Sitting of 10 June 1996

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

    Bus Fuel
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to encourage operators of buses to switch to cleaner fuels. [30587]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The Department is collaborating with bus and haulage operators and with other organisations on a series of trials of alternative fuels to provide Government and operators with a sound basis for assessing the relative merits of those fuels.
    Meanwhile, to encourage operators to consider converting their vehicles to use road fuel gases, the duty on those fuels was reduced by 15 per cent. in the most recent Budget, with an increase to 100 per cent. in the amount of duty rebated to bus operators. The Chancellor also announced that he would examine the scope for using vehicle excise duty as a further instrument for encouraging low emission vehicles.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister realise the very considerable environmental advantage in buses using compressed natural gas? When the Secretary of State for Transport launched Green Transport Week on Friday, in Leeds, what measures did he propose to give incentives to bus companies such as Southampton City Buses, which has made a considerable contribution to air quality in Leeds by operating 10 per cent. of its fleet with compressed natural gas? What incentives will he give to help bus companies first to convert and, secondly, to set up compression stations so that they can use gas?
    Mr. Norris: As parliamentary consultant to the Natural Gas Vehicle Association, the hon. Gentleman will know that the recent changes in duty rates have provided a considerable incentive to operators, particularly public transport operators and municipal vehicle operators, to convert their fleets. They realise the environmental advantages on offer and now find themselves in a much more sympathetic tax environment.
    In terms of reverse incentives, there will be much more concentration on roadside emissions tests. There will be more of that blitzing work during the middle of this year, emphasising a clear commitment to trying to improve the quality of vehicle emissions, particularly in public service and heavy goods vehicles.
    Mr. Congdon: I very much welcome any moves towards cleaner fuel, particularly in buses, and the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister about greater efforts in enforcing emissions standards. I am sure that he will have noted when travelling around London that most of the worst pollution that one experiences comes from buses. Will he assure the House that tougher measures will be taken against bus operators who fail properly to maintain their vehicles?
    Mr. Norris: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. All buses from London bus companies that tender to London Transport Buses are checked very regularly. However, my hon. Friend will know that it needs only one injector to be slightly out of tune to

    3
    produce an awful lot of emissions. The important thing is that that type of mistuning is corrected at an early opportunity. The accent in the work of London Transport Buses and, generally, by outside private bus operators is on producing cleaner emissions and better quality air.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister take this opportunity to welcome Green Transport Week? Will he also concede that a state of the art clean and green bus can cost almost £100,000? Will he admit that it is less likely that bus operators will invest in such vehicles if a charabanc belching black smoke can intercept their route, arrive perhaps one minute ahead and undercut them in price? Will the Government introduce proposals to ensure stability in the industry, particularly by ending on-the-road competition? There will be plenty of legislative time, come October, so will he introduce those proposals? If he does, he will have the support of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Norris: That proposal should worry the Opposition because it is very silly. As it happens, I am keen to endorse Green Transport Week. It is an excellent initiative and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended the launch. Hon. Members on both sides were delighted that it was so well received.
    The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to suggest that there is little incentive for an operator to invest £100,000 in a Euro 2 clean engine if that operator faces competition from an operator paying a fraction of the price for a vehicle. But the solution, with the greatest respect, does not lie in seeking to re-regulate the whole industry. That would be an appalling way to take transport policy forward and would mean the loss of many of the benefits that millions of customers now enjoy from services that are there to address the needs of passengers.
    What is needed is work on the bus quality partnerships, of which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are aware and which have the support both of bus operators and local authorities and local authority associations. By lifting the quality threshold in the bus industry in that way, we can achieve what the hon. Gentleman and I very much want.

    Cycle Lanes (London)
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will assess the impact on traffic congestion in London of doubling the number of cycle lanes. [30602]
    Mr. Norris: The Government are committed to funding a range of measures, including cycle lanes, to help cyclists in London through the London cycle network. Their impact will be monitored as the network is implemented.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I am also grateful to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for their great support for National Bike Week last week. I am delighted to hear of the support that they are giving to Green Transport Week this week. Does my hon. Friend agree that as we move the debate along in terms of aiming for less fumes and more green transport it is important to encourage local authorities—along with the cycle-friendly infrastructure, another
    4
    initiative that my hon. Friend has launched—not just to mouth platitudes, but to proceed in the debate and to get more people on to their bicycles and out of their cars?
    Mr. Norris: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As a late and unlikely convert to the bicycle, I am convinced that it has a major role to play—[Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members have envisaged me in lycra and have decided that that is a matter of some amusement, and they are entirely right. As an unlikely convert—unlikely converts are among the worst zealots—I am absolutely convinced that we should be cycling as much as all our European counterparts. When those who do not pay much interest to these matters say, "Well, Holland is flat and that is why they cycle," they perhaps forget Switzerland which, whatever one thinks of it, is not flat and where people cycle about five times more than they do in this country. That is a big challenge for us. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who leads the all-party cycle group, has been such an enthusiastic endorser of our policy.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that one of the views of cycling converts, both old and new, and of those who use cycles regularly is that the appointment of a cycling officer for each London borough, as we have in the London borough of Newham, is a means of getting suggestions from the public which meet the needs of short-distance journeys? Can the Minister give figures to show that in London most motor car journeys are relatively short? I think that he will agree that a third or a half of those journeys are capable of being achieved by cycle.
    Mr. Norris: There is no older convert in this place than the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him because I have no doubt that the reason why he is as fit as he looks today is that he cycles so much and that the reason why I look so unfit is that I cycle so little. That is a great tribute to the hon. Gentleman, and long may he continue.
    Clearly, it is up to local authorities to determine how they take forward cycling initiatives. However, they should concentrate on the fact—this is the key to the whole issue—that about half the journeys we do, especially in cities, are less than two miles in length. Nobody is suggesting that we want to start cycling from London to Brighton as a daily exercise, although I understand that 23,000 souls will do that shortly as part of the London to Brighton cycle run. Personally, I am content to confine my cycling to two or three miles and no more, and when it is comfortable rather than when it is snowing. However, each time people leave the car at home and do what can be very enjoyable, they are making a small contribution towards a safer and cleaner environment.
    Mr. Jessel: I am not a convert, but perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend what is the use of local authorities such as Richmond upon Thames putting down more cycling tracks and then allowing people to park their cars on them so that they cannot be used. It is also very alarming to many of my constituents and to those of other hon. Members when people come whizzing up noiselessly behind them on bicycles. People feel that that is dangerous. What has happened to the good old-fashioned bicycle bell?
    Mr. Norris: We have the makings of new campaign there: defenders of the bicycle bell. The great thing about bicycle bells is that if one has one fitted one may as well use it. That is probably the most effective use for it, and would probably deal with the circumstances that my hon. Friend has outlined. There is much joy in heaven for every sinner who repenteth, and I am sure that people in his part of the world in Richmond and Twickenham would be delighted if some day he chooses to join them on two wheels rather than four.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept that bus lanes in the wrong places and at the wrong times can sometimes increase congestion, as the remaining non-cycle transport is forced into a smaller space? The building of bypasses might free up some road space and provide an unprecedented opportunity to introduce cycle lanes which, I hope that he will accept, all those who are in favour of cycling would be wise to support.
    Mr. Norris: I wondered why the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) was on his own, but then I realised that it was because he was a Liberal defending a bypass. We are all delighted to see him, and delighted at his solid support. I am sorry that he will be able to give it to us only for another year. He makes a serious point about cycle lanes and their enforcement and policing. He is absolutely right that there is no point in drawing either cycling lanes or bus priority lanes on the road if they are promptly ignored by motorists. They need to be enforced, and that is a challenge for local authorities. To some degree, the extent to which those lanes constrict private car traffic is an important component in persuading motorists that there is a greener alternative and a more efficient way to make their journey. So I do not entirely consider the reduction in available road space a disadvantage.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to enlarge the network and improve the efficiency of public transport. [30603]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The Government are seeking to increase private sector involvement in the funding and operation of public transport, which we believe will provide the modern, efficient systems that this country needs.
    Mr. Hughes: How much money will be saved as a result of the slashing of the roads programme? And how much, if any, of the money saved will be spent on new and improved forms of public transport? Or is the whole exercise merely a device to try to appease the green lobby and to store up money for tax handouts in the run-up to the next election?
    Sir George Young: The Government set out their priorities clearly in the previous public expenditure round. Against a background of the need to contain public expenditure, we safeguarded investment in public transport and took the reduction in the publicly funded road programme. However, as a result of our commitment to the private finance initiative, we were able to carry forward about £1 billion worth of roads through the
    6
    design, build, finance and operate scheme to make progress with necessary investment in the road infrastructure.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend agree that anybody who travels on one of the newly privatised train systems, as I had occasion to recently, is immediately aware of the improved reliability and increased efficiency of such services? Will he give an assurance that I and many of my constituents who commute daily on South Eastern trains to London will be able to enjoy the benefits of privatisation before too long?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, we are making good progress with the franchising of South Eastern trains. He and his constituents will be pleased to know that, as a condition of awarding the franchise, the bidders will have to renew the rolling stock. That is a good example of the benefits of privatisation—once the investment programmes take place outside the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement, one can meet needs such as those of my hon. Friend's constituents without exerting any upward pressure on the PSBR.
    Ms Short: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the fact that in the recent Green Paper the Government have understood that to deal with the growing problems of congestion and pollution it is essential to enhance the quality and reliability of public transport and to persuade people to use their cars more selectively. The House will welcome the fact that the Government have seen the error of their ways. As the Minister for Transport in London said, it is always good when a sinner repents. Will he apologise to the country for 17 wasted years, during which the Government exacerbated congestion and pollution problems by planning and then cancelling a massive roads programme and by their prejudice and hostility to public transport? Will he apologise for the damage that deregulation and privatisation have done? Does he agree that for there to be true repentance, there must be an expression of real remorse?
    Sir George Young: The Government have nothing to apologise for, and therefore no remorse. We have published a clear transport strategy for the future. In particular, we have a clear vision of a modernised railway and we have identified the sources of finance for that modernisation. The hon. Lady and her party have totally failed to come up with a vision of the railway for the year 2000 and beyond, or any sources of finance. With some humility, I must tell her that it is she and not I who should apologise.

    Road Tolls
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received urging the introduction of road tolls at the entrance to cities. [30604]
    Mr. Norris: In response to representations from the local authority associations, we set out in the transport Green Paper our intention to discuss with them the case for taking the legislative powers necessary to enable interested local authorities to implement experimental charging schemes.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he does not intend to introduce road tolls into London? My constituents in Sutton and Cheam would be alarmed if their freedom of movement were hindered. Road tolling would penalise the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and those less able to pay. In short, it would be a tremendously unfair city tax.
    Mr. Norris: There is currently no technology available that would allow such a system to be introduced, whether it was required or not, and I doubt whether such technology will be available for at least 10 years. More importantly, while recognising the various academic arguments in favour of charging systems, the Government have been alive to precisely the issues that my hon. Friend raises. Huge social and economic issues are raised by urban congestion pricing, not least its impact on marginal car users—those people who need a car to access a job, whatever the quality of public transport. It would be a tragedy if a result of such a policy were to put those people out of their jobs. It is interesting that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have bought the urban congestion charging proposition uncritically and are intent on introducing it in London and elsewhere. The Government are rightly more sanguine and cautious.
    Mr. Dalyell: Before anyone says anything more about road tolls, will they come to my constituency between 7 am and 9 am and between 4 pm and 6 pm to see tolls in operation on the Forth road bridge? These are, in effect, tolls for entering the city of Edinburgh, and congestion is caused to the extent that people are talking about a second bridge, although that is completely unnecessary. If these tolls—for a bridge that has been paid for—were done away with, congestion would be much alleviated.
    Mr. Norris: The congestion is not caused by the tolls, but by the fact that people have to stop before they cross the Forth road bridge and pay the toll at a toll gate. Modern tolling systems abolish the need for toll gates, as the tolling is done automatically by reference to a smart card in the vehicle. Such a system is up and running and available to regular motorists in Dartford. One of the propositions at the forefront of the technology trials on tolling systems generally has been the idea that we could not possibly afford to introduce toll booths on every access road to every city. It would be wholly impractical. The proposition that the hon. Gentleman quite understandably puts forward is not at odds with the concept of tolling; it illustrates vividly and graphically that there should not be physical toll booths at which vehicles have to stop. That is the way in which technology is moving and it will not be many years before it is taken for granted.
    Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his cautious approach. May I remind him that market towns are not cities and often need people to come by car to shop and then to go away? If people cannot do that, they will use out-of-town shopping centres where parking is free.
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That would be a counter-productive response. In any event, it would overlook the fact that local authorities can take a great many measures to alleviate town centre congestion—such as bus priorities, traffic calming, park
    8
    and ride, and cycle improvements, all of which can produce the result that my hon. Friend would want for his towns and villages without the expensive infrastructure and the real difficulties to which he has just referred.

    Trans-European Transport Networks
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that environmental considerations are included in the guidelines for the trans-European transport networks. [30605]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The common position on the guidelines adopted by the Council of Ministers in September 1995 identified
    "the integration of the environmental concerns into the design and development of the network"
    as a priority. I fully expect the final agreed text to contain those or similar provisions.
    Mr. Hain: That may appear to be an encouraging answer, but may I press the Minister more forcefully to ensure that the Government fulfil their international obligations to sustainable development and that strong environmental protection measures are included in the guidelines for each trans-European network, such as a strategic environmental assessment or a corridor analysis for each scheme? In addition, because the Council meets in secret, it is quite possible for it to thwart the pressure from the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure for that environmental protection and for the Government not to own up to that. I hope that the Minister will press for those environmental protection measures at that meeting.
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman misses the point that existing legislation requires rigorous environmental assessment for any transport infrastructure project. Hon. Members will have seen the extent of that assessment in the channel tunnel rail link project, for example. Schemes on a trans-European network comprise individual schemes and, if they are cross-border, individual member states, all of which are subjected to rigorous environmental assessment under existing legislation.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind people's entitlement to a reasonable environment, as set out in the report, does my hon. Friend agree that the Transport Select Committee report advocating that Northolt airport become a satellite of Heathrow would be totally unacceptable to the people of Northolt, Ealing and the surrounding area and would destroy their lives, given their proximity to Heathrow airport? Will he give an assurance that it will be thrown out, as it should be?
    Mr. Watts: The Department has only recently received the report from the Select Committee, which is being given careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be replying to the report in due course in the normal way.

    Railtrack Sale
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the sale of Railtrack. [30606]
    Sir George Young: The Government's offers of Railtrack shares were successfully completed on 20 May, when dealings started on the London stock exchange. The share offer was highly successful and secured gross proceeds of some £1.93 billion.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Secretary of State recall the Government's pledge to the House that rail privatisation would improve the quality and frequency of services? Has he seen the franchising director's draft passenger service requirement for InterCity cross-country trains, which would allow a private operator to cut the number of trains from York to the south-west from 11 a day to three a day? Unlike the east coast services, those trains are highly subsidised and, without a requirement, they are likely to be axed. As 700,000 tourists a year arrive in York by train, will he guarantee that services to York from the south-west will be protected if privatisation proceeds?
    Sir George Young: In view of the hon. Gentleman' s knowledge of the industry, I am surprised that he makes the elementary mistake of confusing passenger service requirements with the services ultimately provided by those who win the bids. I invite him to look at the successful franchise for the midland main line, under which 22 extra services per day, over and above those now provided, will be offered from St. Pancras to Leicester. That offers the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of Railtrack has offered us the best possible chance to have the west coast main line upgraded? Does he further agree that any restrictions imposed upon Railtrack, as suggested by the Labour party, would delay or even stop that much-needed improvement to infrastructure in the north-west?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will know that about £1 billion will be invested by Railtrack in the modernisation of the west coast main line. I regard that as one of the most important current projects for Railtrack. My hon. Friend will also know that two initial signalling contracts have been awarded. Further contracts will follow this year, with work on the substantial contract beginning in 1997.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the Secretary of State noted that Railtrack, which will take more than a year to put in place safety requirements at Euston station which are essential to the running of the west coast main line, has nevertheless immediately managed to put on the market the air above Victoria station to any property developer who wants to buy it? It has done so because its priorities always have been, will be and are absolutely plain—to put property first and safety second?
    Sir George Young: Railtrack has been allowed a year by the Health and Safety Executive to do the work at Euston station, and I hope that it will be completed before
    10
    that year is up. As to the hon. Lady's second point, I thought that it was agreed by those on both sides of the House that it makes sense to focus new office developments at major transport interchanges so as to minimise the use of cars and maximise the use of rail and buses. I am amazed at the outburst that we have just heard from the hon. Lady.
    Ms Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that to meet the future transport needs of Britain we must have more investment in rail so as to increase the number of passengers on it and the amount of freight that is moved by it? Now that the flotation has happened, may I ask the Secretary of State to be honest about the likely consequences of privatisation? Is it not true that the £10 billion to be invested over 10 years is no greater than the level of investment that we had historically under British Rail and that that investment is inadequate to achieve the rail network that we need? Will he also admit to the House that the prospectus says—so it must be true because it is legally binding—that there is no expectation of any significant growth in passenger or freight use of rail under the privatisation arrangements? They are therefore deeply damaging to the national interest.
    Sir George Young: On the hon. Lady's first point, the investment figures are £8 billion over five years, which in my view is a higher level of investment than would have been afforded had the railways remained in the public sector. The hon. Lady needs to explain how she would find £8 billion if we pursued her policies to put Railtrack back in the public sector. Would she put up the fares? Would she put up taxes? Would she cut services? Would she take money out of the health service to find that money?
    As for growth in passenger or freight traffic, when I went to the handing over of Freightliner I was encouraged to hear from the management buy-out team that it hoped to increase its traffic by 50 per cent. in the next few years. That is a measure of confidence. Wisconsin plans to buy 250 more locomotives. That sounds to me as though it has some confidence in traffic growth in the private sector.

    Cycling
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the use of bicycles. [30607]
    Mr. Norris: We have taken a number of initiatives designed to give people confidence to cycle more. We have asked local authorities to look at how they can contribute to a national target of doubling the level of cycling by the year 2002. The national cycling strategy to be launched on 10 July will set out common objectives and a range of actions to achieve the target.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that one of the most important cycling routes in London is Parliament square and the approach roads to Parliament? Those of us who want to arrive at our place of work with our trousers tucked into our socks find it incredibly dangerous to do so. I was knocked off opposite St. Stephen's entrance. Can the Minister use his muscle—for the last time before he retires to sell

    11
    second-hand bikes in his new career—to have a word with his friends at Westminster city council to introduce cycling lanes in Parliament square and on the approach roads to Parliament?
    Mr. Norris: I am sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman's unfortunate experience of being knocked off in Parliament square—although that may not come as a surprise to Government Members. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of Westminster city council because those roads are its responsibility. We must give people a safe place to cycle if we are to give them the confidence to cycle. A great deal of the basic groundwork will go into those elementary safety measures to help us to achieve the national target. The measures will enable people who are too scared to cycle—particularly in large cities such as London—to cycle.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage businesses to promote cycling by their employees. [30608]
    Mr. Norris: My Department, along with most other Whitehall Departments and some local authorities, provides a range of facilities to help staff who wish to cycle to work. These include secure parking, showers, changing facilities and assistance with bicycle purchase. Obviously, the decision to provide such facilities is a matter for individual employers, but I hope that the Government's lead will result in similar facilities in the private sector.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the World Conservation Monitoring Centre—which is in Cambridge—which has managed to persuade 40 per cent. of its employees to cycle to work? Will he also congratulate Cambridge Econometrics, which has an almost 100 per cent. cycling work force? In fact, it has changed its car park into a garden. That should be a great encouragement to other employees who could cycle to work.
    Mr. Norris: I warmly endorse what the hon. Lady has said. It is marvellous to hear of that sort of initiative being taken. It underlines the concept of the green commuter plan which, for example, cities such as Nottingham have introduced. The accent is on allowing the company that provides a more environmentally friendly and efficient way for its employees to travel to work to use its car park for whatever purpose it regards desirable, such as a garden. That sort of scheme means that this is not simply a pro bono contribution by a company; it is a perfectly cost-effective way of improving the environment and the health of the employees. It is also beneficial to the company's accounts.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of bus deregulation outside London; and if he will make a statement. [30609]
    Mr. Norris: Bus deregulation continues to be a success, with more operators running more bus miles at lower cost and with significantly less public subsidy than
    12
    previously. There are also encouraging signs that the long-term decline in bus patronage is beginning to flatten out.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister realise that my constituents were able to enjoy good public transport on bank holidays for well over 100 years—since bank holidays were introduced—and to get to the many events that are organised on such occasions? Can he imagine their horror when the bus operators that supply many of the routes in Denton West under the deregulated bus service chose not to put on any services over Easter and the spring bank holiday?
    Mr. Norris: What the operators do is a matter for them. However, on the face of it, that seems to be an extraordinary decision. The operators might like to take note of the fact that there is a large untapped market on a bank holiday. To suggest that deregulation results in fewer services is absurd. There are currently 29 per cent. more bus miles being run outside London because private and deregulated operators are going to where people want to be taken from and taking them where they want to go. That is the key advantage.
    I cannot think of a single action that would damage the bus network in this country more than to do what, by implication, the hon. Gentleman and his fellow travellers want—that is, to re-regulate an industry that has at last managed to break free from the appalling bureaucratic stranglehold under which it languished for several decades.

