charity begins not only at home, but in the home. It is the Government's duty to foster the citizen's responsibility for looking after his own family. That includes elderly relatives, many of whom are cared for and loved by their families and are not left to languish and depend on the state. It also includes responsibility for children as they grow up and when they leave school and start looking for work.
    When I left school, I did not expect the state to support me. I regarded it as my duty—so did my parents—to find work. In those days—which were not all that long ago—young people expected to take jobs on modest wages which enabled them to contribute towards the family budget. We should be nurturing such a society, not one that allows able-bodied people to languish on welfare, contributing nothing to the general budget of the country.
    There are far too many examples of that. The Opposition may call it the poverty trap; in my opinion, welfare is too generous in allowing people to remain in what is technically defined as poverty. One of the most sensible remarks that I have ever heard was by the Chief Rabbi, who said that poverty should be a vale of tears through which people pass, not a land in which they dwell. The Opposition seem to wallow in the idea that people dwell in poverty. They treat it as if it were their constituency.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Gorman: No. I do not have sufficient time.
    The Opposition always back up their remarks with extreme examples of hard cases and then suggest that we should make laws accordingly.
    In my constituency, I meet young people living in subsidised accommodation provided by the state. I have met hairdressers who do not want to work because they get only £50 a week and have to rely on tips, and young men who trained as chefs but gave up work because they did not want to work unsocial hours and they could live on the welfare state. Such behaviour is wrong, and we have to wipe it out.
    In particular, we have to deal with fraud. In one minute flat, I want to mention three examples that I hope my hon. Friend will address. First, more than one case of fraud involving birth certificates has been brought to my attention. People working in the welfare system identify children who die soon after birth, but have been registered. They obtain copies of their birth certificates and, 15, 16 or 18 years later, use those certificates fraudulently to obtain benefits for themselves. They are defrauding the system of millions of pounds.
    Secondly, people are fraudulently claiming carers' allowances. Their elderly relatives are being cared for in institutions, but they continue to claim carers' allowances. Thirdly, there is housing benefit fraud, which has been addressed on a number of occasions.

    193
    My right hon. Friend is quite right to find ways of making the system more efficient. When the Conservatives took office in 1979, we took on a load of neanderthal nationalised industries that were making massive losses. They were over-administered and ineffectively run with featherbedding and other practices. If my right hon. Friend can do for the welfare state and the massive budget he handles what the Conservative Government did for those nationalised industries, he will have done the country a great service. I congratulate him on his efforts and ask him not to be too timid in facing down the Opposition.
    6.33 pm
    Mr. Keith Bradley: It has become almost customary to say that we have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate, but for once it is absolutely true. Speeches from hon. Members revealed the stark difference between the views of the Conservative party and the Labour party. The public will understand those views at the general election, when they will be faced with the choice between defending the future of positive welfare state and supporting the way in which the Tory party continues to dismantle and privatise it.
    In reminding ourselves of the purpose of the debate, we make no apology for recognising the strand of thought that has flowed from the No Turning Back group, the Adam Smith Institute and other organisations with which the Secretary of State has some sympathy to the Treasury document entitled "Strategic Considerations for the Treasury". Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers have tried to rubbish the contents of that document by attacking an individual civil servant rather than properly addressing the issues in that report.
    It is interesting that tonight Conservative Members have reinforced rather than allayed the fears that the document recognised. It is clear that the Government plan to tackle the economic decline identified in the report by the wholesale privatisation of the welfare state, affecting state pensions, insurance benefits, unemployment benefits and much more. In a nutshell, it is about dismantling and privatising the welfare state.
    We do not need to go into further detail about, for example, "The Fortune Account" proposed by the Adam Smith Institute. As the document stated, it is not a welfare entitlement but merely a savings account. The benefit that it confers reflects the contributions that have been made; it is not a Government promise of a defined benefit. That demonstrates the Government's thinking on these matters.
    The Treasury document also admits that, contrary to claims by the Secretary of State in his famous speech in Southwark cathedral, the poor have been getting poorer and inequality has been widening. There is considerable evidence—which Conservative Members have tried to undermine—in excellent reports by the Rowntree Trust, among others, and in the detailed examination by The Independent on Sunday only this weekend of the new and authoritative report by the United Nations that reveals that Britain is now the most unequal country in the western world. The gap between rich and poor is as great as in Nigeria.
    Mrs. Gorman: That is stupid.
    Mr. Bradley: The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that it is stupid, but it is an excellent report of an authoritative study by the United Nations. No Conservative Member has even attempted to undermine its contents. [Interruption.] They can only mutter from a sedentary position that it is nonsense.
    We shall hear more about that report and the Government's reaction to it. Statistics in the human development report published last week demonstrate that inequality has grown sharply under the Conservatives and that the poor in Britain now have to live on much the same incomes as their equivalent in Hungary and Korea. Are the Government proud of that?
    Do the Government further recognise that the claim by the then Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, in 1988 that
    "Everyone in the nation has benefited from increased prosperity"
    has proved not to be the case? Statistics show that the poorest people's share of Britain's national income shrank in the 1980s for the first time since the second world war. What is worse, their poverty deepened. The real income of the poorest tenth of the population plunged by 20 per cent. between 1979 and 1993, while the richest tenth increased their takings by 61 per cent. That is the real inequality that confronts our people.
    What have the Government done about that? They have launched repeated attacks on vulnerable groups. They claim that it is all about targeting, but closer examination reveals that it is not about targeting but about reducing benefit to vulnerable people who desperately need it. I need only cite one or two examples, such as—
    Mr. Lilley: When the hon. Gentleman gives us his examples, will he tell the House whether he proposes to reverse them, or whether he thinks that they are basically acceptable to a future Labour Government?
    Mr. Bradley: What we are doing is showing clearly what the Government have done; that is the purpose of the debate.
    Let us take an example. When incapacity benefit was introduced, the Government said that it would lead to better targeting, by means of a more effective medical test. Fine. Although we argued against the nature of the medical test, we accepted that there was a need to examine the way in which the benefit operated. Yet what did the Government do for the people who passed the new medical test? They cut the benefit to which they were entitled. Now we have two groups of people with exactly the same degree of disability who receive different levels of benefit—one group on invalidity benefit and the other on the new incapacity benefit. Is that what the Government are about?
    Another example is the reduced earnings allowance, about which we have heard much today. Delegations have been to Parliament today, and I make no apology for bringing up the subject again.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: I wish that, when my hon. Friend talks about reduced earnings allowance, he would use the old term "special hardship allowance". Conservative Members have implied that some form of

    195
    gratuity is being handed out to people, whereas those of my constituents who receive reduced earnings allowance are people who, as a result of working in coal mining, for example, contracted a disease, or were maimed, often in their early twenties, and who have had to suffer a lifetime of bringing up their families on extremely reduced incomes. The Conservative Members who have given us the benefit of their "Mein Kampf" fantasies should bear in mind that we are talking about people who have given their lives, and sometimes parts of their bodies, for the sake of the energy needs and the productivity of this country.
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution.
    What is clear about reduced earnings allowance is that its recipients were told that they would receive the benefit for life. That is what the documents told them. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans)—I see that he is in his place—said on Welsh television that, if people had documents to prove that that is what they were told, their cases would be re-examined, concessions would be made and the hardship would be addressed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans)rose—
    Mr. Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm tonight that he will do that—yes or no?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has not carefully quoted what was said on Welsh television. In fact there are a few, and only a few, people with documents in their possession suggesting that the benefit was awarded for life. That should never have happened, although it may have been justified in a few cases. If there has been an official error, and loss can be established to have resulted from it, there is a scheme for compensation.
    Mr. Bradley: I welcome the Minister's intervention. I understood him to have said that, if people who have lost the benefit can prove that they have a document saying that it was awarded for life, they can have it for life—and that is the basis on which we shall proceed.
    What I have described are just some of the changes that the Government have already made. Now they are introducing a whole new tranche of changes, including the closure of the benefits line. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) called for a new telephone line on fraud. We welcome that; we have been calling for it year after year, and belatedly the Government now intend to act. But surely it is perverse logic to close at the same time the line that gives people help. There is a need to root out fraud wherever it occurs, but people have entitlements, too.
    The benefit buses that used to travel around the country are also to be withdrawn. They were another means of ensuring that people received their just entitlement, so the Government are reducing the information and help available.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said in his opening speech, now there is to be privatisation of the administration of child benefit, with all the problems—
    Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Bradley: No, I shall not give way, because I must complete my brief remarks.
    196
    It is not clear from what the Government have said why they have chosen child benefit—a benefit efficiently administered and well organised by the Benefits Agency, whose administration costs are only 2 per cent. In his opening speech, the Secretary of State did not tell us precisely what savings would be gained from privatisation of the administration of child benefit, and what safeguards would be introduced for confidentiality and other matters of accountability involving the work undertaken by the private service.
    We do not oppose the idea of finding out where private companies could bring their expertise properly to bear on the administration of the social security system, but the Government are introducing the practice in pilot areas, so that private companies can cherry-pick the areas of work in which they believe they can make the best profit out of privatisation. That is not the way to proceed.
    Similarly, the Government are to deny the poorest people the opportunity of using direct payments in future. That is disgraceful. The private utilities and other organisations encourage most of us to take out direct debits to help us budget, although many of us have the income to be able to organise our payments for ourselves; yet the people with the most meagre of incomes, who greatly need help with budgeting and the payment of bills, will be denied that opportunity by the Government. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider that disgraceful act.
    In the past, we have seen what privatisation without proper control or regulation means. We have heard many examples today, such as the way in which the mis-selling of private pensions without proper regulation has caused hardship and anguish to many people. We have heard similar stories about people who have taken out inappropriate mortgages or endowment policies, without having received proper information and support before the decisions were taken.
    Let us consider one example of the range of costs that will be involved if everyone has to rely on private insurance. In January, an interesting "Panorama" programme showed what the real costs would be for families if there were no adequate and effective state provision. For example, life cover would cost £70 a month, plus £40 a month for critical illness insurance and £40 a month for health insurance.
    Pension provision would cost £500 per person a month, or £1,000 for a couple. The cost of private education, about which Conservative Members will know more than I, would amount to £1,000 a month. If we add up all those costs, compared with the real, effective and comprehensive state provision, for many families they do not bear thinking about. They will not have adequate provision. They will not be covered. Not only will they fall through the safety net; the safety net will not be there for them in the first place.
    That is why the Labour party will be committed to a proper welfare state based on sound social insurance principles, and why the message tonight is simple: the welfare state is not safe in the hands of the Tory party.
    6.46 pm
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): At the end of the contribution by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), one thing about which we were not clear is what sort of welfare state there would be under

    197
    the Labour party. What commitments have we heard the party make this evening to do anything about the matters that Labour spokesmen have raised with such indignation?
    I intend to consider as many as possible of the points that have been raised in the debate, but first I shall say a little about the structure of the welfare state as we see it. The Government have faced up to the problems that have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which have produced a rising bill both for benefits and for delivering benefits.
    Three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State initiated the current debate about the growth in social security expenditure, and spelled out the principles that should underlie an effective and affordable system. Such a system should answer today's needs, not some outdated idea of what people require. It should protect the most vulnerable and focus on those in the greatest need, while bearing down on fraud and abuse. It should encourage independence and improve incentives, it should be affordable, and its administration should be efficient and offer value for money. I venture to suggest that that is still an effective set of principles according to which we can consider the future of the welfare state.
    Does the Labour party really believe that the welfare state can somehow stand still? Do Labour Members think that the rising cost of welfare, and the rising cost of administering it, can simply be ignored, and that the taxpayer should, and will, simply go on paying? Do they think that abuse can be heaped on us for what we are doing and are attempting to do with the welfare state, without any commitment about what they would do?
    It is precisely because the Government did accept, and continue to accept, that we have a responsibility not to pass on an escalating bill to future generations, because we made the hard decisions, and because we took the risk of breaking new ground, that social security in the future will be affordable. That does not mean ignoring the needs of those who cannot provide for themselves. The Government remain committed to maintaining a safety net that will ensure that the poorest in our society are supported and protected.
    Just as we recognised the need to contain the cost of benefits, so we recognised the need to maximise efficiency and value for money in delivering them. Our aim is to save about 25 per cent. of the current £3 billion cost of operating the benefit system—about £750 million off the taxpayer's bill—while providing a service that is as good as or better than the present service and, most important, without resorting to reductions in benefits.
    Significant savings can be made from simplified, efficient processes and from making the best use of the most modern information technology. We believe, however, that the only way to ensure maximum cost-effectiveness and value for money is to open up the system to competition: providing efficiency incentives for in-house suppliers, enabling comparison of their performance with each other and with private sector suppliers and moving to private sector administration where that provides better value for money.
    Some Opposition Members clearly think that we are rushing into that in the same way as they rush into ill-thought-through plans for the future—plans from which they, as the Opposition, have the luxury of being
    198
    able to withdraw when they see that they do not work. On the contrary, we have a carefully planned strategy to move in a series of gradual steps towards a mixed economy of provision. We made a conscious decision to start with a relatively simple and straightforward benefit in child benefit, and we shall look carefully at the emerging results of that before we decide which other areas to consider for operation by the private sector.
    I assure the House that there is no question of wholesale out-sourcing. There will be a pragmatic, step-by-step process, with testing and assurance at each stage, built on the principles that I mentioned. Out-sourcing will take place only where we are satisfied that there are real gains to be made, because the private sector can offer greater expertise or value for money. I should stress that that does not mean that we believe that our own staff have failed. We recognise that they have delivered many efficiencies over the years. We do not think that the private sector is necessarily superior in this, but we realise that it can offer expertise in process review and information technology, and has the capacity to make capital investment where it is needed to produce the best results.
    There were a variety of fascinating contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), whom we welcome as a recent product of the national health service, made a series of speeches that he will not mind if I characterise as real old Labour. It is noticeable that he does not always get the response that he wants from the Opposition Front-Bench team. He was challenged about what his party would do on the jobseeker's allowance, and no commitment was forthcoming. He spoke movingly about the pensions link with earnings, but he knows that his colleagues have not decided whether they are going to restore it. He will pray in vain for that.
    The concerns raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North were mirrored in other Opposition contributions. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke with his customary passion and warmth for the people he represents. We are all confronted in our surgeries by people whose experiences are radically different from our own, and we know how miserable and difficult people's lives can be. We are all concerned to find out what we can do to make them different. The only point that divides the hon. Gentleman and me is that I do not believe that means and resources are the only way to deal with some of the problems. The difficulties of the woman he met at the hearings could stem as much from administration problems in her home town, and how to deal with increasing costs and special educational needs, as from anything else.
    How is the hon. Member for Dundee, East going to satisfy the problems of the woman he heard at the hearings, if he believes that it is all about resources, but the taxation policy supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who said that he was satisfied with our policy on high-income earners and taxation, is to be the taxation policy for the future, and if the comments of the Leader of the Opposition today when he talked to local government—to the effect that there would be no new resources from local government from central Government—are true? They cannot be satisfied with Labour looking for the ever-empty pocket in the future. They have to be satisfied by the sort of hard and difficult work that we do to make

    199
    the public pound go further, to introduce the private sector and new ideas, to deliver better for the people whose lives are more difficult.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: For the record, I by no means said what the Minister implied. If only the Government were as concerned about incentives to work at the bottom end of the scale as they are about the top end, we should have some changes in the welfare programme to encourage those. Far from being satisfied at the top end, my views are well known and have been made clear elsewhere. Perhaps the Minister will now tell us what he proposes to do to provide incentives at the bottom end of the income scale—incentives for people to work.
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman spoke with great warmth and passion about the existing tax situation for higher income earners, which I can well understand in the circumstances, but I accept what he said. The hon. Gentleman challenged us and asked what we were doing about the poverty trap and getting people back to work. Conservative Members gave him half a dozen examples of what we have done—family credit, the earnings top-up system, child care allowances, and the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made a couple of years ago, from which 750,000 people will benefit this year—but he did not seem inclined to be that interested in those.
    To return to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, there is one way to satisfy the need for revenue costs in his constituency that he did not mention: the tartan tax. The views that he expressed, and the sense that I got from him of the sort of commitment that he wants from his Front-Bench team, ought to be read and understood by many people in Scotland, as an example of what he would really like to do if he came to office. Many voters in Scotland would get a real sense of what Labour control would be like, if the hon. Gentleman could have his way.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister not understand that taxes raised in Scotland with the consent of the Scottish people would help the poor in Scotland? That is why Labour is committed to giving a Scottish Parliament tax-raising powers.
    Mr. Burt: We all want resources to be used to help the poor. I was pointing out that the hon. Gentleman's care and concern for his constituents cannot be satisfied, in his view, without substantially increasing taxes. He wants to deliver everything through the public sector. He believes that massive resources will have to be introduced to do the job. I do not get any sense of that sort of commitment from his Front-Bench colleagues, and I bet he wishes sometimes that they would speak with half the passion and concern that he brings to debates.
    A number of my Conservative colleagues made useful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), in a good contribution which we shall miss for some time, posed the Opposition sensible questions about the future of welfare, but he got no response. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) mentioned the Opposition's unwillingness to declare what they would do. Interestingly, he mentioned new technology, which at one and the same time affects jobs, but gives the social security system challenges, in terms of delivering benefits and dealing
    200
    with the future. He again mentioned the essential principle behind why we are opening up the social security delivery system to ideas from the private sector and to take more account of new technology.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), in his usual forthright contribution, again laid waste to the Opposition on child benefit, pointing out what we have come to know: whereas we have ideas to save money in administration on social security, the Opposition's only concrete idea for saving money has been to save £700 million from 16 and 17-year-olds who would otherwise have received child benefit. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his hard work in raising that issue.
    In a fascinating contrast to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) put another side of the coin when she gave her views of individual responsibility. In essence, there should be no difficulty of reconciling those views in a modern society. The individual has to have a proper opportunity to grow, to develop responsibility and to develop all his or her talents or abilities. That will not produce equality of outcome, but there is no reason why the individual, in pursuing his or her talents or abilities for best, should not also have a community responsibility, which need not always be delivered through the tax system.
    The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) made a balanced contribution, which I much enjoyed. She was right to talk about not panicking about the demographic situation in the United Kingdom. The reason the Government do not panic is that we have seen ahead and planned for those changes. We changed the earnings link with pensions precisely because we needed to. There is no evidence that the Opposition prepared for the future in the way that we did.
    We have had intermittent fun this evening with Labour's draft press release—a paper full of blanks into which can be inserted whatever one wants. I wondered what it reminded me of, and, having listened to Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen, I now know: it is their draft manifesto. Anything can be inserted into the blanks. Will there be a change of policy? Their answer is, "Don't know, fill it in later." Will they retain what they have just opposed in the House? Their answer is, "Don't know, fill it in later." That is Labour party policy, about which we have heard nothing. The Government have given a concrete demonstration of the future structure of the welfare state. It is well thought through and it will be properly funded. It is the best opportunity that the country can have. Vote for us; leave them alone.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided:: Ayes 235, Noes 275.

    Division No. 210]

    [6.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Ainger, Nick

    Barnes, Harry

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Barron, Kevin

    Allen, Graham

    Battle, John

    Alton, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Bell, Stuart

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Benton, Joe

    Austin-Walker, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    201

    Berry, Roger

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Betts, Clive

    Harvey, Nick

    Boateng, Paul

    Hattersley, Roy

    Bradley, Keith

    Henderson, Doug

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Heppell, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Burden, Richard

    Hoey, Miss Kate

    Byers, Stephen

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Caborn, Richard

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

    Callaghan, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hutton, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

    Clapham, Michael

    Jamieson, David

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

    Clelland, David

    Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Connarty, Michael

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Keen, Alan

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Khabra, Piara S

    Cousins, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cox, Tom

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Livingstone, Ken

    Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

    McAllion, John

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Denham, John

    McFall, John

    Dewar, Donald

    McKelvey, William

    Dixon, Don

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Dobson, Frank

    McLeish, Henry

    Dowd, Jim

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McNamara, Kevin

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    MacShane, Denis

    Eastham, Ken

    McWilliam, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Madden, Max

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Faulds, Andrew

    Marek, Dr John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Fisher, Mark

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Flynn, Paul

    Martlew, Eric

    Foster, Derek

    Maxton, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Meale, Alan

    Foulkes, George

    Michael, Alun

    Fraser, John

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Miller, Andrew

    Gapes, Mike

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Garrett, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    George, Bruce

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Gerrard, Neil

    Morley, Elliot

    Gilbert, Dr John

    Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mudie, George

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mullin, Chris

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Murphy, Paul

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Olner, Bill

    Gunnell, John

    Orme, Stanley

    Hall, Mike

    Pearson, Ian

    Hanson, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Hardy, Peter

    Pickthall, Colin

    202

    Pike, Peter L

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pope, Greg

    Stevenson, George

    Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

    Stott, Roger

    Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

    Strang, Dr Gavin

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Straw, Jack

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)

    Radice, Giles

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Randall, Stuart

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Timms, Stephen

    Reid, Dr John

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rendel, David

    Touhig, Don

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Trickett, Jon

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Turner, Dennis

    Rogers, Allan

    Tyler, Paul

    Rooker, Jeff

    Walker, Sir Harold

    Rooney, Terry

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Watson, Mike

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Welsh, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sheldon, Robert

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Shore, Peter

    Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

    Short, Ms Clare

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Simpson, Alan

    Wilson, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Chris (Islington S)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Worthington, Tony

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Spellar, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

    Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Steel, Sir David

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Alison, Michael (Selby)

    Cash, William

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Channon, Paul

    Amess, David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Arbuthnot, James

    Churchill, Mr

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Clappison, James

    Ashby, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

    Atkins, Robert

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Congdon, David

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Conway, Derek

    Bates, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cope, Sir John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Couchman, James

    Biffen, John

    Cran, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Curry, David

    Booth, Hartley

    Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

    Boswell, Tim

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Devlin, Tim

    Bowis, John

    Dicks, Terry

    Boyson, Sir Rhodes

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brazier, Julian

    Dover, Den

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Duncan, Alan

    Brooke, Peter

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

    Dunn, Bob

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Eggar, Tim

    Burns, Simon

    Elletson, Harold

    Burt, Alistair

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Butcher, John

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Butler, Peter

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

    Butterfill, John

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Evennett, David

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

    Fabricant, Michael

    203

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knox, Sir David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Kynoch, George

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lamont, Norman

    Forth, Eric

    Lang, Ian

    Fowler, Sir Norman

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Legg, Barry

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Leigh, Edward

    Freeman, Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    French, Douglas

    Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Lidington, David

    Gale, Roger

    Lilley, Peter

    Gallie, Phil

    Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Lord, Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Luff, Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    MacGregor, John

    Goodlad, Alastair

    MacKay, Andrew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Maclean, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gorst, Sir John

    Madel, Sir David

    Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

    Malone, Gerald

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mans, Keith

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Marland, Paul

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Marlow, Tony

    Gummer, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hague, William

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Hamilton, Sir Archibald

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mellor, David

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Merchant, Piers

    Hannam, Sir John

    Mills, Iain

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hawksley, Warren

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hayes, Jerry

    Needham, Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heath, Sir Edward

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Newton, Tony

    Hendry, Charles

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Higgins, Sir Terence

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Norris, Steve

    Horam, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Paice, James

    Howard, Michael

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Patten, John

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jack, Michael

    Portillo, Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Redwood, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Renton, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

    Riddick, Graham

    Key, Robert

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    King, Tom

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Roberts, Sir Wyn

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

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

    Knight Greg (Derby N)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    204

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Thomason, Roy

    Rowe, Andrew

    Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

    Rumbold, Dame Angela

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Sackville, Tom

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

    Thurnham, Peter

    Scott, Sir Nicholas

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shephard, Gillian

    Tredinnick, David

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

    Trend, Michael

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Viggers, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

    Waldegrave, William

    Soames, Nicholas

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Waller, Gary

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Ward, John

    Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Watts, John

    Spring, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sproat, Iain

    Whitney, Ray

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Whittingdale, John

    Stanley, Sir John

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Steen, Anthony

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Stephen, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan

    Willetts, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilshire, David

    Sumberg, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

    Sykes, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Young, Sir George

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the substantial progress made by Her Majesty's Government in ensuring that the welfare state continues to be affordable by focusing help on those with genuine need or entitlement; agrees that Her Majesty's Government should continue to seek positive and imaginative ways of ensuring that the welfare state continues to be both effective and affordable; supports Her Majesty's Government in striving to make the administration of the welfare state as effective and efficient as possible; notes that the Labour leadership is now criticised even by its own supporters for being vague and ineffectual on welfare issues; condemns the Labour Party's readiness to criticise people who do think radically about social security; deplores the Labour Party's knee-jerk opposition to the improvement of the benefit delivery system; and opposes the Labour Party's expensive and irresponsible plans for a new means-tested system Pension Entitlement and a flexible decade of retirement.

    Voluntary Sector
    7.14 pm
    Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move,
    That this House welcomes and applauds the massive contribution made by the Voluntary Sector to the lives of individuals and communities throughout Britain and believes that it is the responsibility of Government to nurture the sector while respecting the independence of charities and voluntary organisations.
    It is a great privilege to open this important debate, which gives us an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of the voluntary sector to British society. I use the word "celebrate" deliberately because of the extent and diversity of the voluntary sector, its capacity for long-term commitment and innovation, its almost infinite variety, from large national organisations to the smallest local community groups, the vast diversity of interests with which it deals, from issues that affect a small number of individuals to issues that affect everyone in British society directly or indirectly, and because the activities undertaken by groups of individuals in association is a vital element in society, and the act of volunteering in itself is an essential act of citizenship.
    Even that summary is inadequate, for, although we are dealing today with the contribution of the voluntary sector to British society, it also makes an enormous contribution to international affairs, particularly in the relief of poverty and distress, and does the painstaking work of helping communities in many parts of the world to develop the ability to help themselves. It can be argued that this in itself is of benefit to British society, because it is an important element in our nation's citizenship of the world. That also applies to organisations such as Traidcraft, which allows people to make consumer choices that respect producers in the third world, but which has increasingly joined with commercial companies to develop social audit as a way of accounting to all the company stakeholders for its performance.
    However, it is the contribution of the voluntary sector to British society that we celebrate this evening. When I was asked by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party to undertake a review of the relationship between Government and the voluntary sector, I thought that I knew a bit about the voluntary sector, having more than 30 years' experience of community activity at local level, Welsh level and national level, as supplicant for money, in grant-making in local government and in a grant-making trust in the early days of the Prince's Trust. My experience is similar to that of many other hon. Members, starting off with involvement in voluntary organisations through family, and later becoming involved through chapel, through the Scout movement and in other ways.
    My perspective has changed a little in recent times. I have had discussions in the past two years from national conferences to specialised meetings, from gatherings in every region of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to local meetings such as the one that I had yesterday in Peterborough, a recent one in Loughborough and a meeting of black community leaders in Nottingham. From all those contacts, I am now convinced that I knew far less than I thought and that no one can possibly know the whole sector.
    At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the immense amount of work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who was appointed
    206
    by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party to work with me on the consultation, who has also attended meetings up and down the country, and who has brought all her own experience and expertise to bear on listening and sharing ideas with the voluntary sector and working out how Government and the voluntary sector can best work together.
    We deliberately refer in our motion tonight to the responsibilities of Government in nurturing the voluntary sector. It is important for Government to understand that they cannot and must not start off with a blueprint for the sector. The role of Government should be that of a careful gardener, caring and sensitive to the effects of its actions rather than those of a builder bolting together scaffolding to create a fixed and rigid structure. That distinction is important for those who have not been involved with the voluntary sector to understand.
    It is also not enough to praise the sector or even to value it. We need to understand it as best we can and to make the decision-making of Government more positive and sensitive to the role of voluntary organisations, for the sector is not just useful, but essential, to the health of British society. In many areas, the voluntary sector is sensitive to specific communities such as inner cities or estates where the Church may be the only professionally-led organisation in the resident community. The voluntary sector's contribution to difficult situations is often crucial to the community and its health.
    There is a key role for voluntary organisations in building up people's capacity to work as a community, to develop their personal skills as individuals and to develop a leadership capacity in the community. Having worked in such settings and having been involved in the training of volunteers, I never cease to be amazed at how such gifts are developed over time and, conversely, how we fail to recognise and nurture latent talent within the community that is often beyond the reach of statutory organisations and Government, but can be reached by independent voluntary organisations. That is recognised in Labour's "Road to the Manifesto" documents, in particular our belief that
    "Government does not have the answer to every problem; it must work in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors for the benefit of the public".
    The voluntary sector is a key part of enabling people to
    "shape their own lives instead of them being shaped for them in Government."
    One of the most important commitments made in "Road to the Manifesto" is the promise of real opportunities for those in the 18 to 25 age group. That must involve the voluntary sector, particularly where there is disillusionment over previous Government offerings and schemes. That is often particularly the case in specific communities, and we are opening a dialogue with the black voluntary sector in order to build bridges and lay foundations for success rather than making the mistake of funding for failure, as it has come to be called.
    It is important to recognise the need to include all sections in society when we seek to nurture the voluntary sector. We have already recognised that many groups feel excluded or operate outside the traditional structures and umbrella organisations, important though they are and vital as their services to the voluntary sector have been

    207
    over the years. We need to find a diversity of ways of debating issues and listening to the voluntary sector. That is the purpose of a number of initiatives.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the extremely important contribution that voluntary organisations of black people make to our society. Does he agree that there have been problems with the new approach to contracting that we have seen in recent years, with the emphasis on project funding? That approach has tended to be to the disadvantage of black voluntary organisations, which typically commit themselves to generic causes that do not easily fit into the project model.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is at the heart of the need for the sort of initiative that I am talking about. Many small, developing or new organisations find it difficult to cope with gaining access to structure funds, European money and major Government projects. Unless the infrastructure exists within the local community, many organisations will be accidentally excluded although their role is crucial.
    With reference to my hon. Friend's point, we certainly need the support and involvement of black communities—people of Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities in inner cities and other districts—if access to opportunities to work and train are to hit the targets for those who need them most and if we are to rebuild a sense of community and inclusiveness. This point relates specifically to the initiatives that the leader of the Labour party, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others have put their hands to in seeking a positive commitment to the needs of those aged 18 to 25.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Due to the local government structure in Northern Ireland, voluntary organisations play an important part in the development of community education, training and employment in both the communities there. The voluntary organisations play an essential role in bringing the two traditions together, especially in terms of community education. Surely they should have some input into the distribution of European social funds, especially in community employment and training.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is true that voluntary organisations can often, as in the case of Northern Ireland, make a significant contribution to bridging the gap between communities as well as supporting the infrastructure of a specific community. The situation in Northern Ireland is different, and we need to consider an example that involves the voluntary sector and the relevant Department of State achieving an agreement and compact on the way that they should treat each other. We need to consider that example of good practice.
    The importance of building bridges and laying the foundations for success within all communities arid all elements in the voluntary sector has been strongly reinforced by the extremely helpful interventions of my two hon. Friends. I am pleased with the initial response to the dialogue, which is demanding, but important and
    208
    worth while. Government and local government must accept that the voluntary sector cannot always be a partner unless the infrastructure is nurtured. There are training and support needs that it is unwise to overlook when developing any strategy.
    In recent years, there has been too much of an assumption that the voluntary sector can be stretched again and again, that core funding can be switched into project funding, that organisations can be told, again and again, to find tranches of matching finances. Such approaches have their place, but the infrastructure problems can be the greatest in the communities with the greatest need. Recognising that fact is essential for success—as in the examples that my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) have just mentioned. Applying for European and other funds can be beyond the capacity of small local groups, but it is in the local community that the needs and contributions of such groups can be crucial.
    The national lottery has introduced new money into the sector, but Government and local government need to ensure that the infrastructure exists in the local voluntary sector to enable the communities that most need help to apply for and use the money successfully. Dialogue will be a key part of our further round of meetings in each region and nation this autumn as we seek to find how best to turn principle into practice.
    We must recognise that there is a special role for the voluntary sector in rural areas, where the problems, needs and potential solutions are different. Like the problems of rural crime, the needs of rural communities and the importance of the voluntary sector have been overlooked too often.
    None of those points means that the Government have to be soft or woolly-minded in their approach; they mean that the Government cannot take decisions for the sector, but need to work with it to do the best for voluntary organisations and those they serve. It is not good enough for the Government to say, as one Minister did recently:
    "We value the voluntary sector—we want you to help us achieve our objectives."
    The setting of objectives and the decisions on means need to occur together, in partnership.
    It hardly gave the right signal when the Government shifted responsibility for the voluntary sector from one Government Department to another without the slightest discussion or consultation with the sector. The experts and civil servants were not asked and the move was undertaken without sensible consideration or planning. The move may not be the wrong one—like the Deakin commission, we believe that the jury is out, and the Department of National Heritage is currently on trial—but it was not the right way for the Government to act.
    The Government took the right decision a few years ago when, reflecting a Labour decision, responsibility for charities in the voluntary sector was put in the hands of one Minister of State in the House of Commons—at that time, the competent and hard-working right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). It does not give the right signal for the response to this debate to be given by a Minister who is not responsible for the voluntary sector—an issue that is dealt with by his colleague, Lord Inglewood, the Under-Secretary of State in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that the voluntary services unit—the co-ordinating group in central Government—was at its most effective when it was linked to a Cabinet Minister with a budget of his own, and that a Labour Government determined that it should be transferred and downgraded to the Home Office.
    Mr. Michael: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I have practical experience of the work of the VSU on the ground. I worked in the youth service, with probation officers and with others. I remember the unit's effectiveness under the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman must have been visiting a different planet between 1974 and 1979. Many good initiatives were taken during that time.
    It is a pity that this has not been followed by a burst of consultation and discussion by the Secretary of State and that she has not seen fit to take part in today's debate or even to listen to it. It is an omission on her part, and it is extremely disappointing. [Interruption.] The mumbling and groaning from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is irrelevant to that point.
    The Government's approach stands in stark contrast to Labour's approach. We have examined the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector. We are delighted that the sector—through the Deakin commission, which was established by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations—is independent of the Government. The independent commissions and working parties in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been undertaking a basic review of the sector's future. The sector is reviewing its own future, which is an extremely positive development.
    This work helps to set the agenda for partnership in Government, to use the title of our own consultative document. I pay tribute to the skill of Professor Nicholas Deakin in chairing the commission and in steering through a significant review of the work of the voluntary sector in England. It has helped and contributed to the thinking that has gone on in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I compliment the NCVO on its selection of Professor Deakin as chairman of the commission.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) hopes to refer to the useful and constructive manifesto that was drawn up by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. I have had the opportunity to discuss the manifesto with the council. In September, I will join my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to have further discussions with the voluntary sector in Scotland. In both cases, there are overriding considerations, such as how a partnership approach is adopted by Government as a whole. However, there are specific concerns, not least the different legal issues that arise in Scotland, such as the inappropriate application of the English case law definition of a charity by the Inland Revenue. We need to be sensitive to those differences.
    More generally, there is the question of how Government Departments can act consistently and together, rather than expect the voluntary sector to fit in with the rigid requirements of departmental structures. We are looking at this across Labour team boundaries. For example, I shall be meeting children's charities with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who deals with children's issues in the health team, and
    210
    with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the shadow Minister for youth in the education team, to discuss how the Government and the voluntary sector can co-operate much more effectively on issues affecting children and young people, including how we deal with offending by young people. We are doing this across the boundaries of the teams. In the future, we should encourage Departments to work across boundaries—there should be a greater flexibility which respects the nature of the voluntary sector and the issues with which it is trying to deal.
    A number of other issues are being dealt with by my colleagues. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has given a commitment to easing the barriers to volunteering on those who are unemployed or on benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has outlined a local partnership approach to reducing crime and to tackling its causes, particularly in relation to youth crime, an area in which I have a great personal interest. The voluntary sector, local community groups, local government and the police should all have the opportunity to be involved.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has been undertaking a major review of the lottery, including its impact on the voluntary sector and the way in which funds that are raised are distributed. That work will make a significant contribution to developing coherent thought on the positive outcomes of the lottery. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton, the shadow Minister for youth, has stressed the central role of the voluntary youth service and of voluntary youth organisations generally in the future of the youth service. This is extremely important, especially in view of the way that the youth service has been under attack and diminished by the Government in recent years.
    I have referred to the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and a number of my hon. Friends on attacking and tackling the needs of the 18-to-25 age group. In each of these, as in the general thrust of policy, we come back to the matter of partnership.
    "Partnership" is an easy word to use. Who is against co-operation and partnership? However, it is not that easy. Any partnership is tough, whether between individuals or between organisations. The nurturing of a partnership involves a long-term commitment on the part of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has said that we should "say what we mean and mean what we say". We need to work out what "partnership" means and what mechanisms are needed to make it happen. That was firmly in mind when the Labour party, in clause IV, made the unique commitment to co-operation and partnership with the voluntary sector.
    The approach of the Government to building partnership needs to be positive. However, it was not a Labour party member or someone from the voluntary sector who made this point most strongly, but a business man who was appointed to a quango by the Government. He said to me:
    "I can't understand the Government's approach to partnership. You can't go into a partnership with your mind made up, telling others what you want out of it. That wouldn't be accepted in business. You have to be prepared to work it out together."
    That is the problem with applying a strict contract culture to the voluntary sector. If there is a top-down approach, as is too often the case, if voluntary

    211
    organisations are seen by the Government as little different to a group of private companies that are bidding for contracts, then it is not a partnership—it is the strong binding the weak; it does not have the creative strength of a genuine partnership.
    This is a real worry, as I have seen a letter from a district auditor telling a local authority that all its relationships with the voluntary sector—including the giving of small grants—should be imbued with the contract culture. That attitude could undermine the relationship between the voluntary sector and local government, which is of crucial importance to local communities. In recent years, we have understood the tremendous pressures that there have been on local government—with the cuts in the finances available to local government, there has been pressure on the way in which they have reached partnership agreements and supplied grants to local voluntary organisations. That is bound to lead to pressure and to misunderstandings.
    During the course of our regional meetings last September and October, I was reassured to find that, to a great extent, the voluntary sector and local government regarded each other as partners in adversity under the Government. It is an area of difficulty, but at least in some areas there have been real efforts to change it back to a positive relationship. I know that there were difficulties in the Manchester area. Manchester city council members specifically appointed a working party, chaired by the chair of social services, to look at how to create a new partnership with the voluntary sector in that city. I believe that positive changes have been made.
    There have been various initiatives on the part of a variety of Labour authorities—from Islwyn to North Tyneside—in finding new ways of doing things positively in partnership with local authorities. Other authorities, including some in London and Nottinghamshire, for instance, have opened the books to the voluntary sector to try to share the problems faced by local government to see how to overcome problems and how best to work together.
    Those proposals are very positive, but we need to ensure that the Government do not force people in local government or agencies to spend time chasing money. It is possible for a huge amount of paperwork to be generated which takes the key staff of small organisations away from the task of running the organisations—from working with the local community and people who need their services and concentrating on quality of service—and involves them in the continual paper chase to try to ensure that money is there for the following year.
    Like many of my hon. Friends, I have had experience of that difficulty and it often undermines the quality of work. That problem is also caused by the move from core funding to a purely project-based approach. We need a strategic approach which recognises that voluntary organisations have to be healthy if they are to be able to respond to the challenges of changing society and to act as partners with government in meeting those challenges.
    Certainly there has been a positive response to the statements of principle in our consultative document, published by the Labour party earlier this year, and a series of detailed and positive contributions have been received from a whole range of organisations. We are now digesting those contributions. We will consider the mechanisms of government and how to turn principle into
    212
    practice. We need to find a way to define the relationship between Government and the voluntary sector, including agencies of Government and local government, to carry our principles through in practice to develop the partnership approach that I have mentioned.
    One way to do that—to use language that is becoming common in Government—is to establish a compact between Government and the voluntary sector and to seek to replicate that in relevant detail within Government Departments and other agencies. The Deakin commission has also stressed the positive value of such an approach and mentioned the need for a compact in its recommendations.
    I have had an opportunity to consider the compact in the strategic document drawn up by voluntary organisations and the Northern Ireland Office, to which I referred earlier. Of course, Northern Ireland has a different history and faces different challenges, but we should learn from that experience in, for instance, setting out how community care issues should be dealt with and the way in which the sector and Government should treat each other. There has been too ready an expectation by the Government that volunteers, carers in the family and in the community and the voluntary sector generally will pick up the pieces and fill the gaps. Often they do so, but they do so with resentment, because the Government have not worked with them as a partner to identify and then meet public need.
    I commend the way that the three local government associations in England and Wales have worked with the voluntary sector to draw up guidelines on, for instance, ensuring that charitable money is not used to subsidise the public purse when a local authority seeks to deliver services through voluntary organisations. It is to be hoped that the new single local government association will build on those foundations. Central Government should adopt a similar approach, encourage their agencies to do so and reflect what has been done by the local government associations. I note that the latest Association of Metropolitan Authorities publication contains further discussion about quality and how to introduce quality into partnerships. It is promising that such issues are being pursued by local government.
    As I hope I am making clear, partnership is not an excuse for inefficiency. As the business man I mentioned said, we need to work together. When the voluntary sector uses public money, we should seek ways to measure performance—together. We will encourage the Audit Commission to consider the ways in which partners in the voluntary sector and in government, locally and nationally, can set targets, minimise bureaucracy and find performance indicators that reflect their joint performance in meeting the real needs of the community.
    The need for accountability and effectiveness is accepted by the voluntary organisations, which have often been pioneers in effective management, as they have in so many areas. Examples of good practice need to be shared, as with the Central Council for Jewish Community Services, whose imaginative appointment of Dr. Eric Livingstone—who is qualified in medicine and in the law—as an ombudsman has allowed independent resolution of complaints about and between different organisations.
    In a meeting yesterday, the voluntary sector representative, from a group concerned with mental health, said that we need to challenge the voluntary sector.

    213
    It is the greatest challenge of all to be taken seriously, and we will look for value for money and for accountability to those who are served—when service to a group or community is the issue—but we will seek ways to undertake the evaluation together and to share both the purposes and the means of improving performance. The way in which the Audit Commission has increasingly worked with local government rather than outside it, addressing it as a partner instead of as a separate group of organisations, shows that that approach could work well in the overlap between Government, local government and the voluntary sector.
    We will ensure that those principles, and the others set out in our document that I do not have time to detail tonight, will be put into effect across government under the oversight of ministerial task force, chaired by a senior Cabinet Minister. I welcome the arrival of Ministers on the road to Damascus, if the Government support our motion tonight, but I warn them that they are signing up to a tough approach. The voluntary sector needs to be helped to expand and develop, and it needs to be treated as a partner, or rather as a disparate group of partners with differing needs and contributions, but its independence also needs to be respected and, indeed, celebrated.
    Some have suggested that the voice of charities should be stilled. Some Conservatives believe that charities should not bite the hand that feeds them, as though they were dependent puppies to be humoured. A similar conclusion was suggested by the Centris report, but we believe that such an approach is wrong in principle. In a democratic society, how can Government seek to silence a voluntary organisation working for the good of principles set out in charitable objects, if paid lobbying by those who have a commercial interest continues unabated?
    If the Alzheimer's Disease Society cannot speak for sufferers and their carers, who can? Yet who best to provide targeted services on behalf of government? I do not seek to be specific about one society, but the example makes the point better than any amount of philosophical analysis. Our concern is given point and poignancy by the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I hope that the Minister will endorse the views that I have expressed on that point when he speaks.
    I have not been able even to scratch the surface of the contribution made by the voluntary sector, or to list the issues that we need to address, far less to expand on the answers. For instance, I have not had time to discuss trusteeship, charity law or the definition of charity, which the Deakin commission suggested that the Government should try to tidy up. Incidentally, it will not pay to be too tidy, nor would the Government would be wise to embark alone on the task of writing a new definition, which might look simple but might unexpectedly cause a small earthquake in Peru. Each of those topics, and many more, deserve a full debate to themselves. However, I hope that I have at least indicated Labour's approach and the strength of our commitment.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the Government's approach that is of value to the voluntary sector. I hope that we shall hear an agenda for action, but I doubt it. The voluntary sector made a big commitment to the "Make a Difference" working party, for instance, and felt that the response from the Government failed to
    214
    match its commitment and lacked enthusiasm. When we asked for documents that set out the Government's commitment to "think voluntary", my researcher met blank incomprehension across Departments until at last one small leaflet was found, which an official from the Department of National Heritage said was the only publication about that initiative.
    The Government must do better. Volunteering is an essential element of citizenship, and access and recognition must be offered to those in work and out of work alike who provide voluntary activity. That can be done, as the Prince's Trust Youth Volunteers have recognised. The Government need to encourage and show commitment to volunteering by their employees and to exchanges, so that officials and Ministers develop the better understanding that is necessary for partnership. The Government should also encourage the private sector in the initiatives that have been taken by Business in the Community and many individual companies.
    Above all, the contribution of the voluntary sector is crucial to the renewal of civil society and to restoring the sense of community that is at the heart of Labour's project. That has been recognised personally by the leader of the Labour party and the partnership approach is not only in the party's constitution, but it is at the heart of the road to the manifesto process, as Labour plans for government.
    In proposing the motion tonight, we are setting on the record, in the House of Commons, our recognition of the massive contribution by the voluntary sector to the lives of individuals and communities throughout Britain and of the fact that the potential is even greater. We are acknowledging that the Government need the voluntary sector and accepting our responsibilities as a partner that we can look forward to fulfilling in government. We are recognising the responsibility of government to nurture the sector while respecting the independent charities and voluntary organisations.
    It is a privilege and an honour to introduce the motion on behalf of the Opposition.
    7.49 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I am pleased to respond to the motion and to set out the Government's policies in relation to the voluntary sector, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are pleased to have taken on responsibility recently for Government policy on volunteering, the voluntary sector, the National Lottery Charities Board, charities legislation and community development.
    The themes that I wish to bring out this evening are both the continuity of the Government's commitment to volunteering and the voluntary sector, and the change and development signalled by the move of responsibility for voluntary sector matters to my Department.
    I shall begin by setting out what I understand the voluntary sector and volunteering to be about. It is a large sector: depending on definitions, there are perhaps 400,000 to 700,000 voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom. The sector includes about 180,000 charities in England and Wales registered with the Charity Commission. As the House will be aware, there is a wide range of voluntary organisations that do not meet the legal test necessary for charitable status.

    215
    Voluntary organisations are diverse, covering such areas as health, disability, housing, education and the environment. They are independent and they are very important. Voluntary organisations can often be far more effective and sensitive than Government at responding to needs. They may be far better than Government at injecting elements of user-involvement in the provision of services.
    Voluntary organisations are a vital part of the national landscape. This is not mere hyperbole. To check the truth of the statement, we have to think only of a few of those organisations that are now more than a century old: the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the British Red Cross, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Salvation Army and the National Trust.
    Equally important are the myriad of small local voluntary bodies, which are such a force for good in communities throughout the country. Indeed, they are perhaps more typical of the voluntary sector than are the well-known national charities. The great majority of charities have an income of less than £10,000 a year.
    I turn specifically to the role of the Department of National Heritage. My Department seeks to promote the health of the voluntary sector and to encourage volunteering. It seeks, although one might quibble with the terminology, to nurture—to use the word that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) properly and effectively employed—the sector.
    We have a broad-ranging programme of work, which I shall outline. It includes the promotion of volunteering, support of voluntary organisations by means of grants to membership, training and advice bodies, co-ordination of policy within Government through the ministerial group on volunteering and the voluntary sector, responsibilities in relation to the legal framework within which charities operate, and the national lottery, which is an unprecedented source of new funds for voluntary organisations. I shall take each responsibility in turn.
    The Government's aim is to promote volunteering as an activity that can involve anyone and everyone in his or her community. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's "Make a Difference" initiative, begun in 1994, brought together a team from the public, corporate and voluntary sectors to draw up a strategy to demonstrate that volunteering is a worthwhile activity, and to suggest how volunteering opportunities might be made available for all those who wished to be involved.
    After consultation with more than 300 organisations, the "Make a Difference" team brought out a report entitled "An Outline Volunteering Strategy for the UK" in June 1995. The report contained 81 recommendations addressed to the Government, to employers and to organisations that involve volunteers. The Government responded by announcing a package of measures worth £20 million over three years.
    The crux of the team's strategy was the need to establish effective local centres to match volunteers with opportunities to volunteer. In many parts of the country, that strategy already existed through the network of locally funded volunteer bureaux, but in many other parts it did not. We have taken action on this by funding nearly 40 new local volunteer development agencies in areas where there was previously no such organisation. Their
    216
    function is to increase awareness of volunteering and to promote opportunities to volunteer by working closely with a wide range of organisations, including schools, health authorities and local businesses, as well as voluntary organisations.
    The aim is that, by the end of the three years, there will be coverage throughout England. There has been a similar response in the other parts of the United Kingdom. A national helpline has also been set up, so that volunteers can get information from wherever they are in the country for the price of a local call.
    The "Make a Difference" team also drew attention to the fact that the young and old people are less likely to volunteer than those in the middle age groups. The strategy highlighted the need to encourage the involvement of the young and the older groups. The Government's programme includes challenge grants to encourage new and effective volunteering opportunities for both these age groups. Outstanding examples of organisations involving volunteers in the community, and of individual commitment to volunteering, are recognised by the Whitbread "Make a Difference" volunteering awards.
    The Government's funding policy reflects the diversity of voluntary organisations and seeks to provide support that can reach across all parts of the sector, reaching both traditional, large organisations and small informal groups in cities, towns and villages throughout the land.
    Dr. Godman: I readily acknowledge the Minister's responsibility, but may I remind him that the Finance Act 1987 introduced a payroll-giving scheme, which allows employees to make a tax-free donation or donations to charities up to a maximum of £1,200 per annum? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to increase the limit to, say, £2,400 per annum?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is certainly one that my Department will be considering in the context of the Deakin report. I shall be mentioning gift aid and payroll giving, which I take seriously.
    I was saying that both large traditional organisations and small informal groups are targets in encouraging volunteering. By way of example, my Department funds the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, a large traditional voluntary organisation whose 140,000 volunteers carry out a vital role within the community delivering meals on wheels, serving in hospital shops and helping at the scenes of emergencies.
    At the other end of the scale, the Department funds the national bodies that support the work of the local volunteer bureaux and councils for voluntary service, and in this way contributes to the welfare of thousands of local voluntary organisations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I remain committed to continuing that support.
    It is not only through grants that the Government channels financial support to the voluntary sector. Direct support from the tax system is also important. Last year, charities received the benefit of tax concessions worth about £1.5 billion, which constituted vital help to their work.
    The Government have made it easier for individuals and companies to give to charity in tax-efficient ways. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow

    217
    (Dr. Godman) mentioned payroll giving, which the Government introduced, along with gift aid, as powerful supports both to charities and to those who give to charity. It is the value of these programmes and tax concessions, as well as the legitimate interest of the public in how charities spend the money that they are given, that makes it so important that charities are accountable.
    Mr. Rowe: One of the most valuable innovations has been the give-as-you-earn scheme. However, the advance of the scheme has somewhat disappointed its devotees. Perhaps my hon. Friend will either assure me that I am out of date or give an assurance that the Department of which he is such a shining light will do everything that it can to extend and improve the scheme.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is certainly not out of date. He has raised a matter that we shall be considering closely. The Deakin report, to which I shall come, provides us with an opportunity to consider a range of interlocking subjects applying to charitable giving and volunteering in general.
    Another element of our work is the ministerial group on volunteering and the voluntary sector, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. That group brings together at ministerial level representatives of the many Departments with an interest in voluntary organisations, to try to ensure that policies and action are consistent—not standardised—and that Departments work well with voluntary organisations and volunteers.
    The Deakin report was published on 8 July. The work of the Deakin commission was concerned with England only. Equivalent exercises have taken, or are taking, place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The commission took a wide range of evidence, and produced a thoughtful report, which has important messages for many people associated with voluntary organisations and volunteering.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: It might be appropriate to mention that the Minister's former Aberdeenshire colleague, Colin Mitchell, died on Saturday. He was chairman of the Halo trust, an admirable charity that indulges in the dangerous work of raising land mines.
    Will the Minister give an undertaking that that committee will meet the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is worried about the effects of the reorganisation of local government and it calculates that it is £10 million down as a result of the lottery? Will the appropriate body meet it and talk seriously?
    Mr. Sproat: I was sad to see that Lieutenant Colonel Colin Mitchell, a former Member of the House, died at the weekend. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join in the hon. Gentleman's tribute, or implied tribute.
    As for meeting the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, I cannot give any commitment on behalf of my right hon. Friend, but the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable request, which I will pass on to my right hon. Friend with the expectation that she will be glad to fulfil it.
    My right hon. Friend and I will be looking closely at the recommendations of the Deakin report on behalf of the Government. As I told my hon. Friend the Member
    218
    for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), it will give us a chance to consider the whole area of charities, volunteering, and volunteers who are part of the voluntary sector and those who are not. We take the matter extremely seriously, and I am glad that, just after my Department has taken over responsibility for that, we have the chance to consider a report which has studied the matter so thoroughly.
    I come now to the national lottery. Any debate on the voluntary sector in Britain must deal with the impact of the national lottery. The lottery has provided charities and voluntary organisations with a major new opportunity. As the House well knows, charities and voluntary organisations are one of the five specific areas of good causes supported by lottery funds.
    The National Lottery Charities Board has already awarded £318 million to more than 4,000 organisations, involved in a wide variety of worthy causes. But it is important to realise that the board is not the only source of lottery funds for charities and voluntary organisations.
    More than half the awards made so far by the other distributing bodies—the Sports Council, the Arts Council, the National Heritage Memorial Fund—are to voluntary organisations working in sport, the arts and heritage. It is estimated that more than £800 million from the first full year alone of lottery ticket sales will go to charities and voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister makes a fair point about the direction of moneys, but will he acknowledge my point about the infrastructure needs and the difficulty of making detailed applications unless organisations have large resources, and that there is an issue there to be addressed?
    Mr. Sproat: That is an extremely important issue. It applies to charities and small sports organisations which may wish to fund the purchase of kit and so on. Again, we shall consider that in the context of the Deakin report, but we are also considering it with regard to all the distributors of lottery funds.
    It is certain that the national lottery has made a very positive contribution to the income of charities, but I come now to the difficult question whether the lottery has had a negative or positive effect on other aspects of voluntary organisations' income.
    Mr. Dalyell: That is very important.
    Mr. Sproat: It is.
    We should face that fact squarely. The Conservative party has no interest in pretending that things are other than they are—nor, I am sure, do the Opposition. That is matter that we must consider. It was extremely difficult to gauge the effect in advance. The House realised that there was a serious problem here. It was decided that part of the lottery moneys should be given to charities in the first place, because it was predicted that they might find things more difficult as a result of the lottery.
    The House will be aware that that was a concern of a number of charities and voluntary organisations when the lottery legislation was being debated. The Government responded by giving a commitment to monitor the incomes of such organisations following the introduction of the lottery.

    219
    The issue of charities' income is complex and uncertain. Charities and voluntary organisations are diverse, in terms of the size of individual organisations, their aims and objectives, and the means by which they are funded. Research in that area has to be equally sophisticated if it is to capture reliable information and allow reasonable conclusions to be drawn from it. We worked with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and its sister bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in planning the research. We announced the research last October, and it is being carried out on two fronts.
    The main and more important element of the research will look at income trends. That involves analysing the accounts of more than 7,000 charities and voluntary bodies throughout the United Kingdom, and will cover a period from 1991 to 1992—three years before the introduction of the lottery—to 1996–97, the second full year after its introduction.
    The data are being prepared by an independent company, and the work began in the new year. It will analyse changes in all sorts of income—donations, legacies, sales, investments and so on. That is inevitably a long-term study, and results so far have merely, but usefully, revealed trends in income in the period leading up to the introduction of the lottery, thus providing a benchmark from which any changes can be measured. Next year, we will have available analysis of the results of the first full year following the introduction of the lottery, with full results of the research available in 1998.
    The other, and secondary aspect, of the research involves considering the results of a number of surveys which have been carried out into public giving and charities' income. It uses data from surveys such as the family expenditure survey and those carried out for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations by national opinion polls. That aspect of the research will inevitably be less definitive, as samples are smaller, and in general it will rely on secondary sources of information—in many cases, people's recollections of their pattern of giving, rather than on an examination of charities' accounts.
    Some charities have certainly reported a fall in income since the introduction of the lottery. For example, Alexandra Rose day reported that the proceeds of its flag day in 1995 were 12 per cent. lower than in 1994. Others, however, are reporting an increase. For example, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children publicly reported an increase of £2.2 million on an income of about £25 million in voluntary donations in 1995. Still other organisations have reported an increase, but do not wish to publicise that fact too widely in case it has a damaging effect on their future fund-raising.
    The picture is thus a mixed one, and is further complicated by the fact that charitable income may be affected by many factors, of which the lottery is, at most, just one. They range from poor weather on a flag day to the growth of Sunday trading. Fewer people may concentrate their shopping on a Saturday, as they traditionally did, and may now shop on a Sunday. Yet people making street collections still tend to go for the Saturday crowds, which are lower. I give that as an example of the complicated reasons why donations may fall.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister accept that the family expenditure survey, although an excellent document in itself, is not designed to collect information about voluntary contributions to charities and voluntary organisations? In fact, it was quite inaccurate when it tried to estimate the amount that people spent on national lottery tickets, so it does not seem to me to be a very reliable source of estimating how much people spend on charity.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Lady reinforces the main point that I was trying to make: although we take surveys as evidence, we build into our calculations the fact that those surveys are not always set up to calculate the amount, as the hon. Lady quite rightly said of the family expenditure survey, and in other surveys people remember giving more or less to charities, which then turns out not to be apparent from the income of the charity itself.
    The hon. Lady is quite right to emphasise that it is difficult to get accurate information. That is why we are trying, by going back in our analysis to 1991–92, to get a proper benchmark in the years before the lottery, and then to get proper benchmarks on what is received after the lottery has been going for a full year, two full years, and to publish it. The House may then make its own decision on what it thinks is the evidence before it and the consequences that that evidence would appear to show.
    As a further example of the genuine difficulties in interpreting surveys, the NOP survey, commissioned by the NCVO, suggested that the number of people donating to charities fell from 81 per cent. of respondents to 70 per cent. after the introduction of the lottery. On the other hand, the overall sums given did not decline in the same period, which suggests that those who are giving are giving more.
    Furthermore, figures from the annual family expenditure survey, which the hon. Lady mentioned, suggest that the number of households giving to charities has in fact remained pretty stable—it has neither gone up nor down since 1993. We have to take the evidence and place on it what judgment we think is suitable.
    It is thoroughly unclear whether, or by how much, charities' incomes have changed since the introduction of the lottery. It is even less clear what might have caused any change. After all, any new call on disposable income, including but not limited to the national lottery, could have some effect on charitable donations. The causes will remain an issue of continuing debate, but, once the results of the survey of charities' income are available, the facts of any change will be clear, even if the reasons are not necessarily clear.
    The last important area of my Department's responsibilities that I shall describe is in relation to charities legislation and the Charity Commission, which supports and supervises charities in England and Wales. Charities are devoted to the public interest, and accordingly, have a privileged status and receive particular benefits, including tax relief, as I mentioned earlier.
    The public support charities generously. Public confidence in them is therefore vital. The Deakin report has a number of important recommendations about the law on charities, and on management and standards. These will obviously need to be considered carefully. At this stage, all I wish to say is that the Government

    221
    fully support the Deakin committee's view that the legal framework must be appropriate for the modern world and the role that charities play in it, and we shall consider with great care what Deakin has to say on the need for reform.
    Public confidence depends on donors knowing that the money that they give is put to good use and for the purposes for which they give it. The parts of the Deakin report devoted to improving management and standards in charities will no doubt be taken to heart by voluntary organisations. The Deakin report has also confirmed the need for an effective independent body to oversee the charitable sector. That, of course, is the responsibility of the Charity Commission.
    My right hon. Friend's responsibility is for the appointment of the charity commissioners, who are accountable to her for the overall efficiency of the commission. The commissioners are, however, independently responsible for their operational and policy decisions, and answerable to the courts.
    Major reforms to the law regulating charities and the commission were contained in the Charities Act 1992, much of which was consolidated in the Charities Act 1993. Both Acts updated the powers of the Charity Commission—for example, to conduct investigations and to protect charitable property—and updated the requirements on charities—for example, by introducing a new charity accounting framework. That framework came into force on 1 March this year, effectively completing the implementation phase of the reforms.
    It is important that charities should be accountable. Abuse is, fortunately, rare, but it must be tackled effectively, as must failures of administration. The monitoring framework set up by the 1993 Act seeks to achieve that, and it aims to do so without imposing unnecessary burdens on charities. The deregulation task force on charities and voluntary organisations made a significant contribution in helping to get that balance right.
    Recommendations from the deregulation task force that were accepted by Ministers included the creation of a new light-touch regime for charities with income or expenditure of £10,000 or less—so that in general they are not required to submit annual reports or accounts to the Charity Commission, or to have their accounts audited or independently examined. For larger charities, the income or expenditure level above which accounts have to be audited was raised from £100,000 to £250,000.
    To enable it to fulfil its new role under the 1993 Act, the Charity Commission has been undergoing its own transformation under the direction of the chief charity commissioner. The commission has progressively built up its support and advisory role to charities, and is putting in place new monitoring arrangements. Its investigative powers have been strengthened, and it has enhanced its policy division so that it can play a greater role in developing issues affecting the charitable sector as a whole. This all amounts to a significant modernisation of the commission's role.
    Mr. Michael: I get the impression that the Minister is moving away from the Deakin report. He referred to the recommendations of the report, which were directed at a variety of organisations, including the Charity
    222
    Commission and many organisations in the voluntary sector. The first set of recommendations were to central Government. Will the Minister say a little about the Government's response to those recommendations—specifically those directed to the Minister and his Department?
    Mr. Sproat: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The whole concept of the concordat is central to one of the passages in Deakin, but we would like to consider it in more detail, for the simple reason that it is a very important recommendation.
    It is also a very difficult recommendation. It is one thing to say that the Government must sign, but with whom in the voluntary and charitable sector would the Government sign? Although I am absolutely not rejecting the idea, we need to examine it closely. It is important to get things right in principle, and then to translate them into practice. That is what we want to do. We received the report only on 8 July, but we will look at that point, as well as the point about standards of management and accountability.
    We are strongly aware of the importance of voluntary organisations and volunteering. A recent study by the volunteer centre of volunteering in eight European countries suggested that volunteering in the UK was significantly higher than in all the other parts of Europe surveyed—51 per cent. in the UK, as against 35 per cent. in Holland and 19 per cent. in France. The figures on individual charitable giving tell a similar story, with private giving accounting for 12 per cent. of charitable income in the UK, as against 7 per cent. in France and 4 per cent. in Germany.
    Those are traditions that my right hon. Friend and I wish to foster. Furthermore, in the words of the motion, we accept the responsibility
    "to nurture the sector while respecting the independence of charities and voluntary organisations."
    8.18 pm
    Mr. David Hanson: I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the voluntary sector, because it is a rare opportunity for the House to consider this issue.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) for their sterling efforts in raising the issue of the voluntary sector in the Labour party and throughout the country. Without being too sycophantic, I praise my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party for initiating the debate, because it is important that the Labour party involves itself in the voluntary sector, because, traditionally, many people outside the Labour party have not seen the party as being central to the voluntary sector. That is changing. It was never really the case that the Labour party was not involved in the voluntary sector. The consultation itself has involved some 2,000 people giving their views to the Labour party about the future of the voluntary sector.
    I chaired the consultation session that we held in north Wales, largely because, as well as being the local Member of Parliament, for 10 years before I was elected I worked in the voluntary sector as a regional and a national officer with the Spastics Society, and later as a director of a drug abuse charity. I feel that for too long the Labour party has

    223
    allowed the Conservative party to occupy the high ground, given that Labour has been deeply involved in the voluntary sector at local level and is now developing a policy for the future.
    The two parties differ on that—on the approach that should be adopted to the future development of the sector. If we all look at our constituencies, we will see the benefits of voluntary sector activity. For instance, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is stationed in my constituency. Then there is Amnesty International, which campaigns for justice and fairness throughout the world. There are playgroups, organising play activities for young people; Oxfam, with its shops and campaigning activities; Crossroads, which provides support for carers; the cancer support organisations, the credit unions, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the citizens advice bureaux and Barnardo's. Every constituency contains many groups of that kind.
    I am not referring only to traditional groups and major charities. Only last Friday, I opened a revitalised chapel in a small village in my constituency which had been built again, brick by brick, by a voluntary organisation that wanted to develop the environment. I never fail to be amazed at the level of support that there is for the voluntary sector and the principle of volunteering, and I note that members of the Labour party have been involved, actively and locally, in every activity in my constituency that I have mentioned so far.
    The voluntary sector in Wales is a major source of activity and benefit. Many Welsh Members of Parliament recently received a copy of the manifesto of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, which clearly demonstrates the amount of voluntary activity currently undertaken in Wales. The citizens advice bureaux, for instance, currently provide 400,000 consultations in Wales each year. The volunteer bureaux recruit 8,000 new volunteers per annum. Pre-school play groups currently support 48,000 children. The housing association movement—which has not been mentioned so far—currently provides 46,000 dwellings for 75,000 people. Voluntary organisations in Wales own 177,000 acres of land, and own and manage 230 miles of coastline.
    As has been said, there are 22,000 voluntary organisations in Wales, and staff value is estimated at some £2 billion a year in terms of the salary that staff would require if they took paid work. The voluntary sector provides 12,000 jobs in Wales, and raises £600 million in cash each year. It is a major source of activity, and it is important to our local community. People become involved in the sector because it gives voice to new and unrecognised needs—a voice that can change and raise public awareness. It provides new ways of meeting society's requirements, and enables people to participate in public life and fulfil the civic duty that their community demands. It also allows volunteers to develop skills and experience that will lead to personal fulfilment and, we hope, improve many people's employment prospects.
    Despite the importance of the voluntary sector, I believe that the two parties have very different approaches to it. I do not wish to be churlish to the Minister, but I feel that there are problems to be dealt with. They are wide-ranging, but I think that many voluntary organisations in Wales and elsewhere agree that they should be addressed.
    224
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned the "contract culture". The state seems increasingly to be trying to determine what voluntary organisations do by arranging for funding to follow contracts. We should also examine the campaigning roles of voluntary organisations. There is currently not quite a disdain, but a frowning on some campaigning work. My hon. Friend mentioned biting the hand that feeds voluntary organisations. There is concern about the level of campaigning activity—activity that, in my view, is vital to the voluntary sector. If the voluntary sector does not represent service users who are in need, often no one will.
    The question of core funding also needs to be addressed. Many voluntary organisations—such as the one of which I was a director before I became a Member of Parliament—depend on such funding to undertake the activities that they perform so well. It is neither attractive nor interesting to campaign for photocopying facilities, secretarial support or help with the cost of telephone lines or rental payments in fund-raising, but such things are important to the success of voluntary agencies and their ability to meet the needs of their communities. We should stress the need to maintain and develop long-term core funding.
    The Government's attitude to value-added tax impinges greatly on the voluntary sector, which still cannot claim back VAT on much of its expenditure. The fact that voluntary agencies must pay VAT on goods up front hits them hard. I do not want to be too disdainful of the Government's approach, but it is felt that, in many quarters, voluntary activity may be seen as a substitute for Government action, as opposed to an element in a partnership. That attitude needs to be challenged.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, and as the motion suggests, it is the job of Government to nurture the voluntary sector and to encourage voluntary activity. Those roles demand a re-think of the Government's approach, which I think Labour can genuinely undertake. We need to recognise the worth and value of voluntary organisations, and their commitment to genuine participation and involvement with Government and local authorities. I believe that Government's job is to establish a proper framework for that relationship to develop.
    A number of aspects need to be improved, and the Welsh voluntary sector has pressed for such improvement. For instance, we should involve the voluntary sector more in consultation about the Government's activities. The sector can represent service users; it can represent those who are at the sharp end of Government policies, and it can assess the impact of those policies on the groups that it represents.
    We should also consider the ways in which Government can encourage recognition of the importance of training, and of the ability of the voluntary sector to develop individuals as part of the encouragement of quality that the Government should be undertaking. Perhaps, when he replies to the debate, the Minister will tell us whether the Government are considering ways of increasing recognition of the qualifications of volunteers. Voluntary action could perhaps form part of a vocational programme, returning people to work but also enabling individuals to be recognised for what they have done. That is important, especially for unemployed people but also

    225
    for retired people who may have retired early to contribute to the community. The Minister might also consider ways in which unemployed people could contribute.
    I hope that the Government will consider a volunteer charter, which would put volunteering at the centre of community life and enable it to be seen as a mainstream activity encouraged by the Government. The Government could help to support the untapped wealth and activity represented by the voluntary sector. They should also consider extending the sharing of good practice: I refer not just to local authorities and health authorities but to the business sector. There are many good ideas in that sector, involving secondment, support and financial activities. The role of Government should be to help to support the voluntary sector to help to bring those good practice ideas together.
    Finally, we should pay close attention to funding. Core funding is important but it needs to be established on a longer-term basis than currently. In my area, local government reorganisation has caused some uncertainty about long-term funding and it is important to look not only at core funding but at matching funding. Many voluntary organisations secure resources from the national lottery and from local authorities but require matching funding. For example, an organisation in my constituency has just received £750,000 from the lottery but has to raise £250,000 in the community to trigger that £750,000. That is a great deal to raise locally, but the worth of the project is established locally.
    There is much support for the voluntary sector and much activity and initiative on its behalf and Labour will continue to be at the heart of that. There is more that the Government can do to pull the strands together, to look at ways of encouraging the sector and to assist it in doing what it does best—meeting the needs of local communities and having an independent, active campaigning role. I commend the motion to the House.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) said, but over the years the Government have already taken on board many of the ideas that he has suggested.
    Voluntary work plays a fundamental role in the minds of many Conservatives. The Government have a good record on this issue, as the huge increase in charitable funding and the increase in the size of the voluntary sector show. People who work for charities are highly motivated. The majority of them give their time for nothing and we could all give examples of excellent work carried out by local charities. As recently as a fortnight ago, I was working in my local prison canteen wearing a Women's Royal Voluntary Service hat.
    Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure my hon. Friend looked very pretty.
    Mr. Brazier: I welcome that comment from my Kentish colleague.
    I want to focus exclusively on voluntary work among young people. First, I shall deal with the administrative and regulatory problems that are faced by some
    226
    organisations that deal with young people and, secondly, I shall speak about the cadet movement. While I am enormously impressed by the large number of organisations that do splendid work with young people, I am concerned about some of their administrative problems. Last year I was privileged to write a pamphlet with John Blashford-Snell, the explorer and well-known youth worker, about some of these problems.
    Youth organisations face an extremely complex set of relationships with central and local government and with a number of overlapping co-ordinating bodies in the voluntary sector. I shall give a few examples. Answers to parliamentary questions suggest that the YMCA and youth clubs are getting small grants from the Department of Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Department of National Heritage and the Home Office. One can imagine the amount of administration by the Government and, more importantly, by charities that is involved in getting money from four Government sources. However, the principal focus of youth activity is local government, and some organisations have to deal with several parts of local government.
    In addition, there are three major co-ordinating voluntary organisations within the youth movement. There is Youth Clubs UK; then there is the organisation which used to be called the National Association of Boys' Clubs but which now has a much longer and more complicated title, as it sensibly also involves girls' organisations; and the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services. Those bodies all play a partial co-ordinating role and two of them assist in channelling money from the Government.
    The complexity for an organisation that is trying to help young people of dealing with so many different organisations is difficult to exaggerate. The chief executive of one project said that he was dealing with no fewer than 10 organisations that were either governmental or wholly or partly funded by the Government.
    Some youth organisations face another problem. In a sense the one that I have outlined is a problem of success: it is a welcome fault that so many parts of Government are involved in charity. I shall shortly make some proposals to make life a little simpler. The second problem is much more sinister and arises from our increasingly litigious environment. We all remember the recent story about the rugby referee who was sued for several hundred thousand pounds because of an injury sustained on the field by a player. He was covered by insurance, but many organisations are not fully insured or are not fully aware of the risks. In any case, I am not convinced that insurance is always the answer.
    I have received an extremely sad letter from the headmaster of the school that I attended, Wellington college, which is famous for the leaders that it has produced over the years, especially in the armed forces. I was one of its least distinguished pupils. The gist of the letter was that it is becoming extremely hard for any headmaster to give responsibility to pupils. I have since had testimony from the headmaster of another school who wrote in the same vein. Surely one of the most important aims of any organisation for young people, whether it is a school or a voluntary organisation, should be to give young people responsibility. However, it has become increasingly hard to do that because of the risk of being sued if something goes wrong.