    Railtrack Sale
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many individuals were successful in their application to buy Railtrack shares. [30610]
    Sir George Young: Some 650,000 applications from individuals were successful in the Railtrack share offer.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister has not told us that 10 per cent. of the shareholders sold their shares within one day of the announcement, at an average profit of £100 per person for taking no risk and making no effort. Is that not an example of what a rip-off the privatisation process has been?
    Sir George Young: Certainly not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that 9,000 employees of Railtrack bought shares in their company. If the Labour party believes in a stakeholder society, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have given Railtrack employees the opportunity, for the first time, to have a stake in their industry's success.

    National Transport Network
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the state of the nation's transport network; and if he will make a statement. [30611]
    Sir George Young: The nation's transport networks have improved significantly as a result of public and private investment over the past 17 years, and will continue to benefit from the policies outlined in the Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward".
    Mr. Pope: That is the answer of someone who does not travel regularly between London and the north-west of England. Does the Secretary of State accept that both road and rail links between London and the north-west are inadequate? Will he give an assurance that the franchise for the InterCity west coast main line will include a specification to upgrade the line so that it can take high-speed trains, which will cut the journey time between Manchester and London to two hours?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the core modernisation programme includes the introduction of a modern train signalling and control system, improved power supply and track renewal, which will bring improved reliability and some increase in capacity to the west coast main line route. An upgrade will depend on negotiations between Opraf and those who are interested in bidding for the franchise.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when considering extensions of the rail network, people can often be as opposed to such developments on environmental grounds as they are to extensions of the road network? Is it not significant that, in her two trips to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) was unable to make any commitment about funds that a Labour Government, were there to be one, might use to extend the rail network? Is it not more sensible to ensure more effective use of the existing rail network as a precursor to its extension?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend poses, in his eloquent way, the key questions that everyone wants to know about Labour's transport policy: first, what is it and, secondly, how will it pay for it?
    Mr. Martlew: Let us return to the west coast main line. Is the Minister happy that the Opraf director has said that it will take 12 years to upgrade the west coast main line and it will be seven years before there is any new rolling stock on that line? Can the Minister remember the Chancellor's 1993 Budget, which provided money to upgrade the west coast main line? Why has not that money been spent?
    Sir George Young: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) earlier, Railtrack is moving forward with a substantial £1 billion core modernisation programme on the west coast main line. It has awarded two parallel contracts for the signalling and control systems and will begin the main contract letting in 1996; it is estimated that work will start early in 1997. What we all want to know from Opposition Members is how they will find the resources for the contract if it is not funded by the private sector, to which they are opposed.

    Road Tolls
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce toll roads. [30613]
    Mr. Watts: Our policy remains as set out by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), in December 1993. The assessment of available technology and systems will provide the basis on which to decide when to go ahead with motorway charging and, at an appropriate time, we will introduce the necessary legislation for Parliament to consider.
    Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that toll roads offer the opportunity of increased private investment in roads, particularly for bypassing large cities? Does he accept that there is still a demand, notwithstanding the green lobby, for towns and cities to be bypassed? Given that the Treasury may not always be forthcoming with the necessary funds, does my hon. Friend agree that toll roads offer the opportunity of taking traffic out of our towns and cities?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that there is a continuing demand for bypasses to relieve towns and villages. Privately promoted toll roads, for which there is already legislative provision, may be one of the ways of meeting that demand.
    Ms Hodge: Will the Minister confirm that the A 13 through my constituency will be a shadow toll road to enable the upgrading of that road to take place?
    Mr. Watts: There are several schemes on the A13, some of which will be taken forward as part of a proposed design, build, finance and operate scheme and others that will be part of a conventionally funded programme. All the schemes relating to the A 13 remain in the main road programme.

    Motorway Service Stations
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the refreshment facilities provided at motorway service stations. [30614]
    Mr. Watts: None.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister accept that deregulation has meant that more motorway service stations have been given the go-ahead to rip people off, that most food is overpriced and disgusting and that a price of £1 for a cup of tea is scandalous? What will he do to ensure good value for money?
    Mr. Watts: The effects of deregulation and the promotion of new motorway service areas by the private sector mean that more are being provided. Three have been provided since deregulation and 11 planning permissions are outstanding. That will mean more competition and, therefore, more choice for motorists. Because motorway service area operators are required to provide free access to toilets, rest areas, picnic areas and parking for members of the public, those who choose to take food and drink with them can make use of the areas without paying the prices that the hon. Lady finds unacceptable.
    Mr. Ashby: When will my hon. Friend introduce rest areas on motorways, as they have on the continent, where drivers who are a little tired can stop for a few moments? Those areas are a great safety feature on the continent and they are not expensive to provide. Why do we not have them?
    Mr. Watts: As I have just explained in reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), motorway service operators are required to provide such facilities for all motorists free of charge. It is better for supervised areas to be provided on the trunk road and motorway network than to make unsupervised provision which, in view of experience elsewhere, might suffer vandalism and other such problems.

    Car Design (Pedestrian Safety)
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy concerning car design and pedestrian safety; and if he will make a statement. [30617]
    Mr. Norris: The Department strongly supports improvements to car design which reduce the numbers of pedestrians killed or injured in road accidents.
    Mr. Barnes: What will be done to get rid of the obscene practice of placing bull bars on cars and vans? Will our Government or the European Union take action? If it is the European Union, the Government need to make it clear that they will not block action under qualified majority voting and that they will not try to form a blocking minority. Is the issue being moved between the Government and the European Union so that nothing gets done?
    Mr. Norris: No. We are clear that aggressive bull bars are unnecessary and unacceptable and a potential cause of serious accidents. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's sensible question is that we need to have powers in domestic legislation—those have existed since the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use Regulations) Act 1986—to bring about the necessary changes, but if those powers are to be effective, they have to fall within the scope of the appropriate European directive. The external projections directive can be amended and the Commission has produced a form of words, which we are contemplating. I hope that we shall be able to reach agreement shortly. Once that has happened, it will go a long way to enabling us to get rid of aggressive bull bars. In due course, the draft policy for a directive on pedestrian protection will offer us a final and complete solution, but, in the meanwhile, a perfectly adequate form of words is available under the external projections directive.

    Transport Links (East Sussex)
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve transport links in East Sussex. [30621]
    Mr. Watts: We recognise the case for improving transport links to and along the south coast. Our trunk road programme contains a number of important schemes in East Sussex. We are also supporting improvements to the county council's local road network.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the level of support in my constituency for sensible, necessary and environmentally sensitive schemes, such as the A22 Polegate bypass and the A27? In addition, I assure him that many rail travellers in my constituency are looking forward not only to the benefits of the Thameslink 2000 rail link to Eastbourne, but to the tangible benefits of rail privatisation in our area.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has been extremely eloquent on other occasions in expressing his support and that of his constituents for sensible road improvements and for the tremendous benefits that rail privatisation will bring to rail passengers and freight users.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Faulds: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the success of the rail sell-off; and if he will make a statement. [30622]
    Sir George Young: The team had a good result.
    Mr. Winnick: He was held up on the journey.
    Mr. Faulds: Well, for once, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is absolutely right—I am delighted that I am here in time because I was held up. Is the Secretary of State aware that I was held up by British Rail in getting here this afternoon? Is he aware that I waited at Euston station last Thursday to return home to Stratford-upon-Avon by way of Coventry and that there was a 55-minute delay—yet another of the Euston break-ups because of the points system outside Euston? How can he possibly claim that any price paid for those decaying services can be worth it for the suffering of the British people?
    Sir George Young: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the main point. The key question is: which regime will provide the resources that are necessary to improve the quality of service and the reliability of the trains on which he travels? It is our very strong contention that the regime that we have introduced will ensure that in a few years the hon. Gentleman will not be detained in the way that he was today.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are very encouraged by the rail sell-off and rail franchising? We are looking forward to seeing SouthEastern trains moving rapidly into the private sector, particularly in view of my right hon. Friend's requirement that the provision of new carriages on the Kent coast line through the stations of Meopham and Sole Street in my constituency be a part of the franchise.
    Sir George Young: I am sure that many organisations are looking forward to the results of franchising. I hope that the existing trade unions that invested in nationalised industries when we privatised them will also invest in Railtrack in due course.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the costs of privatisation of the railways. [30624]
    Mr. Watts: By the end of 1995–96, total Government privatisation costs are estimated to be some £145 million and some £325 million for British Rail and Railtrack, including some investment in assets or asset management systems. Those costs should be viewed in the context of proceeds in excess of £4 billion and of substantial benefits to rail users as a result of privatisation.
    Mr. Skinner: What has the privatisation of the railway system to do with market forces? As I understand it, the Government have always believed that the market forces philosophy would rule. Yet, through the dogma of privatisation, the Government have decided to privatise the railways while calling upon the taxpayer to find about £850 million per year to allow that privatisation to continue. I remind the Minister that one argument is still prevalent in the Labour movement: a Labour Government's best answer would be to take the network back into public ownership without any compensation.
    Mr. Watts: I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has heard her hon. Friend's comments about the policy of any future Labour Government. The fact is that, with seven franchises operating in the private sector, the costs to the taxpayer in the seventh year of those franchises will be less than a third of the grant paid to British Rail to operate those services in the past year. In the hon. Gentleman's area, the competitive bidding process for the midland main line franchise has ensured a winning bid that will require no subsidy from the taxpayer at the end of the franchise period. A completely new fleet of trains will be purchased in order to increase service frequency to Loughborough, Derby and Nottingham. They are the facts.

    Private Finance Initiative (Road Building)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the level of tolls to be charged for the use of roads built under the private finance initiative. [30625]
    Mr. Watts: Estimated expenditure on shadow tolls for design, build, finance and operate road schemes is published in the transport report 1996.
    Mr. O'Brien: What advice can the Minister give to my constituents on the proposed link between the M1 and A1 in the Rothwell area of Leeds, when shadow tolls will be paid by the Government out of taxpayers' money? Has he any information as to what will be the estimated charges?
    Mr. Watts: Not specifically on that route, but the figures set out in the report are £41 million in 1996–97, £97 million in 1997–98 and £123 million in 1998–99.

    Chiltern Line
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Chiltern line. [30626]
    Mr. Watts: The franchising director has today announced that M40 Trains Ltd., the management buy-out team, has been selected as preferred bidder for the Chiltern Railway Co. Ltd. franchise.
    Mr. Lidington: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and draw his attention to comments made to me by the managing director of M40 Trains Ltd., who is responsible for operations in Chiltern, that the approach of privatisation had, for the first time, forced railway managers to concentrate their minds on what their passengers actually wanted in the way of a service? Is not that the key message of the advantages of privatisation for fare-paying passengers: the service will be provided ever more in their interests?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The total focus of passenger train operating companies is on increasing their business by providing better services for their passengers.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce a supervisory body to assess independently the efficacy of parliamentary procedures relating to the answering of questions. [30632]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to do so. The efficacy of our procedures falls within the remit of the Procedure Committee.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree with Sir Richard Scott's suggestion, made a few weeks ago in the annual Blackstone lecture, that a parliamentary watchdog is necessary to ensure that Ministers answer Members of Parliament's questions, which Sir Richard Scott still believes they are not doing on a wide range of questions, including those on arms sales? Is it not time that, if Ministers are not prepared to give answers, someone else ensures that they do?
    Mr. Newton: I am aware that a suggestion, I think somewhat similar to that to which the hon. Lady refers, has been made in evidence to the Select Committee on Public Service, but, as someone who would count himself a parliamentarian, I would be wary of any proposal that cuts across what should be, and is, the central line of Ministers' accountability in the House.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree profoundly with my right hon. Friend. Ministers are accountable. We do not want any outsider coming in and telling them how they should behave. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents come to Question Time, and that they all find it absolutely enthralling and go away with considerably more enthusiasm for the House of Commons?
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her doughty support. I always find her contributions enthralling.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do you mean that?
    Mr. Newton: Of course I do.

    Summer Recess
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce proposals to shorten the summer recess. [30633]
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received concerning the length of parliamentary recesses; and if he will make a statement. [30635]
    Mr. Newton: I cannot yet give the House the proposed dates for the summer Adjournment, but I have no plans to make any radical departure from recent practice.
    Mr. Winnick: That is unfortunate. What possible justification is there for having a three-month recess, which will commence shortly? Surely in this day and age, the summer recess should be much shorter, bearing it in mind that the House of Commons is already on a short-term week and that, often, voting takes place only on two days out of the five?
    Mr. Newton: The point is that Members of Parliament have a wide range of duties other than attendance in the House and that this Parliament already sits longer than that of, I think, any other major western democracy. The balance between our sitting and our non-sitting days is about right.
    Mr. Barnes: Some people think that Members of Parliament are a waste of time, and perhaps one or two are, but are we not all a waste of time if we do not have a Parliament? If a Parliament is not sitting for three months or more, and no formal avenues are available for the asking of questions and the probing of the Executive, what is the point of having an elected Parliament? Can we not spread the parliamentary year so that the breaks are shorter and therefore do not matter so much?
    Mr. Newton: I am aware that suggestions such as that have been made from time to time. Let me point out, however, that it is not very long since the House received,
    20
    and subsequently debated and made decisions on, a report from a Select Committee of the House which examined all those matters carefully and made no such suggestion.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the House unique, in that we have constituency responsibilities? Do not most Members of Parliament spend the recesses at work in their constituencies, getting very close to their constituents? Perhaps those two questions are a reflection on the two hon. Members concerned.
    Mr. Newton: Different Members of Parliament observably have different ways of going about the job. My hon. Friend is certainly assiduous in the interests of his constituents, and I am sure that he will continue to be so on whatever occasions the House is sitting.
    Mr. Barry Porter: May I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) back to the House following his recent illness? I am delighted to see him. Having said that, however, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agrees that the country is infinitely better governed when we are not sitting? It has always struck me that that is so.
    Mr. Newton: I hesitate to agree with that proposition, but I note that it is my hon. Friend's view.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noted that, in replying to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister for Transport in London chose to mention his official consultancy. I am not in any way opposed to that, but I wonder whether that same Minister approached you in an attempt to extend Transport questions by at least another hour. If we are to mention all the consultancies held by Conservative Members, we shall require at least as long as that before any questions are answered.
    Madam Speaker: That being the case, perhaps we should not rise for the summer recess until the end of September.

Orders of the Day
  Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 5

  REGULATION OF COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES PROVIDED BY MEANS OF DIRECT PAYMENTS
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consulting such persons as appear to him to have relevant knowledge or experience, by order introduce a scheme for the regulation of the provision of community care services under this Act with particular reference to the purchase by persons to whom payments are made under section 1 or section 4 of independent domiciliary care.
  (2) A scheme under subsection (1) may include powers—

  (a) to require the registration of persons providing domiciliary care to persons in receipt of payments under section (1) or section (4)

  (b) to establish a system of inspection for the purposes of ensuring that the terms on which a person is registered under paragraph (a) above have been complied with.

  (3) An order under subsection (I) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Regulation of services provided by persons not classed as individuals—
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consulting such persons as appear to him to have relevant knowledge or experience, by order introduce a scheme for the regulation of the provision of community care services under this Act, with particular regard to the purchase by a person to whom payments are made under section 1 or section 4 of independent domiciliary care from a person who is not classed as an individual for the purposes of any enactment relating to community care.
  (2) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: New clause 5 is intended to safeguard the welfare of those who will obtain various community care services through the direct payment provisions in the Bill. Clearly, they include some very intimate services. Direct payments will enable people to pay for bathing, washing, dressing, cleaning and a range of other services, including, in certain instances, the handling of a person's money by the carer.
  We should ensure that the quality of such care is properly regulated and inspected. New clause 5 provides for the regulation of domiciliary care: those providing such care would be subject to registration. The new clause also provides a system of inspection to monitor the quality of care that will—I stress this—be provided in the privacy of a client's home.
  22
  The background of the new clause will be well known to the Minister, and also to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. For many years, there has been a serious anomaly in the provisions relating to domiciliary care. I refer to the lack of any form of registration and inspection procedures.
  Way back in 1984, the House passed the Registered Homes Act, and more recently the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, both of which set out in detail statutory procedures that are designed to protect residents of care homes and nursing homes. The 1984 legislation, for example, requires the registration of all establishments providing care, and a named person deemed to be suitably qualified who is responsible in law for the operation of the establishment. Each establishment must have a named person who is recognised as being responsible. The legislation enables such homes to be inspected by local registration and inspection units. More important—it is not used often, except where serious problems arise—it provides for the cancellation of the registration and for the protection of residents who may be in the care home or nursing home at the time.
  The anomaly, which the new clause seeks to address, is that although such provisions exist for people who live in care homes or nursing homes, there are no such provisions in law to provide for the inspection and registration of the care that is provided privately to people in their own homes. New clause 5 applies the principles of the Registered Homes Act to care that is provided through direct payments to people in their own homes. It would be highly irresponsible for the House to pass the Bill without proper safeguards on the quality of the care provided.
  I underline the fact that I support very strongly the principle of direct payments, which is contained in the Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has pressed the issue for many years and talked to me on numerous occasions about his concerns that policy should move in that direction. I know that he supports in principle my concerns about the lack of proper regulation of the provision of such care. The need for the registration and inspection of domiciliary care is long overdue.
  When the House debated the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, amendments on the registration and inspection of domiciliary care, some of which had the support of hon. Members on the Government Benches, were blocked by the Government. Shortly after the 1990 Act became law, a 66-year-old woman in a wheelchair—I am not sure whether this happened in the Minister's constituency, but it was certainly not far from it—was murdered in her own home by the carer. It is to the credit of the agency that employed the carer convicted of the murder that it has been at the forefront of subsequent campaigning to bring about a proper statutory framework for the registration and inspection of domiciliary care. I know that it has, with a number of London boroughs, been involved in bringing about a voluntary scheme of accreditation in the London area.
  Since the implementation of community care legislation in 1993, the Government have argued consistently that the contracting and purchasing arrangements that the legislation introduced provided appropriate measures to monitor the quality of the care provided. That is not the view of the local authorities arranging the contracts. They do not believe that the contracting system offers sufficient

  23
  regulation of the quality of care, to put into practice proper safeguards for the vulnerable elderly and disabled people who are receiving it in their own homes. Whatever one's view of the contracting arrangements, many thousands of people, particularly elderly people, are not covered by them. They purchase their community care directly from individuals or private companies, and in certain areas, particularly those with a large elderly population, a huge number of people, particularly elderly people, are buying that care without any element of protection or inspection whatever. There is no way of monitoring the relationship between the professional carer and the person who is paying money to that carer. That leaves the possibility of exploitation and abuse wide open. That could be plugged by a proper initial measure attached to the Bill, followed by much wider legislation covering everybody affected by community care.
  Cities such as Bournemouth in the south of England and Harrogate in my part of Yorkshire have considerable numbers of elderly people, some with more resources than average. They are directly purchasing care and are wide open to exploitation. They deserve the protection of the House.
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was aimed at increasing the number of private sector providers of care. The Government believed that increasingly local authorities would become enablers rather than direct providers. Since the implementation of that Act, there has been a marked reduction in the number of local authority home carers and a marked increase in the number of private sector home carers—but they are unregulated, unregistered and uninspected private companies.
  I have calculated that during the first year following the community care changes—1992 to 1993—the number of households receiving care services from the private sector increased by 47 per cent. That is a marked increase in private sector involvement in the provision of community care. I am not saying that all private sector companies provide poor-quality care. However, I am concerned—and the private companies share my concern—that there should be, in the interests of those private companies, a proper registration and inspection company to root out the small number of people who should not be involved in the provision of intimate, personal care in the privacy of people's homes.
  The Minister may remember that on 24 March 1992, before he joined the Department, I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule procedure to provide for the registration of domiciliary care agencies. That Bill had cross-party support and included among its sponsors the hon. Members for Mid-Kent and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). The Bill was given a Second Reading by 188 votes to one—the one being the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who has still to explain to me why he voted against it. I think he was late back from his lunch. Unfortunately, the Bill was subsequently blocked, but I have reintroduced it and it is due for its Second Reading in July.
  When I introduced the Bill, the Minister's predecessor assured me—behind the Chair, immediately after I had spoken—that in principle he shared my concerns. He said that there would be a review of the registration and
  24
  inspection procedures and that it would take account of domiciliary care. We are still awaiting completion of that review and we need to ensure some urgency—
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening with great attention to the hon. Gentleman, who was good enough to make some kind remarks about me. He said something which I think might well have been a slip of the tongue. If it was not, it was a rather important statement. He said that he was in favour of having a registration and inspection company. That is an interesting concept, but not one that I would automatically expect to come from the hon. Gentleman's lips.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: It was probably a misunderstanding of my Yorkshire accent. If I did say that, it was most certainly a slip of the tongue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) recently made it clear that the Labour party favours an independent inspection and registration unit. That is important. It is also important to point out that some Labour Members have been accused of being anti-private sector, although we have argued for many years—including during the period when the community care legislation was passed—that there are problems in having such inspection arrangements in local authorities and that, on occasion, there are subtle pressures on inspection units to go easy on local authority provision. To be consistent—I think that we are absolutely correct to be consistent on this point—we believe in independent units rather than in companies. That is what I was referring to.
  3.45 pm
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent will remember that when I introduced the Registration of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill—of which he is a sponsor—and subsequently, that all-party campaign was supported by virtually every individual and organisation concerned with the care of elderly and disabled people, and particularly by those concerned with the provision of domiciliary care.
  I am sure that the principle of new clause 5, which was drafted rather hurriedly last week, will be supported by all those agencies, which include the Joint Advisory Group of Domiciliary Care Associations, the United Kingdom Homecare Association—which has more than 300 voluntary and private agencies as members, the National Association of Registration and Inspection Officers, the British Association of Social Workers, the Social Care Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and Age Concern. It is important to reiterate that some of those organisations have, along with individual local authorities, developed local voluntary accreditation schemes for domiciliary care, and that all of them are still actively campaigning for a proper statutory system to register and inspect domiciliary care.
  I am concerned about the Government's position on the issue. Knowing the Minister reasonably well, I suspect that he, too, is probably a bit uneasy about the Government's position. The deregulation theme pursued by the Prime Minister has been applied to certain areas where serious questions need to be asked—care deregulation, for example. The Government's dogma in that area, and their reluctance to legislate or to bring about

  25
  by statutory instrument a proper system of regulation and inspection, are leaving vast numbers of extremely vulnerable people seriously at risk.
  There are other policy changes of which the Government should be aware. Those changes make it even more urgent that, when the Registration of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill is considered by the House, it is amended to include a proper registration procedure to protect people who are in receipt of direct payments.
  The first change is that, as part of the deregulation initiative, on 3 January last year the Government removed the licensing of employment agencies. There are no longer arrangements to offer monitoring of employment agencies, although, on 3 January last year, some 3,000 licensed agencies included domiciliary care among their activities. So many organisations are obviously involved in the provision of domiciliary care in the private and independent sector.
  Secondly, to illustrate the anomaly in the current legislation, I draw the Minister's attention to the nonsense of there being more private care homes that offer care not only inside but outside them, in a locality near the private care home. They are now registered for care in the home, but they are not registered or inspected for care in the individual's home in the community, which is where equally vulnerable people are in receipt of care.
  That is nonsense. If a person is in a care home or a nursing home, there is some public accountability and some visibility of that person's care. People visit care homes and nursing homes and can see individuals sitting in lounges there. The same does not apply to people who receive care in their own homes. There is doubly cause for concern about that anomaly when care homes are only half registered in their work. Those who run private care homes whom I know would probably say that they realise that the present situation is nonsense and that they would be perfectly happy to be included in proper registration and inspection arrangements.
  There are increasing signs that we are, rightly, moving more and more towards domiciliary care as an alternative to institutional care. The Minister knows of my concerns. I think that, from a policy point of view, we should move much more rapidly towards domiciliary care, but to do so, we need to ensure proper safeguards for people in receipt of that care. My worry is that those safeguards are not there.
  There have been rapid advances to enable people to be cared for in their own homes. With improvements in communications technology, people can be monitored by telephone systems that are operated by a number of private companies and by local authorities. In some instances, through that telephone care network system, people can be monitored through the night. That means that many more people who are dependent can live in their own homes in the community. That trend reinforces the argument that the care provided for some very vulnerable people should be properly registered and inspected, as we suggest in the new clause.
  Increasingly, there are moves towards housing models of care, which some of us discussed during the debate on dementia last week. That means that we should make checks on people who are not otherwise covered by a registration system. Sheltered housing, for example, is not covered by the Registered Homes Act 1984, yet I know of many people in sheltered housing schemes and in
  26
  receipt of domiciliary care who are more vulnerable and more disabled than many people who are in care homes or nursing homes.
  The Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 has contributed to the push towards domiciliary care. We must recognise that as people are asking for increased packages of domiciliary care, that care should be properly regulated and inspected.
  Other policy developments, with which the Minister is very familiar, raise questions about how we can operate a general social services council, which the Department of Health is currently looking at in some detail. It would be a form of registration for carers and social workers. How could that operate in relation to people concerned with domiciliary care if there was no proper regulation and inspection system for domiciliary care? How on earth would a complaint come to that council if the person providing care was not monitored through an inspection system? The whole thing does not stand up, and the Minister must accept that we lack proper provision in the area.
  The Minister will have talked to his Home Office colleagues about what has been called a paedophile register. The Government may introduce such a register, but what safeguards will there be to ensure that somebody who is on that register is not providing care privately in a domestic setting? As far as I can see, that safeguard will not be there. The Minister must accept that the Home Office's policy initiatives look a bit silly alongside the lack of any attempt by his Department properly to regulate and inspect domiciliary care.
  The whole purpose of the Bill is to enhance the ability of individuals to remain in their own homes and to make their own choices about securing care. People in receipt of care will be put in control of determining the nature of that care and how they acquire it. I believe that if the Bill is passed without an amendment relating to the quality of care—to the inspection of care—we shall be accused of being very irresponsible, because we shall have passed legislation that is not properly thought through. We are meant to be giving people control of their care. Is that seriously possible when the care recipient has no guarantee that a provider is operating at an acceptable or an agreed standard? We are putting a number of people at risk by not thinking the matter through, despite the good will on both sides of the House in support of the Bill.
  The Bill as it stands allows the potential for abuse and exploitation. It allows for financial exploitation if people involved in the provision of care are dishonest and not properly monitored, which can happen. In my time working in local authority social work, I came across complaints about the provision of home care, such as elderly people being subjected by their carers to the alteration of wills, and pensions and benefits being taken by home carers. The vast majority of home care is provided by perfectly decent, honest and responsible people. But in every walk of life, some will try to take advantage of the vulnerable. I have come across instances of physical ill treatment of vulnerable, elderly people, a number of examples of sexual abuse of people who were being cared for in their own homes, and instances of poor-quality care.
  I hope that the Minister has reflected on the contents of the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity. That reminds us all of the significant number of people in our

  27
  society who require a good deal more protection in their vulnerability than the majority of us who happen to be physically and mentally reasonably able.
  I hope that the Minister will not say that we have to await the results of consultation on "Moving Forward". Everybody knows that there is 100 per cent. support throughout the personal social services—whether in the private, public or voluntary sectors—for a proper system of registration and inspection of domiciliary care. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Minister saying that we should wait a little longer. I heard that excuse three years ago, and when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was being discussed in 1989. We have waited long enough, we all know that there is a huge gap to be filled, and I hope that the Minister accepts that we need to do something about such an important issue.
  Mr. Rowe: I shall be very brief. I hope that the House will grant me indulgence as I have to chair a meeting somewhere else for a short time.
  I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) by saying that I am greatly in favour of the idea of ensuring that people who enter other people's homes are reputable, proper people who behave in a responsible manner. I have some anxiety about the proposition that, if we are to give control over who is employed to disabled people themselves, we should set up a system whereby every individual who is chosen by a disabled person is monitored and scrutinised. That would be unworkable and a nightmare, and would create huge delays in the employment of people, when voluntary organisations frequently complain bitterly about the checks that they have to make on volunteers taking so long. I therefore have some reservations about the new clause.
  A body like, for example the Federation of Master Builders—a voluntary membership organisation to which people of good will belong, and, certainly, to which agencies that contract should belong—would be a very much better way in which to deal with the problem. It could then be said that local authorities should not necessarily sanction the employment of agencies that do not subscribe to a reputable body. That would be a perfectly reasonable way in which to proceed. If that were linked, especially for contract agencies, with an insurance scheme, it would be even better, because it would give such agencies an even stronger incentive to ensure that good behaviour was the norm. So I am greatly in favour of the new clause's principle, but a little anxious about the idea proposed by the hon. Member for Wakefield.
  There is growing evidence that some local authorities are quite disgracefully discriminating against private care homes. Were they to be given the opportunity to discriminate against private care contractors, that would cause anxiety.
  I am conscious that I am showing discourtesy to the hon. Member for Wakefield by leaving the debate, but I end by saying to him that I support the principle, but not the proposal contained in the new clause.
  4 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who supports the principle and the essential objective that my
  28
  hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has in mind. The hon. Gentleman offered some thoughtful and sensible comments on the practicalities that the registration, inspection and regulation of domiciliary care agencies might involve.
  It is important that the House debates the principle, and I want briefly to underline and emphatically support some of the most important arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made in his comprehensive speech. He has pursued this cause consistently, and with passion, great resourcefulness and enormous authority for a considerable number of years. The House listens to him with respect, as I am sure does the Minister.
  It is particularly timely that we address the appropriate regulation of domiciliary care agencies in the context of this legislation to make permissible direct cash payments by local authorities to people in need of community care. There is no doubt that direct payments will lead to an increased demand for agency staff, and that makes the issue of registration and inspection one that we can no longer avoid considering and deciding upon. It is too serious and too important an issue.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, significant numbers of vulnerable people will be using such agencies, and they need confidence—as we do, on their behalf—that the agencies are reputable and that the people who will be employed by them and sent to provide help in the privacy of clients' homes are the sort of people who ought to be doing such work. That principle has been long accepted with regard to registered homes. As my hon. Friend said, surely it is grotesquely inconsistent that we do not take equivalent care where the interests of people receiving care in their own homes are concerned.
  As the thrust of the proposal is that it will enable more people to have independence for longer periods of their lives, to live in their own homes and to have the maximum amount of personal independence within the community, it is an issue that should not be deferred any longer. It is an issue of quality, and while quality will of course depend upon the availability of funding, it will also depend on the safeguards that we are able to operate to ensure decent standards of service.
  I understand why the Government do not want gratuitous bureaucracy—that view is widely shared by all parties. No one wants more regulation than is genuinely necessary, although we may have differences of view as to the variety of areas in which regulation might be needed and the extent to which it is appropriate to regulate. I do remember, and appreciated at the time, that when the Government were announcing their great crusade against regulation, they were careful—and wise—to say that they would not play fast and loose with health and safety, and that they had no prejudice against regulation where genuine issues of health and safety were at stake. We are considering one such issue—the regulation of domiciliary care agencies that are providing services to vulnerable and disabled people.
  The Government need not fear that sensibly designed regulation would meet resistance and resentment from local authorities. The Association of Directors of Social Services has expressed its support for such regulation. I hope that the Government will accept that the use of private enterprise does not mean that they can wash their hands of the social consequences.

  29
  Most recipients of direct payments will certainly want to employ their own assistants directly and, at least in the first instance, will not wish to resort to domiciliary care agencies. However, many will need agency staff, whether it is for moments of emergency, for periodic respite to enable their normal employees to take time off or to supplement the ordinary support that they employ, perhaps for specialised tasks.
  The Minister needs to consider thoughtfully and imaginatively—as is his custom in taking such decisions—what that should mean in practice. I put it to him that the level playing field that he is anxious to establish so that users of direct payments are not disadvantaged in comparison with other client groups requires such regulations as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is proposing. Those assurances and safeguards will enable recipients of direct payments to have the same confidence in the quality and safety of the service and that the people who they will be admitting into their homes to perform perhaps intimate tasks on their behalf will be as suitable as those employed by the social services department.
  The Minister may recall some of the research that has been published over the years on the operation of the independent living fund. Perhaps he will have read "Cash for Care" and "Taking Care in the Market" by Ann Kestenbaum, which contain evidence that beneficiaries of the independent living fund expressed concern about some of the deficiencies that not infrequently were found in the operation of domiciliary care agencies. Among the anxieties expressed were the failure of agencies to match their staff sufficiently well to the particular needs of individual clients and the lack of continuity of staff. Clients could not be confident that the same person would be coming to support them from time to time. That mattered very much in terms of their confidence, their dignity and their capacity to accept help in a relatively relaxed way.
  The research also found cause for anxiety that agencies were neglecting training in order to keep down costs. The Government ought to accept responsibility to ensure that those employed by the agencies are not only without criminal records or otherwise plainly unsuitable, but have the training and developed capacity to carry out the work in question.
  There would be no sense in introducing regulation with a heavy hand. Any regulation in these matters will have to be sensitive to the variety of small agencies in domiciliary care. It will also have to be realistic and sensible about those who are frequently employed in such work, who are often part-time workers. Nobody is arguing that an impossible set of standards should be imposed, but we have an obligation to ensure that, consistent with practical good sense, suitable staff are employed to assist people in their homes.
  In Committee, the Minister said that he wanted to await the outcome of Mr. Burgner's review before he drew his own conclusions. He said that the Government would then come to a decision. Can he tell us how far that process of review has got? Has he received recommendations from Mr. Burgner and, if so, how is his internal departmental consideration proceeding? Will reference to the technical advisory committee form part of that internal consideration?
  30
  I should like to conclude by putting to the Minister the question that I put to him on Second Reading when I drew attention to the anomalous character of the VAT regime for domiciliary care agencies. Where an element of medically qualified supervision is provided, I understand that the services of an agency do not attract VAT and that it is not charged to the client. Where that is not the case, the services provided must incur VAT. I suggested that it might be an appropriate reform to exempt from VAT those agencies that satisfied a sensibly designed inspection regime of the kind for which we have argued.
  On another occasion in our proceedings I was rather startled to hear the Minister say that it was always a pleasure to hold a discussion with the Treasury. I am not sure whether he has had all the joy that he might have wished and that which we all would have hoped for him in discussions with the Treasury about, for example, the treatment of people over the age of 65. Has the Minister had an opportunity since Second Reading to talk to his right hon. and learned Friend and others at the Treasury about VAT on domiciliary care agencies? If he has not had that opportunity, perhaps he will let us know whether he plans to seek it in time for the decisions that fall to be taken by the Government in November—assuming the Government are still in office—on the public expenditure round and taxation measures in the Budget.
  Mr. Alan Milburn: The issue of regulation is an important one that bears directly on the provisions of the Bill. We debated it at some length in Committee and it is right and proper that we should do so again.
  Regulation is important because the provisions of new clauses 5 and 11 offer dual protection. First, they protect the interests of public money and those of the taxpayer by ensuring that that money is properly spent. Secondly and more important, they ensure that disabled people in receipt of a direct payment who contract with a domiciliary care agency are afforded appropriate protection and, in particular, those new clauses ensure their right to be free from the risk of abuse.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is a doughty champion of the rights of disabled people, has brought an important matter to the forefront of our minds. His new clause draws heavily on his ten-minute Bill, which provides a model that merits careful examination.
  New clause 11 also provides protection from the possibility of abuse for those in receipt of direct payments for care in their own homes if they contract with an agency for domiciliary care services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said, the overwhelming majority of disabled people who take advantage of direct payments probably opt to employ a personal assistant. That person is perhaps a friend or a member of their family—probably a distant relative if the Minister has his way. Alternatively, by word of mouth, they may decide to contract individually on a one-to-one basis for the provision of a form of care with which they are happy. There can be no argument about that because the thrust of the Bill is to maximise the choice of disabled people.
  Other disabled people will look to domiciliary care agencies to provide staff to assist them. One can envisage a situation where illness may get in the way. Even if the

  31
  first choice of a disabled person is the employment of a personal assistant, in an emergency they may decide to turn to a professional, independent domiciliary care agency. There can be no objection to that either. In recent years there has been an upsurge in the range of services that domiciliary care providers offer to people in their own homes—whether they are disabled, elderly or suffer from mental health problems. In the main, the services of the domiciliary care providers are very good, but occasionally things go wrong and there are forms of abuse.
  4.15 pm
  Many people, particularly some of the disability organisations, are concerned that although it is all well and good to provide care in a person's home, there must be safeguards to ensure that the recipient of the care is not subjected to any form of abuse. We need to provide new mechanisms to ensure that all care provided is of the highest quality and standard possible. Such mechanisms would be helpful to those seeking to enter the market for the first time.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, in recent years there has been an upsurge in independent sector domiciliary care agencies, and the Bill may provide a further impetus to growth in that sector of the market. It is important that those seeking to enter the market for the first time understand what is expected of them—that they are aware of the quality and the standards that they will have to offer to get a foothold in the market.
  Some form of protection is vital. I believe that local authorities will have difficulty in expanding the operation of direct payment schemes if some regulation is not in place. I say that for a simple but important reason: a significant element of direct payment is the control that it gives to the person in deciding how their care needs should be provided. That control is not fully possible when the care recipient has no guarantee that a care provider is operating at an acceptable and agreed standard.
  The lack of regulation injects an unnecessary element of uncertainty and anxiety into the situation of the care recipient. As my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Wakefield, and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), pointed out, we must at all costs avoid the possibility of abuse and exploitation. Regulation would allow local authorities a real sanction with respect to unscrupulous providers.
  The great irony is that other care providers are subject to stringent requirements of registration and inspection, but there is still no statutory framework governing the operation of domiciliary care providers—despite the fact that the services they provide are direct, face-to-face services in a person's home. The interface is between the staff member working for the agency and the disabled person, and there is little likelihood of anyone else being around. The clients of domiciliary care agencies are among the most vulnerable in the population, yet the protection that they are currently afforded under the law in their own homes is negligible compared with the protection that is afforded to clients of residential care homes and nursing homes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made an extremely important point when he said that that irony was becoming greater by the day. As residential care
  32
  providers in the independent sector find it more difficult to fill their homes, they are increasingly looking to diversify and are moving into outreach work to use their skills and resources to provide care, not in their residential care homes, but in people's own homes. However, there are two standards: when those providers provide care in the residential care home setting, they have to fulfil fairly stringent inspections and regulation requirements, but when they provide the self-same skills and resources in an individual's home, there is no such standard or quality requirement. We must clearly address that matter.
  Those double standards explain why organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services, in responding to the Bill, have expressed anxiety about the lack of a regulatory framework to govern the provision of domiciliary care. Both organisations have called for precisely the form of regulation that is encompassed in both new clause 5 and new clause 11. Their concern, my concern and, I think, the concern of all hon. Members, would be to ensure that the Bill is not compromised or denigrated because those in receipt of direct payments are subjected to any form of abuse.
  New clauses 5 and 11 help to provide safeguards against such abuse. Opposition Members have repeatedly called for such safeguards to be put in place; our call has found a ready echo in the independent domiciliary care sector. The agencies in that sector understand that they provide care for vulnerable people who have few opportunities to raise questions about services and who need protection from unscrupulous operators, however few and far between they are. Such protection is in all our interests and it is certainly in the taxpayer's interest. The last thing that anyone wants to see is public money subsidising exploitation or abuse. Such protection is also in the interest of the overwhelming majority of agencies in the domiciliary care sector which are reputable private sector operators who want to drive the cowboys out of the industry. Most importantly, it is in the interests of disabled people themselves—so that they can feel that they are guaranteed, as far as possible, a proper form of protection.
  In the past and in Committee the Minister said that some local authorities had developed good local accreditation schemes that accredit individual domiciliary care agencies. But those accreditation schemes are essentially voluntary and they do not offer nationwide coverage. In the past the Minister has said that it would be appropriate to build into the contracts between local authorities and private providers safeguards that would protect disabled or elderly people in their homes. That is all well and good when the local authority makes a contract on behalf of the individual to provide domiciliary care services, but that does not occur in the Bill.
  The Bill rightly empowers the disabled person to contract for himself to buy the care that is most appropriate for his needs. We are talking about a direct, not indirect, form of contract. There is a special need to ensure that proper protection is afforded to buttress that form of contract, which is why we want to see regulation in the Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has just said, we heard in Committee that the Minister will shortly consider the results of the consultation on the Department of Health's document "Moving Forward". That consultation has now ended, but the Minister felt unable to give the Committee an insight into his thinking