    227
    There is an almost circular argument. The point of giving people responsibility is to give them the opportunity to make mistakes. If there is no scope for making mistakes, there is no responsibility, but when QCs get hold of those mistakes in court, we can see where they will lead. In framing laws to deal with voluntary organisations and schools, it is important to consider the fact that we want young people to be given responsibility and that that will sometimes lead to mistakes.
    We have a good background in trying to create a suitable environment for voluntary organisations. The voluntary sector is having a bigger and bigger stake in schools through local management and by way of grant-maintained schools, which have attracted pupils from a range of backgrounds. We have a terrific record by virtue of increased activity in the voluntary sector and the additional money that is available, not least from the national lottery.
    We must address both problems—lack of co-ordination and the threat from lawyers—and we must do so imaginatively. I do not pretend to have the complete solution, but I should like to throw in three ideas. First, just as we now have a formal focus for charities and the voluntary sector as a whole in the Department for National Heritage, so it would be appropriate to designate a Minister to have overall responsibility for youth—perhaps the same person. That does not mean that he should tread on the toes of his colleagues in other Departments, but he should have a co-ordinating role in Government for policies that will affect young people. There is such a job in France and in several English-speaking countries—a Minister for Youth.
    Secondly, the Government should try to reorganise the lines of communication. I understand that the interface with voluntary organisations is complicated and we do not want the Government to start nationalising them—that is the last thing that we should do if we wish them to remain effective. Nevertheless, it seems strange to have so many Government and non-Government bodies involved in co-ordinating the activities of voluntary organisations that deal with young people.
    On good Conservative principles, it must be possible to achieve some mergers and amalgamations that will lead to a slightly less confusing picture being presented to the heads of youth organisations who are trying to get on with their projects and not spend too much time on administration. We must also give better legal protection against litigation to people involved in youth work. Nobody wants to encourage dangerous practices, but no head of a youth organisation or school should. feel frightened of being sued because they have given a sensible level of genuine responsibility to young people.
    I should like to spend a few minutes discussing the cadet movement. In his remarkable book, General Colin Powell comments, as a young teenage black growing up in Brooklyn, about the impact of his introduction to the cadet movement at college. He said:
    "My experience in high school, on basketball and track teams … had never produced a sense of belonging or many permanent friendships."
    On joining the cadet force, he said:
    "The discipline, the structure, the camaraderie, the sense of belonging were what I craved. I became a leader almost immediately. I found a selflessness within our ranks that reminded me of the caring atmosphere within my family. Race, colour, background, income meant nothing."
    228
    He said that they
    "would go the limit for each other and for the group."
    The cadet movement plays a unique and positive role in the life of this country. Some 150,000 young people take part in the sea, air and army cadets and the combined cadet force. They develop a sense of adventure, responsibility, team work and good citizenship. Having served as an officer in the Territorial Army for some 13 years—we have shared most of the centres in which I have served with cadet units, and often took them training with us—I have been constantly impressed by the terrific opportunities that the organisations provide for developing leadership, a sense of discipline and a sense of commitment amongst some of the most deprived young people in the areas. In many cases, it made a terrific difference to their lives in just the way that Colin Powell described so eloquently.
    From the beginning of next year, there will be an exciting development in the cadet movement. For the first time ever in this country, the director of reserves and cadets—we will know who it is to be shortly—will be a reservist, someone from the volunteer reserve, instead of a regular general put into the post by the Ministry of Defence. That offers terrific opportunities for the cadets as well as for the volunteer reserves.
    I hope that the Department of National Heritage will take an interest in the cadet movement. I was extremely excited to discover that no fewer than 14 cadet organisations—13 of them from the Navy—have managed to obtain grants from the national lottery for capital spending for their training centres. I was deeply impressed by my own sea cadet training centre in Whitstable when I visited recently, but I was concerned at the state of their building. I am encouraging my local cadet centre to get on with bids for national lottery funds.
    The cadet movement plays a vital role for our armed forces and provides many high-quality recruits, but its wider value to the community is immeasurable. It is extremely important that, whoever is co-ordinating voluntary and youth policy within the Government—I cannot think of a better person to fill that role than my hon. Friend the Minister of State—should keep a watchful eye from outside the military establishment. When cadet organisations are competing with spare parts for Tornados or the latest piece of kit for a branch of the armed forces, the relatively small sums available to those vital organisations can be threatened. That is why the appointment I mentioned is so welcome, and why a watchful eye is needed.
    I end where I began, by saying that voluntary organisations play a vital role in the life of our country. I have been involved with them on and off throughout my life—I did my first voluntary work from school—and I believe that they play a vital role in our community, especially in developing young people.
    8.43 pm
    Mr. Chris Davies: Couched as it is in such general terms, surely no one will disagree with the motion tabled by the leader of the Labour party. We welcome and applaud the contribution made by volunteers to the lives of individuals and communities. Of course we should respect the independence of those organisations and, within

    229
    constraints, we want the Government to nurture such organisations, or at least not to go out of their way to harm them, either advertently or inadvertently.
    The questions for consideration are what role charities and voluntary organisations should be playing within our society, the extent to which they should be supervised and the degree to which they should be funded from the public purse. There is a danger of believing that voluntary organisations can, in some way, be neatly defined and packaged within some sort of administrative framework. I do not believe they can and I think that that is widely recognised throughout the House. They are too varied and too numerous. Sometimes, in my experience, they can be a little too varied and too numerous.
    For example, in Oldham there is a great deal of enthusiasm for animal welfare, yet the shelter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is in financial difficulties and there are divisions among those running another shelter. Despite that, plans are being made and funds are actively being sought for the promotion of two new shelters. One might hope that the individuals involved would pool their talents, but perhaps there is a risk in suggesting that, because it might curb the entrepreneurial enthusiasm of the volunteers involved—they are very committed people—in a way that might not be for the overall good. Freedom and flexibility must not be curtailed without good reason if voluntary organisations are to flourish.
    There are said to be some 240,000 voluntary organisations in Britain working for public benefit, but there are as many as 1.3 million if one includes all the different societies, preservation groups and so on. In Oldham and Rochdale, the Council for Voluntary Service will say that in one borough—the two boroughs are almost identical—there are 300 organisations and in the other there are 1,200. It is simply a matter of definition.
    Mr. Rowe: Underlying the debate is the assumption that every voluntary organisation is working for the public benefit. A substantial number of voluntary organisations are doing nothing of the kind, whether they be the National Front or a whole host of others. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with the whole business of defining this difficult area is that what some people believe is for the public benefit, others believe passionately is for the public disbenefit? Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that before he continues with his interesting remarks?
    Mr. Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has hit the nail on the head. Fortunately, the debate so far has not touched upon that difficult subject and, since the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman did not comment on it, I shall not do so.
    As I was saying, there is a problem of definition. We can compare the attitude of groups in the receiving of public money. Voluntary organisations such as housing associations, which are almost entirely publicly funded, are in the voluntary sector and have voluntary committees of management. In practice, they work like professional landlords running a commercial organisation, although in most cases they are non-profit—making. Like many organisations which are dependent on public sector funding, they have felt the pinch of late because they have become totally dependent on public funds.
    230
    That contrasts with an organisation such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which has always placed great importance on raising funds voluntarily so that a dependency culture does not develop. I can tell the House that, 600 ft up in Saddleworth, the RNLI's fundraising activities seem to be just as enthusiastic as they are at sea level. Voluntary organisations and charities spend vast sums of money each year—£15 billion by some estimates. Although they control and spend those huge sums, the payment of staff can become divisive.
    Criticisms have been directed at some of our most well-known charities working in overseas development when their administrative costs are brought to public attention, yet how can organisations working in such difficult circumstances, handling huge sums of money and requiring full-time organisers with great expertise do anything other than employ full-time professional staff? After all, how many people are prepared to don the hair shirt and make the sacrifice of working for little or nothing for a cause in which they believe? Judging from the recent debate on Members' pay, perhaps we cannot expect too much of people working in the voluntary sector when we are not prepared to ask the same of ourselves.
    It is almost a year since I was elected to the House and some nine months since I made my maiden speech. Umpteen contributions in debates, four Adjournment debates, two ten-minute Bills and endless defeats in the Lobbies have not yet dimmed my enthusiasm. If ever my energy wavers, I have only to listen to my opponents.
    Like many hon. Members, I make sacrifices. I work long hours, and I have given up many leisure and outside pursuits. I also demand sacrifices of those close to me. When people ask me how many hours I put in as a Member of Parliament, I say that they should ask my four-year-old daughter how much time I spend with her—the answer is, not enough.
    I never forget that I am in a privileged position, as I am paid to do a job I really want to do—voicing political beliefs and representing my constituents. Like every hon. Member, I am in that position thanks to the efforts of hundreds of unpaid helpers in the voluntary organisation that is my political party. I rely hugely—as we all do—on the support of those individuals.
    I am also aware of the difficulties that can arise when the relationship is blurred between the professional and the amateur—the paid and the unpaid. There is no easy solution. Perhaps there is no solution. The same applies to the Olympic games, where there is no way of defining the difference between amateurs and professionals when they compete against one another.
    Idealism is important in politics. If I lose my idealism or betray that felt by others, the support of my volunteer helpers will quickly fade away. Similar difficulties arise when a voluntary organisation performs a function that is considered to be the responsibility of a public authority.
    Like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), I recently joined the Women's Royal Voluntary Service for a morning to help out with meals on wheels. I went round Saddleworth with a local resident, Ron Bunting of Uppermill. Perhaps I should add that 10 per cent. of all WRVS volunteers are men. We went to see some of my constituents delivering the meals that had been provided by the social services department. I got a great deal of satisfaction out of those few hours of voluntary work. I hope that Mr. Bunting gets the same satisfaction out of

    231
    the one day a month that he gives to the WRVS. I enjoyed meeting people, although that is difficult to avoid when one is a Member of Parliament. It is almost a requirement of the job. I also enjoyed talking to my volunteer colleague, helping others and knowing that my tiny contribution enabled Oldham social services department to spend its resources on other useful work around the community.
    When a voluntary organisation undertakes a specific task on behalf of the local authority, who is the professional? Is it the organisation—such as Help the Aged, which provides specific services for Rochdale—or is it the council which commissions those services? I find that impossible to answer. It is important for those in positions of public authority to recognise the expertise within voluntary organisations. That respect is all the more deserved because of the financial contribution that voluntary organisations make simply by extending the service provision beyond that provided by the public purse.
    The worker voluntary organisations in Rochdale may cost some £2.5 million in public money, but are worth nearly £25 million—the equivalent cost had the work been carried out and paid for directly by the public authority.
    Some 21 million people in Britain are involved in voluntary activities, but in my experience only a tiny minority are the movers and shakers who take initiatives, accept responsibilities and make things happen. Many hon. Members will be aware of the saying: if something needs doing, ask a busy person.
    It is rather a shame that the character of Linda Snell in "The Archers" on Radio 4 is not entirely sympathetic, because the role she plays within that fictional community has always struck me as of great value to the village of Ambridge. In almost every community, a handful of people make things happen. We should give them every possible thanks and support. The difficulty is knowing how to focus that support in a meaningful manner. I commend the report of the independent commission on the future of the voluntary sector—the Deakin report—which explores many of the issues in detail.
    If so many people have never made a physical rather than financial contribution to a charity or voluntary organisation, perhaps the Government could find ways of encouraging them to do so. The sense of purpose, of usefulness, sociability and companionship, all give satisfaction and pleasure to the people who become involved in voluntary organisations. If the Government could find a way positively to encourage more people to take the first steps towards getting involved in the first place, there would be long-term benefit to the community.
    I conclude by asking the Minister to consider some particular matters. First, good organisation, a clear financial structure and proper accountability are essential to the running and supervision of voluntary organisations. Nothing destroys the credibility of such an organisation quicker than the mere whiff or suspicion of financial mismanagement. In England, the Charities Commission registers and supervises charities. In Scotland, there is no equivalent organisation and much less public accountability. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has estimated that nearly 50 per cent. of voluntary organisations are unintentionally or deliberately evading the law. Perhaps the Minister would like to bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    232
    Secondly, voluntary organisations require continuity of funding and a longer-term perspective so that they can make longer-term plans and avoid the hand-to-mouth struggle for funding that so many have to endure year after year. If the Government intend progressively to reduce funding to a voluntary organisation, they should make that clear sufficiently far in advance, so that the organisation can make the necessary structural changes and adjustments rather than sinking ever deeper into financial mire before reaching crisis point.
    My third point is about the European social fund and the concerns about it that have arisen over the past year or more. A letter from the Department for Education and Employment to the Oldham council for voluntary services says:
    "A payment in respect of our final claim for the 1994 ESF programmes has been received from the Commission, but there is insufficient sterling to enable us to make all the payments due … Accordingly you will shortly receive a payment which will take your total grant to 95 per cent. of the value of your final claim".
    The Department reminds the recipients of a condition attaching to the approval of their dossier to the effect that
    "'all payments are subject to the … Department receiving full and appropriate amounts from the European Commission; the Secretary of State for Employment shall not be liable for any deficit in the grant which may arise'",
    adding the words:
    "At this stage we are still hoping that it will not be necessary to invoke this clause".
    I hope that the Minister will accept that, although that may all be entirely legal and above board, the reality for voluntary organisations is that they are left being tossed around by the waves in a stormy sea, trapped between huge organisations—the Government and the European Commission. Some contingency funds should be made available to bridge that gap.
    Finally, the Minister will know that, some years ago, the Government ruled out changes to charitable status. As a result, human rights organisations, community development groups and others are excluded from charitable status. It has always seemed to me ludicrous and appalling that organisations such as Amnesty International—I acknowledge the point made earlier about Amnesty by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—cannot gain the full financial benefits of charitable status.
    I hope that the Minister will consider how changes could be made to accommodate the needs of such organisations, which play such an invaluable role in a way that reflects all that is best and most decent and honourable in humanity. If an organisation such as Amnesty International is not promoting the public benefit, it is difficult to think of an organisation that is. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point.
    8.59 pm
    Mr. Roger Gale: I shall touch on a significant point that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) made, but first I shall take the opportunity to raise briefly three separate but related issues.
    First, I wish to use the debate to say thank you. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the number of voluntary organisations in this country was between 400,000 and 700,000, depending on

    233
    how we define them. Most of those seem to be in Kent, which may explain why the Government Benches are dominated tonight by Kent Members. Most of those organisations—dare I say it?—seem to be in my constituency, doing God's work; I mean that literally.
    I started an audit in my mind, and began to go through the voluntary organisations with which my constituency is blessed. It was an impossible task. I considered the Herne Bay end of my constituency, and thought of the Strode Park foundation for the disabled, and all the volunteers who raise money for that. Then there is the Queen Victoria memorial hospital's league of friends, and all the people who raise money for that.
    We also have the Cabin Radio hospital radio organisation, which has been running for more than 20 years, and all the people who year on year devote their time to it. There are the youth organisations in the town, which I shall say more about later, and all the other people who donate hours and hours of their time to doing things for other people. All those are in Herne Bay alone.
    Then I thought about the villages and the Margate end of my constituency, with the Royal National Institute for the Blind home at Westcliff house, the Royal School for Deaf Children, and all the people who support those. Then there are the parent-teacher associations, which are involved in a wide range of fund-raising events for schools.
    I thought to myself that there cannot be a Member in the House who has not felt as I do, come Friday or Saturday night when my wife and I find ourselves getting dressed to go out for this week's helping of rubber chicken and Black Forest gateau, and thinking, "Oh Lord, do we really have to do this tonight?" Then we get there and find a room full of people.
    For us it is just another event, but for those people it is their once-a-year day, and every person in the room is devoted to the cause for which they have been working all year. It could be the Red Cross or the St. John Ambulance, whose members turn out for all the fund-raising events for the other organisations to ensure that nobody gets hurt, and who do such a sterling job, or it could be the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Rotary Club or the Lions.
    In Margate, we have the Winkle Club and the 12 Nails—organisations of which no one else in the House has ever heard, which raise funds and give money to charity for no other reason than that their members want to help people. On behalf of everybody in the House, I want to say thank you to all those organisations, especially to those who do things for the young people of our constituencies.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) rightly talked about the magnificent work done through the cadet organisations—the Army cadets, the Navy cadets and the RAF cadets and, of course, the St. John cadets and the Boys Brigade too. Those are organisations from which young people learn comradeship, discipline and the roots of helping other people, and because of that become the volunteers of tomorrow.
    A fortnight ago, I was fortunate enough to spend part of Sunday at the St. Lawrence cricket ground in Canterbury, watching teams of young people from all over Kent
    234
    playing "Kwick" cricket. It was all run by volunteers—people doing things in their own time. Some of them were schoolteachers, some youth workers and some voluntary organisers, but they all turn out to encourage young people to do something constructive.
    When we talk about young people, everyone thinks of drug taking, rock and roll, graffiti and all the rest of it, but an enormous number of them take part in voluntary, fund-raising activities. It is the kids who are out walking, swimming and doing a sponsored this or that to raise funds to help other people.
    There are also the better known organisations, and every constituency has them. For me, the scouting movement—the guides and scouts—is epitomised by Ann Wells of the 1st Margate St. John's troop. Ann has been taking the underprivileged children of my constituency and the Isle of Thanet on summer camp not for one, five or 10 years, but for well nigh 40 years—how she has avoided the attention of the Patronage Secretary, I do not know—every summer, without fail, because she will not let those kids down. Those people are the unsung heroes of this country. When we are talking about volunteering, it behoves all of us to remember them and to say thank you.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that in the tedium olympics of the House of Commons, I bore for England on two subjects—the media and the other is animal welfare—and you would be surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I did not mention animal welfare organisations.
    The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth referred to the sad demise of the RSPCA shelter in the Oldham and Rochdale area and of the efforts of others to set up a new shelter. I very much hope that Marc and Beverley Doyle will be successful in their fund-raising events. I am sure that he is trying to help them and, if I can help him to help them, I will be pleased to do so.
    I have a concern which relates in part to some of the organisations on which I have touched and in part to the point that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth made about the plethora of voluntary organisations—animal welfare organisations, in particular, but it goes across the board. With his new responsibilities, my hon. Friend the Minister should want to look long and hard at the work and powers of the charity commissioners.
    I have a gut feeling—I suspect that it is shared on a cross-party basis—that there are far too many reinventions of the wheel in charitable work. As a consequence, too much hard-earned, hard-won and hard-sponsored money is spent on replication of headquarters, officers, typewriters, telephones and all the other things which together make up charitable and fund-raising work but which, by the same token, ought to be more co-ordinated so that more of the money goes right to the sharp end to help the causes about which we are all concerned.
    In thanking people, I want to thank all the animal welfare organisations that do so much for animal welfare and contribute to the work of the all-party animal welfare group, which I am privileged to chair—in particular, the RSPCA and the National Canine Defence League, which provide the secretariat for Pathway—a group that is trying to promote the cause of people with pets who need housing.
    People tend to forget that, when the British talk about animal welfare, they are talking about the relationships between animals and people. An enormous number of

    235
    people get immense pleasure out of their companion animals. There are organisations helping them—I am thinking in particular of the Pat Dog organisation, of which I am privileged to be a member. It is extraordinary to take an animal into an old people's home or a hospital and to see the pleasure that others gain from the opportunity to touch, feel or talk to that animal.
    My second pitch to my hon. Friend the Minister is that, in asking him to seek greater co-ordination among charities, I would encourage him in turn to encourage the national lottery to make funding available to some of those animal charities that undoubtedly have suffered through lack of funds as a result of the introduction of the lottery.
    Finally, I must do a little special pleading, and I must declare an interest. I have a godson—a lad called Nicholas, who is a keen sportsman. He has been diagnosed as suffering from a heart disease and, from being a very active sportsman, he has been told virtually overnight, "Stop everything or you may die." He is one of the lucky ones. I understand that between four and eight people a week—no one is quite sure how many—die suddenly in the prime of their lives. Very many of them are athletes and many die as a result of physical exertion because they do not know that they have a heart condition.
    An organisation called Cardiac Risk in the Young, or CRY, seeks to promote the screening of young people—especially young athletes, but also the families of people who have suffered such bereavements—because it is believed that the disease may be congenital. My hon. Friend the Minister has a particular interest in voluntary organisations through the national lottery and sport. CRY has applied for national lottery funding. Those young lives could be saved. I urge him to be sympathetic to that appeal.
    9.9 pm
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In debating the future of the voluntary sector, we are debating the nature of our moral community. Two principal schemes of social relations have been set forth over the years in our characteristic public debate: the bureaucratic and the market models. Both ideologies are attempts to provide for moral community and both are necessary, but even in better balance than they are now, they are insufficient. Each allows too much personal distancing, too many moral alibis.
    A rich pattern of voluntary action helps to offset the limitations of both the state and the market. There is a range of human needs that the rights-based ideologies of the liberal state fail to acknowledge or succour: needs for belonging, giving, respect, dignity and care. Care in the community is an admirable aspiration and an admirable phrase, but it must fully mean what it says and not be a euphemism for a state and its agencies that usurp neighbourly responsibility or allow neighbours to escape responsibility beyond paying their taxes. If neighbours are strangers, truly there is no such thing as society.
    In ascribing such limitations to bureaucratic systems, I do not intend to attack the welfare state. I deplore the disparagement of dependency. It has been a great civilising advance that people in time of need should be able to depend on institutionalised help; but if demands for efficiency and pressures to contain public expenditure
    236
    are as great as they have become, there is a bleakness about the welfare state. It makes a vital qualitative difference if welfare state professionals do not have time to listen to the story of an elderly person or hold the hand of a dying one.
    We lack adequately expressive political language with which to discuss such requirements of a good society. The terminology of civil society, fraternity, mutuality even, is archaic and fails to evoke with vividness and precision the multifarious and changing possibilities of human social engagement in our times. The Labour party is profoundly right to stress the importance of community and stakeholding. If those terms are liable to sound nostalgic or utopian, it is because they refer to a range of human needs that have been neglected for too long in our conventional political discourse.
    Voluntary action goes beyond what the political can provide. We can and must facilitate and promote it, but we cannot specify in performance indicators and efficiency indices the
    "little, nameless, unremembered, acts
    of kindness and of love"
    which are often in fact remembered but which transcend the limitations of welfare bureaucracies and market relations. It is not possible to guarantee through contracts that the packages of care that are to be bought and sold will be the genuine article and will truly be care.
    Professor Deakin and his colleagues have written a splendid report on voluntary action that deserves our careful consideration. They take a synoptic view and analyse valuably the significance for voluntary action of forces of change: the retreat of the state from social responsibility; constraints on the funding of the welfare state; disillusion with conventional politics and the search for means to sustain civil society; the need to champion minorities in our democracy; the effects of widening inequality and persistent discrimination; the altering of family structures; and new technology and its impact on work. The Deakin commission invites us to heed a warning from the historian, Frank Prochaska:
    "the voluntary sector is swimming into the mouth of Leviathan."
    There was a turning point in 1990 when the Home Office efficiency scrutiny laid it down that, in their deals with voluntary organisations,
    "Departments should establish clear policy objectives for any core or project grant or scheme relating to objectives in departments' planning processes. Grants or schemes which no longer relate to such objectives should be phased out."
    With the implementation of that policy, we have seen the Government seek too extensively to capture the voluntary sector for their own purposes.
    There can be no objection, of course, to the Government working closely with voluntary organisations, seeking to mobilise the resources of the community for clearly defined purposes that have been agreed in wide debate and insisting on value for money, but I hope that the Minister will agree that there are dangers in the new "contract culture". Those dangers are described in paragraph 2.3.7 of the report, where it refers to
    "concerns about becoming over-dependent on local authority funding; anxiety that the quality of service to users might conflict with 'value for money' objectives and that competition may upset existing harmonious relationships … possible restrictions on

    237
    advocacy and campaigning, problems of sustaining sufficient core funding, lack of freedom to innovate and excessive bureaucracy in monitoring of implementation."
    The Association of Directors of Social Services has acknowledged those hazards. What matters is that Whitehall Departments, health authorities and local authorities accept that not only he who pays the piper should call the tune and that voluntary organisations are respected as independent partners pursuing a role complementary to that of the state. There is much matter on the relationship between local government and the voluntary sector for consideration by the new single local authority association for England.
    I wonder whether the commission was wise to suggest, as it did, that there should be a new definition of charitable purposes and a new "concordat", as the Deakin commission calls it, between central Government and representatives of the voluntary sector. If a concordat established the principles that the commission proposed, it would be a fine thing, but we should not allow ourselves to forget that when Napoleon established his concordat with Pope Pius VII, he held him captive and took the crown from him to place it on his own head. Although I am sure we can be confident that the Secretary of State entertains no such folie de grandeur, we ought not to place such temptation in the way of Ministers.
    The relationship between Government and charities in Britain has historically been a subtle and elusive affair. Wisely, the legislators of 1601, 1883 and 1960 forbore to define charities. Instead, the preamble to the Elizabethan statute itemised a range of highly varied, illustrative fields of charitable undertaking. Subsequent case law and administrative practice have built on that foundation, taking the Elizabethan examples as models to be paralleled in the altered circumstances of later ages. No doubt, in each succeeding generation, as in our own, the absence of clear definition has been found exasperating and the determination of legitimate charitable activity by reference to case law and precedent inhibiting. On the other hand, as the Goodman report observed in 1976,
    "To define is to confine."
    I think it is better otherwise. After all, in an important sense, our charities define us.
    The Deakin commission offers Ministers a host of practical suggestions. Rightly, it praises the National Lottery Charities Board for its energy, care and effectiveness in its early work and its resilience in standing up to
    "virulent, bigoted and even racist criticism.-
    I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to the suggestion that the National Lottery Charities Board should be allowed to support self-help and mutual aid groups and to delegate executive as well as consultative functions to its regional bodies.
    I particularly hope that the Government, encouraged by the Minister, will consider carefully what the commission says about the benefits system and volunteering. It said:
    "The benefit system rules must not be a constraint on the ability, especially of young people, to volunteer."
    The Government accepted during the passage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill that in certain circumstances voluntary work could be classified as
    238
    "exempt" work so that disabled volunteers would not necessarily forfeit benefit, provided that their work was within the 16-hour limit. However, the threat of losing benefit and the limiting effect on the hours of paid exempt work that a disabled person can do severely discourage voluntary activity.
    Under the Jobseekers Act 1995, the Government have not conceded that voluntary work should be classified, in the jargon, as a "positive outcome"—something that is positively approved as a step towards re-entering employment. Under jobseeker's allowance, an unemployed person doing voluntary work must be continually available for work. That makes it harder for the individual to make a full or sustained commitment to volunteering. At least, as the commission proposes, the Benefits Agency should use the introduction of JSA this autumn to issue the most constructive guidance that it can to benefits offices.
    Time prevents me from saying much that I would like to say. As the commission says, the Government need to take the voluntary sector seriously. They should see it as a partner in their quest to nurture what Beveridge called a welfare society and recognise the immense contribution that the voluntary sector can make to the quality of our social experience.
    9.18 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): As has become apparent in all the descriptions that have been given, the voluntary sector is, like Proteus, impossible to grasp—at least in a short debate. It is worth remembering that, like the rest of us, it is capable of distortion in the service of prejudice. Perhaps the most hurtful examples are to be found among religious organisations, whether in the marches and counter-marches in the name of religion in Northern Ireland or in the cruelties and terrorism of the different forms of Islam.
    At its best, the voluntary sector offers the best opportunity we have in society of keeping a focus on whole people. One of the great problems for government involves the Haldane doctrine, which says that we should divide government in terms of function rather than in terms of interest. The Government find it almost impossible to see people as whole people; they see them as candidates for housing, for health, for education or for old-age pensions, not as whole people.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember that the danger of the contract culture, which has many advantages for the voluntary sector if properly defined, is that it makes it even harder for voluntary organisations entering into contracts to think across departmental boundaries and carry out the lateral thinking that brings people back together as whole people.
    I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the plethora of organisations and their ignorance of one another. I once carried out a piece of research in three tiny villages in Fyfe and ascertained how many voluntary organisations there were. I presented my report to the three tiny villages in a village hall one night. The villages were all within five miles of one another and I shall never forget a man who stood up at the back of the hall and said that he had been working for a society for the blind in his village for the past 25 years and had had no idea that there was another organisation working for the blind five miles down the road.

    239
    We need to use information technology and the powers of the Charity Commission to put voluntary organisations in touch with each other. They do not have to co-operate and they do not have to like one another, but they should at least know that they are there and can work together if they want to.
    There is a desperate need to look at the frontiers between public and voluntary provision. For the past five years, I have been a judge of the Barclay's "new futures" competition. Barclay's has given £6 million over five years to create a competition in which schools can bid for relatively small sums for their particular interest. One of the most depressing features of the huge list of bids is how many of them are aimed at making good the shortcomings in the school system; that should not be the case.
    My remarks are disjointed because I am aware of the time limit.
    I found it extraordinary that the Deakin report—so good in so many ways—made no mention so far as I could see of the 30,326 justices of the peace in England and Wales, the 4,233 justices in Scotland or the 20,569 councillors in England alone. We must not forget that those people are just as much volunteers as everyone else.
    I stress that volunteering develops mankind. The Deakin report states:
    "There is plentiful evidence that staff secondments, development assignments and volunteering in community activities enhances employee motivation, performance, loyalty and capacity for team work."
    As the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) stressed, the voluntary sector is valuable in developing individuals. That is why I am passionately disappointed that the Government still have the extraordinary view that if someone who is unemployed sets himself to a medium-term piece of volunteering the benefit that he will derive from that is less than the benefit that he would derive from the often scarce possibility of taking a job that may not last more than a few days or weeks. I believe that that is a huge error.
    The ownership of projects is vital, particularly for young people. This society of ours—which takes at least half our young people and keeps them in tutelage until they are at least 25 years old—has grossly underestimated the ability of young people to perform tasks, their desire to perform tasks and their need for support in performing tasks. Today we presented to the three main political parties suggestions from young people as to what might be considered in the party manifestos. The ideas sprang from a day in Coventry, about which I have spoken before. The key note of the day was that the young do not want to take over society, but that they want to be consulted; nor do they believe that they should have everything done for them.
    The schools that have controlled bullying have done so by using young people. The local communities that have begun to make inroads into the drug culture have used young people as their ambassadors. Communities that have begun to build bridges between the older generation and other generations have given young people the responsibility of bringing older people back into the community. We underestimate the young people in this country and we do not give them the responsibility that they could take. Above all other things, the voluntary sector in this country should give young people the
    240
    opportunity to define what they can do, give them the resources to do it and develop them into the sorts of people that they want to be.
    9.26 pm
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Hon. Members should congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on the tremendous work that they have done in this consultation exercise. I was privileged to attend a large meeting in Manchester some time ago, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), at which we heard from a wide range of the voluntary organisations that operate in the north-west.
    I am familiar with many of these organisations. Hon. Members will know from looking at the record of Members' interests that I have a connection with the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, which has a huge number of members operating in the voluntary sector. These people are not just employees of charities and voluntary sector organisations, but an integral part of that sector. Many of those people are extremely well qualified and could command higher salaries in the private sector. They work extremely hard for those organisations because they believe in the ethos that has been described in the debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made the point—as was described in Labour's "The Road to the Manifesto"—that we do not believe that the state should take over this work, but that there needs to be a better partnership than exists at the present time. One of the issues—I hope that the Minister will take it on board, given his responsibility in the Department of National Heritage—is how, in partnership, we can create the funding opportunities using such mechanisms.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to the national lottery. In my constituency, the local authority has put forward an imaginative scheme under the national lottery for the conversion of an historic building into a centre that can be well used by the voluntary sector. It wishes to get parts of the voluntary sector that have a synergy into the same kind of community so that they can help each other cut down on some of the administrative costs. The Minister should examine such imaginative schemes carefully.
    There has been a long debate about which part of Government carries the responsibility for the voluntary sector. We need to recognise the enormous cross-departmental functions that are involved in supporting the voluntary sector and the Government should concentrate on breaking down the vertical, integrated barriers between Departments. Charitable money needs to be used effectively and I am sure that we all agree about that. Better long-term support should be given to some projects, instead of the short-term approach that is adopted at the moment. Applications for support also need to be considered carefully, because the procedures are overly bureaucratic at the moment and, indeed, the Minister acknowledged that in his speech.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned crime. Today, I received a helpful letter from the Cheshire constabulary in response to an inquiry that I made about the needs of a community that was being plagued by unruly youths. Cheshire police have

    241
    adopted an imaginative scheme in which they are working with the voluntary sector to make available, during the summer months, a huge list of voluntary sector organisations that will all work with the police to support young people in that community. That type of partnership is a good illustration of what can be done.
    Little mention has been made of the question of housing associations and I shall finish on that point, because I am aware of the pressures on time. The housing association sector is deeply troubled about the impact that the recent enormous changes have had. The Government should reflect on the quotation in Labour's policy statement on the voluntary sector from a senior figure in the housing association sector, who said:
    "We grew so fast that somewhere along the line we lost our soul."
    We must restore the soul to that important sector. I hope that the Minister will take on board many of the suggestions that have been made by people on both sides of the House.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome this debate on the voluntary sector because volunteering is an essential part of our community and it is one of the great characteristics of the British way of life. I have been closely involved with the Scout movement throughout my youth and for 10 years as a leader in the Scout movement. I have the honour to be the secretary of the all-party Scout Association parliamentary group and it is a sobering thought that one third of the Members of the House, on both sides, has been involved in the Scout Association in their youth.
    I remind the House that we are talking about an organisation that admits youngsters, boys and girls, at the age of six to the Beaver section; at the age of eight to the Cub Scout section, which in many ways is the most enthusiastic age group numbering nearly 250,000 young people; at the age of 11 to the Scout section, the main traditional part of the Scout movement; and at the age of 16, to the Venture Scout section. Many of those young men and women go on to become leaders in the movement.
    Some 648,000 young people in this country were members of the Scout movement last year, attending weekly meetings and participating in many activities in the open air in summer and at other times of the year. Worldwide, there are 25 million Scouts in 210 countries and it is worth remembering that two thirds are to be found in the developing world.
    It is worth considering briefly the aim of the Scout movement—
    "to promote the development of young people in achieving their full physical, intellectual, social and spiritual potentials as individuals, as responsible citizens and as members of their local, national and international communities."
    All the good work achieved by the Scout movement takes place under the leadership of 100,000 dedicated volunteers. These are wonderful people who give up their spare time during the evenings and at weekends. They juggle the various demands of job, family and scouting. The movement depends upon the quality, commitment and enthusiasm of its adult leadership. Volunteers give their time freely to help the development of young people.
    242
    All leaders must undertake training to equip themselves to do a better job. The movement's training programme has become recognised by professional trainers as one of the best of its sort.
    Youth organisations, however, are vulnerable to applications from unsuitable people, including the irresponsible and the criminal, and from perverts. The Dunblane tragedy was very much an illustration of the potential threat to youth movements such as the Scout Association. The association is extremely effective with its vetting procedures. Any adult offering his or her services to scouting will be checked through the movement's well established vetting procedures.
    Those procedures include checks to ascertain whether the applicant has had any contact with scouting in any other area of the United Kingdom and whether his or her record of service was satisfactory. Checks are made against all publicly reported cases of offences against young people. The local references that applicants provide are checked and there is a meeting with local scouting managers and the individual to ensure that he or she is suitable for the intended appointment. There is a system of continuous reporting and monitoring of all leaders.
    In the light of Dunblane and other unfortunate incidents, the Government have responded to the problem of vetting. I commend the White Paper published by the Home Office entitled "On the Record: The Government's Proposals for Access to Criminal Records for Employment and Related Purposes in England and Wales". I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the charging proposals. A charge of £10 per inquiry is a hefty burden for the voluntary sector of youth organisations. The Scout Association alone vets 50,000 potential leaders a year. The thought of £500,000 being spent in that way is a considerable deterrent.
    There are many organisations with voluntary leaders. The sister organisation, the Girl Guides Association, is one. If the House will indulge me, I pay tribute to my wife, Patricia, who runs, often single-handedly a guide company. There are also the armed forces cadets. I highlight the Gravesend sea cadet unit, which has been displaced as a result of the Ministry of Defence building disposal programme. There are also the Boys Brigade, the Red Cross, St. John Ambulance and the Salvation Army.
    When we take account of the work that is undertaken by voluntary organisations and individuals in other areas, such as care of the disabled, the elderly and the chronically sick, along with the work of victim support organisations and bodies linked to sports, conservation, not to mention the work of the citizens advice bureaux, every Member of this place will be aware of the excellent work done by volunteers in his or her constituency.
    I have found, year in and year out, that each successive mayor of Gravesham, as he works through his year, comments on the way his eyes have been opened by the voluntary organisations that he visits and works with as called upon by the mayoralty. Their work has had a considerable effect on those who have been fortunate enough to be called to be mayors.
    We all know that the National Lottery Charities Board has distributed £380 million to 4,600 charitable bodies. Of the funds distributed through the Millennium fund, half have gone to voluntary organisations. That is additional to the funds distributed by the Foundation for the Sports and the Arts. I want particularly to commend the grants

    243
    that have been made to organisations in my constituency, such as the Black Knights marching band of young people who have received money for musical instruments and the transportation of those instruments, the Jugnu Banghra dancers of the Sikh community who have received funds for their facilities, and the MEAPA gymnastics group which has received £250,000 for a gymnasium.
    This debate has been of immense value, and it is a commendation of the work of our wonderful volunteers.
    9.39 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have been present for the whole debate, but I shall be brief. My wife, Patricia, is both a bailie and a justice of the peace, so I was pleased to hear the tribute paid to JPs and councillors, and presumably Scottish bailies, by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
    Along with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I have the honour of representing the House on the executive committee of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I have to be brief, so I want to fire a couple of questions at the Minister. He may not be able to answer them this evening, but, given his usual courtesy, I art sure that he will write to me.
    First, I was pleased that both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the important role performed by voluntary organisations and community groups in Northern Ireland, especially at a time such as this. I am proud to be associated with the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, which plays a significant role in assisting people in both communities and, at the same time, in bringing together members of both traditions in various community activities.
    Recently, NICVA commissioned a report into long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland from Professor David Donnison of Glasgow university. In fairness to the Government, I should say that, in response to a written question of mine on 17 July, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), paid that report a fine compliment.
    The Scottish voluntary sector has an annual income of £2 billion, equivalent to 5 per cent. of GDP, and it employs upwards of 40,000 people, who are involved in more than 50,000 forms of voluntary management. We do have problems, to which the Minister, again in fairness to him, referred.
    We do not have a charity commission in Scotland, which is a matter for regret. I am not sure that we want the English regulations imposed on Scottish charities, but, as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) said, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has had to develop a non-statutory register, which has revealed that almost half of Scottish charities—around 10,000—are currently out of touch, and, to quote Lucy Pratt of SCVO, are
    "either unintentionally or deliberately evading the law. The Scottish Charities Office, a Division of the Crown Office, will react to complaints about individual charities, but does not undertake routine scrutiny."
    That is a matter for serious regret. There is a need, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for the Scottish Office to work much more closely with the SCVO.
    244
    I recommend to the Minister the SCVO's recent report entitled "Scotland's Lottery". One of its recommendations states:
    "Some of the estimated £500M the Government gains in tax from the lottery should be reinvested in advertising and in encouraging more planned giving to charities through Give As you Earn, GiftAid, covenants etc."
    I said earlier that the upper limit of give-as-you-earn should be increased from its present level of £1,200 to £2,400 per annum. That suggestion should be followed up.
    The report makes many other recommendations that would tighten up matters in Scotland in a way that would benefit those who are assisted by all the voluntary organisations in my country.
    9.44 pm
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: This has been a very intelligent and interesting debate, and it has shown how valuable is the voluntary sector in society today. It is an important building block in cementing together the different strands of a diverse culture and in giving a sense of self-worth to those who volunteer.
    I acknowledge the massive contribution made by the voluntary sector to British society. The benefits are apparent not only to the beneficiaries but the volunteers themselves. Volunteering promotes self-esteem. It enables volunteers to express views and exert influence on policy makers, both locally and nationally. They have a greater sense of purpose and a greater sense of control over their own lives.
    The voluntary sector is supported by the Labour party because volunteers become stakeholders in society—a point made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). That is why a new Labour Government will use the proceeds from a windfall tax on the privatised utilities to fund a scheme to get young people back into work or training or into the voluntary sector.
    Labour believes that the voluntary sector is a valuable way of engaging many young people in the main stream of society, to give them self-esteem and to help them to help themselves. We also recognise the enormous contribution made by the voluntary sector in improving the quality of life for many people. Most charities are now changing their roles from the traditional paternalistic model, and are moving to a user-led approach that empowers volunteers as individuals rather than simply service charities' beneficiaries.
    We are totally behind these changes. We welcome the Deakin report and the proposal of the concordat between central Government and representatives of the sector. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has endorsed this proposal, and I urge the Secretary of State for National Heritage to do the same.
    Volunteering is a popular activity. There are 23 million people involved in volunteering. It is more popular as an activity than almost every other pastime apart from dancing.
    The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said that, if something needed to be done, we should ask a busy person. Well, even so, much volunteering is concentrated in those who are middle-aged, on high incomes and with good educational attainments. But that

    245
    is not true of informal volunteering in community care, where it is more likely to be black and ethnic minority as well as lower income groups who are most involved. We should be aware of that, and acknowledge that very important contribution.
    We need to look at more ways of involving older people and younger people in voluntary work. We know that those who are paid out-of-pocket expenses are much more likely to volunteer, and that there are also concerns about benefit entitlement for people who are unemployed. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that, when the jobseeker's allowance is introduced next October, jobseekers will not be deterred from volunteering, and nor will those on incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance.
    There has been a great change in the way in which the voluntary sector has interacted with local authorities over the past two or three years. Now, many charitable organisations are contractors for local authority statutory services. This has produced a huge increase in income for many volunteer bodies. In fact, one survey estimated that the statutory income of those dealing with elderly people had doubled while those with services aimed at children and families had increased by 20 per cent.
    However, the problem—as ably pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), for Stratford-on-Avon and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)—is that the money is tied to specific contracts and services. If it replaces other funding, it prevents charities from doing what they see as important. If voluntary organisations are to retain their independence, they must continue to receive grants that are not tied to specific areas of work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said, core funding is essential, because it will enable organisations to remain independent.
    The Minister mentioned the effect of lottery ticket sales on charitable giving. Earlier, we discussed the family expenditure survey, and the fact that it may not be an accurate reflection of the amount that people give to charities. Its unreliability in estimating such small amounts of expenditure was illustrated by its assessment that lottery ticket sales were 42 per cent. lower than they actually were. It can hardly be relied on to estimate the amount that people put in collection tins and the envelopes left on doorsteps.
    The Minister said that the picture was confused, and I agree. An enormous amount of work needs to be done to assess the effect on charities. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, however, has calculated—through work with National Opinion Polls—that 6.4 per cent. of charitable donations were substituted for lottery tickets, and that mainly the smaller charities were affected. Those are the charities that rely on street collections, door-to-door collections, small raffles and lotteries, and those are the charities that have failed to benefit from the national lottery.
    The chairman of the National Lotteries Charities Board, Mr. David Sieff, has said that any small organisation will be able to apply at any time, probably for amounts between £500 and £5,000; but, if we look at the grants given in the past year, we see that grants of less than £10,000 still make up less than 2 per cent. of the total spend. That means that the funds are going to large,
    246
    well-organised charities that have the professionalism and expertise to make large successful bids. The Government should recognise that smaller organisations lose because of that. The Community Development Foundation has pointed to a general lack of information and assistance for such groups.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage, has produced a leaflet that helps small organisations applying for grants. The Government could follow his lead, by providing assistance for groups that need help. We should also consider the smaller community groups that may benefit from much smaller sums than the minimum limit of £500. Labour is exploring ways of getting cash down to a local level without creating expensive bureaucracies.
    The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) highlighted the complexity of funding for youth organisations. I hope that the Minister will make use of his valuable expertise, and will try to simplify the system so that those organisations do not lose.
    I realise that time is short, and the Minister has been generous in that regard. Let me add, however, that people have a misperception about the amount of money that goes to charity when they buy their lottery tickets. When members of the public were asked how much of the pound they had spent on their ticket would go to charity, most replied, "17p"; in fact, it is less than 6p. That raises the question whether the proportion given to the various good causes should be reconsidered. It certainly does not tally with people's perception.
    There is also the problem of corporate giving. There is room for improvement by companies themselves in regard to donations to charity. Corporate donations to charity in the United Kingdom still amount to only one tenth of donations in the United States. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned the excellent Barclays new futures scheme, which provides a good example for other commercial organisations.
    I acknowledge the work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and for Stockport (Ms Coffey). I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport was detained on other duties, and was not able to speak and give us the benefit of her valuable expertise from which we could all have learned. Both my hon. Friends worked hard in the consultation with voluntary organisations in helping to evolve Labour policy on the issue.
    The voluntary sector is not a way to get cheap welfare. The role of volunteers, and especially carers, must be respected and supported. Everyone in a civilised society must agree with that. They must not be forced to carry their often willingly borne burdens alone. The remarks by the Secretary of State for Health which were reported in The Guardian on 10 July make it clear that he regards the voluntary sector as a way to reduce public expenditure. He said:
    "Carers and volunteers must look after elderly parents in order to limit their impact on public spending."
    That is a disgraceful view of the voluntary sector.
    We encourage carers and volunteers to look after elderly parents, but we realise that we must give them the support that they need. Everyone agrees that the voluntary sector is about more than that. We celebrate the unique contribution that it makes to our society, and wish it well for the future.
    9.55 pm
    Mr. Sproat: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond in the few minutes remaining to as many points as possible. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that we were "celebrating" the voluntary sector. The word was well chosen, and I concur with his sentiment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said he welcomed the debate as a chance to say thank you to all volunteers at every level. He gave the remarkable example of a lady in his constituency who for 40 years had spent her volunteer time taking under-privileged children on holiday. That is at the heart of what all hon. Members admire about the voluntary sector.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth spoke about the work of the Churches. By happy chance, this very afternoon the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) brought a delegation from St. John's Methodist church in Connors Quay to see me, and it was interesting to hear about its work. It holds monthly lunches for people whose ages range from 60 to 96, and organises ballet and tap dances for young people and tea rotas in hospitals.
    We all applaud the giant charities, but we should remember that most charities are small and consist of local people who do not have much money but who do all they can to help their fellow human beings. I am glad that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside brought that group to meet me.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, no doubt unintentionally, cast rather a slur on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. She is in Atlanta, Georgia, watching the Olympic games in her role as the Secretary of State in charge of sport. The debate was originally scheduled for last Tuesday, but, perfectly fairly, it was moved from then to today by the Opposition.
    My right hon. Friend was not able to take part today but had certainly intended to make a powerful opening speech. No one in the Government is keener on voluntary work than my right hon. Friend, and we shall prove that by the way that we shall grip this vital subject in the Department of National Heritage.
    248
    The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) generously said that, perhaps in the past, the Conservative Government had held the high ground in voluntary work. I do not know whether that is true, but I certainly do not wish to inject party politics into that area. If the other parties are now sharing that high ground, that is to be welcomed, because it must be for the good of those who are helped.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has the territorial decoration, and has 13 years experience in the Territorial Army. From his long experience, he spoke about the difficulties of youth organisations in dealing with so many different bodies. He gave a recent example, which showed that no fewer than 10 different bodies had to be dealt with by one organisation.
    My hon. Friend made an extremely important point. Had I but world enough and time, I would deal with it at greater length, but I take note of what he said. I take note also of his extremely important point about litigation. We will look at that in the context of our review of all charity and voluntary subjects.
    I know that I have to sit down in about 15 seconds, so that we can deal with the next business. I shall close by emphasising the extent to which the Government remain committed to the voluntary sector.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes and applauds the massive contribution made by the Voluntary Sector to the lives of individuals and communities throughout Britain and believes that it is the responsibility of Government to nurture the sector while respecting the independence of charities and voluntary organisations.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to certain Commons Amendments, and of a Lords consequential Amendment to the Broadcasting Bill [Lords] and consideration of any Lords Amendments or proposals relating to hills which may be received, may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
    Question agreed to.

  Orders of the Day
    Broadcasting Bill [Lords]
    Lords amendments to Commons amendments, and a Lords consequential amendment, considered.
    After Clause 66
    The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons: No. 101, insert the following new clause—

    NOMINATION BY COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 31(2) OF BROADCASTING ACT 1990
    (".— (1) Section 32 of the 1990 Act (nomination of bodies to provide news for regional Channel 3 services) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
    (2) For subsections (1) to (6) there is substituted—

    "(1) With a view to enabling them to nominate bodies corporate as eligible for appointment for the purposes of section 31(2), the Commission shall invite bodies appearing to them to be qualified for nomination to make applications to be so nominated.

    (2) Where a body corporate—

    (a) applies to the Commission (whether in pursuance of any such invitation or not) to be nominated under this section as a nominated news provider, and

    (b) appears to the Commission to be qualified for nomination, the Commission shall so nominate that body.

    (3) Subject to subsection (5), any nomination made by the Commission under this section shall remain in force for a period of ten years, and at the end of that period may be renewed by the Commission for a further period of ten years.

    (4) Where the Commission are notified by the holders of licences to provide regional Channel 3 services that the appointment of the appointed news provider is due to expire, or to be renewed or terminated in accordance with the terms of the appointment, the Commission shall review the qualification for nomination of all nominated news providers (including the appointed news provider).

    (5) If on any such review it appears to the Commission that a body is no longer qualified for nomination they shall (subject to subsection (6)) by notice terminate that body's nomination.

    (6) The Commission shall not terminate a body's nomination under subsection (5) unless they have given the body a reasonable opportunity of making representations to them about the proposed termination."

    (3) In subsection (9), paragraph (b) is omitted.
    (4) In subsection (12), for the words from "appearing" onwards there is substituted "which—

    (a) in their opinion is or, if appointed, would be effectively equipped and adequately financed to provide high quality news programmes for broadcasting in regional Channel 3 services; and

    (b) appears to them not to be disqualified for being nominated under this section by virtue of this subsection."

    (5) In subsection (13)—

    (a) in paragraph (b), after "section", where second occurring, there is inserted "as eligible for appointment", and

    (b) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

    "and

    (c) references to the appointed news provider are references to the person for the time being appointed for the purposes of section 31(2) under the arrangements referred to in section 31 A(a)."

    (6) Subsections (2), (4) and (5) do not affect the application of section 32 of the 1990 Act before 1st January 1998 in relation to nomination for the purposes of section 31(2) as originally enacted.") with the following amendment:
    No. 101A, in subsection (4), after "appearing", insert ", where second occurring,".
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 116

    COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
    The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons: No. 166, in page 87, line 39, after ("114(1)") insert—
    ("(f) the entries in Schedule 8 relating to sections 45(8) and
    (9) and 47(11) and (12) of the 1990 Act, and section 115(2) so far as relating to those entries, and
    (g)") with the following amendments
    No. 166A, in line 1, at end insert—
    ("( ) paragraphs 10B and 13A of Schedule 7 so far as relating to BBC companies (as defined by section 202(1) of the 1990 Act), and section 115(1) so far as relating to those paragraphs in their application to such companies,")
    No. 166B, in line 2, after ("sections") insert ("32(9),")
    Amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    AMENDMENTS OF BRODCASTING ACT 1990 RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON HOLDING OF LICENCES
    The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons: No. 177, in page 91, line 32, at end insert—
    ("( ) For sub-paragraph (6) there is substituted—
    "(6) In this Schedule any reference to a participant with more than a 20 per cent. interest in a body corporate is a reference to a person who—

    (a) holds or is beneficially entitled to more than 20 per cent. of the shares in that body, or

    (b) possesses more than 20 per cent. of the voting power in that body.

    (7) Sub-paragraph (6) shall have effect subject to the necessary modifications in relation to other references in this Schedule—

    (a) to an interest of more than a specified percentage in a body corporate, or

    (b) to an interest of a specified percentage or more in a body corporate.

    (8) Any reference in this Schedule to a person who is over a particular age is a reference to a person who has attained that age") with the following amendment
    No. 177A, in line 17, at end insert—
    (".— (1) Paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 2 is amended as follows.
    (2) At the beginning of sub-paragraph (1) there is inserted "Subject to sub-paragraph (1A)".
    (3) After sub-paragraph (1) there is inserted
    "(1A) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person's holding of shares, or possession of voting power, in a body corporate shall be disregarded if, or to the extent that—
    (a) he holds the shares concerned—

    (i) as a nominee,

    (ii) as a custodian (whether under a trust or by a contract), or

    251

    (iii) under an arrangement pursuant to which he has issued, or is to issue, depositary receipts, as defined by section 220(1) of the Companies Act 1985, in respect of the shares concerned, and

    (b) he is not entitled to exercise or control the exercise of voting rights in respect of the shares concerned.
    (1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A)(b)—

    (a) a person is not entitled to exercise or control the exercise of voting rights in respect of shares if he is bound (whether by contract or otherwise) not to exercise the voting rights, or not to exercise them otherwise than in accordance with the instructions of another, and

    (b), voting rights which a person is entitled to exercise or of which he is entitled to control the exercise only in certain circumstances shall be taken into account only when those circumstances have arisen and for long as they continue to obtain.")

    Amendment agreed to.
    The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons: No. 185, in page 94, leave out lines 4 to 50 and insert—
    ("General limit on the holding of licences to provide television services or interests in bodies corporate holding such licences
    2.— (1) If any person's audience time, in respect of a period of twelve months ending with the last day of any calendar month, exceeds 15 per cent. of total audience time, he shall not, subject to sub-paragraph (4), at any time in the following month—

    (a) hold two or more licences to provide relevant services falling within one or more of the categories specified in paragraph 1(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (g),

    (b) be a participant with a qualifying interest in two or more bodies corporate each of which holds a licence, or two or more licences, to provide services falling within one or more of those categories,

    (c) hold any licence to provide a relevant service falling within any of those categories and be a participant with a qualifying interest in any body corporate which holds such a licence or two or more such licences,

    (d) provide a foreign satellite service and either hold any licence to provide a relevant service falling within any of those categories or be a participant with a qualifying interest in a body corporate which holds such a licence or two or more such licences, or

    (e) hold a licence to provide relevant services falling within the category specified in paragraph 1(2)(g) and provide two or more such services.

    (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), and subject to sub-paragraph (3), a person's audience time in respect of any period is the aggregate of—

    (a) the audience time attributable in respect of that period to each relevant service falling within any of the categories specified in paragraph 1(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (g) provided under a licence held by him,

    (b) one half of the audience time attributable in respect of that period to any relevant service falling within any of the categories specified in paragraph 1(2)(a), (b), (c),(d) or (g) provided under a licence held by a body corporate which he does not control, but in which he is a participant with a qualifying interest, and

    (c) the audience time ttributable in respect of that period to any foreign satellite service provided by him.

    (3) For the purposes of calculating a person's audience time in respect of any period in accordance with sub-paragraph (2)—
    252

    (a) there shall be included the audience time attributable in respect of that period to each service referred to in that sub-paragraph in respect of which, on the date upon which the calculation of his audience time for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) is made, he holds the licence, is a participant in the body corporate which holds the licence, or which he provides (as the case may be), irrespective of whether he held the licence, or was a participant in the body corporate which holds the licence or provided the service at any time during the period; and

    (b) there shall (for the avoidance of doubt) be excluded the audience time attributable in respect of that period to each service referred to in sub-paragraph (2) in respect of which, prior to the date upon which the calculation of his audience time for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) is made, he has ceased to hold the licence, or to be a participant in the holder of the licence, or to provide the service (as the case may be).

    (4) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not prevent a person from continuing to hold any licence, or to be a participant in a body corporate which holds any licence, or from continuing to provide any service (as the case may be) if and to the extent that arrangements made by him after the end of the period in respect of which his audience time exceeds 15 per cent. of total audience time would cause his audience time, calculated so as to take into account the efffect of those arrangements, not to exceed 15 per cent. of total audience time.
    (5) In this paragraph "foreign satellite service" means any service (other than a non-domestic satellite service) which consists in the transmission of television programmes by satellite, is provided on a frequency other than one allocated to the United Kingdom for broadcasting by satellite and either—

    (a) appears to the Commission to be intended for general reception in the United Kingdom (whether or not it appears to them to be also intended for general reception elsewhere), or

    (b) is (to any extent) relayed by a local delivery service.

    (6) References in this paragraph—

    (a) to the audience time attributable to any service in respect of any period, or

    (b) to total audience time in respect of any period, shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 3.

    (7) In this paragraph "qualifying interest" means an interest of more than 20 per cent.
    (8) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (7)—

    (a) by substituting a different percentage for any percentage for the time being specified there, and

    (b) so as to specify different percentages in relation to licences to provide different services.

    (9) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraphs (1)(a), (2)(a) and (b) by adding a reference to relevant services falling within the category specified in paragraph 1 (2)(aa)") with the following amendments:
    No. 185A, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert
    ("No one person may, at any time when his audience time in respect of the period of twelve months ending with the last day of the preceding calendar month exceeds 15 per cent of total audience time in respect of that period—")
    No. 185B, in line 27, leave out
    (", and subject to sub-paragraph (3)")
    No. 185C, in line 28, after ("time") insert ("at any time ("the relevant time")")
    No. 185D, in line 33, at end insert ("at the relevant time")
    No. 185E, in line 38, after ("is") insert ("at the relevant time")
    No. 185F, in line 41, at end insert ("at the relevant time")
    No. 185G, in line 42, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)
    Amendments agreed to.

  Schedule 7

    OTHER AMENDMENTS OF BROADCASTING ACT 1990
    The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons: No. 282, in page 128, line 9, at end insert—
    (". In section 202(1) of the 1990 Act (interpretation)—
    (a) after the definition of "broadcast' there is inserted—""a Channel 4 company" means—

    (a) any body corporate which is controlled by the Channel Four Television Corporation, or

    (b) any body corporate in which the Corporation or any body corporate falling within paragraph (a) above is (to any extent) a participant (as defined in paragraph 1(1) of Part I of Schedule 2);"

    (b) in the definition of "connected", for "licence" there is substituted "person", and
    (c) after the definition of "programme" there is inserted—""an S4C company" means—

    (a) any body corporate which is controlled by the Welsh Authority, or

    (b) any body corporate in which the Welsh Authority or any body corporate falling within paragraph (a) above is (to any extent) a participant (as defined in paragraph 1(1) of Part 1 of Schedule 2);"") with the following consequential amendment to the Bill:

    No. 282A, in page 45, line 5, leave out
    ("in relation to his additional services licence")
    Consequential amendment agreed to.

  PETITION

    Rail Link (Ealing)
    10.3 pm
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg leave to present a petition from the people of the constituency of Ealing, North, which states:
    "the constituency of Ealing, North declares its strong support for Harry Greenway, Member of Parliament for Ealing, North, in his opposition to plans to establish a rail link from the Midlands to the Channel Tunnel which would cut through the borough of Ealing.
    The rail link would run through seven areas of Metropolitan Open land and Green Belt, including the Perivale Wood and Islip Manor and would vastly increase railway traffic to five heavy freight trains per hour with the noise and pollution that this would bring."
    The proposal has incurred enormous opposition from my constituency and myself, because, although we all want to see freight move from road to rail, we do not wish to see pollution of such open areas of land as remain within the borough of Ealing, particularly those in Perivale and Northolt. We could not support a railway operation of this magnitude running within inches of people's homes, to the detriment of their lives.
    My constituents have proposed this petition with my strong support. The petition is signed by hundreds of thousands of people.
    The petitioners request that the Secretary of State for Transport and Members of the House of Commons reject these proposals of Central Railways.
    The Petitioners remain ever more
    To lie upon the Table.

    Brazilian Mahogany
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
    10.4 pm
    Mr. Bill Etherington: If am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce tonight's Adjournment debate. In the pre-Jopling days, it was always a pleasure to raise such debates towards the end of the Session. To some degree that opportunity has been lost, although we have some additional debates on Wednesday mornings.
    First, I am not a spokesman for Friends of the Earth. I do not belong to that organisation and I do not agree with it in every respect, however I entirely agree with its stance on the importation of mahogany into Britain, which is based on a shameful trade that does no credit to the Brazilian Government or the British Government.
    As hon. Members will be aware, most mahogany comes from Brazil. We are the second largest importer of Brazilian mahogany. Only the United States imports more. I consider what is taking place in Brazil to be deeply shocking and quite disgraceful. I hope that the Government will use their best endeavours within the European Union and in conjunction with the United States to redress the wrongs that have been perpetrated on the people of Brazil, especially the Indian population.
    We have heard much about voluntary arrangements. My view is that voluntary arrangements involving Governments and private enterprise are totally unsatisfactory. The only arrangements that have a semblance of working properly are those with the backing of statutory powers. The carnage that takes place in Brazil in order to obtain mahogany is one of the worst examples of voluntary arrangements that anyone could imagine.
    Accessible areas are already heavily depleted and, as the wood becomes harder to reach, vast tracts of the countryside are being despoiled to make roadways into more remote areas. Timber is even being procured from reserves that were originally set aside for the indigenous people and the wildlife. Unfortunately, it appears that the British Government are prepared to put all the blame on the Brazilian Government. Although that is true in a superficial sense, it does not alter the fact that we should do much more to redeem that deplorable state of affairs.
    There have been clashes between the indigenous population and the logging fraternity, often resulting in fatalities. That is completely unacceptable. If the price of mahogany coming to Britain is the death of people in Brazil, I do not want Britain to import mahogany. I expect that most people would agree with that, but the Government do not see it that way.
    Friends of the Earth has joined forces with more than 100 environmental and human rights groups in Brazil. I would have thought that would have had some impact. However, the 100 groups that are working together in Brazil receive no help whatsoever from the British Government.
    It is appalling that although fairly recently it almost became possible, with the help of the British Government, to place mahogany in a different category, in which it would have received full protection, the attempt failed because the measure could not achieve a two-thirds majority of the countries involved.
    256
    Both the Brazilian and the British Governments, like all those involved in the timber industry, have known for many years that beyond doubt illegal mahogany trading takes place. However, as always under the Conservative Government, the interests of industry are paramount and humanitarian factors take second place. The Government have steadfastly resisted calls for regulation. I shall not repeat what I have said about self-regulation, because everyone with any sense knows that that is a dead duck.
    In 1993, following pressure from environmentalists, some logging companies in the Brazilian state of Para and the United Kingdom National Hardwood Association signed an agreement known as the AIMEX agreement. That was all very laudable. The only problem is that it does not work. Only legally obtained mahogany is supposed to be traded, but nothing has changed. The illegal trade is as bad as ever.
    Many timber companies hide behind that agreement, citing their support for the AIMEX accord to allay public concern about the illegal mahogany trade. The accord hides the fact that the wood continues to be stolen from Indian lands, often with terrible consequences.
    Information has been obtained from the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources—IBAMA—from the Brazilian National Indian Foundation—FUNAI—and from the district attorney's office, and the proof is there beyond doubt. No one denies it, but still there is no action.
    It seems that the IBAMA, the regulatory body involved—if we can call it regulatory; monitoring body sounds more appropriate—has withheld information on the illegal activities. Logging in indigenous reserves contravenes the Brazilian constitution, which makes commercial activities in those reserves illegal. Still this country imports timber, knowing full well that it has been illegally gained.
    The violence against the Indians is perhaps the most appalling feature. There have been five murders and numerous cases of aggression, with people being battered and damage to Indian property. Still it goes on. I have not heard a whimper from the Government about it.
    What makes things worse is the fact that the Brazilian Government are content to go along with the situation. Prosecutions for illegal timber trading have been few and far between. Friends of the Earth has obtained an appalling detailed document about the carnage that takes place.
    The Brazilian Ministry of Justice has been involved, and has been informed that there were 300 invaders in the Sarare indigenous area, including 30 logging companies that were taking timber illegally. That seems almost like a form of land piracy—the sort of thing that occurred in years gone by when people were attacked on the high seas and their goods seized and illicitly disposed of. What is going on has all the hallmarks of that type of activity. The position is now desperate.
    The FUNAI president sent a memo asking for 15 agents of the Brazilian Government to be sent to the Kayapó area to help the Indians evict the loggers. But it seems that the Brazilian Government have neither the political will nor the resources to put their own house in order.

    257
    That does not excuse the United Kingdom Government, who willingly comply with the situation and continue to allow the imports. In a country that prides itself on being civilised and talks about being environmentally responsible, the British citizenry have every right to expect a more forthright attitude.
    Why cannot the British Government consult the United States and see if they can do something? At one time, the United States objected to the trade, but unfortunately—a bit like in Britain—once a few multinationals put pressure on the Government, the will to do something seems to evaporate. I would like to think that my country is prepared to stand up and do something about it, but that seems to be wishful thinking on my behalf at the moment.
    I could go on at great length about the deaths and murders and the fact that ill-protected Indians living in fairly primitive conditions are being treated in a disgraceful manner by the loggers—that is the term that is used for those people.The situation is deplorable.
    As recently as tonight, I received a letter from another group—Earth Care—asking me what I am prepared to do about a similar situation in central Africa. What am I supposed to do? I am just a humble Back Bencher. I look to the Government—not one I have a lot of faith in—to do something about the problem, but action does not seem to be forthcoming. It is about time that a little more emphasis was placed on the Government combining with the European Union, which is the most powerful trading organisation on earth, to bring some pressure to bear on the Brazilian Government and coerce them into fulfilling their responsibilities.
    If Conservative central office is to be believed, which is always questionable, I understand that it will not be too long before Brazil overtakes this country in terms of prosperity. If that is the case, we need to act quickly. Once it has overtaken us, we will be listened to even less.
    Obviously, the management plans of the Brazilian Government are not working. They need a little moral support and pressure. Among this pile of information here, I have a deplorable letter from the Overseas Development Agency, which virtually states that there is nothing to be done. I do not underestimate the fact that, in specific terms and speaking constitutionally, the Government have raised some fairly half-hearted objections. I have here a copy of a reply from the ODA to Friends of the Earth, dated 17 July, which makes grim and depressing reading. As always, the Government share the concerns about the environment, but once again, the letter states that they
    "continue to believe that primary responsibility for ensuring that mahogany extraction is carried out lawfully rests of course with the Government of Brazil."
    That seems to mean that nothing much will be done.
    The only encouraging thing in the letter is that there appears to have been a change of Ministers in Brazil and the new man is prepared "to revamp" the situation and
    "crack down on illegal trading in natural resources, including mahogany."
    258
    I hope that the United Kingdom Government will give him some encouragement in his quest.
    The letter to Friends of the Earth is from John Moncrieff of the environment policy department of the ODA. He states that it would be useless to go to the European Community. It would be because it has been wound up for quite a long time—it is now the European Union and I am surprised that official Government documentation still talks about the European Community.
    There is one little bit of brightness on the horizon. The letter also states
    "The Government does however share your concern about this species and will continue to monitor trade and take action if necessary."
    Although the whole affair is a catalogue of depression and disaster, I do not want to be too carping and take away from the United Kingdom Government the fact they have gone through some fairly half-hearted motions and have agreed in writing that something should be done. The Government say that they agree that something should be done. I want the Minister to give me some reassurance that this country will try some action.
    The Government told us that sanctions would not work in South Africa but they worked very well. The same people who were lauding Nelson Mandela when he was here recently were saying not so long ago that nothing could be done about South Africa by Britain because it was an internal matter and sanctions would not work. I hope that we will get something more positive and forthright on this issue.
    10.19 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): It is important that timber extraction should be carried out lawfully, with conservation safeguards and full regard to the interests of the people living in the forest. Before I come to the Government's policies on that, I shall deal briefly with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) about the agreements entered into by the National Hardwood Association.
    To supplement Brazilian Government controls over timber extraction and export, the NHA signed an agreement with the exporters' association of the region from which most of the UK's imports of Brazilian mahogany originate. Checks and documentation aim to provide NHA members with assurances that the timber that they buy has been logged in accordance with Brazilian laws. The NHA has a formal procedure to deal with complaints about alleged illegal activities. I understand that it is examining several such allegations. In addition, I understand that an NHA delegation is in Brazil for talks with its Government and exporters about the mahogany trade. It is visiting logging areas and will report on its findings.
    The UK timber trade is right to take allegations of illegal activity seriously, but the primary responsibility for enforcing Brazilian national legislation must lie with the Brazilian Government. Unilateral action by the United Kingdom outside the framework of international agreements would be damaging to the co-operation on which those agreements depend and to the advancement of global measures to promote environmental action.

    259
    There is already an agreed framework for regulating international trade in wild plants and animals: CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which has been ratified by more than 130 countries, including the United Kingdom and Brazil. Under CITES, commercial trade in more than 800 species is banned and a further 25,000 commercially traded species are subject to checks and licensing procedures. As the hon. Gentleman said, application of the controls requires the consent of two thirds of the CITES parties.
    At the last conference in 1994, a proposal to regulate, but not ban, trade in Brazilian mahogany was defeated. The United Kingdom supported the proposal on the basis of the scientific evidence but the conference took a different view. There was extensive discussion and various options were examined by a working group that met over two days. Finally, the conference decided that CITES should not intervene in the mahogany trade.
    It would be wrong to accept only those conference decisions that we fully support and ignore the rest. Stricter import measures by EU member states normally apply only to species that a CITES conference has already agreed to add to the convention. That is not so in this case. International agreements will not work without the support of the countries that sign up to them. A European Community ban on imports of Brazilian mahogany after a conference decision to reject less severe measures would dangerously strain a convention that recognises that major decisions should reflect the will of the parties. That would be a setback for conservation, not an advance.
    As far as possible, we must work within CITES. The last conference endorsed a United Kingdom initiative to establish a international working group to examine CITES-related timber issues. The group made good progress at its last meeting in London at the end of last year and will meet again in September before reporting to the next CITES conference 11 months from now. That conference may also have before it fresh proposals to add Brazilian mahogany to CITES. If so, we will decide our position after reviewing the evidence, including any factors that may have changed. In the meantime, a more limited CITES monitoring scheme for Brazilian mahogany came into effect November last year. We hope that that will yield useful additional data in due course.
    More direct Government involvement with forest management in Brazil is being pursued following the signing of a memorandum of understanding on environmental co-operation with the Brazilian Government. Under this accord, the Overseas Development Administration has funded £19 million-worth of projects, mainly on forestry. The aim is to promote sustainable forest management and strengthen environmental institutions.
    We also aim to advance wider international discussion on improving forest management. At the earth summit in Rio in 1992, the United Kingdom played a leading role in ensuring the agreement of a statement of principles on the sustainable management of the world's forests. That was the first international consensus on the need to conserve the world's forests.
    European countries followed up Rio with a commitment to the Helsinki guidelines for sustainable forest management. Thirty eight European countries are now committed to implementation of those guidelines. In 1994, we published "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme", which details United Kingdom action to
    260
    pursue sustainable forest management at home, and promote the conservation and sustainable development of all the world's forests.
    The United Kingdom has also played a major role in establishing the United Nations intergovernmental panel on forests, which will report to the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1997 with specific proposals to follow up the principles agreed at Rio. We hope that the panel will produce agreement on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management on the basis of national plans, and devise a mechanism for periodic international review of the forestry sector.
    Improving the management of the world's forests requires international co-operation rather than confrontation. Of course we must do our best to ensure that the timber that we import, from whichever country, has been harvested legally. I believe that the United Kingdom timber trade is acting responsibly through its discussions with the Brazilian authorities, through the formal agreement it has signed with exporting companies, and by its willingness to investigate complaints about alleged wrongdoings.
    One has to ask whether driving exports of mahogany away from the United Kingdom to other places where importers might take their responsibilities less seriously would best serve the interests of conservation. I doubt that it would, and I do not favour a unilateral ban on imports of Brazilian mahogany into the United Kingdom or the European Community as a whole.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I had the good fortune to go to Altamira on the Xingu river in 1989, where the Kayapó put forward a number of proposals for the safeguarding of their forest. I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I should like to put three points to him.
    First, what recommendations made at the intergovernmental conference are being pursued for 1997?
    Secondly, on the issue of the Kayapó, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) raised, it has been reported in the press that Pai-Kan and others have brought various complaints about the infringement of their lands to the notice of the Brazilian Government. Has that been discussed with the Brazilian Government? I took Pai-Kan to see Mr. Speaker Weatherill on a previous occasion. He was my guest in the House, as he had been Ghillean Prance's guest at Kew.
    The third point is about long-term financial help to the Brazilian Government. Many Brazilians argue that, if the Amazonian rain forest is really the lung of the world, the world has certain responsibilities in helping us keep it. I wonder whether the Minister, in the short time that he has, will comment on what I hope were those constructive points.
    Mr. Clappison: I will deal with the three points in the order in which the hon. Gentleman raised them. On the point about our international commitments and the report back to the relevant international conventions, I think that I made it clear that we are approaching this by upholding the principle of sustainable management of forests and encouraging each country to draw up national plans for sustainable management. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman, with his interest in the subject, well knows, we played a leading part in the Rio convention and in the important commitments that were made on forestry there.

    261
    The hon. Gentleman's second point about the gentleman and the specific area related to detailed matters, which I shall look into in the light of his comments.
    The hon. Gentleman's third point was interesting. As I said in my speech, the Overseas Development Administration has entered into a memorandum of
    262
    understanding with the Brazilian Government for £19 million worth of sustainable projects in Brazil. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a fairly substantial amount to commit to an important project.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Youth Courts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average time an indictable offence took(a) from offence to charge or summons, (b) from charge or summons to first listing,

  Average time taken for indictable offences heard in the youth court by stage of proceedings and by standard region, 1994, England and Wales

  Average number of days

  Offence to charge or summons

  Charge or summons to first listing

  First listing to completion

  Offence to completion

  England and Wales

  39

  26

  67

  132

  English regions and Wales

  North England

  35

  24

  67

  125

  North West England

  34

  23

  58

  115

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  32

  23

  73

  128

  East Midlands

  38

  25

  81

  144

  West Midlands

  35

  25

  71

  131

  East Anglia

  42

  26

  57

  125

  Sample size less than 100

  Greater London

  38

  30

  76

  144

  South East (except London)

  63

  28

  57

  148

  South West

  35

  26

  64

  125

  Wales

  41

  26

  59

  127

  Figures for the constituent intervals may not sum exactly to average offence to completion time due to rounding.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what conclusions were drawn in the evaluation of performance carried out for the Public Record Office following its establishment as a next steps executive agency. [39678]

  Mr. Streeter
  An evaluation of the performance of the Public Record Office during its first three years as an executive agency was carried out by the Public Record Office in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department and a report was completed in June 1996.

  The report concluded that the office had benefited considerably from its move to agency status which had led it to re-evaluate and to clarify its aims and objectives within its statutory role, and to focus on improving its performance and on meeting the needs of its users. The office has made notable advances in planning and managing its work and resources and has achieved efficiency gains and service improvements in a period in which its work load was increasing and in which it also successfully undertook a major building programme at its Kew site.

  Copies of the evaluation report will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses.
  128
  (c) from first listing to completion and (d) from offence to completion for cases proceeding through youth courts for (i) England and Wales and (ii) each region in England and Wales in 1984 and 1994. [38798]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested for 1994 is contained in the accompanying table; however, similar data were not collected in 1984. The table includes information on all indictable offences—both indictable only and triable either way. The source of the figures is the magistrates courts time intervals survey. This survey collects information on all defendants in indictable cases in one sample week of February, June and October each year.

  Caution needs to be exercised when comparing figures from different areas because sampling error in the figures could make any conclusions invalid. This is especially true for areas where the sample size was less than 100.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the total income received from lottery ticket sales in Cheshire since the start of the national lottery. [36383]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is a matter for the Director General of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked the director general to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list by county the percentage of lottery tickets purchased in each and the percentage of lottery awards funding received by each since the creation of the national lottery. [37696]

  Mr. Sproat
  Sales figure are an operational matter for the Director General of the National Lottery who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery and I have therefore asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his letter in the Library of the House. The new awards database currently being tested by my Department will soon be able to show the percentage of lottery awards received by each county and I will write to the hon. Member with this information when it is available.
  129
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to co-ordinate with other authorities measures to prevent the illegal purchase of national lottery tickets by minors. [38953]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Secretary of State has directed the director general not to licence games, which, in his opinion, do not have sufficient controls to prevent the participation of young people under the age of 16. In the director general's annual report, laid before the House on 17 July, he details measures he has taken to deal with this issue.

  The sale of lottery tickets to minors is illegal. Camelot, as promoter of all lotteries forming part of the national lottery, is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law. My Department has taken part in co-ordination meetings with the other relevant authorities—the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and trading standards organisations—with an enforcement interest in this matter.

  Tourist Information Centres
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the present total number of tourist information centres in the United Kingdom; and what arrangements are planned to centralise information. [38423]

  Mr. Sproat
  There are 831 tourist information centres in the UK. This includes 562 in England, 160 in Scotland, 84 in Wales and 25 in Northern Ireland. In England, these are largely operated by local authorities with the English tourist board supporting common standards, staff training and national branding. Network TICs have to be prepared to offer information on destinations other than those in their local areas.

  The ETB has a number of initiatives under way to improve the collection and provision of information. It co-ordinates the collection of data on attractions, events and accommodation into its tourism resource information processing systems—TRIPS—database. ETB has launched a Network 2000 project to determine how services might be enhanced by greater use of information technology and the Internet. This includes a pilot project to make the TRIPS information available on-line to TICs.

  British Academy of Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the specific roles for(a) the United Kingdom Sports Council, (b) the British Olympic Association and (c) the private sector has in the proposed British academy of sport. [39104]

  Mr. Sproat
  Details of the Government's proposals for the British academy of sport, including the roles of the United Kingdom Sports Council, the home country sports councils and other sporting organisations, will be set out in the prospectus which will be published shortly.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what targets she has set for the executive agencies in her Department. [39637]
  130
  Mr. Sproat
  The following targets have been set for 1996–97:

  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  Financial targets

  Commercial surplus: £8 million

  Call on the taxpayer: £6.7 million

  Visitor satisfaction measures1

  Visitors' average ratings of:

  Value for money: 0.7 to 1.0

  Enjoyment: above 1.4

  Helpful and friendly staff: above 1.45

  Efficiency target

  Savings on running costs: 2 per cent.

  Conservation target

  To complete both the fire protection works planned for 1996–97, and the programme of works identified by the buildings condition surveys as needed in 1996–97. To undertake further detailed inspection of the specific areas identified by the surveys as possibly needing work in 1997–98.
  1Visitor ratings are assessed from interviews with about 600 visitors each year, conducted by independent market research consultants. Ratings: 2.0 is extremely good. 1.5 is very good, 1.0 is quite good. 0 is OK, -1.0 is quite poor. and -2.0 is very poor.

  The Royal Parks Agency

  Financial

  (i) Increase income from £2.48 million to £2.7 million from permits, fees, licenses, events, concessions and car parking.

  (ii) Achieve a 6 per cent. improvement in running costs efficiency.

  (iii) Invite tenders for a private finance initiative scheme for Pembroke lodge in Richmond park.

  (iv) Establish a target by October 1996 for Royal Parks constabulary unit costs based on a reduction of the 1995–96 costs.

  Fabric

  (i) Prepare proposals for works to remove the White lodge in Bushy park from the "at risk" register.

  (ii) Investigate opportunities for marketing columbarium spaces to fund further restoration works in Brompton cemetery catacombs, with a view to removing them from the "at risk" register.

  (iii) Evaluate competitive tenders for works maintenance services and award new contracts by the end of 1996.

  (iv) Achieve average visitor rating of 80 per cent. on cleanliness of the royal parks.

  Visitor survey

  Achieve an overall score of 8.3 out of 10 visitor satisfaction rating for the royal parks.

  Assessment of soft landscaping quality

  Achieve an overall score of 8 out of 10 for the soft landscaping presentation in the royal parks.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the statistical forms issued to businesses by her Department, indicating the number of each sent out. [38674]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department issues no statistical forms to business.
  131

  Works of Art
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 11 July,Official Report, columns 251–52, if she will take steps to promote the expediting of the allocations of works of art and museum objects which have already been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax during the years 1992 to 1994; and if she will make a statement giving reasons for the delay which has taken place in the four instances concerned. [38697]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The list supplied in my answer of 11 July was a comprehensive one covering all items which I have agreed may be accepted in lieu of tax and which are still active, and the date of that agreement. The list was not therefore confined solely to items which have been finally accepted in lieu of tax—for which memoranda have been exchanged between the Inland Revenue and the relevant estate and for which the Revenue has been compensated by my Department for the tax forgone. Once I have agreed acceptance, it may, in some cases, take time for acceptance or allocation to follow. This may be for legal, taxation and other such technical reasons. I cannot comment on individual cases because of the law relating to the confidentiality of taxpayers' affairs—section 182 of the Finance Act 1989. It is the Museums and Galleries Commission which advises me both on whether to agree the acceptance of AIL offers and on their allocation. My Department, the MGC, and all other parties involved in administering and negotiating the allocation of accepted items will continue to do so as speedily as the technical complexities allow.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make it her policy to favour a more flexible interpretation of what may constitute significant partnership funding required in order to make available lottery funding for the acquisition by public institutions of exceptional works of art; and if she will make a statement. [38666]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: My policy is that partnership funding should be required. I have encouraged the lottery distributors to be flexible in their interpretations of this requirement reflecting the circumstances in which they operate.

  Bay Radio Ltd.
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action has been taken by the Radio Authority under section 86 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to review the suitability of Bay Radio Ltd. to hold a licence to operate a radio station; and if she will make a statement. [38261]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The licensing of independent radio stations is for the Radio Authority. I understand that it has not at this stage undertaken a review of the suitability of Bay Radio Ltd. under section 86 of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
  132

  Government Art Collection
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what arrangements exist and what proposals he has to encourage contemporary artists through displays of paintings and sculpture in Government-owned buildings. [38424]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government art collection, with guidance from its advisory committee, buys and commissions paintings and sculpture by contemporary British artists for display in Government buildings at home and abroad. The GAC occasionally supplements its own holdings by borrowing contemporary works from other collections for display in particular locations.

TRANSPORT

  Railways (Complaints)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints he has received regarding the newly privatised parts of the rail network; and how many about those services provided by British Rail in the same period. [33179]

  Mr. Watts
  Since the commencement of the first franchised services on 4 February 1996, I have received 29 complaints about railway passenger services operated by franchise operators, and 219 about those operated by British Rail.

  Rail Near Miss Registration
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will put in place a system of near miss registration, anonymous if necessary, to register situations concerning workers on the track similar to that applying in the aviation industry. [38538]

  Mr. Watts
  I have no current plans to do so. It is the responsibility of the railway industry itself to manage its affairs properly to control risks to staff. For some time now, details of near misses involving track workers have been recorded by the industry in support of the drive to reduce track casualties.

  Rail (Investment Projects)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many major projects in British Rail's 1991 "Future Rail—The Next Decade" investment prospectus are under construction. [38536]

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail's document "Future Rail—The Next Decade", published in July 1991, mentioned seven projects involving the construction of new railway lines and the upgrading of existing lines. Of those seven projects, three are completed—the Birmingham cross-city electricification scheme, the Manchester metrolink light rail scheme and the Manchester airport rail link. One—Heathrow express—is under construction. The remaining three—the channel tunnel rail link, Thameslink 2000 and crossrail—are at various stages of development.
  133

  Salaries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is for each agency within his Department and the Central Transport Group the median basic salary, excluding all allowances except local pay allowances for each grade from AA to SEO employed in London. [38603]

  Mr Norris
  The information is as follows:

  CTG

  DSA

  DVLA

  HA

  MSA

  TCA

  VI

  AA

  10,497

  9,523

  9,248

  10,227

  —

  —

  10,663

  AO

  12,036

  11,613

  11,329

  10,655

  —

  —

  13,179

  Typist

  10,879

  9,924

  9,144

  11,123

  10,164

  —

  11,447

  Per Sec

  13,560

  12,214

  11,076

  13,672

  —

  —

  —

  Sen Per Sec

  17,104

  15,739

  14,355

  16,043

  —

  —

  —

  SGB 2

  —

  9,602

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SGB 1

  10,651

  10,695

  10,534

  9,920

  —

  —

  —

  EO

  16,164

  14,814

  14,587

  16,000

  —

  —

  —

  PTO

  15,849

  —

  16,653

  18,750

  —

  —

  18,727

  HEO

  20,426

  19,187

  19,198

  20,218

  16,665

  —

  —

  HPTO

  21,067

  —

  19,289

  24,406

  —

  —

  21,696

  SEO

  24,530

  23,669

  23,769

  24,408

  —

  —

  —

  SPTO

  27,186

  —

  24,650

  31,185

  —

  —

  28,552

  AT/HEOD

  19,963

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DX

  —

  14,962

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDX(T)

  —

  17,194

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDX(M)

  —

  17,716

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SUDX

  —

  19,573

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ACDX

  —

  21,415

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  H/P

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,115

  TEST

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,179

  AVE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,849

  TE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,693

  STE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,477

  The figures provided in this answer are, in all cases, prior to the implementation of 1996 pay settlements.

  Key to Agencies:

  DSA Driving Standard Agency

  DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  HA Highways Agency

  MSA Marine Safety Agency

  TCA Coastguards Agency

  VI Vehicle Inspectorate Key to Grades:

  Per Sec Personal Secretary

  Sen Per Sec Senior Personal Secretary

  SGB Support Grade Band

  AT/HEOD Administrative Trainee/Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  PTO Professional and Technological Officer (including equivalents)

  DX Driving Examiner

  SDX Senior Driving Examiner

  SUDX Superintending Driving Examiner

  ACDX Assistant Chief Driving Examiner

  H/P Handyperson

  TEST Tester

  AVE Assistant Vehicle Examiner

  TE Traffic Examiner

  STE Senior Traffic Examiner

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is for each agency within his Department and the Central Transport Group the median basic salary, excluding all allowances except local pay allowances for each grade from AA to SEO employed outside London [38602]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  CTG

  DSA

  DVLA

  HA

  MSA

  TCA

  VI

  AA

  8,530

  8,643

  8,546

  6,928

  8,979

  7,496

  9,115

  AO

  11,581

  10,504

  10,587

  10,537

  10,876

  11,377

  11,292

  Typist

  9,903

  8,831

  8,741

  10,482

  9,716

  10,164

  10,348

  Per Sec

  12,246

  10,972

  11,076

  12,311

  12,174

  11,636

  13,179

  134

  CTG

  DSA

  DVLA

  HA

  MSA

  TCA

  VI

  Sen PS

  —

  14,267

  14,355

  15,512

  —

  —

  15,538

  SGB 2

  —

  9,602

  10,012

  9,920

  10,124

  —

  9,415

  SGB 1

  —

  10,695

  —

  —

  —

  8,602

  11,843

  EO

  15,520

  14,238

  14,006

  14,901

  15,208

  15,520

  15,849

  PTO

  13,651

  —

  16,653

  17,658

  —

  13,962

  17,658

  HEO

  19,812

  18,437

  18,432

  18,828

  19,215

  19,611

  18,911

  HPTO

  20,861

  —

  19,289

  21,275

  —

  18,911

  20,454

  SEO

  24,780

  22,371

  22,822

  23,077

  —

  24,035

  23,932

  SPTO

  28,833

  —

  24,650

  27,998

  26,920

  22,562

  25,633

  CGO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,598

  —

  Stat Off

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17,182

  —

  Dist Off

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,611

  —

  M Surv 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,007

  —

  —

  M Surv 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27,998

  —

  —

  DX

  —

  14,238

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDX(T)

  —

  16,524

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDX(M)

  —

  17,025

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SUDX

  —

  18,808

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ACDX

  —

  20,507

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  H/P

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,679

  TEST

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,179

  AVE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,220

  TE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,378

  STE

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,727

  EM

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21,485

  The figures provided in this answer are, in all cases, prior to the implementation of the 1996 pay settlements.

  Key to grades

  Persec: Personal Secretary

  Sen PS: Senior Personal Secretary

  SGB: Support Grade Band

  AT/HEOD: Administrative Trainee/Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  PTO: Professional and Technological Officer (including equivalents)

  DX: Driving Examiner

  SDX: Senior Driving Examiner

  SUDX: Superintending Driving Examiner

  ACDX: Assistant Chief Driving Examiner

  H/P: Handyperson

  TEST: Tester

  AVE: Assistant Vehicle Examiner

  TE: Traffic Examiner

  STE: Senior Traffic Examiner

  MSURV2: Marine Surveyor Grade 2

  CGO: Coastguard Officer

  Stat Off: Station Officer

  Dist Off: District Officer

  Key to agencies:

  DSA: Driving Standards Agency

  DVLA: Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  HA: Highways Agency

  MSA: Marine Safety Agency

  TCA: Coastguards Agency

  VI: Vehicle Inspectorate

  Mrs Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency within his Department and the Central Transport Group the number by grade of staff earning less than £ 8,847.86 per annum. [38599]
  135
  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  AA

  AO

  Typist

  SGB 1 and 2

  CTG

  66

  3

  0

  2

  DSA

  235

  0

  0

  0

  DVLA

  67

  0

  6

  0

  HA

  26

  126

  0

  15

  MSA

  27

  9

  4

  0

  TCA

  9

  2

  0

  1

  VI

  106

  0

  3

  2

  VI also have 27 Handypersons earning less than £ 8,847.86 per annum.
  The figures provided in this answer are prior to the implementation of the 1996 pay settlements and, for part-time staff, are based on full-time equivalent salaries.

  Key to grades:

  AA: Administrative Assistant

  AO: Administrative Officer

  SGB1 and 2: Support Grade Bands 1 and 2

  Key to agencies:

  DSA: Driving Standards Agency

  DVLA: Drive and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  HA: Highways Agency

  MSA: Marine Safety Agency

  TCA: Coastguards Agency

  VI: Vehicle Inspectorate

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency within his Department and the Central Transport Group for the administrative assistant and administrative officer grade the median basic salary excluding all allowances other than local pay additions for women employed(a) on a part-time basis and (b) a full-time basis. [38596]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  £

  AA

  AO

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Central Transport Group

  10,116

  10,007

  12,036

  11,906

  Driving Standards Agency

  8,643

  5,351

  10,504

  6,503

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  8,546

  n/a

  10,587

  n/a

  Highways Agency

  10,262

  15,646

  12,106

  16,697

  Marine Safety Agency

  8,979

  14,424

  10,876

  15,438

  Coastguards Agency

  7,412

  7,755

  11,636

  10,753

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  9,265

  9,415

  11,292

  11,920

  Part-time salaries are given on a full-time equivalent basis other than where marked with 1. The figures for part-time staff in DVLA are not currently available. They will be provided later.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Central Transport Group the median and mean salary levels for each grade employed and for staff employed(a) in London and (b) outside London. [38604]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  Mean salary

  Median salary

  SCS

  London

  56,395

  53,088

  National

  52,531

  51,112

  136

  Mean salary

  Median salary

  Grade 6

  London

  43,240

  43,632

  National

  41,720

  41,047

  Grade 7

  London

  34,818

  35,649

  National

  33,963

  33,211

  SEO

  London

  26,464

  26,688

  National

  24,838

  25,554

  SPTO

  London

  28,236

  28,962

  National

  28,429

  28,552

  HEO

  London

  21,877

  22,267

  National

  19,765

  20,047

  HPTO

  London

  22,759

  24,338

  National

  20,614

  20,454

  EO

  London

  17,732

  18,051

  National

  15,215

  15,642

  PTO

  London

  17,010

  17,314

  National

  13,651

  13,651

  SEN PS

  London

  19,992

  20,057

  National

  —

  —

  PER SEC

  London

  17,409

  17,612

  National

  14,588

  14,673

  Typist

  London

  15,205

  15,168

  National

  11,564

  11,726

  AO

  London

  14,413

  14,626

  National

  11,311

  11,581

  AA

  London

  11,925

  12,273

  National

  8,455

  8,530

  AT/HEOD

  20,177

  21,739

  SGB 1 and 2

  11,908

  12,145

  The figures provided in this answer are prior to the implementation of the 1996 pay settlement, other than for the Senior Civil Service.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each agency within his Department and the Central Transport Group the mean basic salary for women employed on(a) a part-time basis and (b) a full-time basis. [38598]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  Full-time £

  Part-time £

  Central Transport Group

  14,841

  16,238

  Driving Standards Agency

  12,028

  14,865

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  12,259

  n/a

  137

  Full-time £

  Part-time £

  Highways Agency

  13,688

  18,504

  Marine Safety Agency

  11,750

  5,875

  Coastguards Agency

  13,442

  10,022

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  11,966

  9,895

  For those in grades below the senior civil service, the figures provided in this answer are prior to the implementation of the 1996 pay settlements. Part-time salaries are given on a full-time equivalent basis except where marked1. The figures for part-time staff in DLVA are not available. They will be provided later.

  Rail Public Service Obligation Grant
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the public service obligation grant made to the railways for each year since 1992. [38585]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested, for the three years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94, is as follows:

  Year

  Public Service obligation grant payments (£ million cash)

  1991–92

  892

  1992–93

  1,155

  1993–94

  930

  1993–94 is the last year in which public service obligation grant was paid.

  Automatic Train Protection
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of automatic train protection trials that are in operation, on what lines they are operating, the number of trains on which automatic protection is fitted, the number of trains on which automatic trainprotection is operating and the number of drivers trained in the use of automatic train protection. [38522]

  Mr. Watts
  Two automatic train protection equipment trials have been undertaken, one on the Chiltern line and the other on the Great Western main line. The trials were designed to allow technical evaluation of different equipment. The numbers of trains fitted and crews trained for the purposes of the trials are not available.