  33
  about the likely recommendations or the time scale for the decision. Now that we have moved on a month or so, perhaps the Minister will feel more liberated and will be able to tell us more about his thinking and the time scale that we might work to.
  It is clear, however, that we cannot wait endless months for the result of the Burgner review to be published, then for the Government's further consultation to begin and then finally for the possibility of legislation being brought forward to the House. Today, the Bill will go through the House and it will become an Act of Parliament. We all rejoice at that, because the Bill has enjoyed cross-party support, but all hon. Members are concerned to ensure that proper protection will be afforded to those who take advantage of the direct payments route.
  In case there is any confusion, I must make it clear that the same regulatory standards should apply equally to public and private sector organisations. The issue is not who provides the care, but the quality of care. The quality of care that people experience is important, not who provides it. We all want to see public and private sector organisations provide the highest standards of care possible. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield was right to point to the Labour party's policy of ensuring independence. We want regulation to become genuinely independent so that there can be no question of any vested interest obstructing the highest possible standards of care, whether care is provided in the residential sector, the domiciliary sector, the supported housing sector or as respite care and whether it is run by the private sector, the charitable sector, the voluntary sector or the public sector. Independence of regulation will ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained and ratcheted up.
  If independence of regulation is to work properly, it must enjoy the support of disabled people and disability organisations. It is important that any consultation on our proposal in new clauses 5 and 11 actively enlists disability organisations so that they feel that they have been fully consulted in the establishment of a better regulatory environment. In that way, regulation will not compromise a sensitive approach to the care of disabled people in their homes.
  An important principle is at stake and that is why we have explored it this afternoon and why we explored the issue in Committee a few weeks ago. Under new clauses 5 and 11, if a person took advantage of the direct payments procedure and decided to purchase care, that person, the local authority and the taxpayer could be assured that that person would be afforded proper protection and that the care was of the highest standard possible.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): The hon. Member for Wakefield is consistent and persistent on this issue. He has already introduced two private Members' Bills on the subject, and another one has been introduced by Lord Ashley of Stoke.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, we debated the matter at some length in Committee. I hope that he will accept that I am equally consistent—indeed, persistent—in answering him. We promised that a review of the regulation of domiciliary and day-care services would take place as part of the review of social services inspection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman looked forward to that review three years
  34
  ago. However, I think that he now knows that the review has taken place—we have reached the end of the consultation period—and that Mr. Burgner, who is an eminent, distinguished and respected independent reviewer, will shortly bring forward his conclusions. Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing precisely what he has asked for.
  We are looking wider than the new clauses. Our review is examining the question of regulation of domiciliary and day services regardless of whether they are used by direct payment users. The new clauses would limit such regulation to those services used by people in receipt of direct payments. I do not see the logic in that proposal. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it would be premature, if not bizarre, to take any action before we know the results of the review—which are not far away. When we have seen Mr. Burgner's report, we shall be able to examine the issue fully and then consult widely about any proposals that we intend to bring forward.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister said that the conclusions of the review are due shortly. When will we receive the conclusions of Mr. Burgner's review? What steps will the Government take to legislate and to act upon those conclusions? Can the Minister anticipate what might happen subsequent to the conclusion of the Burgner review?
  Mr. Bowis: I do not know exactly when Mr. Burgner will submit his report to me or to my colleagues in Government. The matter is in his hands. However, I genuinely expect to receive it very shortly and I am sure that we will be able to go public about the results before the House rises in the summer.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Further to that point, I stress that the review is needed urgently and I hope that we will receive the results before the summer recess. I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers to several issues of concern in the north-west. In fact, there are cases before the courts at the moment regarding the conflict of interest that occurs when local authorities act as both providers and gatekeepers of the standards.
  Mr. Bowis: I understand my hon. Friend's concern; he has been diligent in raising those matters with us. I hope that he will find that the review, which goes much wider than the issues that we are discussing today, is helpful in that regard. I have already outlined the timing of the review.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is being very seductive in trying to persuade us to wait for the review's conclusions. He knows that it is not simply a matter of waiting for the review's results and then reaching a conclusion about its results: he will have to find parliamentary time in order to implement those results. We have the opportunity to do that today. Therefore, his seductive arguments will have to persuade hon. Members that, if that opportunity is missed this afternoon, it will be replaced by another opportunity outlined in the Queen's Speech in the next Session of Parliament.
  Mr. Bowis: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman finds my arguments seductive—I am sure that he does not

  35
  find me seductive. It would be bizarre to set up a review to be conducted by an eminent independent rapporteur and then to say, "To heck with that, we shall push through legislation before we have the results." That would be nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield raised some interesting points—he knows that I respect his views. However, the more I listened to him, the more I thought that he raised as many questions as he answered. I think that he would agree with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised just some of those. Clearly, if we are introducing a measure that is supposed to be user-friendly for people who are in receipt of direct payments, we must be careful about how we impose on top of that a bureaucracy that requires some form of vetting, inspection and regulation of people. After all, in a few moments, Opposition Members will be pressing me to be even more relaxed about members of the family, neighbours, friends and so on. We must, therefore, consider carefully where this might be going.
  The other point of which we must be wary is introducing something specifically and only for direct payments which would not be available for people in receipt of domiciliary services as a whole. The whole thrust of our work in Committee has been to ensure that we have a level playing field between direct payments beneficiaries and direct users of service. We would be wise to ensure that, as a result of Burgner, we bring it all together, that the system will be effective across the board and that we do not try to distinguish between the two.
  As we know, there are already safeguards for direct payments recipients. No one will be forced to take on any direct payment. When people accept a direct payment, they will not be abandoned by the local authority. Each local authority will need to have in place appropriate monitoring arrangements, so that they are satisfied that recipients are receiving the care that they require. Clause 2 makes it clear that, if the authority is not satisfied that the person is receiving the appropriate care, its responsibilities towards that person are the same as if no payment had been made, so people should not find themselves without care that the authority has said that they should have.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) raised again the VAT issue and whether I enjoy my conversations with my Treasury colleagues, which I always do. As I said to him, I think, in Committee, it is a matter not just of conversations, however friendly, with the Treasury, but of European Community law. As, I hope, I explained in Committee, EC law requires member states to exempt the supply of medical services by medical professions and United Kingdom legislation defines that as those on the statutory medical registers, so the UK cannot exempt the supply of services by someone who is not on a statutory medical register, or exempt supply that is not predominantly medical in nature. That is the state of EC law. Perhaps another day we can discuss that, but I hope that that makes it clear where my friendly conversations with the Treasury have got to.
  As has been said, some provider organisations have already issued practice documents to their members as a basis for ensuring standards, and some authorities have set up voluntary accreditation or registration schemes in
  36
  their regions. I expect that any such schemes would at least be brought to the attention of a person in receipt of direct payments, although, of course, it is entirely that person's choice whether to use the person or agency on such a list or someone else.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield for keeping this issue in front of us. We need to reconsider it carefully to find out how we should go forward. Today, I have not heard an hon. Member on either side of the House suggest an idea with which I am in conflict and with which I disagree in principle. We agree where we are trying to get to. We are trying to ensure that, whoever is providing services, there are adequate standards and safeguards. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, ensuring that necessary regulation is in place has always been behind our deregulatory drive. When we perceive that it is right to put such regulation in place, we will not hesitate to do so, but come Mr. Burgner's report, we will be in a better position to judge where and how to go forward. I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Member for Wakefield will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: This has been a useful debate of more than an hour on what is, all hon. Members would accept, an important issue. May I pick up on one or two points that have been raised? The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an important point about the new clause relating not to agencies, as my private Member's Bill does, but to individuals. Clearly, the new clause was tailored to the circumstances that this Bill provides for. As has been pointed out, services may be provided by family members, or by other people known to the recipient. Checks on the suitability of providers should be carried out, however, to ensure that some Joe Bloggs who meets a disabled person in a pub, having just ended a prison sentence for offences against an individual, cannot simply walk into a home and receive payments. The system must be properly regulated and inspected.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) spoke of the need for sensitive provisions. Indeed, we do not want a clumsy mechanism; we want a sensitive means of dealing with the arrangements that will result from the Bill. My hon. Friend also spoke of practical good sense, and I hope that the eventual outcome of the Bill will be a practical system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) reminded us that the new clause relates not merely to the interests of the person in receipt of services, but to monitoring of the use of public money. After all, a substantial amount of it will be in the hands of those purchasing services. As my hon. Friend said, some form of regulation would allow sanctions against the small number of unscrupulous people who would be attracted to such work. He pointed out that the Bill was a new departure, allowing people to contract on their own behalf. We should consider the implications of that.
  Let me repeat my hon. Friend's point. Opposition Members believe that there should be consistency of regulation across the public and private sectors: we believe in an even playing field. That is an important part of Labour party policy, which I hope will be taken into account when we consider the conclusions of the Burgner review.
  Having listened carefully to the Minister's speech, I noted that he did not disagree with any of the concerns expressed by hon. Members. He understands that there is

  37
  a problem—an anomaly. I hope that he appreciates that I am taking his word and assuming that he will ensure that action is taken following the Burgner review, which he says will appear shortly. I agree with him that problems might arise if we dealt with just one element of what is a wide-ranging issue. Although the Chair did not call me to order, my speech ranged beyond the specifics of the Bill, because, as the Minister knows, the issue extends beyond its provisions.
  I hope that, in the course of the review, we shall soon see Government action. Having listened to the Minister, however, and given that he seems to understand the seriousness of the problem, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6

  NATIONAL CRITERIA FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance which has the effect of establishing national criteria as to the account to be taken by an authority of the financial circumstances of an applicant for a payment under section 1 or section 4 above.
  (2) An authority making a payment under section 1 or section 4 above shall have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Milburn.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Milburn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Review of impact of different charging policies—
  `The Secretary of State shall institute a review of the impact on the level of direct payments under section 1(1) and section 4(1) of this Act of differing local authority charging policies in respect of the provision of community care services, and shall report his findings to Parliament within three years of the date of the commencement of the review.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 13 to 15.
  Amendment No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
  '(1A) Regulations under this section shall provide for the level of any payment under subsection (1) above to be calculated in such a way as to include all such costs as are reasonable to allow the person to fulfil his statutory obligations as an employer and to ensure adequate contingency arrangements in case of absence through sickness or other cause.'.
  Government amendment No. 16.
  Amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 16 and insert
  `shall, in determining how much to pay a person under that subsection, not require him to contribute more to the cost of securing community care services than it appears to the authority that it is reasonably practicable for him to contribute.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 17 to 19.
  Amendment No. 4, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
  '(1A) Regulations under this section shall provide for the level of any payment under subsection (1) above to be calculated in such a way as to include all such costs as are reasonable to allow the person to fulfil his statutory obligations as an employer and to ensure adequate contingency arrangements in case of absence through sickness or other cause.'.
  38
  Government amendment No. 20.
  Amendment No. 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 15 and insert
  `shall, in determining how much to pay a person under that subsection, not require him to contribute more to the cost of securing community care services than it appears to the authority that it is reasonably practicable for him to contribute.'.
  Mr. Milburn: The new clauses and amendments deal with a key principle which I think we all agree should underpin direct payments to disabled people: the principle of fairness. New clause 6 would establish a national framework for the charging and assessment procedures to which local authorities should have regard when making direct payments. Both service users and local authorities have become increasingly concerned about the extreme variations in the way in which authorities currently charge for direct services. The different charging systems mean that there are different yardsticks to determine how direct payments are made, the financial contributions that will be expected against those direct payments and the level at which such payments will be set for the individual disabled person.
  Each local authority currently has discretion to charge for non-residential services under the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. Broadly speaking, it is up to each authority to decide whether to charge and how much to charge, and, indeed, how to make the financial assessments that will determine the level of charging. Authorities therefore have considerable discretion when it comes to charging for such services.
  In sharp contrast, local authorities are required to charge for the residential and nursing home care for which they contract. Laws and regulations heavily circumscribe what they can do, making it absolutely clear when—and, to a large extent, what—they should charge for such services. There is a marked difference between the national framework that the Government have rightly established for residential community care services, and the current free-for-all that is non-residential care provision. Clearly, the comparator in the Bill is non-residential care services, and that is the sector that has been booming over the past few years.
  4.45 pm
  That charging is very controversial for many disabled people, and for the organisations that represent them. There is concern that disabled people should not have to pay for services, or make a financial contribution to direct payments. Organisations such as the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People point out that the services that disabled people receive from local authorities—and, therefore, the equivalent direct payments that they will receive when the Bill becomes law—come about as a result of their disability. Those services and direct payments are essential to their means of living.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will sympathise with the concern expressed by disabled people about charging for services. No hon. Member wants disabled people to be disadvantaged in relation to other members of society, and the last thing that any of us wants is for them to have to pay a double tax simply because of their disability. There is anxiety about

  39
  charging, and therefore about the financial contribution that will be equivalent to the contributions made towards a service if that is what someone chooses.
  As I said in Committee, we live in a far from ideal world. Charging goes on, and more local authorities are charging more for more services. Indeed, authorities are empowered to charge, and do so increasingly. New clause 6 does not compel them to do so; it merely seeks to regulate how they charge if they choose to do so. Above all, it seeks to bring fairness to charging procedures.
  The absence of the sort of national framework that new clause 6 would establish is at least in part responsible for the enormous variations in the amounts that councils are currently raising in care charges. An analysis undertaken for me by the House of Commons Library, for example, shows that the cash raised by local authorities from community care charges overall rose by 27 per cent. in just one year. In 1992–93, English and Welsh authorities raised some £481 million in charges for services such as home helps and meals on wheels; by 1993–94—the latest year for which we had figures—charges had risen to £609 million. Nearly two thirds of councils in the two countries had increased the amount of their social services spending that was raised through charges.
  There are wide variations in the amount of cash that is clawed back by local authorities charging for services. In Waltham Forest, the lowest in the country, only 1.4 per cent. of gross current social services spending is recouped through fees and charges, but in Buckinghamshire, the highest in the country, it is 18.4 per cent. The problem is that pressures on community care budgets undoubtedly force more local authorities to charge more for more services.
  A second problem is that, by creating incentives to charge but refusing to offer clear guidelines to local authorities on charging policies, the Government have invented a charter for confusion. The result of not having a national framework for non-residential care services is not only that more local authorities charge more for a greater number of services but that different local authorities operate markedly different means of charging. Local authorities make different assessments of the value of disabled people's assets and incomes—even their benefits—when calculating what financial contributions they should make towards a service. If they make different calculations for direct services, they will also make different calculations when assessing the direct payments that they make under the Bill.
  A number of organisations—not just disability organisations—have expressed great concern about the lottery that we currently have in charging provision, and local authority associations, for example, have spent many months trying to establish new protocols that they can issue to their member authorities on what is and what is not appropriate for local charging regimes. Of course disability organisations are concerned about the operation of those regimes, but, in the past few months, equally as reputable an organisation as the Audit Commission has highlighted the fact that people on income support in one authority may be charged more for care than people in receipt of a much higher income in another authority, simply because of the latitude that local authorities have in determining their charging procedures. Clearly, disability organisations are concerned that people's
  40
  benefits are often used to pay charges and that their disability-related living expenses are not always fully taken into account when their ability to pay is assessed.
  Amendment No. 3, for England and Wales, and amendment No. 4, for Scotland, would address the specific disability related cost concerns. They would ensure that when a local authority makes a direct payment it should properly take account of a disabled person's expenditure as an employer. There are lessons to be learnt from the experience of the independent living fund and from existing indirect payment schemes operated by local authorities. Once again, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People has highlighted how a failure properly to assess employer costs has led in some instances to poor employment practices and to more strain on the disabled employer.
  Similarly, just last year, the National Consumer Council highlighted the fact that different local authorities charge in markedly different ways in different parts of the country. It also found that widely different criteria were used to assess people's ability to pay. I mentioned in Committee that the Disability Alliance has indicated that forthcoming research shows that disabled people can be asked to pay double or even treble the charges that are paid by people who live in other areas but who receive broadly similar services.
  New clause 7 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to become a key player in assessing the impact of local authority charging procedures. It asks him to report to Parliament on how those procedures affect the operation of the direct payments approach. However helpful such retrospective action might be, a proactive initiative is what is most needed. Leaving it to the discretion of local authorities to decide how disabled people's financial status is taken into account when setting the level of direct payments runs counter to the principle of fairness that we all, surely, want the Bill to promote. People in one part of the country will be assessed in a markedly different way from people in other parts of the country if the Bill, as drafted, is passed; in other words, disabled people in neighbouring authorities will receive markedly different direct payments because of the way in which local authorities assess for financial contributions.
  I take the view that disabled people and the care that they receive, the contribution that they are asked to make, and indeed the price that they pay for their care, should not depend on where they live. I do not believe that any hon. Member wishes a new national lottery in community care provision to be created. We already have that for direct service provision. We should seek to avoid that for direct payments.
  New clause 6 seeks to move the Government towards a national charging framework so that disabled people across the country are treated equally and fairly.
  Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is seeking a common charging framework or policy across the country? He referred to the range of charging, from Waltham Forest to Buckinghamshire. Under a Labour Government, would he reduce the level of charging in Buckinghamshire to that in Waltham Forest or would he raise the level of charging in Waltham Forest

  41
  to that in Buckinghamshire? Where would he set the charge? If he does not leave it to the discretion of the local authority, he will have to set it.
  Mr. Milburn: The Minister has the wrong end of the stick. The idea is not to specify a set level of charging across all parts of the country; it is to determine the way in which assessments are made. As I shall explain later, we envisage a method whereby, through consultation, we reach consensus on the framework with disability organisations, with people concerned with elderly care and, indeed, with older people themselves as well as providers. The point is that people in my part of the world, in County Durham, should not be assessed differently from people in Dorset. They might live in different parts of England, but their needs will not vary markedly.
  Because of the latitude in charging methods, however, the Bill should enable the Government to consider ending the restrictions on choice for community care service users and direct payment recipients. The new clause seeks to persuade the Minister that his Department should issue clear guidelines to local authorities on the charging and assessment of people's financial circumstances in regard to direct payments, after proper consultation with disability organisations, local authority organisations, consumer organisations and others. I believe that there is already a basis for consensus.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his concept of fairness? It does not seem to me to be fair to have a uniform system imposed on everybody by some central diktat. People should be allowed to decide locally what they think is fair and, if they think that local decisions are unfair, to make strong representations to get them changed locally to what they think would be fairer.
  Mr. Milburn: Would the pressure on central Government or local government have brought about changes to policy in the way in which the hon. Gentleman and I would like? The world is not always as straightforward as that, is it? Therefore, the idea behind the national framework is to lend power to the concerns of local people, disabled people, in local settings.
  I shall tell the hon. Gentleman just what fairness means—it is where disability-related benefits are assessed fairly and equitably in different parts of the country. That does not happen at the moment; instead it is a lottery that bears down on individual disabled people. We are trying to deal with that through the national framework contained in new clause 6.
  5 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am as puzzled as my hon. Friends. Local authorities have begged to be given this service to operate. The Labour party usually wants to give more powers to local authorities, but, instead, the new clause will emasculate them.
  Mr. Milburn: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is arguing for or against emasculation. Clearly, the current latitude allowed to local authorities to decide charging procedures is not fair. Fairness—the famous level playing field about which the Minister spoke in our previous debate—is the common concern that we all want
  42
  established in the Bill. This element of charging is missing from the Minister's level playing field. We hope, through our arguments, to persuade him to accept it and to embody the principle of fairness in the Bill, which is fair in other ways.
  New clause 6 would enshrine in the Bill the principle of a national framework that would cover not only residential but non-residential care services. That approach is advocated by local authority associations. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) jumped to the defence of local authorities, but she would do well to take note of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils, which back the idea of a national framework. They are also looking for assistance, advice and clarity.
  Many disability organizations—for example, Disability Alliance—also favour that approach, which would enshrine the principle of fairness in the Bill. Surely it is unfair that some people are treated differently from others simply because of where they happen to live and the policy adopted by individual local authorities in their areas. A national framework, as advocated in new clause 6, would end that unfairness, but it would still leave it to the local authority to decide whether to charge.
  I repeat that this is not about imposing on local authorities any obligation to charge or a target level for charges, as the Minister called it. It is merely a means to ensure that, if they want to charge, like is compared with like and people in different parts of the country are treated equitably.
  That principle of fairness also underpins amendment No. 1, relating to England and Wales, and amendment No. 6, relating to Scotland. They would ensure that the financial assessments that are made by a local authority in determining the charge for a community care service also apply to the determination of the equivalent direct payment. Once again, the objective is to compare like with like. If a service is free, the equivalent direct payment should be free. A disabled person should not be required to make a financial contribution towards a direct payment if he or she is not making a financial contribution towards the equivalent service.
  Similarly, if the service is means tested, we accept that a disabled person should make a contribution towards the direct payment. Once again, it is the famous level playing field being established between services provided and direct payments. The priority must be to establish a level playing field within a local authority so that there is neither advantage nor disadvantage in receiving a direct payment or the equivalent service. None of us wants there to be any form of perverse financial incentives either as impediments or as obstacles to receiving direct payments or any financial incentives for receiving them.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How on earth can we nationally decide what is reasonably practicable? What is reasonably practicable for one local authority could be impracticable for another. That is not remotely national; it is purely subjective for the local authority concerned.
  Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall try to allay her concerns, especially about national criteria.
  Our debates in Committee were about maximising choice and ensuring that disabled people were free to choose whether they wanted to receive a service or an

  43
  equivalent direct payment. There does not appear to be any disagreement about fairness, level playing fields or equality of provision. The problem is that the Bill does not apply those principles.
  A local authority's power to charge for services is contained in section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, which states that when a local authority is satisfied that a person's means
  "are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to pay for the service"
  he should not be required to pay more than what is
  "reasonably practicable for him to pay."
  In other words, any charging policy for service provision uses the test of what is reasonably practicable. The phrase "reasonably practicable" is not contained in the Bill, which instead says that an authority should have regard to the person's financial circumstances. That appears to involve a harsher and a much more stringent test than that contained in the Act.
  The original draft of the Bill seemed to involve a means test at all stages, whether or not the equivalent service was free. That may or may not have been the Minister's intention; I do not think that it was. Nevertheless, that would have been the outcome of the Bill. In Committee, the Minister kindly agreed to take away our amendments for careful consideration. I welcomed his positive response then and I welcome it now. The results of his consideration are Government amendment No. 16, the consequential amendments Nos. 13 to 15 and their Scottish variant, amendments Nos. 17 to 20.
  Those amendments more clearly reflect the provision in the 1983 Act. As they no longer imply a means test, I welcome them—but with one extremely important caveat. The Government's amendments make explicit a proposal that is not contained in our amendments—that direct payments be made net, not gross, of charges. I shall return to that matter later when we debate amendments Nos. 9 and 10. For the time being, I merely state that such an approach actively discriminates against the direct payment recipient in favour of the direct service user. Again, I am sure that that is not what the Minister intended. It runs counter to the principles of fairness and the famous level playing field between users and direct payment recipients. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider withdrawing his amendments in favour of Labour's amendments.
  We want direct payment recipients and direct service users to be treated equally and fairly. We want no impediments or incentives to prevent disabled people from making a genuine choice in the form of their care. We want all disabled people to be treated fairly—whatever form of care they choose and wherever they live. I hope that the House will agree to give them that choice by passing new clause 6 and the new clauses and amendments that are grouped with it.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I want briefly to discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and new clause 6 in this group. I am happy to do so, more especially after that impressive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).
  Amendment No. 1 would make means tests for direct payments identical to those for services, while new clause 6 seeks to make all means tests that are imposed more or
  44
  less consistent throughout the country. To allow different means tests to be applied would enable local authorities to sway the decision of an entitled disabled person, either towards its services or towards a direct payment, depending on their own preferences or political proclivities. That would be wrong and unfair.
  I believe that fairness will be achieved only if, in addition to the section 7 guidance that the Government have promised, the wording in the Bill covering the assessment of the contribution in the case of a direct payment is identical to the wording used in the assessment of a contribution towards local authority services in section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983
  ("reasonably practicable for him to pay".)
  In Committee in another place, the Minister gave assurances that neither service users nor direct payment recipients would be treated more favourably than the other on the question of the financial contribution that each is expected to make towards the cost of their care. She spoke, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, of a level playing field and of no perverse financial incentives. She then went on to refer to section 7 guidance on this important issue. That is in House of Lords Hansard, 15 January 1996, at columns 402 and 403.
  Such assurances are heartening, but they fall a little short of requiring the same means tests for services as for direct payments. To achieve a truly level playing field, the two means tests have to be at least similar, if not identical. The amendment uses the words "reasonably practicable" in describing the assessment of needs for direct payments. Those are the identical words used in section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act in relation to services. I can see no valid objection to using the same words for the two means tests.
  The changes now proposed to the Bill seem to me to be a reasonably practicable way of achieving what everyone—including the Government—professes to want.
  Amendment No. 3 would ensure that the full costs of securing a service are taken into account by local authorities in calculating direct payments. Leaving aside the question of the contribution from the recipient, the payment should cover the real full cost of securing the agreed service. In the case of an agency providing the service, it should allow the agency's staff to enjoy terms of employment similar to those offered to local authority staff. If it is used by the recipient directly to employ a helper, the payment should allow the recipient to fulfil all her or his duties as a good employer.
  In assessing how much a service provided by a local authority costs, the authority should ensure that the real total cost of providing the service is calculated. That should include all overheads and supervisory and administrative staff costs. The comparison between direct payments and in-house costs relating to individual clients must not allow a local authority to introduce direct payments as a means of reducing the quality and cheapening the cost of providing essential services.
  Turning to an associated issue, I welcome the proposal in the Government's consultation paper, at paragraph 20, that a local authority will allow an individual to supplement whatever she or he receives as a direct payment from her or his own resources. In all such cases, however, the local authority must somehow be prevented

  45
  from reassessing what the individual can afford and demanding an increased contribution. Again, that is an important issue, to which I very much hope the Government will make a helpful and positive response today.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on providing such a full explanation about new clauses 6, 7, and 1 and Government clause 16. However, that also presents a problem. Because he gave such an excellent and comprehensive explanation, there is very little left to say. Moreover, the points that he missed were picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). So I am somewhat left at a loss, and, no doubt, Conservative Members would like me to sit down. But I should like to say a couple of things.
  It is important that we have the necessary framework in place to ensure that people are not discriminated against on a geographical basis and that there is equity. New clause 6 is important in that respect. As for the review, I should have thought that Conservative Members would always think that it is sensible to review progress, to report back and to fine tune. That seems to be sensible to me.
  I suspect that, later today, we will debate the Government's concerns about eligibility. I think that they, wrongly, have a vision of opening the floodgates and people rushing in to take up direct payments. I believe that the opposite will be true and that, in some areas, the services will have to be promoted if people are to take advantage of them.
  One thing that can affect eligibility—I do not think that the Minister has taken it into account—is charging. If charging is excessive, people will not take up direct payments. If we get the charging wrong, we will put restrictions on disabled people who wish to take up this new, excellent facility offered by the Government.
  The "Disabled in Britain" survey, which was conducted by Scope in 1994, quite correctly made the point that 72 per cent. of disabled people want more independence and that 59 per cent. of disabled people would like more control over their everyday lives. So the issues are choice, independence and control. However, those goals do not seem to accord with what people have said about what they might have to put up with because of the charging policy and its effect on direct payments. One person said:
  "Relying on other people is the most frustrating part of my life, not being able to do what I want, when I want".
  That frustration would end with a proper direct payment scheme.
  Another person said:
  "Once I was left in bed for over 40 hours, and on two occasions they should have got me up at 9 am but came at noon."
  That could end with a proper direct payments scheme.
  Another person said:
  "Home helps and night sitters who get me out of bed suddenly, without notice, don't turn up, and I have to ring people and get them out of bed to help. Social Services 'out of hours' emergency phones are not manned."
  We have all heard the horror stories about people who, sometimes through no fault of the local authority, are told, "Well, you may want to get up at 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock
  46
  in the morning, but you cannot get up till 10 o'clock in the morning because that is the earliest that we can send someone to get you up. You may want to go to bed at 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night, but unfortunately you have to go to bed at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock at night because that is the way the local authority service is geared." By excessive charging, we could rule out many people who want to make use of that facility.
  I now turn to a survey on charging for community care services which was reported in a briefing to the all-party disablement group on 27 February. It is important that we recognise what disabled people think about present charging policies. The study was called, "The Cost of Care—the impact of charging policy on the lives of disabled people." It was commissioned by Disability Alliance and Social and Community Planning Research, and it was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The disabled people interviewed had a high level of dependency on care provided and most had little scope to reduce or withdraw from services. People are captives in terms of the amount of care they have to have, so we must be careful that we do not overcharge them. Market forces do not apply.
  One of those interviewed said:
  "I can't do without that service, no matter what happens. You know, when push comes to shove I've got to go to the toilet."
  That is why the service is needed. If the charges are raised for such a service, there is no way that someone can say, "Well, that charge is too high and I'm going to drop out of it."
  There was strong evidence that people were receiving fewer services than they needed and were reluctant to ask for more. One reason was that they thought that the local authority did not have enough resources and the second was that they were worried about charges. We need to ensure that we get the charges right so that we do not put people in that position in future.
  Service users found the charging process confusing and uncertain. The quality of information that people received about charging systems was variable, with some users having no recollection of any written information. People were unclear about why charges were introduced and about how their individual charges had been calculated. That is the important point. As set out in new clause 6, we need a framework that will allow people to see how their charges have been allocated.
  There are difficulties for disabled people with charging. If one looks in isolation at a service that a disabled person receives and if one assesses his or her income, one might think that he or she could easily afford that service. But people may require several services. They may have not only a home help, but meals on wheels; they may attend a day centre or receive a number of different services. If charging is done on the basis of individual services, people with disabilities may be overcharged and some of the money that they receive as a result of their disability, which needs to be spent because of their disability, may be taken into account when their income is assessed. I hope that the Minister will bear those points in mind and that he will look favourably on new clauses 6 and 7.
  Mr. Barry Field: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not having been present in the Chamber throughout the debate, although I have been following it on the monitor.

  47
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) mentioned market forces. One of the problems, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows well because he has been attentive in listening to the case put by the Isle of Wight on a number of occasions on these difficult issues, is that in a small community that is severed by sea from the mainland, the oversupply of just a few beds causes a problem in terms of market forces, just as having too few beds would, although that has not been the case in recent years. Despite our best efforts, although the Isle of Wight has a very high standard of care in both the public and private sectors, it is often impossible to get relatives to send clients to the island for care because visiting them by ferry would be an extra difficulty. It is rather difficult to operate market forces in this area.
  Much has been said about regional variations. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows—I have told him this almost ad nauseam—the island has exceptional statistics. We have one of the highest populations in the United Kingdom who have elderly and disabled needs and who live independently. One of the curious things in the formula is the question of home ownership. As property prices generally on the island are fairly low in comparison with those in the surrounding mainland area and as there has always been a high level of home ownership—one of the highest in the UK, if not the highest—the formula conspires against the Isle of Wight. Of course, we think that everything conspires against the Isle of Wight.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having arranged the independent review, to which he referred earlier. That has been widely welcomed by the private sector and I hope that it will come to some conclusions. I also hope that it will produce results which will smooth the whole process.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, East spoke about disabled clients' needs. I have raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister and it is of concern to a number of private home operators. There is a view—I do not say that it is anything more than that because I do not want to re-energise a debate of which we have had rather a lot on these vexed issues—that the local authority tends to accept for its own homes those who have long-term disabilities and long-term requirements. They have a client list of those who are likely to require longer-term arrangements than those who are placed with the private sector. I do not say that that is definitely so, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to it. I hope that in due course, the independent review will look at that.
  I take this opportunity to apologise to my hon. Friend. When I came to see him with a deputation, Isle of Wight council said that the situation involving Islecare, the council's arm's-length company—it is subsidised by the council—which runs homes, had been resolved. I now find that not to be the case although I very much hope that it will be in the next few weeks. I take this opportunity to put on the record my apology for having misled my hon. Friend, although not deliberately.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House whether it is still the case in the Isle of Wight, as it was reported to be in 1995, that if one of his constituents receiving care in his own home from the Isle of Wight social services department had savings of more
  48
  than £16,000, he would be required to pay a rate of £7 an hour for home care. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if that formula were applied in assessing the contribution that should be made for direct payment, it would entirely wipe out the direct payment? I imagine that he would not find that a pleasant prospect to contemplate for his constituents. If he is unable to tell me whether I am right in my surmise, perhaps the Minister will tell me when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. Field: I am reluctant to be tempted down that route by the hon. Gentleman. What he will not know, and what has not been reported in the national press, is that there has been a lively debate on the implementation and the interpretation of the legislation concerning my constituents between the Isle of Wight council and the health authority. Quite a bit of correspondence has flowed back and forth between my hon. Friend the Minister and his legal advisers and me about precisely how the legislation is to be interpreted.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, we found ourselves in a rather strange situation: the health authority had a different charging rate for similar care to that operated by the Isle of Wight council. In fact, it was markedly cheaper. Since the article in the press, we have a new director of social services, Bob Culshaw, and an absolute assurance by the chairman of social services and the health authority that there will be no more nonsensical duplication of effort and empire building involving public money.
  The debate concerns about 130,000 people on the Isle of Wight, of whom just under 102,000 are on the electoral register. It could not be more nonsensical than to have two separate empires competing to provide the same sort of care and service for the same clients. I am pleased to say that, with much council and health authority co-operation and much help from the Minister, we are beginning to see an end to that duplication and much more joint working and effort, which is the only way in which such legislation will ever work.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) for eloquently and, to a certain extent, ingeniously bringing to the House's notice some of the Isle of Wight's problems and the solutions that are being found. Although, of course, the Bill does not cover the provision of beds, other than those used for respite care, his points about inspection and comparability are well made. I have certainly listened to his points, as I have to those raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the Isle of Wight, will he say whether there could be any circumstances in which the contribution could exceed the amount of a direct payment? If so, does he intend that local authorities should use a power to abate the requirement? Otherwise, someone theoretically receiving direct payments would be denied both the service and the direct payment.
  Mr. Bowis: Under the Bill, with its regulations and guidance, the contribution could not be more than the cost

  49
  of the service. That would be absurd, as has been made clear in everything that we have said. Charges have to be reasonable, as they do right across the board—irrespective of direct payments. I would want evidence of any such case to be brought to my attention to see how such an anomaly—if that is what it is—had come about.
  Amendments Nos. 13 to 20, to which the hon. Member for Darlington referred, fulfil the commitment that I made in Committee. We were conscious that some people felt that the wording of the Bill might be interpreted as implying that local authorities, under their charging policies, should treat people who receive direct payments differently from the way that they would treat people who receive services direct. We were satisfied that the Bill would not have that effect, but I think the added clarity that the amendments provide will be helpful, and I am pleased to draw the amendments to the attention of the House. They amend the wording to match more closely the wording in existing legislation on charging, as has been said.
  There is no difference between my view and that of the hon. Member for Darlington. If he looks carefully at the amendments that he has tabled, linked with clause 1(1) and 1(2), he will see that there is clearly a net operation and that there is no difference between the effect of either his amendments or ours. As he said, we will return to the net issue in a later debate.
  The local authority is not required to means test. If the authority proposes a financial contribution, and the person receiving direct payments satisfies it that he cannot reasonably afford that amount, it must reduce the amount that that person is expected to contribute to a level that it considers he can afford, if anything. That puts it in line with the law in relation to charging for non-residential services. Both the current law and the Bill leave local authorities discretion over whether—and, if so, how, and how much to charge—to set a flat rate or a scale of charges.
  New clause 6 provides for the introduction of national criteria for charging, which we discussed at some length in Committee. As I said then and must say again, it is not appropriate to try to address that much wider issue in this Bill. We kept returning to our favourite phrase "a level playing field" in Committee, and I return to it again. To introduce national criteria for direct-payments recipients, but not for people who receive services, would create a two-tier system. That would seriously undermine the level playing field that we are trying to create as a result of our amendments, for which Opposition Members have been pressing.
  Mr. Milburn: I should like to clarify the Minister's thinking. Is he saying that his opposition to new clause 6 is a matter of practicality or of principle?
  Mr. Bowis: I am saying that opposition to it involves a certain amount of practicality. The practicalities concern not just direct payments but issues that my hon. Friends have raised about how one could establish a national criteria and a national charging scheme. I think that it would be unworkable and unwelcome.
  I turn to new clause 7. We are already committed to reviewing how direct payments work and to reporting our findings to Parliament within three years of them becoming available. That review will look at how the Act
  50
  is working. It would not be appropriate for it to examine how different local authorities are exercising their discretion on charging. Differences in local authority charging policies are a much wider issue than direct payments and are monitored in other ways. Local authorities are, of course, accountable to their local electorates and the district auditor for their charging policies. We shall expect local authorities to act under the requirements of the Act and the guidance that we intend to issue. There is no need for an additional review of the impact of different charging policies on direct payments.
  On amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and as I have already explained, the level of a direct payment must be sufficient to enable the recipient to secure the services that the payments are intended to cover—this may help the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—and must enable them to do so legally. Payments must not be so small that people can afford the services they need only by breaking the law and not complying with legal responsibilities such as paying tax, and so on. If a local authority deliberately offers inadequate direct payments, it would not, in effect, be offering direct payments at all. It would not be a proper exercise of the authority's powers and could be challenged.
  As I have said, the Government intend to issue section 7 guidance saying that the direct payment should be sufficient for the individual to purchase the relevant service—taking into account, of course, any financial contribution that the authority judges that the individual can afford to make towards the cost of care. The guidance will say that the level of payment should be set taking account of the fact that it may involve legal responsibilities, such as paying VAT, or national insurance. Local authorities must also have regard to value for money—this addresses some of the arguments in Committee—and may not be prepared to fund specific costs if the service can be secured more cost-effectively in another way.
  Local authorities will need to discuss with people what contingency arrangements should be made using direct payments, and they will need to bear in mind the cost of those arrangements in setting the level of direct payments. If a contingency arises for which someone does not have cover, resulting in that person's needs not being met, under clause 2, the local authority's responsibilities towards that person will be the same as if no direct payment had been made. People will not be left without the care that they need.
  The safeguards are adequate and it would not be appropriate to go further. Subject to the Bill's requirements, local authorities must determine the level of direct payments. Just as authorities decide on the nature and level of a community care service someone receives, so they have to decide on the level of the direct payment, the basis of its calculation and what it is meant to cover. Not everyone who receives direct payment will wish to become an employer, although many will. Others will contract with an agency, or secure services in some other way. To give local authorities a legal duty to include an allowance for a specific item that would not necessarily be relevant would not be sensible and would fundamentally undermine local authorities' discretion in their dealings with individuals—which, after all, is at the heart of community care legislation. I ask the hon. Member for Darlington to think again on the new clause. In doing so, I hope that he will join me in supporting the Government

  51
  amendments that were tabled in response to Labour's earlier amendments. I hope that we can have a meeting of minds on that, at least.
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It seems that that well-bandied around phrase "level playing field" has different meanings in different parts of the House. I am grateful to him in particular for tabling a new amendment that clarifies some of the concerns that disability organisations have raised with all members of the Committee about an inclination towards a means-tested system. That much is clear, and we will return to the issue of net and gross charges in a later debate.
  From what the Minister has said about his concerns about a national framework for charging, it seems there is some agreement about the difficulties in implementing such a framework. I noted with interest, however, that the Minister seemed to indicate that, in principle, he was not opposed to the concept.
  Mr. Bowis indicated dissent.
  Mr. Milburn: The Minister is on the record as saying that.
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put on the record that that is not the case. I stress that there were good practical reasons why I thought that such a scheme was not only inoperable, but would be undesirable and unwelcome. Because of that sensible set of practicalities, I formed a principle upon which I am opposed to the scheme.
  Mr. Milburn: I just about followed the Minister's logic. Who does he have in mind when he says that the scheme would be "unwelcome"? Disability organisations welcome the idea of a framework that brings some clarity. Local authorities—which must administer the direct payments and the community care charging framework in general—welcome the idea of a national framework, as do the local authority associations. When he says that it is unwelcome, he means that it is unwelcome in the minds of Ministers. That is all well and good, but he cannot claim to speak for the nation on this matter.
  I am concerned because the principles of fairness and equality are central to the thrust of the Bill. Those principles have been articulated in the phrase "a level playing field", but I am concerned that the Minister wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to be able to say that there is equality between direct service recipients and direct payment recipients while leaving it up to the local authority to interpret that equality.
  The new clause and the amendments aim to bring clarity to that position. They do not aim to impose anything upon local authorities, but intend to operate a fair and equal framework that can apply in all parts of the country. I am disappointed by the Minister's response, but since we need to make progress on other important matters I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause

  DIRECT PAYMENTS
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Bowis: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 9, after 'services,' insert
  'and

  (b) the person is of a description which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State,'.