  The trials have now been completed and it is intended that the schemes will be brought into full normal operation by October 1996.

  London Underground operates a "train stop" type automatic train protection system throughout its network.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made regarding the introduction of automated train protection. [38521]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's train protection strategy is a major programme incorporating several initiatives which will further reduce the number of signals passed at danger. These initiatives include:

  (i) the bringing into full service operation of the pilot ATP schemes on the Chiltern and Great Western routes, planned for October 1996.

  138

  (ii) the development of a train protection warning system to replace the existing automatic warning system at selected locations. This will provide train stop and red signal speed trap facilities. The development contract was let by Railtrack earlier this year and equipment has been installed which will allow trials to take place.

  (iii) the development of radio-based cab signalling, initially as part of the modernisation of the West Coast main line. Two development contracts have been let and work is proceeding.

  In addition, other initiatives to prevent SPADS, including a driver reminder appliance, have been the subject of successful trials and wider application is planned to follow.

  Although it is not reasonably practicable to fit on a network wide basis the system of ATP which have piloted, the Health and Safety Executive would expect to see a form of ATP, or an equivalent protection system, incorporated on any new high speed line such as the channel tunnel rail link and fully considered in any new major resignalling scheme.

  The HSE's HM railway inspectorate will be closely monitoring progress towards delivery of Railtrack's train protection strategy.

  Rolling Stock Companies (Train Recorders)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has made to the ROSCOs in relation to the introduction of black box recorders in trains. [38525]

  Mr. Watts
  None. The Health and Safety Executive's guidance calls for the provision of black box recorders and most new passenger rolling stock is equipped with diagnostic and data recording equipment.

  Rail Accident Investigation Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include in section 14 of the Health and Safety at work, etc. Act 1974 a regulation to ensure that accident investigation reports are published and disseminated throughout the railway industry. [38545]

  Mr. Watts
  Section 14 already provides that the Health and Safety Commission may direct an investigation into an accident and publish a report. The commission's stated policy is to publish reports of serious accidents investigations carried out under the 1974 Act. In addition, the commission's railway industry advisory committee is examining existing arrangements for disseminating information gained from accident investigations.

  Capital Settlements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average English local authority transport capital settlement, including grant and credit approval, as a percentage of the amount bid for; and what were the corresponding average percentages for(a) Labour-controlled councils and (b) all Conservative-controlled councils. [39054]
  139
  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 July 1996,Official Report, column 73. Figures are not kept according to the political control of the council.

  Rail Users Consultative Committees
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the chairmen of rail users consultative committees both central and regional are or have been active in the Conservative party. [39133]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is not available. Current chairmen of the rail users consultative committees were never required to provide information concerning their political activities, although applicants responding to notices about membership are now requested to supply such details. The conditions of chairmen's appointments contain guidance concerning political activity designed to ensure any such interests do not prejudice the committees' work.

  Seat Belts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys he has done to ascertain the percentage of children wearing seat belts in cars; and if he will make a statement on the findings. [39250]

  Mr. Norris
  Surveys of car occupant restraint use are conducted every six months. The latest survey, in April, showed that 95 per cent. of children under the age of 14 were found to be wearing restraints in the front passenger seat of cars but only 79 per cent. were found to be wearing restraints in the rear seats of cars. We regularly run publicity campaigns on the importance of wearing belts and our recent campaign was aimed specifically at encouraging children to wear restraints in the rear seats of cars.

  Child Pedestrians
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has issued in respect of the age at which children no longer require supervision as pedestrians. [39275]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has issued joint guidance, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and other road safety bodies, on the topic "Teaching Children To Be Safer Pedestrians". This advises that children up to the age of seven should always be supervised. Above this age, parents and carers need to judge what level of supervision is required depending on local traffic conditions and the experience and responsibility of the child.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (i) what proposals he has and (ii) targets he has set for reducing death and injury to children on the road; [39276]

  (2) what plans he has for educational initiatives to reduce death and injury to children on the road. [39277]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has today announced a strategy to reduce child pedestrian fatalities by a quarter by the end of the century. This would save the lives of at least 30 children a year and reduce serious injuries by some 1,000 a year.
  140
  Under the strategy, the Department will continue to promote educational initiatives to reduce deaths and injuries to children on the roads.

  Bus and Coach Directive
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what working papers have been circulated to his Department by the European Commission in the course of its preparations for the EC bus and coach directive. [39157]

  Mr. Norris
  Numerous working group documents, including those from other member states, as well as an early version of Commission proposals have been circulated.

  A66
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will ensure that any connection road built between Elton and Longnewton ancillary to the proposed A66 grade separated junction is reserved for the use of buses only; [38924]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timing of the compulsory purchase orders for the construction of the A66 grade separated junction at Longnewton; [38923]

  (3) when he expects construction work to commence on the A66 grade separated junction at Longnewton. [38922]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 23 July 1996:
  As you know, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the A66 Long Newton Grade Separated Junction.
  Restricting the use of the link road between Elton and Long Newton to buses only was debated at length at the Public Inquiry in September 1995. The Independent Inspector concluded that the link road should be available to all traffic, including pedestrians. cyclists and equestrians. He did not accept that the predicted traffic flows through Elton, as a result of providing the link road, would be untoward. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport fully accepted the Inspector's conclusions and recommendations in their decision letter of 1 July.
  The detailed design of the scheme and the making of the compulsory Purchase Order will be commenced in the near future to allow works to start as soon as financial resources become available.

  Noise Barriers
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times in each of the last 10 years noise mitigation barriers have been(a) replaced, (b) repaired and (c) upgraded; and what has been the cost to his Department. [38303]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking how many times in each of the last 10 years noise mitigation barriers have been (a) replaced, (b) repaired and (c) upgraded; and what has been the cost to his Department.
  The information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  141
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money his Department has spent on noise mitigation barriers adjacent to motorways in each of the last 10 years. [38304]

  Mr. Watts
  The following amounts have been spent in the past two financial years.

  1994–95: £437,000

  1995–96: £6,116,000

  Data for this previous eight years are not available without incurring a disproportionate cost to the Department.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what design standards currently exist for noise mitigation barriers adjacent to(a) motorways and (b) railway lines; [38299]

  (2) what procedures currently exist for (a)checking whether noise mitigation barriers adjacent to (i) motorways and (ii) railway lines meet the required design standards and (b)ensuring that those barriers which are found not to meet the required design standards are improved to meet them; [38300]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the site supervision and checking of structural calculations for noise mitigation barriers adjacent to (a) motorways and(b)railway lines. [38301]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member. Noise mitigation barriers adjacent to railway lines are a matter for Railtrack.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about noise mitigation barriers.
  Guidance on the design of environmental barriers which include noise mitigation barriers is provided in the HMSO publication Design of Roads and Bridges: Volume 10 Environmental Design. This includes advice on the structural options available, acoustic considerations and resistance to wind forces. Standards of material quality and workmanship for particular forms of barrier structure are prescribed in the HMSO publication Specification for Highway Works, which sets out the standard requirements for motorway and trunk road construction contracts. In addition, contracts may either provide a complete design or specify that barriers are to be provided by the contractor to meet certain criteria. In either case, it is usual for designs to be required to conform to the Agency's published guidance. When specialist proprietary products are offered by contractors, evidence of the basis of their design and of their performance to the prescribed standard is required.
  Noise mitigation barriers are prescribed in principle by location, length and height; various other characteristics may be provided for in particular contracts to prescribe quality and type of materials, structural form and acoustic properties. Some aspects of materials and functional properties are assessed prior to erection; others such as overall form, position and integrity are assessed during and after erection. For all procurement it is the contractor's responsibility to supervise the installation of barriers on site and to check their compliance with the contract under their quality assurance procedures. This supervision is backed up by arrangements which depend on the type of contract for vetting of proposals and inspection of their construction by the client's representative or the site agent.
  142
  Noise mitigation barriers are routinely inspected and maintained as part of the highway infrastructure and defects are rectified as and when necessary. In designing the appropriate form of barrier, the maintenance requirements and expected life of the proposed system are taken into account. Planned maintenance includes for the replacement of barriers at an appropriate time, as indicated by inspection reports.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate whether the noise mitigation barriers between junctions 8 and 10 of the M25 meet the required design standards. [38302]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 July 1996:
  As you know, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the noise mitigation barriers between junction 8 and 10 of the M25.
  The barriers already in place meet the relevant design standards; those still to be provided will also be built to the same standard.

  Airports
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what criteria were used to determine which airports were designated under section 40 of the Airports Act 1986; [37815]

  (2) to what extent the criteria used to determine which airports were designated under section 40 of the Airports Act 1986 take account of trends in competition in the aviation industry following air service liberalisation in (a)Europe and (b)elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [37819]

  Mr. Norris
  No formal criteria for the designation of airports are included in the Airports Act. However, the criteria that the Government consider relevant to designation are the market position, including extent of competition from other airports and other modes; prima facie evidence of excessive profitability or abuse of monopoly position; the scale and timing of investment, and their implications for profitability; and the efficiency and quality of service.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of staff currently employed at(a) Heathrow and (b) Gatwick airports. [39510]

  Mr. Norris
  These are matters for BAA plc.

  Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to grant transport supplementary grant in respect of only part of a proposed bypass where other parts are not expected to be constructed. [38921]

  Mr. Norris
  The power to pay transport supplementary grant is contained in sections 87 and 88 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Guidance on bidding is issued annually, and copies are deposited in the Library—the latest is local authority circular 2/96. It is for local authorities to decide, and justify, what constitutes a viable scheme, and to bid for resources accordingly. All bids are considered competitively, on merit.
  143

  Rural Roads
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve safety on B, C and unclassified roads in rural areas; and if he will make a statement on the annual proportion of accidents, fatalities and injuries that have occurred on such roads in recent years. [38948]

  Mr. Norris
  Safety on B, C and unclassified roads is the responsibility of the local highway authority. The wide range of Government measures to reduce accidents—including anti-drink driving and speeding campaigns, and measures to reduce young driver risk—influence drivers on all roads, and are reflected in the reduced numbers of accidents on non built-up B, C and unclassified roads. Fatal and serious injury accidents have fallen by 37 per cent. on these roads since the 1981 to 1985 baseline. Local highway authorities can improve the road layout at known accident blackspots and the Government have given £55 million this year to fund local safety schemes.

  Casualties on non-built up B, C and unclassified roads in England and Wales in 1995 were:

  Fatalities: 498

  Seriously injured: 5,281

  Slightly injured: 22,175

  The proportion of Great Britain casualty accidents on non-built up B, C and unclassified roads has remained very stable—in 1994, it was 8.7 per cent., which was unchanged from the 1981 to 1985 baseline proportion.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the public inquiry into the building of the Birmingham northern relief road. [39482]

  Mr. Watts
  The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will announce their decision as soon as possible after receiving the inspector's report, which is not expected before November this year.

  Road Accidents (Fatigue)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to establish a research programme into the extent that fatigue influences road accidents. [39386]

  Mr. Norris
  Interim results from our research programme into the influence of fatigue on road accidents were announced last September; work continues on the appraisal of possible countermeasures and will report next year.

  Bridges
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the bridge strengthening programme will be completed by 1999; and if it will be necessary to impose weight restrictions on strategically important bridges. [39265]

  Mr. Watts
  The bridge strengthening programme will continue for a number of years after 1999. We do not envisage that it will be necessary to impose weight restrictions on strategically important bridges.
  144

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the number of accidents involving newly qualified HGV drivers in the last year. [39337]

  Mr. Norris
  Information on heavy goods vehicle accidents is not available in this form. In 1995, HGV drivers aged between 21 and 24 were involved in 850 injury accidents.

  MOT Certificates
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many MOT test certificates have been stolen in each of the last five years. [39338]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dun woody, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on the number of MOT certificates stolen over the past 5 years.
  Details of the number of MOT certificates stolen from garages are shown below:

  1991/92: 113,361

  1992/93: 160,666

  1993/94: 170,000

  1994/95: 60,868

  1995/96: 51,694

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39430]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures sought are as follows:

  (a) (i) 9 full-time publicity officers

  (a) (ii) 9 full-time publicity officers

  (a) (iii) 9 full-time publicity officers

  (b) (i) 20 full-time press officers

  (b) (ii) 17 full-time press officers

  (b) (iii) 19 full-time press officers

  Staff in departmental agencies work on both publicity and press and media and cannot be broken down as requested. The figures are:

  1995–96: 13.5

  1994–95: 16.5

  1993–94: 11.2

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget to be employed (i) full time and (ii) part time,(a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39474]

  Mr. Norris
  The following staff are employed in the Department.

  (i) (a) 14 Full-time Press Officers

  (ii)(a) 1 Part-time Press Officer

  (i) (b) 7 Full-time Publicity Officers

  (ii) (b) None

  145
  Staff departmental agencies work on both publicity and press and media and cannot be broken down as requested. There are 25 staff working in this area in the departmental agencies for 1996–97.

  Working Time Directive
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to introduce United Kingdom legislation and promote compliance within the transport industry with the EU working time directive. [39388]

  Mr. Norris
  None. Transport industries are excluded from the scope of the directive.

  Vehicle Relicensing (Post Offices)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken since 1990 to increase the number of post offices contracted with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for vehicle relicensing services; what measure he takes to ensure that the DVLA's estimates of costs in adding post offices to its contracted network are reasonable and accurate; and if he will make a statement. [38952]

  Mr. Norris
  The question of adding offices to the vehicle relicensing network and the cost forms part of the contractual arrangements between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. These are currently under review as part of negotiations to agree a new contract. Since the last contract was let in 1989, some 400 offices have been added to the network. The current network of 4,000 vehicle relicensing post offices will be extended only if it can be shown to be cost-effective and does not merely add to the cost of collecting vehicle excise duty.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) accidents and (b) fatalities occurred on (i) the hard shoulder of motorways and (ii) in vehicles stationary on the hard shoulder in the last year. [39399]

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

  Accidents and fatalities; on the motorway hard shoulder; GB 1995

  Number

  Accidents

  Fatalities

  All accidents on the lay-by/hard shoulder1

  150

  11

  Accidents involving a stationary vehicle on the lay-by/hard shoulder2

  88

  5

  1 Includes vehicles entering, on, or leaving the lay-by/hard shoulder.

  2 Involving a vehicle parked on the lay-by/hard shoulder.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that members of the public have access to details of prohibitions received by operators of public service vehicles. [39487]
  146
  Mr. Norris
  We have recently completed a public consultation exercise on proposals for the Vehicle Inspectorate to make available on demand information about prohibitions issued by its examiners to both public service and heavy goods vehicle operators following roadside enforcement checks.

  The consultation document also proposed the release of information about operator convictions and about annual roadworthiness tests for individual heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles.

  We are currently considering the responses received during the consultation period.

  Willerby 93
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what checks are being undertaken to ensure the financial standing and viability of the application for an operator licence submitted to the north eastern traffic area office in the name of Willerby 93; and if he plans to grant the licence. [39356]

  Mr. Norris
  The consideration of applications for operator licences is the responsibility of independent traffic commissioners. I have asked Mr. Keith Waterworth, the traffic commissioner for the north-eastern traffic area, to respond directly.

  European Vignette System
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to join the European Vignette system. [39339]

  Mr. Norris
  None at present.

  Drivers (Amnesties)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider introducing an amnesty from prosecution for those drivers who are prepared to confess their own breaches of the law where those breaches were encouraged or actively sought by the employer. [39375]

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Lyme Bay
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional resources he has allocated to the Coastguard agency to implement the recommendations of the inquiry into the Lyme bay tragedy. [39359]

  Mr. Norris
  None. The report of the inquiry stated that the recommendations could be implemented with the existing personnel and other resources of the Coastguard agency.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission an efficiency scrutiny of the Civil Aviation Authority; and if he will make a statement. [39460]

  Mr. Norris
  No. There are already a number of mechanisms in place in the Civil Aviation Authority to foster efficiency.
  147

  Recruitment Information
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information on recruitment his Department is required to publish; if he will make this information available for the Central Transport Group for 1995; and if he will make a statement. [39659]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Service Order in Council 1995 authorises the civil service commissioners to require departments and agencies to publish summary information

  Recruitment statistics for the central transport group (CTG)—1 January to 31 December 1995

  Status

  Breakdown showing women, ethnic minority and people with disabilities successful at each level

  Grade

  Number in grade 31 December 1995

  Number of posts recruited 1 January to 31 December 1995

  FTA1

  Permanent

  Female

  Ethnic minority

  Disability (male and female)

  G5

  68

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  G7

  271

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  EO

  368

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1 (male)

  Administrative Trainee

  12

  9

  —

  9

  4

  —

  —

  AO

  488

  7

  1

  6

  5

  —

  2 (male)

  AA

  155

  14

  9

  5

  7

  —

  5 (male)

  PS

  103

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  SGB2

  16

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1 (male)

  Casual Students

  5

  6

  6

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Higher Scientific Officer

  5

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Economic Assistant

  5

  4

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Assistance Information Officer

  4

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  1,500

  50

  22

  28

  22

  0

  9 (male)

  1 Fixed term appointment.

  Traffic Areas (Restructuring)
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the proposed restructuring of the traffic areas. [39549]

  Mr. Norris
  A consultation paper setting out options was issued on 17 July. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Highways Agency annual report and accounts for 1995–96 will he published. [39612]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency annual report and accounts 1995–96 was published on Monday 22 July. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available on request from the Highways Agency.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Croydon Tramlink. [39614]

  Mr. Norris
  I am glad to report that I have authorised London Transport to finalise and then sign the concession agreement for Croydon Tramlink. This will mean that Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. will be able to build and operate the new system, which should open in the year 2000. The 148
  about their recruitment and the use of permitted exceptions to the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit.

  The Central Transport Group is in the process of revising its systems for recruitment in the light of recent guidance laid down by the civil service commissioners, to ensure that recruitment is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit, and to make provision for internal audit.

  The number of staff appointed to CTG in 1995 are shown in the table. There were no permitted exceptions to fair and open competition and selection on merit in 1995.

  total central Government grant involved will be £125 million. Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. will also be making a significant financial contribution.

  Croydon Tramlink will bring important benefits to public transport users in south London. It is an excellent example of how the Government's private finance initiative makes it possible to build projects which would not have been afforded if all the money had had to come from the taxpayer. I am delighted that, after careful negotiation, it has been possible to reach agreement between public and private sectors to take forward this worthwhile public transport scheme.

  School Buses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to end the three for two concession for school buses; and what action he is taking to ensure that local authorities comply with the guidance issued by his Department. [39486]

  Mr. Norris
  The three for two concession for seats on school buses for children over the age of five but under 14 years old no longer applies when seats are equipped with belts. The Department has not issued any guidance notes on the application of the three for two concession.

  Regulation of Railways Act 1871
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to repeal and replace the
  149
  provision of the Regulation of Railways Act 1871 which sets up and publishes a report into railway accidents and if he will make a statement. [38544]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Commission has recently undertaken a review of railway safety legislation, including the regulation of Railways Act 1871, and published its proposals in a consultative document. I await the commission's recommendations.

  The Health and Safety at Works, etc. Act 1974 contains provisions under which accidents on the railway may be investigated and reports published.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39139]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low—by reducing legislative administrative and taxation burdens and, where appropriate, by providing direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  The recently published transport Green Paper recognised the central importance of maintaining a transport system that provides business with an efficient means of moving goods and raw materials around the country. The paper sets out the Government's assessment of the future for transport in the UK and the measures that need to be taken to meet the differing demands of the economy, the environment and the individual.

  My Department has, like others, reviewed the regulations for which it is responsible to ensure that unnecessary or over burdensome regulation is cut back. When considering new regulations, we take particular account of the burden and cost regulations impose on small businesses.

  Over the past 12 months, we have introduced measures to relax the regulation for signing tourist destinations. These now include provisions for signing of hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions which were previously excluded. We have also simplified the licensing arrangements for goods vehicle operators, 80 per cent. of whom run fewer than a total of four heavy goods vehicles. Previously, licences were granted for a maximum of four years at a time, but a system of continuous licensing is now in place.

  Merchant Navy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many United Kingdom residents presently hold valid UK Merchant Navy certificates of competency in the marine engineer classes(a) 1, (b)2,(c)3 and (d)4; [38540]
  150
  (2) how many United Kingdom residents presently hold valid UK Merchant Navy certificates of competency in the deck officer classes (a) 1, (b)2, (c)3, (d)4 and (e)5; [38539]

  (3) how many Merchant Navy certificates of equivalent competency have been issued. [38555]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Questions about the number of UK residents who currently hold valid UK Merchant Navy Certificates of Competency in Marine Engineer and Deck Officer classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the number of Certificates of Equivalent Competency which have been issued since they were introduced.
  I regret that I cannot answer your two questions about UK residents holding certificates of competency because the information is not held in the form requested and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  In answer to your third question, 26 Certificates of Equivalent Competency have been issued since they were introduced on 1 August 1995.

  New Roads
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance is issued by his Department to local authorities and developers in respect of carriageway traffic flow rates for new roads. [38991]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport does not issue specific guidance on traffic flow rates for local authority roads. The Highways Agency's design manual for roads and bridges contains guidance on traffic flows on trunk roads. It is open to local authorities to determine the extent to which this guidance is relevant to their own road schemes.

  A46/A47 Link Road
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the £3.462 million spent on the Leicester A46/A47 was for stage I design and construction. [38919]

  Mr. Norris
  There is no requirement for the expenditure figures to be split between stages 1 and 2 and this information is not held by my Department. When the A46/A47 link road scheme was first accepted for transport supplementary grant it was for the entire scheme. The phasing of the scheme is entirely a matter for the local authority, Leicestershire county council.

  Airside Facilities
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the scope of relevant activities as defined in the Airports Act 1986 to include the monopoly provision of airside facilities to airlines; and if he will make a statement. [39459]

  Mr. Norris
  Section 41 of the Airports Act 1986 empowers the Civil Aviation Authority to impose conditions on an airport if it considers that any unfair trade practices, or exploitation of the airport operators's bargaining position, are taking place in respect of any
  151
  "relevant activities". The provision of airside facilities to airlines is deemed to be a "relevant activity" according to the definition in section 36 of that Act.

  Light Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure that professional drivers of LGV's have adequate rest and refreshment facilities at affordable prices. [39373]

  Mr. Norris
  Motorway service areas have to contain designated number of parking spaces for lorries which can be used free of charge for at least two hours. Elsewhere, it is for commercial interests to decide, subject to planning permission, what facilities to provide and where, for lorry drivers as for other road users.

  Airlines
  Mrs Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate a review of the regulatory requirements imposed by the Civil Aviation Authority on United Kingdom carriers with particular reference to costs to airlines. [39505]

  Mr. Norris
  No. The Civil Aviation Authority already takes account of the coats to industry in developing regulatory requirements.

  Trucks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the findings of his review of 44 tonnes operation; and what estimate he has made of the number of 44 tonne trucks currently operating. [39497]

  Mr. Norris
  We are considering the findings of the review. At the end of 1995, 713 six-axled vehicles were licensed to operate at up to 44 tonnes.

  Heathrow and Gatwick Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the percentage of delays which are attributable to runway slot limitations at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. [39513]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the operator of the airports, BAA plc.

  Tachographs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proposals he has to ensure that tachographs record a full 24-hour day; [39377]

  (2) if he will consider introducing a unique serial number on tachograph discs. [39376]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government share concerns that the records produced by drivers should be accurate. However, the requirements on drivers to record their time and the layout of approved records sheets are set out in an EU regulation. I am not convinced that amendment to the regulation along the lines proposed would be 152
  cost-effective or free of practical difficulties. We favour the use of digital recording equipment and drivers smartcards, as proposed by the European Commission, to overcome the acknowledged shortcomings of mechanical recording equipment.

  Working Environment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to promote better working environments in the transport industry; and if he will make a statement. [39397]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport pursues a number of initiatives which contribute to improved working environments in the transport industry, including enforcement of drivers' hours legislation and advice to operators on the protection from assault of bus crews.

  Transport and Tourism
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment his Department has made of the total number of jobs related directly and indirectly to transport and tourism; [39503]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the total earnings to the United Kingdom economy from transport and tourism. [39502]

  Mr. Norris
  The latest assessment of the contribution of transport to the UK economy are given in an article "Transport in the Economy" published in the 1994 edition of "Transport Statistics Great Britain". My Department does not make assessment for tourism.

  Smoke Hoods
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to introduce compulsory smoke hoods for passenger aircraft. [39547]

  Mr. Norris
  A Civil Aviation Authority study has shown that, in many circumstances, the time required for passengers to don unfamiliar smoke hoods could delay the evacuation of aircraft. The authority therefore has no proposals to require the provision of smoke hoods. However, the authority will keep under review all technical developments in smoke hoods and other survival techniques.

  Air Transport Industry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to improve the competitiveness of the air transport industry in the United Kingdom. [39499]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department seeks the liberalisation of international air service arrangements wherever possible so as to increase competitive opportunities for UK airlines and UK airports.

  Airbags (Child Seats)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given about the use of child seats in the front seats of cars where an airbag is fitted. [39252]
  153
  Mr. Norris
  The Department's advice is that rear-facing child seats must not be fitted to front seats of cars where an air bag is fitted and this message is contained in the publicly available "Choosing Safety" booklet. Following agreement between the Department and manufacturers, all new vehicles fitted with passenger side airbags and sold in the UK since 1 January 1996 have been voluntarily fitted with a warning label. In addition, the owner's handbook has carried further explanation of the dangers. The Department is continuing discussions with the UK motor industry to ensure that the public are fully aware of the dangers.

  Fatality rate per 100,000 population for children aged 0 to 14

  1994

  1993

  1992

  1991

  1990

  Pedestrian

  car passenger

  Pedestrian

  car passenger

  Pedestrian

  car passenger

  Pedestrian

  car passenger

  Pedestrian

  car passenger

  Austria

  1.3

  1.6

  1.4

  1.5

  1.4

  1.4

  1.3

  2.7

  1.6

  2.2

  Belgium

  1.1

  1.3

  0.8

  1.5

  2.1

  1.3

  1.7

  0.9

  1.9

  2.2

  Denmark

  0.7

  1.2

  0.9

  0.5

  0.9

  0.8

  1.9

  1.6

  1.4

  1.7

  Finland

  0.9

  1.6

  0.7

  1.2

  1.7

  1.0

  0.4

  2.2

  1.1

  1.4

  France

  1.0

  1.8

  0.9

  2.0

  1.2

  2.0

  1.4

  2.1

  1.5

  2.2

  Germany

  1.0

  1.2

  1.0

  1.3

  1.2

  1.6

  1.4

  1.5

  1.5

  1.8

  Great Britain

  1.3

  0.7

  1.4

  0.7

  1.6

  0.5

  2.0

  0.6

  2.2

  0.8

  Greece

  1.5

  1.6

  1.6

  1.2

  1.5

  1.3

  2.2

  1.5

  Ireland

  1.7

  0.5

  1.9

  1.3

  1.8

  0.8

  2.4

  0.8

  2.4

  1.0

  Italy

  0.9

  0.6

  1.0

  Luxembourg Netherlands

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  0.9

  0.8

  1.0

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  0.8

  Portugal

  5.2

  2.3

  5.0

  2.8

  6.4

  2.3

  5.0

  2.3

  Spain

  1.1

  1.7

  1.3

  1.9

  1.0

  2.5

  1.4

  2.2

  1.5

  2.7

  Sweden

  0.8

  0.9

  0.4

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  0.5

  1.2

  0.9

  1.1

  Child Car Seats
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given in relation to the type and use of child car seats. [39251]

  Mr. Norris
  Guidance for the public on the type and use of child car seats is contained in the publications "Seat Belts and the Law" and "Choosing Safety". Both of these publications are produced by the Department of Transport and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Flight Guarantees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require travel agents and tour operators to advise passengers at the time of booking a flight or flight-inclusive holiday, if there is a guaranteed and identifiable carrier authorised to operate from the United Kingdom and with guaranteed flight slots; and if he will make a statement. [39508]

  Mr. Norris
  No. Tour operators are already required by the terms of their air travel organiser's licence to inform customers before entering into a contract either which airline will operate the flight or that this information is not available. If customers are informed of the intended operator, they must also be told whether they can cancel their contract without penalty in the event of any subsequent change.

  Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the power of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to review the conduct of individual airports under the Airports Act 1986 to allow a review of the conduct of the owner of groups of airports; and if he will make a statement. [39504]
  154

  Children (Road Deaths)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the death rate for children killed on the roads(a) other than in cars and (b) as passengers in cars per 1,000 child population in each of the last five years and for each EU country; and in the case of (b) what was the percentage of deaths where the children were not using seat belts. [39278]

  Mr. Norris
  Available information for EU member countries is shown in the table. No information is available on unbelted child passenger fatalities.

  Mr. Norris
  No. Groups of airports can already be designated under section 40 of the Act for regular review by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. No separate need is seen to extend the MMC's powers to review the conduct of the owner of a group of airports.

  Safety Evaluations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to extend safety case evaluations applied to the channel tunnel to other forms of public transport. [39394]

  Mr. Norris
  The safety case approach is already used where appropriate in a number of industries, for example rail and aviation. I will consider the extension of the safety case approach where I am satisfied that this is an appropriate way to maintain and improve safety standards for the transport mode concerned.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the date of the forthcoming expedition to the wreck of the MV Derbyshire; and how long he expects the expedition to last; [39466]

  (2) if he will give the Derbyshire Families Association access to the complete raw data that will be brought back from his Department's expedition to the wreck of the MV Derbyshire; [39464]

  (3) when he expects to publish the findings of the expedition to the wreck of the MV Derbyshire. [39465]

  Mr. Norris
  The phase 1 expedition to the wreck of the Derbyshire departed on 22 July and is expected to return on 29 July.
  155
  The data recovered will be first fully considered by the technical assessors, who will be consulting widely on their findings and intentions. The raw data will later be available to all interested parties, including the Derbyshire Families Association.

  A full report of the assessors findings will be published after the completion of phase 2.

  Seat Belts (Coaches)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure that seat belts fitted to coaches are fitted to the correct specifications; and what action he is taking to ensure that his Department monitors the correct fitting of seat belts. [39489]

  Mr. Norris
  The safety of equipment and its fitting must ultimately remain the responsibility of the installer. We intend to issue guidelines in support of the legislation and are exploring options for checking installations at the annual test. We are also considering other safeguards, but they can be of only a limited nature.

  Lap Straps (Coaches)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to introduce the compulsory fitting of inertia lap straps aboard buses and coaches carrying school children. [39488]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Accident Investigations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement the recent recommendations by the Consumers Association for an independent accident investigation body; and if he will make a statement. [39395]

  Mr. Norris
  We have rigorous independent mechanisms for investigating accidents, specifically for each transport mode. Transport is a diverse and international business and it makes sense to have separate bodies while ensuring a regular communication between them. I do not believe that an overarching safety investigation authority would add value.

  Drivers' Hours
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce further United Kingdom legislation on drivers' hours following his Department's consultation exercise in 1993. [39398]

  Mr. Norris
  The consultation in 1993 was part of a wider exercise to identify unnecessary or overly burdensome regulations. I announced on 5 September 1995 that I was not convinced that the domestic drivers'156
  hours rules imposed a significant burden on industry and that I had concluded after careful consideration that any relaxation of the rules would not be in the best interests of road safety, which is my chief priority.

  Runway Capacity
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the runway capacity in the south-east—RUCATSE—recommendation that a new runway in the south-east of England is equivalent to five years' traffic growth. [39512]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 20 June 1996,Official Report, column 534.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the cost of traffic congestion to British industry in each of the last 10 years. [39490]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has not made estimates of the total cost of traffic congestion to British industry. At a national level, such costs are very difficult to identify. Others have made estimates of the cost of congestion in this country on the basis of work carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development some six years ago. However, the method used contains a number of gross simplifications and the results are consequently unreliable.

  Our own assessments have focused on the appraisal of individual transport projects. They start from the baseline of current conditions and estimate the reduction in costs in the area concerned that can be achieved by implementing the project. These estimates are based on an extensive body of research findings.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fishing vessels of under 7m in length are registered in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each other European Union country; and if he will make a statement [39163]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 25 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of fishing vessels under seven metres in length registered in (a) the United Kingdom and, (b) each other European Union country.
  The number of fishing vessels under seven metres in length registered in the United Kingdom is 3074. I regret that this Agency does not hold information on similar sized vessels registered in other European Union countries.
  157

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racially Motivated Crimes (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially motivated crimes in the Greater London area were reported in the first six months of 1996. [37787]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information has been supplied by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. There were 2,741 racial incidents reported to the Metropolitan police service in the first six months of 1996. This figure represents all racial incidents reported including those that do not have a crime element associated with them.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of incidents of money laundering referred to the National Criminal Intelligence Service for each year since its inception indicating the sources of information and the number of referrals about and from(a) accountants and (b) lawyers. [37824]

  Mr. Maclean
  All disclosures of suspicious financial transactions made under the money laundering legislation are passed to the financial intelligence and money laundering section of the National Criminal Intelligence Service—NCIS. The total number of disclosures made for each year since the inception of NCIS in April 1992 are as follows:

  Year

  Disclosures

  1992

  11,281

  1993

  12,750

  1994

  15,007

  1995

  13,710

  1996 (to date)

  7,416

  Information about the number of disclosures made that relate to solicitors or accountants is not held centrally. However, the number of disclosures made by solicitors and accountants are as follows:

  Year

  Solicitors

  Accountants

  1992

  4

  1

  1993

  4

  2

  1994

  86

  6

  1995

  213

  44

  1996 (to date)

  168

  34

  Other sources of disclosures cannot be retrieved easily for each of the years in question. However, in 1995 the sources of disclosures were:

  Origin of disclosure

  Percentage of total

  Banks and building societies

  80

  Insurance companies

  5

  Bureau de change

  4

  Solicitors and accountants

  2

  158

  Origin of disclosure

  Percentage of total

  Independent financial advisers

  1

  Credit/debit companies

  0.5

  Industry regulators

  0.1

  Other sources accounting for less than 1 per cent, each (e.g. car/boat salesman)

  7

  Criminal Offences (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were(a) cautioned and (b) convicted in court of committing a criminal offence in Staffordshire in the latest year for which figures are available (i) in total and (ii) broken down to show those aged under (1) 16, (2) 21 and (3) 25 years; [37887]

  (2) how many people convicted of criminal offences in Staffordshire for the latest year for which figures are available were (a)registered unemployed and (b)without employment. [37888]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1994, the latest available, on the number of persons cautioned and convicted by age group in the Staffordshire area is given in the table.

  Information on the employment status of defendants appearing before the courts is not recorded centrally.

  Number of offenders cautioned and convicted at all courts in Staffordshire Police Force Area by age and type of offence 1994

  Age/disposal

  Indictable offences

  Summary non-motoring offences

  All offences excluding summary motoring

  Aged 10 and under 16

  Cautioned

  1,685

  453

  2,138

  Convicted

  365

  103

  468

  Total

  2,050

  556

  2,606

  Aged 16 and under 21

  Cautioned

  860

  372

  1,232

  Convicted

  1,872

  944

  2,816

  Total

  2,732

  1,316

  4,048

  Aged 21 and under 25

  Cautioned

  359

  147

  506

  Convicted

  1,290

  1,283

  2,573

  Total

  1.649

  1,430

  3,079

  All ages

  Cautioned

  4,010

  1,398

  5,408

  Convicted

  6,110

  8,720

  14,830

  Total

  10,120

  10,118

  20,238

  Detective Inspector Gladding
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Gloucester on what disciplinary action has been taken against Detective Inspector Gladding following the comments in the Appeal Court in the case of R.v. Mills and Poole; and if he will make a statement. [38183]
  159
  Mr. Maclean
  No disciplinary action has been taken. The Police Complaints Authority announced in March 1993, following a full investigation by the then assistant chief constable of Thames Valley, that there was no evidence to justify disciplinary proceedings against any officers in the case.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers, and from which countries, have had their applications considered under the short procedure from(a) 15 March 1995 until 27 November 1995, (b) 27 November 1995 until 20 March 1996 and (c) 20 March 1996 to the latest convenient date; how many of these applications in each period were (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) transferred to the full procedure. [38429]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The requested information on short procedure applications is given in the tables. Over the period 15 May 1995 to 30 June 1996, there were 5,735 refusals and three grants of asylum from short procedure applications. As at 30 June, there were 996 cases still under consideration. Information on cases transferred is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Short procedure applications, by nationality, 15 May–30 November 1995

  Number

  Nigeria

  528

  India

  255

  Pakistan

  221

  Romania

  143

  Ghana

  138

  Poland

  45

  Algeria

  15

  Kenya

  14

  Tanzania

  11

  Uganda

  11

  Gambia

  6

  Bulgaria

  6

  Columbia

  4

  Sri Lanka

  3

  Zaire

  2

  Ivory Coast

  2

  Zimbabwe

  2

  Others

  11

  Total

  1,417

  Short procedure applications, by nationality, 1 December 1995–31 March 1996

  Number

  Nigeria

  618

  India

  451

  Pakistan

  322

  Algeria

  310

  Ghana

  205

  Poland

  78

  Sierra Leone

  74

  Romania

  66

  Gambia

  53

  Turkey

  50

  Bulgaria

  45

  Sri Lanka

  39

  Bangladesh

  29

  Kenya

  26

  Ivory Coast

  25

  160

  Short procedure applications, by nationality, 1 December 1995–31 March 1996

  Number

  Tanzania

  16

  Zaire

  14

  Lithuania

  13

  Columbia

  8

  Slovakia

  8

  Cyprus

  7

  Jamaica

  7

  Ethiopia

  6

  China

  5

  Angola

  5

  Czech Republic

  5

  Cameroon

  4

  Uganda

  3

  Zimbabwe

  3

  Russia

  3

  Brazil

  3

  Guyana

  3

  Hungary

  3

  Sudan

  2

  Eritrea

  2

  Estonia

  2

  Peru

  2

  Others

  19

  Total

  2,534

  Short procedure applications, by nationality, 1 April-30 June 1996

  Number

  Nigeria

  528

  Pakistan

  314

  India

  292

  Algeria

  203

  Ghana

  194

  Sir Lanka

  173

  Columbia

  113

  China

  93

  Sierra Leone

  85

  Romania

  79

  Turkey

  75

  Poland

  69

  Lithuania

  54

  Bangladesh

  52

  Bulgaria

  50

  Gambia

  45

  Zaire

  45

  Ecuador

  36

  Cyprus

  25

  Angola

  22

  Russia

  16

  Sudan

  16

  Ukraine

  16

  Zimbabwe

  15

  Ivory Coast

  11

  Tanzania

  11

  Jamaica

  11

  Kenya

  10

  Lebanon

  10

  Uganda

  9

  Cameroon

  9

  Ethiopia

  8

  Congo

  8

  Togo

  7

  Slovakia

  6

  Eritrea

  6

  South Africa

  6

  Burundi

  5

  161

  Short procedure applications, by nationality, 1 April-30 June 1996

  Number

  Egypt

  5

  Philippines

  5

  Brazil

  2

  Estonia

  2

  Gabon

  2

  Kuwait

  2

  Benin

  2

  Cuba

  2

  Honduras

  2

  Sengal

  2

  Others

  30

  Total

  2,783

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases for the last year for which figures are available an in-country asylum application led to an applicant being issued with a visitor visa to Britain. [39034]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The requested information is not available.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to the immigration and nationality department on the treatment of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom by an Iranian national who leaves Iran legally; and if he will make a statement. [38961]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  It is understood that stringent checks are in place at airports in Iran, making it difficult for a person of interest to the authorities there to leave with a passport in their own identity. This situation is taken into account when applications for asylum from Iranians are considered, but each case is considered individually on its merits under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, and asylum or exceptional leave is granted in appropriate cases.

  Violence
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in percentage terms the main causes of injury in incidents of violence against persons in the last available year. [38324]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available relates to offences of homicide and firearms offences. Statistics on offences currently recorded as homicide by apparent method of killing are published in table 4.3. of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1994". Table 3.8 of the same publication gives figures for overall notifiable offences in which firearms were reported to have caused injury. A copy of the Criminal Statistics publication is available in the Library.

  Ban Glasses (Injury)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the compensation awarded annually by the Criminal Injuries 162
  Compensation Board to victims of injuries caused by bar glasses. [38323]

  Mr. Maclean
  The board comments that a significant number of injuries are known to arise from incidents in public houses and similar places, but no estimate is available of the amounts paid to victims of bar glass injuries.

  Immigration Rules
  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 (1) entry clearance, (2) leave to enter the United Kingdom and (3) leave to remain in the United Kingdom in 1994, 1995 and 1996 to the latest convenient date under the provisions of paragraphs 169–75 of the Consolidated Immigration Rules, HC 395 of Session 1994–95 as (x) ministers of religion, (y) missionaries and (z) members of religious orders. [38426]

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

  Stalking
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to recommend to the chief constable one of whose serving officers has been said, by a presiding judge, to have stalked a neighbour. [38744]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The matter is entirely for the chief constable to consider.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total public expenditure(a) in each of the last available five years and (b) in total over the last five years, in constant prices, on the identification of alternatives to the use of animals for scientific testing. [37519]

  Mr. Sackville
  The research into alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures for which the Home Office is responsible is that granted through the Animal Procedures Committee

  (a) In each of the last five years this has amounted to:

  1991–92: £215.000

  1992–93: £253.000

  1993–94: £308,000

  1994–95: £273,000

  1995–96: £253,000

  (b)The total expenditure over the last five years, in constant 1995–96 prices, is £1,365,309.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for each of the last five years, as at 31 March, for(a) each borough and (b) the Metropolitan police as a whole, (i) the population and (ii) the number of officers per 10,000 population; [38282]
  163
  (2) if he will list for each of the last five years, as at 31 March, for (a) each division, (b)each borough and (c) the Metropolitan police as a whole, the number of police officers. [38281]

  Mr. Maclean
  A borough/divisional breakdown is Hammersmith available only using current strength figures; historical and borough/divisional strength is not recorded. The other information requested is as follows:

  Borough and division

  Current police strength (as at 18 July 1996)

  Population (as at 30 June 1994)

  Number of officers per 10,000 population

  Barking and Dagenham

  304.45

  155,018

  19.6

  Dagenham

  304.45

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  751.81

  308,300

  24.4

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  293.26

  Golders Green

  223.3

  West Hendon

  235.25

  Bexley

  293.05

  220,432

  13.3

  Bexleyheath

  293.05

  Brent

  626.3

  244,467

  26.6

  Wembley

  268.6

  Willesden Green

  357.7

  Bromley

  474.14

  293,019

  16.2

  Bromley and Orpington

  474.14

  Camden

  696.26

  182,448

  38.1

  Hampstead

  208.6

  Holborn

  201.8

  Kentish Town

  285.86

  City of Westminster

  1,702.76

  190,743

  89.3

  Belgravia

  294.06

  Charing Cross

  401.4

  Marylebone

  332.3

  Paddington

  352

  West End

  Central

  323

  Croydon

  614.74

  326,736

  18.8

  Croydon

  288.36

  South

  Norwood

  326.38

  Ealing

  635.52

  289,793

  21.9

  Ealing

  347.03

  Southall

  288.49

  Enfield

  543.88

  259,773

  20.9

  Edmonton

  261.78

  Enfield

  282.1

  Greenwich

  623.45

  212,332

  29.4

  Greenwich

  296.5

  Plumstead

  326.95

  Hackney

  667.14

  192,492

  34.7

  Stoke

  Newington

  346.34

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  320.8

  164

  Borough and division

  Current police strength (as at 18 July 1996)

  Population (as at 30 June 1994)

  Number of officers per 10,000 population

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  535.18

  156,597

  34.2

  Fulham

  206.73

  Hammersmith

  328.45

  Haringey

  528.1

  212,332

  24.9

  Hornsey

  267.4

  Tottenham

  260.7

  Harrow

  292.6

  210,308

  13.9

  Harrow

  292.6

  Havering

  366.65

  231,706

  15.8

  Havering

  366.65

  Hillingdon

  428.6

  243,387

  17.6

  Hillingdon

  428.6

  Hounslow

  861.89

  202,790

  42.5

  Chiswick

  202.2

  Hounslow

  272.7

  Heathrow

  Airport

  386.99

  Islington

  546

  175,203

  31.2

  Holloway

  259.9

  Islington

  286.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  635.1

  150,237

  42.3

  Brompton

  384.7

  Notting Hill

  250.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  384.44

  138,522

  27.8

  Kingston

  384.44

  Lambeth

  974.75

  260,763

  37.4

  Brixton

  323.7

  Streatham

  277.71

  Vauxhall

  373.34

  Lewisham

  625

  242,472

  25.8

  Catford

  289.4

  Lewisham

  335.6

  Merton

  320.05

  177,259

  18.1

  Wimbledon

  320.05

  Newham

  633.88

  226,850

  27.9

  Forest Gate

  323.48

  Plaistow

  310.4

  Redbridge

  545.5

  225,102

  24.2

  Ilford

  249.6

  Barkingside

  295.9

  Richmond upon Thames

  306.65

  172,035

  17.8

  Twickenham

  306.65

  Southwark

  1,020.36

  228,767

  44.6

  Peckham

  374.38

  Southwark

  373.88

  Walworth

  272.1

  Sutton

  418.43

  173,376

  24.1

  Epsom and Sutton

  418.43

  165

  Borough and division

  Current police strength (as at 18 July 1996)

  Population (as at 30 June 1994)

  Number of officers per 10,000 population

  Tower Hamlets

  607.4

  170,549

  35.6

  Limehouse

  268

  Bethnal Green

  339.4

  Waltham Forest

  472

  221,790

  21.2

  Chingford

  239.1

  Leyton

  232.9

  Wandsworth

  659.28

  266,721

  24.7

  Battersea

  302.9

  Wandsworth

  356.38

  Year

  Number of police officers (Metropolitan Police as a whole) as at 31 March

  Population as at 30 June

  Number of officers per 10,000 population

  1992

  28,154

  7,387,272

  38.1

  1993

  27,867

  7,419,854

  37.6

  1994

  27,699

  7,456,173

  37.1

  1995

  27,480

  7,456,173

  36.9

  1996

  27,342

  7,456,173

  36.7

  The Surrey element of the population for divisions that straddle London boroughs and Surrey cannot be differentiated and is not included in the population figures.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of police officers per 10,000 population in(a) inner London, (b) outer London and (c) surrounding counties. [38284]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of officers per 10,000 population

  Inner London

  140

  Outer London

  122.6

  Thames Valley

  218.5

  Essex

  219.5

  Herts

  220.5

  Kent

  220.5

  Surrey

  221.5

  1 Metropolitan Police figures as at 18 July using the population count supplied by Office for National Statistics as at June 1994.

  2 HMIC figures for surrounding counties are correct as at March 1996.

  The figures for London exclude officers based at

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for offences of domestic burglary in the Metropolitan police area by quarter from April 1993 to December 1994

  1993

  1994

  April-June

  July-September

  October-December

  January-March

  April-June

  July-September

  October-December

  Prosecutions = 100 per cent.

  1,024

  1,048

  1,039

  1,024

  1,019

  1,017

  991

  Convictions

  Number

  619

  674

  656

  616

  615

  681

  607

  Per cent.

  60

  64

  63

  60

  60

  67

  61

  The majority of cases held in the earlier part of the period will involve offences committed prior to the instigation of Operation Bumblebee across the Metropolitan police area in June 1993.

  166
  headquarters departments on area and in portfolio units; and in holding branch. The figures for outer London include divisions which cover parts of the Metropolitan police district outside the London boroughs; and exclude Spelthorne division, which falls wholly within Surrey.

  Metropolitan Police Budgets
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the 221,790 21.2 Home Department on what basis budgets within the Metropolitan police are allocated to divisions. [38283]

  Mr. Maclean
  The allocation of budgets to individual divisions within the Metropolitan police is a matter for the commissioner and his senior colleagues. I understand that the process is supported by a resource allocation formula which seeks to direct resources in line with objective measures of need and in line with the five core territorial policing functions—traffic, crime, response, partnership and the Queen's peace—undertaken by the Metropolitan police. Headquarters' branches and corporate projects are not funded under the resource allocation formula but receive funding separately through "top slicing".

  Theft Act
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose amendments to the Theft Act 1968 to reverse the decision in Regina v. Preddy to the effect that a transfer of funds between bank accounts is not a transfer of property. [38221]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are committed to introducing legislation to combat loan fraud, as proposed by the Law Commission in its report, "Conspiracy to Defraud" (Law Comm 228), at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Operation Bumblebee
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give for each quarter since Operation Bumblebee was first launched the number of(a) people arrested, (b) those arrested who were charged, (c) those charged who were prosecuted and (d) those prosecuted who were found guilty from a (i) guilty plea and (ii) not-guilty plea. [38290]

  Mr. Maclean
  Detailed information on arrest and the number of people charged is not collected centrally and information regarding plea data is not available.

  The table shows the number and percentage of defendants prosecuted and convicted of offences of domestic burglary in the Metropolitan police area from June 1993 to December 1994—latest available.
  167

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the annual report of the board of visitors for the year ended 31 December 1995, what plans he has to replace the integral bars in the living accommodation of HM prison Buckley Hall to prevent self-harm by prisoners. [38349]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about plans to replace the integral bars in the living accommodation at Buckley Hall prison to prevent self-harm by prisoners.
  There are no plans to replace the integral bars in the living accommodation at Buckley Hall prison.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are currently available to deal with persistent young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [38681]

  Mr. Maclean
  The courts have a wide range of powers to deal with persistent young offenders aged 10 to 17 years. These can include community sentences as well as powers to involve parents of offenders. More particularly, courts may impose long terms of detention on 10 to 17-year-olds, up to an adult maximum, for grave offences. courts may also impose sentences of detention in a young offender institution for up to two years for any other imprisonable offence if the young person is at least 15 years old. The Government will also be introducing a new secure training order which will provide a vigorous regime based on care, discipline and education for persistent young offenders aged 12 to 14 years.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of young offenders(a)reoffended and (b)reoffended with a more serious offence in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [38682]

  Miss Widdecombe
  With respect to(a) the recent information on reoffending of young offenders relates to a sample of young offenders discharged from prison in 1992. Within two years of discharge, 72 per cent. of the males and 51 per cent. of the females had been reconvicted for a standard list offence.

  With respect to (b)there is no standard classification of offences, according to their seriousness. Information has, however, been published that relates the type of offence for which offenders were originally convicted with the offence at first reconviction. Table 10.8 in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales 1994" (Cm 3087) contains information on the percentage of first reconvictions in various offence type categories for male young offenders. A copy of this publication has been placed in the Library.
  168

  Alcohol Prohibition Orders
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many local authority areas orders prohibiting the public consumption of alcohol in specified places have been made, in each of the last five years; [38947]

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) the Police Federation, (b)the Association of Chief Police Officers and (c) local authority associations regarding the effectiveness of measures to prohibit the public consumption of alcohol in specified areas; and if he will make a statement. [38946]

  Mr. Sackville
  Annual figures are not available, but since its introduction in 1990 33 local authorities have adopted the byelaw which prohibits the consumption of alcohol in designated places.

  No representations have been received about its effectiveness.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted under byelaws prohibiting the public consumption of alcohol in specified places in each of the last four years in England. [38945]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested cannot be identified separately from other summary offences.

  Mohammed Riaz
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is to be taken on the transfer of Mohammed Riaz currently detained in Her Majesty's prison Frankland to a category B prison; and if he will make a statement. [38957]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about when Mohammed Riaz, who is imprisoned at Frankland prison, will be transferred to a category B prison.
  Mr. Riaz is serving life imprisonment having been convicted of murder and false imprisonment in 1984. Since 1990, he has been considered a category B prisoner and, like most prisoners of his categorisation at this stage of a life sentence, he is held at a dispersal prison which holds both category A and category B prisoners.
  In line with normal arrangements for the regular assessment of life sentenced prisoners, Mr. Riaz's allocation will be considered further in August. I cannot at this stage say whether or when he will be considered as suitable for transfer to a category B prison.

  Betting and Gaming (Deregulation)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated annual saving to private business and to public funds for the Deregulation (Gaming Machines and Betting Office Facilities) Order.[39155]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The industry estimates that the new all cash amusement with prizes machines, and jackpot machines in casinos, will generate £9 million to
  169
  £14 million additional profits and at least £2 million in taxes. Estimates are not available of the effect of the other provisions.

  Drugs
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government propose in respect of the import of(a) khat, (b) gammahydroxybutyrate and (c) "cake" to the United Kingdom. [38968]

  Mr. Sackville
  Neither the khat plant nor the substances gammahydroxybutyrate—GHB—or "cake", which we understand refers to 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-benzylamphetamine, are controlled under the international United Nations drug conventions or under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs considered the misuse of khat in 1988 and advised that there was no evidence of a social problem arising from its misuse in the United Kingdom such as to justify bringing the plant under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We have no current plan to bring khat under legislative controls but will continue to monitor the position.

  The misuse of GHB is to be review by the advisory council at its next meeting in November.

  We are not aware of any reports of misuse in the United Kingdom of the substance known as "cake" but the advisory council nevertheless has under review the question whether this and a number of similar substances should be brought within the scope of the 1971 Act.

  Detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedural changes will be made following the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 February in Singh and Hussain concerning the release of prisoners sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. [39718]

  Mr. Howard
  Prisoners detained during Her Majesty's pleasure who have served a period adequate to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, have their cases reviewed periodically by the Parole Board. At present, responsibility for their release rests with the Secretary of State. This responsibility cannot be conferred on the Parole Board or any other body without primary legislation.

  As an interim measure, I have decided to change the administrative arrangements for the review and release of such prisoners. These administrative arrangements will apply to all such prisoners whose next Parole Board review begins on or after 1 August 1996. The changes will mean that these prisoners may have legal representation and an oral hearing before the Parole Board. They will also then be able to examine and cross examine witnesses. They will normally receive full disclosure of all material relevant to the question of whether they should be released.
  170
  If, at that review, the Parole Board favours the release of a prisoner, I will normally accept such a recommendation. My consideration of all such cases remains subject to consultation with the judiciary, as required by section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  The Singh and Hussain judgments affect only the process by which the decision is made on whether to release prisoners sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. They do not relate to the period of detention which such prisoners must serve to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, or Parole Board reviews which take place before the end of that period.

  There will be no change to the dates set for Parole Board reviews of prisoners who have served that period, other than in the very small number of cases where I rejected the board's recommendation for release at the last review. Such cases will, exceptionally, be referred back to the Parole Board for early consideration under the new arrangements.

  Hong Kong
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Governor of Hong Kong has submitted a further report on the discharge of his functions under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990. [39720]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Governor of Hong Kong submitted his fifth report to my right hon. and learned Friend on 3 July. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Extra-territorial Jurisdiction
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of the review of policy on extra-territorial jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement. [39721]

  Mr. Howard
  I am today publishing the report of the review which I set up with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. A copy has been placed in the Library. The review advised against any general extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction because of the implications which so substantial an extension of jurisdiction would have for the procedures and rules of evidence of the United Kingdom courts. It recommended, however, in favour of the adoption of a set of policy guidelines, against which proposals for taking extra-territorial jurisdiction over individual offences committed abroad by British citizens and residents should be judged. These are:where the offence is serious (this might he defined, in respect of existing offences, by reference to the length of sentence currently available);
  where, by virtue of the nature of the offence, the witnesses and evidence necessary for the prosecution are likely to be available in the United Kingdom territory, even though the offence was committed outside the jurisdiction;
  where there is international consensus that certain conduct is reprehensible and that concerted action is needed involving the taking of extra-territorial jurisdiction;

  171
  where the vulnerability of the victim makes it particularly important to be able to tackle instances of the offence;
  where it appears to be in the interest of the standing and reputation of the United Kingdom in the international community;
  where there is a danger that offences would otherwise not be justifiable.

  Meeting any of the guidelines would not mean automatically that jurisdiction would be taken, but it would be established a prima facie case for considering the issue further.

  The review also recommended in favour of the assumption of jurisdiction over acts of conspiracy and incitement committed in this country in respect of offences abroad. I and my colleagues have accepted both of these recommendations.

  The review further advised that sexual offences committed against children abroad satisfied a number of the criteria in the guidelines and, in the light of that, we have decided that we should take extra-territorial jurisdiction over such offences.

  Legislation to give effect to the proposals for conspiracy and incitement and child sex tourism will be brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Summary of firearms and other weapons and ammunition surrendered to the police aduring the firearms amnesty June 1996 by police force area

  Number of items surrendered

  England and Wales

  Total firearms

  Police force area

  Rifles

  Smooth-bore guns

  Hand guns

  Other firearms

  All firearms

  Total other weapons

  Total rounds of ammunition

  Avon and Somerset

  30

  354

  207

  287

  878

  41

  16,410

  Bedfordshire

  12

  86

  21

  54

  173

  15

  5,200

  Cambridgeshire

  21

  149

  47

  91

  308

  7

  8,066

  Cheshire

  37

  137

  69

  133

  376

  19

  11,969

  Cleveland

  5

  53

  27

  113

  198

  0

  4,043

  Cumbria

  29

  144

  80

  112

  365

  13

  7,243

  Derbyshire

  35

  87

  81

  134

  337

  20

  10,730

  Devon and Cornwall

  125

  450

  239

  296

  1,110

  71

  10,733

  Dorset

  53

  193

  110

  165

  521

  55

  24,321

  Durham

  18

  108

  61

  118

  305

  2

  4,774

  Essex

  68

  361

  123

  241

  793

  223

  15,994

  Gloucestershire

  30

  110

  23

  147

  310

  4

  5,200

  Greater Manchester

  21

  86

  97

  216

  420

  5

  17,981

  Hampshire

  71

  293

  0

  352

  716

  227

  27,500

  Hertfordshire

  13

  57

  37

  54

  161

  4

  5,366

  Humberside

  20

  109

  81

  49

  259

  198

  11,021

  Kent

  50

  215

  133

  190

  588

  63

  14,909

  Lancashire

  26

  185

  88

  205

  504

  36

  37,938

  Leicestershire

  26

  149

  67

  162

  404

  43

  11,490

  Lincolnshire

  44

  266

  57

  99

  466

  6

  13,909

  London, City of

  0

  1

  0

  5

  6

  0

  1,569

  Merseyside

  16

  39

  70

  120

  245

  36

  5,948

  Metropolitan Police

  70

  206

  283

  497

  1,056

  11

  34,895

  Norfolk

  20

  289

  79

  217

  605

  5

  15,155

  Northamptonshire

  16

  86

  58

  62

  222

  5

  2,411

  Northumbria

  44

  101

  109

  174

  428

  5

  16,499

  North Yorkshire

  26

  130

  68

  87

  311

  17

  9,259

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  200

  84

  217

  512

  18

  10,338

  South Yorkshire

  17

  81

  139

  115

  352

  180

  9,860

  Staffordshire

  24

  155

  71

  173

  423

  59

  20,635

  Suffolk

  57

  324

  107

  162

  650

  79

  16,468

  Surrey

  32

  111

  94

  131

  368

  91

  12,960

  Sussex

  73

  282

  208

  310

  873

  116

  35,002

  Thames Valley

  102

  316

  211

  235

  864

  53

  20,917

  Warwickshire

  15

  80

  48

  69

  212

  5

  9.666

  West Mercia

  29

  244

  85

  168

  526

  24

  14,047

  172

  Metropolitan Police (Information Technology)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary on information technology provision in the Metropolitan police. [39719]

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. I have today placed in the Library a note of the recommendations from the report, together with the commissioner's response and the police authority responses, which take into account the advice my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received from the Metropolitan Police Committee.

  Firearms Amnesty
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many weapons were surrendered to police during the national firearms amnesty which ran from 3 to 30 June; and if he will make a statement. [39722]

  Mr. Howard
  During the course of the recent amnesty, nearly 23,000 firearms, 700,000 rounds of ammunition and 3,000 other weapons were surrendered to police forces in Great Britain, I am very pleased with the response. Every one of the thousands of weapons which have been handed in no longer poses a threat to the community. The following table gives a detailed summary of the types of firearm surrendered to each force:
  173

  Summary of firearms and other weapons and ammunition surrendered to the police aduring the firearms amnesty June 1996 by police force area

  Number of items surrendered

  England and Wales

  Total firearms

  Police force area

  Rifles

  Smooth-bore guns

  Hand guns

  Other firearms

  All firearms

  Total other weapons

  Total rounds of ammunition

  West Midlands

  39

  129

  126

  303

  597

  55

  19,306

  West Yorkshire

  24

  97

  83

  145

  349

  519

  6,938

  Wiltshire

  55

  221

  61

  108

  445

  17

  15,180

  Total England

  1,404

  6,684

  3,632

  6,516

  18,236

  2,347

  541,850

  Dyfed Powys

  43

  292

  117

  41

  493

  4

  25,047

  Gwent

  17

  40

  22

  31

  110

  1

  1,366

  North Wales

  21

  148

  65

  98

  332

  0

  15,464

  South Wales

  20

  141

  74

  105

  340

  44

  7,309

  Total Wales

  101

  621

  278

  275

  1,275

  49

  49,186

  Total England and Wales

  1,505

  7,305

  3,910

  6,791

  19,511

  2,396

  591,036

  Central Scotland

  24

  83

  30

  78

  215

  33

  3,035

  Dumfries and Galloway

  40

  144

  26

  75

  285

  32

  4,983

  Fife

  20

  126

  30

  131

  307

  98

  12,900

  Grampian

  40

  298

  76

  133

  547

  116

  13,120

  Lothian and Borders

  50

  141

  64

  242

  497

  29

  14,455

  Northern

  70

  172

  51

  75

  368

  26

  18,504

  Strathclyde

  78

  284

  195

  379

  936

  45

  30,805

  Tayside

  32

  96

  60

  85

  273

  87

  6,359

  Total Scotland

  354

  1,344

  532

  1,198

  3,428

  466

  104,161

  Total Great Britain

  1,859

  8,649

  4,442

  7,989

  22,939

  2,862

  695,197

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in relation to recommendations made by adjudicators in dismissed or withdrawn immigration appeals. [39723]

  Mr. Howard
  There is no statutory power enabling an adjudicator to make a recommendation in an appeal which is dismissed or withdrawn, and I am not bound to accept such recommendations.

  It has hitherto been the practice to comply with adjudicators' recommendations, unless to do so would be unreasonable or inconsistent or would undermine general policy.

  I have reviewed this policy in the light of evidence that some applicants are lodging appeals which cannot succeed on their merits because of statutory limitations, but in which the appeal hearing is being used as a means of persuading an adjudicator to make a recommendation. Henceforth, I will act on adjudicators' recommendations in dismissed or withdrawn appeals only where the written determination discloses clear exceptional compassionate circumstances which have not been previously considered and which would merit the exercise of my discretion outside the immigration rules.

  Doli Incapax
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received over the use of doli incapax as a defence for juveniles between the age of 10 and 14 years; and if he will make a statement. [38101]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]Since 16 March 1995, when the House of Lords re-instated the common law presumption that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 is doli incapax, eight representations have 174
  been received: two letters from groups with an interest in criminal justice issues, three letters from individuals, and three letters from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

  Metropolitan Police (Custody)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people held, and for what period, in Metropolitan police stations in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [38106]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a total of 392,402 persons were held in custody in Metropolitan police stations between April 1995 and March 1996. The period of time for which each detainee was held is not recorded centrally.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were stopped and searched by the police in each district of the Metropolitan police, for each quarter, for 1994–95 and 1995–96; and if he will provide an ethnic breakdown of those stopped and searched. [38866]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were stopped and searched by the police in each police authority for each quarter, in 1994–95 and 1995–96; and if he will provide an ethnic breakdown of those stopped and searched. [38865]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]The following tables give information on searches of persons or vehicles under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other legislation. Statistics for the
  175
  first quarter of 1996 are not yet available. For the only information which is available on the ethnic breakdown of those stopped and searched in 1994–95, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 29 March at columns 792–93.

  Searches of persons or vehicles under pace and other legislation1 for financial year 1994–95

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Quarter 1

  Police force area

  1994

  1994

  1994

  1995

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  1,324

  1,357

  1,637

  1,746

  6,064

  Bedfordshire

  474

  435

  679

  415

  2,003

  Cambridgeshire

  897

  580

  575

  589

  2,641

  Cheshire

  231

  363

  196

  293

  1,083

  Cleveland

  695

  639

  1,290

  2,879

  5,503

  Cumbria

  1,708

  1,937

  2,355

  2,340

  8,340

  Derbyshire

  1,615

  1,730

  2,153

  2,539

  8,037

  Devon and Cornwall

  374

  396

  354

  247

  1,371

  Dorset

  489

  760

  614

  790

  2,653

  Durham

  879

  734

  780

  1,082

  3,475

  Essex

  1,283

  1,196

  1,279

  1,156

  4,914

  Gloucestershire

  807

  929

  1,039

  1,419

  4,194

  Greater Manchester

  11,191

  9,996

  10,232

  13,103

  44,522

  Hampshire

  614

  617

  890

  1,059

  3,180

  Hertfordshire

  1,411

  1,218

  1,253

  1,259

  5,141

  Humberside

  440

  358

  596

  788

  2,182

  Kent

  1,143

  710

  828

  890

  3,571

  Lancashire

  2,358

  2,095

  2,306

  2,561

  9,320

  Leicestershire

  3,768

  4,739

  4,971

  4,460

  17,938

  Lincolnshire

  531

  498

  481

  590

  2,100

  London. City of

  746

  775

  977

  1,096

  3,594

  Merseyside

  4,029

  3,544

  3,750

  3,522

  14,845

  Metropolitan Police

  72,378

  75,418

  77,634

  84,199

  309,629

  Norfolk

  1,689

  1,893

  2,218

  2,056

  7,856

  Northamptonshire

  846

  929

  1,349

  1,116

  4,240

  Northumbria

  3,223

  3,740

  5,504

  8,677

  21,144

  North Yorkshire

  745

  582

  736

  688

  2,751

  Nottinghamshire

  519

  594

  591

  747

  2,451

  South Yorkshire

  1,845

  1,580

  2,035

  1,990

  7,450

  Staffordshire

  504

  573

  635

  790

  2,502

  Suffolk

  908

  1,063

  893

  929

  3,793

  Surrey

  4,066

  3,869

  4,068

  3,405

  15,408

  Sussex

  1,342

  1,589

  1,685

  1,544

  6,160

  Thames Valley

  1,578

  1,541

  1,763

  2,656

  7,538

  Warwickshire

  1,401

  1,293

  1,360

  1,352

  5,406

  West Mercia

  2,183

  2,107

  2,690

  2,891

  9,871

  West Midlands

  1,668

  1,943

  2,118

  1,918

  7,647

  West Yorkshire

  1,015

  1,011

  1,306

  1,371

  4,703

  Wiltshire

  1,215

  593

  489

  384

  2,681

  Dyfed-Powys

  2,761

  3,846

  3,031

  2,959

  12,597

  Gwent

  759

  803

  1,065

  1,144

  3,771

  North Wales

  3,074

  3,435

  3,236

  2,762

  12,507

  South Wales

  1,690

  1,492

  1,430

  1,493

  6,105

  All forces

  142,416

  145,500

  155,071

  169,894

  612,881

  1 But not searches of persons or vehicles under S60 or S81 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Searches of persons or vehicles under pace and other legislation for financial year 1995–96 (Available quarters)

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Police Force Area

  1995

  1995

  1995

  Total

  Avon

  1,908

  1,829

  2,092

  5,829

  Bedfordshire

  484

  484

  702

  1,670

  Cambridgeshire

  824

  729

  630

  2,183

  Cheshire

  448

  313

  437

  1,198

  Cleveland

  3,357

  2,969

  3,334

  9,660

  Cumbria

  2,422

  2,231

  2,618

  7,271

  Derbyshire

  3,466

  3,135

  3,506

  10,107

  Devon and Cornwall

  567

  457

  907

  1,931

  Dorest

  673

  639

  666

  1,978

  Durham

  1,059

  706

  836

  2,601

  Essex

  1,517

  1,343

  1,722

  4,582

  176

  Searches of persons or vehicles under pace and other legislation1 for financial year 1995–96 (Available quarters)

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  Police Force Area

  1995

  1995

  1995

  Total

  Gloucestershire

  1,309

  1,235

  1,328

  3,872

  Greater Manchester

  12,014

  11,949

  12,168

  36,131

  Hampshire

  1,987

  1,694

  2,314

  5,995

  Hertfordshire

  1,355

  1,286

  1,466

  4,107

  Humberside

  593

  496

  582

  1,671

  Kent

  793

  675

  1,126

  2,594

  Lancashire

  3,005

  2,807

  3,050

  8,862

  Leicestershire

  5,005

  3,693

  4,418

  13,166

  Lincolnshire

  626

  950

  1,506

  3,082

  London, City of

  1,201

  1,298

  1,030

  3,529

  Merseyside

  4,411

  4,729

  5,791

  14,931

  Metropolitan Police

  83,890

  75,075

  76,208

  235,173

  Norfolk

  1,855

  1,522

  2,191

  5,568

  Northamptonshire

  1,234

  1,383

  1,455

  4,072

  Northumbria

  7,856

  7,965

  7,787

  23,608

  North Yorkshire

  802

  909

  1,119

  2,830

  Nottinghamshire

  843

  803

  795

  2,441

  South Yorkshire

  1,738

  1,363

  1,733

  4,834

  Staffordshire

  1,047

  1,224

  1,539

  3,810

  Suffolk

  904

  1,222

  1,026

  3,052

  Surrey

  4,233

  3,551

  3,501

  11,285

  Sussex

  1,721

  1,761

  2,070

  5,552

  Thames Valley

  2,992

  2,690

  2,756

  8,438

  Warwickshire

  1,336

  1,904

  2,050

  5,290

  West Mercia

  2,685

  2,977

  3,471

  9,133

  West Midlands

  3,505

  3,846

  4,478

  11,829

  West Yorkshire

  1,511

  1,419

  2,515

  5,445

  Wiltshire

  577

  608

  629

  1,814

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,806

  5,571

  3,420

  12,797

  Gwent

  1,255

  1,151

  1,367

  3,773

  North Wales

  2,907

  2,925

  2,823

  8,655

  South Wales

  1,241

  1,167

  1,570

  3,978

  All forces

  177,012

  166,583

  176,732

  520,327

  1 But not searches of person or vehicles under S60 or S81 of the criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Operation Eagle Eye
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of Operation Eagle Eye. [38867]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: I understand from the commissioner that during 1995–96, £4.8 million was spent on vehicles, technology and training in support of Operation Eagle Eye which is one of the agreed priorities for the Metropolitan police.

  Actual personnel costs for 1995–96 are not available but the commissioner estimates that personnel costs for Operation Eagle Eye for 1996–97 will be £17.1 million.

  Closed Circuit Television (Wales)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many schools in Wales applied for funding under the closed circuit television challenge competition; and what percentage of them were successful. [38879]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: There were 40 bids from Wales which included schools either solely or as an element. Eight of these—20 per cent.—were successful.
  177
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money his Department contributed towards each of the projects in Wales which were successful in the closed circuit television competition this year; and what percentage this was of the total cost of each project. [38877]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The information is contained in the table.

  Home Office CCTV challenge competition 1996–97 Winners in Wales

  Name of bid

  Amount awarded (£)

  Percentage of total

  Total capital cost of scheme

  Aberystwyth town centre and station

  62,000

  47.7

  130,000

  Bryn Hafren comprehensive school, Barry 1

  26,620

  75

  35,493

  Glan Ely high school, Cardiff1

  25,200

  75

  33,600

  Llanrumney high school, Cardiff1

  27,651

  75

  36,868

  Cardiff high school1

  21,546

  75

  28,728

  Cardigan town centre

  31,500

  48.5

  65,000

  Derwendeg primary school, Caerphilly1

  4,000

  66.7

  6,000

  Llandudno town centre

  130,500

  37.3

  350,000

  Llangefni town centre, Anglesey

  27,000

  49.1

  55,000

  Gurnos housing estate, hospital, shops, school and two business estates, Merthyr Tydfil

  217,500

  61.3

  355,000

  Blaenbaglan primary school, Neath and Port Talbot1

  12,072

  75

  16,096

  Dwr-Y-Felin lower school, Neath and Port Talbot 1

  10,538

  75

  14,051

  Penarth town centre

  59,000

  47.6

  124,000

  Swansea enterprise park

  71,500

  47.67

  150,000

  Total

  726,627

  51,9

  1,399,836

  1 Welsh Office contirbuted funds for these schemes.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took to inform eligible organisations in Wales of the closed circuit television challenge competition; what intermediaries were used in the information and distribution process; who received the information; what percentage of those receiving the information participated in the challenge competition; and what percentage of them were successful. [38878]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The closed circuit television challenge competition 1996–97 was officially launched at a press conference on 22 November 1995, which received wide coverage. On the same day, copies of the bidding guidance were sent to all chief executives of county councils and district councils; to all chief officers of police and clerks to police authorities; and to all chief probation officers in England and Wales. Copies were also sent to crime prevention
  178
  officers in every police force area, and to everyone who submitted a bid to the previous CCTV challenge competition. Further copies were sent to anyone who requested one and we are aware that others were distributed by local copying. No complete list of recipients were kept. There were a total of 64 bids from Wales; 8.1 per cent. of the total number of bids received. Fourteen of these were successful 5.4 per cent. of all successful bids.

  Street Robbery
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the arrest and conviction rates for street robbery for each quarter from 1994 to June 1996 for the Metropolitan police area. [38868]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The available information on arrests has been supplied by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is given in the following table. Information on conviction rates for street robberies is not available.

  Arrests for street robbery in the Metropolitan police district

  Year

  Number of arrests

  1994

  Quarter 1

  583

  Quarter 2

  591

  Quarter 3

  683

  Quarter 4

  753

  1995

  Quarter 1

  784

  Quarter 2

  1,214

  Quarter 3

  1,274

  Quarter 4

  1,260

  1996

  Quarter 1

  1,109

  Quarter 2

  1,138

  Recidivism
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the most recently available numbers of prisoners reconvicted within(a) two years, (b) four years and (c) five years of discharge from each (i) adult female local prison, (ii) adult female open prison, (iii) female closed training prison and (iv) female open and closed young offender institution; [38752]

  (2) if he will list the most recently available number of prisoners reconvicted within (a)two years, (b)four years and (c) five years of discharge from each (i) local prison, (ii) open prison, (iii) dispersal prison, (iv) category B prison and (v) young offender institution. [38745]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  179
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about reconvicted prisoners.
  I attach tables in reply to points (a) of each of these Questions. Information in reply to points (b) and (c) is not available at this time. I will write to you again giving you the information in the near future.
  With reference to (a), the most recent available information relates to a sample of prisoners discharged from prison during 1992. The information available is as follows:

  Table 1: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Local prison regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance 1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Bedford

  41 (17)

  51

  Belmarsh

  43(8)

  325

  Birmingham

  54 (10)

  183

  Bristol

  59 (13)

  112

  Brixton

  34(11)

  149

  Bullingdon/Oxford

  31 13)

  98

  Cardiff

  62(11)

  123

  Chelmsford

  37 (13)

  65

  Durham

  49(9)

  199

  Elmley

  61 (17)

  61

  Exeter

  47 (10)

  133

  Holloway*

  37(6)

  289

  Hull

  45(11)

  112

  Leeds

  63(8)

  209

  Leicester

  53 (12)

  109

  Lewes

  63 (12)

  92

  Lincoln

  45(10)

  125

  Liverpool

  57(7)

  299

  Newhall*

  49(11)

  85

  Norwich

  41 (12)

  116

  Pentonville

  45(7)

  414

  Preston

  56 (12)

  106

  Pucklechurch*

  51 (11)

  83

  Shrewsbury

  65 (14)

  66

  Swansea

  57 (15)

  71

  Wandsworth

  40(6)

  590

  Winchester

  54(11)

  123

  Wormwood Scrubs

  49(7)

  380

  Total

  49(2)

  5,100

  1 The range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, ie. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

  Table 2: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Open prison regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Askham Grange*

  28(7)

  149

  Drake Hall*

  30 (5)

  410

  East Sutton*

  32(8)

  137

  Ford

  20(6)

  354

  180

  Table 2: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Open prison regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the stimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance 1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  27(11)

  132

  Hewell Grange

  28(13)

  92

  High Point

  38(18)

  53

  Kirkham

  37(7)

  376

  Leyhill

  25(9)

  172

  Morton Hall

  41 (12)

  109

  North Sea Camp

  31 (9)

  132

  Rudgate

  29(8)

  188

  Standford Hill

  29(8)

  252

  Sudbury

  35(7)

  353

  Total

  31 (2)

  2,927

  1 The range of chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

  Table 3: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Closed Cat B regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figure in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance 1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Dartmoor

  56 (12)

  108

  Garth

  60(13)

  64

  Maidstone

  35(11)

  62

  Total

  46 (5)

  506

  1 The range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

  Table 4: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Closed Cat C regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance 1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Acklington

  51(8)

  264

  Aldington

  34(15)

  69

  Ashwell

  37(11)

  158

  Brockhill

  42 (12)

  115

  Bulwood Hall*

  43(11)

  80

  Camp Hill

  52(8)

  218

  Channings Wood

  43(9)

  185

  Downview

  23 (13)

  69

  Erlestoke

  31 (15)

  85

  Everthorpe

  70(11)

  71

  Featherstone

  40(1)

  165

  Haverigg

  64(8)

  186

  High Point

  43(6)

  394

  Lancaster

  56 (14)

  86

  Latchmere House

  25 (13)

  71

  Lindholme

  51 (7)

  368

  Littlehey

  35(11)

  114

  181

  Table 4: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Closed Cat C regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance 1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  The Mount

  29(9)

  147

  Northeye

  43 (12)

  136

  Norwich

  47 (15)

  76

  Ranby

  54(8)

  254

  Risley

  24(9)

  106

  Rochester

  43 (14)

  57

  Send

  38(15)

  59

  Shepton Mallet

  48 (13)

  91

  Stafford

  55(6)

  422

  Stocken

  39 (12)

  115

  Styal*

  54(9)

  136

  The Verne

  36(9)

  194

  Wayland

  22(11)

  92

  Wellingborough

  39 (13)

  83

  Whatton

  14(6)

  96

  Wymott

  59(6)

  442

  Total

  47(2)

  5,456

  1 This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent. confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

  Table 5: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from closed Y0I regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance 1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Castington

  67 (10)

  82

  Deerbolt

  82(4)

  461

  Dover

  63(7)

  209

  Feltham

  60(7)

  227

  Glen Parva

  72(5)

  358

  Hollesley Bay

  66(9)

  127

  Huntercombe/Finnamore

  63(7)

  220

  Moorland

  81 (10)

  77

  Northallerton

  72(8)

  138

  Onley

  73 (6)

  298

  Portland

  76(6)

  225

  Stoke Heath

  78(7)

  170

  Total

  71 (2)

  2,782

  1 This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, ie. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

  Table 6: Reconviction rates within two.years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Open YOI regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to change 1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Drake Hall*

  50(13)

  60

  Guys Marsh

  74(9)

  107

  Hatfield

  62(8)

  148

  Huntercombe/Finnamore

  53 (10)

  101

  182

  Table 6: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Open YOI regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to change 1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Thorn Cross

  67(7)

  187

  Usk/Precoed

  67(11)

  70

  Total

  64(4)

  727

  1 This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

  Table 7: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from short sentence YOI regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary accordingly to chance.1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Eastwood Park

  76(6)

  211

  Hollesley Bay

  66(8)

  163

  Werrington

  66(11)

  78

  Wetherby

  72(5)

  340

  Total

  72 (3)

  792

  1 This range for change variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

  Table 8: Reconviction rates within two years of discharge in 1992 for prisoners discharged from Juvenile YOI regimes. Female establishments are asterisked. Figures in brackets give the range above and below the estimate that rates are likely to vary according to chance1

  Establishment

  Two year percentage reconvicted

  Number sampled

  Feltham

  82(5)

  186

  Kirklevington

  96(4)

  118

  Onley

  89(4)

  271

  Werrington

  90(4)

  261

  Total

  89(2)

  836

  1 This range for chance variation is based on a 95 per cent, confidence interval, i.e. the interval in which the true value is likely to lie for 19 out of 20 occasions. Figures are not given where there are fewer than 50 prisoners in the sample for an establishment.

  Victim Support Groups
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the victim support groups in Wales that his Department supports financially; what level of support was given in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and what is the estimated support for each group in 1996–97; [38640]

  (2) how many victim support groups in Wales have paid members on their staff; [38641]
  183
  (3) what percentage increase there has been on the number of victims referred to each victim support group in Wales; and what was the percentage increase compared with the increase in funding for these groups during the last three years. [38642]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The Home Office local funding grant is channelled though the Victim Support national office and is allocated to local schemes and branches by the local funding panel, a sub-committee of the national council. Applications from local schemes are considered in accordance with criteria

  Victim support schemes in Wales

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Scheme

  Grant

  Referrals

  Grant

  Percentage increase

  Referrals

  Percentage increase

  Grant

  Percentage increase

  Referrals

  Percentage increase

  Estimated grant

  North Wales

  32,430

  573

  32,754

  1.0

  4,526

  689.9

  40,634

  24.1

  —

  —

  27,509

  Dyfed and Powys

  Cardigan and Carmarthen

  16,906

  2,669

  —

  —

  2,520

  -5.6

  17,246

  —

  1,868

  -25.9

  17,677

  Llanelli/Ammanford

  27,335

  —

  27,581

  0.9

  2,770

  —

  27,857

  1.0

  2,250

  -18.8

  27,857

  Pembrokeshire

  16,221

  2,338

  16,356

  0.8

  2,153

  -7.9

  16,520

  1.0

  1,776

  -17.5

  16,520

  Brecon

  16,906

  1,459

  —

  —

  1,332

  -8.7

  17,246

  —

  1,158

  -13.1

  17,677

  Montgomeryshire

  16,906

  1,800

  17,075

  1.0

  1,584

  -12.0

  17,246

  1.0

  1,379

  -12.9

  17,677

  Radnorshire

  15,378

  1,070

  17,054

  10.9

  936

  -12.5

  17,246

  1.1

  708

  -24.4

  17,677

  Ystradgynlais

  16,906

  899

  17,075

  1.0

  802

  -10.8

  17,246

  1.0

  677

  -15.6

  17,677

  Gwent

  61,717

  —

  62,334

  1.0

  —

  —

  62,958

  1.0

  —

  —

  64,532

  South Wales

  Bridgend

  24,420

  2,822

  24,638

  0.9

  4,502

  59.5

  31,364

  27.3

  4,537

  0.8

  32,148

  Caerphilly and District

  22,531

  1,646

  22,705

  0.8

  197

  -88.0

  22,932

  1.0

  1,173

  495.4

  23,505

  Cynon Valley

  7,872

  1,653

  15,880

  101.7

  2,732

  65.3

  16,039

  1.0

  2,294

  -16.0

  16,440

  Merthyr Tydfil

  22,602

  2,285

  22,802

  0.9

  792

  -65.3

  23,007

  0.9

  2,825

  256.7

  23,582

  Rhondda

  —

  1,305

  —

  —

  726

  -44.4

  —

  —

  1,708

  135.3

  —

  Taff Ely

  26,336

  2,717

  26,472

  0.5

  1,001

  -63.2

  26,736

  1.0

  2,041

  103.9

  30,644

  Upper Rhymney Valley

  14,008

  2,218

  14,148

  1.0

  150

  -93.2

  14,238

  0.6

  1,335

  790.0

  14,594

  Barry and Vale of Glamorgan

  20,904

  2,068

  22,815

  9.1

  531

  -74.3

  23,225

  1.8

  2,745

  416.9

  23,806

  Cardiff Greater

  —

  1,090

  4,000

  —

  485

  -55.5

  4,000

  0.0

  1,396

  187.8

  —

  Central Cardiff

  4,000

  1,422

  4,000

  0.0

  542

  -61.9

  4,000

  0.0

  1,050

  93.7

  4,000

  South Glamorgan

  4,000

  283

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Neath and District

  23,488

  4,602

  21,016

  -10.5

  291

  -93.7

  21,226

  1.0

  1,082

  271.8

  26,240

  Port Talbot

  16,906

  4,804

  17,075

  1.0

  302

  -93.7

  17,246

  1.0

  1,413

  367.8

  17,677

  Swansea and Lliw Valley

  32,210

  1,668

  32,838

  1.9

  1,311

  -21.4

  33,034

  0.6

  2,627

  100.4

  33.860

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase there has been in recorded tobacco smuggling-related crime since the inception of the single market. [38818]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Detections by the excise verification officers employed by Custom to combat smuggling of excise goods within the European Union for the first three years of the single market are shown in the table.