  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 12.
  Mr. Bowis: As we have heard today and on many occasions in the past both inside and outside the House, the Bill has overwhelming support in the country. The Labour party was of course initially hostile, as we saw during the debate on the Queen's Speech, but I think that Labour came to see the great potential benefits for disabled people—not least having spoken to representatives of the disability lobbies—and so, happily, it has been able to support the Government's measure. I very much welcome that.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: We seem to have witnessed a change of personality by the Minister within a few minutes. On what basis does he claim that Labour opposed direct payments during the debate on the Queen's Speech? There is not a shred of evidence to support that.
  Mr. Bowis: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard report of the Queen's Speech debate, he will find that some of his hon. Friends put forward—
  Mr. Clarke: Who? The leader of the Labour party supported the idea.
  Mr. Bowis: No, not the leader of the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Hansard report, he will find that some of his hon. Friends cast aspersions on the principles—largely because they were worried that they might be some form of privatisation. I am seeking to embrace the hon. Gentleman in support of the measure, and I acknowledge that he now gives 100 per cent. support to the Bill.
  The Bill comes from a long campaign by individuals and groups who wanted the independence and the flexibility to manage their disability and their working lives so that they could more easily hold down a job or voluntary work, so that they could more easily bring up a family—as I saw the other day—and so that they could have more dignity in their relationship with the people who provided care services for them. That was reflected in what the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said.
  My noble Friend Lord Macoll pioneered legislation that was picked up and developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—
  Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My concern about the Minister's speech

  53
  arises from a suspicion that he may have picked up the one prepared for him by his officials for Third Reading, rather than the one for the amendment. We have limited time, but is that what has happened?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That cannot possibly be a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) listens, he will discover where my argument is leading. I am sure that he would join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the other parents of the Bill, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).
  Another stalwart advocate of the Bill was my erstwhile hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who urged us to bring this in on a limited basis so that it could be seen to work and so that it would reassure those who were genuinely concerned about the potential costs and about numbers of applicants. Although he believed at that stage that there should be a tight definition of disability to limit eligibility, we have gone much further than that. Nevertheless, I agreed with him then, as I do now, that the pace of implementation is important.
  We suggested that there should be waves of implementation, as have been used successfully when introducing other health and welfare reforms. It is because the idea at first came from disabled people of working age that we thought it right that they should go first. We did, however, listen carefully to the people who had contributed to our consultation exercise—including hon. Members from all parties—and decided as a result to expand this first wave to include learning as well as physically disabled people.
  It was, and is, our clear intention that this was to be the first wave and that other waves would follow. Indeed, I am able to confirm that, at the end of the first year of the operation of the scheme, we shall review it with a view to extending it to people over 65. This would, as is only sensible, be subject to there not having been serious problems apparent in the first year of operation that demanded a refining or revision of the scheme in some way. I hope that that puts at rest the concerns that I know have been genuinely felt by colleagues in the House and by some people outside that the Bill in some way excludes older people for all time.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said, but although there is a strong practical case for phasing and taking such an enormously important and beneficial change at a manageable pace, why does he insist on arrogating to himself and to the Government the power to determine the rate of that change? Why should it not be for local authorities to determine the process and the timing of the introduction of the scheme? Would it not be far better to assess the eligibility to receive direct payments in terms of individual need rather than of broad and inevitably crude categories of claimants? To do so on that basis is inevitably discriminatory.
  Mr. Bowis: As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, initially he wanted to limit the scheme to a narrow
  54
  category and we are seeking to go further—I shall return to his point about local government. However, I certainly do not want to arrogate anything to myself or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—good as arrogation to him would prove to be. I want to arrogate the power to Parliament. Under the Bill, it is a matter for the Secretary of State to bring to Parliament the phasing of those waves of implementation. That is sensible.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister said that he would consider extending the scheme to the elderly after the first year. Will he go further and consider establishing some pilot projects to extend the measure to the elderly during that first year? That would demonstrate his good faith and show that he had in mind extending the measure in due course.
  Mr. Bowis: I do not intend to put that on the face of the Bill, but there is nothing to stop pilots—as the hon. Gentleman would describe them—being established under existing and voluntary schemes, as that might help to inform the pattern of activity. We shall be interested in how the implementation takes place, and, once local authorities become responsible for the schemes, whether they are able to set them up effectively and manage the demand, the procedures and the monitoring in such a way as I desperately want, so that the measure works and gains public respect and support and does not collapse in recriminations.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: We are at the heart of the legislation and we want to be clear as to the Government's position. If the Government happen to be in office in 12 months' time, will they review the position, or is the Minister telling us today that they will remove the exclusions in 12 months' time?
  Mr. Bowis: No. I have tried to make it clear that when the scheme has been operating for a year, we shall be able to assess—not with any great bureaucratic procedures, but in a fairly simple, straightforward way—how well it has worked in the first year. As I said, we shall do that with a view to extending the scheme, provided that no substantial problems have been identified leading to its refinement, review and reform.
  Mr. Clarke: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but we want to be absolutely clear. What evidence of information does he think that there will be in a year's time—if his party happens to be in Government—that we do not have now?
  Mr. Bowis: We shall have, in Government, evidence of a year's operation of the direct payments scheme. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's point, but I want to deal with some serious issues. I hope that he will take the matter seriously as it is important to look carefully at how the scheme is operated. We share the same objective. We all want to make it possible for everyone who is eligible to benefit, but I want to make sure that we have a system in place that is operating effectively.
  Mr. Roger Berry: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Bowis: I shall make some progress and then of course I shall give way.

  55
  I wish to dismiss one piece of nonsense that has crept into some of the public discussion of the matter. Much has been said about discrimination. I want to underline absolutely and clearly that the measure does not discriminate against older people, any more than it discriminates in favour of disabled and learning disabled people. It is simply an operational matter of who is in the first wave and who is in the second and any subsequent waves. Everyone to whom I have spoken—I have heard it again today—agrees that implementation must be phased.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Stratford—on—Avon, social service departments made it clear that they wanted phasing and a clear two to one majority of those who wanted phasing wanted the Government and Parliament to set the phases. The lobbies and groups wanted phasing, but I have to say—I have spoken to many of them—that they are not of one mind as to how it should be done. Some wanted phasing by numbers—rationing on the basis of first come, first served—others wanted phasing by level of costs, others wanted geographical pilots and others thought that the whole onus should be placed on the shoulders of local authorities to decide their own phasing policy.
  Since our debates in Committee, I have re-examined all the options. I have met a range of people with experience in these matters and I have visited and talked to the members of one of the best existing schemes in Kingston upon Thames. Each of the alternatives to the one that we have proposed results in difficulties, anomalies and unfairnesses. I have pointed out that social services at operational level wants Parliament to set the phasing. Phasing by numbers would mean that two people with equal needs and equal abilities to manage a direct payments package would be dealt with differently. That could lead only to resentment and possibly even to judicial review.
  Rationing by cost would seem to be both unfair and a perverse incentive to increase the cost of a package in order to qualify. I also have the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden)—what I call the "Kemptown warning"—ringing in my ears. On Second Reading, he rightly and fairly pointed out that once local authorities had the discretion to introduce a scheme, local pressure groups would be unremitting in their determination to see them do so. My great fear is that, without an effective phasing mechanism, authorities with no experience of any scheme whatsoever would either decline to start one, or would try to do everything at once and make a hash of it, perhaps with vulnerable people suffering.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: My hon Friend mentioned what he calls the "Kemptown warning". I understand when he is saying about phasing. If he were to give the House a specific timetable—based on exact dates—as to when the scheme would come into operation, phased, I would find that quite acceptable. I am in a difficult position as I know that my hon. Friend is saying with total good faith that he wants to review, consider and examine the position at a particular time without making a firm specific commitment. However, will he look again at phasing and say over what period of time—specifying
  56
  the length of that time and exactly how it would come in—he plans to phase in the scheme, rather than just talking about reviewing and judging it?
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have tried to explain that there will be a timetable. However, I cannot say exactly when the Bill will become an Act of Parliament or exactly how long it will take for the regulations and guidance to be agreed having taken into account the advice of the technical advisory group among others. I know that he understands that, but when the legislation has been in operation for one year, we shall take evidence from the experience of the social service departments that have been operating the scheme for a year and at that point we shall see whether it is possible—as we want—to move forward with the next wave so that people over 65 become eligible. My only criterion is that we must reserve the right to see whether any serious problems have emerged from the first year's experience which would lead to the scheme needing to be reviewed and perhaps refined and reformed in some way.
  I hope that that helps my hon. Friend to understand that we have a timetable in mind. We have good faith in what we are seeking to do. In fact, we are all seeking to achieve the same things. I believe that we can get there with a little patience, bearing in mind the fact that we must have phasing to enable those local authorities that want it to get their schemes up and running efficiently and effectively.
  6 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way once again, but, as he has said, this is the kernel of our discussions. The Government were originally far from keen and sought to exclude people with learning difficulties from the Bill. They eventually changed their mind without a 12-month trial, so why is that not possible for disabled people beyond the age of 65?
  Mr. Bowis: It is not true that we were opposed to including people with learning disability. In consultation, we put forward an option that we should include them, but they were not in the first proposition, which came from people of working age who were physically disabled. All the pressure came from that quarter so we said, "Fair enough. We will start with you." As a result of that comparatively small add-on of, potentially, 4,000 people or families, we felt able to include those with physical and learning disabilities in the first wave. That 4,000 is quite different from the potential 700,000 people or families should we take the proposal a stage further.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister spoke of his consultation with the voluntary organisations. How many of them wanted the exclusion of people over the age of retirement?
  Mr. Bowis: It is interesting to note that many of the schemes now in operation originally excluded people over the age of retirement. Some lifted that exclusion once the scheme was up and running. We have learnt a lesson from those schemes.
  Among the voluntary groups, everyone agrees that there should be phasing, but no single preferred route has been suggested as to how that should be done. It is

  57
  perfectly fair to say to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that I accept that, in all honesty, those groups would prefer phasing not to be exercised on an age basis. Those voluntary organisations agreed that there should be phasing, however, and I asked them how to go about it. A lot of ideas were put forward, but no single, preferred option. I have mentioned some of those ideas that would cause too many anomalies and unfairnesses.
  Mr. Heppell: I must take exception to the idea that everyone agrees with phasing. The Minister referred to the views of those at the sharp edge of social services. I have the comments of those at the sharp edge in my constituency, including the head of health and disability policy in the social services department of Nottinghamshire county council. That briefing does not talk about phasing, but states:
  "This Bill is generally welcomed (although there are some reservations)"
  because it puts an end to third-party involvement. It also expressed concern
  "that the recommendation is likely to be piloted for people under 65 only … In Nottinghamshire, we currently fund 128 schemes where people wish to administer their own care support, of which 78"—
  well over half—
  "are over 65."
  That briefing continues:
  "In short"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a long intervention. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman sought to catch my eye a little later.
  Mr. Bowis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's authority welcomes the proposal. I believe that I noted two errors in what it perceives the measure to be when he read out the briefing paper. Should he refer to that document later, I am sure that we could discuss it in more detail.
  Mr. Thurnham: The Minister has been extremely generous in giving way. He spoke about consulting local authorities that have had experience of running schemes. I am having some difficulty in understanding exactly what problems he has in mind, because I have a copy of the response from Avon social services. It makes it clear that it has not been swamped with requests and has, so far, just been contacted by 50 people who want to take advantage of the scheme. It feels that the Government are being "excessively cautious" and it states:
  "To set an age limit of under 65 years is ageist and again over-cautious."
  In view of its experience, I am confused about exactly what are the problems that the Minister imagines exist somewhere out there. Avon is running the scheme now. It is not being swamped and it is not experiencing the problems envisaged by the Minister.
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I hope that we are being responsibly cautious, but cautious only in the sense that we want to set a responsible pace for implementation. I know that my hon. Friend also wants that. I shall deal with my hon. Friend's specific point once I have made some progress.
  58
  We are discussing a sensitive matter, and it would not take many examples of people failing to cope with managing the money, being abused by a cowboy operator, or being taken advantage of by an unscrupulous neighbour for the tabloid presses to run and the news cameras to roll and for blame to be put on Parliament for letting that happen without due care and attention.
  We have heard, of course, that we should be reassured by the fact that schemes have been around for 14 years. That is true, but in only one county—Hampshire. I am not aware of any others that have anything approaching that length of experience. Most of those of which we are aware have been set up only in the past few years, and most are, and have been, extremely small.
  My officials visited Hampshire last summer and even there just 260 clients were using the scheme, compared to the total of more than 9,000 households receiving support from social services home care in that county. It is by far the largest scheme; most others have up to 50 clients—the one I saw the other day had 40—and many are making payments to just a handful of people. Some have an age limit. Other schemes, including that in Hampshire, have had one in the past but have now removed it. Whether there is no age limit, the majority of clients are, nevertheless, under 65.
  I am not suggesting for one minute that there are not valuable lessons to be learned from those schemes, but we must not exaggerate their importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East should note that the research by the Policy Studies Institute found 48 local authorities were operating some form of scheme; 34 which were not; and a further 46 that did not respond to that survey. Clearly, many local authorities have no experience on which to draw. Most authorities that have schemes are not administering the payments. The arrangements that they have made to comply with the current law may give them some experience that may be relevant when they come to make direct payments themselves, but I suspect even then that there will be lessons to learn. There are therefore good reasons for treading carefully but positively.
  The new power to offer direct payments will apply to any community care service with the exception of permanent residential care. There is no lower or upper threshold for the value of services somebody must be assessed as needing before he can be considered for direct payments. No non-residential services are excluded. The power would be available throughout the United Kingdom. We estimate that the numbers in the first wave to be around 40,000. A subsequent wave, should it include all those over 65, would increase the numbers to around 700,000.
  I appreciate, of course, that by no means all the people in either of those categories would be able to manage direct payments, or, indeed, wish to do so. Equally, there will be some people currently paying for their own direct services who might seek access to the schemes.
  What we are proposing is that all disabled people under the age of 65 who are willing and able, with help if necessary, to manage direct payments should be eligible for them from the start: that is to say, all disabled people whether they have physical disabilities, sensory disabilities or learning disabilities or whether they are disabled by mental or other forms of illness, including HIV and AIDS or any combination of disabilities.

  59
  The numbers may turn out to be quite small, as forecast by many people, but I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East to look carefully at the report of Policy Studies Institute, which concluded that current demand is restrained by lack of awareness and uncertainty about the legal status of payments schemes. The Bill will change both those factors. The report also found that two thirds of people in the study who were receiving services were unaware of the existence of a local payment scheme. When they were told that such a scheme existed, just over half expressed an interest in using it.
  We cannot be certain therefore that demand will remain at current low levels once the Bill is implemented. I do not see that as a threat. I see it as an encouraging sign that the legislation will benefit a larger number of people than we may have supposed. I see it, however, as an overwhelming argument for treading steadily at a phased rate of implementation.
  Finally, I refer to the amendment that was carried in Committee. It did not include over-65s and it removed the Secretary of State's discretion to authorise, with parliamentary approval, each wave of eligibility. The amendment also removed the Secretary of State's ability to exclude categories where there could be considerable risk if such people slipped through the net and were handed cash to manage their care arrangements. There are some people, including those who responded to the consultation paper, who would like us to exercise discretion—for example, for the categories of mental illness and supervision specified in our consultation paper and for the categories of drug and alcohol rehabilitation.
  The nation would think that we had taken leave of our senses if we did not restore to the Secretary of State the right to exclude such people for their sake and for the sake of the wider community. I am pleased to see that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship supports that concept. For that reason, and because I genuinely believe that all hon. Members wish the measure to be a success, and because access can be guaranteed only by sensible phasing, I urge hon. Members to support the amendments.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: All hon. Members will agree that when one sits through the Committee stage of an important Bill—which is then followed by Report and Third Reading—one gets to know one's colleagues fairly well. We have great respect for the Minister, and I hope that he does not feel that that respect has been diminished, as was suggested earlier. He has a lot of qualities, but being a historian is not one of them.
  The Minister began his speech by saying that the Labour party was opposed to direct payments. I challenged him then, and I challenge him again, to produce a shred of evidence that suggests that the Labour party is opposed to direct payments. I shall give him some help in his research. When he wipes his brow after the debate tonight and heads to his Department, he should ask for Hansard of 17 November 1995. At column 300, he will see what I said when winding up the debate on health, disability and care in the community:
  "The Secretary of State spoke about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition producing a mouse of a speech, which was particularly odd when considered in the light of the central issue of direct payments, which is, I understand, the flagship of the Government's care in the community policy. What we heard from
  60
  the Secretary of State was a mere squeak—it was quite inadequate."—[Official Report, 17 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 300.]
  Far from being opposed to direct payments, we were opposed to the dilution of the principle, and we are just as opposed to that today. The hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and others who thought that the Minister would move half an inch from his position in Committee, will be extremely disappointed. I am not surprised—the vibes that came across when the Treasury was mentioned earlier gave us an idea of what he would say.
  We have come to the heart of the Bill. The Government's attempt to limit eligibility has been the great flaw in their approach to direct payments—that was my view during the debate on the Queen' s Speech, and it is my view today. It is a pity that that is the case, given the broad, all-party support for the principle of the Bill in the House and the enthusiastic support of disabled people and local councils. If Ministers had followed through the logic of local authority discretion and left the councils to decide who should receive direct payments instead of seeking to decide the matter by regulation, the Bill would have completed its passage through Parliament by now.
  Ministers have had many opportunities to reconsider. The House of Lords considered amendments, supported by the Labour party and others, to remove the regulation-making powers which, at that stage, were extended so that they would exclude people with learning disabilities and those aged over 65—those about which we are concerned in this debate.
  On Report in another place, the Labour party offered a compromise amendment to permit the Secretary of State to relax the limitations on eligibility when a local authority could demonstrate significant experience and expertise in direct payments. Such was the Government's determination to continue to exclude whole categories of disabled people that even that compromise position was rejected.
  6.15 pm
  The Labour party tried again in Committee, and I acknowledge that the Minister came a little way in our direction. He abandoned his intention to exclude those with learning disabilities—there was nothing about phasing and nothing about waiting for a year. He thought that those with mental health problems and those with a disability arising from HIV-AIDS would be eligible, but he refused to consider providing direct payments to any disabled person over the age of 65 who was willing and able to secure his own care. The Minister refused to consider that again today.
  That was not good enough for the Committee, and it should not be good enough for the House today. The Committee carried two Labour amendments, which had the effect of removing the Government's power to exclude whole categories of disabled people throughout the United Kingdom. The amendments attracted much approval, as the Minister knows. Even before the second of those defeats—on provision for Scotland, on 18 April—we had learnt just how reluctant Ministers were to concede the principle that direct payments should be widely available to disabled people receiving community care.
  Hon. Members expected the Standing Committee to conclude its business on 2 April, when the Scottish provisions should have been dealt with. Instead, we were

  61
  treated to the rare and fascinating sight of Ministers filibustering on their own legislation—no doubt in the hope that they might reassemble a majority when the Committee resumed after the Easter recess. If that was their intention, they failed. When the Committee resumed, it duly passed Labour's amendment on Scotland in the same terms as the earlier decision for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  Since then, we have witnessed further indecision and delay, which was confirmed by the Minister's response this afternoon. Ministers were quite uncertain as to when the Bill should be considered in this place. Hon. Members will know that Ministers seemed ready to reach this stage some weeks ago, but then delayed Report until after the Whitsun recess. We established the reasons for that this afternoon. It is a great shame, to say the least, that the date that the Government finally chose is one when not all hon. Members are free to attend and to vote on the amendment.
  What is happening today in Northern Ireland is of great importance to everyone there and to every hon. Member, wherever his constituency may be. I know that a number of hon. Members from Northern Ireland are bitterly disappointed about the timing of today's debate—the Government have made their participation difficult, if not impossible. The organisations of disabled people in Northern Ireland share the unhappiness of Northern Ireland Members. What is true in Northern Ireland is true also in England, Scotland and Wales. Disabled people are extremely disappointed at the Government's failure to accept the wishes of the majority of hon. Members not once, but twice, in Committee.
  Other concessions have been made: in response to Labour pressure, Ministers in the Lords promised to review the workings of direct payments after three years. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that, at the end of the first year after the legislation had been enacted and implemented, he intended to review the experience and to return to the House with conclusions. He said almost exactly the same today; there has not been a fraction of progress.
  The promise to review direct payment schemes after 12 months was originally made before the Government's first defeat in Committee. The offer today is nothing new and does nothing to reduce the concerns of elderly people who would and do qualify for indirect payments that are currently provided to those who are assessed as being in need, who agree to accept them.
  This is not a response to the Government's defeat. Since the concessions on people with learning disabilities and the promise of a 12-month review were rejected by the Committee as inadequate, the Government have not come up with anything else. What mystifies many Opposition Members, many outside the House and, I suspect, many Conservative Members, is why Ministers are prepared to do no more than promise to think about things after the general election. If there was ever a promise from a dying Government, this is it. How much better it would have been if Ministers had been prepared to concede the point and to leave it to local authorities to make payments to any disabled people whom they assessed as willing and able to manage their own care.
  Mr. Rowe: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the reason for the promise is that my hon. Friend the Minister expects to return as Secretary of State after the election?
  Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman, of all people, believes that, he will be as disappointed as I suspect the six and a half million disabled people, particularly pensioners over the age of 65, are today.
  The promise of a review after 12 months would carry a little more weight than, for example, the three years that was spoken of in another place, if it was accompanied by a guarantee that the bar on older disabled people would be removed at that time, but there is no need for a 12-month delay. In his consultations, the Minister must have been convinced of that point; all the evidence that we have received suggests that.
  I do not often like to refer to my previous speeches as I assume that I have made the point sufficiently in the Chamber, but I should remind the Minister of a speech that I made in 1995, when I said:
  "I hope that we are not about to consider a measure that will introduce a new form of discrimination between one group of disabled people and another."—[Official Report, 17 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 304.]
  That is precisely what the Minister is commending to us today.
  Ministers seem not to have understood that only a minority of disabled people are willing and able to take up direct payments. There will be no overwhelming rush of applicants when the schemes are introduced, any more than there is an overwhelming demand on indirect payment schemes currently run by many local councils that encouraged this legislation. The experience, the knowledge and the information already exist, although the Government conceded that perhaps they did not exist in relation to those with learning disabilities. The Government have the benefit of the experience of indirect payments; they know that they work and they know that there will not be a demand that cannot be met, so why are they being so disagreeable?
  Mr. Bowis: I hope that I am never disagreeable, but I have a question for the hon. Gentleman. He may be right about the potential expansion in demand, but I am sure that he takes seriously the Policy Studies Institute's report. Will he respond to its conclusions, which were as I spelt out? The institute was clearly concerned that there would be an expansion in demand and so implicitly supported the view, which everyone shares, that the policy should be phased in.
  Mr. Clarke: I have great respect for the institute. The Minister must have looked for a very small needle in a very big haystack to produce that example.
  Many disabled people have no interest in receiving cash payments in place of community care services. Whatever their worries about charging for such services, there are hundreds of thousands of disabled people who have no intention of switching away from the local council provision that they currently enjoy. The Government must know that, for many older disabled people, the attractions of managing their own care are less great than the security that they feel as consumers of services—something that we all understand. But that is no reason for all older disabled people to be excluded.

  63
  Just as many people under the age of 65 will wish to continue to receive local authority services, a minority of those over that age would like the greater choice and control that comes from organising their own care—but that is likely to be a small minority. Among the councils that provide cash payments indirectly are some that include older disabled people as part of their client group. Their experience shows that only a relatively small proportion of people in that age group take up the provision.
  In Committee, the Minister spoke of the danger that the demand for direct payments could become, as he put it, "unmanageable", and he implied the same today. We are entitled to pause to look at what he meant and see whether his concerns have been met. The Minister rightly described the job of local councils in assessing the ability of individual applicants to manage direct payments as "a significant administrative responsibility". He said that it was necessary for the Treasury to have confidence that direct payment schemes were "in good hands" and that it should "feel comfortable" about them going forward. As we said in Committee, all those matters are, up to a point, fair comment, but none of them requires the Minister to put a complete block on older disabled people, including those who enjoy indirect payments, seeking access to direct payments.
  I am sure that the Treasury recognises the potential of direct payments for giving disabled people greater control over their own care at no extra cost to public funds. Direct payments might also ultimately produce savings for the Exchequer, as well as greater value for money—if so, they will be all the more welcome.
  Local authorities recognise the significant administrative responsibility that they face, not just in running direct payment schemes but, more immediately and importantly, in making the assessment of needs that forms the basis of such schemes and that they already undertake before providing community care services. As the Minister reported to the Committee, many councils will wish to proceed cautiously when introducing the schemes. But the Minister had to concede that only 22 per cent. of councils approved of the regulations that the Government intend to introduce.
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities told me only a few days ago that it had no concerns about the abolition of the Government's regulation-making powers and, indeed, welcomed it. It believes that local councils are well able to manage the introduction of direct payment schemes and that the Bill, as drafted, gives them the right degree of discretion in doing so. I unreservedly share that view, as do others.
  The Disablement Income Group has argued that decisions about who should be eligible are best made locally rather than nationally. If any extra discretion is needed, it should be given to local councils. That proposition is different from the proposal that the Government have put forward today. Age Concern has told hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill should not be amended as the Government propose. It cites the experience of existing third-party schemes and says that older disabled people are just as capable as younger people of managing their care services and making a choice.
  64
  The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People has contacted hon. Members to say that the Bill, as amended in Committee, is the right approach to direct payments. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider the views of those organisations, which work day in and day out on those issues, before voting on such an important amendment.
  The Bill is about widening opportunities and choice for disabled people. That is why the Opposition have supported the principle behind the Bill from the beginning. The Bill, as it stands, will confer responsibility and discretion on local authorities, and we believe that that is right. It will set a test that applicants for payments should be willing and able to manage their care. That is a sufficient barrier against an unmanageable level of applications.
  6.30 pm
  If Ministers get their way today and return the Bill to its original form, it will include an unnecessary and undesirable element of discrimination against an important group of disabled people. That cannot be right. For all those reasons, I urge the House to reject the Government amendment, consistent with the Opposition's response in the Queen's Speech debate.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: First, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy and for the time that he gave me when we were discussing the amendment and the reasons behind it. My hon. Friend went to much trouble, and I appreciate that. He made a powerful and effective speech, but I still do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I shall not repeat the speech that I made on Second Reading, but a point of principle is at stake. Those now over 65—I must declare my interest as I am 66—
  Mr. Rowe: Never.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I appreciate the compliments of the House.
  Those who are over 65, who are able and willing and should have the right to be included, would be excluded by the Bill. Apart from the moral principle, why are the Government concerned? The Bill would not force local authorities to offer or make any direct payments, but it would give local authorities full discretionary powers. Are older disabled people different in some measurable way—apart from age—from younger disabled people or other adults receiving community care services? They are not. The answer must be no and no again.
  My hon. Friend the Minister is on his weakest point on the subject of pilot schemes. The present pilot scheme, as I understand it, is confined to a tightly controlled group, but if my hon. Friend had widened the pilot scheme to include those over 65, the credibility of the arguments that he made tonight would be infinitely stronger. He could have included those over 65 in certain areas. Sadly, he has not done that.
  I regret that I must tell my hon. Friend that his position is illogical and unfair and would be discriminatory in practice, although I know that he has told the House in all sincerity that it would not. I am sad, but I feel compelled to vote against the amendment. Even at this

  65
  11 th hour, I beg my hon. Friend not to mar what is basically a splendid Bill, for which the Government deserve praise and credit. It is still not too late.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and again I pay warm tribute to his deep concern to improve the Bill for purposes the disability organisations want to see achieved. His commitment to the cause of extending choice and enhancing the independence of disabled people is much appreciated and applauded by all of us who know of his distinguished service to that cause ever since entering the House.
  The depth of interest in the Bill among the organisations of and for disabled people is made clear in all the helpful briefings they have sent us in anticipation of the debate. Their concern, like my hon. Friend's and mine, is to quicken the pace of progress from paternalism to partnership in addressing the problems and needs of disabled people. They want Hobson's choice to be replaced by real choice and that applies to the elderly among disabled people as much as to those who are younger. All disabled people are entitled to the maximum possible control over their lives.
  Notwithstanding the warnings given them from both sides of the House, the Government have remained hellbent on trying to limit direct payments under the Bill to disabled people below the age of 65. That is morally wrong. To exclude people from direct payments if they are over retirement age shouts of discrimination against elderly disabled people. It is all the more serious in this case because it is being attempted by a Government who say that they have now been converted to ending all discrimination against disabled people. Thus it calls into question all that they are saying to disabled people in relation to their Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The truth about the Government's stance in this debate is that discriminating against elderly disabled people by excluding them from direct payments will keep down costs. That is their priority of priorities. What they are attempting has nothing whatever to do with logic or fairness. It is wholly reminiscent of their four-year-long obstruction of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Even after they were converted—kicking and screaming—to the necessity of legislating on discrimination against disabled people, they insisted on doing it on the cheap. That is what they are doing now, five years after first being pressed to legislate on direct payments.
  Ideally direct payments should be payable to all disabled adults who are able and willing to manage them and without age limit. I believe that local authority staff with direct contact with individual disabled people are in the best position to decide who to include in the scheme. Under the terms of the Bill, a local authority is allowed to exclude from direct payments any individual provided it acts responsibly and reasonably in doing so. So why not let it act responsibly and reasonably in deciding who to include? For the Government not to let local authorities do so is clearly unjustified.
  In his opening speech, the Minister left the impression that the Government intend to review his scheme in a year with a view to considering subsequent waves of eligibility. If that is so, is it not a powerful reason to keep the Technical Advisory Group going in order to help with
  66
  that review process? Is that not the test by which what he said today must be judged? I ask the Minister to respond on this important point before the debate concludes.
  I most warmly welcome what was achieved by all-party co-operation in Committee to improve the Bill and urge the House now to resist the Government's attempt to restore the measure to its original drafting. Not to do so would be to ignore the responsibility that every disability organisation in this country wants us to discharge this evening.
  Mr. Thurnham: I support the excellent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden). It is a good Bill and the Minister deserves a great deal of credit for the way in which he has presented it and has appeared to listen to the arguments.
  I am disappointed and surprised that the Government are attempting to reverse the Committee's changes to the Bill. I believe that the Bill is improved by allowing the over-65s to benefit from its excellent provisions. It is not logical to exclude that group—the Government seem to be afraid and are playing a numbers game. Local authorities must accept and face up to their responsibilities: they are the gatekeepers. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State believes that he must have additional responsibility to prevent local authorities from making the decisions that are rightly theirs and from exercising the discretion that the Bill confers. They could decide the pace at which they phase in the provisions.
  The Conservative party complains that it cannot find candidates for local elections, but the Government do not allow local councils to exercise any responsibility. Here is an opportunity to allow local authorities to face up to their responsibilities and to act accordingly. If they get it wrong, they will get the blame. The Government will be unpopular if they persist in preventing 66-year-olds from benefiting from the excellent provisions.
  The Minister asked me to remember the Policy Studies Institute report. It argued that people could derive excellent value from arranging their own care packages. It costs town halls on average more than £8 per hour to arrange for care, but people could make their own arrangements for only £4 per hour. These are excellent benefits that do not cost the Treasury a penny, so why do we exclude those aged over 65? There is no logic in that proposition.
  The Minister said that great numbers of people could come forward to obtain benefit. But that is not the case at the moment. There is no indication that the Government would be swamped—in fact, I believe that the majority of pensioners would not wish to arrange their own care packages.
  Sir John Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that those aged over 65 will continue to receive the services at whatever cost to the local authority? Therefore, they will be denied the opportunity of saving money by purchasing services at a lower rate.
  Mr. Thurnham: Local authorities are so inefficient that they are more likely to drag their feet than be swamped with applicants. Local authority overheads will be threatened by the measures in the Bill. Local

  67
  authorities will be cautious about introducing the measures as they must make compensating reductions in their overheads. The hon. Member is right: there is no logic in excluding those who could benefit from the provisions.
  Age Concern has argued strongly that local authorities have the discretion and that the transition will be slow—change will not take place overnight. It says that it has received few representations on the subject—only two out of 30,000 phone calls and letters that it has received in the past six months have referred to it. There is no suggestion that the floodgates will be opened and that local authorities will be swamped as a result of the new provisions.
  The Government's amendment sends out the wrong signal to older people—it appears that they do not count. Older people were concerned about being excluded from the independent living 1993 fund—although they had been included before and had demonstrated that they could manage their own care packages and cope with their budgets without difficulty. I believe that only a minority of older people would want to do so. The Bill creates an anomaly by allowing some people to continue their existing schemes and by preventing others from coming forward.
  The Government should at least give a firm commitment about the timetable. They seem to be concerned only with numbers. They changed the provisions to allow people with learning disabilities to be included as the numbers were small. However, they have excluded those aged over 65. The responses that the Government have placed in the Library send out a one-way message. I have referred already to the response from Avon county council. I have spoken to the Minister about the views of my local authority and I wrote to him to confirm those points. The director of social services in Bolton says that there is no reason why people over the age of 65 should be restricted from receiving benefit. If he thinks that he can cope with that pressure, why does the Secretary of State believe that he knows better? At the end of the day, the scheme will be administered by the local authorities.
  In its response, the Association of District Councils says:
  "There appears to be no justification for limiting eligibility on grounds of age".
  The Association of County Councils says that it is not
  "appropriate to limit eligibility for a direct payment to those under the age of 65."
  The Association of Directors of Social Services wishes the introduction of direct payments to be "positive and enabling". It continues:
  "The way forward is to agree to local determination of eligibility as well as local discretion regarding the introduction of Direct Payment schemes."
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities says:
  "Potential eligibility for direct payments should be drawn as widely as possible".
  Other organisations, such as Arthritis Care, are concerned that many of their members aged over 65 will be excluded.
  I ask the Government to think again. They should allow local authorities to accept their responsibilities and not exclude people aged over 65 for no logical reason.
  68
  The Government should have faith in the system and allow all people to enjoy the benefits of the Bill. Those benefits are being provided in a number of local authority areas—there is no need for any more pilots as they have been conducted for some years. The Government are being over-cautious. They should allow local authorities to accept the responsibilities that are rightly theirs and not press the amendment tonight.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Kirkwood: It has been an interesting debate and the Minister has listened attentively to all the speeches. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) sketched out concisely and lucidly the work that was done in the Standing Committee. I have examined that work and I believe that the Standing Committee discharged its duties admirably in canvassing all the aspects and perspectives of that important part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman made that clear—certainly to my satisfaction, as one who did not serve on the Committee.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has a peerless reputation as a defender of the interests of disabled people. The hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) have good reputations in terms of discharging their duties and of being particularly jealous of the interests of people with disabilities and of the organisations that seek to serve them. They have persuaded me—if any persuasion were necessary—that the Government are wrongheaded about the matter.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East penetrated to the heart of the Government's position, which is very difficult to understand. He reviewed all the evidence and concluded that the Government are simply worried about numbers. The House of Commons has a duty to consider that point very carefully. If we create a precedent that legislative change should be determined on the basis of numbers and easy cut-off points, that fault line could be introduced into any social legislation. That is wholly inimical to the development of social legislation.
  That is very worrying. It is not a minor point or an administrative, bureaucratic detail: it is an important principle that the House must address. If it does not do so this evening, it could have repercussions for future Governments of whatever political stripe—whether the Minister or the hon. Member for Monklands, West becomes Secretary of State. Should we accept the Minister's argument that, because many people aged over 65 will be affected, we should delay extending the provisions to them in order to ascertain whether there are any difficulties? That is an appalling prospect. The Minister is a sincere man, but to say that this does not involve an element of discrimination is absurd and unconvincing.
  The House wants to make progress. This is an important part of the Bill. I want to ask the Minister a question and to make a suggestion. Clause 7(2), the commencement clause, states:
  "This Act, except section 6"—
  which deals with Northern Ireland and properly so because there are different legislative arrangements for the Province—
  "shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".

  69
  That is fine. There is then a semi-colon and the words:
  "and different days may be so appointed for different purposes."
  Why cannot the Minister use clause 7(2) to deal with the question—which he seems to have in his mind, but which no one else has asked—about the prospect of chaos and confusion if too many people are admitted to the provisions of Bill, as he seemed to argue, if I understood his argument at all? Why cannot he use subsection (2) of the implementation and commencement clause to deal with that point? It is possible to admit an ordered admission of different waves, as he put it, of people to the benefit that is afforded by the Bill's provision. It may be a pedantic legal point—perhaps I am a pedantic lawyer—but the House deserves an answer why clause 7(2) cannot be a mechanism to deal with the point that is troubling the Minister.
  The suggestion is this. Some technical rule or technical reason may come from behind the Minister and enlighten him in the rest of the debate, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he does not refer to the pilot point that was again made effectively by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East and that I tried to raise in an intervention. If the Minister were to say at the end of this debate that he would specifically allow a series of targeted pilot projects that were properly looked after, reviewed and pump-primed, in financial terms, by the Department during the early stages of Bill, I would take a slightly different view.
  That is very much a second best. In clause 7(2), the Government have the means of controlling potential worries on administration. If even that does not work, if the Minister said that he would give the House a guarantee that pilot projects for over-65s would be run in the first year, I would be willing to change my view of this matter. As things stand, however, the points made by the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East, for Monklands, West and for Kemptown and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe persuade me that, as things stand, the Government have got this substantially wrong.
  Mr. Rowe: The frank and open countenances of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers conceal wounds and scars internally. They belong to an Administration who have seen expenditure on the family fund and on housing benefit rise exponentially and unpredicted. Whether they are right or wrong in logic, they are undoubtedly reflecting that wound in what they have brought to the House tonight. Their perception of the Bill is that, in some way that is not terribly easy to define precisely, it will run out of control unless they regulate it. They have found some local authorities with anxieties about their capacity to manage something that other local authorities manage perfectly well to reinforce them in that anxiety.
  There is no logic in excluding people aged over 65, but I am wholly confident that this Bill's unstoppable logic will take over the moment that it becomes law. It will be demonstrated beyond peradventure that the number of people who want to take advantage of this undoubted right will be small, that the vast majority of local authorities are capable of managing the scheme in the way in which the pilot local authorities have already done, and that the quality of life of a large number of disabled people who take up this opportunity will be improved out of all
  70
  recognition. It will become impossible for either the Government or local authorities to refuse the pressure that will instantly mount to include over-65s.
  Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend imagine a position where a local authority, which by mistake—perhaps even by mistake on purpose—provides direct payments to someone aged over 65, being prosecuted by the Secretary of State for Health?
  Mr. Rowe: Having inadvertently demonstrated the illegality of schemes that had been running satisfactorily for a while by asking the Secretary of State for Social Services at the time whether she should generalise particular legislation, I feel unwilling to answer that question. It will be shown not to have been necessary to limit the number of people eligible for this opportunity, but if the Government are that worried about it, there is little to be lost in allowing them their particular private fears. I am willing to support them in this matter.
  The other matter is, in some respects, more important. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, organisations such as the National Schizophrenia Fellowship may ask the Secretary of State to take back the discretion to exclude certain people from this opportunity because they are deeply anxious about some individuals making a complete mess of it and there is no powerful reason why that should not be done. For both those reasons, I am prepared to support the Government on the matter.
  This opportunity has been a long time coming. It is a necessary and valued opportunity for disabled people to take. It is not an easy opportunity for them to take. As Jane Campbell, one of the unsung heroines of this campaign, has pointed out, the regulations and rules governing it and the knowledge that one has to have of employment law and other elements are considerable, so not many disabled people will, in my view, rush to take up the opportunity. However, for all the reasons that I have given, I am prepared to support the Government.
  I hope that the review will be started the day that the Bill becomes an Act. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that there will not be a huge difference between a review where the reviewer is appointed 12 months after the Act becomes law, and a review in which the reviewer reports on information collected during those first 12 months.
  Mr. Heppell: I congratulate the Minister on steering the Bill through the House in the way in which he has, except in one respect: his steering of Government amendment No. 11. The Bill's return to the Chamber has been delayed, it arrives on the day when many hon. Members from the minority parties are in another place, and the Government know, as I do, that all those people would have voted against the amendment. The Government may think that that is clever, but disabled people and groups that represent them will view it as cynical. I will ensure that they know how cynical it was.
  People would have voted against the amendment because it is arbitrary, discriminatory and illogical. The Minister says that no discrimination is involved in preventing 65-year-olds from receiving direct payments, but what could be more discriminatory than that? What if people over 65 were not allowed to have operations in hospital, or could not consult their GPs without a