  Calender year

  Number of detections

  Total revenue involved (£ million)

  1993

  813

  1.2

  1994

  2,059

  3.6

  1995

  3,429

  6.9

  184
  agreed with the Home Office, but the allocation of funds to particular schemes and the priorities which guide that funding are matters for Victim Support, not the Home Office.

  The table summarises the available information. It is based on data supplied by Victim Support. Some reorganisation of schemes have occurred in the period, and not all schemes have received Home Office grant throughout it.

  In 1995–96, 19 victim support schemes in Wales had paid members on their staff.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Foreign Aid
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) tenurial, (b) land ownership, (c) land use and (d) land management conditions he has attached to foreign aid packages since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [38192]

  Mr. Hanley
  Where issues of rights and occupancy access to land are important, these are one of several key criteria we take into account when planning and implementing aid projects in both rural and urban areas. The conditions that ODA attaches to such projects vary depending on the nature of the project and the needs of the recipient country.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much financial assistance has been given to foreign aid projects to assist
  185
  with (a)alterations to rural land use, (b)alterations to rural land ownership patterns and (c)land management projects since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [38190]

  Mr. Hanley
  ODA does not maintain data covering expenditure on land issues in the form requested. It would therefore not be possible to provide a detailed answer without disproportionate cost. However, in the years 1989–90 to 1994–95, ODA support in the general area of land development/reclamation amounted to over £20 million; over £43 million was spent on rural development in the same period. A wide range of developing countries have benefited from such assistance, particularly the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia.

  Yemen (Disaster Relief)
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects assisted, indicating the financial amounts involved, in respect of United Kingdom disaster relief for Yemen following the recent severe flooding; and if he will make a statement. [38473]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UK responded swiftly and generously to the plight of flood affected populations following the severe flooding in Yemen last month. The UK's response has been as follows:

  Response

  Channel

  Value £

  Relief flight with consignment of tents and plastic sheeting.

  British Red Cross Society

  202,076

  Consignment of drugs.

  British Red Cross Society

  1,271

  Provision of technical expert for disaster assessment and coordination.

  UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs

  50,000

  Recruitment of planning specialists, and monitoring and supervision of field operations.

  Assistance to the Health

  Merlin

  100,000

  Sector Emergency well

  Care

  70,000

  rehabilitation Water tankering operations

  Oxfam

  70,000

  Total

  493,347

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Law of the Sea Convention
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer from the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy of 15 July,Official Report, columns 360–61, if he will set out the considerations as a result of which the United Kingdom has not yet ratified the UN law of the sea convention of 1982; and when the United Kingdom ratification is expected to take place. [38862]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  It is the Government's intention that the United Kingdom will accede to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea in due course. In the light of a number of continuing uncertainties in the international situation with regard to fisheries issues, the Government have concluded that now is not an 186
  appropriate time to accede to the convention. The timing of accession remains under review and Parliament will be informed as soon as the Government have taken a decision.

  Bosnia (War Crimes)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions the United Kingdom has taken to secure international funding to support the work of the war crimes tribunal in Bosnia. [38117]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is funded by assessed and voluntary contributions.

  We encourage all member states to pay their assessed contributions promptly and in full as we do. We have also made voluntary contributions of almost £600,000 to the office of the prosecutor and hope that others follow our example.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the implementation force—IFOR—troops have in seeking out war crimes suspects. [38118]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  IFOR troops will detain and transfer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia any persons indicted by the tribunal whom they encounter in the performance of their duties if circumstances permit.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Government's policy in respect of the political charter concluded in April 1996 between the Government of Sudan and the southern Sudanese factions. [39026]

  Mr. Hanley
  The charter contains positive elements. However, the largest southern Sudanese faction, the Sudan People's Liberation Army—SPLA—is not a party to it. It is not yet clear if the charter is a serious peace initiative.

  We urge all parties to pursue peace through negotiation. It is time for the Sudanese Government and the SPLA each to test the professed readiness of the other for peace. A monitored ceasefire, allowing unconditional delivery of humanitarian aid, would be an excellent start.

  Banana-producing Countries
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has received about and what assessment he has made of the effects of the exclusion of the Caribbean banana-producing states from the disputes panel at the World Trade Organisation. [38995]

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Commission, strongly encouraged by the UK, pressed for full African Caribbean and Pacific participation in the World Trade Organisation panel set up to examine complaints about the EU banana regime. However, the panel ruled on 13 June after the ACP states would be able to attend its first substantive meeting and present their case there. The Government have not yet received any direct representations from
  187
  Caribbean Governments about this. However, the UK will continue to encourage the Commission to ensure that Caribbean interests are adequately defended.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the time allocated to the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states to prepare their case for presentation at the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [38996]

  Mr. Davis
  The dispute settlement panel of the World Trade Organisation, established to examine complaints against the EU banana regime, ruled on 13 June that the ACP group of states would have to present their arguments in the WTO banana dispute on 13 August. Panel proceedings in the WTO are required to be completed within set time scales, and the time allocation in this case is no different from other cases. The Government will continue to support the European Commission in defending the interests of the ACP robustly in the WTO.

  Military Training Assistance Scheme
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy, when considering the consolidation of the assessment and monitoring procedures of the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme, to include selection methods, regulation of training methods, content of the training programme and procedures for follow up assessment. [38624]

  Mr. David Davis
  Selection methods and follow up assessments are regularly monitored to ensure that this Department's UKMTAS programme for overseas countries is achieving value for money and overall objectives. Training course content and methodology are the responsibility of the various UK training establishments, which operate to high professional standards.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to replace the present method of assessment of the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme in Guatemala with an assessment and monitoring procedure which is wholly independent. [33623]

  Mr. Davis
  The scheme is already constantly monitored to ensure that value for money and overall foreign policy objectives are being achieved.

  MEPs (Allowances)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what United Kingdom taxes the general expenditure allowance and the secretarial assistance allowance paid to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament are subject. [38963]

  Mr. David Davis
  The allowances of Members of the European Parliament are not subject to UK taxes.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the rules governing the payment of the international travel allowance to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament for non-official meetings. [39865]
  188
  Mr. Davis
  To claim the travel allowance, Members of the European Parliament must make a declaration that the journey was made in pursuit of their duties and provide supporting documentation in the form of an invitation or programme of the visit. The European Parliament guidelines require Members to produce tickets arid receipts in order to obtain a refund of costs.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level, in pounds sterling, of the allowance paid to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament for international travel not connected with official meetings. [38964]

  Mr. Davis
  A travel allowance of up to 3000 ecu or £2,480 per year is available to MEPs to meet the costs of travel in performance of their duties, for purposes other than official meetings.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level, in pounds sterling, of(a) the general expenditure allowance and (b) the secretarial assistance allowance paid to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament. [38962]

  Mr. Davis
  The general expenditure allowance is currently, 3,099 ecu or £2,562 per month.

  The secretarial assistance allowance is £8,937 ecu or £7,389 per month.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the administration procedure by which United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament claim payment of(a) the general expenditure allowance and (b) the secretarial assistance allowance. [38966]

  Mr. Davis
  Both allowances are claimed by filling out the appropriate application form available in the European Parliament. The general expenditure allowance is paid as a lump sum and without need to produce justification. The secretarial assistance allowance is only paid on declaration of a contact between a Member of the European Parliament and an assistant. The allowance is paid directly to the assistant.

  European Youth Foundation
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's Government withdrew funding from the European Youth Foundation under the cultural convention at the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement. [38956]

  Mr. David Davis
  The decision to cease our annual endowment to the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe with effect from 1 January 1997 was made in the context of our determination to take the steps necessary to reduce public expenditure and consequently, the burden on the taxpayer. Participation in the EYF is voluntary. Set against this backdrop, it was not possible to exempt the EYF from this process of financial constraint. We do, however, continue to support young people and European youth activities through our contribution to the general budget of the Council of Europe.
  189

  Overseas Missions (Asylum Requests)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the procedure followed by British missions overseas when foreign nationals of the mission's host country request asylum at the mission. [39033]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 22 July 1996,Official Report, column 40.

  Security and Intelligence Services (Industrial Tribunals)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of the Government towards access by staff of the security and intelligence services to industrial tribunals. [39610]

  Mr. Rifkind
  For reasons of national security, staff of the security and intelligence services have been subject to a general ban preventing their access to industrial tribunals. Following advice from the heads of the services, the Home Secretary and I have agreed that there should no longer be a general ban, but that decisions on whether access to industrial tribunals can be allowed should be taken case by case. Staff will be allowed access to an industrial tribunal in those cases where national security considerations can be met by the procedural safeguards available; where they cannot, access will continue to be disallowed.

  This change carries forward the Government's policy of protecting national security, while also protecting to the maximum extent possible the employment rights of the staff of the security and intelligence services on whose diligence, professionalism and commitment the nation depends. It does not affect the restrictions on union membership by staff of the services.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase the use of Gibraltar airport. [38488]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: We would welcome arrangements for the increased use of Gibraltar airport which would benefit Gibraltar and accord with Gibraltar's wishes.

  Entry Clearance Referrals
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to lay before the House the 1995 report by Dame Elizabeth Anson, the independent monitor, of refusal of entry clearance where there is no right of appeal. [39611]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have arranged for copies of Dame Elizabeth's 1995 report to be placed in the Libraries of the House today. I welcome the report and note Dame Elizabeth's recommendations, which will receive careful consideration.
  190

  Wassenaar Arrangement
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the negotiations to establish the Wassenaar arrangement. [39609]

  Mr. David Davis
  After more than two years of negotiations the Wassenaar arrangement was formally launched at a meeting of the 33 founding participating states on 11 and 12 July 1996 in Vienna.

  The purpose of the arrangement is to contribute to regional and international security and stability, by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilising accumulations. Participating states will seek, through their national policies, to ensure that transfers of these items do not contribute to the development or enhancement of military capabilities which undermine these goals, and are not diverted to support such capabilities.

  The arrangement will complement and reinforce existing control regimes for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, by focusing on the threats to international and regional peace and security which may arise from transfers of conventional armaments and sensitive dual-use goods and technologies where the risks are judged greatest.

  As part of the arrangement, participating states have agreed new control lists for military and dual-use goods and technologies. These are more focused than earlier lists on those goods and technologies which pose the greatest risk to international and regional peace and security. They are also shorter, thus benefiting British industry. A target date of 1 November 1996 has been set for the implementation of these new control lists.

  Participating states will exchange, on a voluntary basis, information that will enhance transparency, will lead to discussions among all participating states on arms transfers, as well as on sensitive dual-use goods and technologies.

  The Wassenaar arrangement is based on political, not legal commitment. All measures taken will be in accordance with national legislation and policies and implemented at national discretion.

  The arrangement will not be directed against any state or group of states and will not impede bona fide civil transactions. Nor will it interfere with the rights of states to acquire legitimate means with which to defend themselves, as recognised in article 51 of the charter of the United Nations.

  The Government welcome the establishment of the Wassenaar arrangement as a further step towards increased regional and international security. The UK will continue to play a full and active role in developing the arrangement further and in line with British interests.

  A copy of the "Initial Elements", which describe the operating procedures of the Wassenaar arrangement, has been placed in the Library of both Houses.
  191

PRIME MINISTER

  Sheffield City Council
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 April,Official Report, column 509, and the letter of 17 April regarding remarks about Sheffield city council, when the hon. Member can expect a full reply. [37119]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 16 April,Official Report, column 509.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July. [37412]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July. [37414]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House. I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if hon. Members may appear before the Intelligence and Security Committee. [38967]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. It is for the committee to decide whom it invites to give evidence.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the total amount spent so far arising from the Intelligence and Security Committee being established. [38841]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Direct administrative and staff costs—excluding accommodation—were £207,054 from December 1994 to the end of June 1996.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister how many officials work for the Intelligence and Security Committee; and what are their grades. [38842]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Four. One grade 7, one senior executive officer, one higher executive officer (development) and a personal secretary.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  General Practice Professorships
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many general medical practitioners hold chairs of general practice or primary care in United Kingdom universities and medical schools. [38393]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available centrally. 1 understand that there are 23 professors of general practice in post at universities in the UK.
  192

  Sex Industry (Advertisements)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will make it her policy to ban job advertisements associated with the sex industry from appearing in jobcentres; [38859]

  (2) what steps she intends to take to remove sex industry advertisements from publications available in jobcentres. [38860]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. David Hanson, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions asking if she will make it her policy to ban job advertisements associated with the sex industry appearing in Jobcentres and what steps she intends to take to remove sex industry advertisements from publications available in Jobcentres. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Employment Service (ES) has a responsibility under the Employment and Training Act 1973 to provide a public employment service to both employers and job seekers. We must therefore have strong reasons for refusing any employer access to our services.
  Jobcentres have written guidance which stipulates that they must not accept vacancies which: are illegal; would result in a breach of the law; might put job seekers at risk. It is not our intention to ban vacancies for an entire industry which would necessarily involve a very wide range of jobs. However, we acknowledge that there are certain types of vacancies that it would not be in the best interests of a public employment service to advertise, and our guidance explains this. The guidance also asks Jobcentres to take special care when handling certain types of vacancies, for example, those that offer employment in sauna baths or massage parlours.
  Any complaints Jobcentres receive from job applicants are followed up and where there is evidence that an employer is not genuine, or the vacancy falls into one of the categories described above, the service to that employer may be discontinued.
  The ES aims to provide job seekers with the widest possible access to job vacancies. Jobcentre managers can therefore decide to make available jobs newspapers for publications produced outside the Department, providing they are relevant to the employment, training or educational needs of job seekers. We have to consider the needs of the majority of our job seekers looking for work and not deny them access to vacancies because a publication contains an occasional vacancy which some people may dislike.
  It is not the role of the ES to censor private publications. There are governing bodies specifically for this. Advertisements appearing in newspapers and other publications must comply with the appropriate Codes of Practice, and any individuals having a complaint can ask the Advertising Standards Authority to investigate.
  I hope this is helpful.

  "Jobsearch"
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (I) how many jobcentres and job clubs currently subscribe to "Jobsearch"; [38916]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the quality of advertisements in the magazine "Jobsearch". [38915]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  193
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. David Hanson, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions asking what assessment she has made of the quality of advertisements in the magazine Jobsearch, and how many Jobcentres and Jobclubs currently subscribe to Jobsearch. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It is not the role of the Employment Service to monitor or attempt to influence the quality or content of privately produced publications. There are governing bodies specifically for this. Advertisements in newspapers or other publications must comply with the appropriate Codes of Practice, and any individual having a complaint can ask the Advertising Standards Authority to investigate.
  There are no central subscription arrangements for the Jobsearch magazine, nor do we keep centrally records of Jobcentres or Jobclubs which subscribe. To obtain this information would require disproportionate costs so I am sorry I am unable to provide it.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will monitor the impact of the introduction of employer contributions under the access to work scheme; and when she plans to make a statement on the impact. [37638]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about monitoring the new cost sharing arrangements in the Access to Work programme. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Access to Work is operated by the Employment Service. The budget is cash limited and the new arrangements introducing cost sharing from 1 June enable us to strike an appropriate balance between helping to meet the needs of people with disabilities and in making best use of available resources. We shall be monitoring the new arrangements and expenditure closely, including numbers separately identified of people unemployed, employed, and self employed on application for Access to Work support.
  I hope this is helpful.

  School Buildings
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will make a statement on the work commissioned by the Funding Agency for Schools from the firm of surveyors, Hunters; [38275]

  (2) what reports the Funding Agency for Schools has commissioned on the condition of grant-maintained school buildings. [38276]

  (3) what information she collates on the condition of grant-maintained school buildings individually and in aggregate, with special reference to the cost of the backlog of repairs and maintenance; and if she will place such information in the Library. [38277]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member with this information.
  194

  Schools (Parental Choice)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many parents secured the primary or secondary school of their first choice for their child in the most recent year for which figures are available(a) in total and (b) for each local education authority. [38583]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally. However, the most recent evidence—from surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and The Times in 1993—suggested that some 90 per cent. of parents gained a place at their first choice school.

  Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the licences issued by her Department; for what purpose they are issued; and what are the administrative costs for each. [38685]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department issues copyright licences under delegated authority from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. No separate record is kept of cost, but it is negligible and substantially less than the cost of one administrative level staff unit.

  Teachers (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the full-time equivalent number of teachers employed in North Yorkshire(a) infant and primary and (b) secondary schools in each year since 1974. [38929]

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

  Full-time equivalent of qualified teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools in North Yorkshire Local Education Authority area: 1975–1995

  Position in January each year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1975

  2,661

  2,805

  1976

  2,718

  2,945

  1977

  2,744

  3,059

  1978

  2,727

  3,126

  1979

  2,698

  3,160

  1980

  2,648

  3,219

  1981

  2,529

  3,197

  1982

  2,402

  3,178

  1983

  2,304

  3,205

  1984

  2,282

  3,197

  1985

  2,271

  3,073

  1986

  2,274

  3,017

  1987

  2,322

  2,938

  1988

  2,356

  2,852

  1989

  2,411

  2,814

  1990

  2,450

  2,795

  1991

  2,435

  2,800

  1992

  2,470

  2,805

  1993

  2,500

  2,851

  1994

  2,503

  2,758

  1995

  2,600

  2,822

  195

  School Security
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is co-ordinating to improve the security of schools in England and Wales. [38951]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the working group on school security, including for the provision of substantial additional funding earmarked specifically for school security. We have already strengthened police powers regarding the carrying of knives and other weapons on school premises. The security of schools in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total public expenditure for the training of outside consultants in the structure and language of national vocational qualifications prior to the publication of the Beaumont report; and what expenditure is planned in this regard for(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [39038]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department did not provide any training at public expense specifically on structure and language of NVQs prior to the Beaumont report. Following the receipt of that report and as stated in the Government's action plan a programme of professional development for people involved in the development of occupational standards and NVQs is planned for 1996–97, and will continue to be available until the end of the "review of all" in April 1998. A total training budget of approximately £60,000 is proposed for 1996–97. No specific amount has been set aside for consultants as opposed to others provided by industry bodies.

  We expect to spend a similar amount in 1997–98.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the level of current expenditure on(a) additional national vocational qualifications and (b) the revision of existing national vocational qualifications; and what expenditure is planned for 1997–98. [39037]

  Mr. Paice
  The current planned level of expenditure through the standards programme for work on additional standards and national vocational qualifications is £2.2 million for 1996–97.

  The current planned level of expenditure through the standards programme for work on revision and updating of standards and national vocational qualifications is £4.8 million for 1996–97.

  Decisions on expenditure on these items for 1997–98 have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total public expenditure on the development of standards for national vocational qualifications since the inception of the 196
  standards programme; and now much of this expenditure has been on outside consultants. [39039]

  Mr. Paice
  Total expenditure since the inception of the standards programme for national vocational qualifications in 1988 has been £83 million. It is not possible to say how much of this has involved consultants.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which courses are now no longer approved for output funding by her Department as a result of their removal from the NVQ national database; and for each course, what was the number of students taking the course in the last three years. [38257]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Three hundred and fifty-five vocational qualifications were removed from approval and closed to new entrants to training programmes between May 1993 and May 1996. Of these, 81 are no longer eligible for output payments to TECs; they are listed. Student numbers taking each qualification are not available as trainee data are collected on an aggregated basis by level of qualification for all approved types. Data are not collected by reference to individual qualification titles.

  Qualification titles:—Accommodation Services; Adult Trainers Award; Agricultural Machinery Partsmen (Special Examination); Agriculture Phase II; Aeronautical Engineering Competencies Part II; Animal Care (Small Animals) Phase 1; Animal Care (Small Animals) Phase 2; Animal Care (Special Examination); Automotive Glazing (GTL); Automotive Glazing (RTITB); Baking; Basic Quarrying (Special Examination); Basic Upholstery Skills; Beauty Therapy; Beauty Specialist's Diploma; Caring for Children (0–7 years); Certificate in Achievement in Forecourt Operations; Certificate in Cleaning Science; Certificate of Proficiency (Chemical Industry); Certificate of Tour Operating Practice Level I; Clothing and Knitting Craft Stage I; Community Care Practice; Cosmetic Make-up; Diploma in Health Community Care and Parentcraft; Diploma in Hotel Reception and Front Office Practice; Electronic Office Systems Maintenance; Electronic Office Systems Maintenance (Field); Electronic Office Systems Maintenance (Workshop) Family and Community Care; First Certificate in Caring; First Certificate in Leisure Studies; First Certificate in Science; First Diploma in Caring; First Diploma in Leisure Studies; Footware Manufacture Operatives Stage 1; Footware Manufacture Operatives Stage 2; Furniture Removing—Manual Operations; Furniture Removing—Sales Administration; Guide Dogs (Kennel Staff); Guide Dogs (Trainer); Horse Care (Level 1); Horse Care (Level 2); Industrial Ceramics (Special Examinations); Industrial Cleaning and Maintenance; Iron and Steel Production (Foundation); Kennel Craft (Special Examination); Leather Goods Manufacture; Light Leather Goods Skills Tests; Maintenance and Repair of Construction Plant Part I; Manicure; Meat Industry General Assistant; National Small Animal Care Certificate; Plumbing Craft (New Scheme); Practical Caring Skills Part II; Practical Environmental Skills; Preliminary Certificate in Applications Programming; Preliminary Examination for Banking Certificate; Preliminary Examination for membership of AAT; Process Operations (Man-Made Fibres and Film) Level 1; Process Operations (Man-Made Fibres and Film) Level 2; Recreation and Leisure Industries Part I; Recreation and Leisure Industries Part II; Road Haulage; Roadwork Craft; Saddlery Level I Skills Tests; Security and Emergency Alarm Systems Part I; Security and Emergency Alarm Systems Part II; Shoe Repair Stage I; Shoe Repair Stage II; Skillbuild (Level 1); Stock Administration and Handling Part II; Surveying for Draughtproofing; The Certificate in Accounting; The Certificate in Business Travel; Threshold Certificate; Tobacco Processing (Cigarette Making); Tobacco Processing (Cigarette Packing); Tobacco Processing (Cigarette Packing); Tobacco Processing (filter Rod Making); Tobacco Processing (Loose Tobacco); Vehicle Mechanics and Systems (Stage Two) National Craft Certificate; Waterman's Certificate (Special Examination) Part I.
  197

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which TECs have been visited in the past six months by officials from the European Commission Court of Auditors; and for what reasons the visits have been made. [39064]

  Mr. Forth
  Shropshire TEC was visited by officials from the European Commission Court of Auditors within the last six months. The visit was made to audit two European social fund project final claims relating to activity undertaken in 1995.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oman (University Construction)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what checks were carried out by Her Majesty's Government before the issue of export credits in relation to the construction of a university in Oman; if such checks included inspection of the physical plans for that university; which aspects of the project relating to the construction of a university in Oman were deemed to be for non-educational purposes; and what those purposes were. [36612]

  Mr. Nelson
  ECGD supported a financing facility for the Sultan Qaboos university project and a subsequent, related credit facility for a teaching hospital which is part of the university complex. In accordance with normal insurance practice, ECGD relies upon information given in applications for cover. Although, ECGD saw extracts of the contract it did not see physical plans for the construction of the university. Neither ECGD nor the DTI had or has any knowledge or evidence that the university has been used for non-educational purposes.

  Insolvency (Reviewer of Complaints)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by location the reviewers of complaints appointed by each of the supervisory bodies, sponsored by his Department, indicating who is responsible for(a) appointing, (b) dismissing and (c) retiring them and on what basis; and what remuneration each receives. [37335]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested by the hon. Gentleman relating to four of the recognised supervisory bodies for auditors—the Institutes of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants—is the same as that set out in my reply to his question about the recognised professional bodies for insolvency practitioners, 16 July,Official Report, columns 458–59. Complaints about members of the fifth recognised supervisory body, the Association of Authorised Public accountants, are dealt with through the complaints procedures of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official
  198
  Report, column 733, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested; [37530]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 March, Official Report, column, 366, about parliamentary questions, what method would be used by his Department in collating the information requested. [37531]

  Mr. Lang
  The examination of more than 26,000 files dating back to 1987.

  Audit Inspections
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint DTI inspectors to investigate auditing aspects of(a) the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, (b) Polly Peck, (c) Barings, (d) Sumitomo, (e) Levitt and (f) Ferranti. [37835]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No. My Department's powers of investigation extend to companies under the Companies Act 1985, but not to partnerships. The role of auditors in BCCI, Polly Peck, Barings and Ferranti are already the subject of investigations by the professions' joint disciplinary scheme. Initial investigations into Sumitomo are in the hands of the Serious Fraud Office and any auditing aspects arising out of the SFO investigation which fall short of criminality will be referred to the relevant recognised supervisory body for it to consider and take regulatory or disciplinary action as appropriate. The SFO has previously investigated and prosecuted in the case of Roger Levitt.

  Small Limited Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small limited companies failed to file their annual accounts and statutory returns within the statutory prescribed periods, broken down by size of company in the last available year. [37823]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The precise information requested is not available.

  However, in 1995–96, 23,954 companies which filed accounts late claimed small company exemptions from the full disclosure requirements of the Companies Act. This compares with a total number of small company accounts registered of 337,000. It is not possible to say how many of those companies which failed to file accounts at all within the period might have proved eligible for the small company exemption. Information on the filing of annual returns by those same companies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sealskin Order
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to revoke the Trade Descriptions (Sealskin Goods) Information Order 1980; and if he will make a statement. [39181]
  199
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Following two rounds of public consultation, my Department published notice, on 21 June 1996–28 June 1996 in Northern Ireland—of my intention to revoke the order. This has provided a further opportunity for representations to be made. I shall be considering very carefully all the additional responses I receive before making my final decision.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom share of exports of footwear by the EU in 1972, 1979 and the latest available date; and if he will provide corresponding figures for Italy, France and Germany. [38156]

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

  Percentage shares of EU1 exports of footwear2 1972, 1979 and 1994

  1972

  EU9 1979

  EU12 1994

  UK

  n/a

  4.7

  4.9

  France

  n/a

  10.4

  6.9

  Germany3

  n/a

  7.9

  9.0

  Italy

  n/a

  71.8

  48.4

  Notes:

  1 Shares of EU9 in 1979 and EU12 in 1994. Data for Greece, Spain and Portugal are not available for 1979.

  2 Code 64 of the Hannonised commodity coding system.

  3 West Germany in 1979.

  Source:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom share of and exports of footwear by the main manufacturing countries in 1972, 1979 and the latest available date; and if he will provide corresponding figures for Italy, France and Germany. [38157]

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

  Percentage shares of main manufacturing countries 1 Exports of footwear2 1972, 1979 and 1994

  1972

  1979

  1994

  UK

  n/a

  4.5

  5.9

  France

  n/a

  9.9

  8.5

  Germany3

  n/a

  6.7

  11.0

  Italy

  n/a

  69.9

  59.1

  Notes:

  1 Main manufacturing countries comprise UK, Belgium-Luxembourg, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, USA and Japan.

  2 Standard international trade classification (SITC) 85.

  3 West Germany in 1979.

  Source:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom share of EU imports and exports of footwear in 1972, 1979 and at the latest available date. [38170]
  200
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is given in the table:

  UK percentage share of EU(1) exports and imports of footwear (1972, 1979 and 1994)

  EU9

  EU12

  1972

  1979

  1994

  EU Exports

  n/a

  4.7

  4.9

  EU Imports

  n/a

  15.5

  15.4

  Notes:

  1 Shares of EU9 in 1979 and EU12 in 1994. Data for Greece, Spain and Portugal are not available for 1979.

  2 Code 64 of the Harmonised commodity coding system.

  Source:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of import penetration in footwear from(a) the rest of the world and (b) the EEC in 1972, 1979 and the latest available date; and if he will provide corresponding figures for Italy, France and Germany. [38164]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  United Kingdom import penetration for footwear for 1994, the latest year data are available, can be readily calculated from information published in "UK Markets AR 16" published by Taylor Nelson and available in the Library of the House. Comparable information for 1972 and 1979 is not available. Corresponding figures for Italy, France and Germany are not available.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full-time and (ii) part-time,(a) to work on press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39475]

  (2) how many staff were employed full-time or part-time (a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39429]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The numbers of staff employed in the press office and publicity branch of the Department's information directorate are as follows:

  Publicity

  Press Office

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  1996–971

  35

  1

  31

  —

  1995–961

  33

  1

  31

  —

  1994–95

  30

  2

  31

  —

  1993–94

  39

  2

  34

  —

  1 Figures include posts arising from the 1995 Machinery of Government changes.

  China (Tableware Imports)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the timetable for further European Council of Ministers' decision-making in respect of quotas of tableware imports from China; and if he will make a statement. [38811]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The European Commission is due to complete its annual review of these quotas, and to propose any appropriate adjustments, before 31 December 1996. The Council of Ministers will then consider the issue.
  201

  Companies (Payments)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 496, what was the cost of mailing the consultative document. [38907]

  Mr. Page
  The consultative document was mailed to all those consultees on my Department's company law mailing list at a cost of £541, including VAT.

  Off-shore Oil
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to ensure that orders for floating production units to be used in the development of United Kingdom off-shore oil reserves will either be built in the United Kingdom or have substantial United Kingdom content. [38116]

  Mr. Page
  My Department established a working group in 1994 to consider how to make United Kingdom industry more competitive in the supply of floating production systems. At the beginning of 1995, the group proposed a set of recommendations for Government and industry. These have been implemented and the competitiveness of UK industry has improved markedly, as evidenced by the several orders placed with UK companies for floating production system work during 1995 and 1996. Most notably, Harland and Wolff in Belfast are building what is expected to be the world's largest shipshaped floating production system for BP. Also, BARMAC, AMEC, SLP, Heerema Hartlepool and Brown Brothers have all won orders and UK industry is well positioned for further work.

  Civil Space
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the progress of the review of Government policy towards civil space. [39617]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I hosted the second United Kingdom space policy forum at Queen Mary and Westfield college on Tuesday 25 June. This was a great success with almost 200 senior members of the UK space community attending. As a result of the forum and the wide-ranging discussions during the review, I am now publishing a "Forward Plan for UK Space Activities", copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House. The plan will be presented to the press tomorrow and will set out key goals for the UK civil space programme.

  Companies House
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the results of the Companies House contracting-out programme. [39618]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Companies House contracting out programme announced by the then President of the Board of Trade in December 1994 has now been completed.

  The final element of the programme was concluded on 1 July with the award of a contract to Capita Managed Services Ltd. for the running of the Companies House customer enquiry unit and the postal search and search accounts service in Cardiff.
  202
  The contract was awarded on the basis of best value for money after a competitive tender in line with EC procurement rules. It will run for three years with an option for Companies House to extend for a further two, one year periods. The contract commenced on 1 July, and 46 full and part-time staff involved in the activities transferred to the contractor.

  In running the Postal Search and Search Accounts Service, Capita Managed Services Ltd. will be making records held by the registrar available for inspection by the public and providing copies of such records to the public. This is a function of the registrar determined by statute—Section 709 of the Companies Act 1985—and Capita Managed Services Ltd. has, therefore, been granted an authorisation for this purpose under the Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to the Registration of Companies) Order 1995.

  Following agreement in December 1995, Companies House mainframe computer services have, since April this year, been provided under an extension to the DTI's existing contract with Hoskyns.

  Competitive tendering has been carried out in respect of Companies House, London and the English satellite offices, Companies House, Edinburgh, and the remittance processing and office services functions at Companies House, Cardiff.

  In each case, after careful evaluation of the bids, I concluded that best value for money would be obtained by retaining these activities in-house. This is a great tribute to the management and staff of Companies House who have worked hard over recent years to improve quality and cut costs. The contracting out process has identified significant further savings and these will result in an even more effective service for customers.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the agency review of the Patent Office has been completed: and if he will make a statement. [39615]

  Mr. Lang
  An evaluation report on the performance of the Patent Office since its inception as an executive agency in March 1990 has been completed, and a revised framework document has been prepared. Copies of these documents, which complete the agency review process, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Export Intelligence System
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the results of his study into the value for money of the export intelligence system. [39616]

  Mr. Nelson
  I am pleased to report that the independent market research carried out for my Department by Metra Martech has found that in 1995 United kingdom firms earned between £300 million and £500 million of additional exports as a result of information provided under this system and that this represents at least £65 of additional exports for each £1 of support provided by the taxpayer. One in every four customers of the service did business as a result of its last year.
  203

  Subsidence Adviser
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the annual report of the subsidence adviser appointed under section 46 of the Coal Industry Act 1994. [39619]

  Mr. Page
  I have now received this report from the subsidence adviser and have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  AEA Technology plc
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the privatisation of AEA Technology plc. [39638]

  Mr. Page
  The Government have consistently said that decisions on the future of AEA Technology—AEAT—would be taken in the light of the performance of the business and on a basis which meets the needs and requirements of customers and serves the best interests of the taxpayer.

  AEAT has a strong management team led by Sir Anthony Cleaver and Dr. Peter Watson which has transformed the performance of the business over the past two years. However, the Government and AEAT management remain convinced that the company can realise its full commercial potential only in the private sector.

  In the light of what has been achieved, the Government have now decided that AEAT should be privatised later this year. The intention is that, subject to market conditions, privatisation will proceed by way of a flotation on the London stock exchange. In preparing for the flotation, the Government will continue to pay particular regard to the interests of the taxpayer, the company and its employees. The Government also remain committed to ensuring the independence and impartiality of AEAT's services to its customers.

  Stagecoach Holding plc
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent in carrying out its investigation into the acquisition of Chesterfield Transport (1989) Ltd. by Stagecoach Holdings plc under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973; [38650]

  (2) how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent in carrying out its investigation into the acquisition of S.B. Holdings Ltd. by Stagecoach Holdings plc under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973; [38652]

  (3) how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent in carrying out its investigation into the acquisition of Lancaster City Transport Ltd. by Stagecoach Holdings plc under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973; [38654]

  (4) how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent in carrying out its investigation into the acquisition of Portsmouth Citybus Ltd. by Stagecoach Holdings plc under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973; [38656]
  204
  (5) how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent in carrying out its investigation into the acquisition of Ayrshire Bus Owners Ltd. by Stagecoach Holdings plc under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973; [38651]

  (6) how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent in carrying out its investigation into the acquisition of Mainline Partnership Ltd. by Stagecoach Holdings plc under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973; [38653]

  (7) how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent in carrying out its investigation into the acquisition of Formia Ltd. by Stagecoach Holdings plc under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. [38655]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The estimated costs in carrying out the investigations are as follows:

  i Stagecoach Holdings plc/Lancaster City Transport Ltd.—£163,000

  ii Stagecoach Holdings plc/Portsmouth Citybus Ltd.—£131,000

  iii Stagecoach Holdings plc/Formia Ltd.—£68,000

  iv Stagecoach Holdings plc/S B Holdings Ltd.—£242,000

  v Stagecoach Holdings plc/Mainline Partnership Ltd.—£185,000

  vi Stagecoach Holdings plc/Ayrshire Bus Owners (A1 Service) Ltd.—£232,000

  vii Stagecoach Holdings plc/Chesterfield Transport (1989) Ltd.—£187,000

  The MMC introduced revised costing and budgetary arrangements on 1 April 1995. Reported costs from this date are on accruals based accounts; those for earlier years are cash-based. In addition, overhead costs were attributed on an estimated basis for earlier years. The figures for the first five inquiries are therefore not directly comparable with those for the last two.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent defending its actions against the application for judicial review in relation to the acquisition by Stagecoach Holdings plc of SB Holdings, the judgment in which case was made on 5 July. [38657]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The court has awarded the Monopolies and Mergers Commission its costs in these proceedings. At this stage it is not yet clear how much the total spend on MMC legal costs will be. The MMC's spend to date in relation to counsel's fees is £7,495.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much the Department of Trade and Industry spent in defending its actions against the petition for judicial review brought by Stagecoach Holdings plc in the Court of Session, the judgment in which case was made on 20 June; [38660]

  (2) how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent in defending its actions against the petition for judicial review brought by Stagecoach Holdings plc in the Court of Session in relation to the company's acquisition of A1 Service, the judgment in which case was made on 20 June. [38659]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The court has awarded the Department and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission its costs in these

  205
  proceedings. The Department and the MMC were represented by the same counsel. Spend in relation to counsel's fees is about £25,800. Other legal costs have not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the Monopolies and Mergers Commission spent defending its actions against the application for judicial review in relation to the acquisition by Stagecoach Holdings plc of Mainline, the judgment in which case was made on 5 July. [38658]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The court has awarded the Monopolies and Mergers Commission its costs in these proceedings. At this stage it is not yet clear how much the total spend on MMC legal costs will be. The MMC's spend to date in relation to counsel's fees is £8,533.

  Electric Shock Weapons
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received and what discussions he has held(a) within the UN and (b) with his EU counterparts about the possibility of a global ban on electric shock weapons. [38401]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: None.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to announce the outcome of the review into the operation of public interest immunity certificates; and if he will make a statement. [38225]

  The Attorney-General
  On 26 February, I announced that the Government were to seek the views of interested parties about the use of public interest immunity certificates. Although responses were invited by 1 May, a number of late responses were received, including some very recently. The views of those who have responded are currently being carefully considered. I expect to announce the outcome of the Government's consideration of this issue once Parliament has resumed after the summer recess.

  Marchioness Incident
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Crown Prosecution Service received the transcripts of the evidence given at the inquest which followed the sinking of the Marchioness; what factors have prevented a decision being taken on whether to initiate a prosecution; when such a decision is expected; and if he will make a statement. [39017]

  The Attorney-General
  The transcripts became available in stages, the final instalment having being received on Friday 15 December 1995. The Crown Prosecution Service has sought the advice of senior counsel. The matter is complex, but the Director of Public Prosecution expects to issue her decision very shortly.
  206

  Government Property Lawyers
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will announce the key performance targets for the Government Property Lawyers agency for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [39660]

  The Attorney-General
  On 18 July 1995, I informed the House,Official Report, column 1037, of the key performance targets which I had set for the Government Property Lawyers for 1995–96.

  The agency has carried out its work to a high standard and has achieved the targets which I set. I have set the following targets for the agency for 1996–97:

  To recover the full operating cost of the agency.

  To achieve at least 4,350 new instructions from its clients.

  To effect an average of 95 completions per caseholder.

  To maintain and improve the quality of service in particular by keeping the proportion of cases completed satisfactorily—that is, without requiring rectification by reason of any fault of the agency—on or before the target date at or above 99.5 per cent.

  Over the three-year-period, 1996–97 to 1998–99 to achieve a reduction in operating costs of an average of 2.5 per cent. per year in real terms taking 1996–97 as the base year.

  I wish the chief executive and his staff another successful year.

  Mr. Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to(a) lay before Parliament and (b) publish the annual report and accounts of the Government Property Lawyers for the year 1995–96. [39661]

  The Attorney-General
  The annual report and accounts for the Government Property Lawyers was laid before Parliament this morning and then published.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Chessington Computer Centre
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes have been made to the performance targets of Chessington Computer Centre trading fund for the current year. [39633]

  Mr. Freeman
  The only change to the targets I gave in my answer on 1 April,Official Report, column 19, is an adjustment to the financial surplus. As disclosed in the financial statement for the year ending 31 March 1996, the Chessington directors reassessed the carrying value of certain software assets and provision was made in these accounts for a diminution in value of these assets thus reducing future depreciation charges. Mainly as a result of these changes, the target operating surplus before interest has increased from £223,000 to £470,000.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each armed service the number of people who served in the Gulf war who have
  207
  subsequently died (a) while serving in the armed services and (b) since they were discharged; and if he will show in each case the cause of their deaths. [35004]

  Mr. Soames
  Figures for service personnel who served in the Gulf war and have subsequently died since the end of that conflict, while serving, are shown in the table:

  Deaths in service of personnel who served on OP Granby

  Cause of death

  Army

  Navy

  RAF

  Injuries and poisoning

  20

  6

  34

  Neoplasms

  4

  1

  4

  Disorders of the circulatory system

  1

  2

  4

  Disorders of the nervous system and sense organs

  0

  0

  1

  Infections

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  25

  9

  44

  Information on the numbers of discharged service personnel who have died since the end of the Gulf war is not available.

  I very much regret that in my answer of 12 June to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on this matter, Official Report, column 210, the figure for the total number of service personnel who had died during the conflict and subsequently while still serving was incorrect. As at 19 July this year, the correct figure is 117.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the private finance initiative for the provision, maintenance and management of the RAF's United Kingdom requirement for cars, vans and minibuses. [38989]

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the private finance initiative project for the provision, maintenance and management of the Royal Air Force's United Kingdom requirement for cars, vans and minibuses. [39550]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am pleased to announce that, following a competition a contract will be placed with LEX Service, for the provision, maintenance and management of the majority of the RAF's UK fleet of cars, vans and minibuses. The RAF has harnessed the opportunities offered by the Government's private finance initiative to secure private sector capital investment and management expertise for these vehicle services. A firm price five-year contract has been negotiated and savings of approximately £17 million are expected over the duration of the contract. The scheme will save money for the taxpayer, maintain the standard of service at less cost and allow the RAF to concentrate on its core business.

  Greenham Common Airbase Accident
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been released by the Government concerning the accident at Greenham Common airbase on 28 February 1958; what recent reassessment he has carried out of the validity of the conclusions of the 1961 Aldermaston report on the accident; and what are the current health implications of that accident. [39134]
  208
  Mr. Soames
  To detail all of the information released by the Government relating to this accident, which occurred almost 40 years ago, would involve disproportionate cost. My Department has recently released two previously classified reports on radioactivity measurements in the Greenham Common area and an unclassified report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The National Radiological Protection Board has carried out an independent assessment of the findings of the 1961 Aldermaston report and considered also the later reports published in 1986 and 1994. The NRPB announced on 18 July that if the data in the 1961 report are correct, the indications are that the radiological impact would have been negligible. The NRPB will also be carrying out a limited programme of measurements to provide further reassurance. We believe that the levels quoted in the 1961 report are well below any public health significance, and no subsequent monitoring in the area has found any elevated measurements.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 484, if he will place in the Library a copy of the paper on uranium and plutonium contamination around the Greenham Common airforce base when it is released to the Public Record Office. [39053]

  Mr. Soames
  Copies of the 1961 report have already been placed in the Library of the House, together with copies of a reassessment report on the 1961 findings, prepared in 1986.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 485, if he will list by date and locations the seven category one accidents involving nuclear weapons to which he refers; and if he will provide details in each case. [39052]

  Mr. Soames
  No. It remains our policy neither to confirm nor to deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular time or place.

  Forces Personnel (Commercial Organisations)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines govern the use of armed forces personnel by commercial organisations; and if he will publish them. [38687]

  Mr. Soames
  Service personnel are permitted to undertake employment during leave or off-duty hours with the approval of their commanding officer. Such approval may be given only if the activity in question does not contravene the relevant regulations which are to be found in Queen's regulations. Authority may be given provided that uniform is not worn, the service is not brought into disrepute and service knowledge is not used for the benefit of business. There are certain categories of employment in which service personnel are not permitted to undertake employment.

  The regulations are contained in the Queen's regulations for all the three services, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. Copies are also available from HMSO.
  209

  Vessel Transfers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the inspection arrangements for the vessels to be transferred to Serco-Denholm by officials of the marine safety agency; what is the timetable for such inspection; if Serco-Denholm will be responsible for ensuring that those vessels judged to be in an unsatisfactory condition are brought up to MSA requirements; and if he will make a statement; [38895]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the royal maritime auxiliary service vessels which are to be handed over to Serco-Denholm comply with MSA regulations; and if he will make a statement; [38890]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the financial arrangements he has entered into in relation to the transfer of royal maritime auxiliary service vessels to Serco-Denholm; [38905]

  (4) what guarantees have been sought by Serco-Denholm in relation to the seaworthiness of the RMSA vessels which are to be transferred to the consortium; and if he will make a statement; [38889]

  (5) what financial arrangements he has entered into with Serco-Denholm concerning the construction of vessels needed to service the Ministry of Defence contract; and if he will make a statement. [38943]

  Mr. Soames
  All RMAS vessels to be used by Serco-Denholm in fulfilment of its contract with my Department are being inspected by my officials and an independent Lloyd's surveyor as part of the process of ensuring that they comply with current Ministry of Defence safety standards.

  Following contract effective date on 12 August, Serco-Denholm will, as the contract requires, be responsible for ensuring that the vessels meet the standards of safety and certification operating in the commercial shipping industry and regulated by the marine safety agency (MSA).

  Initially the vessels will be supplied as Government furnished equipment but, after achievement of MSA certification, they will be chartered on normal commercial terms by Serco-Denholm. No financial arrangements have been entered into with Serco-Denholm concerning the construction of vessels. The vessels will remain Government-owned assets and the responsibility for procuring any replacements will rest with my Department.

  Wimbledon Tennis Championship
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces worked as stewards at the 1996 Wimbledon lawn tennis championship; how they were selected; if they were recompensed for the work; what was the total cost of the service; and what proportion of this was borne(a) by the championship organisers and (b) from public funds. [38686]

  Mr. Soames
  The total number of members of the armed forces who worked as stewards at the 1996 Wimbledon lawn tennis championship was 275.

  Service personnel volunteer for duties at the Wimbledon tennis championships as part of a historical association stretching back to 1946. They are allowed to
  210
  wear service uniform, but are required to take annual leave. They are not paid for their participation but are recompensed for their expenses by the championship organisers—the All England tennis club.

  There is no cost to public funds.

  Trident
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest planning assumption for the outstanding number of Trident D5 missiles to be procured from the United States of America. [39178]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Our current planning assumptions are that a further 21 Trident missiles will be purchased in three batches of seven in US fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999.

  Procurement Announcements
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department last announced a major defence procurement order during a parliamentary recess; what is his Department's policy concerning the announcement of large procurement projects when Parliament is not sitting; and if he will make a statement. [39067]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We make announcements on major defence procurement orders at the earliest convenient time after decisions have been made. In practice, we usually make such announcements when Parliament is sitting.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the total Trident missile purchase(a) will be deployed operationally, (b) will act as a processing margin and (c) will be used for test firings. [39179]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  On the basis of present assumptions, some three quarters of our currently planned Trident missile purchase will be available for operational deployment; a fifth are planned to be used during post-build or post-refit firings; the remainder will act as a processing margin.

  HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) of 18 July, when he expects(a) HMS Albion and (b) HMS Bulwark to come into service. [39068]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are both expected to enter service early in the next decade.

  Air-launched Anti-armour Missile
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military reasons underlying the requirement for an air-launched anti-armour missile capability. [39177]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  An advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon is needed to provide a capability against modern main battle tanks and other armoured vehicles that can be deployed rapidly to and around the battlefield; and which will enable us to attack enemy
  211
  forces at long range and before contact with our own ground forces. It will thus complement the attack helicopter, which is designed to operate at shorter range. Its stand-off capability will keep our aircrew and aircraft losses to a minimum.

  Defence Communication Services
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Defence agency status for defence communication services.[39548]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Currently responsibilities for Defence wide-area communications systems and information transfer services are spread widely across my Department. Staff currently employed in these areas number approximately 2,200 located in about 150 sites throughout the UK and overseas. The UK elements of these are likely to reduce considerably as the transfer of most of the Defence fixed telecommunications systems to the private sector takes place.

  Responsibility for the remainder of the Defence wide-area communications systems and information services is to be rationalised and considered as a candidate for Defence agency status—as the De fence Communications Services Agency—under the next steps initiative.

  A study is being undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. I would welcome comments from interested parties. These should be sent to:

  Major General W. J. P. Robins

  DGICS

  Ministry of Defence

  Room 1253

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  London

  SW1A 2HB

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the review of the convention relating to the disclosure of information to Parliament on the export of defence equipment has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [39551]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It has been the practice of Ministers in successive Administrations to decline, on grounds of public policy, to answer questions about arms sales, although some information is provided to Parliament, for example by placing the UK's submission to the UN Arms Register in the Library of the House. An examination of this convention was commissioned following the publication of Sir Richard Scott's report.

  As explained in the background note placed in the Library of the House on 26 February by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Government's policy on defence sales is based on respect for the right of other countries, as sovereign states, to protect their independence and exercise their inherent right to self-defence as recognised by the UN charter. The Government also place considerable importance on the maintenance of a healthy defence industry which supports
  212
  overall some 400,000 jobs, 80,000 of which are dependent on defence exports. Last year, British defence equipment manufacturers won contracts worth some £5 billion and the size of our export market is a major factor in protecting the security of supply and reducing the cost of the same equipment to our own forces. It therefore remains Government policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas wherever it is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests and to grant export licences on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria including internationally agreed guidelines and our treaty and other international commitments.

  There are four main reasons why, on occasions, information about defence exports should not be publicly disclosed. First, our national security may be jeopardised if a third country obtains details of an importing ally's defence inventory. Secondly, importing nations have their own legitimate security concerns and therefore an interest in protecting information about the detail of their defence inventory or, even on occasion, its composition. Exporters not prepared to respect these considerations will be seriously disadvantaged. Thirdly, providing competitors with commercially sensitive information may weaken the competitive position of British exporters, leading to lost orders and serious industrial consequences, not necessarily limited to the export of defence equipment. Fourthly, our bilateral relations with other countries might be weakened, potentially resulting in the dilution of the UK's influence.

  The Government share Sir Richard Scott's view that commercial confidentiality may, in many cases, continue to constitute a valid reason for withholding certain categories of information. The code of practice on access to Government information (Cm 2290) recognises the need to respect a third party's commercial confidences and other information given in confidence. It also recognises defence, security and international relations as reasons for withholding information. Nevertheless, these considerations need to be balanced against legitimate parliamentary and public interest in the provision of information about British defence exports, which are controlled strictly in accordance with our international obligations. We have therefore decided that we shall in future answer questions about defence exports as fully as the four constraints outlined above permit. Any exceptions will meet the test in the code of practice that the harm or prejudice which might arise from disclosure outweighs the public interest in making such information available.

  A number of other countries provide annual reports on defence exports, containing varying degrees of detail. The Government propose in future to include as part of the annual statement on the Defence estimates a report about defence equipment exports to supplement the information already provided elsewhere.

  Two other reviews arising from Sir Richard Scott's report are continuing which are relevant to the provision of information on defence equipment exports. Ministerial accountability and responsibility are under examination in another place by the Public Service Committee which has been asked by the Defence Select Committee to take account of the latter's submission, including the recommendation that Select Committee Chairmen be given, in confidence, details of the background when a

  213
  Minister does not give a full answer to a parliamentary question. The examination of export control legislation being led by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will include all issues relevant to strategic export licensing and procedures. The Ministry of Defence will be closely involved with both of these reviews.

  I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a more detailed account of the review just completed.

HEALTH

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff were employed full-time or part-time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94; [39419]

  (2) what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full-time or part-time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39444]

  (3) how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, (a) to work on the press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97; [39367]

  (4) what was the cost of staff employed full-time or part-time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94; [39411]

  (5) what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39349]

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

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were dispensed in each year since 1979; and how many were free of charge. [38010]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is in the table.

  Year

  Exempt

  Free contraceptives

  Total dispensed

  1979

  181.3

  4.2

  304.6

  1980

  192.6

  4.6

  303.3

  1981

  200.0

  5.2

  300.0

  1982

  210.4

  6.0

  311.3

  1983

  220.7

  6.2

  315.3

  1984

  226.5

  6.9

  320.5

  1985

  232.6

  5.9

  318.7

  1986

  241.3

  5.3

  322.5

  1987

  253.9

  5.1

  335.3

  1988

  263.5

  5.3

  346.5

  1989

  268.1

  5.6

  351.9

  1990

  276.9

  5.9

  360.5

  1991

  290.5

  5.9

  370.7

  1992

  307.0

  6.1

  386.8

  1993

  326.6

  6.2

  405.1

  1994

  336.1

  6.3

  414.1

  1. The analysis is based on a 1 in 20 sample of all prescriptions submitted to the Prescription Pricing Authority by community pharmacists and appliances contractors. Dispensing doctor and personal administration prescriptions are not analysed into exempt, non-exempt or other categories.
  214
  2. 1979 to 1990 data is based on fees and covers prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and applicance contractors only.

  3 1991 to 1994 data (new PCA) are based on items and have the same coverage as in note 1 above.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into the provision of, and access to, NHS dentistry; and if he will make a statement. [39227]

  Mr. Malone
  We keep in regular contact with health authorities on the provision of, and access to, national health service dentistry across England.

  Cancer Commission Groups (Trent)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what terms of reference he has given Trent National Health Service Executive in respect of cancer commission groups; and if he will make a statement. [39229]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health issued guidance on 15 March 1996 asking National Health Service Executive regional offices to have a role in designation of cancer centres, facilitating the local work of health authorities, general practitioners, and trusts, particularly on cross district issues. Regional co-ordinators are expected to help develop a regional strategy.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of Trent NHS Executive cancer commission groups. [39230]

  Mr. Horam
  National Health Service Executive, Trent has set up cancer commissioning groups for southern Derbyshire, Leicestershire, north Trent and Nottinghamshire/Lincolnshire. The membership of each group is set out:

  Cancer commission group

  Southern Derbyshire

  Dr. L. Adamson

  Medical Director, Southern Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Dr. J. R. M. Bateman

  Medical Director, Derby City General Hospital NHS Trust

  Dr. A. Benghiat

  Lead Clinician, Derby Cancer Centre (Chairman)

  Mr. T. Bucknall

  Lead Clinician, Burton Cancer Unit

  Mrs. J. Butler

  Chief Executive, Southern Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Mr. I. Hall

  Project Manager, Derby Cancer Centre

  Dr. C. Kenny

  Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Southern Derbyshire Health Authority

  Mr. J. MacDonald

  Chief Executive, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Mr. M. Scott

  Chief Executive, Derby City General Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. J. R. Nash

  Medical Director, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Dr. M. J. Trelinski

  representing South Staffordshire GPs

  Dr. B. Hands

  representing Southern Derbyshire GPs

  Dr. J. Walsworth-Bell

  representing South Staffordshire Health Authority

  Mrs. P. Cooke

  Chairman, Southern Derbyshire Community Health Council

  215

  Cancer commission group

  Leicestershire

  Dr. B. J. Crump

  Director of Public Health, Leicestershire Health Authority

  Mr. P. Homa

  Chief Executive, Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Mr. N. J. Naftalin

  Medical Director, Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Dr. A. C. B. Wicks

  Medical Director, Leicester General Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. T. Spotswood

  Director of Contracts, Leicester General Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. J. S. Willetts

  Chief Executive, Glenfield Hospital NHS Trust

  Dr. A. G. H. Cole

  Medical Director, Glenfield Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. R. H. Bettles

  Chief Executive, Fosse Health NHS Trust

  Dr. M. A. Edgar

  Medical Director, Fosse Health NHS Trust

  North Trent

  Mr. R. Ackroyd

  Chief Executive, Barnsley Health Authority

  Dr. D. Birks

  Director of Public Health, Barnsley Health Authority

  Mr. J. Newton

  Chief Executive, Doncaster Health Authority

  Dr. J. Radford

  Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Doncaster Health Authority

  Mr. C. Fewtrell

  Chief Executive, North Derbyshire Health Authority

  Dr. A. Charlesworth

  Director of Public Health, North Derbyshire Health Authority

  Mr. N. Clifton

  Chief Executive, North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  Dr. R. Richards

  Consultant in Public Health Medicine, North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  Mr. J. Hinchcliffe

  Chief Executive, Rotherham Health Authority

  Dr. T. Patterson

  Director of Public Health, Rotherham Health Authority

  Ms C. Hamlyn

  Chief Executive, Sheffield Health Authority

  Mr. T. Plant

  Sheffield Health Authority

  Mr. C. Dench

  Chief Executive, South Humber Health Authority

  Dr. B. Crompton

  GP Adviser, South Humber Health Authority

  Nottinghamshire/ Lincolnshire

  Dr. S. Wilson

  Director of Public Health, Nottingham Health Authority

  H. Wilkinson

  Contracting Lead Officer, Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  Dr. R. Richards

  Lead Officer, North Nottinghamshire Health

  K. Powis

  Contracting Lead Officer, North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  Dr. B. Rana

  Lead Officer, Lincolnshire Health Authority

  Mr. R. Banyard

  Contracting Lead Officer, Lincolnshire Health Authority

  Dr. S. Ford

  Nottinghamshire Local Medical Committee

  Dr. V. Zbizczniak

  Lincolnshire Local Medical Committee

  Dr. P. Jones

  Nottinghamshire Local Medical Committee

  Dr. Crompton

  Lead Officer, South Humber Health Authority

  Liz Mitchell

  Project Manager, Nottingham/Lincoln Cancer Centre

  Hepatitis C
  Mrs Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to provide payments to those haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C; and if he will make a statement. [39456]
  216
  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, (Mr. Heppell) on 8 July,Official Report, column 21.

  Tardive Dyskinesia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into(a) tardive dyskinesia and minor abnormalities, (b) schizophrenia and minor physical abnormalities and (c) tardive dyskinesia and negative symptoms; and if he will make a statement. [39216]

  Mr. Bowis
  The links between Tardive Dyskinesia, minor physical abnormalities and negative symptoms are already well researched.

  Medical Records
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average charge levied on patients for seeing their medical records. [39270]

  Mr. Horam
  The Access to Health Records Act 1990 allows the record holder to charge a fee of up to £10. A similar fee is permitted when access is sought under the Data Protection Act 1984. Where a copy of a record or extract is supplied, the Access to Health Records Act also permits a charge to be made to cover the cost of making the copy and of any postage.

  Factor 8
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide funding for the purchase of recombinant factor 8 by haemophiliacs. [39457]

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

  Depression
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into the efficacy of Flesinoxan in the prevention of relapse during the continuation phase following acute treatment of a major depressive episode; and if he will make a statement. [39215]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. Clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products are usually commissioned by the companies that own them.

  Wheelchairs
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average charge made to patients provided with wheelchair by hospitals. [39257]

  Mr. Bowis
  Wheelchairs provided by the national health service are issued free on loan.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 194, about guidance to wheelchair centres, what guidance has been issued concerning the changes to the provision of indoor-outdoor wheelchairs announced on

  217
  23 February, beyond the NHS Executive document HSG(96)34; and when disabled people can expect to benefit from these changes. [39173]

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities and wheelchair service centres are now setting up local arrangements in accordance with the guidance in HSG(96)34. We expect that the first powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs will be available very soon.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the annual report and accounts of the NHS Pensions Agency. [39552]

  Mr. Horam
  I have approved the report and accounts which has today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys have been conducted on the health of health care workers who have tended CJD patients. [36938]

  Mr. Horam
  No such surveys have been conducted. The national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit investigates the incidence and epidemiology of CJD, paying particular attention to occupation and eating habits so that any change in the pattern of CJD following the advent of BSE can be detected. This includes details of a patients' occupation and the latest results are published in the unit's fourth annual report, copies of which are available in the Library, and do not show any evidence of an occupational link.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's definition of a highly suspect case of CJC. [36939]

  Mr. Horam
  The term "highly suspect case" is not used in respect of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. This disease can be definitely confirmed only by electron microscope examination of brain tissue. This is usually done post mortem although rarely it may be possible to establish a definite diagnosis by brain biopsy while the patient is still alive. In other cases CJC can be no more than a possibility, greater or lesser according to the number and degree of clinical features a patient exhibits.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications of the court ruling relating to Credit Suisse and Allerdale borough council on PFI funding for NHS trusts. [37818]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service trusts are aware of the need to confirm with their lawyers that contractual agreements entered into in the course of private finance initiative projects are within their statutory powers.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional guidance he plans to issue on the impact of the Appeal Court judgment in the case of Michael Berry and Gloucestershire county council on the 218
  legal duties of local authorities under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and if he will make a statement. [38298]

  Mr. Bowis
  Leave to appeal to the House of Lords has been granted in this case. The Department will consider whether to revise any of its guidance in the light of the House of Lords judgment.

  Latex Surgical Gloves
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of protein levels in latex surgical gloves; and if he will make a statement; [38267]

  (2) what routine monitoring his Department undertakes in respect of allergic reactions experienced by NHS staff to proteins in latex surgical gloves; [38268]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the levels of proteins in latex surgical gloves purchased by the NHS. [38269]

  Mr. Horam
  No specific research has been commissioned on protein levels in latex surgical gloves. The available information on the subject has been evaluated and relevant experts in the field have been consulted. The Medical Devices Agency published a device bulletin entitled "Latex Sensitisation in the Health Care Setting (Use of Latex Gloves)", copies of which are available in the Library. The Department does not undertake specific monitoring of allergic reactions experienced by national health service staff to proteins in latex surgical gloves. However the Medical Devices Agency has a system for investigating adverse incidents associated with all medical devices.

  Operations (Children)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many procedures were carried out per 100,000 children aged up to 16 years old for each of the last 10 years for(a) myringotomy, (b) adenoidectomy and (c) tonsillectomy. [38270]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available for national health service hospitals in England is shown in the table. The latest year for which information is available is 1994–95; prior to 1989–90, data to the level of detail requested were not held centrally.

  Myringotomy

  Adenoidectomy

  Tonsillectomy

  1989–90

  51

  173

  449

  1990–91

  51

  162

  466

  1991–92

  68

  173

  501

  1992–93

  61

  169

  510

  1993–94

  38

  155

  522

  1994–95

  35

  162

  534

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics—as related to Child population.

  Prodigy System
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the drugs and preparations listed in each therapeutic area covered by Prodigy match those in the British National Formulary. [38271]
  219
  (2) what assessment he has made of the choice provided to general practitioners by the Prodigy system in each therapeutic area; [38272]

  (3) if at the preparation stage of the database incorporated into Prodigy, and before the list was reviewed by the Royal College's (a) medical experts in particular therapeutic areas and (b) patients and patients group were given the opportunity to provide input into the preparation of the drugs list specific to those areas. [38274]

  Mr. Malone
  The therapeutic recommendations used for phase 1 of the Prodigy trial were intended to permit a realistic test of the concept of computerised decision support for general practitioner prescribing. To ensure that they were suitable for this purpose and had the support of a substantial body of medical opinion, an expert group nominated by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians, the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association, and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, was commissioned to validate them. A number of sources were used including the British National Formulary. The recommendations will be further developed in the course of the trial in the light of comments from the GPs participating.

  If at the end of the trial it is decided to develop a system for more widespread use, based on the experience gathered in the Prodigy trial, there will be extensive consultation in which all interested parties will have the opportunity to provide input.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with the pilot study of the Prodigy system. [38273]

  Mr. Malone
  Phase 1 of the Prodigy project on computerised decision support for general practitioner prescribing has been running in 140 GP practices since the end of 1995. An interim report, together with hard copy of the therapeutic advice and prescribing recommendations used in the initial phase of the evaluation, will be published next week; copies will be placed in the Library.

  Patient Information Leaflets
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of ways of presenting the benefits of medicines to patients as well as their known side-effects in the proposed patient information leaflet. [38286]

  Mr. Malone
  Patient information leaflets are drawn up in line with European directive 92/27/EEC which prescribes the information which must be conveyed to the patient in such a leaflet. Guidance for the pharmaceutical industry on the preparation of leaflets was provided in 1993.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to proceed with the patient information leaflet initiative; and what have been the reasons for the delay. [38285]

  Mr. Malone
  European directive 92/27/EEC requires that a patient information leaflet be supplied with all medicines within five years of its implementation on 1 January 1994. Agreement was reached with the pharmaceutical industry to introduce the information
  220
  prescribed by the directive for the products in each therapeutic category of medicine simultaneously. A phased programme to do this began in December 1995 and will continue until the end of 1998.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for deciding the suitability of the content of patient information leaflets. [38287]

  Mr. Malone
  Patient information leaflets provided with medicinal products are drawn up by the marketing authorisation holder and are approved for use by the Medicines Control Agency.

  Acne (Treatment)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the cost effectiveness of roaccutane as an alternative treatment for acne. [38288]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Medicines (Cost-effectiveness)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the routine procedures for assessing the cost-effectiveness of one medicine against another. [38289]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on the conduct of economic evaluations of medicines was issued jointly by the Department of Health and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in 1994. Guidance to health authorities and purchasers asks them to take account of evidence on both clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in determining local prescribing policies. The clinicians who make prescribing decisions in individual cases have access to a wide range of information to help assess the relative clinical and cost effectiveness of alternative treatments.

  Excimer Laser Treatment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department on the safety and effectiveness of excimer laser treatment; and what (i) guidance and (ii) regulations he has issued concerning excimer laser treatment. [38673]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has not commissioned or evaluated any studies on the safety and effectiveness of excimer laser treatment.

  The Medical Devices Agency issued guidance on the safe use of lasers in medical and dental practice in early 1996.

  Part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations 1984, taken together, require that premises using or intending to use potentially hazardous lasers, which can be used for medical treatment purposes, be registered under the Act.

  Dysentery and Food Poisoning
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) dysentery and (b) food

  221
  poisoning there were in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and (iv) England in each year since 1990. [38926]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is published annually in series MB2 "Communicable disease statistics". The latest available publication is series MB2 No. 21 (1994), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Data for 1995 are given in the table:

  Dysentery

  Food poisoning (All)

  York

  3

  109

  North Yorkshire

  15

  1,266

  Yorkshire1

  681

  8,832

  England

  4,373

  75,499

  1 Yorkshire is defined as the sum of North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new general practitioners have entered general practice in each of the last five years; and how many have retired. [39057]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table:

  General practitioner stocks and flows unrestricted principals at 1 October, England and Wales

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Stock

  27,150

  27,340

  27,650

  27,990

  28,280

  28,420

  Joiners

  1,380

  1,560

  1,440

  1,420

  1,480

  —

  New joiners

  1,160

  1,340

  1,210

  1,100

  1,270

  —

  Rejoiners

  220

  220

  230

  320

  210

  —

  Leavers1

  1,510

  1,250

  1,100

  1,130

  1,340

  —

  Change in stock

  + 130

  + 310

  + 340

  + 290

  + 140

  —

  Source:

  GP Census.

  Notes:

  1Information is not collected centrally on the number of GPs retiring.

  Nurses
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include nurses in the commission process of health services. [39061]

  Mr. Malone
  The Health Authority Act 1995 requires every health authority to make arrangements for securing professional advice.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will resume consultations with dispensing doctors on the patient signing arrangements for NHS prescriptions. [39069]

  Mr. Malone
  We intend to approach the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association shortly.
  222

  Diabetic Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made on the proposals of the British Diabetic Association and Department of Health task force to improve diabetic care. [39059]

  Mr. Horam
  The National Health Service Executive has disseminated the report of the Department of Health and British Diabetic Association St. Vincent joint task force for diabetes to health authorities and asked them to take account of the recommendations in planning local diabetes services. It is for local health authorities to decide on the priority they give to developing such services.

  In addition, a diabetes subgroup of the clinical outcomes group has been set up to develop service guidance for purchasers, based on the recommendations of the task force. The subgroup's membership includes representatives of health authorities and trusts, nurses, general practitioners, patients, and the British Diabetic Association. The subgroup expects to complete its work by the end of 1996.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to paragraph 2.7 of his Department's report on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, on what basis his Department agreed 20 per cent. as the allowable level of research and development costs. [39022]

  Mr. Malone
  The research and development carried out in the United Kingdom rose steadily through the 1970s and early 1980s. The Government agreed with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in 1986 that support for research and development would be maintained at the then current level of around 20 per cent. of pharmaceutical sales to the national health service. That agreement was continued in 1993.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he proposes to publish a report to Parliament on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme annually. [39032]

  Mr. Malone
  Following the first report to Parliament, submitted in May, I plan to make further reports on a regular basis.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to paragraph 1 of his Department's report on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, what factors underlay the discrepancy between the companies' figure for total home profits and the Department's outturn figures. [39031]

  Mr. Malone
  Under paragraph 4.8 of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, the Department may question any figures which do not appear to be consistent with the requirements of the scheme. The difference between the company figures and the outturn figures shown in table 1 of the report to Parliament reflects the figures accepted in negotiation as reasonable for the national health service and the taxpayer to bear.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will supplement the information provided in his Department's report on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme in respect of the nature of the research and development work carried out with funding provided under the scheme. [39001]
  223
  Mr. Malone
  The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme does not provide funding for research and development, but allows as a cost a proportion of companies' spending. Research priorities are determined by the companies.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the sums spent by the United Kingdom relative to those spent by its major competitors on pharmaceutical research related to worldwide pharmaceutical development. [39023]

  Mr. Malone
  The "Research and Development Scoreboard", published earlier this month, shows that expenditure on research by the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom is comparable to its major competitors worldwide.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to paragraphs 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of his department's report on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, if he will make a statement on the criteria used by his Department when it agreed a profitability range of 17 per cent. to 21 per cent. return on capital; what criteria are used to determine where on the range an individual company is placed; how the profitability of companies covered by the scheme compares with movements in the FT500 index; and how his Department measures the degree of a company's long-term commitment to the United Kingdom pharmaceutical market. [39029]

  Mr. Malone
  The range of target profitability under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme allows pharmaceutical companies to earn profits in line with the average profitability of companies in other sectors of United Kingdom industry. The range was established taking account of the FT500 index, and is subject to review in the light of movements in that index, but was agreed in negotiation with the industry, not by a set formula. Individual companies are placed within that range in the light of factors which they can show to demonstrate their long-term commitment to supplying the medicines which the national health service needs. These factors are established and assessed in negotiation.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his Department's report on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme what factors underlay his Department not being able, at 30 April, to finalise agreed outcome figures on the annual financial returns from companies for(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many companies are outstanding for each year; and what action his Department is taking to finalise outcome figures more quickly. [39030]

  Mr. Malone
  Clearance of annual financial returns is dependent on completing negotiations with companies, which may be both complicated and time consuming. In addition there has been delay due to the extra work arising from the negotiation of the new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme in 1993 and from subsequent policy initiatives. On 30 June 1996 six AFRs from 1992, 14 from 1993 and 35 from 1994 remained unfinished.

  Steps are being taken to clear this backlog.
  224

  Nursing Staff Accommodation
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to privatise nursing accommodation. [39063]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for national health service trusts to determine, as part of their recruitment and retention policies, what staff residential accommodation they require and how that accommodation is to be provided.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued in respect of the provision of accommodation to nursing students. [39062]

  Mr. Malone
  The guidance HSG(93)6, issued on 28 January 1993, advises national health service employers on the provision of accommodation for Project 2000 students. Copies are available in the Library.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a list of all wheelchair centres in England and Wales. [39172]

  Mr. Bowis
  I will arrange for copies of the directory "Addresses of NHS Wheelchair Services" to be placed in the Library shortly.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of general practitioners reaching the ages of(a) 65 and (b) 70 years in each of the next five years. [39058]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Estimated number of Unrestricted Principals reaching age 65–70 over next 5 years in England and Wales.

  Year

  Reaching 65

  Reaching 70

  1996

  190

  54

  1997

  221

  53

  1998

  276

  72

  1999

  289

  91

  2000

  375

  113

  Source:

  General Medical Services Census, 1 October 1995.

  Estimates are based on the age of Unrestricted Principals at 1 October 1995.

  Nurses (Pension Schemes)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include practice nurses in NHS pension schemes; and what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of this. [39060]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 17 June,Official Report, column 352.

  Human Embryos
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos will be unfrozen and destroyed on 1 August; and what arrangements he is making to ensure that they are disposed of in a respectful manner. [39035]
  225
  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 June,Official Report, columns 85–86. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is compiling figures on contacts made by the clinics with couples whose embryos have been store since before 1 August 1991. This information will not be complete until after 31 July.

  Guidance on disposal arrangements is given in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's code of practice.

  Operations (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the current median waiting periods for patients needing hip replacement treatment at(a) each hospital where this operation is provided and (b) in England, and the equivalent waiting times for the two preceding years; [37497]

  (2) if he will list the current median waiting periods for patients needing cataract treatment, (a) at each hospital where this operation is provided and (b) in England, and the equivalent waiting time for the two preceding years. [37498]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: Current median waiting times are not available centrally. Information for the latest years available has been placed in the Library.

  Secondary Care
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered medical practitioners hold chairs in secondary care in United Kingdom universities and medical schools. [38394]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available centrally.

SCOTLAND

  New Prisons
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the proposed start date for the construction of the new prison at Bowhouse, Kilmarnock; [37350]

  (2) what sites in Scotland are being currently considered for new prisons. [37351]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Negotiations with private sector consortia for the new privately financed prison await the outcome of the application for outline planning permission now with East Ayrshire council. Subject to outline approval being granted readily, construction work might be expected to begin in late 1997 or early 1998. As for further new prisons, local authorities 226
  in the central belt of Scotland are to be approached in the near future with a view to identifying potential prison sites in this area.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each NHS trust in Scotland the number of patients readmitted within one month of discharge in each of the last five years. [38396]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is laid out 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 the reasons are related.

  Readmissions within 28 days of discharge

  NHS Trust,

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  998

  1,293

  3,499

  3,985

  4,162

  North Ayrshire Hospitals and Arran NHS Trust

  2,813

  3,157

  3,493

  5,259

  4,659

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  992

  836

  230

  232

  246

  Borders General Hospital Acute Unit

  1,207

  1,328

  1,598

  1,701

  1,869

  Borders Community Health Services

  239

  232

  147

  219

  242

  Dumbarton Unit

  728

  979

  1,173

  1,324

  1,565

  Argyll and Bute Unit

  862

  968

  1,017

  1,190

  1,117

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  2,059

  2,580

  2,988

  3,677

  3,417

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  1,623

  1,805

  1,901

  1,842

  2,113

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  131

  156

  170

  146

  167

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  2

  3

  18

  1,470

  2,498

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,235

  1,508

  1,684

  1,210

  508

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,284

  2,620

  2,918

  2,697

  3,330

  Continuing Care for the Elderly Unit

  3,250

  2,200

  1,037

  107

  79

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  3,160

  2,746

  3,304

  3,620

  4,330

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust

  3,717

  3,382

  2,836

  3,449

  4,248

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  2,259

  2,589

  3,229

  3,622

  3,651

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  6,916

  8,828

  10,246

  13,456

  13,952

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  6,291

  7,313

  7,810

  9,196

  9,404

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  4,413

  4,119

  4,795

  5,540

  5,430

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  2,203

  2,311

  2,731

  2,645

  3,224

  Caithness and Sunderland NHS Trust

  378

  340

  522

  500

  612

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  446

  403

  473

  590

  737

  Community and Priority Services Unit

  142

  142

  179

  167

  179

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,136

  3,358

  3,548

  4,026

  4,161

  Law Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,468

  2,702

  3,080

  3,382

  3,950

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,642

  2,982

  3,715

  5,254

  5,636

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,818

  7,315

  7,776

  7,887

  6,202

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,544

  1,370

  1,396

  1,546

  1,528

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  545

  553

  537

  680

  894

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  176

  239

  209

  228

  281

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  1,945

  2,218

  2,633

  2,670

  2,832

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  6,682

  6,790

  7,624

  8,408

  9,570

  227

  Readmissions within 28 days of discharge

  NHS Trust

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,287

  1,437

  1,571

  1,749

  1,752

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  4,800

  6,673

  8,475

  10,979

  12,092

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  1,131

  1,124

  1,433

  1,535

  1,681

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  429

  317

  90

  103

  117

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,128

  5,501

  5,456

  6,432

  6,945

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,362

  1,489

  1,708

  1,991

  2,258

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  272

  343

  253

  252

  280

  Agnus NHS Trust

  907

  909

  944

  1,095

  1,331

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  2,063

  2,541

  2,795

  2,756

  2,765

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,905

  2,070

  2,146

  2,303

  2,448

  Western Isles Health Board

  358

  391

  467

  495

  479

  Community Services Unit

  163

  186

  181

  196

  227

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,693

  2,190

  2,534

  2,941

  3,210

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  316

  314

  343

  477

  433

  Other1

  2,739

  2,524

  1,287

  549

  211

  Total

  101,070

  107,374

  118,229

  136,068

  145,013

  1 Includes closed hospitals, discontinued specialities within hospitals, various convalescent nursing homes etc.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each trust in Scotland for each of the last five years the number of patients who were readmitted to hospital within three months of discharge. [39204]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is laid out in the table. The reason for a patient being readmitted to hospital 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.

  Total readmissions within three months of discharge

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  12,645

  13,437

  14,333

  14,723

  15,267

  Angus NHS Trust

  2,003

  1,853

  1,950

  2,341

  2,560

  Argyll and Bute Unit

  1,653

  1,796

  1,900

  2,201

  2,135

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Care NHS Trust

  1,708

  1,526

  504

  495

  547

  Borders Community Health Services

  483

  447

  336

  435

  473

  Borders General Hospital Acute Unit

  2,343

  2,532

  3,084

  3,339

  3,645

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  744

  741

  1,062

  1,063

  1,258

  Community and Priority Services Unit

  348

  400

  444

  423

  415

  Community Services Unit

  465

  500

  493

  522

  528

  Continuing Care for the Elderly Unit

  4,143

  2,696

  1,330

  216

  161

  Dumbarton Unit

  1,604

  1,832

  2,289

  2,438

  2,838

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,715

  4,132

  4,682

  5,273

  5,715

  Dundee Healthcare

  228

  Total readmissions within three months of discharge

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  NHS Trust

  595

  709

  667

  580

  673

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  9,802

  10,396

  10,510

  11,880

  13,043

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  2,302

  2,226

  2,905

  3,183

  3,418

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  831

  619

  208

  248

  270

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  2,074

  2,340

  2,613

  2,776

  2,828

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  4,097

  4,441

  4,450

  4,613

  4,719

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,353

  2,825

  3,097

  2,194

  1,145

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  11,726

  12,873

  13,502

  15,144

  15,780

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,178

  2,799

  3,064

  3,175

  3,284

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse hospitals NHS Trust

  5,064

  5,546

  6,512

  8,238

  8,623

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  3,302

  3,443

  3,738

  3,883

  4,127

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  951

  985

  1,153

  1,290

  1,520

  Kirkcaldy Acute hospitals NHS Trust

  4,504

  5,127

  5,760

  5,350

  6,228

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  4,758

  5,604

  5,621

  6,153

  6,917

  Monklands and Bellshill hospitals NHS Trust

  5,230

  5,604

  5,933

  6,443

  6,604

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  1,152

  1,209

  1,187

  1,295

  1,749

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  5,010

  5,709

  6,234

  8,298

  8,158

  Orkney Health Board

  355

  453

  439

  426

  500

  Others

  5,194

  5,200

  2,786

  1,232

  410

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,712

  2,948

  3,325

  3,858

  4,110

  Queen margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  15

  10

  32

  2,619

  4,436

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  4,455

  4,773

  5,304

  5,472

  5,998

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  283

  334

  356

  320

  344

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  4,160

  5,110

  5,780

  6,945

  6,648

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  12,982

  12,582

  13,792

  15,017

  16,769

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  620

  627

  687

  768

  771

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,235

  2,897

  6,466

  7,140

  7,401

  Southern General Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,808

  5,491

  6,275

  7,232

  8,399

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  4,255

  5,114

  5,619

  5,724

  5,614

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  7,788

  7,585

  8,350

  9,363

  9,539

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  4,536

  4,894

  6,507

  6,972

  7,023

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust

  5,668

  5,181

  4,854

  5,592

  6,553

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  14,519

  14,916

  17,011

  20,603

  20,960

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  3,565

  4,026

  5,398

  5,830

  6,587

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,051

  10,609

  13,232

  16,417

  18,030

  229

  Total readmissions within three months of discharge

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Western Isles Health Board

  782

  866

  971

  999

  1,065

  Scotland

  186,767

  197,480

  216,745

  240,742

  255,787

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients in each of the last five years were readmitted to hospital within one month of leaving in each health board area. [39205]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is laid out in the table. The reason for a patient being readmitted is not necessarily related to the issues for original admission. The longer after the discharge that a patient is readmitted, the less likely it is that the reasons are connected.

  Readmissions within 28 days of discharge

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  5,404

  8,490

  7,249

  8,279

  8,378

  Ayrshire and Arran

  5,320

  5,782

  7,222

  9,476

  9,067

  Borders

  1,448

  1,563

  1,745

  1,924

  2,115

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,076

  2,376

  2,715

  3,317

  3,437

  Fife

  4,198

  4,888

  5,412

  5,599

  6,336

  Forth Valley

  4,048

  4,667

  4,988

  5,093

  5,251

  Grampian

  8,907

  9,238

  9,709

  10,113

  10,624

  Greater Glasgow

  32,143

  31,201

  33,285

  39,019

  41,112

  Highland

  3,042

  3,071

  3,736

  3,935

  4,573

  Lanarkshire

  8,451

  9,237

  10,581

  12,884

  13,982

  Lothian

  17,188

  19,478

  21,958

  25,545

  28,133

  Orkney

  176

  239

  209

  228

  281

  Shetland

  316

  314

  343

  477

  433

  Tayside

  7,996

  8,439

  8,590

  9.997

  10,812

  Western Isles

  358

  391

  487

  495

  479

  Scotland

  101,071

  107,374

  118,229

  136,068

  145,013

  Cycling Accidents (Children)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children received head injuries in cycling accidents in each of the past five years. [38236]

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

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children(a) died and (b) were injured in cycling accidents in each of the past five years. [38235]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of child cyclists reported to have been killed or injured in road accidents in Scotland is set out in the table.

  Child (aged 0–15) cyclists killed or injured in road accidents

  Year

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  1991

  3

  545

  1992

  7

  532

  1993

  6

  462

  1994

  4

  625

  1995

  3

  547

  230

  Medical Teaching and Research
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total allocation for 1996–97 in respect of general practice teaching and research in Scotland broken down by medical school. [38605]

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

  Medical school

  £

  Aberdeen

  242,700

  Dundee

  267,700

  Edinburgh

  411,700

  Glasgow

  398,200

  Total

  1,320,300

  Cold Weather Payments
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Bellwin scheme of financial assistance for extreme cold weather will be activated for the Scottish borders; and what factors underlie the delay in activating the scheme. [38477]

  Mr. Kynoch
  A decision on this will be reached shortly.

  Conveyancing
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to update the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874; and if he will make a statement. [38858]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provisions of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874 are amended from time to time. Further amendment may be required in the light of the Scottish Law Commission's work on the abolition of the feudal system. The Government are committed to completing the reform of the feudal system and will give careful consideration to further action in this area once the commission's report and recommendations have been received.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects redundant road signing along the M74–A74 marking road works completed along this stretch of road to be removed. [38632]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The remaining redundant signing along the M74–A74 is due to be removed at the completion of the maintenance period at the end of October 1996.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of objective 1 supported projects in each local enterprise company area within the highlands and islands and the value to date of the projects which have been approved. [38305]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested appears in the table.
  231

  LEC

  Number of ESF/ERDF projects

  Total European Social Fund and European regional development fund approved (£ million)

  Argyll and the Islands

  98

  10.2

  Moray Badenoch and Strathspey

  49

  4.3

  Caithness and Sutherland

  65

  7.5

  Inverness and Nairn

  25

  4.9

  Lochaber

  43

  7.9

  Orkney

  48

  3.4

  Ross and Cromarty

  37

  6.9

  Shetland

  93

  6.2

  Skye and Lochalsh

  43

  3.4

  Western Isles

  91

  19.7

  Pan Highlands and Islands

  277

  28.2

  The pan-highlands and islands category includes all projects which cover two or more LEC areas. Information is given about the value of European social fund and European regional development fund grants approved because firm information on total project value becomes available only when project claims are submitted.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many projects approved before 1 March by the project programme management committee of the highlands and islands partnership programme have not yet been started; and if he will make a statement. [38306]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Eight hundred European regional development fund and European social fund projects had been approved by the Secretary of State before 1 March 1996. One hundred have not submitted claims. However, in some cases where claims have been submitted the claim may be for preparatory work, such as professional fees, rather than for physical work on the project; and in some cases where no claim has yet been submitted the project may have started.

  The precise information which the hon. Member seeks is in the process of being collected from project sponsors, in order to assist the management of the programme. It is expected to be available in the autumn; and I shall write to the hon. Member when it has been received.

  English Certificates or Money Provisions
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 53, about mechanisms in place at the Books of Council and Session, what is his definition of an appropriate court. [38795]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Schedule 8, rule 3 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 defines the court(s) with jurisdiction to hear a case. Once judgment has been made or entered in that court, that court is the appropriate court to issue the certificate of judgment in terms of section 18(2) of the said Act.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 54, about numbers of English certificates of money provisions registered with the Books of Council and Session, for each year 1990 to 1995 and for the first six months of 1996, how many of the certificates were
  232
  granted in actions which arose out of consumer contracts falling within the terms of schedule 8, rule 3 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. [38796]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The form of the certificate of judgment is provided for in schedule 6, rule 4 and schedule 7, rule 4 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. In neither case is it necessary for the certificate to state the cause of the action. The information requested cannot, therefore, be provided from the face of the register and the Keeper has neither the locus nor the means to look behind the ex facie terms of a certificate presented for registration.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 July,Official Report, column 589, concerning information technology functions, if he will give itemised costs of individual projects exceeding £500,000 during the period 1991–92 to 1996–97; and what assessments he has made of the benefits to the NHS in Scotland of each of these individual projects. [38888]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Agency Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the agencies for which his Department is responsible indicating for each the costs incurred for printing(a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the last available year. [38669]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table. All costs are based on outturns for 1995–96.

  Cost of printing publications 1995–96

  Agency

  Cost of printing

  All publications1 £

  Annual report £

  Scottish Prison Service

  10,064

  6,000

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  21,341

  7,228

  Historic Scotland

  2479,316

  9,753

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  18,491

  5,585

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  359,190

  5,721

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  4121,896

  4,032

  Registers of Scotland

  55,443

  17,398

  Scottish Record Office

  6,000

  2,007

  Scottish Court Service

  56,399

  4n/a

  1 Includes the cost of the annual report.

  2 Includes the cost of printing guidebooks, events programmes, promotional leaflets, etc.

  3 Includes the cost of information booklets.

  4 Includes scheme literature and forms.

  5 The Scottish Court Service became an agency on 1 April 1995 and therefore the cost of the first report (1995–96) will be incurred in 1996–97.

  233

  Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the licences issued by his Department; for what purpose they are issued; and what are the administrative costs for each. [38677]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office is responsible for administering the following two licensing arrangements:The registration of residential schools providing care. This is a statutory requirement which acts as an effective control over proprietors and managers of establishments providing a significant degree of care to young and/or vulnerable children.
  Yearly approval of adoption societies. This is a statutory requirement for adoption societies to be approved by the Secretary of State on a yearly basis.

  The administration of these licences represents only a small part of the overall administrative responsibilities of the departmental staff involved. It is therefore not possible to assign a specific cost to these particular activities.

  Community Service Orders
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the additional costs likely to be incurred by social work departments in Scotland from implementation of the proposals for an increase in the number of hours for which community service orders are to be made contained in the White Paper "Crime and Punishment". [38754]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Community service is 100 per cent. funded by central Government. No net increase in costs is anticipated following from the increases in minimum and maximum hours. Any increase in costs resulting from the increase in maximum hours under solemn procedure is estimated to be offset by a reduction in the number of short orders which are relatively more expensive to manage.

  CSC Computing Contract
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who specified the computing contract won by CSC; and who evaluated the CSC bid. [39174]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A statement of service requirements was prepared by each customer and formed the basis of the contract negotiated with each of the shortlisted bidders. The bid was evaluated by an evaluation group appointed by the national working group on computer services which was representative of customer interests. Customer preferences were sought and taken into account in the evaluation process.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the disaster recovery plan if CSC fails to discharge its obligations in accordance with its computing contract. [39162]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the normal course, contingency plans are prepared against events which might cause major disruption to the service. Provisions against the possibility of either party failing to discharge their obligations are included in the contract and these are intended to provide a framework to ensure, as necessary, transfer and continuity of service. A high-level contingency plan based on these contract provisions is in 234
  hand and this addresses the range of issues which might arise, options for action and the responsibilities for taking them forward.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the performance of CSC has had on the billing of general practitioner fundholders by national health service trusts. [39160]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No significant difficulties have arisen. Only one minor difficulty has been brought to the attention of the Common Services Agency and this has been addressed by CSC with the client concerned.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which targets and deadlines were included in the computing contract won by CSC; and what progress has been made in meeting them. [39159]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Targets for quality and delivery are set, as necessary, by each customer of the contract. These cover the full range of services and developments identified by health boards, NHS trusts and the Common Services Agency and are specified in individual customer agreements. Monitoring is carried out by individual customers on the basis of service reports provided to them by CSC. Responsibility for providing an overview of the contract rests with the Common Services Agency.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sanctions are available if CSC fails to discharge its obligations in accordance with its computing contract. [39161]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  If services are not supplied in accordance with service levels specified in customer agreements each customers is entitled to liquidate damages which reflect the loss to the customer. In addition, each customer is entitled to insist on compliance with the service levels specifications regardless of the impact on the resource required by the supplier. If the service falls below the agreed minimum services standard, each customer has additional rights which may include termination if the defaults are not remedied within the three months of notice being given.

  Private Landed Estates
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the criteria for monitoring non-agricultural grants made to owners of landed estates of more than 500 acres to(a) improve or maintain private buildings, (b) improve or maintain private roads and (c) promote tourism; and if he will make a statement; [39168]

  (2) how much public money in (a) grants and (b) loans has been given to owners of landed estates of more than 500 acres to (i) improve or maintain private buildings or (ii) improve or maintain private roads on those estates in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [39169]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Grants for such purposes may be available from a range of public bodies and agencies in addition to the Scottish Office, and there will be different monitoring criteria for each scheme. Not all this information is held centrally, nor can it be obtained, except at disproportionate cost.
  235
  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 407, if he will set out the methods for monitoring non-agricultural grants to owners of landed estates of more than 500 acres; and if he will make a statement. [39166]

  Mr. Robertson
  The methods employed do not discriminate as between owners of landed estates and other applicants and include, as appropriate, checking of plans and costings, examination of invoices, physical inspection of completion and supervision of usage for approved purpose and of compliance with conditions.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 407, when the information relating to the criteria upon which monitoring conditions imposed on applicants for financial assistance are based will be published; if he will give details of those criteria; and if he will make a statement. [39167]

  Mr. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 21 February,Official Report, column 194. Making such information available is an on-going process and I shall be pleased to send the hon. Member copies of the explanatory literature for any of the schemes administered by the Scottish Office in which she is interested.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer from the Minister with responsibility for education, housing and fisheries of 15 July,Official Report, column 407, in each year since 1990 (i) how many departmental officials were involved in the monitoring of grants of public money to (a) agricultural and (b) non-agricultural schemes, (ii) how many schemes were found not to have met the requirement conditions, (iii) how much in assistance was recovered, (iv) in how many cases the monitoring of the schemes involved on-site visits and (v) what methods were adopted by departmental officials in monitoring the effectiveness of scheme; and if he will make a statement. [39171]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information sought in categories (i) to (iv) is not held centrally and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. The methods adopted in monitoring effectiveness vary from scheme to scheme, but include such procedures as physical inspection of completed works and regular supervision to check that the grant-aided work continues to meet all the conditions of approval imposed.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated annual saving to private business and public funds form the Deregulation (Gaming on Sunday in Scotland) Order 1996. [39156]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The order removes the restriction on licensed casinos and bingo clubs in Scotland opening on Sunday afternoons. The extension of the permitted gaming hours is likely to result in a financial benefit to the industry in the form of an increase in turnover.
  236

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his decision on the report of the public inquiry into the proposed electricity interconnector to Northern Ireland. [38973]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend is still considering the report on the public inquiry into proposals to construct the Scottish section of the proposed Scotland-Northern Ireland electricity interconnector and representations on these proposals. He will announce his decision in due course.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the need for a public inquiry into the undersea section of the electricity interconnector to Northern Ireland; what is the outcome of his consideration of these representations; and if he will make a statement. [38975]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 19 January,Official Report, column 804.

  School Language Assistants
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local education authorities have withdrawn foreign language assistants from secondary schools on grounds of financial constraints. [39115]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Twelve Scottish local authorities have decided to not employ foreign language assistants for their schools for 1996–97. The reasons for this are entirely a matter for the authorities concerned.

  Drugs Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of(a) men and (b) women convicted by courts of drug offences in Scotland during 1995. [39221]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested for 1995 is not yet available. The information for 1994 can be found in tables 6(a) and 6(b) of the Scottish Office statistical bulletin "Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts, 1994", a copy of which was placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Northern Isles Freight
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to respond to the Scottish Affairs Committee report into the removal of tariff rebate subsidy on northern isles freight. [39634]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government welcomed the Committee's study of this subject and has considered the report very carefully. A command paper responding in full to the report will be presented to Parliament after the recess. We fully recognise, however, the importance of this issue to the island communities of Orkney and Shetland; and therefore wish to indicate now the nature of the Government's response on the key recommendations made by the Select Committee.

  We welcome the Select Committee's acceptance of the Government's conclusion that the tariff rebate subside scheme was flawed and that there was a need therefore to consider other forms of subsidy. We also welcome its

  237
  endorsement of the importance that the Government attach to the current competitive tendering exercise for a lifeline passenger service in the northern isles. We note that it has not argued that the reintroduction of subsidies for the carriage of general freight has a place in a satisfactory long-term regime. These conclusions correspond closely to the Government's analysis of the position.

  I promised, following the decision to withdraw freight subsidies, that we would ensure that the effect of withdrawal was monitored and reviewed. We have done so by listening to representations made to us and considering evidence put before us. In response to that and to the Select Committee's report, the Government propose to make four changes to policy. These are:

  i. to specify maximum freight rate levels in the lifeline service contract, which will provide some element of price stability to the freight market and ensure that tariffs do not increase excessively.

  ii. to require the successful bidder for the lifeline service contract to provide sufficient capacity to carry livestock during peak periods, which will for the first time guarantee that farmers will be able to export livestock during the busiest periods of the year.

  iii. to increase the subsidy level for the carriage of livestock from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. with effect from 1 September 1996 to reflect the economic importance of the livestock trade, particularly to Orkney, and to alleviate the effects of the uncertainty which the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis has introduced into the livestock market since the Government's original decisions. The need for the increased rate of subsidy will be kept under review, in the light of conditions in the livestock market.

  iv. to reinstate tariff rebate subsidy support for bulk freight in the northern isles with effect from 1 September 1996, at a rate of 30 per cent. on exports and 10 per cent. on imports, in order to remove the adverse effect of the withdrawal of subsidies on bulk freight on companies exporting low-value bulk freight and on companies dependent on imported supplies of hulk freight. The Scottish Office will also undertake an urgent review of the bulk freight market, which will involve extensive consultations with the relevant local interests, in order to identify a more satisfactory system of bulk freight subsidies for introduction in the medium term. We are suspending the phasing out of tariff rebate subsidy in the Western Isles pending the conclusions of the review; and subsidy will continue at the present rate of 20 per cent. for both imports and exports during 1997–98.

  In addition, we are able to give two assurances which the Select Committee sought. These are to confirm that:
  the tendering process for the lifeline service enables bidders to present alternative options to the present pattern of service: and there is no obstacle, in principle, to the successful bidder for the contract applying, through a public sector sponsor, for European regional development fund assistance towards vessel replacement.
  The inclusion of peak period livestock capacity within the contract for the lifeline passenger service, which will carry accompanied cars and freight as well as passengers, means that the contract will cover all of the categories of traffic which the Select Committee recommended should be included within the definition of a lifeline service, although the Government remain of the view that the lifeline service is properly defined by reference to the need for passenger ferry services.
  238
  The Government have been unable to accept some of the Select Committee's recommendations. We have been unable to reconcile several of the conclusions of the Select Committee with the need for a tendered contract for the lifeline services, which the Select Committee has endorsed, and with the Government's wish to respond urgently to the Select Committee's criticism of the present regime, by putting the tendered contract in place as soon as possible. The Select Committee's recommendation that tariff rebate subsidy be reintroduced for general freight on a temporary basis, despite its conclusion that there is no medium-term need of subsidy for such freight, would have a detrimental impact on the tendering of the lifeline services passenger ferry contract. The Committee's recommendation that the Kirkwall—Invergordon route should be separately tendered to carry freight and livestock would also have a detrimental effect on the tendering of the lifeline contract, and would place other freight carriers operating in the locality at a commercial disadvantage.

  The likely adverse impact on the tendering exercise for the lifeline passenger service is also part of the reason that the Government do not accept the recommendation that CalMac be involved in the provision of services in the northern isles. Other important considerations are that it would constitute an unacceptable transfer of risk to the public sector; and would entail very substantial increased costs to the taxpayer to finance vessel procurement.

  We regard the Select Committee's proposal for separate public sector procurement of vessels as unnecessary, in the light of the assurance given about eligibility of vessel replacement by private sector operators for European regional development fund assistance; and the proposal is also subject to some disadvantages.

  In reaching these decisions, the Government's overriding objective remains to secure an unprecedented long-term guarantee to ensure the continuation of lifeline services to Orkney and Shetland, which are essential to the economic and social welfare of the islands, through a competitive tendering process which should command confidence that the subsidy level does not provide scope for cross-subsidy of freight operations. The additional measures announced today seek to provide help to four key sectors of the economy of the islands:
  the livestock farming community, which will benefit from the guaranteed provision within the lifeline contract of capacity to carry livestock during the peak periods and the increase in the rate of tariff rebate subsidy on livestock while the serious difficulties in the livestock market caused by the BSE crisis remain;
  companies dealing in general freight, which will benefit from the specification of maximum freight levels in the lifeline contract;
  companies dealing in bulk freight, which will benefit from the reintroduction of tariff rebate subsidy and the commitment to an improved system of bulk freight subsidy in the medium term;
  consumers in the islands, who will benefit from the effect on prices of the measures on general freight and imported bulk freight.

  The Select Committee has rightly made the point that the purpose of subsidy arrangements is not to benefit the

  239
  operators of shipping services. Nevertheless, these measures should have a beneficial effect on the volume of business in the market and thus indirectly improve trading conditions for all operators. I believe that the overall effect of the measures set out above will be a significant further economic and social benefit to Scotland's islands communities.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the 10 largest industrial or commercial developments in Scotland which resulted from inward

  Published figures for:

  Date of announcement

  Company

  Location

  Type of project

  Planned investment (£ million)

  Planned new jobs

  RSA (.£ million)

  April 1994

  International Components Corporation

  East Kilbride

  New Project

  6.0

  400

  2.05

  September 1994

  NEC Semiconductors (UK) Ltd.

  Livingston

  Expansion

  530.0

  430

  7.0

  October 1994

  British Sky Broadcasting

  Dunfermline

  New project

  10.0

  1,000

  6.0

  February 1995

  Meric International Corporation

  Irvine

  New project

  8.0

  450

  3.4

  August 1995

  British Gas

  Edinburgh

  New project

  1—

  500

  Nil

  August 1995

  Motorola

  Bathgate

  Expansion

  1—

  400

  7.0

  September 1995

  TSB

  Glasgow

  New project

  15.0

  900

  2—

  October 1995

  Lexmark International

  Rosyth

  New project

  26.0

  500

  2—

  November 1995

  Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.

  Mossend

  New project

  260.0

  3,300

  2—

  July 1996

  Lite-On Technology

  Mossend

  New project

  40.0

  1,031

  2—

  1Not published by company.

  2Not yet published

  Details of the financial assistance offered to inward investors are commercially confidential. All such assistance complies with the rules of the relevant schemes and with EC state aid rules. The principal form of assistance offered in support of inward investment projects is regional selective assistance and where the amount offered is £75,000 or more, the total amount offered is published in "Labour Market Trends" in the quarter after the first instalment of grant is paid. Where such publication has already taken place, the relevant figure is included in the table.

  Most of the above projects are still in the process of being implemented and up-to-date information on the number of new jobs so far created by them is not held centrally.

  Atholl Estate
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums from public funds have been given to the Atholl estate in the form of(a) non-agricultural grants and (b) loans since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [36735]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 11 July 1996]: Fully comprehensive information is not held centrally and some information may be commercially sensitive. However, three important areas of support to the estate have come from the Forestry Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland. In the case of SNH and Historic Scotland, full information on grant payments is published in their annual reports and is thus available to those who are interested.
  240
  investment since 1993; and, in each case, what estimate he has made of the number of jobs created and the average cost to public funds of each of these jobs. [37636]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: All our dealings with inward investors are undertaken on a commercially confidential basis and we do not therefore publish details of individual projects except in cases where details of the project have been announced by the company itself. The table contains details of the 10 largest inward investment projects—in terms of planned new jobs—which have been attracted to Scotland since 1 January 1993 and which have been the subject of public announcements:

  Rowett Research Institute
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the prior option review of the Rowett research institute. [39665]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government's response to the report of the multidepartmental efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments announced a series of prior option reviews. As part of this series the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department will conduct a prior options review of the Rowett research institute.

  The review will address whether the research conducted at the Rowett continues to be needed, whether it requires public funding, the relationship of the Rowett to others working in similar or related areas of science, and the potential for privatisation or rationalisation.

  I would welcome comments from interested parties. They should be sent by 30 September to:

  Mrs. B. McGee

  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Pentland House

  47 Robb's Loan

  EDINBURGH

  EH14 1TY

  Forestry Commission Land Sales
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those areas in the Scottish borders area sold by the Forestry Commission in 1996. [37995]
  241
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mr. Arch)' Kirkwood, dated 23 July 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your Question about the areas sold by the Forestry Commission, in 1996, in the Scottish Borders Area.

  There have been no plantation sales completed, in the Borders Council Area, so far in 1996.

  However, there is one plantation, Priesthaugh measuring 787 ha, currently with our Solicitors awaiting legal completion and another. Edgarhope measuring 143.5 ha. with Agents for marketing.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tonnage of fishing vessels and what number of fishing vessels in Scotland have been(a) permanently reassigned for purposes other than fishing in the waters of the European Community and (b) permanently transferred to a third country since 1993; how many of these would have been covered under article 8 of European Council regulations 3699/93; and if he will make a statement. [38243]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: No record is kept of the destination of vessels leaving the fleet without Government assistance. Under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Schemes 1993 to 1996, no decommissioned vessels were either permanently reassigned for purposes other than fishing in the waters of the European Community or permanently transferred to a third country.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the option of including permanent transfer of a fishing vessel to a third country or permanent reassignment for purposes other than fishing in waters of the European Community in the United Kingdom's decommissioning scheme; and if he will make a statement. [38244]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: A number of organisations made representations to the Scottish Office about fishing vessel decommissioning in response to a consultation document issued on 14 March. Some of these included support for the disposal of decommissioned vessels by methods other than scrapping. Similar representations were also received about previous schemes.

  Under Council regulation (EEC) No. 3699/93, each member state is responsible for ensuring that vessels decommissioned with assistance from the Community's financial instrument of fisheries guidance do not re-enter its own fishing fleet or the fleet of any other member state. It has not been possible to develop transfer or reassignment mechanisms in the UK which would guarantee this. Under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1996, the requirement therefore remains that most decommissioned vessels in
  242
  the UK be scrapped, although there is a provision allowing vessels to be transferred in a seaworthy state to registered museums.

TREASURY

  Unfunded Pension Liabilities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated impact on the public sector unfunded pension liability of the recent proposals from each of the public sector pay review bodies. [36350]

  Mr. Jack
  Recent proposals from review bodies have not contained this information. The Government Actuary's Department periodically reassesses the accrued unfunded pensions liabilities of public service schemes taking account of movements in pay, other economic variables and changes in demographic features. However, these liabilities cannot readily be broken down according to review body.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a ready reckoner of the change in unfunded pension liabilities caused by salary changes in per cent. increments between 1/4 per cent. and 10 per cent. on the basis of current levels of inflation and discount rates. [36340]

  Mr. Jack
  Each 1 per cent. rise in pay above the level of price inflation is estimated to increase the cash equivalent transfer value of unfunded pension liabilities in public service pension schemes by about £700 million. These additional liabilities will become payable over a lengthy period reflecting particularly the span of years over which existing staff reach retirement age and the period of years over which their pensions are payable.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total annual expenditure of his Department in respect of the Isle of Wight, including expenditure on administration. [36918]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information is not held centrally about how much Government expenditure is for the benefit of particular counties. However, a regional breakdown is available in "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses", Cm3201. Information could be collected from other Government Departments only at disproportionate cost.

  Abortion Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors account for the interval in publication between the next edition of "Abortion Statistics, England and Wales" (series AB No. 19) and its predecessors. [36899]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The edition "1992 Abortion Statistics, England and Wales (series AB No. 19)" was published on 30 March 1995. The Office for National Statistics publishes on average, one edition a year. The present target dates for each edition are 12 to 18 months from the end of the period covered. Publication dates are determined by the time required for the receipt of HSA4 notification forms by the chief medical officers at the
  243
  Department of Health and the Welsh Office, and the statistical processing and analyses of the notifications by the ONS in preparation for their subsequent publication.

  The key principle of ()NS policy on the release of statistical data is that data are released as early as possible.

  Housing Benefit Cheques
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will act to limit the commission charged by organisations that cash housing benefit cheques for claimants. [37172]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Housing benefit claimants do not need to use cheque encashment centres. Local authorities—who are responsible for the payment of this benefit—have powers to make alternative arrangements to ensure that claimants who do not have bank accounts receive its full value. For example, payment can be made by Girocheque which can be cashed at a post office., local authorities can use their own cash offices to cash cheques; or benefit can be paid direct to the landlord.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the procedures for cashing cheques by organisations which are not banks. [37170]

  Mrs. Knight
  These are matters for the cheque cashing centres and the banks who offer them cheque clearing facilities.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate organisations which cash cheques for housing benefit claimants and make recommendations to tackle fraud and abuses. [37171]

  Mrs. Knight
  Local authorities are responsible for the payment of housing benefits. Those which are concerned about organisations which cash cheques for housing benefit claimants have powers to make alternative arrangements to ensure that claimants without bank accounts receive the full value of their benefit by other means. For example, payment can be made by Girocheque which can be cashed at a post office; local authorities can use their own cash offices to cash cheques; or benefits can be paid direct to the landlord.

  The clearing bank which offers facilities to a cheque cashing firm is liable should any problems occur with a cheque not paid directly to the named payee.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the revenue from the higher rates of income tax in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1983–84 and (c) 1995–96; [37579]

  (2) what proportion of gross national product was raised in higher rate income tax in (a) 1978–79, (b) 1983–84 and (c) 1995–96; [37584]

  (3) what proportion of income tax was raised by higher rate tax in (a)1978–79, (b) 1983–84 and (c) 1995–96. [37583]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated income tax liabilities from higher rates of income tax, that is rates in excess of the basic rate, and from the investment income surcharge are given 244
  in the table. Their sum is also expressed as a percentage of total income tax and of gross national product at market prices.

  Income tax at excess over basic rate (1) £ million

  Investment income surcharge (2) £ million

  (1) and (2) as percentage of total income tax

  (1) and (2) as percentage of GNP

  1978–79

  1,790

  249

  10.1

  1.2

  1983–84

  3,330

  255

  10.2

  1.2

  1995–961

  7,080

  —

  9.8

  1.0

  1Provisional.

  Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his policies in respect of reducing public expenditure and taxation levels on the timing of priority infrastructure projects, with particular reference to bypasses. [38440]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  When deciding on its future spending plans in the annual public expenditure survey round, the Government consider their priorities for all areas of departmental expenditure. The implication of any options is under discussion for future levels of infrastructure funding, including the roads programme, is an important element of these deliberations.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to combat organised criminal gangs smuggling tobacco; and if he will make a statement. [38808]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Customs have taken further steps this year to combat organised smuggling of tobacco and other revenue goods. These include a programme of enhanced staff training, an uprating of intelligence systems and organisation, and an increase in staffing levels. Whilst measures of this kind by their nature take some time to bear fruit, the Government are determined that vigorous efforts to protect both the revenue and legitimate traders will continue.

  Self-assessment
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that small firms will not suffer financially as a result of the introduction of self-assessment taxation. [38904]

  Mr. Jack
  Self-assessment is a clearer, more straightforward, more efficient tax administration system which will reduce costs for the self-employed.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of tax returns completed by volunteers in the pilot self-assessment of taxation scheme were filled in(a) correctly, (b) incorrectly and (c) on time. [38894]

  Mr. Jack
  Results from the first year's live trial of self-assessment in Leicester show that 95 per cent. of tax returns could be processed without further reference to the taxpayer. Of these, 37 per cent. required the Revenue to make a correction of an obvious error in the return. A total of 79 per cent. of tax returns were submitted to the Inland Revenue within the time allowed under
  245
  self-assessment. Revised forms reflecting comments by the Leicester volunteers, are currently being used in the extended live trial in Leicester and Southampton.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extra costs to small firms of paying accountants to prepare accounts for random inspection by the Inland Revenue. [38893]

  Mr. Jack
  In order to monitor the operation of self-assessment and enhance compliance, the Inland Revenue will carry out a small number of random inquiries into returns under the self-assessment taxation system. As all necessary information will be included in the self-assessment return form, small firms will not be required to prepare accounts for self-assessment.

  Value Added Tax
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that VAT penalties are levied on small businesses only where there is not a reasonable excuse for late or incorrect payments. [38900]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The VAT civil penalties for late or incomplete payment and for inaccurate returns are default surcharge and misdeclaration penalty respectively. Existing legislation provides that neither penalty is imposed where a business, of whatever size, has a reasonable excuse. Insufficiency funds, reliance on a third party or dilatoriness or inaccuracy on the part of any person relied upon are specifically excluded by law from qualifying as a reasonable excuse. However the cash accounting threshold of £350,000 whereby many small businesses pay VAT only when it is paid to them is of considerable benefit to small businesses.

  Debt Interest Payments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of general Government expenditure was spent on debt interest payments in each year since 1990; and what he expects it to be in 1996–97 and 1997–98. [38701]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As a percentage of general Government expenditure (GGE(X)—GGE net of interest and divided receipts, excluding privatisation proceeds and lottery financed spending—general Government net debt interest payments were as follows:

  Percentage

  1990–91

  5.6

  1991–92

  4.7

  1992–93

  4.8

  1993–94

  5.3

  1994–95

  6.1

  1995–96

  6.7

  For 1996–97 and 1997–98, general Government net

  Estimated resident population at mid-year 1974–1994: selected age-groups expressed as a percentage of the total

  England and Wales

  Percentage of males aged

  Year

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  Total

  0–24

  25+

  1974

  7.6

  8.6

  8.4

  7.4

  7.2

  100

  39.3

  60.7

  1975

  7.3

  8.4

  8.6

  7.6

  7.1

  100

  39.0

  61.0

  246
  debt interest as a percentage of GGE(X) is forecast as 7.2 per cent. and 7.8 per cent. respectively. These forecasts are consistent with the summer economic forecast 1996.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of Government expenditure on debt interest payment in each year since 1990; and what he expects it to be in 1996–97 and 1997–98. [38700]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  General Government net debt interest payments were as follows:

  1990–91: £12.1 billion

  1991–92: £11.3 billion

  1992–93: £12.7 billion

  1993–94: £14.6 billion

  1994–95: £17.5 billion

  1995–96: £20.2 billion

  For 1996–97 and 1997–98, general Government net debt interest is forecast at £22.2 billion and £24.8 billion respectively. These forecasts are consistent with the summer economic forecast 1996.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) of 27 June,Official Report, column 235, if he will list the number and nature of relevant representatives that were consulted, the basis of their selection, and the criteria of relevance. [38906]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Law Commission's report (No. 236) on fiduciary duties and regulatory rules was published in December 1985. This provided an opportunity for interested participants within the financial services industry to consider the implications of the recommendation that legislation would be desirable to clarify the effect of Chinese wall arrangements.

  The Treasury received no representations supporting the Law Commissions' recommendations. Moreover, both the Securities and Investments Board and the London Investment Bank Association did express the view that there was no compelling reasons to amend the Financial Services Act 1986 as recommended by the Law Commission, and much to be gained from relying on the legal precedents set since the Financial Services Act came into force.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the(a) male, (b) female and (c) total population was under the age of 25 years, broken down by age group and in total, for each of the last 20 years for which figures are available; and what was the percentage change in each year. [38683]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information is contained in the following table:
  247

  Estimated resident population at mid-year 1974–1994: selected age-groups expressed as a percentage of the total

  England and Wales

  Percentage of males aged

  Year

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  Total

  0–24

  25+

  1976

  6.9

  8.3

  8.7

  7.8

  7.2

  100

  38.8

  61.2

  1977

  6.5

  8.1

  8.7

  8.0

  7.3

  100

  38.6

  61.4

  1978

  6.3

  7.9

  8.7

  8.2

  7.4

  100

  38.4

  61.6

  1979

  6.2

  7.5

  8.6

  8.5

  7.5

  100

  38.3

  61.7

  1980

  6.3

  7.2

  8.4

  8.7

  7.6

  100

  38.2

  61.8

  1981

  6.4

  6.8

  8.3

  8.8

  7.8

  100

  38.0

  62.0

  1982

  6.5

  6.5

  8.1

  8.8

  8.0

  100

  37.9

  62.1

  1983

  6.6

  6.2

  7.8

  8.8

  8.2

  100

  37.7

  62.3

  1984

  6.6

  6.2

  7.5

  8.6

  8.5

  100

  37.4

  62.6

  1985

  6.6

  6.2

  7.2

  8.4

  8.7

  100

  37.1

  62.9

  1986

  6.7

  6.4

  6.8

  8.2

  8.8

  100

  36.8

  63.2

  1987

  6.7

  6.5

  6.4

  8.0

  8.8

  100

  36.4

  63.6

  1988

  6.8

  6.6

  6.2

  7.8

  8.7

  100

  36.0

  64.0

  1989

  6.9

  6.6

  6.2

  7.4

  8.5

  100

  35.6

  64.4

  1990

  7.0

  6.6

  6.2

  7.1

  8.3

  100

  35.2

  64.8

  1991

  7.0

  6.6

  6.3

  6.7

  8.1

  100

  34.8

  65.2

  1992

  7.1

  6.7

  6.4

  6.4

  7.9

  100

  34.4

  65.6

  1993

  7.0

  6.8

  6.5

  6.1

  7.7

  100

  34.0

  66.0

  1994

  6.9

  6.8

  6.5

  6.1

  7.3

  100

  33.7

  66.3

  The question also asked for percentage changes each year. It is not entirely clear what was meant by this, but year to year differences in the percentages can be seen in the tables.

  Estimated resident population at mid-year 1974–1994: selected age-groups expressed as a percentage of the total

  England and Wales

  Percentage of females aged

  Year

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  Total

  0–24

  25+

  1974

  6.8

  7.7

  7.6

  6.7

  6.7

  100

  35.5

  64.5

  1975

  6.6

  7.6

  7.7

  6.9

  6.6

  100

  35.3

  64.7

  1976

  6.2

  7.5

  7.8

  7.1

  6.6

  100

  35.1

  64.9

  1977

  5.8

  7.3

  7.8

  7.3

  6.6

  100

  34.9

  65.1

  1978

  5.6

  7.1

  7.8

  7.5

  6.7

  100

  34.7

  65.3

  1979

  5.6

  6.8

  7.7

  7.7

  6.8

  100

  34.6

  65.4

  1980

  5.7

  6.5

  7.5

  7.8

  7.0

  100

  34.5

  65.5

  1981

  5.7

  6.1

  7.4

  7.9

  7.3

  100

  34.4

  65.6

  1982

  5.9

  5.8

  7.2

  7.9

  7.4

  100

  34.3

  65.7

  1983

  6.0

  5.6

  7.0

  7.9

  7.6

  100

  34.1

  65.9

  1984

  6.0

  5.6

  6.7

  7.7

  7.8

  100

  33.8

  66.2

  1985

  6.0

  5.6

  6.4

  7.6

  8.0

  100

  33.6

  66.4

  1986

  6.0

  5.7

  6.1

  7.4

  8.1

  100

  33.3

  66.7

  1987

  6.1

  5.8

  5.8

  7.2

  8.0

  100

  33.0

  67.0

  1988

  6.2

  6.0

  5.6

  7.0

  7.9

  100

  32.6

  67.4

  1989

  6.3

  6.0

  5.5

  6.7

  7.8

  100

  32.3

  67.7

  1990

  6.3

  6.0

  5.6

  6.4

  7.6

  100

  31.9

  68.1

  1991

  6.4

  6.0

  5.7

  6.1

  7.4

  100

  31.6

  68.4

  1992

  6.4

  6.1

  5.8

  5.8

  7.2

  100

  31.3

  68.7

  1993

  6.4

  6.1

  5.9

  5.5

  7.0

  100

  31.0

  69.0

  1994

  6.3

  6.2

  5.9

  5.5

  6.7

  100

  30.7

  69.3

  Estimated resident population at mid-year 1974–1994: selected age-groups expressed as a percentage of the total

  England and Wales

  Percentage of persons aged

  Year

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  Total

  0–24

  25+

  1974

  7.2

  8.1

  8.0

  7.0

  6.9

  100

  37.3

  62.7

  1975

  6.9

  8.0

  8.2

  7.2

  6.8

  100

  37.1

  62.9

  1976

  6.5

  7.9

  8.2

  7.4

  6.9

  100

  36.9

  63.1

  1977

  5.2

  7.7

  8.3

  7.7

  6.9

  100

  36.7

  63.3

  1978

  5.9

  7.5

  8.2

  7.9

  7.0

  100

  36.5

  63.5

  1979

  5.9

  7.1

  8.1

  8.1

  7.1

  100

  36.4

  63.6

  1980

  6.0

  6.8

  7.9

  8.2

  7.3

  100

  36.3

  63.7

  1981

  6.1

  6.4

  7.8

  8.3

  7.5

  100

  36.2

  63.8

  1982

  6.2

  6.1

  7.6

  8.4

  7.7

  100

  36.0

  64.0

  1983

  6.3

  5.9

  7.4

  8.3

  7.9

  100

  35.8

  64.2

  1984

  6.3

  5.9

  7.1

  8.2

  8.2

  100

  35.5

  64.5

  1985

  6.3

  5.9

  6.8

  8.0

  8.3

  100

  35.3

  64.7

  1986

  6.4

  6.0

  6.4

  7.8

  8.4

  100

  34.0

  65.0

  1987

  6.4

  6.2

  6.1

  7.6

  8.4

  100

  34.7

  65.3

  248

  249

  Estimated resident population at mid-year 1974–1994: selected age-groups expressed as a percentage of the total

  England and Wales

  Percentage of persons aged

  Year

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  Total

  0–24

  25+

  1988

  6.5

  6.3

  5.9

  7.4

  8.3

  100

  33.3

  66.7

  1989

  6.6

  6.3

  5.8

  7.0

  8.1

  100

  33.9

  66.1

  1990

  6.6

  6.3

  5.9

  6.8

  7.9

  100

  33.5

  66.5

  1991

  6.7

  6.3

  6.0

  6.4

  7.8

  100

  33.2

  66.8

  1992

  6.7

  6.4

  6.1

  6.1

  7.6

  100

  32.8

  67.2

  1993

  6.7

  6.4

  6.2

  5.8

  7.3

  100

  32.5

  67.5

  1994

  6.6

  6.5

  6.2

  5.8

  7.0

  100

  32.2

  67.8

  Alcohol Duty
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate of the price elasticity of demand for(a) beer, (b) wine and (c) spirits are currently used to estimate the impact of changes in excise duties on Government revenue; over what period these price elasticities are based; and when they are next to be updated. [38971]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The revenue implications are estimated using a computer model produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, with values for independent variables updated annually. The model has a wide range of both own and cross price elasticities for various categories of consumption with own price elasticities of -0.963, -1.048 and -1.07 for beer, wine and spirits respectively.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual saving to private business and public funds from the Deregulation (Validity of Civil Preliminaries in Marriage) Order 1996. [39158]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I am advised by the Registrar General that the extension of the period of validity from three to 12 months of the civil preliminaries to marriage will produce no savings for business. Local authorities may accrue some small savings in administration.

  Abortion Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many NHS abortions were performed in(a) North Yorkshire, (b) Yorkshire, and (c) England in each year since 1979. [38925]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The figures following are for women usually resident in(a) North Yorkshire district health region, (b) Yorkshire health region, and (c) England.

  Number of NHS abortions performed to usually resident women, 1979–1994

  North Yorkshire

  Yorkshire

  England

  1979

  609

  2,874

  51,785

  1980

  634

  2,970

  56,966

  1981

  722

  2,961

  57,346

  1982

  629

  2,825

  58,714

  1983

  653

  2,716

  59,091

  1984

  692

  2,719

  61,190

  1985

  695

  2,920

  61,350

  1986

  789

  3,252

  63,368

  1987

  775

  3,327

  65,354

  1988

  924

  3,221

  64,885

  250

  Number of NHS abortions performed to usually resident women, 1979–1994

  North Yorkshire

  Yorkshire

  England

  1989

  896

  3,616

  66,513

  1990

  1,002

  3,889

  69,059

  1991

  1,035

  4,638

  70,749

  1992

  1,059

  5,640

  87,198

  1993

  1,117

  6,111

  94,199

  1994

  1,235

  7,315

  100,001

  Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the agencies for which he is responsible indicating for each the costs incurred for printing(a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the last available year. [38671]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executives of the Chancellor's five agencies: National Savings, the Royal Mint, the Office for National Statistics, the Valuation Office and Paymaster agencies. I have asked each of them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Peter Bareau to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, with details for National Savings, to your Question about printing costs.The total cost of printing external publications (excluding the annual report) during 1995–96 was approximately £1.8 million. This figure covers principally the costs of our product booklets, investment guides and interest rate leaflet, all of which are available throughout the post office network, and our guide for financial advisers.The cost of printing the annual report for the year ending 31 March 1996 was just under £14,000.
  Letter from Mrs. V. E. Lowe to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 23 July 1996:
  In your question to the Chancellor (ref 38671) you ask about the costs incurred in printing publications and the Annual Report.I have regarded publications as that material available to the public, such as Council Tax leaflets, Charter booklets, Business Plan, Property Market Report etc. The cost during 1995–96 was £95,165 and the cost of producing the last Annual Report and Accounts was £7,918.Please let me know if I can assist further.
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question requesting the most recent annual costs for printing all publications and in particular the Annual Reports for the agencies for which he is responsible as far as it relates to the Office for National Statistics.251 On your first point, most ONS priced paper publications are published by HMSO, who pay for the printing costs. Details of these printing costs can be obtained from the HMSO. For priced paper publications published by ONS, the printing costs in the calendar year 1995 were approximately £24,000.The printing costs for the last CSO Annual Report and Accounts (1995–96), which was laid before Parliament on the 15 July 1996, were £2964.I hope you find this reply helpful.
  Letter from Keith Sullens to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question seeking information on the costs his Agencies have incurred on printing all publications, and separately the annual report for the last available year.The total amount spent by PAYMASTER in 1995/96 was £47,932.72. Of this, £14,515.00 was spent on the Annual Report and Accounts.
  Letter from Roger Holmes to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question about printing costs.In the financial year 1995/96 the Royal Mint incurred costs of £10,437.00 for the design and printing of its Annual Report for 1994/95. There were no other publications printed during this period.

  Primary Tax Legislation
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by the Inland Revenue with the project to rewrite primary tax legislation to make it clearer and more user-friendly. [39620]

  Mr. Jack
  I am very pleased with the progress that has been made in developing this important project. The Inland Revenue has today published a consultative document which sets out detailed proposals for taking the rewrite forward. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  This is a huge project and we are committed to doing it well. The full and continuing involvement of the private sector will be essential to its success. The document sets out how we propose to achieve that aim.

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the petroleum revenue tax legislation in respect of the provision of relief for expenditure not related to an oil field. [39639]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government intend to introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill to put beyond doubt that oil companies cannot manipulate existing tax rules to allow them to claim petroleum revenue tax relief on non-field expenditure incurred by an unrelated group which continues to hold North sea licence interests. The change will apply to all claims for relief made on or after today. This new legislation will ensure that substantial amounts of PRT are protected.

  Further details are given in an Inland Revenue press release which is being issued today.

  Alcolhol and Tobacco
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes Customs and Excise are 252
  proposing to the measurement of cross-border shopping in alcohol and tobacco products; and if he will make a statement on the latest estimates of revenue losses. [39641]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Customs have advised me that their estimate of the extent of legitimate personal imports of alcoholic and tobacco products is now calculated on the basis of data from the international passenger survey. Customs' earlier estimates used data from the omnibus survey. The international passenger survey has a larger sample than omnibus, interviewing travellers during or shortly after their journey. It is therefore considered a more reliable source of data on cross-border shopping. Customs have consulted with representatives of the alcohol and tobacco industries over this change, and have given them all relevant data.

  Customs' estimate of total tax revenues—excise duty and VAT—lost from legitimate personal importation of alcohol and tobacco for the calendar year 1995 has been re-calculated on this basis as £210 million for duty paid alcoholic drinks and £80 million for tobacco products, making a total of £290 million. The new figure for alcoholic products is broadly in line with that calculated from omnibus data. As before, these figures use Customs' assumption that 50 per cent. of alcoholic products purchased abroad represent additional consumption.

  Cervical Cancer
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the rates of cervical cancer amongst women(a) nationally and (b) from ethnic minorities for each of the past five years. [37038]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The table shows (i) death rates for all women per 100,000 women from cervical cancer—ICD1 180—in the United Kingdom for the years 1986–1994 and (ii) incidence rates of cervical cancer for all women per 100,000 women in the United Kingdom for the years 1986–1990, the latest five-year period available. Information on ethnic status is not collected.

  Per 100,000 women

  Death rates

  Incidence rates

  1986

  7.7

  1986

  17.1

  1987

  7.3

  1987

  16.6

  1988

  7.4

  1988

  17.2

  1989

  7.0

  1989

  15.7

  1990

  6.7

  19902

  16.7

  1991

  6.4

  1992

  6.3

  1993

  5.7

  1994

  5.2

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  2 Provisional.

  The United Kingdom death rates from 1986–1994 are based on deaths registered each year for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The deaths for England and Wales are those registered for 1986 to 1992; but for 1993 and 1994 the deaths are those that occurred in the year.

  Taxation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the(a) direct tax and (b) indirect tax in cash prices paid in (i) 1978–79 and

  253
  (ii) 1996–97 for those whose income is in the (i) top 1 per cent., (ii) top 5 per cent., (iii) top 10 per cent., (iv) top 25 per cent., (vi) bottom 10 per cent., (vii) bottom 5 per cent., and (viii) bottom 1 per cent. and what is the total change for each category and change for each individual taxpayer. [38786]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The information is not available in the form requested. Latest information is contained in the article, "The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 1994–95, (Economic Trends, December 1995).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Race Relations
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the question of(a) amending the Race Relations Acts and (b) other measures to protect members of the Irish traveller community when in Great Britain. [38292]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have had no consultations with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on either of these matters. Case law in Great Britain has already established Irish people generally as constituting a racial group and therefore subject to the protection of the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of(a) different ethnic groups and their populations and (b) the Irish traveller community, who will be covered by the proposed race relations Order in Council. [38291]

  (d) Mr. Ancram
  The Government's proposal for a draft race relations (NI) Order in Council seeks to extend to all individuals in Northern Ireland legal redress against racial discrimination. As a question on ethnic origin has not been included in previous Northern Ireland censuses, there are no precise figures on the number in different ethnic groups in Northern Ireland. In its consultation document on race relations of December 1992, the Government published an estimate of approximately 5,000 members of the Chinese community, 1,000 members of the Indian community and 700 members of the Pakistani community. The Irish traveller community was estimated at 1,115 in a survey conducted by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland in 1993.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consult the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in order to amend the residency rule that prevents British students whose British-born parents have been abroad, outside the EU,

  Table showing excess deaths/death rates in winter period December to March

  Deaths

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total for (December-November)

  15,799

  16,127

  15,286

  15,946

  15,103

  16,123

  16,131

  15,008

  15,472

  15,354

  15,239

  Total for (December-March)

  5,772

  6,222

  5,539

  5,896

  5,296

  6,594

  5,773

  5,548

  5.283

  5,635

  5,547

  254
  for periods of more than three years from receiving awards for or toward tuition fees, to apply to a period of more than 10 years. [38296]

  Mr. Ancram
  No. There are no plans to consult about such a change to the residence requirements, which are common throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lindsay Robb
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, columns 4777–8, what payments have been made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to Mr. Lindsay Robb; and on what dates. [38511]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not appropriate to comment on specific instances in which payments are made under the witness protection scheme. In no circumstances is payment offered as an inducement in return for the giving of evidence. However, it is an unfortunate fact of life, not unique to Northern Ireland, that people who are prepared to perform their public duty in giving evidence of wrongdoing can, on occasion, be subjected to threat and intimidation. In such cases, it is appropriate that protection should be given to those who are prepared to make such a commitment. This protection may include the relocation of the individual and his or her family away from their original home, and involve payments to reimburse them for additional expenses incurred, or to enable them to maintain a standard of living equivalent to that enjoyed prior to any forced relocation.

  Death Statistics
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many deaths have been recorded in Northern Ireland for each of the past 10 years in the period December to March; [39010]

  (2) what the excess winter mortality rates have been in Northern Ireland for each of the last 10 years expressed in both excess numbers and as percentages. [39011]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject has been delegated to the Statistics and Research Agency under its chief executive, Mr. E. F. Jardine. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. F. Jardine to Mr. Ian Davidson, dated 22 July 1996:
  You recently tabled two questions asking the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths have been recorded in Northern Ireland for each of the past 10 years in the period December to March. and what the excess Winter mortality rates have been for each of the last 10 years expressed in both excess numbers and as percentages. I have been asked to reply in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.The information provided in the attached table shows the total number of deaths and the excess winter mortality rates for the period December to March for each of the last 10 years compared against the number of expected deaths for the same period (based on the average for the year). I trust this information is sufficient and if I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.255

  Table showing excess deaths/death rates in winter period December to March

  Deaths

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Expected for (December-March)

  5,266

  5,376

  5,095

  5,315

  5,034

  5,374

  5,044

  5,003

  5,157

  5,118

  5,080

  Actual deaths in (December-March)2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Expected deaths in (December-March)

  506

  846

  444

  581

  262

  1,220

  729

  545

  126

  517

  487

  Difference as percentage of expected deaths in (December-March)

  9.61

  15.74

  8.71

  10.93

  5.20

  22.70

  14.45

  10.89

  2.44

  10.10

  9.19

  Actual Death rate (December-March)

  11.12

  11.91

  10.55

  11.21

  10.04

  12.45

  10.81

  10.28

  9.71

  10.30

  10.09

  Expected Death rate (December—March)

  10.14

  10.29

  9.70

  10.10

  9.54

  10.14

  9.45

  9.27

  9.48

  9.35

  9.24

  1 One third of annual deaths.

  2 Excess deaths in period December to March.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the titles of its research papers into fair employment practice that the Northern Ireland civil service has decided not to publish. [382941

  Mr. Ancram
  The policy, planning and research unit, on behalf of the central community relations unit, commissioned research on "Modelling Rates of Unemployment using the "Continuous Household Surveys 1987–89" from the department of social statistics at the university of Southampton in December 1990, and a report was received in April 1993. The research was not published as it had been superseded by a more comprehensive project, employing more up-to-date data. Two reports on this latter research, which was commissioned from the Northern Ireland economic research centre, have subsequently been published by the central community relations unit.

  Pension Splitting
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the ability of divorcing couples to arrange pension splitting under the Family Law Act 1996 provisions where their pensions are governed by the new England and Wales law, or one is so governed while the other is governed by Northern Ireland law; and if he will make a statement. [38297]

  Mr. Moss
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security proposes to publish a Green Paper to consult on the implications of pension splitting, and to bring forward firm proposals for its implementation. It is our intention to bring forward legislation to allow for pension splitting to be implemented in Northern Ireland from the same date as in England and Wales.

  Stalking
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps in consultation with the Home Office to have Northern Ireland included in the extent of the proposed law on stalking. [38293]

  Sir John Wheeler
  On 9 July, the Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Departments jointly published a consultation paper, "Stalking—The Solutions", which addresses the problems posed by stalking in England and 256
  Wales and proposes measures to deal with the menace. As the consultation paper states, my right hon. and learned Friend intends to publish a separate paper which will address circumstances in Northern Ireland, including the relevant civil and criminal law. The extent of any new legislation which might arise, and the means by which it might be implemented, will obviously depend on comments received on the consultation papers in the two jurisdictions. I will, however, bear the hon. and learned Gentleman's request in mind.

  Queen's University Student Union
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland if he will list the moneys paid to Queen's university students union over the last three years, the purposes of the payments and the religious breakdown of its part-time staff. [38295]

  Mr. Ancram
  Grants paid by the Queen's university of Belfast to its students union over the three years to 1994–95, the latest figures available, are:

  Academic year

  £

  1992–93

  683,000

  1993–94

  731,000

  1994–95

  757,000

  Grants go towards the running costs of the students union, which under the university's charter and statutes promotes the interest of students and represents them in all matters affecting their interests.

  The religious breakdown of the part-time locally recruited staff is 16 per cent. Protestant and 84 per cent. Catholic.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the statistical forms issued to businesses by his Department, indicating the number of each sent out. [38675]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In 1995, the Northern Ireland! Office and the Northern Ireland Departments conducted or commissioned 86 statistical surveys of businesses. A list of the surveys and the number of forms sent out for each survey is contained in the statistics notice "Statistical
  257
  Surveys of Businesses by Central Government in Northern Ireland during 1995", a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Northern Ireland Departments took an early initiative to review the continued need for their forms which impact on business. A register of all Northern Ireland forms sent to business is held which allows the overall position to be kept under review. A detailed review of each NI form is carried out once every two years.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to whom a citizen of Northern Ireland should complain if they believe that they were injured by a plastic bullet fired improperly by a Royal Ulster Constabulary officer; and what complaints procedure exists for examining such complaints. [38955]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Plastic bullets are not in use in Northern Ireland.

  A complaint about the conduct of a police officer may be made to a variety of places, including a local police station, the independent commission for police complaints, the police authority or through a solicitor, but ultimately will end up with the police in complaints and discipline branch. If, however, the complaint is about an officer of assistant chief constable rank or above, it will fall to the police authority for consideration.

  The procedures for examining complaints are contained in the Police (NI) Order 1987—(1987) No. 938 (N.I.10)— and regulations and guidance issued under it. A guide on making a complaint, issued by the independent commission for police complaints, will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints he has received, to date, about the use by the Royal Ulster Constabulary of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland from 7 July to date. [38959]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Plastic bullets are not in use in Northern Ireland.

  In the period from 7 July 1996 until 19 July 1996, five complaints about the use of plastic baton rounds were received by the complaints and discipline branch of the RUC. One of these complaints has since been withdrawn.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic bullets were fired by Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in Northern Ireland between 7 July and 15 July; how many reports of people injured by plastic bullets and requiring hospital treatment he has received, to date; how many people were detained in hospital; how many people remain, to date, in hospital; and if he will make a statement. [38958]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Plastic bullets are not in use in Northern Ireland.

  During the period from 0600 on 7 July to 0600 on 16 July 1996, approximately 6,000 plastic baton rounds—PBRs—were fired by the RUC.
  258
  There are reports of injuries to 149 RUC personnel and 192 civilians during this period. It is not possible at this stage to determine how many of the civilian injuries were caused by PBRs. There are no figures to indicate how many people were detained in hospitals.

  New Barnsley RUC Station (Attack)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were injured in the gunfire directed at New Barnsley RUC station; and what was the nature and extent of the attack on the officers. [39040]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Although a total of 95 rounds of gunfire was directed at New Barnsley RUC station in a number of gun attacks between midnight and 3 am on 13 July, fortunately no police officers were injured as a result.

  Petrol Bombs
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many petrol bombs have been recorded as being thrown at the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the last three months; and how many officers have been injured. [39042]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The RUC do not hold figures relating to the number of petrol bombs thrown, but do collate the number of incidents where petrol bombs are thrown.

  Figures for the last three months are not yet available. However, initial estimates would suggest that between 7 and 16 July alone, more than 8,000 petrol bombing incidents were recorded, involving between 16,000 and 24,000 petrol bombs.

  Punishment Attacks
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment attacks have been carried out since 1 September 1994, by(a) republican and (b) loyalist groups. [39041]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Between 1 September 1994 and 18 July 1996, terrorist gangs in Northern Ireland have carried out 454 so-called punishment attacks, 24 of which were shootings. Of these, 277 have been attributed to republican groups and 177 to loyalist groups.

  Intimidation
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on current levels of acts of intimidation against members of the community committed by(a) republicans and (b) loyalists. [39043]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not possible to sub-divide acts of intimidation into those committed by republicans and those committed by loyalists. However, during the period 0600 on 7 July to 0600 on 16 July, the RUC received reports of 89 cases of intimidation of police personnel and 251 complaints from civilians.

  Housing Policy Review
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the outcome of the housing policy review; and if he will make a statement. [39725]
  259
  Mr. Moss
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the Government's decisions contained in "Building on Success—the Way Ahead" following the period of public consultation. It is now proposed to proceed with the main policies and strategies outlined in the housing policy review, although a number of proposals have been amended in light of the consultation and further considerations. Progress on certain proposals will require legislative change. I am now setting up a small group of senior officials from the Department of the Environment, the Housing Executive and housing associations, to agree the timetable and detailed arrangements for implementation of the decisions.

  Criminal Justice Report
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the royal commission's report on criminal justice; and if he will make a statement. [39726]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The terms of reference of the royal commission did not extend to Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decided to consider the implications of the report in the context of Northern Ireland.

  To facilitate that process, he published consultation papers on "Criminal appeals and arrangements for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice" (June 1994), "Disclosure in criminal cases in Northern Ireland" (July 1995), and "Committal proceedings in Northern Ireland" (December 1995).

  Of the recommendations that are applicable to the arrangements in Northern Ireland, many have been, or are in the course of being, implemented. Where appropriate, this is being achieved through legislation, for example through the Police (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, revisions to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes, and through extension of relevant parts of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 to Northern Ireland. A number of recommendations including those on corroboration rules, witness intimidation, sentence discounts and police bail are being taken forward in the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order which was published for consultation in May. Others are being pursued by administrative means and some will be further examined in light of the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, including various aspects of pre-trial procedures.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Incinerators
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much is paid to the operator of an animal incinerator(a) for every bovine spongiform encephalopathy carcase disposed of and (b) per tonne for specified bovine offal incinerated. [36853]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested cannot be supplied for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates 260
  of commencement and the estimated dates of conclusion and publication of the consultation exercises on (a) sheep dipping and (b) sheep scab control; if he proposes to issue interim reports; and if he will make a statement. [37801]

  Mrs. Browning
  The consultation exercise on organophosphorus sheep dips formed part of a review of the certificate of competence scheme in the safe use of OP sheep dips by the Veterinary Products Committee which was announced in December 1995. A letter to interested parties was sent out from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate for response by 30 January 1996. The responses were all considered by the VPC in the course of its review. Ministers forming the Licensing Authority expect to receive advice shortly, and an announcement will then be made as soon as possible. Copies of the responses to the consultation letter were placed in the Library of the House.

  The consultation document on sheep scab controls was issued on 21 December 1995; comments were sought by 1 March 1996. As part of the consultation process, officials have held meetings with local authority representatives and organisations representing the sheep industry and ancillary trades. Responses to the consultation letter were made available to the public in the main MAFF library on 15 May 1996. I plan a further round of consultation on revised proposals, taking account of the comments received, in the autumn.

  Nitrate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what considerations led him to draw a distinction between nitrate vulnerable zones and nitrate sensitive areas and to compensate farmers and landowners only in the case of the latter. [38330]

  Mr. Boswell
  Nitrate vulnerable zones have been introduced under Council directive 91/676/EEC. This requires the designation, as vulnerable zones, of land which drains into waters which are, or are expected to be, polluted by nitrate from agriculture. Mandatory measures to reduce and prevent further such pollution will be introduced before the end of 1999. As these measures will be based on good agricultural practice, the question of compensation does not arise.

  In contrast, the present nitrate sensitive areas scheme was introduced in 1994 under the terms of Council regulation 2078/92/EEC, the Agri-Environment Regulation. The scheme is designed to provide a quicker and more efficient way of stabilising and reducing rising nitrate levels in key groundwater sources, thereby helping to ensure their future viability. Under the scheme, farmers undertake voluntarily to make substantial changes to their farming practices, going significantly beyond good agricultural practice, in return for compensation. All 32 NSAs are located within designated nitrate vulnerable zones.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated relating to transgenic mice in relation to(a) human prions and (b) bovine prions. [36934]
  261
  Mrs. Browning
  The Department and its expert Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, has considered numerous papers on this subject in recent years. There are several groups now specialising in this area, most notably those led by Professor Prusiner in the United States, Professor Weissman in Switzerland, Professor Collinge in London, and at the BBSRC Institute for Animal Health at Edinburgh and Compton. Professor Collinge also briefed SEAC personally before he became a member of the committee. His most recent paper specifically on the subject was published in Nature on 21 December 1995. The Department will be funding development of transgenic models in the current financial year for the study of BSE.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated relating to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy transmission to macaques. [36933]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department and its independent advisory committee, SEAC have considered the paper published in Nature on 27 June 1996 by Dr. Lasmezas and co-workers in France and Dr. Ironside of the CJD surveillance unit, United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to promote European co-operation on(a) core data definition and acquisition and (b) the quarterly publication of surveillance data on BSE. [36937]

  Mrs. Browning
  All member states have been circulated with descriptions of the clinical disease as seen in the United Kingdom, including a video presentation of a series of cases. Furthermore, criteria for diagnosis of BSE post mortem have also been agreed internationally, within the EC and world-wide, and published in a scientific and technical review of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), 1992, Vol 11, No 2. Eds Bradley and Matthews. Indeed, the Central Veterinary Laboratory is the OIE reference laboratory for the diagnosis of BSE.

  With respect to acquisition of data, some member states participate in a surveillance programme for rabies in which all cattle that prove to be rabies negative are subsequently examined for the presence of BSE. No cases have been diagnosed by this means.

  BSE is a notifiable disease in all member states. Cases must be reported to the Commission and member states weekly in accordance with Council directive 82/894 as amended by Commission decision 90/134.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to ascertain whether the treatment of cattle with organophosphates has affected the incidence of BSE; and when the use of this treatment was discontinued. [38260]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Epidemiological studies at the beginning of the BSE outbreak showed no correlation between the use of agrochemicals and outbreaks of disease but a correlation with concentrated animal feed. The independent advisory committee, SEAC, considered a number of alternative hypothesis of the cause of BSE in its report published in 1994, which is in the Library of the House, including the role of organophosphorus compounds, but decided that
  262
  none of the hypotheses was sufficiently strong to justify extending the current research programme to cover them. Epidemiological studies continue to show the absence of a link between OP compounds and BSE, not only in the UK but in Switzerland where there have been over 200 cases of BSE but Phosmet is licensed for the treatment of warble fly in cattle.

  OP compounds continue to be licensed for the treatment of cattle in Great Britain.

  Multi-annual Guidance Programme
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which the United Kingdom will meet its commitments under MAGP III; what assessment he has made of the implementation of MAGP III in other EU nations; and if he will make a statement. [39164]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 20 June,Official Report columns 626–28. The Commission will shortly issue its 1995 annual report on implementation by the member states. I submitted an unnumbered explanatory memorandum on this document on 9 July. The report will be deposited in the House Library in the usual way.

  Tuberculosis
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instigate an independent scientific review on tuberculosis in cattle and badgers; and if he will make a statement. [39666]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend and the House that, following consultations with interested parties, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have decided to set up an independent scientific review into the policy on TB and badgers. Professor John Krebs, who is chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council has kindly agreed to chair the review, which is expected to report in the early summer next year. The membership of the review team will be announced later, together with the date when the review will commence. The current control policy for bovine tuberculosis will continue for the duration of the review.

  The terms of reference for the review will be:
  "To review the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle and badgers and assess the scientific evidence for the links between them; to take account of EU policies on reducing and eliminating the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle; to take account of any risk to the human population; and accordingly to review, in the light of scientific evidence, present Government policy on badgers and tuberculosis and to make recommendations."

  Common Fisheries Policy Review Group
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the report of the common fisheries policy review group will be published. [39668]

  Mr. Baldry
  The report will be published on 24 July and copies will be placed in the Library.
  263

  Environment Agency (Flood Warnings)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the role of the Environment Agency in the dissemination of flood warnings to the public in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [39667]

  Mr. Boswell
  Following a review by a Ministry-chaired working group involving representatives of interested organisations, it was agreed last year that with effect from 1 September 1996, the Environment Agency, as the successor body to the National Rivers Authority, would assume the lead role in disseminating flood warnings to emergency services, local authorities, other statutory bodies and to people and businesses. This was formalised by means of a ministerial direction to the NRA last March which has been inherited by the Environment Agency.

  The NRA, and subsequently the agency, has been preparing local flood warning dissemination plans in consultation with the police and local authorities with the aim of providing timely, accurate flood warnings for locations at risk throughout England and Wales where a flood forecasting system exists. These plans will be held at the agency's area offices concerned. With the aid of grant from the Ministry and Welsh Office the agency is installing automatic voice messaging systems to improve the provision of flood warning information to the public. It will be publicising the new arrangements by various means, including the issuing of leaflets to people and organisations in flood risk areas.

  Livestock Exports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the report by J. Panting into livestock export procedures as pursued by Jonathan Stirling is to be completed and published. [32326]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: My investigation officers have carried out a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme which was broadcast earlier this year. The investigation included consideration of the material provided by the programme makers to the Department following the broadcast.

  A report was submitted by the investigation branch to the Department's prosecution lawyers at the beginning of June. The lawyers have now considered the report and concluded that there is no evidence which would give rise to criminal charges against anyone featured in the "Dispatches" programme nor was there any evidence to substantiate the allegations of serious misconduct by the LVI featured in the programme.

  Reports of investigations carried out by investigation officers of the Department are not published.

  Statistical Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the statistical forms issued to businesses by his Department and the number sent out of each. [37464]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 16 July 1996]: During 1995 there were 96 statistical surveys to businesses conducted by MAFF and its agencies. Most of these were
  264
  fairly small and 38 had fewer than 100 addresses. A table setting out the surveys conducted and the number of businesses approached in 1995 will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Ministry has set targets to cut compliance cost of regular surveys to farmers in line with the recommendations of the deregulation task force. This will result in a reduction in compliance cost to farmers of some 35 per cent. in real terms in the four years up to 1998–99.

  Notable achievements during 1995 included the introduction of sampling to the June census of agriculture and horticulture so that smaller farms need not be surveyed annually. Some 35,000 fewer forms were sent out in 1995. In addition, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was used to exempt small traders from having to make weekly returns under the Corn Returns Act of 1882, leading to a 40 per cent. reduction in compliance costs.

  Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the licences currently issued by his Department, indicating their function and the annual administrative costs for each. [37810]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 19 July 1996]: The Ministry is responsible for issuing the following business licences:

  Registration of owners or keepers of pigs with local MAFF animal health office;

  Registration of owners or keepers of cattle with local animal health office;

  Registration of poultry breeding flocks and hatcheries;

  Approval of premises handling specified bovine offal;

  Approval and registration of premises handling animal by-products;

  Registration of animal protein processors;

  Licences for processing of waste food;

  Licences for holding of waste food;

  Licence to hold animal markets held on unpaved premises;

  Importation and transfer of pathogens and carriers of pathogens under Import of Animal Pathogens Order 1980;

  Importation of pathogens and carriers of pathogens under Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1993;

  Importation and quarantine of rabies-susceptible animals;

  Registration by owners or keepers of sheep or goats with local Animal Health Offices;

  Registration of premises recovering meat from bovine bones by mechanical processes;

  Registration of laboratories under the Poultry Breeding Hocks and Hatcheries Order 1993;

  Registration of laboratories under the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989;

  Movement of processed animal protein which has been tested for salmonella

  Exemption licence from requirement to test material for salmonella;

  Movement of bulls to a semen collection centre to donate semen;

  Storage of bovine semen;

  Processing of bovine semen;

  Farm storage of bovine semen;

  Supply of bovine semen (including semen shops);

  Sheep and goats: embryo collection teams and semen collection centre;

  Operation of a farm storage servicing business;

  Bovine embryo collection/production/transfer teams and storage facilities;

  Movement of boars to semen collection centres to donate semen;

  Operation of a porcine semen collection centre;

  265

  Importation of genetic material from sheep, goats, pigs and cattle;

  Importation of captive birds, poultry and hatching eggs;

  Importation of cattle, sheep, goats, other ruminating animals and swine;

  Importation of hay and straw;

  Food irradiation and licensing of premises;

  Export of breeding animals;

  Export of horses and ponies;

  Classifiers of beef carcasses;

  Licences to control the deposit of material at sea;

  Registration of milk production holdings;

  Approval of establishments processing dairy products;

  Approval of egg product establishments;

  Commercial fishing in external and specified waters;

  Commercial fishing in community waters;

  Trans-shipment of pelagic sea fish;

  Transit licence for queen bees between third countries via the UK;

  Importation of live and dead bees for research purposes;

  Importation of queen bees from third countries;

  Burning of heather, grass gorse or vaccinium at certain times of year;

  Keeping of mink for fur-farming;

  Licensing of slaughtermen;

  Approval of fresh meat premises (including slaughterhouses and premises exporting wild game);

  Approval of meat products and other products of animal origin premises and premises manufacturing minced meat and meat preparations for trade with member states;

  Importation of animal and poultry products;

  Registration of egg packing stations;

  Registration of egg producers to market eggs with a Special Marketing Term;

  Registration of hatcheries and breeding establishments;

  Importation, moving or keeping of prohibited plant material, soil, pests etc;

  Disposal of waste from imported vegetables;

  Plant protection products: approval under EC rules for sale, supply and use;

  Plant protection products: approval for R&D under EC rules;

  Pesticide products: approval under UK rules for sale, supply, advertisement, storage and use;

  Pesticide products: experimental permits for supply, storage and use granted under UK rules;

  Authorisation of pesticide adjuvants under UK rules;

  Purchase of strychnine to kill moles;

  Registration of seed merchants, processors and packers;

  Licensed seed testing stations;

  Licensed seed samplers;

  Licensed crop inspectors;

  Registration of fish and shellfish farms;

  Importation of salmonid viscera from third countries;

  Importation of live fish and shellfish (and their eggs and gametes) from third countries;

  Deposit of lobsters in designated areas;

  Animal test certificates;

  Manufacturer's licence for veterinary medicines;

  Wholesale dealer's licence for veterinary medicines;

  Product licences for zootechnical feed additives;

  Marketing authorisations for veterinary medicinal products.

  Information on the administration costs associated with each licence could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what enforcement actions fishery protection vessels have taken against Danish vessels engaged in industrial fishing on the north-east bank; [38253]
  266
  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of industrial fishing for sandeels by Danish vessels on the north-east bank on fish stocks and on the ability of vessels from local ports to pursue the haddock and whiting fishery; [38254]

  (3) what mesh size limits apply to vessels engaged in industrial fishing for sandeels on the north-east bank; [38255]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Sandeeling is subject to common fishery policy regulations. However, the United Kingdom in pressing for the introduction of precautionary total allowable catches as well as further research to increase our understanding of the impact of industrial fishing on other species.

  Nets used to catch sandeels in the North sea from 1 November to the last day of February must have a minimum mesh size of 16 millimetres. No mesh size restrictions are applied to sandeel fisheries at other times but throughout the year the maximum permissible by-catch of all protected species, including haddock and whiting, is 10 per cent.

  Aerial surveillance on 2 and 9 July identified up to 52 industrial trawlers in the area of the north-east bank. That number had fallen to four on 16 July. In the period of peak activity some 25 inspections were carried out by Royal Navy fishery protection vessels without any infringements being found.

  Mr. Jonathan Stirling
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many export consignments of animals Mr. Jonathan Stirling has been involved with as an local veterinary inspector since 1 July. [38411]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Mr. Jonathan Stirling did not carry out any LVI duties with respect to the export of any consignment of cattle, sheep or pigs during the period 1 July to 15 July 1996.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish the report of the inquiry into Mr. Stirling's role as an LVI. [38412]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: My investigation officers have carried out a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme which was broadcast earlier this year. The investigation included consideration of the material provided by the programme makers to the Department following broadcast.

  A report was submitted by the investigation branch to the Department's prosecution lawyers at the beginning of June. The lawyers have now considered the report and concluded that there is no evidence which would give rise to criminal charges against anyone featured in the "Dispatches" programme nor was there any evidence to substantiate the allegations of serious misconduct by the LVI featured in the programme.

  Reports of investigations carried out by investigation officers of the Department are not published.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if export health certificates, issued by
  267
  his Department for the ovines destined for EU member states, request the certifying veterinarian to verify that he has conducted an examination of each animal and recorded individual ear tag numbers. [38414]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Model health certifications for intra-Community trade in sheep and goats are laid down in Council directive 91/68/EEC. The certifying veterinary officer is required to confirm that the animals were inspected on the day of certification, which must be no more than 48 hours prior to loading, and show no clinical sign of disease. The eartag number of each animal must be recorded on the certificate.

WALES

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what the excess winter mortality rates have been in Wales for each of the last 10 years expressed(a) in excess numbers and (b) as percentages; [38024]

  (2) how many deaths have been recorded in Wales for each of the past 10 years in the period December to March. [38025]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table. The amount by which deaths occurring in December to March exceed the average of those occurring in the previous and following four month periods is defined as excess winter deaths.

  Winter deaths in Wales, 1985–86 to 1994–95

  Year

  Number of deaths in December to March

  Excess deaths:

  Number

  Percentage1

  1985–86

  13,722

  2,852

  26.2

  1986–87

  12,415

  1,867

  17.7

  1987–88

  12,438

  1,675

  15.6

  1988–89

  11,902

  919

  8.4

  1989–90

  13,752

  2,954

  27.4

  1990–91

  13,007

  2,327

  21.8

  1991–92

  12,529

  2,001

  19.0

  1992–93

  12,121

  1,361

  12.6

  1993–94

  12,505

  1,009

  8.8

  1994–95

  12,551

  1,661

  15.3

  1 Excess winter deaths as a percentage of the average of the autumn and summer deaths.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total amount of(a) useable capital receipts and (b) receipts set aside as provision for credit liability, held by each local authority in Wales at 31 March. [37977]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information was given in my answer to the hon. Member on 16 February 1996,Official Report, column 730–31. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures for 31 March 1996 are available and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
  268

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that the budget of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency for securing inward investment projects and developing indigenous industry in locations in Wales outside the M4 corridor in south-east Wales will not be reduced or restricted as a result of the LG project at Newport; and if he will make a statement. [37855]

  Mr. Hague
  I will make decisions on future budgets later in the year in the usual way as part of the public expenditure survey, taking into account the total amount available to me in my block and the various demands upon it, including the need to promote and encourage economic development across all parts of Wales.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what strategy the Welsh Office has for increasing the number of producer services serving the needs of manufacturing industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [37856]

  Mr. Hague
  My plans for supporting the Welsh economy were published on 13 June in "Meeting the Challenge—The Competitiveness of Wales", copies of which are available in the Library of the House. It describes the services available to stimulate company growth, all of which can be accessed through Business Connect on 0345 96 97 98.

  Health Service Managers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health service managers there were in(a) 1995 and (b) 1991; and if he will make a statement. [38835]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At 30 September 1991 there were 711 whole-time equivalent managers—staff paid on manager payscales—in the NHS in Wales. The figure for 30 September 1995 was 1,350 and 31 March 1996, the latest available, 1,321. Figures for the later years may include staff who have been reclassified as managers from other staff groups since 1991. The whole-time equivalent number of all administrative and clerical staff, including managers, was 8,865 at 30 September 1991, 9,875 at 30 September 1995 and 9,808 at 31 March 1996.

  NHS Bureaucracy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [38908]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Excellent progress has been made in reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in the NHS in Wales, and further major initiatives are planned.

  The number of health authorities has been reduced from 16 to five. Within three years, the number of staff employed by these authorities should have fallen by nearly a third. On the basis of the latest estimates from health authorities, this reduction should release £10 million per year for spending on direct patient care.
  269
  This saving will be in addition to the £12.5 million transferred from management costs to patient care over the financial years 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 as called for in "Caring for the Future".

  We have also cut the burden of form filling on the NHS. Since 1993–94, successive reviews have reduced the number of forms used by the Welsh Office to collect information from the NHS from over 100 to about 60. These reviews also resulted in significant cuts in the size of many of the remaining forms.

  More broadly, action is already being taken to implement the "Patients not Paper" initiative to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on GP practices and other parts of the primary care sector.

  In addition, the Dpearmtent is currently consulting on how best to implement in Wales the recommendations of the comparable efficiency scrutiny of burdens on health authorities and NHS trusts, "Seeing the Woods, Sparing the Trees". An announcement on the action to be taken on this will be made in the autumn.

  Consultant Anaesthetists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultant anaesthetists there are in each of the health trusts in Wales. [38834]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on permanent staff in post is given in the following table.

  Consultant anaesthetists in post at 30 September 1995

  NHS trust/directly managed unit

  Whole-time equivalent number

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  7.5

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.6

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  7.0

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  5.0

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  6.4

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  8.6

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  15.5

  Glan-y-Mor NHS Trust

  4.0

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  10.0

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  5.0

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  3.0

  Merthyr Cynon Health Unit

  5.0

  Morriston NHS Trust

  8.8

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  6.0

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  5.0

  Powys Health Care NHS Trust

  0.1

  Rhymney Valley Health Unit

  1.2

  Swansea NHS Trust

  9.1

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  0.5

  University Hospital of Wales NHS Trust

  22.8

  Wrexham Maelor NHS Trust

  9.0

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private finance initiatives schemes there are in Wales; and in what location. [38838]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are two Welsh Office approved private finance initiative projects: a new computer system for the Welsh Office and a multi-storey car park for the University hospital of Wales. For 270
  information about projects under consideration I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 22 July 1996.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of ambulance response times in Wales. [38832]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1995–96, 95 per cent. of emergency ambulances across Wales arrived within target times specified in the patients charter. This is seen as a marked improvement given that the number of emergency patients carried in the period increased by 6 per cent. on the previous year.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to further reduce waiting times for hospital appointments. [38836]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The NHS in Wales is to be congratulated on its achievement in cutting the waiting times for outpatient appointments sharply during the course of 1995–96.

  The NHS has committed itself to building on this success in 1996–97 using the special funds available for this purpose. Health authorities are planning on the basis that by 31 March 1997, no patient will have waited more than six months for a first appointment.

  Road Signs (National Borders)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current provision of road signage on the road network marking the border between Wales and England. [38634]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is our policy to erect bilingual "Welcome to Wales" signs on or close to the border.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the average length of Office for Standards in Education inspections in(a) secondary and (b) primary schools; and if he will make a statement; [38820]

  (2) what is his estimate of the average cost of (a) secondary and (b) primary Ofsted inspections in the most recent year for which figures are available. [38819]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  These are matters for the Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales, who heads the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member, and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning farm animal welfare. [38822]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  We continue to receive a steady flow of representations on farm animal welfare issues.
  271

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to assist the long-term unemployed. [38824]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A range of new incentives making it easier for the long-term unemployed to take up employment will be available in October when the jobseekers' allowance is introduced.

  The training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service in Wales will continue to provide training for work and other services including advice, jobclub and the job interview guarantee scheme to assist the long term unemployed back into work.

  Public Library Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the future of public library services. [38826]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 852, by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The policy paper on the Government's continuing review of public libraries will be published as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently employed in the public library services in Wales. [38827]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of 1,184 people were employed in public libraries services in Wales on 31 March 1995—the most recent figures held centrally.

  Surgical Operations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost of an NHS in-patient operation. [38828]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cost of inpatient care varies sharply depending on the procedure involved. However, based on provisional figures for 1996–97 supplied by NHS trusts in Wales, the average cost of in-patient admissions involving the most common surgical procedures is £1,800. Taking into account day case procedures, the average cost is £1,000.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many in-patient operations were performed in(a) 1992 and (b) 1995. [38829]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  About 240,800 in-patient operations performed in NHS hospitals in Wales during 1992. Data for 1995 are not yet complete but it is estimated that around 250,000 operations were performed.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the available supply of general practitioners in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [38833]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Although there is no overall shortage of general practitioners, I am aware that some practices are experiencing difficulty in recruitment. Health 272
  authorities are monitoring the situation and the Department will also consult professional interests as appropriate.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of tuberculosis occurred in Wales in the last year; in which locations; and if he will make a statement. [38837]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table:

  Cases of Tuberculosis notified during 1995

  Bro Taf Health Authority

  69

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority

  28

  Gwent Health Authority

  24

  Morgannwg Health Authority

  29

  North Wales Health Authority

  34

  Source:

  PHLS CDSC (Welsh Unit).

  Cardiac Rehabilitation Units
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cardiac rehabilitation units there are in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [38831]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Wales what is his estimate of the average cost to public funds of creating a full-time job from inward investment. [38821]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The evaluation of regional selective assistance offers made during 1985–1988 (HMSO 1993) estimated a net cost for each year of employment created by regional assistance to foreign firms of between £750 to £950, at 1990 prices.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the higher education sector concerning the planned funding for the immediate years ahead. [38823]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This year my right hon. Friend, hon. Friends and I have received six letters from representatives of higher education institutions about the funding of higher education. We have also received nine letters from others within the sector. My right hon. Friend has also met the heads of Higher Education Wales.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 319, about spending on higher education in Wales, if he will supply the information requested for the earliest year after 1980–81 for which it is available. [39012]

  Mr. Evans
  The provision for 1993–94—the earliest year for which information is available—was £4,937 (cash) and £5,025 (real terms).
  273

  School Security
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has developed concerning security in schools; and if he will make a statement. [38825]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The report by the working group on school security was distributed in Wales on 14 June. The Government have welcomed and accepted all its recommendations and we are considering how best to implement them in Wales.

  Funding from the Welsh Office has been given to enable eight schools in Wales to benefit from the Home Office's closed circuit television challenge. The Home Office will be running a further competition for 1997–98 financial year.

  Guidance on security of school premises is being finalised and will be available later this year.

  Play Wales
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning Welsh Office financial support for Play Wales; and when he expects to make an announcement concerning a funding decision. [38880]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: My right hon. Friend has received representations from a wide range of interests about future funding arrangements for Play Wales. He hopes to make an announcement in the near future.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 507, if he will provide a breakdown of cases and suspected cases of CJD by unitary authority area without naming the authorities concerned. [38621]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: For confidentiality reasons I do not propose to publish any information which could lead to the identification of patients.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 42, about complaints in respect of opt-out status, what factors made it difficult to provide information without incurring disproportionate costs. [39017]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A significant number of ballots on grant-maintained status have been accompanied by complaints about the material distributed to parents and the activities of those campaigning in the run-up to the ballot. To provide the details requested would have involved a comprehensive search of a large number of departmental files in order to identify the number of correspondents, the nature of their complaints, and the action taken by officials in respect of any complaints as well as their consideration of the material issued by the school, its local education authority, and third parties.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his
  274
  policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical result of such monitoring. [39180]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens; and where appropriate providing direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  Details of Welsh Office policies and programmes to help small firms in the Principality to grow and improve their competitiveness are provided in "Meeting the Challenge—the Competitiveness of Wales" which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales published on 13 June. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the last 50 appointments he has made both new and re-appointments to non-departmental public bodies, NHS trusts or other non-elected body which provides services to the public with financial support from his Department. [39015[

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details are set out in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales", 1 June 1996, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Companies (Grants)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been paid in grants out of public funds to(a) Howlett (South-East) Ltd., (b) Guardian Maintenance Ltd. and (c) G. H. Smith (South-East) Ltd., during the last five years, giving the total amount paid and the purposes for which such grants was made. [38266]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has not made any payments to the three named companies during the past five years.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff employed (i) full time and (ii) part time, are budgeted to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39381]

  Mr. Hague
  Twenty-four full time staff.

  Child Labour
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will adopt the policy of the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department in respect of publication of the responses to his consultation document on school-age children who work. [38672]
  275
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Copies of the replies from organisations in Wales to the consultation document "Employment of Children" is available for inspection in the Welsh Office Library, Cathays park, Cardiff.

  Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the licences issued by his Department; for what purpose they are issued; and what are the administrative costs for each. [38684]

  Mr. Hague
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Number and percentage of pupils leaving school, aged 16 and over, without any GCSE A' or AS level qualifications

  Maintained schools in:

  1989–901

  1990–911

  1991–922

  1992–932

  1993–942

  Clwyd

  355 (7 per cent.)

  335 (8 per cent.)

  450 (10 per cent.)

  380 (9 per cent.)

  310 (7 per cent.)

  Dyfed

  565 (14 per cent.)

  570 (15 per cent.)

  335 (9 per cent.)

  405 (10 per cent.)

  350 (9 per cent.)

  Gwent

  815 (15 per cent.)

  900 (18 percent.)

  645 (13 per cent.)

  635 (14 per cent.)

  620 (13 per cent.)

  Gwynedd

  325 (11 percent.)

  280 (10 percent.)

  235 (9 per cent.)

  205 (7 per cent.)

  145 (6 per cent.)

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,570 (24 per cent.)

  1,280 (20 per cent.)

  1,100 (19 per cent.)

  915 (16 per cent.)

  950 (17 percent.)

  Powys

  105 (7 per cent.)

  45 (3 per cent.)

  75 (6 per cent.)

  65 (5 per cent.)

  70 (6 per cent.)

  South Glamorgan

  680 (15 per cent.)

  560 (13 per cent.)

  645 (14 per cent.)

  575 (14 per cent.)

  555 (13 per cent.)

  West Glamorgan

  650 (15 per cent.)

  385 (9 per cent.)

  500 (12 percent.)

  470 (12 per cent.)

  375 (9 per cent.)

  Wales (including Independent schools)

  5,080 (14 per cent.)

  4,400 (13 percent.)

  4,030 (12 percent.)

  3,695 (12 per cent.)

  3,395 (11 per cent.)

  1 From School Examinations Survey, of a sample of school leavers:

  2 From Intended Destinations of Pupils (RD1) Survey.

  Agency Printing Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the agencies for which his Department is responsible indicating for each the costs incurred for printing(a) all publications and (b) the annual report in the last available year. [38670]

  Mr. Hague
  Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments is the only executive agency for which the Welsh Office has sole responsibility. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. T. J. Cassidy, to provide a reply.

  Letter from T. J. Cassidy to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 23 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about printing costs incurred by Cadw (an Executive Agency of the Welsh Office) in the last year.The cost of printing for publications in the year ended 31 March 1996 is:

  £

  Annual Report

  18,561.00

  Interpretive publications (guidebooks and other similar material)

  62,523.00

  Corporate publications (information booklets)

  13,334.00

  Total

  84,418.00

  1 (Printed by HMSO).

  276

  School Exclusions and Expulsions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for the last available three years for each county and for Wales as a whole, the number of school exclusions or expulsions recorded for(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) all schools, indicating the percentage of such exclusions or expulsions as a proportion of overall pupil numbers in each case. [38944]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information is available in respect of the 1994–95 academic year only. This information, shown in the following table, is derived from an early analysis of the January 1996 schools census. Results for the new unitary authorities are not yet available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of a higher guaranteed minimum income for pensioners on incentives to save. [36956]

  Mr. Lilley
  Any guaranteed minimum income scheme for pensioners set significantly above income support levels would involve means-testing all pensioners and would weaken the incentive for individuals to save for their retirement.

  Single Mothers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the earnings disregard, with particular reference to single mothers on benefit. [36968]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The earnings disregard is part of our three-fold strategy for lone parents: namely, to help and encourage lone parents to take up work through work incentives, to ensure that both parents take responsibility for their children and that maintenance is properly paid, and to ensure even-handed treatment of one and two parent families.
  277

  Pensioner Incomes
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average change in pensioner incomes in real terms since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [36970]

  Mr. Heald
  Pensioners' average net incomes, before housing costs, increased by 51 per cent. in real terms, between 1979 and 1993.

  Source:

  Pensioners' Incomes Series 1993, based on information drawn from the Family Expenditure Surveys 1979 and 1993.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of family credit in the year of its introduction; and how many currently receive it. [36971]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Currently, 643,000 families receive family credit compared with 282,000 families in 1988.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry October 1995.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current expenditure on family credit(a) in total and (b) on the child care allowance; and if he will express (c) as a percentage of the total. [34228]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Estimated out-turn on family credit in 1995–96 was £1,682 million. Figures for expenditure on childcare disregard in 1995–96 are not yet available. However, we provisionally estimate that the cost of the disregard from its introduction in October 1994 to the end of February 1996 was £17.8 million.
  278
  Sources:

  1996 Departmental Report.

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of family credit are(a) self-employed and (b) employed; what is the estimated expenditure in each case; how many of those employed are at an hourly rate of (i) less than £2.50, (ii) £2.51 to £3.00, (iii) £3.01 to £3.50, (iv) £3.51 to £4.00, (v) £4.01 to £4.50 and (vi) £4.51 and above; and what is the average benefit payable in each case. [39109]

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

  Family credit caseload and expenditure by employment type

  Occupation

  Number of cases

  Annual expenditure (£ million)

  Self-employed

  96,000

  297

  Employed

  547,000

  1,385

  Employed family credit recipients by hourly earnings and average benefit payable

  Hourly earnings

  Number of cases

  Average weekly family credit (£)

  £2.50 and under

  67,000

  73.64

  £2.51–£3.00

  66,000

  65.67

  £3.01–£3.50

  101,000

  60.34

  £3.51–£4.00

  87,000

  52.43

  £4.01–£4.50

  73,000

  44.99

  £4.51 and above

  154,000

  35.43

  Sources:

  1. 1996 Departmental Report and Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards (October 1995)—all numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. 1996 Departmental Report 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit cases.
  279
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount paid out in family credit to people in(a) the south-west region, (b) the county of Dorset and (c) each district in Dorset in each of the last five financial years. [38166]

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

  Figures for the amount of family credit in Wales and south western region

  £ million

  1991–92

  87

  1992–93

  133

  1993–94

  163

  1994–95

  198

  1995–96

  233

  The figures for 1995–96 have been derived by apportioning the estimate of total family credit expenditure published in the departmental report, and must, therefore, be treated with caution. All other figures relate to March each year.

  Guaranteed Minimum Pension
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing a guaranteed minimum pension of £80 a week. [36972]

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that a guarantee set at this level which takes account of all sources of taxable income would cost up to £4½ billion at 1996–97 prices.

  Benefits Freeline Service
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the consequences of the abolition of the benefits freeline service. [36973]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No one will lose out through the closure of the freeline service. Customers will be encouraged to contact their local office where direct links can be made between benefit advice and personal circumstances. Freeline has no access to individual customer details and has never been able to give information specific to claims—the very reason people ring. We are directing our resources to where they are needed most as any organisation must do in order to keep operating costs in check. This decision will mean that we can keep much needed local services running.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people used his Department's freephone help line in the last year. [36981]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The freeline service took 3,237,711 calls from April 1995 to March 1996.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he proposes to maintain the freeline service offering confidential advice and information on benefits, pensions, and national insurance; how many calls have been received in each year, to date, since the service was introduced; and if he will make a statement. [38581]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  280
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Max Madden, dated 22 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he proposes to maintain the Freeline service offering confidential advice and information on benefits, pensions, and national insurance; how many calls have been received in each year. to date, since the service was introduced: and if he will make a statement.The Freeline service closed on 12 July, customers are being encouraged to contact their local benefit offices. The closure will allow resources to be refocused so that the customer is in touch with the staff who administer their claims or who can directly link the benefits available with the specific personal details of the customer.Freeline, Social Security has been operating since 1984, however information about the number of calls is available only from 1993. The number of calls received has been taken to mean the number of calls answered by an adviser.The number of calls answered are shown in the table below:

  Number

  April 1993 to March 1994

  1.5 million

  April 1994 to March 1995

  2.6 million

  April 1995 to March 1996

  3.2 million

  April 1996 to 12 July 1996

  800,000

  These figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000.I hope you find this reply helpful.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the telephone advice service to local offices to replace the social security freeline service will be free to callers; [38610]

  (2) what monitoring he will set in place to review the effect of the cancellation of the freeline social security service on the take up of benefits. [38609]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 22 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking if the telephone advice service to local offices to replace the Social Security Service Freeline service will be free to callers and what monitoring he will set in place to review the effect of the cancellation of the Freeline Social Security Service on the take up of benefits.Many customers who contacted Freeline had to make subsequent contact with their local benefit office in order to pursue their enquiry. These calls were not free and there are no proposals to make calls to local benefit offices free now that Freeline has closed.It is not expected that the closure of Freeline will have a significant effect on the take up of benefits. Advice and information about benefit entitlement is available through the Agency's network of local benefit offices. Benefit literature is readily available in local offices, post offices and numerous other outlets. There are no proposals to review the effect of the closure of Freeline on the take up of benefits.Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the position.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost saving to his Department of the abandonment of the Social Security freeline telephone service for claimants; and how many claimants made use of the telephone freeline service in the last year. [38608]
  281
  Mr. Evans
  This is an operational matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 22 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what is the annual cost saving to his Department of the abandonment of the Social Security Freeline telephone service for claimants; and how many claimants made use of the telephone Freeline service in the last year.
  The annual cost savings following the closure of the Social Security Freeline service are estimated at £3m for the financial year 1996/97 and £6.25m thereafter.
  Statistics show that in the period April 1995 to March 1996, Freeline answered 3.2 million calls and in the period April 1996 to closure on 12 July answered 800,000 calls. These figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to conclude his annual review of the system of cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement. [36974]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Further to the reply given to the hon. Member on 21 May,Official Report, column 93, I expect the review to be completed shortly.

  Private and Social Insurance
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the relative costs of private and social insurance in the welfare system. [36975]

  Mr. Heald
  We have made no estimates which cover the welfare system as a whole. Furthermore, private and state schemes are unlikely to be directly comparable. Even within the area of private insurance, plans tend to show considerable variation in charges between different types of scheme and the individual's requirements.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about paying income support to 16 and 17-year-olds. [36976]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department has received a small number of representations.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children are now living in families that claim income support and associated benefits; and what was the equivalent figure in 1979. [36979]

  Mr. Burt
  A total of 4.04 million children live in families receiving income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit. It is not possible to make a direct comparison with the position in 1979.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics, Quarterly Enquiry May 1995.

  Social Security Statistics 1979.

  Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample taken at the end of May 1995.
  282
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men aged 60 to 64 years receive income support. [36983]

  Mr. Evans
  There are 185,000 men aged between 60 and 64 in receipt of income support.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics, Quarterly Enquiry August 1995.

  Note:

  Figure is rounded to nearest thousand.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in(a) York and (b) North Yorkshire were in receipt of supplementary benefit or income support in (i) 1979, (ii) 1983, (iii) 1987, (iv) 1992 and (v) currently; [38902]

  (2) how many children and what percentage of all children in (a) York and (b) North Yorkshire lived in families in receipt of supplementary benefit or income support in (i) 1979, (ii) 1983, (iii) 1987, (iv) 1992 and (v) currently. [38869]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 22 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many people in (a) York and (b) North Yorkshire in (i) 1979, (ii) 1983, (iii) 1987, (iv) 1992 and (v) currently were in receipt of Supplementary Benefit or Income Support (IS), and how many children and what percentage of all children lived in families in receipt of Supplementary Benefit or IS.The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency (BA) collate statistics by District Office. These Districts do not correspond to constituency boundaries or to specific county boundaries. The available information is shown in the attached tables which relate to the BA's Districts of North Yorkshire, East Yorkshire, Yorkshire Pennine, Leeds and Hull. The Districts of East Yorkshire, Yorkshire Pennine, Leeds and Hull include areas which are outside North Yorkshire.There is no information available for North Yorkshire prior to 1991. Information for York is included in the North Yorkshire District, which includes the offices of York, Harrogate and Northallerton.We do not collate statistics on the number or percentage of children who live in families in receipt of benefit.Table A relates to the actual number of successful Income Support (IS) claims for 1992 and 1996. Table B relates to the actual number of people in receipt of IS on the last working day of May 1992 and May 1996.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Table A: Number of successful income support claims

  BA districts

  January to December 1992

  January to June 1996

  North Yorkshire1

  25,015

  10,342

  East Yorkshire

  16,288

  7,726

  Yorkshire Pennine

  17,684

  9,896

  Leeds

  49,218

  20,299

  Hull

  35,045

  14,994

  1 North Yorkshire District includes the offices of York, Harrogate and Northallerton.

  283

  Table B: Number in receipt of income support

  BA districts

  May 1992

  May 1996

  North Yorkshire1

  28,251

  31,394

  East Yorkshire

  21,344

  24,562

  Yorkshire Pennine

  30,389

  31,033

  Leeds

  66,744

  70,997

  Hull

  48,413

  51,970

  1 North Yorkshire District includes the offices of York, Harrogate and Northallerton.

  The area of North Yorkshire is covered by the BA's Districts of North Yorkshire, East Yorkshire (which includes the offices of Scarborough, Bridlington and Goole), Yorkshire Pennine (which includes the offices Halifax, Keighley and Skipton), Leeds (which includes the offices of Leeds East, Leeds North, Leeds North West, Leeds South and Leeds West), and Hull (which includes the offices of Hull West, Hull East and Hull East Outstation).

  The information has been provided by the Central Data Unit, is provisional and may be subject to change.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the quality of service received by clients attending Benefits Agency offices. [36977]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency continues to be committed to maintaining caller facilities that meet the needs of the local community.

  Social Security Reforms
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent to which industrial action has been taken in response to recent social security reforms(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other EU countries. [36978]

  Mr. Lilley
  In the United Kingdom we began to respond to the demographic, social and economic changes common to most industrial nations rather earlier than other countries, and have been able to avoid disruption by taking a longer-term perspective. I have done this by introducing reform measures gradually on a sector-by-sector basis to maintain an effective, efficient and affordable welfare system.

  There has been no industrial action outside of my Department of which I am aware and very little adverse reaction from my own Department's staff. Other EU countries including Germany, France, Belgium and Italy, have been dogged by major disruption and unrest during their recent attempts to contain the cost of providing a welfare system.

  Private Insurance Companies
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what role private insurance companies play in his Department's policy making. [36982]

  Mr. Burt
  In developing social security policies, we consult a wide range of interested parties, including, when appropriate, private insurance companies.

  Telephone Advice Services
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the 284
  role of telephone advice services in the social security system.[36984]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department and its agencies have a range of telephone advice services offering a variety of relevant services to different customer groups.

  State Pension (Retirement Age)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what flexibility about the age of retirement is contained in the Government's state pension arrangements. [36985]

  Mr. Heald
  Our aim is to maximise choice and flexibility in pension provision, whilst maintaining a balance between the interests of the taxpayer and of the pensioner.

  Currently individuals can take advantage of the flexibility within the state scheme by deferring their state pension for up to five years after reaching state pension age. For each year of deferral, their pension will increase by seven and a half per cent.

  In the Pensions Act 1995, we made provision to enhance this flexibility from 2010 by removing the limit on the number of years of deferral and increasing the incremental rate from 7.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. a year.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of a social fund grant or loan(a) in the year the social fund was introduced and (b) currently. [36980]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In 1988–89, the first full year of the discretionary social fund, 153,000 non-repayable community care grants and 884,000 repayable loans were awarded.

  In 1995–96, 275,000 non-repayable community care grants and 1,753,000 repayable loans were awarded.

  Records held are based on the number of loans and grants awarded not the number of individuals to whom the awards were made. Some people may have been awarded more than one payment during the year.

  Benefits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of increasing current(a) earnings disregards and (b) capital limits to each benefit by (i) earnings and (ii) prices; and what would have been the cost at 1996 prices had these been uprated every year since their introduction. [34273]

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

  Table 1: Estimated costs of increasing earnings disregards

  Change to earnings disregards

  Cost 1996–97 (£ millions)

  Increasing disregards by prices.

  10

  Increasing disregards by earnings.

  10

  285

  Table 1: Estimated costs of increasing earnings disregards

  Change to earnings disregards

  Cost 1996–97 (£ millions)

  Increasing disregards by prices since their introduction.

  120

  Increasing disregards by earnings since their introduction.

  160

  1. Estimates are modelled on the 1994 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and the 1991/1992/1993 Family Expenditure Surveys uprated to 1996–97 levels of prices, benefits and earnings. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Factors for uprating are based on the ROSSI and earnings indexes of the year prior to the year in question and have been applied to earnings disregard levels at April 1996.

  3. Figures for Income Support contain unemployed cases who will be included in Jobseekers Allowance from October 1996. The effect on the Back to Work Bonus has not been estimated as the future behavioural response is very uncertain.

  4. It has been assumed that no behavioural effects take place. The estimates which involve larger changes to the earnings disregard should in particular be treated with caution.

  Table 2: Estimated cost of uprating capital limits since their introduction, or at the April 1996 uprating, at 1996–97 prices and benefit levels

  Income related benefit

  Current year

  Since introduction

  Uprated by:

  Prices or earnings

  Prices (ROSSI) £ million

  Earnings £ million

  Income Support (including Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based))

  *

  60

  70

  Housing Benefit

  *

  50

  70

  Council Tax Benefit

  *

  *

  *

  Family Credit

  *

  30

  40

  Total estimated cost

  *

  140

  190

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million: * indicates a cost less than £5 million.

  2. The lower and upper capital limits (except in residential care and nursing home cases) which apply in the calculation of income-related benefits are currently £3,000 and £8,000 respectively for Income Support and Family Credit, and £3,000 and £16,000 for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Disability Working Allowance. The lower £3,000 limit was introduced in 1988. The upper limits of £8,000 for Income Support and £16,000 for Housing Benefit were increased in 1990. The Housing Benefit capital limits were applied to Disability Working Allowance and Council Tax Benefit when these benefits were introduced in 1992 and 1993 respectively.

  3. Estimates are based upon data drawn from the 1991, 1992 and 1993 Family Expenditure Surveys, uprated to 1996–97 prices and benefit levels.

  4. Estimates exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes.

  5. Adjustments to these estimates are made using data drawn from the May 1995 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry; the Family Credit database at July 1995; and the May 1994 Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit Management Information System.

  6. It is not possible to give separate costs for Disability Working Allowance as there is insufficient information on likely claimants to effectively model their entitlement.

  7. Figures for Income Support include Jobseekers's Allowance (Income-Based) from October 1996,

  8. ROSSI is the Retail Prices Index excluding the rent, mortgage interest and local tax components, and is used to uprate income-related benefits.

  9. After rounding the capital limits to the nearest £250, uprating by earnings or prices is the same for the one year uprating at April 1996.

  10. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
  286

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress the Benefits Agency in(a) Newham and (b) the United Kingdom has made in (i) identifying, (ii) contacting and (iii) recompensing asylum seekers affected by the Court of Appeal decision of 21 June. [35974]

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

  Immediately following the Court of Appeal ruling, Benefits Agency offices were advised to accept claims from those who gained entitlement to benefit for the period from 5 February. Given that the Court of Appeal ruling has received widespread media coverage, and this is an area in which advocacy and support groups are very active, it is likely that any action geared towards identifying affected cases would be largely redundant. Therefore, the Government do not believe it is necessary to take any special steps to identify those who may have gained entitlement following the court ruling.

  Asylum seekers who would have been entitled during the period 5 February to 21 June will be aware that benefit can be obtained by making claim in respect of that period or seeking a review of a decision to disallow benefit. Arrears of benefit will be payable where appropriate in respect of claims and requests for review covering the period 5 February to 21 June.

  Bate Case
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases processed by the Benefits Agency have been affected by the decision of the House of Lords on the Bate case; in how many cases, suspended pending the outcome of the Bate appeal, payments have been made to claimants; if he will indicate the total amounts paid out to claimants affected by the Bate case; and what considerations led to the decision to make the payments. [36568]

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

  Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the initiatives undertaken to reduce fraud in the periods(a) April 1979 to May 1983,(b) June 1983 to May 1987, (c) June 1987 to March 1992 and (d) April 1992 to date; and what was the amount of fraud detected for each period in constant prices. [36833]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested as details of initiatives undertaken prior to the creation of the Benefits Agency are not available. Such information as is available is as follows:

  1991 to March 1992

  Sector Fraud organisation established.

  National Organised Fraud branch established.

  Introduction of free anti-fraud training for local authority investigators.

  Publication of anti-fraud, good practice guide for local authorities.

  287

  April 1992 to date

  Five year Security Strategy;

  Post Office Reward Scheme;

  Electronic Stop Notice, barcoding of order books;

  Deployment of mobile bar code scanners in Post Offices;

  Generalised Matching Service—development of data matching across Benefits Agency computer systems to identify customer inconsistencies and incorrectness which are likely to result in excess benefit payments.

  Audit Trail Analysis System—to provide a computer tool to deter, detect and report on patterns of fraud and abuse;

  Spotlight on Benefit Cheats campaign—a series of co-ordinated anti-fraud drives, targeting specific towns or geographical areas;

  Freephone Fraud Hotline Pilot;

  Extra visits and other checks of new and existing claims to benefit;

  Investigation of employers who collude with their employees to make false claims;

  Trial examining standards of documentary proof of identify at point of encashment;

  Prisoners Project—automation of the interface between the Prison Service and the Benefits Agency in England and Wales to eliminate fraud by persons impersonating convicted prisoners;

  Benefit Reviews to measure the scale of benefit fraud and incorrectness on major social security benefits;

  Joint Benefits Agency/Contributions Agency National Insurance Number Project;

  Hole punching of order books by Post Offices prior to return to Benefits Agency office;

  Secure delivery of order books to Post Offices;

  Ultra Violet lamps for Post Office use;

  Redesign of girocheques and order books, including greater security measures;

  Secure delivery of girocheques;

  Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Limited (BA/POCL)—procuring via a Private Finance Initiative the automation of Post Office counters, introducing the benefit payment card;

  Development and improvement of Management Information Systems;

  Development and improvement of Case Work Management;

  Fraud Investigation National Database;

  Search by Address facility on Departmental Central Index;

  Change Management Project—changing the culture of staff and customers so that security becomes everyone's responsibility;

  Improved verification procedures;

  Child Benefit—creation and maintenance of register of stolen birth certificates.

  Operation Rattle—aimed at people receiving Child Benefit but who are no longer entitled to it owing to their absence from Great Britain

  Joint Child Support Agency (CSA and Benefits Agency (BA) pilot initiative to a BA fraud officer in Plymouth CSA Centre.

  CSA cases referred to BA where fraud is suspected, including cases where reduced benefit directions have been accepted.

  CSA and BA closer working project to identify improved joint working practices to identify and prevent benefit fraud in the most cost effective way.

  Various joint operations with other Departments (e.g. Customs and Excise) and other bodies (e.g. the police) to detect and deter fraud.

  A BA official seconded full-time with the National Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS).

  288

  Appointment of a dedicated anti-fraud Minister (DSS).

  Ministerial group on countering benefit fraud set up to oversee the development of measures to counter benefit fraud and insure effective co-ordination within Government and local authorities.

  Counter Fraud Unit (currently being established in DSS) which will co-ordinate counter fraud activity within DSS and across Whitehall.

  Rationalisation of the Departmental Central Index;

  Benefits Agency review of internal fraud;

  Private Sector Partnership—scoping work to test the suitability of future partnerships with the private sector. Currently considering fraud process efficiency and effectiveness.

  Risk management—assessing and analysing risks so that they can be targeted and minimised;

  A programme of activity to detect unreported changes of circumstances amongst customers residing in countries overseas;

  Merger of the Benefits Agency and Employment Service fraud investigation services;

  Introduction of the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme for local authorities.

  Action against fraud roadshows—held in 20 different locations throughout the country to encourage local authority anti-fraud work.

  Publication of the local authority Fraud Investigators' manual.

  National fraud service level agreements between local authorities and both the Benefits Agency and Employment Service signed.

  Challenge Funding scheme to encourage innovative and anti-fraud ideas (worth £8 million in 1996–97).

  Revised anti-fraud financial incentives with higher rewards and stiffer penalties for poor performance authorities.

  Introduction of the Housing Benefit Matching Service in July 1996 providing a data matching service for local authorities.

  Establishment of organised Housing Benefit Fraud investigation team pilot.

  Fraud savings are not available before 1986–87, information from 1986 is not available in the format requested. Fraud savings in 1995–96 prices for complete fiscal years are given in the table.

  Figures for 1992–96 exclude the estimated savings achieved through the Security and Control Programme before 1995–96, which have yet to be finalised.

  Annual fraud detection savings

  Period

  1995–96 1 Prices £ million

  1986–1987

  221

  1987–1992

  1,947

  1992–1996

  2,757.6

  1 Prices have been uplifted using Retail Prices Index (RPI) mid year indices. The source for RPI data was "Economic Trends Annual Supplement—1996 Edition".

  Doctors' Fees
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) full-time doctors and (b) fee-paid part-time doctors are employed by his Department; and what is the cost to his Department in each case of (i) the salaries or fees payable and (ii) the cost of administration. [36907]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:
  289

  Location

  Number of full time doctors

  Number of fee paid part-time doctors

  Salaries (£ million)

  Fees (£ million)

  DSS Headquarters

  13

  0

  0.20

  0

  Benefits Agency

  278

  1,337

  3.48

  5.44

  War Pensions Agency

  37

  20

  0.50

  0.07

  Totals

  328

  1,357

  4.18

  5.51

  1. Salaries and fees are for the period April to June 1996, and include National Insurance contributions, superannuation, etc.

  2. Fee paid doctors are not employees, but independent contractors.

  3. Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Domestic Fuel Expenditure
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce a system of regional heating premiums to means-tested benefits to reflect the regional disparity of heating costs. [37974]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have been disallowed incapacity benefit in the Coventry benefits district in each quarter since April 1995(a) are currently signing on as unemployed, (b) are claiming unemployment benefits and (c) have started work. [37854]

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

  The number of people disallowed incapacity benefit who have successfully made claims to unemployment benefits and/or credits of national insurance in the Employment Service Coventry district is shown in the table:

  Quarter ending

  Number of cases

  June 1995

  11

  September 1995

  40

  December 1995

  54

  March 1996

  22

  June 1996

  111

  Total in period

  238

  1. Of the total making a claim eight have been placed in work by an Employment Service adviser or through specialist PACT help. This figure does not include those who have found work by using the self service facility in Jobcentres.

  Abbeyfield Society
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to provide additional funds for the provision of places in registered extra care houses managed by the Abbeyfield Society; and if he will make a statement. [37892]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Abbeyfield Society residents who were living in care homes on 31 March 1993 have preserved rights to the higher levels of income support for 290
  residential and nursing care. These levels are reviewed each year as part of the normal uprating exercise and were last increased in April 1996. Increases above the rate of inflation—Rossi index—were made to the limits for elderly and very dependent elderly people in residential care homes.

  People who enter Abbeyfield extra care homes since April 1993 can seek assistance from local authorities with the cost of their care under the community care arrangements. Normal rates of income support including a residential allowance are available to such residents. These rates are similarly reviewed each year.

  Foster Carers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from foster carers in respect of efficiency drives in his Department's freeline service. [38158]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department has received one representation from the National Foster Care Association and two from Norwich and District Carers Forum.

  Child Care
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise the age limit for receipt of family credit child care help. [37118]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Proposals have been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee which include extending eligibility for the child care disregard from the child's 11th birthday until the following September.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims in total have been made for the child care disregard in respect of (i) family credit and (ii) disability working allowance; and how many have been disallowed for(a) being in receipt of the maximum benefit, (b) child care not being provided by a registered provider, (c) the child being aged over 11 years and >(d) being one of a couple where the partner was not incapacitated. [39048]

  Mr. Evans
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures he is taking to assist disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [37413]

  Mr. Burt
  The Disability Discrimination Act, which received Royal Assent last year, is being phased in over a period of time to eliminate the unjustifiable discrimination that disabled people currently face in a number of areas, including employment and access to goods, facilities, services and premises. The employment rights and the first rights of access to goods, facilities, services and premises will come into force on 2 December this year.

  Codes of practice on the new rights, together with guidance on the definition of disability in the Act, will be published shortly. These documents will help employers and service providers to understand and comply with the new rights and duties that the Act creates.
  291

  Upper Earnings Limit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the additional contribution yield from raising the upper earnings limit to £600. [38265]

  Mr. Heald
  Raising the present £455 upper earnings limit to £600 would increase national insurance contribution revenue for 1997–98 by an estimated £1.1 billion.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Disregards
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the costs of and (b) the numbers gaining from an increase in disregards from (i) £5 to £8.15, (ii) £10 to £16.40, (iii) £15 to £24.50, (iv) £25 to £34.10 in (1) income support, (2) housing benefit and (3) council tax benefit. [39044]

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

  Benefit

  Total annual cost £ million

  Gainers

  Income Support/Job Seekers Allowance (IR)

  50

  140,000

  Housing Benefit

  90

  320,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  30

  310,000

  Notes:

  1. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million. Gainers are rounded to the nearest 10 thousand. Behavioural effects are not taken into account. Figures for Income Support include increases in the cost of income-related Jobseeker's Allowance.

  2. The number of gainers in each case refers both to those already receiving the benefit whose eligibility increases and those who will become eligible for the benefit as a result of the changes made to the earnings disregards in October.

  3. The costs of increasing the Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance disregards also includes the costs of increased entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as a result of people floating onto Income Support because of the increased disregards. The figure for gainers only includes Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance gainers.

  Source:

  1. Modelled using the 1991/1992/1993 Family Expenditure Surveys and the May 1994 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry uprated to 1996/97 levels of incomes, prices and benefits.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the numbers of(a) family credit and (b) disability working allowance claimants who are in receipt of the maximum benefit, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) marital status and (iii) whether self-employed or employed. [39110]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Numbers of family credit and disability working allowance claimants receiving maximum awards

  Family type

  Family credit

  Disability working allowance

  All cases

  193,000

  8,076

  Male main earner1

  66,000

  —

  292

  Numbers of family credit and disability working allowance claimants receiving maximum awards

  Family type

  Family credit

  Disability working allowance

  Female main earner1

  127,000

  —

  Male claimant

  —

  4,862

  Female claimant

  —

  3,214

  Couples (married and unmarried)

  88,000

  3,057

  Lone parents/single claimants

  105,000

  5,019

  Self-employed

  44,000

  1,577

  Employed

  149,000

  6,499

  Notes:

  1. In Family Credit claims from couples, the claim is made by the mother in the family. Figures on gender are therefore provided by main earner.

  Sources:

  1. Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards (October 1995)— figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count (January 1996).

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new claims were made during 1994–95 for(a) sickness benefit, (b) invalidity benefit, (c) severe disablement allowance and (d) income support where a disability premium is payable on incapacity grounds; [39114]

  (2) how many new claims were made during 1995–96 for (a) short-term incapacity benefit, (b) long-term incapacity benefit, (c) severe disablement allowance and (d) income support where a disability premium is payable on incapacity grounds. [39113]

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

  Benefit

  Claims received

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Sickness/Invalidity Benefit

  11,157,000

  —

  Incapacity Benefit

  —

  11,054,000

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  183,000

  196,000

  Income Support with disability premium

  2647,000

  2737,000

  Sources:

  1 Benefits Agency Central Data Unit. Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  25 per cent. sample from Income Support Computer System (ICIS). The figures represent numbers in receipt of disability premium at end of August 1994 and August 1995. It is not possible to identify separately those receiving disability premium on grounds of incapacity for work.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the numbers of people currently receiving(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit by eligibility for (i) the carer premium, (ii) the lone parent premium and (iii) the disability premium. [39046]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the tables.
  293

  Income support recipients by premium in Great Britain May 1995

  Thousands

  Premium type

  Income support recipients

  Carer

  138

  Disability

  739

  Lone parent

  1,056

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1995.

  Note:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Housing benefit/council tax benefit recipients by premium, Great Britain—May 1995

  Thousands

  Premium type

  Housing benefit recipients

  Council tax benefit recipients

  Carer

  78

  102

  Disability

  639

  700

  Lone parent

  896

  961

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries with and without income support taken at the end of May 1995.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1995.

  Notes:

  1The figures given refer to the number of benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figures include overlaps because most people receive both housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Second adult rebate cases are not included.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect an answer to his letter of 18 June to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary about the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996, S.I. 1996, No. 965. [39000]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I replied to the hon. Member on Monday 22 July 1996.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much housing benefit was paid to residents of(a) York and (b) North Yorkshire in each year since 1979–80. [38939]

  Mr. Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  £ millions

  Year

  York

  North Yorkshire

  1983–84

  3.8

  18.4

  1984–85

  4.4

  20.9

  1985–86

  5.3

  23.7

  1986–87

  5.6

  25.6

  1987–88

  5.6

  25.8

  1988–89

  5.7

  26.2

  1989–90

  7.2

  29.5

  1990–91

  9.2

  32.8

  1991–92

  10.1

  38.8

  1992–93

  14.1

  56.4

  294

  £ millions

  Year

  York

  North Yorkshire

  1993–94

  16.8

  67.3

  1994–95

  19.5

  78.5

  Source:

  DSS Finance and Planning Division and Department of the Environment.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

  2. Information is only available from the introduction of the national scheme in 1983–84.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of families with children aged under 18 years received housing benefit in(a) York, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) Yorkshire and Humberside and (d) England in each year since 1979. [38941]

  Mr. Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Percentages of families with children aged under 18, who are in receipt of Housing Benefit for England

  Year

  Percentage

  1990

  13

  1991

  14

  1992

  17

  1993

  19

  1994

  19

  1995

  20

  Source:

  1. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample enquiry taken at May of each year given.

  2. Child Benefit 1 per cent. sample enquiry at December 1994 and 4 per cent. sample enquiry at December for 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990 and 1989. Includes families with children aged only 18 and 19.

  Note:

  Information is not available for York, North Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humberside and the relevant national data were not collected prior to 1990.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate in each case of(a) the cost of and (b) the numbers gaining from a reduction in the housing benefit taper to 50 per cent. to people in receipt of (i) the carer premium, (ii) the lone parent premium and (iii) the disability premium. [39045]

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

  The table shows, for each of the three groups, the estimated annual cost, the estimated number of current claimants who will gain from the change—gainers—and the estimated number of cases who will become newly entitled to and claim housing benefit as a result of the change—floaters on.

  Group

  Cost (£ million)

  Gainers (thousands)

  Caseloads Floaters on (thousands)

  Disability premium

  70

  245

  15

  Lone parent premium

  55

  110

  25

  Carer premium

  0

  5

  0

  Total

  125

  355

  40

  1. Estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Surveys of 1991, 1992 and 1993, uprated to 1996/97 prices and benefit levels. Expenditure estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million, and caseloads to the nearest 5,000.

  2. The cost and caseload estimates for the disability premium and the lone parent premium includes some cases who are also in receipt of the Carer Premium.
  295

  Unemployment Credits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average duration of a claim for(a) unemployment credits where no benefit is in payment and (b) incapacity credits where no benefit is in payment. [39112]

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

  The average duration of claims to unemployment benefit where the claimant was not in receipt of unemployment benefit or income support which were live on 8 February was 460 days (1 year and 3 months)1. Almost all of these claimants will have received national insurance credits.

  The average duration of incapacity credits where no incapacity benefits were in payment in 1994–95 was 256 days (8 months)1. It is not known whether income support was in payment for any of the periods involved.

  Sources:

  1 Five per cent. sample of unemployed claimants on 8 February 1996.

  1 One per cent. sample of all claims to sickness benefit made in Great Britain which terminated during 1994–95.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of average earnings the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions has represented in each of the years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91, (c) 1992–93, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [39108]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Average weekly earnings (£)1

  Weekly upper earnings limit (£)

  Upper earnings limit as a percentage of average earnings

  1989–90

  250

  325

  130

  1990–91

  274

  350

  128

  1991–92

  296

  390

  132

  1992–93

  312

  405

  130

  1993–94

  322

  420

  130

  1994–95

  332

  430

  130

  Number of people claiming benefit due to medical incapacity (Sickness Benefit and Incapacity Benefit) and receiving National Insurance credits only no benefit in payment: Great Britain—thousands

  Total claimants

  Men

  Women

  Married women

  Other women

  1 April 19891

  157

  70

  87

  33

  54

  31 March 19901

  205

  95

  110

  40

  70

  30 March 19911

  262

  126

  137

  53

  84

  4 April 19921

  320

  160

  160

  61

  100

  3 April 19931

  387

  201

  185

  75

  110

  2 April 19941

  440

  233

  207

  83

  124

  12 April 19951

  512

  277

  235

  92

  143

  29 February 19962

  580

  320

  260

  n/a

  n/a

  Source:

  1 per cent. sample of all claims to Sickness Benefit in Great Britain.

  5 per cent. sample of claims to Incapacity Benefit, excluding a small number of cases not held on teh computer.

  Note:

  1. For incapacity only point in time information is available, relating to the end of the statistical year in question.
  296

  Year

  Average weekly earnings (£)1

  Weekly upper earnings limit (£)

  Upper earnings limit as a percentage of average earnings

  1995–96

  344

  440

  125

  1996–97

  357

  455

  127

  1 Average weekly earnings for all full-time workers whose pay was not affected by absence during the year. The figure for 1996–97 is an estimate.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been paid out (i) in unemployment benefit and (ii) in other benefits to unemployed people in(a)York and (b) North Yorkshire in each year since 1979–80. [38934]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Pensions
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many female(a) divorced and (b) widowed pensioners there are in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England; and how many in each area currently receive a full state pension based on their husband's national insurance contributions record. [38935]

  Mr. Heald
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Incapacity Credits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the numbers gaining if receipt of an incapacity credit where no benefit is in payment were to be included in the qualifying benefits for disability working allowance (i) during the eight weeks prior to claim, (ii) in the six months prior to claim and (iii) in the two years prior to claim. [39111]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  There are insufficient data on which to base reliable estimates.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, columns 411–12, if he will break down each of the tables by gender and marital status. [39047]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  297

  Number of unemployed claimants in receipt of National Insurance credits only: by gender and marital status in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Males

  Females

  Total Claimants

  Total

  Married

  Single, divorced or widowed

  Total

  Married

  Single, divorced or widowed

  May 1989

  274

  171

  96

  75

  102

  65

  37

  May 1990

  220

  141

  69

  73

  78

  45

  34

  May 1991

  280

  187

  96

  90

  93

  52

  41

  May 1992

  313

  211

  116

  96

  102

  59

  43

  May 1993

  335

  229

  128

  101

  106

  62

  44

  May 1994

  281

  192

  120

  72

  89

  52

  38

  May 1995

  231

  155

  92

  63

  76

  43

  33

  February 19961

  229

  155

  87

  68

  74

  39

  35

  Notes

  1 February 1996 is the most recent data available.

  2 The above figures include a small number who will not receive credits, but can't be identified separately.

  3 For Unemployment Benefit, only point in time information is available, relating to the second Thursday of May in each of the years requested. The table below shows the number of unemployed claimants not receiving Unemployment Benefit nor Income Support by gender and marital status. Almost all of these will receive National Insurance (NI) credits.

  Source:

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

  Number of people receiving at least one credit for Invalid Care Allowance

  Great Britain Thousands

  Financial year

  All

  Men

  Women

  All

  Married

  Single

  Divorced

  Widowed

  Unknown

  1988–89

  116

  21

  95

  77

  7

  4

  6

  1

  1989–90

  129

  26

  103

  83

  9

  4

  5

  1

  1990–91

  143

  30

  112

  91

  11

  5

  5

  1

  1991–92

  174

  35

  139

  110

  16

  7

  6

  1

  1992–93

  210

  45

  165

  130

  21

  8

  6

  1

  1. The information for men aged between 60 and 64 years is available only for the numbers of people in receipt of at least on NI credit in the financial year shown.

  Number of men, aged between 60 and 64 receiving at least one Autocredit

  Great Britain Thousands

  Financial year

  Men

  1988–89

  1,299

  1989–90

  1,310

  1990–91

  1,331

  1991–92

  1,348

  1992–93

  1,371

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures 1992–93 are not complete as some returns may not have been received at the time of the extract.

  Source:

  1 per cent. Sample of National Insurance Recording System (NIRS) taken at February 1994.

  National Disability Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will appoint a deputy chairman to the National Disability Council. [39613]

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has appointed Martin Reavley, of Bass plc as the deputy chairman of the National Disability Council. Mr. Reavley's period of appointment will run from 9 July 1996 to 22 January 1999. Mr. Reavley has been a member of the council since its inception in January this year and has played an active role in its work.
  298

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further studies he has made to measure the amount of benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [39680]

  Mr. Heald
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced in July 1995 that he had instigated a series of benefit reviews across the major social security benefits to identify and quantify the level of fraud. Results of the reviews of income support, unemployment benefit, housing benefit and retirement pension have already been announced. A further review of invalid care allowance has now been completed.

  This shows that the vast majority of customers are entitled to the benefit they are receiving.

  However fraud has been found in 6.5 per cent. of cases representing annual overpayments of an estimated £37 million. The largest area of fraud uncovered was where recipients were failing to provide care to the disabled person.

  As a result of these findings, we are introducing further measures to secure benefit payments for the future whilst ensuring the benefit remains accessible to those entitled to receive it.
  299

  Decision Making and Appeals
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce his proposals for improving social security decision making and appeals; and if he will make a statement. [39681]

  Mr. Lilley
  I am today publishing a consultation document setting out my objectives for improving this key area of social security administration as part of the change programme.

  The proposals, on which I welcome comments, seek to remove the legal obstacles to efficient business processing whilst at the same time preserving individual rights to have decisions taken fairly and impartially in accordance with the facts and law. They will make it easier to improve accuracy and will be more cost effective to administer.

  The paper also sets out my plans to develop more flexible arrangements for correcting decisions when necessary and also for ensuring that individuals take proper responsibility for providing relevant evidence to the Department. I have also made clear my intention to retain the right to independent appeal for those people whose dispute cannot better be resolved another way. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

  In addition, some changes to appeals procedures can be made as a step towards the longer term improvements. I am currently consulting the Council on Tribunals on these and, subject to that consultation, will lay regulations during recess, to take effect in the autumn. Copies of the letter to the Council on Tribunals, which sets out my proposals, have been placed in the Library.

  Domestic Fuel Expenditure
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of domestic fuel expenditure for each income decile expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of total household expenditure in the latest year for which figures are available. [37901]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Estimates of the average weekly household expenditure on domestic fuel by income decile groups are available for (a) in table 1.1 and for (b) in table 1.2 of "Family Spending: A report on the 1994–95 Family Expenditure Survey", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for authorisations in respect of(a) municipal waste, (b) hazardous waste, (c) clinical waste and (d) animal and other incinerators have been (i) refused and (ii) allowed since Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution took over regulatory functions in respect of air quality; and if he will list the locations of those allowed and, of these, where are they situated. [37838]
  300
  Mr. Clappison
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution granted authorisations to:

  (a) 19 municipal waste incinerators;

  (b) 4 hazardous waste incinerators;

  (c) 10 clinical waste incinerators; and

  (d) 3 animal incinerators.

  They also granted.

  20 authorisations to in-house waste incinerators;

  11 authorisations to sewage sludge incinerators; and

  7 authorisations to drum incinerators.

  No applications for authorisation from incinerators were refused by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  The names and addresses of the incinerators have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the average cost and (b) the lowest cost for the installation of loft insulation, approved under the home energy efficiency scheme. [37895]

  Mr. Clappison
  The present average grant towards the cost of loft insulation under the home energy efficiency scheme is £189, and the lowest recorded is £87.49.

  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many grants at 25 per cent. have been paid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a statement. [37899]

  Mr. Clappison
  One hundred and twenty nine such grants had been paid by 30 June 1996.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources he plans to make available to local authorities to enable them to implement recommendations arising from reports produced under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. [38050]

  Mr. Clappison
  None specifically, since those measures which are for direct implementation by local authorities fall within their existing powers and duties as housing authorities. Energy efficiency will continue to be one of the factors taken into account in considering allocations to local authorities in England under the housing investment programme. Housing finance in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the respective Secretaries of State. In the case of the majority of the housing stock, implementation will be for third parties, such as landlords and homeowners, and the role of the local authority will be to inform, educate and motivate. Many authorities already take steps to provide information and encourage residents to use energy more efficiently in their homes.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources he plans to make available to the home energy efficiency scheme to match additional measures added to the scheme as a result of the current consultation process. [38052]

  Mr. Clappison
  The allocation for the home energy efficiency scheme is decided each year in the light of the priorities at that time and the overall resources available for all programmes. No decisions have yet been taken on
  301
  the proposals contained in the consultation paper published earlier this year on the future of this successful and well-regarded scheme.

  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the average cost and (b) the lowest cost for the installation of draught-proofing, approved under the home energy efficiency scheme. [37898]

  Mr. Clappison
  The present average grant towards the cost of draught-proofing under the home energy efficiency scheme is £116, and the lowest recorded is £45.33.

  Radon Gas
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what categories of information are provided by the National Radiological Protection Board to local authorities to assist them in identifying and advising individual households which may be at risk from high levels of radon gas; and what category of information on radon-affected homes is considered by the board to be confidential and not made available to local authorities. [38086]

  Mr. Clappison
  Participation in the radon measurement programme, administered by the National Radiological Protection Board on behalf of the Department of the Environment, is voluntary. Householders who participate in this Government-funded programme are given categorical assurances that the results for their homes will be confidential to them. The NRPB is therefore not free to release individual results to any other party. However, to assist local authorities, aggregated data are routinely provided to each local authority within whose area measurements have been made. These data are given for areas defined down to the level of postcode sectors.

  Urban Initiative
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress towards agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission on the terms on which funds for the Urban initiative can be made available to neighbourhoods in England. [37967]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We are close to finalising the administrative arrangements with the European Commission for the Urban Community initiative. The programmes for those neighbourhoods to receive funding in England, Scotland and Wales will commence as soon as they have been formally adopted by the Commission.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the total amount of(a) useable capital receipts and (b) receipts set aside as provision for credit liability, held by each local authority in England at 31 March. [38015]

  Mr. Curry
  A list by region of the amounts of accumulated usable capital receipts and provision for credit liabilities held by each English local authority at 31 March 1995 has been placed in the Library of the 302
  House. The provision for credit liabilities includes amounts set aside from revenue as well as capital receipts. Separate figures are not available.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the delay in consolidating regulations for local authority capital expenditure and finance. [38278]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We expect to issue draft consolidated regulations for consultation by October.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were the needs assessments for local government expressed through the local government grant systems for(a) Westminster city council and (b) Liverpool city council in each year since 1979; [38279]

  (2) if he will list for each authority for each year from 1979–80 to 1996–97 the amount that each was deemed to need to spend in (i) cash and (ii) real terms for the purposes of distributing rate support grant; to what extent the figures are comparable, taking account of (a) changes in functions of local authorities, (b) abolition of the Greater London council, the Inner London education authority and metropolitan counties, (c) the local government review, (d) changed arrangements for the assessment of needs, (e) changed arrangements for the payment of the needs element of rate support grant and (f) changed precepting arrangements; and if he will list for each authority on a comparable basis the assessed needs in each year on the basis of the percentage of total local government spending that each authority's needs represents and of the amount of assessed needs per head of population. [38280]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on standard spending assessments from 1990–91 onwards in cash and in real terms has been placed in the Library. The information includes, for 1992–93 and later years, figures recalculated so as to be comparable to those for the year immediately following. These adjusted figures take account of changes in function and geographical responsibility, but not changes in data, methodology or the national totals for each element of the SSAs.

  The figures in real terms are based on the gross domestic product deflator.

  Information has also been provided as a percentage of the total for England and as an amount per head for the figures in cash terms.

  Data on grant-related expenditure assessments, in cash and in real terms, covering the period 1981–82 to 1989–90, will be placed in the Library shortly.

  I will write to the hon. Member shortly concerning data for the years before 1981–82.

  Street Litter (Westminster)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with Westminster city council street litter around the Palace of Westminster in the absence of bins. [38085]
  303
  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that Westminster city council recognises the particular pressure placed upon the area around the Palace of Westminster because of the large number of visitors and the absence of bins. It has already discussed with its contractor the need for additional resources at this time of year.

  The city council requires its contractor to clean the area to a higher standard and over a longer period than is required in the statutory code of practice issued under part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Furthermore, where complaints of litter in this area are received, it aims to deal with the problem within one hour.

  Rents (Wigan)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether the senior rent officer at Wigan is following the correct statutory procedure in determining private sector rent levels for housing benefits. [38021]

  Mr. Curry
  None. Rent officers are independent statutory officers, appointed by the proper officer of the local authority in accordance with a statutory scheme agreed with the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State has specified in the Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1995, as amended. the criteria that rent officers must follow in determining rents for housing benefit purposes. Rent officers are not accountable to the Secretary of State for their decisions. They are accountable through the chief rent officer to the proper officer on matter of performance and conduct.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are currently registered as homeless with local housing authorities. [38476]

  Mr. Clappison
  Summary information on households for which local authorities in England accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 is published in a quarterly information bulletin—"Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act 1985: England". Copies of the bulletin, the latest of which provides statistics for the first quarter of 1996, are in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) households, (b) pensioners and (c) families with children (i) were presented and (ii) were accepted as homeless in (1) York, (2) North Yorkshire, (3) Yorkshire and Humberside and (4) England in each year since 1979. [38998]

  Mr. Clappison
  The available data on households dealt with under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985 are set out in the tables. Other than those given for York, the figures for acceptances of households with children or a vulnerable household member could be provided only at disproportionate cost for years before 1991.
  304

  York

  Applications/ Households accepted for re-housing enquiries1

  Total

  Of which households with:

  Vulnerable member due to old age

  Children

  1979

  n/a

  125

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  352

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  632

  503

  4

  310

  1982

  464

  320

  6

  178

  1983

  355

  212

  5

  128

  1984

  357

  204

  4

  100

  1985

  479

  264

  5

  138

  1986

  597

  313

  3

  180

  1987

  2330

  2159

  22

  2104

  1988

  414

  227

  3

  132

  1989

  457

  242

  8

  132

  1990

  623

  349

  4

  211

  1991

  2750

  230

  22

  3103

  1992

  1,824

  168

  10

  112

  1993

  1,234

  137

  6

  80

  1994

  1,264

  103

  2

  53

  1995

  1,173

  120

  2

  64

  n/a = not available.

  North Yorkshire1

  Households accepted for re-housing

  Total

  Of which households with:

  Vulnerable member due to old age

  Children

  1979

  640

  —

  —

  1980

  850

  —

  —

  1981

  1,020

  —

  —

  1982

  810

  —

  —

  1983

  740

  —

  —

  1984

  740

  —

  —

  1985

  730

  —

  —

  1986

  870

  —

  —

  1987

  760

  —

  —

  1988

  870

  —

  —

  1989

  1,180

  —

  —

  1990

  1,350

  —

  —

  1991

  1,180

  470

  4580

  1992

  990

  70

  720

  1993

  870

  40

  580

  1994

  870

  30

  570

  1995

  820

  30

  550

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Households accepted for re-housing

  Total

  Of which households with:

  Vulnerable member due to old age

  Children

  1979

  4,590

  —

  —

  1980

  5,360

  —

  —

  1981

  5,740

  —

  —

  1982

  5,930

  —

  —

  1983

  5,740

  —

  —

  1984

  5,820

  —

  —

  1985

  7,650

  —

  —

  1986

  8,590

  —

  —

  1987

  8,920

  —

  —

  1988

  9,920

  —

  —

  1989

  11,520

  —

  —

  1990

  13,800

  —

  —

  305

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Households accepted for re-housing

  Total

  Of which households with:

  Vulnerable member due to old age

  Children

  1991

  13,080

  4340

  45,220

  1992

  14,820

  500

  8,900

  1993

  13,650

  480

  8,150

  1994

  11,330

  370

  5,400

  1995

  10,210

  370

  5,400

  England

  Households accepted for re-housing

  Total

  Of which households with:

  Vulnerable member due to old age

  Children2

  1979

  55,530

  —

  —

  1980

  60,400

  —

  —

  1981

  66,990

  —

  —

  1982

  71,620

  —

  —

  1983

  75,470

  —

  —

  1984

  80,500

  —

  —

  1985

  91,010

  —

  —

  1986

  100,490

  —

  —

  1987

  109,170

  —

  —

  1988

  113,770

  —

  —

  1989

  122,180

  —

  —

  1990

  140,350

  6,570

  84,120

  1991

  144,780

  5,860

  88,950

  1992

  142,890

  6,230

  85,300

  1993

  132,380

  5,920

  76,390

  1994

  122,460

  6,050

  68,620

  1995

  120,810

  5,950

  67,100

  1 The data colleced from authorities have, since April 1991, included a request for the number of applications or enquiries first recorded during the quarter. The data provided are not reported on a consistent basis across authorities as they reflect differing local administrative practices and cannot, therefore, be used to produce national or regional totals of applications/inquiries. The available figures prior to April 1991 are not comparable with later data as they have a narrower coverage—they cover only the number of cases in which inquiries carried out by the authority were completed during the year.

  2 Data for 3 quarters only.

  3 Data for 2 quarters only.

  4 April to December only.

  Area Costs Adjustment
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has to take into account local wage rates in respect of area costs adjustment allocation; [38480]

  (2) what research his Department has commissioned into the operation of the area costs adjustment; [38478]

  (3) what representations he has received in respect of the area costs adjustment; [38481]

  (4) what plans he has to review the criteria for the area costs adjustment. [38479]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend set up an independent review of the area cost adjustment, chaired by Professor Elliott of the university of Aberdeen. The review reported earlier this month. The findings of the review had the benefit of substantial research 306
  commissioned to the specifications of the review team, together with research submitted in representations from local authority associations and groupings.

  The review recommends that the area cost adjustment should be based on the results of an analysis of the reasons for the variations in earnings reported by the labour force survey. The analysis distinguishes the extent to which variations are accounted for by geographical location, as distinct from other factors.

  I have received a number of representations about the results of the review, both asking that its findings be implemented, and asking that they be rejected.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been lost or damaged since 1981. [38316]

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

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been compulsory purchased using a nature conservation order since 1981. [38317]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. The Secretary of State confirmed one such compulsory purchase order over land within Somerset, but following further discussions with the landowner the compulsory purchase order was not implemented.

  Asbestos Cement Roof Slates
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he collates regarding the use of asbestos cement roof slates with special reference to(a) their current availability and commercial use, (b) the use of a permanent form of marking of the slates as containing asbestos and (c) the source of production; and if he will make a statement. [38809]

  Mr. Clappison
  No information on the current availability, commercial use or source of production of asbestos cement roof slates is collated by my Department. However, it is estimated that asbestos cement products, including roof slates and profiled sheeting, account for 40 per cent. of the asbestos fibre currently used in the UK. The marking of asbestos products is covered by the Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985, as amended. These regulations require that asbestos and all products containing the mineral should be marked as such using a specified label. The label may be printed directly on the product, attached to it or attached to its packaging.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been(a) sold and (b) built in the last 10 years. [38475]
  307
  Mr. Clappison
  Between January 1986 and December 1995, almost 810,000 local authority and new town homes were sold for owner-occupation in England. In addition, there were more than 230,000 sales to housing associations and other types of ownership.

  It is estimated that 94,000 dwellings were built by local authorities and new towns in England during this period.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact of(a) his policies and (b) the work of his Department in helping small businesses in the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors the impact and the statistical results of such monitoring. [39145]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions—keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative administration and taxation burdens; and, where appropriate, provide direct assistance in the form of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

  My Department assists the development of small businesses through sponsorship of the construction industry and the Rural Development Commission and by its responsibility for regeneration, energy efficiency and environmental technology. In other areas, such as planning, environmental protection, and health and safety our concern is to ensure that regulation does not impose unnecessary burdens on business. Further details of my Department's activities in these areas can be found in "Your Business Matters: The Government's Response". the third competitiveness White Paper and the Department of the Environment's annual report; these documents are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give directions to the Housing Corporation to ensure that in the operation of sections 4 and 5, of schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, or any amending legislation, housing associations do not discriminate on the grounds of nationality, race or colour. [38911]

  Mr. Clappison
  We shall shortly be discussing with the Housing Corporation the guidance to be issued to housing associations about access to accommodation. We envisage that the guidance will continue to expect associations to comply with, and endorse, the Commission for Racial Equality's code of practice in rented housing. We also expect that guidance will cover the issue of discrimination when dealing with approaches from people whom they consider may be asylum seekers. Housing associations will be expected to comply with the corporation's guidance.

  Link Road Inquiry (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional time Leicestershire county council asked for to enable it to respond to the exchange 308
  land problem raised by the Secretary of State in the Leicester A46-A47 link road public inquiry. [38990]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from private cars as a result of increasing fuel duty by 5 per cent. in real terms over the next 10 years. [38797]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's long-term strategy of increasing road fuel duties by an average of at least 5 per cent. each year in real terms forms part of the United Kingdom's climate change programme and is expected to deliver annual savings of about 3 million tonnes of carbon by 2000 as a result of lower carbon dioxide emissions from all road transport. That is equivalent to about 2 per cent. of total 1990 UK carbon dioxide emissions. Estimates of the carbon savings attributable to private cars and forecasts beyond 2000 are not available.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when English Partnerships will publish its annual report and accounts for 1995–96. [38843]

  Mr. Curry
  I am today laying copies of English Partnerships' annual report and accounts in the House and copies will also be available in the Library.

  Rents
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent paid for a(a) council, (b) housing association and (c) privately rented home in (i) York and (ii) England in each year since 1979 in (1) cash terms and (2) current prices. [38927]

  Mr. Clappison
  the available information is given in the tables.

  In the private rented sector, comprehensive information on average rents is not available for individual local authority districts. Such information was first collected for housing associations in 1992.

  (i) Average rents in York, 1983–84 to 1994–95 (1) Cash

  £ per week

  Financial year

  :Local authority rents

  Year1

  Housing association rents

  1983–84

  10.19

  —

  —

  1984–85

  10.54

  —

  —

  1985–86

  11.32

  —

  —

  1986–87

  11.89

  —

  —

  1987–88

  13.28

  —

  —

  1988–89

  14.16

  —

  —

  1989–90

  15.23

  —

  —

  1990–91

  21.01

  —

  —

  1991–92

  23.36

  1992

  28.08

  1992–93

  26.52

  1993

  31.45

  1993–94

  29.52

  1994

  34.94

  1994–95

  32.42

  1995

  37.03

  309

  (2) Current prices (1994–95 prices)2

  £ per week

  Financial year

  Local authority rents

  Year1

  Housing association rents

  1983–84

  17.51

  —

  —

  1984–85

  17.24

  —

  —

  1985–86

  17.56

  —

  —

  1986–87

  17.90

  —

  —

  1987–88

  18.98

  —

  —

  1988–89

  18.97

  —

  —

  1989–90

  19.07

  —

  —

  1990–91

  24.36

  —

  —

  1991–92

  25.49

  1992

  30.64

  1992–93

  27.81

  1993

  32.98

  1993–94

  30.07

  1994

  35.60

  1994–95

  32.42

  1995

  37.03

  1 Housing association rents are at 31 March. First collected by the Housing Corporation 31 March 1992.

  2 Real terms figures are cash figures adjusted for inflation as measured by the GDP market prices deflator.

  (ii) Average rents in England, 1979–1980 to 1994–95 (1) Cash

  £ per week

  Financial year

  Local authority rents

  Calendar year1

  Housing association rents2

  Private sector rents2

  1979–80

  6.49

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  8.19

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  11.53

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  13.58

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  14.03

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  14.79

  1984

  16

  16

  1985–86

  15.63

  1985

  17

  18

  1986–87

  16.48

  1986

  20

  23

  1987–88

  17.4

  1987

  24

  26

  1988–89

  19.01

  1988

  23

  29

  1989–90

  20.86

  1989

  22

  31

  1990–91

  23.92

  1990

  27

  43

  1991–92

  27.59

  1991

  30

  51

  1992–93

  30.84

  1992

  37

  55

  1993–94

  33.70

  1993

  38

  68

  1994–95

  35.79

  1994–95

  43

  69

  1 The Family Expenditure Survey changed from a calendar to a financial year basis in 1994.

  2 These figures are from the Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling variability. They cover all types of tenancy, i.e. both assured and non-assured tenancies.

  (2) Current prices (1994–95 prices)1

  £ per week

  Financial year

  Local authority rents

  Calendar year2

  Housing association rents3

  Private sector rents3

  1979–80

  16.22

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  17.30

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  22.20

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  24.41

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  24.10

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  24.19

  1984

  26

  27

  1985–86

  24.24

  1985

  26

  29

  1986–87

  24.81

  1986

  31

  34

  1987–88

  24.87

  1987

  35

  38

  1988–89

  25.47

  1988

  32

  40

  1989–90

  26.12

  1989

  29

  40

  1990–91

  27.73

  1990

  32

  50

  1991–92

  30.10

  1991

  33

  57

  310

  (2) Current prices (1994–95 prices)1

  £ per week

  Financial year

  Local authority rents

  Calendar year2

  Housing association rents3

  Private sector rents3

  1992–93

  32.34

  1992

  39

  58

  1993–94

  34.33

  1993

  39

  69

  1994–95

  35.79

  1994–95

  43

  69

  1 Real terms figures are cash figures adjusted for inflation as measured by the GDP market prices deflator.

  2 The Family Expenditure Survey changed from a calendar to a financial year basis in 1994.

  3 These figures are from the Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to sampling variability. They over all types of tenancy, i.e. both assured and non-assured tenancies.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the standard spending assessment for 1996–97 in pounds per head for metropolitan councils within Tyne and Wear. [39065]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The standard spending assessments for 1996–97 were as follows:

  £

  Gateshead

  780.77

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  821.19

  North Tyneside

  749.40

  South Tyneside

  800.78

  Sunderland

  793.31

  Northumbria Police Authority

  65.32

  Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  31.75

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what volume of water was(a) supplied to customers and (b) lost through evaporation and leakage by each of the privatised water companies in each year since privatisation; and if he will show (b) as a percentage of (a). [38940]

  Mr. Clappison
  Water delivered and leakage levels for each company are given in the Office of Water Services' reports on the cost of water delivered and sewage collected. Copies of these reports are in the House Library. Figures prior to 1992–93 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Estimates of the volume of public water supplied by each water service company prior to 1992–93 are available from the Water Services Association.

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) Government, (b) housing association and (c) council-owned homes there were in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England; and what percentage of these houses were empty, on 1 April of each year since 1979. [38999]

  Mr. Clappison
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  311

  Correspondence
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the appeals branch of the local government pensions unit intends to reply to correspondence from Mrs. J. E. Lambert of 13 Finchfield close, Eaglescliffe, Stockton-on-Tees TS16 0EY. [39028]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A reply, explaining that the Department was still awaiting information from Middlesbrough borough council, was sent to Mrs. Lambert on 3 July in response to her letter of 30 June.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports or advice he received from the Audit Commission in relation to his Department's proposals for a new framework for compulsory competitive tendering. [38949]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The proposals to change the CCT framework took account of discussions between officials in my Department and the Audit Commission about the interpretation of credits and allowances in CCT calculations. Since these proposals were published, we have received technical comments from Audit Commission officials.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent to which officials in his Department, responsible for developing policy towards compulsory competitive tendering, visit local authorities to determine episodes of(a) good and (b) bad practices; and if he will make a statement on the value of national legislation and regulation to deal with weaknesses in some local authorities. [38950]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the past 12 months, the relevant officials have made approximately 50 visits to local authorities to discuss compulsory competitive tendering matters, including good and bad practice. In addition, officials speak at and/or attend conferences and seminars on CCT which are designed for local authority staff.

  Overall, CCT legislation has proved effective in promoting greater efficiency in the provision of local authority services. The framework includes enforcement powers for the Secretary of State to use against authorities that act in an anti-competitive way and/or where an in-house team fails to meet prescribed financial targets.

  We have no plans to change the enforcement provisions, but we are currently considering whether changes need to be made to the CCT framework for professional services and housing management.

  Aircraft Investment
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the names of the chairman and directors of the Arrowcroft Investment Co. [39175]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information that the hon. Member requires is not held by the Department of the Environment.

  Pneumoconiosis and Asbestosis Claims
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases were settled under the 312
  Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations in the last year for which figures are available; of those how many payments were for pneumoconiosis and how many were for asbestosis; what was the average age of those claimants who received a payment; and what was the average payment made. [38972]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1995–96, 363 cases were settled under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations. Twenty-five per cent. of payments were for pneumoconiosis as defined in the Social Security Act 1975, which includes asbestosis. The average age of all claimants who received payments under the Act was 64 years and the average payment of all claimants who received a payment under the Act was £11,430.

  Publicity
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are assumed in his Department's budget, employed (i) full time and (ii) part time,(a) to work on the press and media and (b) to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39365]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As at 1 July, there are 30 information officers—including one part time—employed by the Department of the Environment. All deal with a full range of information services including publicity, press and media handling.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff were employed full time or part time(a) to provide information and publicity and (b) on press and media in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1993–94. [39417]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The numbers of staff employed as Information Officers by the Department of the Environment as at 31 March for each of the years in question were:

  1995–96: 32 (including 1 part time and 1 employed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution).

  1994–95: 3 (including 1 employed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution).

  1993–94: 30.

  These staff dealt with a full range of information services including publicity, press and media handling.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost budgeted for staff, employed full time or part time, to provide information and publicity in 1996–97. [39442]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  For 1996–97, the salary budget for staff employed as information officers is £1,039,145.00. This figure relates to 32.5 complemented posts for the year. However, as at 1 July the actual staff in post was 30—which includes one part time.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of staff employed full time or part time (i) to provide information and publicity and (ii) to work on the press and media in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1993–94. [39433]
  313
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The outturn salary costs for staff employed as information officers by the Department of the Environment for the years in question were:

  1995–96: £976,477.00

  1994–95: £890,056.00

  1993–94: £902,002.00.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's budget in 1996–97 for consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media. [39351]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department does not employ consultants to assist with information, publicity, press and media handling. This work is carried out by in-house information staff.

  Pre- and post-campaign research is carried out by external consultants in order to ensure value for money in our publicity campaigns. This research is funded as an integral part of a campaign and is not the subject of a separate budget.

  As a supplementary exercise, however a consultancy budget of £20,000 has been set aside in 1996–97 so that the various publicity and market research techniques available can be evaluated.

  Non-toxic Gunshot
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if safe and effective non-toxic shotgun cartridges are available for use over wetland sites; what assessment he has made of the extent to which the voluntary phase-out of lead gunshot in wetlands is being adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [38794]

  Mr. Clappison
  A number of non-toxic alternatives to lead shot are available, many of which have been tested at a ballistic testing facility partly funded by this Department. The Department is currently funding two relevant research projects, one aimed at assessing the sales of non-toxic shot and the other to monitor the levels of lead ingestion in waterfowl.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to provide shotgun licence holders, with special reference to wildfowlers, with guidance on the safety and efficacy of non-toxic gunshot before the next wildfowling season. [38792]

  Mr. Clappison
  Guidelines on the use of non-toxic shot in 12 bore shotguns are currently being prepared.

  Pleasure Boat Licensing
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to prevent duplication of pleasure boat licensing by public authorities on the same inland waterways. [39636]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am today issuing a consultation paper. This sets out the Government's proposal to amend the law to provide that no licence from a local authority under section 94 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1970, as amended, is required in respect of pleasure craft on any waterway owned or managed by British Waterways or the Environment Agency. The legislative change would be made by an order under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
  314

  European Spatial Development Perspective
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current position on the development of the European spatial development perspective. [39642]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Committee for Spatial Development continues to work, under the direction of informal meetings of European Planning Ministers, on collecting and analysing the basic information required for the development of an ESDP. This will be a non-binding document prepared jointly by member states and the European Commission. It is intended to identify areas of Europe facing similar planning challenges and raise awareness of the European scale influences at work. The Netherlands' Minister has indicated that the process of drafting the document will start during its presidency next year. Bearing in mind the likely significance of any ESDP at local government level, consultation will be carried out once a draft document is available. In the Committee for Spatial Development, the UK continues to stress the importance of the informal intergovernmental approach and the non-binding nature of the ESDP.

  Green Belt (School Extensions)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if planning policy guidance note 2 rules out any extensions to schools in green belts; and if development plans may include policies for them. [39643]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  PPG2 does not rule out the extension of schools located in green belts if other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt, or if the development is for purposes specified in PPG2 such as essential facilities for outdoor sport.

  Very special circumstances are needed to justify development for purposes not specified in PPG2. Development plan policies should ensure that any application for such development would not be in accord with the plan. The plan's reasoned justification might, however, indicate the factors the local planning authority would take into account in considering an application for a school extension for purposes not specified in PPG2.

  An application would also need to be considered against other relevant planning policies, for example on the visual amenities of the green belt (see PPG2) and on transport (see PPG13). The suitable re-use of existing building would not require very special circumstances.

  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants limited rights to erect small buildings in school grounds without the need to apply for planning permission.

  Special Waste Regulations 1996
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the implementation of the Special Waste Regulations 1996. [39663]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Special Waste Regulations were made on 28 March 1996 and will come into effect on 1 September 1996. The regulations, which implement the EC hazardous waste directive—91/689/EEC—update provisions for supervising movements of the most difficult and dangerous waste and controlling its
  315
  management and disposal. In particular, the regulations provide for movements of such waste to be pre-notified to the environment agencies and to be tracked by a system of consignment notes. Guidance in the form of a circular to the environment agencies and local authorities was published on 13 June.

  Since the regulations were made, some technical problems have come to light and we plan to make amending regulations in order to correct these before the regulations enter into force. We hope to make amending regulations by the end of the month and to lay them before Parliament shortly thereafter.

  These are complex regulations and I believe that these changes will be welcomed by industry and regulators alike for the clarification and improvements which they will bring to the functioning of the new system.

  In addition to these technical changes, we have looked again at the exclusion which applies to household waste. The definition of household waste does not include waste oils, clinical waste or asbestos. We intend to make an amendment which will ensure that waste oils, and clinical waste from households are not subject to the regulations. These changes will ensure that the regulations do not interfere with arrangements for separate collections of clinical waste from domestic properties nor add to their cost.

  The definition of household waste includes waste from premises forming part of educational establishments. and hospitals. We plan to make an amendment to clarify that the exemption will not apply to waste from laboratories or to non domestic hospital waste. However, this amendment will not imply that all waste from such sources will be special waste.

  The technical changes will include an amendment to the schedule which has to be completed for movements of special waste collected during a daily round of consignments—referred to as a carrier's round. An amendment will clarify that a single consignment note and schedule can be used for more than one type of waste for which a single fee will be charged for each such round.

  The changes will also clarify and update cross references to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations—SI 1994/3247—which are intended to assist industry in determining whether waste is special. They will introduce a simplified procedure for waste which is consigned by pipeline. Other amendments will set a time limit of two months on the payment of fees to the environment agencies, and will set the penalty for failure to pay at a level 3 fine.

  Household Projections
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish a discussion paper on the household projections. [39664]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have been delighted by the substantial response to the widened debate I initiated at Brighton in June and which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and my hon. Friend the Minister for Planning, Construction and Energy Efficiency have been taking forward 316
  subsequently. I now wish to give careful consideration to the views and ideas that have emerged and to reflect these in the discussion paper. The paper and ensuing debate would also benefit from the outcome of a number of important research projects, being carried out both by this Department and by others, which have a significant bearing on this issue and some of which will not be complete or ready for consideration until the autumn. I therefore propose to publish the paper along with the main findings of the relevant research after Parliament resumes later this year.

  Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for a change in the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside following the abolition of Humberside county council. [39669]

  Mr. Curry
  From 1 October the Government office will become "The Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber" to reflect the recent changes in local government structure. The regional boundaries will be unchanged and the new unitary authority areas of North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire will continue to be part of the Yorkshire and Humber region, reflecting the concerns of many interests in both private and public sectors that the Humber estuary and its hinterland is a key part of the economic fabric of the wider region.

  Leghold Traps
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will respond to the eighth report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Leghold Traps, HL 73 of Session 1995–96. [39679]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have today published their response to the Select Committee and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Trade Effluent Treatment Plants
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the requirements on operators of trade effluent treatment plants to obtain a waste management licence. [39724]

  Mr. Clappison
  On 25 July 1995, the Government announced the extension to 31 March 1996 of a transitional exemption from waste management licensing for certain operations which involve the biological or physio-chemical treatment of waste. In so doing, we confirmed that we would be prepared to consider whether a case could be made for some waste treatment plant to be exempted from licensing under article 11 of the amended EC framework directive on waste, and we invited representations from anyone with an interest in such plant.

  Following that announcement, the Government decided that it would be appropriate also to review the application of article 2 of the framework directive. The transitional arrangements were therefore extended to 30 September 1996 in order to enable this to be done. We are now in a position to announce our conclusions.
  317
  The Government's conclusions are that the requirements of the framework directive on waste do not apply:

  (a) to discharges of effluent which are covered by national legislation transposing the requirements of the urban waste water treatment directive; or

  (b) to discharges of effluent which are covered by national rules in force at the time of the framework directive's adoption in March 1991 which lay down regimes for discharges of effluent which provide an effective means of pursuing the aims of the directive, and which provide for rules and authorisations of the kind provided for in the urban waste water treatment directive. In the Government's view, national rules of this kind are discharge consents under chapter II of part III of the Water Resources Act 1991 or part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in Scotland (pollution of controlled waters); and consents under chapter III of part IV of the Water Industry Act 1991 (consent for discharge of trade effluent into a public sewer).

  It follows that, where effluent is being subjected to biological or physio-chemical treatment in circumstances where these criteria are met, the operation of the treatment plant does not require a waste management licence under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Conservation Sites
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the Lappel bank judgment at the European Court of Justice on other development proposals on sites of conservation interest excluded from special protection areas on economic grounds; if he will list all such sites and proposals in the United Kingdom and their status; and if he will make a statement. [37986]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 18 July 1996]: The European Court of Justice's judgment has clarified that member states are not permitted to take account of economic requirements in classifying special protection areas under article 4(1) and 4(2) of Council directive 79/409 and in defining their boundaries. The specific case of Lappel bank is referred back to the House of Lords.

  The judgment effectively means that the proposals for economic development must be considered after designation, in the terms of article 6 of the habitats directive.

  There are no other unimplemented development proposals for which permission has been granted on sites of conservation interest excluded from special protection areas on economic grounds.

  Water Metering
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the water companies which maintain a policy of compulsory metering of properties built since 1989. [38462]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Most water companies have a policy of metering new properties built since 31 March 1990, for which a rateable value is not available. Of these, Yorkshire Water meters new properties, but provides an alternative method of charging based on the company's assessment of "notional rateable value" and Sutton Water provides the alternative of a flat rate fee. Four companies do not meter properties built since 31 March 1990. Dwr Cymru, Hartlepool Water and
  318
  Portsmouth Water charge a flat rate fee for the annual service; and York Waterworks levy a charge based on the floor area of the property.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the water companies which offer(a) free and (b) subsidised meter installation.[38464]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Where water companies have a programme of meter installation, the meters are installed free of charge. In addition, the following companies offer free installation where a customer requests a meter under their meter option schemes:

  Anglian Water

  Severn Trent Water

  Wessex Water

  Folkestone and Dover Water

  Mid-Southern Water

  South East Water

  Sutton and East Surrey Water

  Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water

  The remaining water companies charge for installation under their meter option schemes. The level of the charge is a matter for each company.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list water companies where all customers who live in properties built since 1989 have an option of paying metered bills or charges based on their property value. [38463]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Yorkshire water fits meters to all new properties first occupied from 31 March 1990, but gives the first occupant the opportunity to choose payment by an unmeasured, notional rateable value charge, provided that the first occupant exercises that right within 12 months of the date of occupation.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral statement on 9 July,Official Report, column 200, what proposals he has to ensure that those companies which continue to install compulsory meters in properties built since 1989 take steps to give their customers an option not to have a meter installed. [38487]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: It is for each water company to decide the most appropriate method of charging for water in its area. I have no powers to require a water company to provide a particular charging option.

  Redundant Coalfield Sites
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that English Partnerships may break up the portfolio of redundant coalfield sites it is seeking to transfer from British Coal in cases where prospective developers of new industry and jobs are otherwise seriously delayed. [38664]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The transfer of the portfolio depends upon the creation of

  319
  a balanced package of assets and liabilities. Singling out individual sites could disturb such a balance.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors have led to the delays in transferring 80 sites from British Coal to English Partnerships; how many of these are in enterprise zones in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire; what is the approximate total value of the sites; and when he expects these transfers to be completed. [38665]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: Acquisition of a complete package totalling 2,700 hectares must be based on an independent assessment of the values and all associated liabilities. English Partnerships has, rightly, been concerned to satisfy itself that the assumptions made by British Coal were sound. Two of the individual sites are located in the Nottingham and Yorkshire enterprise zones. The value of individual sites depends on the terms of an overall transfer.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter of July if he will make it his policy to ensure that English Partnerships agency has enough resources to transfer and process the priority sites at Manton Wood, Worksop, Nottinghamshire from British Coal to prospective factory developers. [38663]
  320
  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: The use of English Partnerships' resources is a matter for the agency. It would not agree to take on the British Coal portfolio unless it was confident that it had the resources to tackle the priority sites.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the 10-year benefits of enterprise zone status in coal mining areas to 11 years in cases where there have been serious delays by British Coal in transferring sites to English Partnerships. [38662]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: All enterprise zones have been designated for a period of 10 years.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he gives to prospective factory developers who wish to move to enterprise zones and consequently sell their existing premises but find that enterprise zones cannot operate because British Coal and English Partnerships have not agreed on the transfer of the land. [38661]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 22 July 1996]: I would advise prospective developers to ensure that suitable premises to relocate are identified before existing premises are sold.

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.

National Identity Number: Implications
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a secure multi-purpose national identity number could be established for all United Kingdom citizens without the introduction of a system of national identity cards.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it would be possible for the Government to establish a national identity number without first introducing an identity card scheme, but we have no plans at present to do so.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the effect of having an identity card without an underlying secure number is that the card would be hardly worth the paper it was printed on? It would become a farce like the British Visitor's Passport, and an expensive mistake like the national insurance number. At a time when the state is handing out such large sums of money, does my noble friend agree that it is important that we should know to whom we are handing that money? Does my noble friend agree that it is necessary that we have a secure national identity number and that the National Health Service number, which is given to everyone at birth, would be ideal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not accept that a successful identity card scheme must necessarily be underpinned by a national identity number. Many measures would make the card a safe card, such as ensuring security during its production. Another important feature would be the identification information on the card. However, we have not ruled out the use of a number. My noble friend is right that a number could be useful, but I do not believe that it is necessary to have such a number for the card to work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, from the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I thought that he had thought carefully about its wording, but having heard the noble Lord's supplementary question I am not so sure. Is it not the case that a unique national identity number would be necessary only if the Government were to embark on a compulsory all-embracing single national identity card system which, we understand, would cost approximately £500 million (on probably out-of-date pricing) and that the path which the Government are likely to take—if they are to take any steps at all—is likely to be based
1258
on something like a photographic driving licence, for which a national identity number would not be necessary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It would be a costly option. However, I understood my noble friend's Question to relate to the introduction of an identity number without the introduction of a card. We believe that that would be very difficult. Perhaps I may repeat the question. My noble friend asked Her Majesty's Government whether a secure multi-purpose national identity number could be established for all United Kingdom citizens without the introduction of a system of national identity cards. We believe that that would be a particular problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble friend Lord Marlesford is not quite correct in saying that everyone is given a National Health Service number at birth because those of us who were not born in this country are given a National Health Service number labelled "NHS" on arrival in this country? Can my noble friend also confirm that if we were to have a national identity card system, which I personally favour, such a card could carry a great deal of valuable encoded information, including medical information, which could be lifesaving?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. There are problems and exceptions to the rule in almost any system. My noble friend has singled out at least one problem: not everybody who has a right of residence in this country was born here. My noble friend is also right in saying that because of new technology all sorts of information can now be carried on cards. Those who have read our Green Paper know that we have not ruled out the possibility of the wider use of such an identification card.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a secure multi-purpose national identity number would make an important contribution to reducing the amount of housing benefit fraud and other benefit frauds which are now reaching horrendous proportions?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords. There is an argument that such a number would be helpful in combating fraud. However, there is also another problem which cannot be ignored in all of this: if such a number was so widely used, so universal and applied to so many systems, the question of who can and cannot have access to it becomes very important. Furthermore, arrangements have to be consistent with the data protection regulations. Such a system would not be without complexity or problems.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that whatever system is envisaged or implemented with regard to a national identity scheme,

1259
it would certainly combat fraud in the DSS and that, whatever the costs might be, the savings to the British taxpayer would easily outweigh them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a good deal is going on to combat fraud, particularly social security fraud. We have a clear strategy for combating fraud in the state services. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already announced the introduction of a plastic benefit card system which will commence in October. It will enable immediate checks to be made at post office counters against the Benefits Agency database.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a database using a national ID number is less vulnerable to unauthorised access than one which uses personal names?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend on that point. A unique number would be much safer. There is a great deal of replication of names and my noble friend is right. But, again, no ID card would carry only a name. It would have other verifiable information on it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is absurd and costly that almost everybody has three separate and different numbers; namely, for health, insurance and tax purposes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are many numbers: passport number; national insurance number; driving licence number, which indeed is unique; and NHS number. Behind my noble friend's point is the question: could we consider the possibility of having one single unique number to serve all those different purposes? I have said to my noble friend that we have not ruled that out.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether the system of national identity numbers which apparently will be very useful in preventing people obtaining money from the state will be of any use also in preventing people keeping from the state money which is due in tax?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are talking about an identity card. Certainly, the Inland Revenue is a past master at chasing up those of us who do not pay back money we owe to the state. But the question underlying the noble Lord's point is whether such a card and number would help. I believe that the answer to both those questions is yes, it would.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, before we are carried away with enthusiasm for Big Brother and national identity cards, does the Minister agree that the case for a national identity card as a means of reducing crime has not been made, is opposed by many people in this country, and is a ridiculous measure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to hear from the noble Lord some kind of denial from his colleague in another place that it will not be Labour Party policy. Only this week the noble Lord's colleague suggested a much more draconian system: a genetic database and blood samples from babies and people applying to live in this country; as a back-up system, compulsory finger printing; in addition, a unique number which would tally with the genetic information; and on top of all that—the noble Lord looks a bit disturbed—a regulatory commission. Not only would that be expensive; it would also be incredibly complex. Nothing has been said about the cost, the complexity, the data protection issues or indeed the civil liberties issues. Do not blame this side of the House for draconian proposals!

Police Informers
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose any restrictions on the use of police informers following the recent trial and conviction of a police officer for corruption and his dealings with Mr. Kenneth Noye as a police informer over a long period.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the use of informants is an operational matter for the police.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. Noye, who, it is now established, was a police informer used by the police force, was involved in the most brutal murder of Constable Fordham some years ago, for which quite surprisingly he was acquitted? If Mr. Noye was at that time on the payroll of the police as an informer and bearing in mind that other officers are now being investigated officially about whether they were releasing information to people such as Mr. Noye, is it not possible that one of Constable Fordham's so-called colleagues tipped off Mr. Noye that he was under surveillance by Mr. Sanderson with regard to the Brink's-Mat robbery which presented him with the facilities and information to dispose of the policeman and murder him?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the House will understand that it would be quite improper for me to comment on any individual who might or might not be subject to a possible complaint against the police. Clearly laid down procedures for investigating complaints that the police have acted improperly are contained in Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The responsibility for ensuring that complaints are thoroughly investigated rests with the chief officers and the independent Police Complaints Authority. If an investigation of a complaint suggested criminal action by an officer, the matter would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether criminal proceedings

1261
should be brought. I repeat that it would be improper for me to comment in this House on an individual case.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the case to which the noble Lord refers was an extremely serious matter and the police officer concerned was rightly convicted and sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment? Does she agree that the use of informants is a matter of critical importance in dealing with serious crime? Is she further aware that this matter is carefully monitored by both the inspectorate constabulary and chief officers to ensure that no impropriety takes place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the first comment made by the noble Lord and with the second part of the statement in that informants properly employed—I emphasise properly employed—consistent with all the regulations laid down, are essential to criminal investigation and combating crime. It is essential and the police are highly accountable for the way in which they exercise it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister was literally right when she replied to my noble friend that the employment of police informers is an operational matter for the police. But that is not the whole story, is it? Is it not the case that the principles which underlie the employment of police informers and the safeguards which are necessary—for example, to ensure that police informers do not also act as agents provocateurs—are matters for the Secretary of State and for the Government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. First, the Home Office issued guidelines in 1969 on the use of informants. They have been expanded and were supplemented in 1995 by ACPO. Both the Home Office and ACPO guidelines make it clear that on no account should an informant be permitted to act as agent provocateur, or incite or counsel another to commit an offence. Anyone doing so would himself be liable to prosecution.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should know the answer to this, but are those guidelines publicly available?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am fairly certain that they are and, if they are, I shall let the noble Lord know. They must be available to the police so I am sure that they must be a public document.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the practice in the criminal courts in this country has for years been of such a kind as to prevent people from being wrongly convicted when there have been police informants, and that the courts frown upon agents provocateurs and require corroboration of a police informant's evidence before the jury is told that it is acceptable?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The courts of course have a wide measure of discretion in exercising their powers to order the exclusion of evidence or to direct an acquittal where they believe that evidence has been collected in an improper way. That is always in the interests of justice for the person before the court.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I did not want my noble friend to close the debate. I hope that he will have the opportunity to come back in a second. I wanted to ask the Minister whether the guidelines on agents provocateurs apply not just to police informants but to local authorities which are employing children to go into supermarkets and tobacconists to induce retailers to sell cigarettes and drink?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that matter is being reviewed. The use of under-age persons in test purchases is a matter for the police or, of course, for trading standards officers. They have to consider that those taking part would also be liable to prosecution. It is clearly important that the law is enforced effectively, but the prime consideration must at all times be the welfare of the juveniles themselves. Again, ACPO guidelines provide guidance on the use of juveniles as informants. That guidance is currently under review, as I said earlier. It is anticipated that more detailed advice on that issue will be produced, I believe by the end of the year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in her detailed reply to me, the Minister missed the main thrust of my question. I said that in a recent trial when an officer was convicted, it was stated that Mr. Noye was on the police payroll as an informant. Was Mr. Noye a paid police informant when he killed Constable Fordham in a most brutal fashion? With him being a paid police informant, is it not possible that someone told him that he was under surveillance, thus resulting in the death of an officer on duty? I am by no means satisfied that the answers I have received cover the point. I think that an innocent officer was butchered by someone who may well have been tipped off at the time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to repeat that it would be difficult for me in this House to go into the details of any particular personal case in the course of answering a Question. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has already said that that murder was tried in court, the person was found guilty, went to prison and served a sentence. Without referring to the particular details, if the noble Lord is suggesting that the police acted improperly or that the system—
Lord Dean of Beswick: A policeman.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether it is a policeman acting improperly or the police acting improperly, if that forms the basis of a complaint my advice is that a complaint should be made and investigated.

Dual Carriageways: Traffic Signals
2.54 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that whenever possible traffic lights on dual carriageways are placed between the carriageways instead of at each side of them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, traffic signals should be installed so that they are visible to both approaching and waiting traffic. To achieve that, and to be clear to which lane the signals apply, it is necessary and usual to place them both at the side and between the carriageways, unless the requirements of a particular site dictate otherwise.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat cautious reply. Is he aware that overhead lights should also be placed in the centre rather than at the sides of dual carriageways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can confirm that in looking at the lighting of dual carriageways and motorways we aim for the most effective, economic, and environmentally sensitive approach. Indeed, putting lighting on the central reservation often achieves that. I can confirm that that is often also the most environmentally acceptable method.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether junctions on dual carriageways constitute a particular hazard? Does he have any evidence to suggest that more or fewer accidents occurred at junctions on dual carriageways in 1995 than in 1994, when I think they amounted to 6 per cent. of the total of 4,034 fatal or serious injuries occurring on the roads? If junctions do constitute a serious hazard, can he say whether the accidents are speed related?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any more up-to-date statistics. Clearly many road safety issues centre on junctions. Of course when traffic is travelling fast that can be exacerbated. When people are speeding, obviously the risk increases in proportion. There is an issue relating to traffic lights on higher speed-limited roads. That is why the systems that we have introduced take account of traffic in a so-called dilemma zone when it is approaching lights.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, have the speed cameras which have been installed as an additional piece of road furniture had any effect?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes, I believe that they have been extremely effective. I understand that some 300 cameras (both red light and speed cameras) have been installed. They have led to considerable road safety benefits.

Nuclear Weapon-free Zones
2.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it would be safer to live in a nuclear weapon-free zone, having regard to their view that such zones "enhance global and regional security", than in Europe where it is also their view that peace and stability can only be preserved by nuclear weapons (H.L. Deb., col. WA22, 18th June 1996).
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, whether a nuclear weapon-free zone is feasible and would enhance stability must depend upon all the circumstances in any given region. With regard to Europe, I refer the noble Lord to my earlier Answer on 18th June.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a certain contradiction between the view that the nuclear weapon is peace-making and the alternative view that the whole region is better without it? Under those circumstances, would it not be wiser to say that the Answer to the Question is yes, and that the Government will work hard towards creating a nuclear-free zone in Europe so as to create the safest of all situations—a nuclear-free world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord's question is no. The NATO countries believe that nuclear deterrence continues to play an essential role in the policy of maintaining stability in Europe, as I said in my Answer on 18th June. Our non-proliferation commitment is that the establishment of the nuclear weapon-free zone on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at by the states concerned enhances their global and regional security, but if the nations of Europe are not going to take that into account, then I believe we are far better to have proper deterrents. I compliment the noble Lord on carrying out to the full his recreation listed in Who's Who, which is to avoid retirement. I wish him—and I am sure everyone in the House will join me—a very happy 88th birthday on Saturday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, having had nuclear deterrents since 1945, which is 51 years, peace has been kept in Europe and that if Afghanistan had had a nuclear weapon the Soviet Union might not have invaded Afghanistan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Afghanistan is a sad country. It may be that that would have been as good a deterrent for Afghanistan as the nuclear deterrent has been for Western Europe and the free world.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as my noble friend approaches his 88th birthday, is the Minister aware that to my knowledge, he has been asking questions on this subject for 36 or 37 years? If he thinks he has made progress, will the Minister join with me in congratulating him? If he thinks that he has not made progress, shall we join in mutual commiserations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there may be a time for commiseration, but fortunately I believe that this is a time for congratulations. The very fact that we are coming close to the prospect of achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty later this year is a sign that we have educated ourselves on these matters. However, I believe that it is right that nuclear deterrents should be regarded properly and we should work away at these matters. But it will not be easy to reduce nuclear weapons unilaterally. We are already reducing the size of our deterrent and taking into account new minimum security requirements. I am sure that that is the right way to go.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her reference to the non-proliferation treaty is reassuring and goes back to the optimistic view that she was expressing about a month ago? Does that mean that the Government have overcome the problem of signing the treaty while India and one or two other countries do not sign it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that I told the noble Lord about a month ago that we were working away at this matter. I think that I said on that occasion that we want a treaty that will be effective in preventing proliferation. It cannot be effective unless there are proper inspections. That is clearly the problem which needs to be resolved before we can sign the treaty.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the British nuclear deterrent will never come under any kind of control, operational or otherwise, of the European Union under the common foreign and security policy.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that will certainly not happen so long as a Conservative Government are in power. I cannot speak for the noble Lord's noble friends.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is only a small amount of danger or lack of safety if nuclear weapons are in the control of stable governments but that the biggest danger
1266
that we have today is that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of unstable governments and, indeed, terrorist organisations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I thank her very sincerely for her congratulations? I hope to continue making a nuisance of myself for a little longer yet.
Is the noble Baroness aware also that we have made progress on this matter in that we are now able to discuss it with more light than heat? In view of that, if the Government will look again at the possibility of making progress in relation to Europe, Europe will be a safer place. Will the Government consider the possibility of making perhaps not a U-turn but a movement of recognition towards the ultimate aim to which the Government are committed as much as anyone else; namely, a nuclear-free world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's passion on this issue. I believe that we are maintaining that minimum deterrent consistent with our national security requirements. That is how it should remain. However, we have made substantial reductions in our deterrent. It would be well for your Lordships to note that by the end of 1988, our deterrent will be reduced to a single system with 21 per cent. fewer warheads and 29 per cent. less explosive power than in the 1970s. Therefore, we are moving forward.

Baroness Blatch: Correction
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I correct personally something that I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I know that efforts are being made to bring him back to the Chamber.
In answer to a question which he posed about Mr. Noye, I referred to a murder having taken place. I said that there had been a trial; and that the person was found guilty and subsequently served a sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will know that that is not right. There was a murder; there was a trial; and the person was acquitted. There was a subsequent case in which the policeman was found guilty of corruption. I thought it best to put that matter right at the first available opportunity.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that. There was another trial in which Mr. Noye, who got away with murder, was prosecuted for laundering the money, for which he received a sentence of 14 years. I believe that he served only seven years of that sentence. That is not much of a disincentive, is it?

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
The Fourth Report from the Offices Committee deals with a number of subjects. The first is Her Majesty's Stationery Office privatisation, and noble Lords will see that much of the report deals with this matter. I suggest that comments on that matter should be reserved until the House comes very shortly to debate the Motion in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
Accordingly, I shall confine myself to reminding the House that the report says that the Offices Committee agreed, on the basis of advice that it received, that the contract with HMSO for the provision of printing and publishing services,
"appears to provide the safeguards sought by the House … The Committee has left to the House the final decision on whether the contract meets its requirements".
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Reading Clerk, who has been dealing with this matter under the Clerk of the Parliaments and who has done an immense amount of work on it; and to thank my counsel, Mr. Derek Rippengal, who has been involved in the drafting of the contract and has subjected it to very detailed scrutiny. I know that some of your Lordships were particularly anxious that independent legal advice would be available to undertake that work. I thank him. I would just add that I know, from my own experience of working closely with him on, in particular, Private Bills that no one brings a more independent mind to bear on this work for your Lordships' House than Mr. Rippengal and his fellow joint counsel to the chairman, Sir James Nursaw. He is meticulous and painstaking, has spent a vast amount of time on the matter and brings to the task precisely what is needed. I wanted to provide that information for the House while indicating that the HMSO matter and the protection and safeguards sought by the House will be dealt with on the noble Viscount's Motion.
The Offices Committee report also deals with the House's annual report and accounts. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking the authors of this invaluable document for all the hard work which has clearly gone into it. The annual report gives an excellent account of the activities of the House and its departments during the past 12 months. It will be published, and copies will be posted to Peers shortly before the House resumes in October after the Summer Recess.
The Offices Committee report refers to a revised database of Peers' specialised knowledge and experience. That used to be called the database of Peers' interests. However, since last year at least, the term "Peers' interests" has acquired a special meaning in the context of declaration and registration of interest. To avoid confusion, the name of the database has been changed. I would emphasise that Peers will be able to keep their data confidential if they wish.
1268
Finally, the Offices Committee report refers to a CD-ROM of the Palace of Westminster. I assure the House that that project is being carefully monitored by the authorities in both Houses. It will have the benefit of advice from our architectural archivist, Lady Wedgwood; and the contract with the producers has been drafted by my counsel. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 102).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. HMSO Privatisation
In December 1995 the Committee took note of the Government's intention to privatise Her Majesty's Stationery Office provided that satisfactory arrangements could be made for the future provision of services to Parliament. The Committee agreed that extensive safeguards would be necessary to protect the House's interests. Similar safeguards were being sought by the House of Commons' Commission for that House.
The Committee agreed that, in any arrangements for privatisation, safeguards should be sought to secure the following:

1. Confidence that the business of the House would not be interrupted.

2. A publication regime which protected the interests of Parliament and did not leave the pricing of its publications to commercial interests.

3. A requirement on any prospective purchaser of the Stationery Office to accept the substance of the provisions of the recently agreed Supply and Service Agreement between the House and HMSO, including the maintenance of existing service standards and delivery schedules and the rights of the House to regulate the production and reproduction of its documents in both paper and electronic form.

4. The administration of Parliamentary copyright, and the function of Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, should not be transferred to the private sector.

The House agreed to the Committee's report on 18th January 1996. On the same day the House took note, on a motion by the Leader of the House, of the Government's plans for the future of HMSO, including safeguards proposed to meet Parliament's requirements for printing and publishing services.
In the six months since the House agreed to these safeguards, officers of the House, assisted by Counsel to the Chairman of Committees, have been engaged in drawing up a contract with HMSO which embodies the safeguards. We have been assured by the Clerk of the Parliaments that all reasonable steps have been taken to achieve the safeguards which the House has sought. The Finance and Staff Sub-Committee reported to us that in its opinion the terms of the contract as drafted appeared to provide the safeguards laid down by the House. Serious doubts were, however, expressed by some members of the Committee about the level of service which the House would receive under the contract. We have also been reminded that EC law does not permit the House to enter into an open-ended contract; and the contract expires on 31st March 2000, subject to the possibility of earlier termination, and is renewable for a further two years. At the end of that period, the contract will have to be put out to competitive tender.
Copies of the contract have been placed in the Printed Paper Office and the Library.
The Committee has been informed of the following short list of bidders for the purchase of HMSO:—

An independent consortium backed by Mercury Asset Management, 3i and Capita;

A Hambro's consortium;

National Publishing Group, a consortium led by Electra Fleming;

Westminster Information Systems, led by NatWest Ventures.

The Committee has agreed, on the basis of the advice we have received, that the contract appears to provide the safeguards sought by the House for the duration of the contract. The Committee has left to the House the final decision on whether the contract meets its requirements.
2. Electronic Publishing
The Committee approved a draft contract between the House and HMSO whereby HMSO would publish and distribute House of Lords' copyright material in electronic format.
3. House of Lords Annual Report and Accounts
The Committee approved the Annual Report and Accounts 1995–96.
4. Database of information about peers
The Committee approved a proposal to circulate a questionnaire to Lords to update the database of their specialised knowledge and experience. The questionnaire will be circulated to all Lords except those who had in the past indicated that they did not wish their specialised knowledge to be entered on the record and those without Writs of Summons or on leave of absence. Lords will have the option of keeping their data confidential.
5. CD-ROM of the Palace of Westminster
The Committee took note with approval of a proposal for a CD-ROM of the Palace of Westminster. Filming is expected to be completed by the beginning of the summer recess.
6. Refreshment Department Pay
The Committee noted with approval a pay increase of 3 per cent to House of Lords Catering Grades, from 1st April 1996.
7. Shorthand Writing Fees
The Committee noted with approval an increase of 3 per cent in fees payable to Gurneys, the Shorthand Writers to Parliament; and approved an amendment to the 1992 Agreement with Gurneys so that in future the two Houses of Parliament should no longer have regard to Treasury rates in determining the level of fees.
8. PDVN Accommodation Costs
The Committee was informed of the likely need for heavy expenditure to stabilise and develop the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN), details of which would be laid before it in due course. The Committee agreed that the House should contribute 22 per cent of the costs, shared with the Commons, of a lease of new accommodation in 10 Great George Street SW1 for the Communications Directorate for about five years.
9. Information and Staff of the House
In connection with the proposed increase in the provision by the Journal and Information Office of information about the House and its Select Committees, the Committee approved an increase of one in the complement of Clerks, to 22.
1 First Report from the Offices Committee, 1995–96, HL Paper 12.
2 HL Debs., 18th January 1996, cols. 712–760.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I should like to ask him some questions on the report although I am to speak in the debate in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. My questions refer to paragraphs 4 and 8 of the report.
With regard to paragraph 4, the noble Lord referred to the change in title as regards information about Peers. However, I wonder whether the Offices Committee considered the usefulness of aligning the Register of Peers' interests with the other information which is made available by Peers about their knowledge and interests on other subjects. Surely it would be of use not
1270
only to Members of your Lordships' House but also to members of the public if a fuller picture of the situation was available in one document rather than having to refer to two documents.
My second point relates to paragraph 8 of the report which deals with PDVN accommodation costs. The report advises that there is,
"the likely need for heavy expenditure",
but gives no indication of the order of magnitude. Is it possible for the House to be given some idea of the order of magnitude of such heavy expenditure to be incurred in the near future?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I must ask the indulgence of the House notwithstanding the remarks made by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees about the desirability for all matters relating to HMSO privatisation to be left until the debate later today, which is to be led by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
I have not put down my name to speak in that debate, but I have one question to ask. I must beg the indulgence of the House to ask it now rather than do so during the course of the debate. In view of the remarks he made, I hope that the Chairman of Committees will understand my embarrassment in having to raise the question in this way. The report states:
"We have also been reminded that EC law does not permit the House to enter into an open ended contract; and the contract expires on 31st March 2000, subject to the possibility of earlier termination, and is renewable for a further two years. At the end of that period, the contract will have to be put out to competitive tender".
Can the Chairman of Committees tell me how long the Community has had the right to intervene in a matter concerning this House and the printing of its debates?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Of course, I quite understand the circumstances in which he puts his question; indeed, he has done so quite properly. As I indicated, all the matters relating to that subject should be raised during the proceedings on the following Motion on the Order Paper. Therefore, perhaps I may leave that answer to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
I turn now to the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I shall seek to help the noble Lord on the second issue. On his first point, perhaps I may consider his suggestion. On the face of it, if I may say so with respect, it seems to be a helpful suggestion. However, there may be complications and I want to investigate any possibilities in that respect before giving a definitive answer. Therefore, I shall communicate with the noble Lord at some later stage. I trust that he will forgive me for not doing so now.
I turn now to the noble Lord's second point on costs and the parliamentary data and video network (PDVN). It seems likely that, in due course, more expenditure will be required and more staff will have to be recruited to enable the PDVN to deliver the standards which your Lordships and, indeed, Members of the other place would expect. At present, all that the Offices Committee

1271
has agreed to is that this House should contribute 22 per cent. towards the cost of a short lease of the new accommodation required at 10 Great George Street, SW 1. That particular cost in the first financial year—that is to say, the current year, 1996–97—will be £127,000. After that, for approximately five years, the cost will be £83,000 per year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the House proceeds to debate the Motion on the Order Paper can the noble Lord indicate when the Motion was tabled and tell us how long noble Lords have had an opportunity to contemplate and consider it?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord without referring to the Minute, a copy of which, unfortunately, I did not bring with me. However, I believe that the Motion has been tabled for some days. I think, subject to correction, that it was tabled last Tuesday. I hope that that will have provided the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and your Lordships generally with a little time to get to grips with the points raised in the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HMSO: Draft Contract
3.16 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I would submit that the terms of this Motion are narrow. We are addressing the draft contract for printing and publishing services between your Lordships' House and a privatised Stationery Office. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House unduly by dwelling on other matters—for example, the principle of the privatisation of HMSO—as, in my submission, that would be outside the scope of the Motion.
Your Lordships will be well aware of the background to the contract. When the Offices Committee discussed the privatisation of HMSO last December, it listed certain contractual safeguards that it rightly believed to be essential to the needs of this House. Your Lordships' House then engaged lawyers specifically to draft the contract which met—and, indeed, exceeded—those criteria. It is that contract which I am now asking your Lordships to consider.
I note that not only does the Offices Committee believe that the safeguards have been met, but that, as the noble Lord observed this afternoon, such is also the opinion of counsel to the Chairman of Committees. The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Weatherill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, will I am sure allow me to refer to a letter that I sent to them on 18th July last. In that letter I reported a conversation that I had had with counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the wake of a notice, circulated to the Offices Committee last week, which invited any member of the Committee who had doubts about the draft contract between the House and HMSO to consult counsel to the Chairman of Committees.
1272
However, apart from me, I understand that no one consulted counsel. Therefore, I thought it might be helpful to write to my opposite numbers to report on the advice that he gave me. I was able to assure them that that, in counsel's opinion, the draft contract has entirely achieved the requirements laid down by the Offices Committee and, of course, those proposals were agreed to by your Lordships' House. In his view—and I report this with his permission—it reproduces the substance of the existing supply and services agreement but is tighter as befits a commercial contract. Counsel tells me that he is entirely satisfied that the requirements have been adequately fulfilled and that it is as tightly drawn a contract as one could have.
Noble Lords may also be interested to know that a very similar set of safeguards was requested by the authorities in another place. They have recently agreed to a similar contract. Indeed, our draft contract covers nearly £2 million-worth of work annually, compared to some £12.5 million for another place.
I am sure that many noble Lords share the stated concerns of the Offices Committee and it might, therefore, be useful, if your Lordships allow me, to outline some of the salient features of the draft contract. In all respects, I am advised that it at least meets the committee's safeguards, and in many cases exceeds them. For instance, the committee stated that steps should be taken to ensure that services continued to be provided from within central London. The contract, in fact, as your Lordships will know, ensures that the privatised Stationery Office cannot vacate HMSO's current parliamentary press in Southwark without the consent of your Lordships' House.
I know that there are many in this House, in the other place and elsewhere who are concerned about the pricing of parliamentary publications. Indeed, I have been concerned about that and I was pleased to sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, when he most helpfully intervened to ask a question last year. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that he and I are wholly at one on the importance of making parliamentary publications, in the interests of our parliamentary government, as widely available as possible. For that reason I believe that continued low cover prices are essential if the public are to be aware in particular of the work of your Lordships' House as well as of that of another place.
I am pleased, therefore, to be able to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the contract not only constrains cover prices, as the Offices Committee rightly and, I believe, unanimously requested, but also provides for real-terms price cuts of at least 2.5 per cent. per annum over the life of the contract. This, so far as I know, is the first time in the history of parliamentary publishing that such a deal has been offered. Perhaps I may add that I do not believe it very likely that such a deal would have been offered by a public-sector HMSO, although that is a matter of personal judgment.
I should also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the contract provides for the annual cuts in the charges that your Lordships' House pays to the Stationery Office. I am sure that we would all welcome that particular provision.

1273
Furthermore, the contract addresses the criteria raised by the Offices Committee. It provides for a comprehensive framework of accountability whereby named senior managers of the Stationery Office will be responsible to this House for all matters connected with the contract. It also provides for the continuation of the current emergency printing arrangements and allows this House to reclaim from the Stationery Office any extra costs incurred in their operation. Those are good examples of why counsel to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees feels that the terms of the contract are both stringent and vigorous, and that there is a range of remedies up to and including termination of the contract in the event of unsatisfactory performance.
It might be worth noting that the short-listed bidders for HMSO recognised the strength of the contract. Indeed, one of them in particular wished to soften some of its provisions but has since been eliminated from the contest. The remainder have, however, stated their clear intention to agree and uphold the terms as drafted. That would clearly be in their interests because your Lordships would not be willing to modify those terms in any way, and I would certainly not suggest that your Lordships should contemplate such a step.
Your Lordships' House and, to a much greater extent as I have made clear, the other place represent arguably Her Majesty's Stationery Office's most important customers. Perhaps no sensible businessman would treat his most important customers and their wishes with anything other than the greatest respect. With respect, I would submit to your Lordships that we have here a proposal which meets and exceeds the safeguards requested by the Offices Committee. That is not my opinion, but it is a professional opinion which has hitherto been universally respected by your Lordships' House, and rightly so. The contract offers an unrivalled deal on pricing and costs and contains stringent terms in the highly unlikely event of unsatisfactory performance.
Perhaps I may add one other thing. I suggest that it would be somewhat perverse of this House not to agree to this contract, given the benefits on offer. Clearly, failure to agree would mean that we would still have to agree terms at a later date with someone, if we do not wish to set up in the publishing business ourselves, given that another place has accepted the terms of this contract. Any negotiations that we resumed with a privatised Stationery Office would be undertaken from a position of relatively greater weakness as compared with our present position. I would suggest that it is far better to secure the House's requirements in legally binding form now and share in the benefits of privatisation, which I know are not immediately apparent to all Members of your Lordships' House, but which I feel are clearly present. Therefore, I urge the House to endorse the contract.
Moved, That this House considers that the draft contract, which replaces the existing Supply and Services Agreement with HMSO, embodies the safeguards necessary to meet the requirements of the House for printing and publishing services.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that the benefits of privatisation of HMSO are not apparent to those on these Benches. I am not happy with the form of the contract. It is somewhat diffusely drafted, and there is far too much legislation almost by reference. You have to go from one clause to another clause to another clause to an appendix, and then from an appendix to a tender document to find out exactly what are the obligations. Having said that, I do not particularly like the form of the contract. Perhaps that is an aesthetic rather than a legal objection, but I have to say, looking at it as best I can, the obligations that the House was concerned to place on the prospective buyer of HMSO are sufficiently set out in the contract itself. I have no great dispute with the Government over the contract per se.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to what was said in the Offices Committee Report, which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House did not mention. That report said:
"Serious doubts were, however, expressed by some members of the Committee about the level of service which the House would receive under the contract".
We have also been reminded that European Community law does not permit the House to enter into an open-ended contract. The contract expires on 31st March 2000, subject to the possibility of earlier termination, and it is renewable for a further two years. At the end of that period the contract would have to be put out to competitive tender. If that is right, and I apprehend that it is, what we are talking about here is not a contract in perpetuity, but a contract for four years with a possible renewal of another two years, at the end of which the House and another place will have to reconsider the terms of the contract between whoever at that stage is running the Stationery Office and this House. I would be grateful if at some stage the noble Viscount could say something about that.
Of course the noble Viscount was very careful to avoid any discussion of privatisation as such. This is a privatisation too far. For the life of me, and I am doing the best I can with it, I really cannot see the purpose of this exercise. I do not see why on earth in the dying days of a dying government we have to go through this exercise. It would have been far better to have left HMSO as it was. Frankly, the House was reasonably satisfied with what it had.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I do not propose to say anything about privatisation; I wish to speak only about the contract before the House. I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for what he has just said, and, for that matter, to the staff for their dedicated efforts in producing what I regard as a contract containing effective safeguards of the public interest, subject to one or two points which I would like to raise in a moment.
Speaking entirely for myself, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his support for efforts to make Hansard and other

1275
parliamentary material available at marginal cost, or thereabouts, as happens in so many other Commonwealth and European countries. That must be in the interests of a healthy parliamentary democracy and in the interests of having an informed citizenry who are able to read what we say and do. Therefore, I am extremely glad that with Hansard and other parliamentary material—as I read the contract—being delivered free of charge over the Internet, it is proposed to reduce the price of printed material to no more than the marginal cost of distribution and sale. If that is right, I am extremely glad that that is so.
I raise three or four points for clarification. The first concerns the creation of a level playing field for the commercial distribution of the House's material in added value electronic form. There will, of course, be commercial publishing companies competing with the Stationery Office Limited in disseminating to the public parliamentary material in added value form. That will happen in addition to the publication of the House's material through the Internet by the Stationery Office Limited. It is therefore important to ensure that the Stationery Office Limited has no commercial or operational advantage over other publishers in creating added value services because of its "preferred supplier" status, in the words of the contract.
I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could assure the House that the Stationery Office Limited's added value operations will receive the House's material on exactly the same terms, including time of access, as all other electronic publishers. Those points are covered briefly in Clause 28 of what I call the electronic form contract. But the situation is not wholly clear, at least to me, although unlike the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I happen to think that by the normal standards of commercial drafting the contract is elegant and even concise. However, I must confess that it is not wholly clear to me. There are examples in other countries of monopoly publishers of official material abusing their position to give preference to their own commercial activities. It would therefore be helpful if it could be made clear that the core service activities—in the language of the contract—of the Stationery Office Limited under Clause 2 will include an express reference to the
"provision of those documents to any holder of a licence issued by or on behalf of the House".
Or, if that cannot be done because it is too late to amend the contractual language, can that point please be addressed in some other way?
My second point is about publication times for electronic material. Publication times are detailed in Schedule 1, Part 2 of the draft contract. I apologise to ordinary human beings in the House who do not have to read contractual language and construe it. As I am a lawyer I hope I shall be forgiven for what I am now doing. In the words of the contract,
"publication times assume normal timetables for supply of copy from the House for print production, thus allowing printer's text to be made available to meet electronic publishing schedules".
1276
That suggests to me that it is intended that the electronic version will be held up until printed copies are available. If that were right—I hope it is wrong—it would mean that new technology would be held back to the speed of the old technology. That would, with respect, be a timid and unsatisfactory approach which reminds me of the time when red flags went up before steam engines could advance along the railway track. It is inevitable that the full benefits of the speed of electronic publication will at some stage be permitted by your Lordships' House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope I may interrupt the noble Lord because I am rather lost. Where in the contract does the electronic section appear?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it appears in the electronic contract at Schedule 1, Part 2 of the contract entitled,
"Agreement for the electronic publication".
It was made available in the Library.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Lord for a second time to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether we are debating the electronic contract at all. I thought we were debating the other contract as it were. I am totally lost therefore as regards the electronic contract.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as this is my Motion I am extremely sorry that I also find myself somewhat lost. As always I am hugely impressed by the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I, too, thought we were debating what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned. However, I find the noble Lord's remarks of great interest to your Lordships' House. As always I am in the hands of the House but this is an important matter. I greatly sympathise as regards the parallel I believe the noble Lord drew of the red flag in front of an early motor car. Unless the House wishes to cut the noble Lord short, I think it would be worth while to listen to the conclusion of his remarks.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I can be relied upon to get procedure wrong anywhere, especially in this House. However, I had thought that the draft contract which replaces the existing supply and services agreement with HMSO embodied two draft contracts which were made available to Members of the House. One deals with printed matter and the other deals with electronic matter. I have just one or two other points to make—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Lord a third time and apologise to him for doing so yet again. Like the noble Viscount the Leader of the House I am interested in what the noble Lord is saying. I think I am in agreement with him, but my problem is that I did not have the faintest idea that was what we were going to talk about. As someone quite obsessed with these electronic things I should like to have known about that so that I could debate the matter with the noble Lord.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again. I think I was less than clear in my intervention in the noble Lord's speech. I am grateful to him for his patience as regards this double act between the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and myself. The draft contract to which I refer in my Motion is the agreement for printing, publishing and other services. There is another contract which I think is referred to in the Offices Committee Report which is not the subject of my Motion; namely, an agreement for the electronic publication and distribution of parliamentary material. Strictly that is not within the scope of the Motion. The House was quite right to listen with patience to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he referred to the principle of privatisation of HMSO. I am in the hands of the House as regards how much latitude the House will want to give to the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall be brief because I had almost finished my second point. I said that as regards publication times for electronic material, the time will surely come soon when the full benefits of the speed of electronic publication will be permitted by the House. I believe that is the position in both Houses of the Australian Parliament. As the electronic version will in practice be ready but under embargo—as I read the contracts—for a period before the printed version is available, there is scope for leaks and privileged access which I do not favour. Perhaps I can say in my defence that it is difficult to look at the print contract and turn a blind eye to the electronic contract because the two impact upon each other and have repercussive implications.
I refer to a related point. In the report of the committee of another place on access to that House's information it was suggested that Members of that House would receive information before non-Members; that is, before members of the public and the media. Speaking of this House, it is surely essential that the general rule under both these contracts should be that Members of this House—and I dare say of another—should have access to parliamentary material at the same time as the public and the media. I realise that there may have to be specific occasions where that is inappropriate, but the general rule should surely be one of simultaneity. There are many reasons why that should be the case including those of investor protection. Parliamentary material will sometimes have implications for investors. Members of this House and members of the staff of this House may be investors. There would be clear dangers in Members of either House enjoying a timing benefit over other investors.
The best principles developed in the financial services industry require simultaneous disclosure of information to all. The draft agreement seems to be silent on that point. I should therefore be most grateful if the noble Viscount would clarify whether Members of this House—and for that matter the staff of this House—would enjoy a timing advantage, and, if so, how the dangers to which I have referred would be dealt with.
I can deal with the last point in a sentence. I refer to judgments of the Appellate Committee of this House. From the contracts I do not understand whether it is
1278
envisaged that the judgments will be disseminated electronically as soon as they are available. I deprecate the selling of the judgments of the Appellate Committee, as has happened in recent times. I very much hope that they can be put on the Internet and made freely available to the public, who are always agog to read the decisions of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, if possible without charge. I am most grateful to have been permitted to make these points on the other contract.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for introducing the debate, even though it transpired that it is only half the introduction needed following the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
One of the first remarks that I noted from the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal was that advice from the counsel to the Chairman of Committees was important. That will be the theme of my contribution. The result of the contract will be that instead of the Clerk of the Parliaments being in control of the printing, publication and dissemination of our proceedings—making them available to Members of your Lordships' House—control will move from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the counsel to the Chairman of Committees. In effect we are surrendering control from ourselves to the Law Courts. I refer noble Lords to Clause 28.8 under the heading, "Governing Law and Jurisdiction". It states:
"This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and the parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts".
One of the advantages of what might be described as a direct labour organisation is that in the main disputes do not end up in the courts. But it is worth considering some further remarks made by the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal. He reported to us that the financial value of the contract was something like £2.5 million for our proceedings and £12.5 million for the proceedings of another place. That gives a contract value of about £15 million. I suspect that the turnover of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is in excess of that to a quite large degree. From the point of view of contractual arrangements, the printing and publishing of our proceedings are a small part of the operations of the Stationery Office. The noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal reported that the printing and publication of our proceedings were the most important part of the Stationery Office's operations. Members of this House and another place would agree that that is currently the situation.
I was rather curious to hear the noble Viscount report that the price cuts offered under the contract would not be possible under the continued operation of the Stationery Office as a direct labour organisation. If price cuts can be achieved in the private sector which cannot be achieved if the body is run by this Government, it suggests to me that the Government are not good managers of business.
The noble Viscount also reported that while we were in a strong position now to write this contract—other noble Lords have suggested that it is a tight contract which provides all the safeguards needed—in future

1279
negotiations we shall be operating from a position of weakness. I believe that that is probably a quite realistic assessment of the situation. The current financial operations—the costs, if I may so put it—of producing the deliberations of this place and another place are a relatively small part, I suggest, of the Stationery Office's operations. Therefore in future we shall not be in a position of strength when negotiating with a commercial operation only a small part of whose business is connected directly with us.
I have referred to the fact that the very existence of the contract shifts control from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the lawyers. It is also worth noting—it was referred to by my noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Bruce of Donington—that once we go down this road of privatisation the situation will be taken out of our hands. Initially, control will be in the hands of the English courts, but within a relatively short space of time in the timescale of parliamentary proceedings it will end up in the jurisdiction of the European Union. The contract will have to be put out to competitive tender. In effect that means that the contract is offered to anyone within the European Union to fulfil.
It is one thing to allow our proceedings to be subject to the control of the English courts and English lawyers. It is quite another to allow the control of our proceedings to pass beyond that to a company which may not even be constituted within the English jurisdiction.
We have to ask two further questions. How far will privatisation go? During Starred Questions recently a noble Lord suggested that any direct labour organisation was fundamentally wrong. Does that extend to the Armed Forces of the Crown? That is the logic of the Government's position. They will continue to privatise until eventually nothing is left. Have they already had expressions of interest from rich Americans to buy the Palace of Westminster on a leaseback arrangement? That is the logic of the Government's position in continuing down the road of privatisation.
My final question for the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal is this. How difficult will it be to repatriate (if I may so put it) the printing and publishing of our proceedings to our direct control? How easy will it be to take back control of our own proceedings? I hope that the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal can answer that question. I suspect that he may not be able to do so.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he help us by explaining why he believes that the control of our affairs has passed from the Clerk of the Parliaments into the hands of, he says, "the lawyers", purely because the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has chosen to accept advice from the counsel to the Chairman of Committees, who happens to have been a servant of this House for 20 years or more and is one of the most brilliant lawyers whom we are extremely fortunate to have at our disposal? Why should that mean that we are presenting all our affairs into the hands of, he says, "the lawyers"? Can he answer that?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, yes, I think I can. Before I do so, I preface my remarks by saying that
1280
I have the utmost regard for the counsel to the Chairman of Committees and his integrity not only as a lawyer but as a servant of this House. I hope that any of my remarks which may have given a different impression will be struck out.
I suggest that the control of the printing and publishing of our proceedings will be surrendered from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the lawyers and the Law Courts because of the paragraph in the contract that I read out. On page 28 of the report, Clause 28.8 headed "Governing Law and Jurisdiction" states:
"This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and the parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts".
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that there are large question marks about how the electronic contract will be interpreted. I suspect that at the end of the day it will have to be interpreted by the courts. That is why I suggested that we are surrendering control of the publication and printing of our proceedings from ourselves and our servants to the jurisdiction of the courts. That is my interpretation of the draft contract. If the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has a different interpretation and can argue that the contract cannot be tested in an English court but will be subject to variation and determination by the Clerk of the Parliaments at will, that is a rather curious situation.
I hope that I have not detained the House too long.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak in this debate because, owing to my attendance at a meeting upstairs, I did not think I should be able to do so. I find I am free to speak and I have listened to the whole of this debate except for the first few minutes of the speech of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal.
I am broadly in favour of what the Government propose but I should be glad of an assurance with regard to reports for which there is still a demand but which are no longer in print. I mention the report of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, which will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, because he was a member of the committee. The report has twice been reprinted. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham described it when he was Lord Chancellor as a best seller. It has been a best seller almost continuously and is still in demand, not only in this country but in the Commonwealth, and indeed in the European Community where it is sometimes used.
We were told last year that such reports, of which there is no longer a supply available, could be provided by photocopying and charged for at a flat rate which was then—and I hope still is—£5 per copy, whatever the original or current price of the report may be. That is a service of great value provided by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. One wonders whether that arrangement will continue when the service is run on a commercial basis. There are many other reports like the one I mentioned which were published a good many years ago to which we need to have access in order to perform our parliamentary duties. It would be a great

1281
pity if those reports were either made prohibitive in price in order to make them commercially viable or not produced at all.
I am afraid I have not given notice of this matter to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. If he were able to give some indication of what is likely to happen, that would be a great help. If he cannot answer my question now, I should be grateful if the matter could be put on record, perhaps by a Question for Written Answer when we reassemble in October.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise with the indulgence of the House following the indication by the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal that he would give an answer to the question I asked during the earlier proceedings on the Offices Committee report relating to the role of the EC in this matter. Can he say whether, if the question of privatisation had not arisen at all and the arrangement had been left exactly as it is now, the European Community would have any right to insist on its rules being enforced in regard to competition. Is it only because of the privatisation that the Commission now has a right under the competition laws to insist that the next contract be put out to open tender?
I apologise to the House for rising in the interval.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in suggesting what one might do in selling off part of the services of this House to various private enterprises. I was thinking, as he spoke, of the contract we might let out for the Line of Route and whether Centerparcs would counter-bid against Walt Disney for it, but that is perhaps delving into the future of the role of privatisation.
Given the position we have reached, it seems to me that this is in many ways a very satisfactory contract. I congratulate those concerned on the fact that they have negotiated a lowering of prices. We all share the strongest interest in the widest possible public dissemination of Parliament in debate and report to British citizens at the lowest possible cost. If we achieve that, it will be a major step forward.
I support my noble friend Lord Lester in underlining that the speed at which the nature of publishing is changing suggests that in future the electronic dimension will become increasingly important. That is something which will clearly need to be looked at further as more and more of the younger generation automatically turn to the Internet to receive information. They will want access to parliamentary reports and parliamentary business.
My wider concerns are partly the question of conflicts of interest and partly the whole question of a private monopoly. The noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal underlined the point made in the report of the Offices Committee that the two Houses themselves are the Stationery Office's most important customers. We are moving from a public service to a licensed private monopoly, back to the world of the 18th century when a sovereign Parliament dealt with contractors of one sort or
1282
another, contracting to provide regiments in some cases, printing services in others. It seems sadly poetic that it was Edmund Burke who was responsible for the Act that set up Her Majesty's Stationery Office and that a party which has lost touch with the traditions of Edmund Burke should now be the one proposing to privatise it. As I listened to the noble Viscount I wondered what the great Lord Salisbury would have said about a proposal to privatise the Queen's printer or what Disraeli or indeed Churchill would have said. I have little doubt that they would have called it ludicrous.
There are questions about commercial enterprise and public interest which go further than my noble friend Lord Lester suggested. Ought we to have written into the contract that the commercial enterprise which operates this private monopoly should, as a condition of acceptance, not be allowed to contribute from its funds to any particular political party? There is a real conflict of interest. Given the current state of British law on publication of party accounts, it seems to me that we should consider strengthening controls. It is part of the morass one gets into when one loses sight of the difference between public enterprise, public service and private monopoly.
Having spoken those cautionary words, I believe that the contract as negotiated within those terms is a good one. It is also highly desirable—and here I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—that it is a short-term contract. We will therefore have the opportunity to find out within a limited time whether it has lived up to our expectations.
4 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, given how controversial the matter is, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have spoken for their moderate and constructive attitude. That is a heartfelt expression of my feelings. I shall try to answer questions as briefly as I can.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that I shall return to what my great-great-grandfather might have said in a moment. The proposal to privatise the Queen's printer is not what is at stake here. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Queen's printer will be retained in the public sector in the so-called residual HMSO. So technically that is not what we are doing and it is important that there should be a place for the copyright still to reside, and for there to be, in the jargon, an intelligent customer for it.
The whole House is well aware of the service which my noble friend Lord Renton and his colleagues provided not only to this House but to Parliament as a whole by the publication of his report. I believe that the report is under Crown copyright, but he will correct me if I am wrong. The privatised Stationery Office, like HMSO at present, will reprint documents when there is a continuing demand for them. Thereafter, I am advised that the photocopying service from the British Library will continue to be offered. If my noble friend Lord Renton has difficulty with the effectiveness of the service—and from the tone of his remarks I detect that he may—it might be worth considering the developing electronic services.

1283
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, drew our attention to those services, despite their being technically outside the scope of the debate. We can ascertain, as they develop, whether the benefits of the new technology can help us make more readily available not only future reports, existing reports and papers but also reports like that of my noble friend which are of continuing interest to your Lordships' House.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear that he was sympathetic to the ideas expressed from all sides of your Lordships' House, particularly over the past two years, that we should try to improve the preparation and control of legislation. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will continue to keep a watching brief on this important question. Perhaps the Offices Committee, in its monitoring of the implementation of the electronic aspect of the subject that we are debating, might wish to return to find out whether we could build on our initial foray onto the Internet. We could try to ensure that the services we offer are not only as good as they are at the moment but are radically improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked a question and I should have been greatly disappointed if he had not managed to bring the European Union into our debate. Needless to say, I should not have worried. European Union law would apply, as it does in all cases in this country, to the extent that powers have been delegated by this sovereign Parliament to the European Union. But where services are provided within the same legal entity, I am advised that they would not have applied if we had not privatised HMSO. I am also advised that this House and HMSO, while it is in the public sector, would be considered to be one legal entity. That explains why the answer to the noble Lord's question is the one that I have just given.
The extent of EC procurement jurisdiction was the subsidiary point that the noble Lord made in an earlier intervention to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I am also advised that directives under the EC treaties set out a legal framework to which public authorities and utilities must adapt their contract award procedures. The directives have been implemented in the United Kingdom by four sets of regulations covering supplies, works, services and utilities. The contracts which are covered must be the subject of a call for competition in the official journal of the European Union. The directives do not apply to the award of service concession contracts. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was also concerned—
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves that point, does it mean that, as some of us apprehend, the contract is for four years, possibly another two, and thereafter it must be put out to competitive tender? Is that its effect?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, legal advice on European Community law was that the contract should, so far as possible, reflect the existing supply and service agreement, including the term of the contract. As I understand it—and the noble Lord will be more aware
1284
of EC law than I—the law is clear that such contracts must have a term and must therefore be re-negotiated at the end of that term.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned the impact of the European Union. The contract is for the House to offer. The only impact of European Union law is in terms of the need to tender competitively. That need will be subject to the precise terms of the contract and whether it falls within the regulations of public service contracts, which I have already tried to set out for your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked a number of questions which I shall endeavour to answer as best I can. He mentioned a level playing field. I refer him to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who discussed the matter earlier this year in another place. The Stationery Office will be required to be licensed to reproduce Crown and parliamentary copyright material in a value added format, in exactly the same way as any other publisher. It will have no inherent advantage at all in the field. I hope that that satisfies noble Lords. We have that on record in both Houses.
As we made clear in the course of exchanges during the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I should emphasise that the electronic contract is a different contract. Apart from specifically requiring a level playing field, electronic publication will follow paper publication. As I understand it, it is a transitional arrangement designed to protect the rights of Peers; that is, of your Lordships. But it is assumed that the order of publication will be reversed in due course, as I believe it has been in Australia. The general rule about the time of publication is that parliamentary papers should not be available to the public before they are available to Members of your Lordships' House. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to maintain that situation and in that respect nothing has changed.
Therefore, the timing of release of the electronic version is a practical rather than a policy matter. At the moment, the assembly of data for electronic publication is a by-product of the printing process. We do not wish to introduce any delay into electronic publication.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, also mentioned judgments. My advice is that they are not at the moment printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, nor are they the subject of the contract. They are not parliamentary papers as such, but are circulated by the Judicial Office on the authority of the Lord Chancellor. They are therefore subsequently published in the All England Law Reports. I confess that I cannot speak nearly as authoritatively on that point as the noble Lord, but that is the advice that I have been given.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Surely the judgments are also published in the official reports which, as I understand it, have always been published at public expense.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am the last to want to enter into a jousting competition with two such distinguished barristers. May I take further advice on

1285
this point and write to both noble Lords? I will place my answer in the Library. I apologise that I am unable to give an authoritative answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, talked about taking functions back into the control of this House. I submit that the House has never had such control, even under the present arrangements. Her Majesty's Stationery Office is a department of Her Majesty's Government, not of this House. In order to satisfy the criteria that the noble Lord seems to want this House to have, your Lordships would have to acquire and operate your own facilities.
The noble Lord also talked about control of the contract and referred to the last section, paragraph 28.8. The ability to go to law in a dispute is a backstop which offers additional protection to the current situation. The normal operation of the contract will be a partnership between the House and the Stationery Office, as it now is between the House and HMSO. My limited knowledge of legal matters tells me that it is usual to specify under which law of which country a contract is to operate. Therefore for us not to specify that, or to specify that it would operate under the law of another country, would be rather perverse.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for giving way. I admit that I may not have expressed myself very well in my earlier intervention. The point I was trying to make was that, as I understand the situation at the moment, the Clerk of the Parliaments, presumably together with the Serjeant at Arms in the other place, could have direct discussions with the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office to resolve any problems that might arise. Ultimately the outcome would be a government decision, given, as the noble Viscount said, it is a department of government. The difference between the situation that I understand currently pertains and the situation once we have entered into a contract with the private supplier, is that any disputes that might arise in future would not be amenable to discussion through what might be described as the usual channels and government decision ultimately answerable to Parliament; any disputes arising would have to go before a court of law for resolution.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord particularly to the third section of the contract, which sets out very clearly the relationship between an accountable manager and the authorised officer of this House who is charged by the House to maintain the very sort of contact which the noble Lord wishes us to maintain. I hope that if he takes another look at those provisions he will feel that they have been rather more fully set out than they are at present.
I would never dream of intervening in a technical discussion as to the elegance or otherwise of this contract. However, I was amused to note that so distinguished a barrister as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, felt that the contract was not couched in the most elegant form, while the noble Lord, Lord Lester, took a contrary view. I leave it to the House to make its own aesthetic judgment in matters of this kind.
1286
Finally—I am well aware that I have taken rather a long time—I have endeavoured to answer, I hope reasonably adequately, the serious matters raised by a number of noble Lords. Fundamentally we are talking about something rather straightforward. As privatisation approaches, it is essential that this House should make satisfactory arrangements for the future provision of printing and publishing. It is important that those arrangements should safeguard the high standards of service that we have enjoyed from HMSO in recent years. As I said in opening, this draft contract does all that, and more.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, tempted me just a little. We have already debated the merits or otherwise of privatisation. We did so at some length in January this year. I see little point in rehearsing the arguments now, particularly since there has been very strong interest on the part of bidders inquiring into the business. It is clear that the Stationery Office and its staff have a sound and prosperous future in the private sector. On those grounds alone it would be very unwise to seek to forestall this contract at a very late stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who is an infinitely more distinguished historian than I, was kind enough to refer to my great, great grandfather. He was a pragmatist. He was also an extremely successful businessman. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, with his knowledge of the commercial world, will also be aware of what happens to commercial companies which once enjoyed a monopoly, as HMSO did, when that monopoly disappears and they are not allowed to try to expand their markets into other fields. One of the penalties has been that the number employed by HMSO has declined distressingly. As government departments fish elsewhere in order to satisfy their requirements for stationery and other matters, HMSO, if it finds itself unable to compete, may preserve the virtues of public service but in the end will find itself declining ever more distressingly and more jobs will be lost. I suggest that the great Lord Salisbury would have been swayed by that argument rather more than by the ideological purity of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Maintaining HMSO in government ownership can only lead to further decline as private sector competitors take an increasing share of that diminishing market. That also begins to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who asked whether it would have been possible to decrease the prices of printed papers published by HMSO if it remained in the public sector. A company in that kind of trouble would find it difficult to reduce prices and still remain viable.
This House should be under no illusions as to the consequences of failing to sign this contract. I have tried to make that perfectly clear. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that the sensible course is to agree to the Motion standing in my name.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he clarify one point? I am very sorry; he used the word "finally", which I felt was the right word to use. It is not impossible that the privatisation will take place at some time during the summer, when the House is not sitting. Although he used the words "draft

1287
contract", I take it that he is saying that it will be this precise contract that will be signed, and were there to be any variation in it, the Government would not go ahead until the House had seen any changes. I take it that our debate has taken place exactly on that understanding. However, it may be useful to state that precisely.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is my clear understanding. I am also well aware that the noble Lord is a very reasonable man. If there are matters of wording which could be improved, I am sure that he would not let that stricture apply. If it is a matter of substance, I am sure that the whole House will agree that his caveat is a sensible one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time.
4.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, on many occasions in the past at this juncture the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has risen to object to the fact that we do not have the opportunity to debate the Consolidated Fund. His case has been clear. He has argued that the lack of such a debate deprives your Lordships of a chance to consider the scale, structure and content of government expenditure in the round, so to speak—an opportunity which is not provided when discussing specific measures. The usual reply to the noble Lord has been that it is not customary and appropriate to have a debate at this juncture. In this instance, I agree with the Government. However, I should like to make a proposal to ease the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and other noble Lords about the inability of the House to hold a broad debate on government expenditure.
Noble Lords will remember that last year, on a Motion by the Labour Group introduced by my noble friend Lord Desai the day after the Budget, noble Lords had an opportunity to discuss the matter. Noble Lords will be aware that nowadays the unified Budget consists of proposals for tax-raising powers and general consideration of government expenditure. The debate introduced by my noble friend proved very popular, even though it took place just a few days following the economic section of the Queen's Speech. Twenty-three noble Lords took part. A number of very interesting and constructive speeches were made from all sides.
My proposal is that the Government should consider whether it would be appropriate for the House annually to debate the Budget as a matter of custom on the day after
1288
the Budget. Noble Lords would then have the opportunity to have a broad debate on government expenditure and to contribute ideas on government expenditure and taxation, as they did so successfully last year. Such a debate would not be left simply to the whims of the parliamentary timetable and Opposition parties using up their time to provide noble Lords with that opportunity. I put that proposal to the Government for consideration.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am very much indebted to the noble Lord opposite for involving me in this discussion. I share his views to a considerable extent. The Consolidated Fund Bill is probably the most important—or at least the second most important—measure with which your Lordships' House has to deal. Simply to pass it on the nod without arranging for an alternative opportunity to discuss the whole Budget, or the general level of expenditure and the proposals for expenditure, seems to me to be abandoning one of the duties of this House. I say to my noble friend the Leader of the House that I hope the Government will arrange for that at or about the time of the Budget. I hope that, in the context of the House not having debated the Consolidated Fund Bill, a full-scale economic debate will be arranged but—I say with very great enthusiasm—not on a Friday.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not have any difficulty with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. This House would probably find it helpful to have such a debate on the Budget soon after the Budget Statement in the House of Commons. With regard to the general question of debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will be aware that this matter has been discussed many times by the Procedure Committee. It was unanimously decided by that committee that it would not be appropriate to have a general economic debate on the occasion of the passage of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Therefore, I have no difficulty with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, but I would have very substantial difficulty with regard to the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has somewhat misunderstood the point that I tried to make. No doubt that is my fault and not his. I tried to say that, in view of the importance of the Consolidated Fund Bill—which is beyond dispute—linked with it there ought to be an opportunity for this House to have a general economic debate as of right and it should not depend on whether or not the Procedure Committee had found that convenient.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the Procedure Committee had discussed this matter on innumerable occasions. As a Member of the Procedure Committee, I endorse that. I add only that the report of the Procedure Committee on all of those occasions has been wholeheartedly endorsed by the House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that I was going to get away with not having

1289
to intervene at all, other than by uttering the words to allow the Bill to proceed through your Lordships' House. I believe that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has almost accepted that we will not discuss the Consolidated Fund Bill and that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, ought to be considered. I remember with some pleasure the debate on the economy introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. If the noble Lord is again lucky and manages to arrange a debate on the day after the Budget, I look forward to standing at this Dispatch Box and defending the Budget, but whether or not we have that debate is more a matter for the usual channels than for me. I shall pass on the comments that have just been made by my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Harris of Greenwich, to the Lord Privy Seal and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will have the courtesy of replying to the question posed by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. His noble friend suggested, quite sensibly, that at this time of year there was a need to debate the general economic situation of the country, bearing in mind that in terms of the parliamentary timetable it is only relatively recently that the unified Budget has been moved from April to November. I hope that the Minister has some sympathetic words for, if not complete acceptance of, the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there should be a major economic debate at about this time of year.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for pulling me up when I do not answer absolutely every question. I thought that I had covered the ground fairly well. I believe that the Commons do not debate this particular Bill. As two noble Lords who are Members of the Procedure Committee have made clear, this ground has been tilled so often that I doubt whether a plough would find a piece of firm soil into which to bite. I am equally certain that your Lordships' House, if not the rest of the world, will be more than delighted to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell on the economy. But I believe that that is a quite different issue. I will do as I have said and draw the attention of my noble friends to the exchanges that we have had.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 18th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Housing Bill
4.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
LORDS AMENDMENT
102 Clause 79, 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.")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu—
102A 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.".
>102B 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".
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 102 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 102A, and 102B in lieu thereof. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 114, 114A and 114B, and Amendments Nos. 286, 286A and 286B.
The debate we had on leasehold valuation tribunal fees at Third Reading was an immensely valuable one. Many important and telling points were made. We also had before us a wide range of options about what the precise level of fees should be. In the event it was decided that in relation to the procedures for dealing with unreasonable service charges the tribunal should charge a fee no higher than for comparable cases in the county court; that is to say, of the order of £120.
When noble Lords' amendments were considered in another place, government amendments were accepted which provided that the fee for each case in both of these procedures should not exceed £500. We are therefore faced with the choice between the amendments passed in this House at Third Reading or those passed in another place.
The measures in this Bill are designed to help leaseholders challenge the unreasonable actions of a number of unscrupulous landlords. A particular problem that leaseholders face under existing procedures is that when they attempt to challenge unreasonable service charges in the county court they can be faced with protracted and potentially very expensive litigation. That is because, although the county court fees are relatively low, leaseholders can be exposed to the potential risk of paying the costs of both sides if they lose. Even for a case of average complexity, those costs could be as much as £6,000.
That is why we proposed switching the jurisdiction for those cases to the tribunal. The advantages of access to the leasehold valuation tribunal are considerable. The

1291
tribunals have quicker and less formal procedures than the courts, and there is no need for parties to have full legal representation. The tribunal itself will include a professional surveyor who is qualified to assess the technical arguments which are likely to arise. Also, tribunals cannot award costs to either party so the exposure of the leaseholder to the risk of costs will be much reduced.
In the light of those considerations, and in particular the very considerable advantages for the leaseholder in gaining access to the tribunals, we need to consider what level of fee it is reasonable for an applicant to pay. We believe that a maximum fee of £500 is about the right level. First, in relation to the likely level of costs of providing the service, which is expected to be about £2,000 per day, we expect the average case to last around one day. Secondly, we need to set the fee at a level which will discourage minor disputes, for which this service is not really intended, and also deter applications of a frivolous nature.
Thirdly, we believe that a maximum fee of £500 represents a practicable and affordable amount. The precise fee structure has not yet been worked out and will be subject to wide consultation before this section is commenced. However, I have already indicated that we intend to passport an existing means-testing regime such that, if the applicant qualifies under that regime, the fees will be remitted either in whole or in part.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull will be familiar with the idea of a £500 limit on the level of fees as he proposed a very similar amendment at Third Reading. The reason I gave then for not accepting his amendment was that it would not be feasible to place a fixed limit of a cash amount on the face of the Bill without an order-making power to adjust that amount in the light of inflation. Our amendments now provide for that, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
In speaking to the amendments in another place my honourable friend the Minister indicated that the purpose of the order-making power was to make adjustments in the usual way from time to time to reflect cost changes. Of course, following the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor decided to pursue a total revision of fees for courts, then that might provide an additional reason to use this power. Any proposals for such a major change would need to be fully discussed at the time and would, I suspect, require changes to the primary legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, also privately pressed me on how often we might seek to make adjustments using the order-making power. He suggested that a five-year period might be appropriate. Clearly, that would depend on movements in the rate of inflation. But I would tend to agree that on the basis of the current situation the period he suggests does not seem unreasonable. We would certainly not envisage making annual adjustments.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—who I am delighted to see is present today to celebrate his previous triumphs—also raised a number of concerns on
1292
which I can offer some comfort. First, the Bill is now full-cost-recovery free. Secondly, I can clarify that the provision provides a fee to be paid for each application, and if the application is a joint one made by a number of tenants in a block of flats, then only one fee subject to the limit of £500 will be required. I can also state that in the procedure dealing with service charge disputes one application can cover all items which make up the total service charge. That service charge could span a number of years and could cover, for example, insurance premiums, repairs to the roof and charges for the maintenance of the garden. Even where all those items are disputed, only one fee, subject to the £500 maximum, will be payable.
I can also offer a further reassurance. My honourable friend the Minister undertook in another place, when considering the Lords amendments to the Bill, that we will seek to construct a scale of charges which offers a degree of certainty to the applicant before the case starts. That means that we will not seek to charge a fee relating to the length of the cases before the tribunal. He also undertook to examine the feasibility of designing a sliding scale of fees relating to the value of the disputed sums involved.
Our proposals are intended to provide leaseholders with a real opportunity for effective justice at an affordable price. I believe that the proposals relating to the fees chargeable by a tribunal to deal both with service charge disputes and the appointment of a manager, and offering a maximum limit of £500 will indeed deliver just that. I commend the Commons amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 102 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 102A and 102B in lieu thereof. — (Lord Lucas.)
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, on a personal level perhaps I can thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the considerable trouble he has taken in discussing this matter with me and the courtesy he showed in so doing. As the noble Lord explained to the House, the provision seeks to alter the amendments your Lordships passed last week in the sense that the ceiling on the fees will not now be the approximate £120 they would have been in the county court but the £500 set out in the amendment agreed by another place. Obviously we regret the increase but we are very much reassured by the various promises made by the noble Lord as to the fact that it will be a sliding scale and a completely all-in fee.
In my view the benefit behind the amendment, like the amendment your Lordships accepted last time, is that it entirely abolishes any reference to a fees charge being sufficient to meet the entire costs of providing a service and it is therefore merely a question on a purely practical level of whether the maximum shall be £500 or whether the standard shall be £120. I venture to believe that the many noble Lords who kindly and energetically supported the amendment last time, both in speaking and in the Division Lobby, were concerned much more with the principle of not having full-cost

1293
justice than with the precise level of fees. For my part I am content not to oppose the Motion so ably and charmingly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may advert specifically to Amendments Nos. 102A and 102B. I can think of many reasons for opposing this Motion. First, I believe that the community should provide the machinery of justice at community expense and that the cost ought not to fall on those who need to resort to the legal system in quest of justice.
Secondly, even if that principle is discarded in relation to the courts, there is a distinction between courts and tribunals. It is one of the distinguishing and important characteristics of tribunals that they provide justice for those who can receive justice only if it is provided without serious financial implications.
Thirdly, even if that process is breached, I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated in his introduction, that it should be enunciated clearly that there should be full consultation; that there should be debates in Parliament; and that it should not be introduced in a Bill on a different subject relating to part of the jurisdiction of one tribunal. Fourthly, I believe that those least able to afford the fees should be fully protected. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not resile from any of those reasons.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I believe that there are two reasons for supporting the Motion. First, where the two Houses have the misfortune to disagree, I believe that each should be prepared to make some effort to secure an accommodation. In the other place, there has been some movement since the initial proposal in the Bill. Secondly, I believe that the proposal now on offer is less draconian and potentially less unjust than the initial proposal in the Bill. As for what the noble Lord said about the intention of making use of the power to change the amount of £500, I think that that fell somewhat short of an undertaking that the amount would not be changed within five years, but I think that I detected an indication in good faith that, other things being equal, there was no intention to alter it within a period of five years—and five years is a long time in politics.
Accordingly, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I would not seek today to dissuade your Lordships from approving the Motion. Perhaps I may add that I am extremely grateful for the generous support that I received from noble Lords in all parts of the House. Lastly, I too express my appreciation of the unfailing courtesy and good humour of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, throughout our debates.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I welcome the Commons amendment and the measured arguments put forward by my noble friend. I congratulate him on his success in meeting the powerful arguments that were put forward both at Report and Third Reading, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, as well as many other noble Lords. Indeed, the House carried that amendment.
1294
I am sure that the amendment will be welcomed by the very large number of professional bodies which are concerned about the issue and that the future leasehold valuation tribunal should work; that it should work well, and that it should not be constrained by punitive costs.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Housing Bill, as it was put before your Lordships originally, raised the controversial matter about the way in which tribunal costs should be met. Although I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for the part that he played in helping to put the matter right, I do not think that we can generalise about the functions of tribunals and courts. Tribunals vary so very much, but they have one thing in common which all of us should always bear in mind. Indeed, it was borne in mind by your Lordships when the matter was before us only a week ago. The costs of tribunal cases should not vary greatly from the costs of court cases where somewhat similar issues are being dealt with.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for having consulted me before the matter came before your Lordships and I congratulate him on the sensible and workable compromise that we are now being asked to approve. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, must above all be very pleased because these provisions come so close to those of the amendment which he proposed previously.
Finally, perhaps I may express our indebtedness to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for his initiative on the last occasion and for the wisdom that he has shown and the constructive attitude that he has taken in helping the Government to reach this compromise.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer summed this up when he said that the amendment is less draconian and less unjust than the Government's original proposals. Nevertheless, I cannot say that I welcome the Government's compromise with wholehearted enthusiasm.
I should like to test the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on two points. First, in spite of his assurance that five years might be the right period before the Secretary of State activates his power under the provisions of Amendment No. 102A, he slipped in a phrase about the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could elaborate on that because if, under this legislation, anything that the noble and learned Lord proposes (which may be adopted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor) can be slipped through by order, we should like to know about it more comprehensively.
Secondly, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that when—if—the Secretary of State decides to activate the powers which are recommended by another place in Amendment No. 102A, there is no chance of amendment. We can debate the matter but, under the normal procedures of this House, we cannot amend the provisions. In those circumstances, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer would have to take Trappist vows and be silent or simply talk, knowing that

1295
it was to no effect. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could assure us that if there is any deviation from what he has said this afternoon about the five-year limit, he will consult widely with us. If we are in government, we will consult widely with him.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I turn first to the second of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. His noble and learned friend would always have as an alternative the possibility of joining the Liberal Democrat party. He would then be free to oppose affirmative resolutions in this House and he could thus find his voice again. However, the noble and learned Lord might consider that too severe a solution to the problem.
I have tried to be as careful as possible not to mislead the House about the ways in which the power would be used. Clearly, if there is for some reason a general revision of fees in three years' time, which would sensibly include an uprating of this amount in line with inflation—the idea being that it could run for another 10 years before we tackled the subject again—it might be sensible to roll this up in that change.
Turning to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and to the proposals for full-cost recovery and changes to the ways in which courts charge fees, perhaps I may say that if that subject comes up, is debated and is agreed, it may be that all that we would need to do to change the fees of the tribunal would be to make an amendment under our powers to change the level of the fee by affirmative resolution. That would be a subsidiary matter to something else that had been agreed and debated at great length elsewhere. I think it most unlikely that a power so narrow could achieve anything useful in relation to a wholesale revision of the fees which courts should charge. I would expect that we would have to seek primary legislation. I did not want to mislead the House by saying that we would not use the power if that was the sensible conclusion to a much more wide-ranging debate and discussion on the level of the fees which should be charged. If all that we needed to do was to change the limit under this power, that would seem sensible. However, there is no intention of going back to the stage where perhaps we were seen by some noble Lords as trying to implement my noble and learned friend's proposals without having fully discussed them in the round.
I am grateful to be standing here today not being showered with rotten fruit, as on Third Reading, but being pelted with bouquets. I am grateful for that, even if some of them seem to have the odd thistle embedded in them. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
114 Clause 82, page 57, line 35, leave out ("is sufficient to meet") and insert ("does not exceed")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu—
114A 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
1296
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.".
114B 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 it".
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 114 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114A and 114B in lieu thereof, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 114 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114A and 114B in lieu thereof. — (Lord Lucas.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of business. But when I left this House late last night, this business was not yet on our agenda. Inquiries in the other place failed to discover what the Commons had done with our amendments. So I hope that I may be forgiven for coming in at this point and asking a couple of questions.
First, I ask about the vires that the Minister takes under the phrase:
"that the fees … shall not exceed £500 or such other amount as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State".
It is my understanding that a clear majority opinion in English law at present is that the doctrine of proportionality is not accepted. Therefore, would it be intra vires if a Minister under these powers were to specify fees of £2,000 per day, as was originally envisaged before the passage of the amendment? That seems to me to be a question of some importance.
Secondly, perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to the fact that we in the Liberal Democrats have no affection for monopoly. We do not wish to claim a monopoly of the opinions which he rightly ascribed to us about voting on statutory instruments. Perhaps I may advise the Minister to read the most distinguished speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on 20th October 1994.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am always delighted to read my noble friend's speeches. I do not have that speech with me at the moment, nor do I have what I would regard as a definitive answer to the first question asked by the noble Earl. My understanding of the wording is that my noble friend can propose to put the sum up to £100,000. There is no limit of which I am aware, except that it be approved by affirmative resolution. I hope that I have given noble Lords opposite a considerable degree of comfort that we have no such intention and that this provision is merely there to make

1297
sure that we do not have to come back with primary legislation every time that we wish to uprate the amount for inflation.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord will accept that any such measure by the Secretary of State would attract an adverse report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should not be surprised if it did. But we do not anticipate any great need to come back frequently, given this Government's record on inflation. The new Labour Party, should it ever gain power, might need to have more frequent recourse to this power.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put on record that I find this amendment acceptable in the light of the resolution of this House on 20th October 1994: that the House has an unfettered freedom to vote on subordinate legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
286 Schedule 5, page 144, line 44, leave out ("is sufficient to meet") and insert ("does not exceed")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu—
286A 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.".
286B 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".
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 286 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 286A and 286B in lieu thereof, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 286 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 286A and 286B in lieu thereof. — (Lord Lucas.)
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is the Minister still assured that this is the right point to put to the House, given that almost every time he has put the question or moved the Motion, we have heard quite a loud rumble of thunder? There is an indication coming from outside this House that the matter does not receive universal approbation.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe (as I shall reveal) that the thunder has to do with the next amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
287 After Schedule 5, 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. —(1) 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 SD, 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. —(1) 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
1302
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,

1303
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;

1304

(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.
Covenant, &c. affecting landlord's power to dispose.
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 constitent 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 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.
11A.—(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

1308

(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

(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.
Right of qualifying tenants to compel sale, &c. by purchaser.
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.

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 rentcharge.
(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
1310
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

(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 constitent 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 1) 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".")

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment to it—
287A 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—".
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 287A to Lords Amendment No. 287.
This amendment is entirely due to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. When he explained to me earlier today that, sadly, he would not be present because he had to be at a garden party, I thought that perhaps he was taking a risk. That appears to have been an unwarranted risk. Her Majesty's disapproval has clearly been communicated.
At Third Reading the noble Lord's amendment concerned the right of first refusal procedures contained in Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Noble Lords will be aware that this part is being substantially amended in the Bill in order to close a number of loopholes which have denied tenants their rights under these provisions. I undertook to consider one of the
1316
noble Lord's proposals with a view to the Government bringing forward an appropriate amendment during consideration of Lords Amendments in another place.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that that was duly done. The amendment makes a small improvement to the procedures which must be followed when the landlord makes an offer to the tenants allowing them first refusal to purchase his interests. The general requirement is that the landlord must serve an offer notice on the tenants which specifies a period during which the offer must be accepted and a further period during which a person may be designated as the nominee purchaser.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, pointed out, quite rightly, that that could delay matters as the nominee purchaser could only be put forward in the second period. It may be the case that the tenants are well prepared and are able to accept the offer and name the nominee at the same time. This amendment secures that, by stating explicitly that the nominee can be put forward at the same time as the acceptance of the offer or at any future time up to the end of the second specified period.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is satisfied with that solution.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 287A to Lords Amendment No. 287.—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, who, I am sure, is enjoying his entertainment this afternoon, I should like to thank the Government for paying attention to what he said. In passing, let me ask the Minister whether the Commons read through the schedule in its entirety. I had a great deal of difficulty in going through it on Third Reading and I only got halfway through. Did the Commons go through the whole schedule in detail?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that I could possibly answer that question. I believe that we have our suspicions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
4.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Commons amendments to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (118) as first printed by the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
`( ) a health authority, special health authority or NHS trust;'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 1. I shall also speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 38, 39, 40, 45, 61, 63 and 64.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 38 and 39 ensure that certain NHS authorities and trusts, and police authorities which are established under Section 3 of the Police Act 1964 are excluded from eligibility for grants under Chapter I of Part I of the Bill, and from participating in a group repair scheme as an assisted person. Amendments Nos. 1 and 38 respond to concerns which were expressed in Committee in another place that those health service bodies should be shown on the face of the Bill as bodies which cannot apply for grant.
Amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 64 provide that the references to new town corporations, housing action trusts and urban development corporations in the lists of ineligible applicants in Clauses 3(2) and 64(6) in Part I, shall be construed as references to their successor bodies which would be created under Clauses 139 to 141 of this Bill.
Amendments Nos. 3, 40 and 45 concern eligibility to apply for renovation grants and other grants under Chapter I of Part I of the Bill, to participate in a group repair scheme or to receive home repair assistance. To be eligible for all those purposes, applicants will have to pass a means test, the provisions for which will be set out in regulations. Broadly speaking, we have sought to make renovation grants and the other benefits given for private sector renewal available to people whose circumstances are equivalent to those who are entitled to housing benefit.
Amendments Nos. 3, 40 and 45 will enable the regulations to reflect the housing benefit rules in relation to matters other than the applicant's means. There has been a gap in the legislation on that so far and the amendments make a logical extension of the present provisions. They will ensure that the provisions for private sector renewal will, where appropriate, keep broadly in line with housing benefit. One such area relates to asylum seekers and other people who are subject to immigration control. The amendments will enable the regulations to make similar provisions to those for housing benefit regarding the eligibility of such people.
The purpose of the grant system under this Bill is to give people help with repairs and improvements so that their homes can be made fit so that they can go on living
1318
there. It is, of course, unlikely that many people who are covered by immigration controls will qualify for grants: they will need to own a home, and, in most, but not all, cases, will need to have lived there for three years. However, these amendments will ensure that in the unlikely cases where asylum seekers and other people who are subject to immigration control do jump all those hurdles, the rules governing their eligibility for grants will be the same as those governing their eligibility for housing benefit.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
`( ) a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964;'.
3 Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
`( ) Regulations under subsection (3) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit, or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause—
HOUSING GRANTS: THE AGE OF THE PROPERTY
'.—(1) A local housing authority shall not entertain an application for a grant in respect of premises provided (by construction or conversion) less than ten years before the date of the application, unless—

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

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

(2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) so as to substitute another period for that specified.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 7.
New Clause 4 responds to concerns expressed in Committee in another place. It permits grant to be given for HMOs even where they have been converted less than 10 years ago. It removes the 10-year age requirement—provided for in Clause 4—for houses in multiple occupation which are provided by conversion.
The effect of not relaxing the provisions of Clause 4 for houses in multiple occupation which have been provided by conversion would be that occupiers of those premises might have to wait up to 10 years for a grant-aided improvement to their living conditions.

1319
Amendment No. 7 adds a new subsection to Clause 12. The new subsection allows renovation grant to be approved for fire precautions works to a self-contained dwelling forming part of an HMO where those works have been specified in a notice served on the HMO under Section 352 of the Housing Act 1985. Prior to the amendment (as is the case under the present legislation), no kind of mainstream renovation grant would have been available for fire precautions works to self-contained dwellings in such cases.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 7, page 4, line 35, leave out from 'State' to end of line 36 and insert—
'References in this Chapter to tenants and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a tenant's application for a renovation grant, shall be construed accordingly.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.5. It may be convenient if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 18 to 23, 31, 37, 42, 43 and 62.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 31, 37, 42, 43 and 62 is to ensure that references to "tenant" and "qualifying tenant" and such similar terms in Part I of the Bill shall be construed as including a person who has a licence to occupy a dwelling or a tenancy of a description which may be specified by the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 23 are technical and are intended to clarify the provisions relating to the conditions as to availability for letting and as to occupancy.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
6 Clause 8, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
'(3A) In subsection (3) references to letting include the grant of a licence to occupy premises.
References in this Chapter to tenants and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a certificate of intended letting, shall be construed accordingly.'.
7 Clause 12, page 8, line 6, at end insert—
'( ) The reference in paragraph (f) of subsection (1) to precautions required under or by virtue of an enactment does not include precautions required to comply with a notice under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 (notice requiring execution of works to render house in multiple occupation fit for number of occupants) so far as it relates to premises which are not part of a house in multiple occupation for the purposes of this Part.'.
8 Clause 14, page 9, line 8, at end insert—
'References in this Chapter to other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of an application for a common parts grant, shall be construed accordingly.'.
9 Clause 19, page 12, line 7, leave out 'related expressions' and insert 'other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of an application for disabled facilities grant,'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 9.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 9— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 24, page 14, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
'and the authority shall take that into account in deciding whether it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the relevant works.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. It may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
Amendment No. 10 responds to concerns which were expressed in Committee in another place and were also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, during earlier stages in this House. The amendment removes subsection (5) of Clause 24. Subsection (5) provides discretion for an authority on whether or not to approve an application for disabled facilities grant where the building does not meet the requirements of the fitness standard. It is replaced by an obligation on the authority to take into account the matters in subsection (4) in deciding whether it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the relevant works.
As a result of the amendment, disabled facilities grant will remain mandatory whether or not the property is unfit. At the same time the amendment reflects the intention behind the original provision; namely, that local authorities, when considering carrying out the proposed works, should have the discretion to refuse an application where the condition of the property is such that it would be unreasonable and impracticable to carry out the proposed works. The kind of case where that might apply, depending of course on the circumstances, might be where a person was considering installing heavy stairlift equipment when, in fact, the walls were crumbling.
Clause 96 requires local authorities to have regard to guidance which is given under Section 604A of the Housing Act 1985 in deciding whether they are satisfied that carrying out the relevant works with grant aid is the most satisfactory course of action where a property is unfit.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 add a requirement for authorities to have regard also to any guidance provided by the Secretary of State under Clause 84 in relation to the use and review of deferred action notices.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 31, page 18, line 14, leave out from first 'be' to 'make' in line 27 and insert 'determined by the local housing authority, having regard to—

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

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

( ) The authority may, if they think it appropriate, seek and act upon the advice of rent officers as to any matter.
( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
This amendment provides for authorities, in determining grant applications from landlords, to have regard to the extent to which the landlord is able to generate higher rental income on the improved property and, if they think it appropriate, they can seek and act upon the advice of rent officers on any matters concerning rents.
As Clause 31 provides authorities with discretion to determine the amount of grant which may be given in the case of landlord applications, we consider it important that decisions which are taken by local authorities are based on sound information. It is appropriate therefore that express provision is made to ensure that, in every case, authorities have regard to the scope for charging a higher rent on a property improved with grant. That will have a bearing on the landlord's ability to fund the works and therefore on the amount of grant the authority may award.
The amendment also simplifies Clause 31(4) allowing authorities discretion to obtain and take into account advice from rent officers on any relevant matters.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 34, page 20, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) the amount of the costs which have been or are to be incurred as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) has increased,'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 28 and 57.
Amendment No. 12 is essentially a technical amendment and completes what would otherwise be an incomplete provision. Clause 34(5) enables authorities to redetermine the estimated expense and amount of grant where they are satisfied that, owing to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, there is a need for additional unforeseen works or if the original estimate cannot be adhered to.
Amendment No. 12 ensures that authorities may also redetermine the estimated expense and amount of grant where the amount of the costs with respect to
1322
preliminary or ancillary services or charges has increased owing to circumstances beyond the applicant's control.
Amendments Nos. 13, 28 and 57 correct cross-references in Clauses 35, 54, and 93 of the Bill. Amendment No. 57 is consequential to an earlier amendment made in this House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 36, page 21, line 2, leave out 'by virtue of section 23(1)' and insert 'under section 24(1)(a)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 39, page 22, line 1, after second 'grant' insert'—

(a) by payment direct to the contractor, or

(b)".

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
These amendments respond to concerns expressed in Committee in another place and allow the local authority either to make payments direct to the contractor or to give the applicant a cheque made payable to the contractor. The local authority will be required to inform the applicant that payment will or may be made in this manner.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 39, page 22, line 5, after 'would' insert 'or might'.
16 Page 22, leave out lines 6 to 9.
17 Page 22, line 10, leave out from 'Where' to end of line.
18 Clause 49, page 29, line 24, leave out from 'fulfilled' to end of line 28.
19 Page 29, line 32, leave out from 'dwelling' to end of line 35.
20 Page 29, line 42, at end insert—
'( ) The terms of any tenancy of the dwelling (or any part of it, or any property including the dwelling or part of it) shall be deemed to include a duty on the part of the tenant, if required to do so by the owner of the dwelling, to furnish him with such information as he may reasonably require to enable him to comply with a notice under subsection (2).'.
21 Clause 50, page 30, line 13, leave out from 'fulfilled' to end of line 17.
22 Page 30, line 21, leave out from 'house' to end of line 24.
23 Page 30, line 31, at end insert—
`( ) The terms of any tenancy of any part of the house shall be deemed to include a duty on the part of the tenant, if required to do so by the owner of the house, to furnish him with such information as he may reasonably require to enable him to comply with a notice under subsection (2).'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 23.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 23—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 Clause 51, peave out Clause 51 and insert the following new Clause—
CONDITIONS AS TO REPAYMENT IN CASE OF OTHER COMPENSATION, &C
'.—(1) Where a local housing authority approve an application for a grant they may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, impose a condition requiring the applicant to take reasonable steps to pursue any relevant claim to which this section applies and to repay the grant, so far as appropriate, out of the proceeds of such a claim.
(2) The claims to which this section applies are—

(a) an insurance claim, or a legal claim against another person, in respect of damage to the premises to which the grant relates, or

(b) a legal claim for damages in which the cost of the works to premises to which the grant relates is part of the claim;

and a claim is a relevant claim to the extent that works to make good the damage mentioned in paragraph (a), or the cost of which is claimed as mentioned in paragraph (b), are works to which the grant relates.
(3) In the event of a breach of a condition under this section, the applicant shall on demand pay to the local housing authority the amount of the grant so far as relating to any such works, together with compound interest as from such date as may be prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, calculated at such reasonable rate as the authority may determine and with yearly rests.
(4) The local housing authority may determine not to make such a demand or to demand a lesser amount.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 56.
The amendments concern the powers of local housing authorities to impose conditions, with the Secretary of State's consent, requiring applicants to take steps to pursue claims—for example, against an insurance company—covering works for which grant has been paid, and to repay grant as appropriate out of the proceeds of the claim.
Amendment No. 24 inserts a new clause to replace the provisions of Clause 51 of the Bill.
We believe that it is right that where grant has been awarded for works for which a claim against another person or a claim for damages is pending, and which would ultimately meet the cost of the works, the authority should seek recovery of grant already paid.
1324
These are sensible provisions which provide authorities with the flexibility to pursue grant recovery in appropriate cases and also help protect grant resources. Amendments No. 25 and 56 are consequential to the new clause.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
25 Clause 52, page 31, line 44, leave out '51' and insert `(Conditions as to repayment in case of other compensation, &c.)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 54, page 32, line 19, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 23 and insert 'any such order as is mentioned in subsection (2A);'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 29, 30, 110, 113 and 116.
Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 29 and 30 and the new clause which will be introduced by Amendment No. 110 extend the range of exempt disposals where the disposal is as a result of an order made in proceedings relating to divorce, inheritance or children.
The amendments resulted from consideration of provisions in your Lordships' House on the Housing Bill, where the reference was to Section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This led to a revision of definitions in a number of areas of housing legislation. It is considered appropriate to make similar provision in this Bill.
Amendments Nos. 110, 113 and 116 similarly extend the definitions of exempt disposals under Part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which will continue to apply until the Bill is brought into force.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
27 Clause 54, page 32, line 24, leave out from 'disposal' to end of line 25 and insert `(see subsection (2B));'.
28 Page 32, line 43, leave out 'section 15' and insert 'section 16'.
29 Page 33, line 19, at end insert—
'(2A) The orders referred to in subsection (1)(c) are orders under—

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

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

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

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

30 Page 33, line 19, at end insert—
'(2B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) a compulsory disposal is a disposal of property which is acquired compulsorily, or is acquired by a person who has made or would have made, or for whom another person has made or would have made, a compulsory purchase order authorising its compulsory purchase for the purposes for which it is acquired.'.
31 Clause 59, page 36, leave out lines 50 to 52 and insert—

'tenent (and expressios relating to tenancies)

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

section 7(6)

—in the context of a certificate of intended letting

section 8(3A)

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

section 14(2)

—in the context of an application for disabled facilities grant

section 19(5)'

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 31.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 31—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
32 Clause 60, page 37, line 14, after 'works' insert '—(a)'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 36, 41 and 58.
The purpose behind these amendments is to increase the flexibility of group repair. Amendments No. 32 to 35 do so by enabling schemes to deal with structural instability, either together with, or separately from, works to put the property in reasonable repair. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 41 enables schemes to be varied after commencement with the approval of the Secretary of State. Our intention would be to give a general approval to cover the bulk of cases. Both these sets of amendments meet concerns raised by noble Lords opposite at earlier stages of the Bill.
Amendment No. 36 clarifies the date of scheme approval in cases which fall within the Secretary of State's general consent.
1326
Amendment No. 58 rectifies incorrect references made in Clause 94(4) to Clause 64(2). The particular changes are the insertion of the correct title for Clause 64 and the insertion of a reference to paragraph (b)—of Clause 64(2)—in place of the reference to paragraph (c). The latter takes account of changes that were made to the numbering of Clause 64 following an earlier amendment made at Report stage in this House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
33 Clause 60, page 37, line 15, at end insert ', or
(b) to render the buildings to which the scheme relates structurally stable,
or for both those purposes.'.
34 Clause 62, page 37, line 32, at end insert 'works of the following descriptions.
( ) In the case of works to put in reasonable repair the exterior of the buildings to which the scheme relates, the works must be'.
35 Page 37, line 37, at end insert—
'( ) In the case of works to render the buildings to which the scheme relates structurally stable, the works must be—

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

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

and must be such that on completion of the works the buildings will be structurally stable.'.
36 Clause 64, page 38, line 31, at end insert—
'In the case of a scheme not submitted for specific approval, the date of approval shall be taken to be the date on which the authority decide that the scheme fulfils the criteria for general approval.'.
37 Page 39, line 9, at end insert—
'(4A) In subsection (4) references to letting include the grant of a licence to occupy premises.
References in this Chapter to tenants, and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a certificate of intended letting, shall he construed accordingly.'.
38 Page 39, line 24, at end insert—
'( )a health authority, special health authority or NHS trust;'.
39 Page 39, line 24, at end insert—
'( ) a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964;'.
40 Page 39, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) An order under subsection (6)(f) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit, or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.
41 After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
VARIATION OF GROUP REPAIR SCHEME
'.—(1) A group repair scheme may be varied at any time before the completion date.
The variation may relate to the participants in the scheme, the buildings to which the scheme relates, the scheme works or any other matter.
(2) A variation is not effective unless approved by the Secretary of State.

1327
The provisions of section 63(2) to (4) (supplementary provisions as to approval of scheme) apply to approval of a variation.
(3) Where a scheme is varied to enable other persons to participate, section 64 (persons eligible to participate) applies in relation to new participants with the substitution for the reference to the date of approval of the scheme of a reference to the date of approval of the variation.
In the case of a variation not submitted for specific approval, the date of approval shall be taken to be the date on which the authority decide that the variation fulfils the criteria for general approval.
(4) Before varying a group repair scheme the local housing authority shall consult the existing participants and consider any representations made by them.
(5) Fresh scheme consent is required in the case of an existing participant as to whom the authority are satisfied that his interests are adversely affected by the variation.
In any other case the existing scheme consent shall be treated as extended to the scheme as varied.'.
42 Clause 74, page 43, line 44, after 'tenant' insert '(generally)'.
43 Page 43, line 44, at end insert—

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

section 64(4A)'

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 43.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 43—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 77, page 45, line 30, leave out from 'has' to 'on' in line 31 and insert 'for that period had its only or main mooring in the same locality'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.
This amendment responds to concerns expressed during Committee in another place. It provides that houseboats may satisfy the residency qualification for home repair assistance through being moored in the same locality rather than at the same mooring. The provision as previously drafted unintentionally restricted the mobility of a houseboat in seeking to define the prior qualifying period for grant assistance.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Dubs will be very grateful to the Government for producing this amendment. My noble friend has a continued interest in the residency qualification for houseboats. He spoke on that eloquently when the Bill was before your Lordships' House. I am sure that he will be very happy about this provision. I hope that the noble Earl has now had a little rest from jumping up and down, but I am afraid that he will have to jump up and down now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
45 Clause 78, page 46, line 21, at end insert—
`( ) Regulations under subsection (2) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit, or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45. Perhaps I should explain to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I am not troubled by the exertion of getting up and down but it is rather that the thunder seems to have affected the air-conditioning system.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
46 Clause 81, page 47, line 23, leave out 'owner of that' and insert 'person having control (as defined in section 207 of that Act) of the building or'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. At the same time, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 to 55.
The purpose behind this group of amendments is fourfold. First, it clarifies the drafting and brings the service of deferred action notices closer into line with the provisions applying to repair notices under the Housing Act 1985 on which they are essentially based. This is the ground covered by Amendments Nos. 46 to 48, the first two and last two lines of Amendment No. 49, and Amendment No. 54. Secondly, it provides that a local authority may serve a copy of a deferred action notice on a licensee, as covered by the wording in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 49.
Thirdly, Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 provide, in response to arguments made during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, for the maximum period for reviewing a deferred action notice to be extended from 12 months to two years with the Secretary of State having power to vary the period. Fourthly, Amendment No. 55 corrects a reference error in the index of expressions in Clause 90.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Clause 81, page 47, line 27, leave out 'The authority may' and insert 'Where the authority serve a notice under subsection (1), (2) or (3) —
(a) they shall'.
48 Page 47, line 28, leave out 'dwelling-house or house' and insert 'premises'.
49 Page 47, line 29, at end insert '(within the meaning of Part VI of the Housing Act 1985), and
(b) they may serve a copy of the notice on any person having a licence to occupy the premises.
( ) Section 617 of the Housing Act 1985 (service of notices) applies for the purpose of this section as it applies for the purpose of that Act.'.
50 Clause 83, page 48, line 15, leave out 'twelve months' and insert 'two years'.
51 Page 48, line 17, leave out 'twelve months' and insert 'two years'.
52 Page 48, line 17, at end insert—
'The Secretary of State may by order amend this subsection so as to specify such other period or periods as he considers appropriate.'.
53 Page 48, line 18, leave out 'They' and insert 'The authority'.
54 Page 48, line 19, at end insert—
'For this purpose sections 197 (powers of entry) and 198 (penalty for obstruction) of the Housing Act 1985 apply as they apply for the purposes of Part VI of that Act.'.
55 Clause 90, page 52, line 4, leave out '100(b)' and insert '89(b)'.
56 Clause 93, page 53, line 30, after '44(3)(a)' insert ', (Conditions as to repayment in case of other compensation, &c.)'.
57 Page 53, line 31, leave out from 'State)' to end of line 33.
58 Clause 94, page 54, line 10, leave out from `schemes)' to end of line 17 and insert ', in section 64(2) (persons eligible to participate in group repair scheme as assisted participants), the requirement in paragraph (a) that a person give an owner-occupation certificate or a certificate of intended letting does not apply if—

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

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

and the requirement in paragraph (b) that a person give a certificate of future occupation does not apply if the person concerned is a charity or the trustee of a charity.'.
59 Clause 96, page 54, line 38, at end insert 'and section 84 of this Act'.
60 Page 54, line 40, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Housing Act 1985'.
61 Clause 100, page 56, line 15, at end insert 'and includes any body established by order under section 88 of the Housing Act 1988'.
62 Page 56, line 17, leave out from first "'introductory' to 'Chapter' in line 18 and insert 'tenancy" and "introductory tenant" have the same meaning as in'.
63 Page 56, line 24, at end insert 'and includes any body established by order under paragraph 7 of Schedule 9 to the New Towns Act 1981'.
64 Page 57, line 4, at end insert 'and includes any body established by order under section 165B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 64 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 64.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
65 Clause 103, page 57, line 40, leave out from 'agreement' to end of line 41 and insert 'with a person for any of the following—

(a) the carrying out of construction operations:

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

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

1330
(1A) References in this Part to a construction contract include an agreement—

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

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

in relation to construction operations.
(1B) References in this Part to a construction contract do not include a contract of employment (within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996).
(1C) The Secretary of State may by order add to, amend or repeal any of the provisions of subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) as to the agreements which are construction contracts for the purposes of this Part or are to be taken or not to be taken as included in references to such contracts.
No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each of House of Parliament.'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. At the same time, it may be convenient for the House to consider Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 74, 75, 94 and 111. The main amendment—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister at this point, but does he intend to speak also to Amendment No. 65A?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I rather feel that I shall have to do so. However, I had intended to wait until the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, moved his amendment. I presume that he will do so immediately after I have spoken. That is still my intention unless the noble Lord, Lord Howie, wishes me to do otherwise.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I would be much happier if the Minister were to reply to my amendment after I have moved it. However, it usually does not make much difference whether he speaks to my amendments before or after I have moved them.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is as perspicacious as always. As I was saying, the main amendment in the group is Amendment No. 65 which has arisen largely as a result of suggestions by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, before the Bill left this House. The noble Lord urged us to consider including within the Bill design and other consultancy-type work conducted by non-professionals in support of construction operations. An example might be specialist design work carried out by, say, an electrical contractor prior to wiring a building. The noble Lord pointed out that Clause 104(3) could be taken to relate only to the work of professionals and that a great deal of similar work was carried out on construction sites by those not accredited to a recognised profession. We were sympathetic to this, and I undertook to consider appropriate amendments.
During our deliberations it became clear that we were resting the definition section of Part II of the Bill too firmly on an idea of construction operations, and that that was requiring us to stretch the term to categories of work such as design and consultancy which, although

1331
they undoubtedly related to on-site operations, were not in themselves construction operations as generally understood. In short, we decided to redefine a construction contract to include not only construction operations but also work which related to it. That makes it very simple to include non-professional design and consultancy work, as we have done in subsection (1A) of Amendment No. 65, without having to stretch the idea of construction operations even further.
I should point out that Amendment No. 65 also clarifies the position of those who provide labour for construction operations or those involved in management or supervision. They are already covered by Clause 103 as it is drafted, but I hope that the House will agree that subsection (1)(b) and (c) would leave no possibility for doubt about this. We have also thought it right to make it clear, with subsection (1B), that an ordinary contract of employment would not be covered.
Some of the other amendments in the group are consequential. Amendment No. 66 is designed to ensure that there is no doubt about the meaning of "relates to construction operations" in subsection (2). Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 reflect the fact that the inclusion of these operations would be moved from Clause 104 to 103, and Amendment No. 111 is required to set straight the reference to the power to amend these subsections by order.
I turn now to Amendment No. 94. When the Bill was last in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was most tenacious in his pursuit of an amendment to Clause 103 to ensure that construction work on behalf of the Royal Duchies would be covered by fair contracts provisions. Unfortunately, it was impossible to bring forward a government amendment to that effect before the Bill moved to another place, but I did undertake to reflect on the matter. This we have now done, and I am pleased to say that there has been complete agreement that the Bill should apply to work on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. That is the purpose of the new clause (Amendment No. 94), and Amendment No. 67 is consequential to it. I hope that the amendments will be acceptable to the whole House and in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Howie of Troon and Lord Williams of Elvel, to whose inspiration we owe such improvements.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65.—(Lord Lucas.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 65
65A Leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert (",in relation to construction operations, to provide professional advice or work on architecture or as a surveyor or consultant on building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or on the laying-out of landscape").
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was deeply moved by the Minister's last few words as they contained unusual praise directed towards me. However, I am sorry to say that I am not exactly satisfied with the amendments. Indeed, I am not sure that the Minister correctly represented my objections to the clause as originally set out in the Bill. That was no doubt
1332
inadvertent. Perhaps the Minister is confusing me with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who is more interested in non-professional professional work, if I may put it that way, than I am.
If the Minister can recall, my objection was that, in transferring a certain definition from the income tax Bill of 1988, the original Bill had changed the wording of that legislation in a way which I thought was incomprehensible. I know that I am going back quite a while, but perhaps I may remind the Minister of what the Bill originally said. In the reference to "construction operations" it included,
"the professional work of … architects or surveyors, or … consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape".
I was perturbed that a distinction was made in the Bill which was not made in the tax Bill—and, indeed, need not be made in any Bill—between the architects and the consulting engineer.
The Government have changed that part of the definition and shifted it in the Bill in order to meet a real objection. As we know, in Part III the title of architect is protected, but his work is not. In other words, anyone who is not an architect can undertake such work. Indeed, I can and have done so. I dare say that the Minister could do so if he felt so inclined, and it would be covered under the Bill's provisions. There is a good deal of sense in that.
However, I notice that the Government's amendment says:
"References in this part … include an agreement—

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

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

"in relation to construction operations".
We almost agreed on a previous occasion that the words,
"in relation to construction operations"
were in the wrong place; and, indeed, my amendment actually puts them in the right place. But no doubt we shall shortly hear why I am mistaken in that respect. However, in that context, what does the phrase "design work" mean?
The Minister will perhaps not remember, but we had a Bill which went through this House, the name of which escapes me but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will remember it very well.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the copyright Act 1988.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, that is right. During the course of that Bill we had a very substantial discussion about the meaning of "design".
In the context of architectural and design work, design would seem to mean architectural design work. The word "engineering" in the next paragraph does not actually mean engineering design. That eminent body, the Design Council, does not do much in the construction industry. It does a good deal for manufacturing and visual design. I suppose that the

1333
Minister will argue that engineering design is included here—and I am sure that I could not convince him that he was wrong—but I should like to see the Bill state that engineering design is included because it is different from architectural design or forms of visual design.
A distinction is made in paragraph (a) to carrying out work and in paragraph (b) to providing advice on building, engineering and one or two other aspects. A consulting engineer is one of the most important people as regards construction contracts in this part of the Bill. He provides not only advice, but he also does substantial work. Other people who provide advice are lawyers. Often it is good advice, but sometimes it is not. The advice which a consulting engineer gives to a client is only a small part of the work that he does. What possible distinction are the Government trying to make between architectural work and engineering advice? Do they understand that there is, in fact, no real distinction between them?
In the construction industry the work of the architect involves feasibility studies, giving advice, drawing up contracts, drawing up specifications, making designs, placing the contract, advising the client on whom to give the contract and then managing, although not always, the work as it progresses as a project manager. The consulting engineer does exactly the same thing. What are the Government trying to do by suggesting that a body of professional activity can be described as architectural work when a similar body of professional activity is described as advice? That does not make much sense. In so far as there is any sense in it, that has been concealed from me, regardless of the amount of interest I have taken in the progress of this Bill.
I could go on a little longer, but I think that that would be extremely unkind. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 65A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 65, be agreed to.—(Lord Howie of Troon.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thought that the Minister had moved Amendment No. 65. Are we now moving Amendment No. 65A?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the inspiration from me and my noble friend, Lord Howie of Troon, particularly in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. It seemed to me to be something that was obvious to anybody who read through the Bill, but I am still grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Amendment No. 65A seeks to compress subsection (1A) into a single sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has shown us on many occasions during the passage of this Bill his ingenuity in suggesting drafting amendments, and we had a similar offering to this during Report. We did not see much need for it then, and we still do not. One of the main purposes of Amendment No. 65 is to make it
1334
quite certain that the design and consultancy work of both professionals and non-professionals would be included within the Bill, and this amendment would reinstate the word "professional" in such a way that it is not clear to which items it refers in the list that follows. This would merely cause confusion.
I can, I hope, give the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, the comfort that he requires; that design work in relation to construction operations is covered and that there is no implication in any way in this Bill that we do not honour and love all civil engineers and engineers—indeed, engineers of all descriptions—who might possibly be involved in construction work. In the order of wording or the order of clauses, there is no intention in any way to suggest that they occupy a subsidiary role. Indeed, some of my best friends are engineers.
I do not think that the noble Lord could change anything in this Bill to the advantage of his profession. I do not think that there is anything in this wording which will not cover what they do properly and fully. I appreciate the noble Lord might wish to rephrase it in some way or another. To date the noble Lord has not come forward with the form of wording which convinces us that his is better than ours in this particular aspect.
I can give the noble Lord the comfort which he is seeking underneath; that what this Bill achieves in practice is what he would like to achieve if only he could find the wording to do it in another way.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it probably will achieve the result in practice because engineers are eminently practical people. Before I finish, I wonder whether the Minister could make some attempt, however feeble, to justify the distinction between work and advice as regards the two bodies of work or advice which are virtually identical.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my advice is that it works as it is.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have spent several months in this Chamber withdrawing amendments and I am happy to withdraw this amendment, too, as is my custom.
Amendment No. 65A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No 65, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 65 agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
66 Clause 103, page 57, line 44, at end insert—
'An agreement relates to construction operations so far as it makes provision of any kind within subsection (1) or (1A).'.
67 Page 58, leave out lines 7 to 11.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 66 and 67.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 66 and 67.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
68 Clause 104, page 58, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert—

'(a) construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, extension, demolition or dismantling of buildings or structures forming, or to form, part of the land (whether permanent or not);

(b) construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, extension, demolition or dismantling of any works forming, or to form, part of the land, including (without prejudice to the foregoing) walls, roadworks, power-lines, telecommunication apparatus, aircraft runways, docks and harbours, railways, inland waterways, pipe-lines, reservoirs, water-mains, wells, sewers, industrial plant and installations for purposes of land drainage, coast protection or defence;'.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68. It may also be convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 69 to 73, 76 and 77, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will be moving Amendments Nos. 68A, 68B and 68C in this same group.
When we considered these matters at earlier stages of this Bill, I suspect that we spent at least as much time discussing the definition of construction operations as we did any other aspect of the Bill. The Government were grateful for this close and testing scrutiny, and noble Lords accepted a number of detailed amendments which we brought forward as a result.
In examining Amendments Nos. 68 to 73, the House will see a number of familiar issues. I would have hoped that Amendment No. 68 would find favour with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who introduced an amendment in Committee which included maintenance as a construction operation. Following debate in another place, we accepted that the industry may find an express reference to maintenance useful in both paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, and we have also taken the opportunity to add a reference to dismantling in paragraph (b).
Although the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, show that the noble Lord is still in search of further refinements on this, I hope he may be persuaded that they are unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 arose as a result of suggestions in another place that external cleaning relating to construction should be treated in the same way as internal cleaning, and that the maintenance and dismantling of scaffolding should be treated in the same way as its erection. I am sure that noble Lords will see the sense of this.
Amendment No. 71 is another old favourite, and arose out of protracted debate here in which the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Howie of Troon, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Monkswell and my noble friend Lord Ullswater, all made valuable contributions. I doubt if it would be a good use of the House's time to summarise the full extent of that debate, but let me just remind the House that, at the end of our consideration we undertook to amend Clause 104(2)(c) to achieve two particular effects. The first of these was to ensure that the exclusion of work on plant and machinery on a process
1336
plant site should extend only to steelwork that was necessarily connected to it in some way, and that all other steelwork on such a site—in common with all other construction work—should be subject to the Bill's provisions. The second was to remove the word "construction" from the beginning of the paragraph and to replace it with something less likely to cause confusion. I hope the House will agree that both those ends have been served by Amendment No. 71.
I hope too that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will recall introducing an amendment in Committee to enable so-called supply-and-fit contracts to be included in their entirety. When the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, introduced a similar amendment at Third Reading, I undertook to bring forward amendments to cover the whole of such contracts, and this would be the effect of Amendment No. 72. I have to say, however, that we have not been prepared to go any further than this, despite the fact that some have argued that so-called "bespoke" manufacture should be covered, even where the manufacturer is not involved in the installation. We continue to believe that it would be difficult to distinguish between products that were fabricated for one particular construction operation and those that were not, and that such a move would be a recipe for dispute and litigation.
As I promised the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, at Third Reading we have brought forward—in Amendment No. 73—an amendment to remove the specific exemption for signwriting and work on signboards and advertisements. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was anxious that we should do that.
Turning now to Amendment No. 76, there are two main changes here, and I will look at the issue most familiar to noble Lords first. Clause 105 excludes from Part II contracts with a residential occupier, and the House will recall that, in Committee, both the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Howie of Troon, proposed amendments in the search for the most effective way of achieving this. During the Bill's passage in another place there were still concerns that a client who was building an office block or a factory might include a dwelling so that the whole contract could be exempted from fair contract provisions. Although the Government felt that this was rather unlikely, since the exemption could only apply to an individual owner and not to a company, we were persuaded to bring forward an amendment to make sure that no such loophole existed.
Having looked at this carefully, we decided that the most equitable and generally satisfactory way of proceeding was to restrict the exemption to contracts whose primary purpose related to a dwelling for one of the parties. This would still allow the exemption to cover contracts on second homes, which I know was a concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, at Report, and also to cover contracts where some of the work applied to a separate flat, a garage or an outhouse. It would not, however, allow rich individuals to avoid the Bill by adding penthouse flats to their office blocks.
However, the precise wording of Amendment No. 76 has also arisen in response to concerns expressed in the property industry that the Bill might, inadvertently,

1337
cover certain types of agreement where construction operations may be identified but where they are incidental to the main purpose. We have listened very carefully to representations in another place on this issue, since we are anxious to ensure that the Bill's payment and adjudication provisions apply only to contracts where it is appropriate for them to do so.
One of the main categories which we would like to exclude is that of agreements to undertake projects under the private finance initiative. I should emphasise, however, that there must be no question of such exemptions having the effect of excluding normal construction work. Anyone with a contract or subcontract for actual construction work on a PH project, or one financed through some sort of loan or finance agreement, should still be covered by the Bill.
Obviously this is a complex and difficult area, and we are not yet in a position to propose firm amendments on this. Although we have only a limited number of exclusions in mind, we are anxious to get them absolutely right. In particular we are keen to avoid any possibility of exempting types of agreements which could be misappropriated for use further down the contractual chain. In other words, we do not want to create loopholes, and need to look at this carefully with representatives of all the interests concerned. Amendment No. 76 would give the Secretary of State power to exclude by order any description of construction agreement, and we intend to use this to bring forward appropriate exclusions along the lines I have indicated. These exclusions would then be debated by both Houses. I am sure that this is the right way forward, and I hope that—with the assurances I have given—noble Lords will feel able to agree to this amendment. Amendment No. 77, reflects the fact that, with Amendment No. 76 in place, there would be two order-making powers in Clause 105. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68.—(Lord Lucas.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 68
68A Line 3, after ("structures") insert ("or any works").
5.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 68A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 68. This is almost as small an amendment as I have moved in the course of this Bill. I managed to move one which had only two words in it. However, the Government were worried about the drafting of those two words at the time, but they eventually accepted them.
I think my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel would agree with me that the Minister listened most carefully to the many amendments which we tabled during the various stages of the Bill. I am not sure that he always got the hang of them but he tried hard to meet us as far as he could. A number of amendments were discussed in the Committee stage in another place. They were sensible amendments and largely based on amendments which we had discussed in this House. They were passed, but unfortunately reversed by the Government at later stages of the Bill. One, however, did get through which sought
1338
to include the word "maintenance". That word appeared to give the Government great difficulty, although maintenance contracts are commonplace in construction. As regards roads, part of the private finance initiative is based on people building a road and then maintaining it for about 30 years through a variety of maintenance contracts. I was amazed that the Government took so long to accept the concept of maintenance although they had quite happily accepted the concept of repair. Repair and maintenance are fairly closely related. They do not differ widely from each other. I shall not mention the Minister in another place by name so as not to embarrass him, but he said that maintenance was a jolly silly word to put in the Bill. But then he put it in. That was one of the most sensible things he did.
My point in this little group of amendments is to tighten up the wording of the Bill and to make it understandable to people other than lawyers. Government Amendment No. 68 to Clause 104 contains three lines in paragraph (a) which are almost identical to the first three lines of paragraph (b). However, they are not totally identical; there is a distinction. Paragraph (a) refers to construction, alteration and so on of "buildings or structures". Paragraph (b) refers to the construction, alteration and so on of "any works". The words,
"any works forming, or to form, part of the land"
must in any common sense use of language include buildings or structures. Is there some reason why buildings or structures in paragraph (a) should be separated out and distinguished from "any works" in paragraph (b)? Of course there is no reason at all for that. All I have done in my amendment is to combine the two to refer to buildings or structures or any works. I have tidied up paragraph (b) by moving some of the wording into paragraph (a). That is all that I have done. That seems to me to make much more sense than the wording in the Bill as drafted at present, as quite obviously any works must include buildings or structures. If any works exclude buildings or structures someone ought to explain to me why that is so.
In passing let me mention something that occurred to me a few moment ago. I am sorry about that; it would have given me another amendment had I thought of it earlier. In the second to last line of Commons Amendment No. 68 there is a reference to "industrial plant". That means that industrial plant is included in the provisions of the Bill. However, under the exclusions in the Bill there is a reference to process plants. Is "industrial plant" different from "process plant", or will we discover the difference between them in some extremely expensive High Court action? I do not press the point too hard. I merely put the issue forward for the Minister to consider. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to deal with these obscurities and ambiguities when the remainder of the Latham proposals are eventually brought before this House next year or the year after. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 68A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 68, be agreed to.—(Lord Howie of Troon.)
Lord Lucas: My Lords, these amendments would have two effects. First, they would reduce the list of examples given in Clause 104 to ones solely concerned with civil engineering projects. I can understand why the noble Lord wishes to achieve that, but this is supposed to be a rather more wide-ranging clause than that.
Secondly, this is another series in the noble Lord's attempts to improve the drafting. We have looked carefully at what the noble Lord proposes. We think that the Bill as drafted achieves the effects we want. We do not see that the noble Lord's amendments offer any practical improvement. With that sparse comfort, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am tempted to tell the Minister that he is wrong, but I would not dream of doing so. The amendment does not have the effect that he states. Quite apart from anything else, it leaves the list of examples exactly as he has put it. It so happens that those are nearly all civil engineering matters with the exception of power lines, telecommunication apparatus, and perhaps one or two others. Those are still in the list. His argument is completely mistaken. I give him another chance to convince me that I am wrong.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that the best answer to the noble Lord's problems is to rely on Clause 104(4) and the power to make amendments at a later time if the noble Lord proves to be right and there prove to be problems with the definition. Doubtless he will continue to offer his advice to Secretaries of State on this subject. However, there is nothing that we are willing to do at this stage.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I look forward to Clause 104. I am elated at the thought that the Secretary of State might listen to something said to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 68A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 68, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68B and 68C, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 68, not moved.]
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 68 agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
69 Clause 104, page 58, line 28, after '(d)' insert 'external or'.
70 Page 58, line 34, at end insert `, maintenance or dismantling'.
71 Page 58, line 45, leave out from `(c)' to 'on' in line 46 and insert 'assembly, installation or demolition of plant or machinery, or erection or demolition of steelwork for the purposes of supporting or providing access to plant or machinery,'.
72 Page 59, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert—
'( ) manufacture or delivery to site of—

(i) building or engineering components or equipment,

(ii) materials, plant or machinery, or

1340

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

except under a contract which also provides for their installation;'.
73 Page 59, leave out lines 12 and 13.
74 Page 59, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 22.
75 Page 59, line 24, leave out ', (2) or (3)' and insert 'or (2)'.
76 Clause 105, page 59, line 28, leave out from 'apply' to "'dwelling"' in line 32 and insert—

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

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

(2) A construction contract with a residential occupier means a construction contract which principally relates to operations on a dwelling which one of the parties to the contract occupies, or intends to occupy, as his residence.
In this subsection'.
77 Page 59, line 39, leave out 'such order' and insert 'order under this section'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 69 to 77 to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 69 to 77.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
78 Clause 106, page 60, line 14, after 'submissions' insert 'in adjudication proceedings, or'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 78. The amendment would permit an exchange of submissions in adjudication proceedings to provide evidence of an agreement in writing in the same way that an exchange of submissions in arbitration and litigation can do so. This was first suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in Committee. Indeed, as on every other speaking note today, this demonstrates that we have been listening to the noble Lord. On that occasion I undertook to consider the matter. Unfortunately, we were not able to determine the final form of an amendment before the Bill left this House and in the end it was introduced first in another place. But I am more than happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, sole credit for this sensible and useful addition to the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 78.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
79 Clause 107, page 60, line 23, leave out 'resolution by an adjudication' and insert 'adjudication under a'.
80 Clause 107, page 60, line 26, leave out 'procedure must' and insert 'contract shall'.
81 Page 60, line 26, at end insert—
`( ) enable a party to give notice at any time of his intention to refer a dispute to adjudication:'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 81. At the same time it may be convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 82 to 85. Again, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has an amendment in this group.
I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships that when the Bill was last in this House there was a great deal of debate about the effect which an adjudicator's decision should have. The noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Howie of Troon, and Lord Berkeley, all spoke to amendments in their name which were designed to ensure that adjudication should produce only a temporary decision, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was one who queried our use of the word "resolution" in connnection with adjudication proceedings. As a result of those representations I gave an undertaking at Report that the adjudication under the scheme for construction contracts would enable adjudication decisions to have temporary effect.
By the time the Bill reached another place the Government decided that the meaning of the word "resolution" was insufficiently understood by the industry and we sought to remove it. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 79.
We also brought forward a new subsection to spell out the effect of an adjudicator's decision in much more detail. Our proposal was that an adjudicator's decision should be binding, which we consider essential, but that parties might reopen a dispute if they chose before an arbitrator or the courts. However, mindful not only of the views expressed in another place, but also of the debate that had already taken place in this House, we finally concluded that the industry did not wish to be given the option of permanently binding adjudication. The Government also considered the representations of professionals who feared that rapid but permanent decisions on matters concerning professional competence might have a damaging effect on professional indemnity premiums.
Accordingly I am now asking the House to agree, in Amendment No. 84, a provision which would make an adjudicator's decision binding but temporary. Although we hope that the vast majority of adjudicated decisions will effectively become permanent, we are proposing that this should be possible only with the agreement of parties after the event—or if arbitration or the courts reach the same conclusion.
Amendment No. 80 would substitute the word "contract" for procedure at the head of subsection (2) of Clause 107, and Amendment No. 85 would place all the emphasis on the contract in subsection (4) by omitting the word "procedure".
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, may recall that, in Committee, he proposed an amendment which would have required the start of the process in which a dispute was referred to an adjudicator to begin with an
1342
act of formal notification. Similar suggestions were also made in another place and, although the Government remain doubtful that such a step is really necessary, we have accepted that there are many in the industry who would like to see the process begin formally in that way. We have brought forward therefore Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 which have this effect.
Amendment No. 81 makes it clear that notice may be given at any time. We believe that this is essential if notification is not to provide recalcitrant parties with an opportunity to block the adjudication procedure with artificial and unreasonable constraints. We feel that that is what could happen if Amendment No. 81A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, were to be accepted.
Amendment No. 83 would allow the adjudicator to extend the period for his consideration by up to 14 days with the agreement of the referring party. There were those in another place who advocated that the adjudicator should have sole discretion to extend his consideration indefinitely, but we remain firmly of the opinion that this would be most inadvisable and would inevitably result in adjudication becoming much slower and more expensive than it need be. However, we have accepted that it might be desirable to allow some possibility of an extension in circumstances other than those for which the Bill already allows where parties are agreed that the adjudicator should be given more time. Amendment No. 83 would mean that, where there was a real possibility of a few more days making a difference to a case, the adjudicator would only need to persuade the referring party to allow him more time. Amendment No. 83 would give an extra degree of flexibility to the adjudicator without compromising, to any great extent, our priorities of speed and fairness. We have had to strike a balance, and I believe we have got it about right.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 81.—(Lord Lucas.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 81
81A Line 2, after ("time") insert ("within the period prescribed in the contract").
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, this is again a small amendment. I should first like to express my thanks to my noble friends and to Baroness Hamwee for the care with which the Government responded to our arguments on the complicated business of adjudication and the distinction between adjudication and arbitration which we tried over and over again to make and which I think the Government eventually got hold of. However, I am not sure that they have quite got hold of the point. I was rather entranced by the remark of the noble Lord the Minister when he said that the adjudication was to be binding but temporary. I know that I am only a Scot and we look at things somewhat differently, but it is hard to see how it can be both binding and temporary. I see the noble Lord, Lord McColl, sitting there. He is a very eminent medical man and he could talk about a binding bandage being temporary. However, this is a different thing altogether. I cannot see that arbitration can be binding if it is temporary. However, I think that the Government means

1343
well here. They are trying to do what we want them to do but they cannot bring themselves to say it. They have gone a good way towards the arguments which we put forward and we are grateful to them for that.
Government Amendment No. 81 contains three words which have caused a good deal of concern in the civil engineering profession. It is a provision to enable a party to give notice "at any time" of his intention to refer a dispute to adjudication. In the nature of things, a construction contract is completed over a period of time, sometimes over quite a long period of time, depending on the complications of the project. However, there comes a time when the project is deemed to have been completed. Some sections of the industry are worried that the words "at any time" might mean that the question of arbitration could be raised long after the project had been completed.
My amendment relates to the scheme, which we have not mentioned today, rather than to other contracts, and proposes that the contract should suggest a time limit within which adjudication has to be undertaken. It is a simple issue. Neither contractors nor clients like to think of the spectre of arbitration hanging over their heads for an unspecified period. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that the wording "at any time" raises that spectre.
Moved, That Amendment No. 81A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 81, be agreed to.—(Lord Howie of Troon.)
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, without Commons Amendment No. 81, I believe that the problem of notification of a reference of a dispute for resolution by adjudication would exercise the writers of contracts to an unreasonable degree. Parties might be tempted to write into the contract something that would seek to undermine the usefulness of this part of the Bill—for example, to the effect that disputes could only be notified within 24 hours of their arising, or only before 9.30 in the morning. This amendment gives the parties a formal starting time for the referral period. I believe that nobody would wish the right to refer to become a source of dispute in itself. I am certain that the scheme for construction contracts should not be used as the first fall-back position for all minor problems with a contract and that this is therefore a sensible amendment.
When your Lordships considered this clause when the Bill was before the House on the previous occasion, the concept that adjudication should be available at any time was, I believe, always implicit. However, it seems that during the passage of the Bill through another place the requirement for adjudication to be available at any time has become explicit.
The concept that there should be a strict time limit upon the referral period is the subject of Amendment No. 81A to Amendment No. 81 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I understand that some sections of the industry are concerned about what they see as the widening of the timescale for the opportunity for referral of disputes for adjudication. Sir Michael Latham put forward the concept of adjudication for the quick settling of disputes. He recommended in his report,
1344
Constructing the Team, the three basic principles which this section of the Bill follows: first, that there should be no restriction on the issues capable of being referred to the adjudicator, conciliator or mediator, either in the main contract or in sub-contract documentation; secondly, that the award of the adjudicators should be implemented immediately; and, thirdly, that any appeals to arbitration or the courts should be after practical completion and should not be permitted to delay the implementation of awards. I believe that the Government have interpreted those principles in the words of Clause 107 and that the government amendments which my noble friend has put forward complement that position.
I believe that going to arbitration could be much more costly and therefore should not be the first recourse for the parties. The government amendment will not allow a strong party to the contract writing in difficult and onerous conditions which would have the effect of limiting substantially the effectiveness of this section. Therefore, I am content to support the government amendment. I am not content to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support. As he points out, with an amendment such as Amendment No. 81A in place, it will be possible for a party bent on avoiding adjudication to insert a term which would allow notice to be given within an unreasonably narrow window, and we cannot allow that.
I am of course aware that some have doubted the wisdom of allowing parties to refer a dispute to adjudication long after work under the contract has ceased. However, as long as there is any possibility of disputes arising under a contract, parties will have to live with the fact that an adjudicator's decision may be sought. Indeed there may be times, even at such a late stage, where it is desirable to have a quick and cheap procedure that can produce an effective temporary decision, particularly since this will not prevent parties from seeking a permanent decision through arbitration or the courts.
As long as there is a possibility of a dispute arising under a contract, the right to seek adjudication will remain. There is no evidence that this will cause any particular difficulties in practice and on balance we feel that it is likely to be helpful. We should, of course, always be prepared to look again at the legislative framework if persistent problems emerged. Until that stage is reached, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will be content to leave the Bill as it is now and to withdraw his Amendment No. 81A.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, in the course of the Bill I have frequently agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I agreed with his speech today until the end when he disagreed with my amendment, but the rest of his speech was sound. The kind of examples which have been suggested of people inserting unreasonable timetables into a contract do not hold water. No one would accept a contract which contained such unreasonable conditions. Clause 107(2) concerns timetabling and provides that the contract

1345
should have a timetable. My amendment proposes the period within which adjudication can be taken in the context of a timetable. The wording of the Government's Amendment No. 81 is "at any time" and it removes adjudication from the context of a timetable.
However, I have been assured by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the Secretary of State will consider our proposals carefully and examine the manner in which the Bill works in practice over the next year or two. If any of the flaws which I have detected are real and not imaginary, he will deal with them. I am therefore happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 81 A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 81, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Commons Amendments Nos. 79 to 81 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
82 Clause 107. page 60, line 28, at end insert 'of such notice'.
83 Page 60, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) allow the adjudicator to extend the period of 28 days by up to 14 days, with the consent of the party by whom the dispute was referred;'.
84 Page 60, line 34, at end insert—
'(2A) The contract shall provide that the decision of the adjudicator is binding until the dispute is finally determined by legal proceedings, by arbitration (if the contract provides for arbitration or the parties otherwise agree to arbitration) or by agreement.
The parties may agree to accept the decision of the adjudicator as finally determining the dispute.'.
85 Page 60, line 39, leave out 'provide for a procedure which complies' and insert 'comply'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 82 to 85, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 82 to 85.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
86 Clause 107, page 60, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 61 and insert—
'( ) For England and Wales, the Scheme may apply the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 with such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Minister making the scheme to be appropriate.
For Scotland, the Scheme may include provision conferring powers on courts in relation to adjudication and provision relating to the enforcement of the adjudicator's decision.'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. At the same time, it may be convenient if we consider Amendments Nos. 93 and 112.
There has been considerable misunderstanding about making the scheme and in particular our reference to the Arbitration Act. Although there may still be some who are suspicious that such a reference could be used to foist arbitration on an unsuspecting industry, I am
1346
pleased to say that there is now a general understanding in the industry of the need to mention the Arbitration Act.
We cannot provide adequately for court intervention under an ordinary regulation-making power. Asking the courts to intervene in a way that was outside their normal sphere could only be done through primary legislation or through an adaptation of the Arbitration Act, which contains the right sorts of provision. I need hardly say that it would be quite improper to take a wider power than we think we might need, and we are fortunate in having such a good range of suitable provisions available in such an up-to-date piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86.—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, in earlier stages of the Bill we had the opportunity to read the draft scheme as it related to England and Wales. There was some discussion in this House and elsewhere about it and I believe that the Government are reconsidering the matter. Is there any possibility of being able to see the scheme applying to Scotland reasonably soon? I have made inquiries but so far they have been fruitless.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall ensure that the noble Lord receives an answer fairly soon but I am afraid that I cannot give him the information he needs now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
87 Clause 108, page 61, line 8, leave out '60' and insert '45'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87. It may also be convenient for us to consider Amendments Nos. 88 and 92, to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, has an amendment.
We have always envisaged that the right to interim payments should extend to all construction contracts, provided they were of sufficient duration. The reason for having a time threshold to trigger that right is because we do not think it practicable or reasonable to give that right on shorter contracts. It would clearly make no sense to have compulsory instalments on contracts lasting a day or two. We originally suggested a time threshold of 60 days. However, we have listened carefully to those who argued that this might be too long for small businesses to go without payment and we have accordingly decided to put forward a reduced threshold of 45 days. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 87 and 88.
The effect of Amendment No. 92 is to remove the word "purporting" from the paragraph which makes contractual pay-when-paid provisions ineffective. We believe that the intention behind the word was not clear to many in the construction industry and accordingly agreed with an amendment made by the Opposition in another place that it should be removed. Provisions should be ineffective if they make payment conditional on the payer receiving payment from a third party. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
88 Clause 108, page 61, line 10, leave out '60' and insert '45'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 88.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 88—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
89 Clause 109, page 61, line 23, at end insert—
'(1A) Every construction contract shall provide for the giving of notice by a party not later than five days after the date on which a payment becomes due from him under the contract, or would have become due if—

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

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

specifying the amount (if any) of the payment made or proposed to be made, and the basis on which that amount was calculated.'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89. Amendments Nos. 89 to 91 are complex amendments at the heart of the payment issue. I believe that they offer a most useful and significant improvement to the construction industry's payment mechanisms. When the Bill was in another place, the Government were persuaded that it might be possible to do something further to limit the abuses persistent in the name of set-off and abatement.
We had already done much to this end in the Bill but with Amendment No. 89 we can ensure that a party should know exactly how much he will be paid. The amendment would require a payer to disregard all issues of set-off and abatement in calculating a payment and then to indicate, within five days of the due date of that payment, how much he actually intended to pay. He would need to explain how that amount was calculated and, in doing so, take account of set-off and abatement, regardless of whether they were calculated into the sum due under the contract or simply subtracted afterwards. If he changes his mind he must indicate the change within the time available for issuing or withholding notice. This is the second notice and it is outlined in Clause 110(2). Once the time available for issuing or withholding notice is passed, the payer is bound to hand over the sum indicated. Should he fail to do so by the final date of payment, the payee may take steps to suspend performance, as indicated in Clause 111.
I shall also indicate the purpose of the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 90 is consequential and Amendment No. 91 is required to make sure that the payer does not need to issue a second notice unless he decides to pay less than he said he
1348
would. This is a significant advance and will do much to address a major cause of dispute and disharmony. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
90 Clause 109, page 61, line 24, after 'provision' insert 'as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A)'.
91 Clause 110, page 61, line 28, at end insert—
'The notice mentioned in section 109(1A) may suffice as a notice of intention to withhold payment if it complies with the requirements of this section.'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 90 and 91, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 90 and 91.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
92 Clause 112, page 62, line 23, leave out 'purporting to make' and insert 'making'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.—(Lord Lucas.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 92
92A Line 1, after ("insert") insert ("'which has the effect of'").
Lord Chapple: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 92A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 92.
The issue of pay-when-paid is fairly important, but is not very clearly understood owing to the fact that many mumbled words have been uttered. What does the phrase mean? It means that if you work for a client who works for a client, and he is not paid or payment is delayed, he passes the cost on to you. That causes a great many bankruptcies in small and medium-sized firms in the building industry. Admittedly, in the rest of the Bill before the House the Government attempt to remedy that problem; in other words, to put a stop to what amounts to the blackmail of such companies.
Had the original wording remained, I should have been satisfied and should not have moved an amendment. With these five words, I seek to restore to the Bill the original meaning. I hope the Government will think again about pursuing this course. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 92A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 92, be agreed to.— (Lord Chapple.)
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Commons Amendment No. 92 narrows the prohibition of conditional payment provisions to the making of straight pay-when-paid contract conditions ineffective. I

1349
understand that there was considerable discussion about this in the other place, especially when the Latham Report, in Recommendation 8.10, uses these words:
"any attempt by a contractor to include a clause in a bespoke contract form with the effect of introducing "pay-when-paid" conditions should be explicitly declared unfair and invalid".
That is virtually the text of the amendment now moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chapple. I am glad that the other place had difficulty with "purporting to", because I found that equally difficult to interpret.
Payment under a construction contract is always going to be conditional on something. In most instances the work has to be certified by somebody before a payment can be made. What the Bill addresses is the practice of a main contractor claiming that it is able to withhold payment because it has not been paid as a result of the certificate, or not paid enough. However, Clause 112 is still only part of the matter. The parties to a construction contract must, under Clause 109 of the Bill, provide an adequate mechanism for determining what payments become due under the contract, and when; that is, payers must explain the timing and the amounts of the sums due. That may still include the event of a certificate being issued, but it must no longer rest upon the handing over of a sum of money further up the line.
I have been advised, like the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, that some parts of the construction industry are unhappy about the narrowing of the contract conditions to merely "pay-when-paid", and would certainly want to see more conditional payment terms being made ineffective. They are unhappy that the "adequate mechanism" will not be sufficiently strong to take up the recommendation in Latham that I quoted. This gives a wider interpretation to conditional payment provisions than the words in the Bill as originally drafted. As I have said before, the scheme for construction contracts cannot or should not be the first fallback position for any weakness in a construction contract; but it will be very important for the department to get the scheme right so that it can support the industry in a sensible way. There is now the new opportunity offered by the legislation to call in the adjudicator if there is a dispute.
Having said that, I wish to ask my noble friend Lord Lucas whether he understands that there is still a worry among the subcontractors and specialists in the industry that the sensible provisions in the Bill will and can be circumvented. If that is the case, could my noble friend give some comfort to those in the industry who are still worried by saying that if time proves that these concerns are justified, the Government will undertake to have another look at these conditional payment provisions? I believe that all noble Lords would want to see these sensible provisions work effectively. Therefore I am, perhaps reluctantly, prepared to support the government amendment, and to reject the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, a week or so ago I attended a dinner where a Government Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman, said that this Bill will introduce a statutory right of payment by instalments and a specified final date for payment for all construction contracts and
1350
outlaw the practice of pay-when-paid. His remarks were important. He presumably believed that the Bill outlawed the practice of pay-when-paid. I imagine that in drawing up their amendments in the other place the Government believed that they outlawed that practice. However, nobody else believes that. The Bill as it stands, with the proposed Commons amendments, does not outlaw the practice, regardless of what the Minister might say.
I give the Government credit for moving a long way in the right direction. However, for them to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, would be to move further in the right direction, and that would be very welcome.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, has pressed us to reconsider an amendment to prohibit contractual conditions with the effect of pay-when-paid. We believe this is unnecessary, since we have banned pay-when-paid clauses, as we set out to do, and that to go any further would leave a degree of uncertainty in the effect of these provisions. If a provision in a contract has the effect of pay-when-paid, it is a matter of pay-when-paid. We do not see that the words in the amendment will add anything to the effectiveness of the Bill. They will merely cause confusion.
We have heard something about the apparent intention of the Latham Report on this matter. The concern that Sir Michael was asked to address was that the payment chain was becoming so extended that small construction companies at the bottom of the chain were having to wait months for their money. That was because of the pay-when-paid system, whereby payments made by a main contractor would await payment to them by the client. We believe that that is a well-understood concept and that the wording in this part of the Bill is sufficient to deal with it particularly when backed up, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater said, with requirements elsewhere in the Bill for an adequate payment mechanism.
Clearly, as time goes on, we shall be able to monitor the success of this legislation. In an industry where contracts are frequently very long, it might take us quite a while to be sure whether or not we have got matters right. If events show that we have missed the mark in significant ways, we will revisit the issue of fair contracts legislation and make the appropriate changes.
However, legislation should not be seen as an end in itself. The Bill is meant only to be a stepping-stone in the drive to build better relationships within the construction industry and to work towards the wider aims outlined by Sir Michael Latham in Constructing the Team.
I hope that in that context and with those assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Chapple: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 92A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 92, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
93 Clause 113, page 63, line 22, at end insert—
'(5) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
94 After Clause 115, insert the following new clause—
CROWN APPLICATION
'.—(1) This Part applies to a construction contract entered into by or on behalf of the Crown otherwise than by or on behalf of Her Majesty in her private capacity.
(2) This Part applies to a construction contract entered into on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall notwithstanding any Crown interest.
(3) Where a construction contract is entered into by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, Her Majesty shall be represented, for the purposes of any adjudication or other proceedings arising out of the contract by virtue of this Part, by the Chancellor of the Duchy or such person as he may appoint.
(4) Where a construction contract is entered into on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy shall be represented, for the purposes of any adjudication or other proceedings arising out of the contract by virtue of this Part, by such person as he may appoint.'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 93 and 94, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 93 and 94.—(Lord Lucas)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
95 Clause 118, page 66, line 16, leave out 'such' and insert 'the bodies representative of architects which are incorporated by royal charter and such other'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95. It may be convenient at the same time if we consider Amendments Nos. 96 to 104, Amendments Nos. 126 to 128 and Amendments Nos. 130 to 132. Amendment No. 95 would add the specific requirement for the new Architects Registration Board to consult bodies of chartered architects—and this means the Royal Institute of British Architects and its equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland—before prescribing qualifications and experience needed for entry to the register of architects. The Bill as drafted already implies this. It requires the board to consult such professional and educational bodies as it thinks appropriate. Our view is that it would be unreasonable for the board to fail to consult the chartered bodies including the RIBA, which is the professional organisation to which 70 per cent. of architects belong. Clearly, it would be right for it to consult the bodies that it thought appropriate in respect of the remaining 30 per cent. of architects.
Nevertheless, this amendment aims to reassure the RIBA that it will continue to have a major input in the setting of prescribed qualifications by putting on the face of the Bill the requirement to consult it. We
1352
recognise that the RIBA plays a predominant role in architectural education and we do not wish the board to duplicate that role. But, at the same time, we must preserve the right of the board to determine the qualifications and experience necessary for registration as an architect. We believe that Amendment No. 95 strikes the right balance between recognising the RIBA's role and ensuring that the board can carry out its duties properly.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 96 to 103 and Amendment No. 128. Clause 119 creates the new disciplinary offence of professional incompetence and replaces the existing offence of disgraceful conduct with unacceptable professional conduct. It increases the level of protection given to the public by making bad work as well as bad behaviour a disciplinary offence. These amendments add the word "serious" before "professional incompetence". We have accepted the concerns of the profession that otherwise we may face the risk, albeit a small one, of trivial or vexatious allegations being made.
Amendment No. 104 and Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 bring the maximum penalty for practising under the title "architect", while not registered applicable in Northern Ireland, into line with that for the rest of the United Kingdom; namely, level 4 on the standard scale. Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 remove uncertainty and bring the drafting up to date. They have no other effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
96 Clause 119, page 68, line 6, after `(b)' insert 'serious'.
97 Page 68, line 17, after 'or' insert 'serious'.
98 Page 68, line 20, after 'or' insert 'serious'.
99 Page 68, line 33, at end insert 'serious'.
100 Page 68, line 41, at end insert 'serious'.
101 Page 69, line 12, after 'or' insert 'serious'.
102 Page 69, line 20, at end insert 'serious'.
103 Clause 120, page 70, line 44, after 'or' insert 'serious'.
104 Clause 121, page 71, line 16, leave out from 'registered); to end of line 17 and insert 'for the words from "to a fine" to "therefor:" substitute "to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale:".'.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 to 104, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 to 104 —(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
105 After Clause 127, insert the following new clause—
REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT: WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
'.—(1) In the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, after section 10 insert
"Financial assistance for regeneration and development.
10A.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint the Agency to act as his agent in connection with such of his functions mentioned in subsection (2) below as he may specify.
(2) The functions are—

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

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

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

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

(3) An appointment under this section shall be on such terms as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may specify; and the Agency shall act under the appointment in accordance with those terms.
(4) The Agency's powers in relation to functions under an appointment under this section include the powers it has in relation to functions under subsection (3) of section 1 by virtue of subsections (6) and (7) of that section."
(2) In section 2(8) of that Act, after "declared that" insert ", except as provided by section 10A below,".'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 115. Amendment No. 105 inserts a new clause after Clause 127 in Part IV of the Bill. It allows the Secretary of State for Wales to appoint the Welsh Development Agency to act as his agent in Wales, first, on regeneration and development issues— where these functions fall within the Welsh Development Agency's powers— and, secondly, on the administration of urban investment grant agreements. This mirrors the powers which the Secretary of State for the Environment has already used to appoint English Partnerships as his agent for regeneration in England. Amendment No. 115 is consequential and will bring the new clause into force the usual two months after Royal Assent.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we have no disagreement with the Commons amendment. I should like to make one small point that I hope the Minister will bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I must report that the Welsh Development Agency does not have a very good record for paying its bills. Having said that, I very much hope that the noble Earl will pass on that remark to his
1354
right honourable friend. On numerous occasions in Wales the WDA has not paid its bills on time. I hope that that will cease as of now.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the Welsh Development Agency reads Hansard the practice will probably cease. I will ensure that the observations of the noble Lord are passed on to the appropriate quarter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
106 Clause 129, page 74, line 21, at end insert—
`and regulations made under paragraph (c) may provide for particular questions arising under the regulations to be determined by the authority.'
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 107 to 109. The purpose behind these minor amendments is to increase the flexibility of the relocation grant provisions and to bring them more into line with the provisions for renovation grants.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
107 Clause 131, page 76, line 13, leave out 'in the same area a dwelling of the same type' and insert 'a comparable dwelling in the same area'.
108 Page 76, line 33, at end insert—
'(8A) Regulations may make provision requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any matter under this section to be furnished by such person as may be prescribed.'
109 Clause 132, page 77, line 13, at end insert—
'( ) The consent of the Secretary of State for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) may be given either generally or in relation to any one or more specified authorities or descriptions of authority or in relation to particular cases or descriptions of case.'
110 Before Clause 138, insert the following new clause—
EXISTING HOUSING GRANTS: MEANING OF EXEMPT DISPOSAL
'.—(1) Section 124 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (relevant and exempt disposals for purposes of housing grants) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) (exempt disposals), for paragraph
(c) substitute—
"(c) a disposal of the whole of the dwelling in pursuance of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (4A) below;".
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) The orders referred to in subsection (3)(c) above are orders under

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

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

1355

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

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

111 Clause 142, page 83, line 3, at end insert '103(IC),'.
112 Page 83, line 4, leave out 'and 105(4)' and insert', 105(4) and 113(5)'.
113 Clause 144, page 83, line 19, after 'sections' insert '(Existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal),'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 107 to 113.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 107 to 113.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
114 Clause 146, page 83, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
'(1) The following provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent—

(a) section 142 (orders, regulations and directions),

(b) sections 144 to 147 (extent, commencement and other general provisions).'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 117 to 125 and Amendment No. 129. Amendments Nos. 114 and 117 correct a drafting oversight. They provide for the powers in Clause 142, which enable different provisions to be made in different cases for the orders, regulations or directions to be brought into force, as is becoming usual practice, on Royal Assent. Amendment No. 118 removes the words which your Lordships inserted in the normal way at Third Reading to avoid questions of financial privilege. The other amendments adjust certain consequential amendments in Schedule 1 and one of the repeals in Schedule 3 relating to Part I of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
115 Clause 146, page 84, line 3, leave out '127' and insert '(Regeneration and development: Welsh Development Agency)'.
116 Page 84, line 4, at end insert—
'section (Existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal) (existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal),'.
117 Page 84, leave out lines 7 and 8
118 Clause 147, page 84, leave out lines 19 to 22.
119 Schedule 1, page 85, line 19, after 'substitute' insert 'section 523 of the Housing Act 1985 (assistance for provision of separate service pipe for water supply) or'.
120 Page 85, line 23, after 'substitute' insert 'section 523 of the Housing Act 1985 (assistance for provision of separate service pipe for water supply) or'.
121 Page 86, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert 'In section 535(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1985 (exclusion of assistance under Part XV of that Act where grant application pending
1356
or approved), for the words from "an improvement grant" to "Part XV" substitute'.
122 Page 86, line 26, after 'substitute' insert 'section 523 of the Housing Act 1985 (assistance for provision of separate service pipe for water supply) or'.
123 Page 86, line 39, after 'substitute' insert 'section 523 of the Housing Act 1985 (assistance for provision of separate service pipe for water supply) or'.
124 Page 86, line 43, leave out from 'subsection' to 'of' and insert '(5b) for "Part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989" substitute "Chapter II'.
125 Page 87, line 12, leave out from 'substitute' to end of line 13 and insert 'or under section 12 or 27 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (renovation grants or HMO grants: purposes)".'.
126 Schedule 2, page 91, line 47, leave out 'from "by the removal" to "against the removal or determination,"' and insert "'by the removal" onwards'.
127 Page 92, line 9, at end insert; and on an appeal under this section the Court may make any order which appears appropriate, and no appeal shall lie from any decision of the Court on such an appeal.".'.
128 Page 94, line 48, after 'or' insert 'serious'.
129 Schedule 3, page 96, line 25, after '30' insert ', the words "The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 section 138(1)".'.
130 Page 97, line 12, column 3, leave out 'the words from "and to" to "therefor" and'.
131 Page 97, line 18, at end insert—

'1977 c. 45.

Criminal Law Act 1977.

In Schedule 6, the entry relating to the Architects Registration Act 1938.'.

132 Page 97, line 21, at end insert—

'1995 c. 40.

Criminal Procedure(Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1995.

In Schedule 2. in Part II, the entry relating to the Architects
Registration Act 1938.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 to 132 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 to 132.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill
6.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): 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.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Dean of Harptree) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Instruments etc. produced and sold under authority]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to point out that there has been a slight delay. However, I believe the Deputy Chairman can now call upon the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("and be taken always to have had effect").
The noble Lord said: I thank the Labour Chief Whip for that intervention and also make the claim for a new sprint record down the Royal Gallery. The amendment is important. I draw the Committee's attention to the Order Paper. Alongside "Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill—Committee", we see a little squiggle. As a new boy to this Chamber. I looked up what the "squiggle" means. It indicates Bills set down before the expiry of the recommended minimum interval between stages.
I would have thought that the first thing the Minister should explain in responding to my amendment, and indeed to the Committee, is why the Bill needs to be speeded through in this way. As I understand the position, although it is related to the HMSO privatisation, it has been clarified firmly in the other place that there is not a direct consequential link between the two pieces of legislation. This legislation is not required to privatise HMSO and, even if it were, that would not be justification for dealing with the measure in this way. Why are we being asked to rush through a piece of retrospective legislation which covers a period of over 50 years? It is a serious point.
I want to make clear to the Minister why we on these Benches tabled the amendment. Sometimes amendments are tabled as probing amendments; sometimes they are tabled as helpful, constructive amendments; but sometimes amendments are tabled to draw a line in the sand and to make clear to the Executive that it cannot ride roughshod over the rights of Parliament.
There is a suspicion on these Benches that too often, particularly in recent weeks, the Government have been rushing things through this Chamber. They have been acting in a high-handed manner and behaving in some respects as though they almost believe that they have less than 200 days left to do anything. That is a recipe for bad government and bad legislation.
We on these Benches say most clearly that whichever party occupies the Government Benches, we will insist that proper procedures are carried through when legislation comes before this Chamber, not simply to employ the usual tactics of delay, but particularly because in cases such as when the Government wish to move a public asset into the private sector, expensive errors of judgment can be made and it is the duty of Parliament to check and check again.
A point made in the debate in the other place was that the Government have known of this need for retrospective legislation for well over one year when they first trawled through the implications of the privatisation of HMSO. Again. there is a massive
1358
question mark as to why, if that was known over one year ago, the legislation must come before this Chamber in this curious manner.
Our amendment is intended to question the whole status of retrospective legislation. We shall be interested to know what caused the Government to see the need. Was there a legal challenge or potential legal challenge? It will be interesting to know whether the Government now feel, since they are under such self-imposed haste and pressure, that that is the end of the matter or whether other anomalies exist that will need to be unpicked. That is the danger of the way in which the Government are going about their business at the present time.
Our debate on Thursday, the last day of this Session, in relation to privatisation of recruitment into the Civil Service, is another example. Even though the Government may feel that they are in their death throes and that their role now is to rifle through the till to see whether there are any trinkets left to be hocked, it is the duty of the Opposition to dig in our heels and stop the Government behaving in that way—riding roughshod over Parliament. We would like to make clear that the Third Reading of this Bill will take place after the Recess. We on these Benches want to consider the implications of the Committee stage. We may wish to table further amendments at Third Reading.
It was interesting to read the debate in the other place. One intervention in particular caught my eye. It was made by the honourable Member for South Hams Mr. Anthony Steen, a Member of the Government Benches. He threw up the interesting fact that we have dealt with over 8,000 statutory instruments in the past two years. Mr. Steen gave what I felt was a profound gypsy's warning to all parliamentarians concerned with the duties and responsibilities of this House and the other place. He said,
"There is a danger that we will pass more and more statutory instruments and find a new device for getting them printed in new and more exciting places, without tackling the issue".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/96; col. 1000]
It is because the Government are not tackling the issues that we propose this amendment today. It is because the Government seem to be adopting a cavalier attitude to national assets and for the way in which Parliament carries out its responsibilities that we strongly advocate that the Committee support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Always anxious to avoid the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, shaking her head as vigorously at me as she did at the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I shall use different words but ones which carry the same message. The Government have got themselves into a mess on this Bill. They have not been frank enough to say so, but when one looks at a situation such as that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, one realises that it could have been avoided. From last November until now the need for this legislation was patently clear. We on these Benches can understand why, when things are examined afresh, one must be extremely careful. We are conscious of the fact that it is not a question of looking to do damage or of damage limitation.

1359
When the Government drew to our attention the desirability of having such legislation, we immediately saw the problems and we are still as unconvinced as noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches that there is no relationship between the privatisation of HMSO and this Bill. Those who are bidding for the tender for the privatised HMSO are bound to have some interest in whether there is a contingent liability which may explode in their face before, during or after any court case.
We can well understand the Government's desire to sell the business and to make arrangements for that. Indeed, the contract has been passed by the House this afternoon. We can well understand that the Government are anxious to make the asset as clean and as sweet as possible.
The Minister is not part of the usual channels. This is very much a question of the Whips and the business managers trying to reach a modus operandi. When the Liberal Chief Whip and I were faced with this matter, it would have been perfectly possible to extend the time which this House could devote to the Bill, but the Minister well knows that that would have been at the cost of a row, which would perhaps more than somewhat damage a delicate situation.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made the crucial point that because we on these Benches—that is, the whole of the Opposition Benches—are far from convinced that there is no link between the privatisation which is proceeding and this Bill, we want to exercise the rights that we do have. Let us be fair about this. Last week my noble friend Lord Richard on behalf of these Benches challenged the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box to make it absolutely certain that this week, before the Recess, we would have to deal only with the Committee stage of this Bill. Since then we have been advised that it is perfectly proper and in order, in the event of no amendments being carried, for the Report stage also to be dealt with this evening. Again, we have no objection to that—with the caveat that has been there all along: we believe that this House should be able to return to this matter on Third Reading on 15th or 16th October. There could very well be happenings which will be of interest to this House.
We on these Benches fully understand that these things happen. We are constantly torn between those who say that we should never ever shorten the gaps between legislative stages and those who say that if the Government ask for something, they are entitled to have it. The Government are, of course, entitled to get their business through. It is unheard of that the Government do not get their business through under normal procedures without the full collaboration of all the Benches. There may be disagreements about the content of the business, but the Business Statement on the next week's business cannot proceed unless by consensus. That has been the position up to now and I believe that it will continue to be the position after tonight. If the amendment, which we support, is defeated and if the Motion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill is debated but the clause remains in the Bill, this House will still have had its opportunity.
1360
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, it is a great sadness that matters of crucial importance are spatchcocked into the last few days of the Session rather than being dealt with at some other time. I make no complaint about the Minister because the noble Earl is always courteous and anxious to please. He will give a full account of his department. Nevertheless, it is a great sadness that more time could not be found. We had a two-day debate on the future of the constitution and the House of Lords during a very slack period. Better management of our time might have provided some more time in which perhaps more than one amendment could have been tabled on this important and serious issue.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for having tabled the amendment which has provided us with the opportunity of this debate. More importantly, it has provided the Minister with an opportunity to explain the non-link between the Bill and the privatisation of HMSO and the reason why the Government would have wished all stages to be taken tonight. Let us be clear about it: that was their first proposal. I am not breaching any secret in saying that. The Government would have preferred all the business on this Bill to be taken in one stage. We support the Liberal Democrat Benches, who have taken a keen interest in this matter, in trying to ensure that this House is given a fair crack of the whip. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Earl Howe: I confess to being absolutely astonished by what I have just heard from the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Graham of Edmonton. It is as though the Second Reading debate did not take place. It is as though the full explanation that I gave of the need for the Bill has not even been considered by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked why there was urgency with regard to the Bill. I must advise the noble Lord that he was a little late in saying that because he could have mentioned any objections when I moved the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. In a nutshell, there is urgency about removing a palpable threat of obstruction to the courts and possibly even of technical acquittals in the courts as a result of an anomaly, a potential loophole, that has recently been discovered. Indeed, that loophole has been in existence for the past 30 years but we have not known about it. That has nothing to do with this Government's actions. We have discovered it only recently, but the practice—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Can the noble Earl tell us on what date that was discovered?
Earl Howe: Yes, I am coming to that. Having drawn attention to the defect in the statute, it is absolutely necessary to resolve it as speedily as possible. I believe that the only responsible course of action is for your Lordships and the other place to rectify it as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, professed himself to be unconvinced that there is no relationship between this Bill and the privatisation of HMSO. The noble Lord referred to a possible contingent liability for bidders.

1361
There would be no contingent liability for bidders whatever because if the Bill is not passed, all that would happen would be that all the printing of statutory instruments would be carried out by the public sector, by the so-called "residual HMSO". As I explained the other day, that is perfectly possible, although it would be an expensive course of action which would be likely to increase the cost of statutory instruments.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that the Government have got themselves into a mess, echoing the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who said that we have known for well over a year that something is wrong. I am absolutely astonished by both of those statements. The Government have not known for well over a year. The Government identified a potential problem in preparing for the privatisation. We then took legal advice on the best solution available. As soon as that solution was identified—namely, the need for primary legislation—the intention to legislate was announced and the Bill was presented to Parliament. There was absolutely no delay whatever.
Perhaps I may turn to the amendment. As I understand it—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I hoped that he would address himself to the question that I put; namely, on what date did the Government first discover that there was a problem? I did not ask when they had taken legal advice but on what date this matter became clear to them.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: I shall obtain a precise answer for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if it is available. I am glad to answer questions in as much detail as I can. But I do not have the precise date in front of me.
Perhaps I may turn to the amendment. As I understand it, the intention is to remove from the Bill the retrospective powers in the Bill, to put beyond doubt the evidential status of copies of statutory instruments not printed directly by HMSO. But, it will leave intact the future power of HMSO to contract out SI printing. Any copies printed in the future by third parties would be valid, but those already printed would not be. I find that odd both because this would seem to be a pointless and inconsistent measure and also because we have hitherto enjoyed broad cross-party support for the retrospective elements of the Bill both in your Lordships' House and in the other place.
This amendment is a recipe for chaos. The debates on this Bill in your Lordships' House and the other place have inevitably drawn attention to the defects in current arrangements for printing SIs and to the possible technical defence in proceedings for breaching them. It can only have increased the chance of arguments about the status of SIs obstructing the courts and possibly of defendants being acquitted on a technicality. That is why the Government have sought urgent passage of the Bill, which would eliminate the problem if passed unamended.
However, if the amendment were to succeed, the Bill would not resolve the problem. On the contrary, it would draw attention to it. We would have highlighted
1362
a defect in statute and then failed to correct it, an approach which may not be seen in all quarters as entirely responsible.
Lord Richard: Before the noble Lord sits down, we all saw the 7th Cavalry arrive from the Box with the information requested by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Can the noble Earl now give us the date on which the Government believe they were aware of the matter?
Earl Howe: I cannot; but I am advised that the defect in the statute was discovered around mid-April. I cannot be more precise than that.
The principle of retrospection was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I agree that legislating retrospectively should only be undertaken when it is absolutely necessary and in accordance with established principles. That is precisely the case here. If the threat to the courts is to be removed, there is no alternative but to confirm the status of existing copies of SIs. That is, by definition, a retrospective act.
But the Government are also acting in accordance with the settled principle that retrospection may be justified where it confirms prior, albeit mistaken, genuine expectations of the meaning of the law. Here, HMSO and all concerned with it sincerely believed that contracting out SI printing was lawful, and the Bill merely confirms that expectation.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, accused the Government of wanting to look for rows and disagreements. I hope I have persuaded him that nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot overstate the need to maintain the retrospective powers in this Bill. Without them, the courts risk becoming burdened by needless argument and obstructed by the need to have individual SIs specifically proved.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I made a statement to the effect that the Government, as always, are anxious to have a row about the management of business. First, they sought to persuade the Liberal Democrat Benches and these Benches that the urgency of the matter was such that they should welcome having all the stages of the Bill taken on the same day. Secondly, as recently as last Thursday, the Leader of the Labour Benches received from the Leader of the House an assurance that the only business that would be dealt with on this Bill this week would be the Committee stage this evening. I see the Government Chief Whip shakes his head and we must read the record.
We have acknowledged that in addition a standing order, in the absence of any amendment being carried, allows for Report stage to be taken at the same time. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I have asked the Minister to confirm that it is not the Government's intention to do other than that this side of the Recess and to allow Third Reading to be taken in the overspill. If the Minister can assure us that it is not the Government's intention to drag out this matter, there will be no disagreement, but I can assure him that there will be a row if, by one means or another, the

1363
Government intend to ask permission of this House to proceed on this Bill other than by taking Committee and Report stages this evening.
It is not in the best interests of the House—indeed it is almost unprecedented—that business proceeds without the approval of all sides. The Government know that they do not have the approval of the Opposition Benches this side of the Recess to do other than deal with the Committee and Report stages of this Bill.
Earl Howe: I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, should raise these questions under the heading of this amendment. I should have thought that the time to have done it was when I moved the Motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill. Nevertheless, we seem to be having a fairly wide-ranging discussion and I shall endeavour to assist the noble Lord and the House so far as I am able.
The noble Lord is perfectly right. There has been no usual channels agreement to complete the passage of this Bill before the Summer Recess. However, I believe that there are good, substantive reasons why the Bill should he enacted before the House goes into Recess and I outlined those reasons. Therefore, I can tell the noble Lord that my noble friend the Leader of the House intends to move that the Bill be read a third time immediately after Questions tomorrow.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: That, of course, is a quite disgraceful statement. In 20 years in this House I have not known a single case in which a government of the day, whatever their political persuasion, have done that. If the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was the Leader of the House, it would not be done on this occasion either.
Earl Howe: I do not think that that is a remark which, in the cool light of day, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will wish to stand by. It is a gross affront to my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Lord Richard: Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to speak. He has now in effect made a Business Statement. As I understand it, the Business Statement is that tomorrow his noble friend the Leader of the House will move a Motion that the Third Reading be taken tomorrow. The Motion will be moved tomorrow against the views of the Opposition with no agreement through the usual channels. As soon as the Motion has been moved— no doubt it will be rammed through with a government majority in this House— we shall immediately move to the Third Reading. Is that what the Government are proposing for this House? If so, it is monstrous and unacceptable.
Lord Strathclyde: I had no intention of playing a part in this little debate. Frankly I am surprised that we should have this exchange of words at this stage of the Bill. It has been clear since last week that the Bill did not form part of the usual channels arrangements. It is of profound regret that that is the case. But my noble friend the Leader of the House also agreed that the
1364
Business of the House Motion that he moved last week would not include this Bill so far as it went and that he would return to the House in order to make a further statement. My noble friend Lord Howe has this evening confirmed that, assuming that the Committee stage proceeds and the Bill is unamended, using the provisions under the standing orders that the Report is received this evening, he will come forward with his statement asking the House for its permission to move the Third Reading.
There is no trickery here. There is no attempt to ram the Bill through this place. We had a Second Reading some days ago. The debate has been well previewed. This place will be asked to make a decision tomorrow. I do not see that noble Lords opposite can argue with that. Perhaps I might suggest to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—before he gets to his feet—that it might serve the interests of this place better were we to continue with the Committee stage so that this place has a fair appreciation of what concerns the Opposition so much about the Bill.
Lord Richard: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for making that statement. Perhaps I may tell him what concerns me. When the Bill first came here we were asked to expedite it. We gave it a Second Reading, and it went through in the usual way. We then agreed to take the Committee stage with a truncated timetable. We agreed to that, so we are doing it tonight. When we agreed to do that, nothing was said about Report or Third Reading. Very well, the Bill is getting its Committee stage tonight.
The Government are using the provisions of a Standing Order to have a Report stage tonight—again truncated. Now we are told that they are not only truncating the Committee stage and the Report stage, they are also going to truncate the Third Reading of the Bill, despite the fact that, as far as I know, the usual channels have not discussed it, and despite the fact that it was made clear last week that we would not agree to that. It is to be put to this place tomorrow. I use the phrase again: it will be rammed through with a government majority. I say to the Government Chief Whip that that is not the way in which you ought to behave, particularly in relation to a Bill which we are told has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. I have never believed that. I believe it even less tonight.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to pre-empt the debate that will take place tomorrow afternoon, and the comments that my noble friend the Leader of the House will make. All I have done this evening is seek to clarify the situation. I do not believe that anything my noble friend Lord Howe said was a great surprise to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition or to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I understand that they were aware of the decision of my noble friend the Leader of the House that if this place approved the Committee stage and Report stage this evening he would tomorrow move the Motion for the Third Reading.

1365
Furthermore, that honours entirely the commitment my noble friend made when he moved the Business of the House Motion last week, that he would return to ask the permission of this place before that Third Reading was taken.
Earl Howe: I readily acknowledge that the problem for the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is that he does not believe me when I tell him that the Bill has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. That is the case. It has nothing to do with the privatisation of HMSO. The bidders have not expressed one jot of interest in the Bill. We have had hundreds of inquiries from bidders. Not one of them has related to the Bill. That shows the measure of concern that they have for it. They do not care whether the printing of SIs is part of HMSO or is not part of it. It is such a tiny proportion of HMSO's turnover as not to make any difference.
I say again to the noble Lord, that there are remedies available to us if the Bill is not approved. The remedy is that SIs will have to be printed in-House. That is possible, but it does not do a service to those who purchase SIs; it does not do a service to public libraries which might want to stock them, because it will put up the cover price. It is not so much a question of the Government wanting to ram through a piece of legislation as for this place to act in a responsible manner towards the law of the land.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to comment. If he is saying that the Bill is not needed to do what is required, but that in order to get the Bill tomorrow he and his colleagues are prepared to face a breakdown in discussions between the usual channels and have come to the conclusion that they would rather have that breakdown than do something for which the Bill is not necessary, that makes it a very sad day. If between today and tomorrow the Government would care to reflect that there are other means of achieving their ends, other than having Third Reading tomorrow, that will be a major step towards restoring normal relations. But if they persist, they are telling these Benches that when there is a choice between administrative convenience and the usual channels, they prefer administrative arrangements. That is not good for the future of this place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The person who is in charge of these arrangements is of course not the Leader of the House; it is Mr. Heseltine who has decided the timetable in which we are discussing the Bill. He showed an extraordinary degree of arrogance over the privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Services. Guarantees were given by the Leader of the House on the Floor of this place. They were dishonoured by Mr. Heseltine when he came to the committee which was considering the matter.
On that occasion, we were given undertakings that the privatisation would not be pushed through until the Government had had the opportunity to consider the report of the Committee on Public Service. When Mr. Heseltine gave evidence he made it abundantly clear that
1366
whatever the committee decided would not make the slightest difference because he was going to proceed with it whatever we said. On this occasion, too, despite all the Minister's denials, it is obvious that with the privatisation agenda all has to be pushed through before the Summer Recess, come hell or high water. That is Mr. Heseltine's decision.
The Leader of the House is merely Mr. Heseltine's messenger. The Government are prepared to rip up all the normal arrangements with regard to discussions between the usual channels about the organisation of public business in this place. If the Government continue in that way, I promise them that they will pay a heavy price in the future.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, may huff and puff, but he has not produced one argument against the substance of the Bill. I shall turn briefly to the amendment which I think we were discussing some time ago. The retrospective powers contained in the Bill are essential, because without them the courts risk becoming burdened by needless argument. They risk being obstructed by the need to have individual SIs specifically approved.
That is a process that can no doubt be undertaken, but it is not fair of Members of this place to force the courts down that road. There is a risk, albeit a remote one, of defendants being acquitted on a mere technicality. Is it for Members of this place to sanction such a risk? Discussion of the Bill has enhanced all of those risks. It is imperative that the Bill, in its final form, removes the risks. So I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. Naturally, we on this side very much reject any breakdown in the usual channels. That should go without saying. If I can say this in as kind a way as I can, it is noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber who are seeking to pick an argument when there should be no argument. There should be no argument on a Bill of this kind. I have stated here, and I repeat the assurance, that the Bill has no bearing on the privatisation of HMSO. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not believe me. I am very sorry about that, because I say those words advisedly. If we reject the Bill, we shall cause all manner of problems for the courts, and we shall be deliberately sanctioning possible legal loopholes. I do not believe that that is a worthy thing for this place to be doing.
Lord McNally: My Lords, sometimes, particularly when one is a new boy, one tables an amendment without realising fully the implications of it. Having listened to the debate, I am very proud that I tabled the amendment because, if the Minister has access to cable television and looks at the repeats of the Lords' proceedings when one is given a glimpse of the serried ranks of Tuscany from time to time, he will see that his colleagues behind him looked glummer and glummer as he dug deeper and deeper into the hole of his own making. If they did not fill it, then they certainly do not realise the full implications of what the Minister described as a relatively unimportant and small piece of legislation. He dragged in at the last minute the

1367
implications for the courts but cannot even tell this Committee, apart from a vague reference to last April, when his own department became aware of the anomaly.
The Minister denies, denies and denies again any linkage between the Bill and the privatisation of HMSO. And yet, as my noble friend indicated, the circumstantial evidence of that linkage and the linkage between the diktats of the Deputy Prime Minister and the behaviour of that Front Bench would stand up in most courts of law.
Beyond this Bill is the behaviour of this House. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out quite rightly that we shall move into a period when the behaviour of this House will be scrutinised and debated very closely. I say very clearly, because although I may be a new boy in this Chamber, I have been around this Palace in one guise or another for more than 40 years and I am very proud of the role of Parliament, that, if the Executive continues to use this House to demean Parliament and parliamentary procedures, in the long term it is this House which will pay the penalty. I intend to divide the Committee this evening to indicate how deeply we on these Benches feel that this Government are overriding the proper parliamentary procedures in dealing with this Bill.
Earl Howe: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I do not believe that the Government have overridden any parliamentary procedures. We have agreed through the usual parliamentary channels to take the Committee stage this evening. The noble Lord may have found that inconvenient but that is the case.
We have referred to the possibility of my noble friend moving the Third Reading Motion tomorrow. That is yet to come. I suggest that the Committee is now looking at the amendment. The noble Lord has not argued in any substantive way against the principle in the Bill that there should be retrospective adjustment to cover a clear loophole in the law.
I have not heard such an argument. I do not believe that the noble Lord has addressed any of the points which I raised. Therefore, before going down that road, I urge Members of the Committee to pay close attention to what I said. Even at this late stage, I ask the noble Lord to think again about dividing the Committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The fact is that the Government have made a Business Statement in the course of the debate which is frankly of a truly disgraceful character. We propose to vote for the amendment to demonstrate our total disapproval of what the Government are doing.
Lord McNally: I commend the amendment to the Committee.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Judd,L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David. B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNally, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee,L.

Redesdale, L.

Glenamara, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Hollis of Heigham,B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Annaly, L.

Howe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Beloff,L.

Keyes, L.

Belstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Blaker, L.

Leigh, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lyell, L.

Brookeborough, V.

McConnell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burnham,L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Butterfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Carnarvon, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chalfont, L.

Munster, E.

Chalker of Wallasey.B.

Newall, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Northesk, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Colwyn. L.

Orkney, E.

Courtown, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cox, B.

Palmer, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cross, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Denham,L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhome, V.

Reay, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Downshire, M.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Elibank, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Somerset, D.

Finsberg, L.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stockton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hacking, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hanson, L.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Harmsworth, L.

Waverley, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wynford,L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.31 p.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may simply use this as an opportunity to demonstrate that it was within the gift of the Opposition to resist the Motion that the Report be received. In the context in which discussions took place this afternoon, in order to keep it clean and leave the Third Reading stage for October, both those on the Liberal Democrat Benches
1370
and we on these Benches acknowledged that the Standing Orders allow the Government to proceed as they have; but that process could have been resisted.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have not as yet moved that the Report be now received. However, with the leave of the House, I shall do so now. I beg to move that this Report be now received, and, in doing so, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for what he has just said.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty six minutes before eight o'clock.

  Security and Intelligence Services: Staff Access to Industrial Tribunals
  Security and Intelligence Services: Staff Access to Industrial Tribunals
  Entry Clearance Refusal: Independent Monitor's Report
  Entry Clearance Refusal: Independent Monitor's Report
  Wassenaar Arrangement
  Wassenaar Arrangement
  Countries receiving Military Training Assistance
  Countries receiving Military Training Assistance
  President Chirac: Speech to Both Houses of Parliament
  President Chirac: Speech to Both Houses of Parliament
  Cambodia
  Cambodia
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  Russian and US Foreign Bases
  Russian and US Foreign Bases
  Balfour Declaration
  Balfour Declaration
  US Policy and UN Charter
  US Policy and UN Charter
  US Counter-proliferation Equipment: Use for Pre-emptive Action
  US Counter-proliferation Equipment: Use for Pre-emptive Action
  Her Majesty's Birthday Honours List: Awards to Women
  Her Majesty's Birthday Honours List: Awards to Women
  Special Waste Regulations 1996
  Special Waste Regulations 1996
  Schools in Green Belts: Extensions
  Schools in Green Belts: Extensions
  Waste Treatment Plant: Licensing
  Waste Treatment Plant: Licensing
  Leghold Traps
  Leghold Traps
  Underground Strike: City of London Parking Arrangements
  Underground Strike: City of London Parking Arrangements
  Helios-2 Reconnaissance Satellite
  Helios-2 Reconnaissance Satellite
  Defence Equipment Development: Collaboration with France and Germany
  Defence Equipment Development: Collaboration with France and Germany
  Tornado GR4 Aircraft: Logistic Support Contract
  Tornado GR4 Aircraft: Logistic Support Contract
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Public Record Office
  Public Record Office
  BSE
  BSE
  Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Encephalopathy Order 1988: Breaches
  Bovine Encephalopathy Order 1988: Breaches
  EU Tobacco Subsidy Statistics
  EU Tobacco Subsidy Statistics
  Fish Landings: Records
  Fish Landings: Records
  EU Tobacco Regime
  EU Tobacco Regime
  ADAS: Targets
  ADAS: Targets
  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Central Science Laboratory
  Central Science Laboratory
  ADAS: Privatisation of R&D Functions
  ADAS: Privatisation of R&D Functions
  House of Lords: Painting
  House of Lords: Painting
  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990: Governor's Report
  British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990: Governor's Report
  Immigration Appeals: Adjudicators' Recommendations
  Immigration Appeals: Adjudicators' Recommendations
  Extra-territorial Jurisdiction: Policy Review
  Extra-territorial Jurisdiction: Policy Review
  HM Prison Eastwood Park: Women's Cubicles
  HM Prison Eastwood Park: Women's Cubicles
  Prisoners Detained During Her Majesty's Pleasure
  Prisoners Detained During Her Majesty's Pleasure
  Firearms Amnesty
  Firearms Amnesty
  Prisoners: Time Spent in Cells
  Prisoners: Time Spent in Cells