  71
  12-month delay? In this instance, however, we are not talking about even a 12-month delay; people are being told that their cases will be looked at again in 12 months' time.
  7 pm
  Earlier, I cited my authority's views. The Minister began by speaking of floodgates, but tonight he has spoken of waves. According to him, the waves will come in one after another. My authority certainly had no ideas about phasing or waves. I find it difficult to accept the concept of waves. The Minister may claim that he has succeeded where King Canute did not—that, following the first wave, the second may never come.
  I urge the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who spoke so well in Committee and made all the points that I would have made tonight if I had had time, to—as it were—put their money where their mouths are, and vote for what they spoke of then.
  Mr. Bowis: I do not think that I will go down the "wave" route. If I remember rightly, Canute actually proved to his rather silly courtiers that the waves do go on coming; perhaps that is the lesson that we should learn. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) did not stop after his first sentence, which I liked: that would have summed up the debate nicely, following what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I commend my hon. Friend as very much the father of the legislation, and feel that we would do well to listen to him, acknowledging the concerns that exist and viewing the amendments as sensible.
  I believe that the House is at one in seeking to improve the lot of people with disabilities, and introducing new flexibility, independence and dignity for those people, irrespective of their age when the measure is in place and can be introduced sensibly and effectively. The only issue on which we disagree is the pace of change.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kempton (Sir A. Bowden), for Bolton, North-East and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), as I always do. Similar issues have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is an underlying worry that some form of discrimination or exclusion is attached to the measure, but I assure the House that that is not the case. The only question is who will benefit first, and who will benefit in subsequent waves of eligibility. The warnings are there; we have seen them in the report by the Policy Studies Institute, which I commend to Opposition Members.
  I think that the point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe about keeping down costs was answered by hon. Members on his own side, who made the valid point that fewer costs were expected as a result of the new arrangements. I acknowledge that his point about the Technical Advisory Group is important. I shall want to continue to benefit from the group's advice, not least on the guidance that we shall be issuing. As for the question of "pacing", I think that it is possible to "pace" a clause only if the Bill contains a discretion that can be used for the purpose. That discretion was removed from the Bill in Committee, so I do not think that the
  72
  right hon. Gentleman's proposal would work, because the regulations would not be part of the proposals linked to the measure.
  I believe that we all share the aim for direct payments to be available to all who can benefit from them, and wish to do so.
  Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend answer my question about when the review will start?
  Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right: in a sense, it will start on the day of implementation. At that point, we shall be working closely with the TAG and others to complete the details of the guidance. We shall be working on the regulation, and working to set up the monitoring arrangements. We shall assess the experience of local authorities, through questionnaires or other methods. That will start from day one of the Bill; after that, we shall move into the period of a year that I promised my hon. Friends.
  I believe that pace is crucial. Wave will follow wave. But it is important for the waves to follow at a pace that will allow the local authorities, social services departments and voluntary organisations that have helped to set up the scheme to get it off the ground. I want a successful scheme, and I believe that the House does as well. I commend the amendments.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 280.

  Division No. 138]

  [19.04 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butterfill, John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Congdon, David

  Bates, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Couchman, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bowis, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Day, Stephen

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Brazier, Julian

  Devlin, Tim

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Dicks, Terry

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dover, Den

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Duncan, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  73

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Elletson, Harold

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evennett, David

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

  Faber, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stilling)

  Legg, Barry

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lidington, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Norris, Steve

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hendry, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  74

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thomason, Roy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Sackville, Tom

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Watts, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wells, Bowen

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Wilshire, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sweeney, Walter

  Yeo, Tim

  Sykes, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Simon Burns.

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Allen, Graham

  Cann, Jamie

  Alton, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Church, Judith

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clapham, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benton, Joe

  Corston, Jean

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cox, Tom

  Berry, Roger

  Cummings, John

  Betts, Clive

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Blunkett, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bradley, Keith

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Darling, Alistair

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davidson, Ian

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

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

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

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Byers, Stephen

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Caborn, Richard

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

  Callaghan, Jim

  Denham, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dewar, Donald

  75

  Dixon, Don

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Eastham, Ken

  Litherland, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fatchett, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McAllion, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foulkes, George

  McFall, John

  Fraser, John

  McKelvey, William

  Fyfe, Maria

  McLeish, Henry

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maclennan, Robert

  Galloway, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike

  MacShane, Denis

  Garrett, John

  McWilliam, John

  George, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maddock, Diana

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mahon, Alice

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mandelson, Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Graham, Thomas

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Hall, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Hardy, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Harvey, Nick

  Milburn, Alan

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Heppell, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Home Robertson, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mudie, George

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Murphy, Paul

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Ingram, Adam

  Parry, Robert

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Janner, Greville

  Pike, Peter L

  Jenkin, Brian

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, Tessa

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Reid, Dr John

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

  Rendel, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  76

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Straw, Jack

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Salmond, Alex

  Turner, Dennis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vaz, Keith

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Walley, Joan

  Short, Clare

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Simpson, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

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

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Snape, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Wise, Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Worthington, Tony

  Spellar, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 13, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'pay' and insert 'make'.
  No. 14, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'him' to first 'of' in line 11 and insert', in respect'.
  No. 15, in page 1, line 12, at end insert
  `, a payment of such amount as, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, they think fit.'.
  No. 16, in page 1, leave out lines 13 to 20 and insert—
  '(2) If—

  (a) an authority pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service concerned, and

  (b) the payee satisfies the authority that his means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to make up the difference,
  the authority shall so adjust the payment to him under that subsection as to avoid there being a greater difference than that which appears to them to be reasonably practicable for him to make up.

  3) In the case of a service which, apart from this Act, would be provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (aftercare), an authority shall not pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  '(4A) A person in receipt of a payment under subsection (1) above may secure the provision of the service to which it relates from a person, notwithstanding that that person is of a description specified in regulations under subsection (4) above, provided that the authority are satisfied that the person by whom the services are to be provided is an appropriate person.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
  '(3A) A person in receipt of a payment under subsection (1) above may secure the provision of the service to which it relates from a person, notwithstanding that that person is of a description specified

  77
  in regulations under subsection (3) above, provided that the authority are satisfied that the person by whom the services are to be provided is an appropriate person.'.
  Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to present the amendments to the House. I must again say that I regret that the Government deliberately staged this business on a day when we had very important talks in Northern Ireland. Without that devious approach, we could have had a very different result on the previous amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has already drawn attention to some of the inconsistencies between cash payments under the Bill and those under the independent living fund and the ILF transfer, in relation to some of the financial issues. There is another area where the Minister has failed to deal with inconsistency between the two types of cash payment. Under the ILF and its successors, disabled people may not employ close relatives as paid carers if they live in the same household. Payments are allowed when recipients live alone or when the person with whom they live is unable to meet all the care needs. The Minister has made it clear that he will use his regulation-making powers under subsection (4) to exclude a long list of family members, whether or not they live in the same household. It is an arbitrary list that includes sons-in-law, but not nephews; stepsons' wives, but not nieces; grandparents, but not great-aunts and uncles. Putting that right would be welcome, even though it would be contrary to the Government approach today, when they have resisted all logical argument.
  Rather than having an arbitrary list defining who is and who is not a close relative and barring them from receiving payment as carers under the Bill, we should apply the same common-sense approach to this issue as applies under the independent living fund. We should give local authorities greater discretion than the Minister intends, to allow the employment of a close relative where that is clearly the independent choice made by the disabled person and where allowing that choice is clearly in the disabled person's best interests.
  I entirely accept, as do local authorities, that disabled people should not be exposed to undue pressure from family members to spend their cash payments on employing relatives. Likewise, close relatives must be protected from pressure to give up other work to be paid to care for a disabled person. It is for those reasons that we accept that there should be a general presumption against turning informal care into paid employment. However, in the context of that general assumption, the scope for local authorities to exercise their discretion should be wider than the Bill proposes.
  The Minister made it clear in Committee that he intends to issue section 7 guidance to exclude employment of close relatives. First, he proposes:
  "local authorities should not make direct payments where the recipient intends to employ or contract with close relatives who live elsewhere".
  Secondly, he proposes:
  "Local authorities must give effect to the policy as manifested in such guidance, but they have discretion to make exceptions where the circumstances merit it. Where they do not act in accordance with such guidance they may be subject to legal challenge unless they can show good reason for making an exception."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 April 1996; c. 103–4.]
  The Government have said that they will recognise
  78
  "good reason for making an exception"
  where a user lives in a sparsely populated rural area or where a person might want to employ a family member for religious or cultural reasons. Those are good reasons, but there will be other cases, as the experience of users of payments from ILF sources has shown. The ILF published a report in 1992, "Cash for Care", which summarised much of that valuable experience.
  The evidence is that some disabled people choose to employ relatives because of a fear of being taken advantage of by a stranger coming into their homes or because they found it less embarrassing to have a relative assist them in certain areas of their very personal day-to-day lives. Indeed, those are some of the considerations that might prompt disabled people to take up direct payments in the first place. It is surely deeply inconsistent to introduce a Bill to give people greater choice and control in the provision of their own care and then to deny them the choice of employing a relative to provide personal care, which may be what they most want and need.
  Disabled users told the authors of the ILF report that employing a relative allowed them to relax immediately; that they benefited from having a carer who was familiar and trusted; that they could benefit from an extra degree of flexibility from the carer; and that they could rely on a greater degree of consistency and commitment. Those are all important points; none of them applies across the board. Just as there are disabled people who would greatly prefer to employ a family member, so there are others who would not choose to employ a close relative under any circumstances.
  The key is not whether people do or do not wish to employ family members; it is that they should have the freedom to make that choice. Our amendment does not give them unlimited choice. They still have to satisfy the local authority making the direct payment that their choice is a sound one. That is a good deal better than what the Government propose. It makes the decision on who should be employed subject to the same local authority discretion and the same professional assessment by social services staff as the decisions on how much care is needed and whether direct payments are appropriate in the first place. That is how it should be.
  As with eligibility to receive direct payments, eligibility to be employed should not be a matter for blanket exclusions by the Secretary of State, with exceptions allowed only in the most exceptional circumstances. It should be a matter for the free and considered judgment of the disabled person and the discretion and professional judgment of the local council.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Amendment No. 2 is a well-justified attempt to stop the Government excluding certain people from being hired as helpers because they are so-called "close relatives" or because they are living in the same household as the disabled person. The amendment provides effectively for an easing of the currently proposed ban on them.
  The problem with the Government's list of who can and cannot be hired—as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West explained—is that it includes some relatives who, in the real world, cannot really be termed "close". The surviving partner, a stepson, an aunt or a grandparent are examples.

  79
  It might be reasonable to exclude anyone who is already providing assistance to a disabled person and for whom extra help is being sought from the local authority, but that could exclude people receiving invalid care allowance and would not be appropriate in all cases. This raises the issue of how the invalid care allowance will be treated in relation to direct payments. About that there has been an ominous official silence which should now be ended.
  Care will need to be taken in deciding who to classify as a partner. Is the classification to include gay or lesbian couples? How will disabled people be protected from a local authority that is over-officious or intrusive in determining whether a partner is indeed a partner?
  To avoid the difficulty that the Government describe as "creating pressure for informal care to be put on a formal contractual basis" while also avoiding a hard list of excluded relatives, it might be possible to put the onus of proof on the local authority to show that the person the disabled person seeks to pay would provide the requisite care informally.
  In relation to lodgers and other persons living in, the wording used throughout the passage of the Bill has been very worrying to many disabled people. As explained in paragraph 24 of the consultative paper and by Baroness Cumberlege, in Committee in another place, such people could not be paid
  "unless they are people who have been specifically recruited to be live-in personal assistants."—[Offcial Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1996; Vol. 568, c. 411.]
  That would preclude a person who has someone other than a close relative living in the household—a lodger or a friend, for example—from arranging with that person to become her or his helper.
  The wording suggests that that person would have to be hired as a helper and then given accommodation. That is far too restrictive. It would rule out direct payments to people taking in lodgers whom they subsequently decide to hire as helpers. There would be nothing improper in such a situation and, in my view, it should be allowed.
  As far as the relative not living in the same household is concerned, it ought to be possible without treating it as an exceptional case—as proposed in paragraph 24 of the consultation paper—to employ a close relative who is and remains living elsewhere. The practice of employing family members not living in the same household has worked well with the independent living fund. Why should it not work with direct payments? Indeed, if complications are to arise in the case of direct payments being made to top up payments from the ILF, I should have thought it essential that the same rule should apply to direct payments as those applied to ILF payments.
  An additional and most important point concerns the Government's requirement, set down in the consultation paper—in section G on emergency cover, at paragraph 33—that disabled people will have to make sensible arrangements so that they have adequate cover in an emergency—for example, if one of their usual assistants is taken ill. What more normal course of action could there be than to ask a relative to stand by for emergencies? The current proposals would preclude payment to the relative in those circumstances. That is not reasonable.
  80
  The amendment, in my opinion, sensibly opens the door to improvements in all these areas by giving local authorities discretion to take account of individual circumstances. That must be the right course to take.
  Mr. Bowis: I can reassure both the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that their worries have been taken into account. I understand the mystification that can occur when different funds and different benefits have different rules. There are, of course, similarities with the independent living fund, but there are also differences. The ILF provides funding for personal care for a small group of severely disabled people. With direct payments in lieu of community services, services will go much further—including such services as day care outside the home, provision of aid and adaptations and residential care.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West is quite right. In Committee, I announced the results of our consideration of the consultation exercise and announced that we would proceed with the regulations and the guidance. Those are two separate matters, to which I shall return to address the points made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe.
  The regulations which we propose will prevent people from using direct payments to employ close relatives living in the same household. The guidance will also tell local authorities not to make direct payments in cases where the recipient intends to use them to secure services from a close relative living elsewhere or from someone else living in the same household, unless that person has been recruited as a live-in personal assistant. Local authorities will be able to make exceptions to the guidance when they are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative.
  The problems that we are seeking to avoid are the difficulty of enforcing contracts with relatives and the pressure to employ a relative who would not necessarily have been the disabled person's first choice—a problem that can arise whether or not the relative shares the home and whether or not someone sharing the home is a relative. On the basis of those problems, the people whom we consulted on this matter reached the conclusion—the conclusion that we have reached—that we must have restrictions. That is why we have decided to proceed with the guidance and the regulations.
  Local authorities will have discretion to make exceptions to the guidance when circumstances merit it. The hon. Member for Monklands, West mentioned two circumstances: sparse population and strong cultural preference. I stress that exceptions can be made for other reasons and are not limited to those two. The guidance will make that clear.
  In contrast, the amendment would weaken the presumption against someone who falls into one of those categories and would allow local authorities to disregard the regulations. If we were to accept these amendments, that would seriously undermine the restrictions that we propose. The discretion that we intend to allow will be sufficient to make exceptions when there are no suitable alternatives.
  It would not be appropriate to make exceptions to the restrictions in regulations. I do not believe that a straightforward employer-employee relationship is possible between two close relatives sharing the same household.

  81
  The restrictions we propose will protect disabled people's independence and were supported by responses to the consultation exercise. I believe that they will create the best framework for direct payments. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Being generous of nature, I would like to tell the Minister that he has satisfied me, but I would be less than truthful if I did. However, we have carefully considered what he said, and I think that discussions on this matter will continue. As we are well on the way to enacting the Bill, it will be useful to consider what happens at local level, particularly in relation to this matter. I am sure that the dialogue that the Minister has conducted—of which we are aware and have tried to emulate—will continue.
  I look forward, perhaps in a year's time, to having perhaps some influence on the review that will consider the Bill. In that very generous spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Milburn: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  1 '(4A) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local authorities to provide for procedures to be adopted for the assessment and review of any financial contribution which may be required from the person under subsection (2) above, and for the amount of any such contribution to be notified to the person after the direct payment has been made to him but before any such contributions are deducted.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
  '(2A) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local authorities to provide for procedures to be adopted for the assessment and review of any financial contribution which may be required from the person under subsection (2) above, and for the amount of any such contribution to be notified to the person after the direct payment has been made to him but before any such contributions are deducted.'.
  Mr. Milburn: The amendments return us, once again, to the principle of fairness which we have debated during much of this afternoon's proceedings and they cover issues that we discussed at length in Committee. They are of concern to a number of disability organisations, including RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. Their worry is straightforward.
  The Bill would discriminate against direct payment recipients because it would give them different treatment from that accorded to the equivalent service user. The service user will continue to be provided with the service if there is a dispute with the local authority about the scale of the charges it seeks to make as a contribution towards that service. Indeed, service users will be able to appeal against the assessment made by the local authority on the basis of its reasonableness. Services will continue to be provided during the appeal because they are legally protected.
  By contrast, deducting charges from direct payment recipients in advance, which is what the Bill allows, could jeopardise the provision of the services that they have bought. Under the amendments, any deduction or any
  82
  assessment of an individual's financial contribution against the level of a direct payment would take place only once the payment had been received; otherwise there is a risk that services could not be bought or that the direct payment recipient, unlike the service user, would have to foot the additional bill without any right of appeal.
  The amendment addresses some inconsistencies in the Bill and is designed to establish a level playing field between direct service users and direct payment recipients. It is designed to uphold the dignity of disabled people by allowing them full control over their own financial affairs rather than giving power back to the local authority. We believe that it is consistent with the principles of the Bill and I hope that it gets a fair wind from the Minister.
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) for the way in which he moved the amendment. It calls, first, for guidance on procedures for assessment and review of the financial contribution that the local authority expects people to make and, secondly, for direct payments to cover the full cost of the services to which they relate and for any contribution from recipients to be recovered later rather than deducted at source.
  We have already discussed the discretion that local authorities have over the assessment of how much people should contribute to the cost of their non-residential care. I have explained why the Government do not wish to restrict that discretion and, more particularly, why it is not appropriate to use the Bill to lay down procedures for assessment.
  If people feel that they are being expected to contribute too much to the overall cost of their care, the first step is for them to ask the authority to adjust the level of the direct payment, as provided for under Government amendment No. 16, which will insert a new subsection (2) in clause 1. If the local authority refuses to adjust the payment and the person remains dissatisfied, he or she will have access to the community care complaints procedure. If people do not think that they can manage at all, they may refuse to accept the direct payments, in which case they will receive services instead. If, on the other hand, the difference is small or they have already begun to receive direct payments before they realise that the amount is inadequate, they may decide to accept the direct payments while their complaint is being considered. The fact that they have not withdrawn their consent does not prevent them from using the complaints procedure or, ultimately, the ombudsman.
  Those are adequate and appropriate review procedures. It would be cumbersome and bureaucratic to create an additional procedure in respect of financial contributions from people who receive direct payments only.
  I now turn to the proposal that direct payments should cover the full cost of the services to which they relate, with any contribution from recipients being recovered later. That seems to me to be a much more bureaucratic system and more open to abuse than our proposal for making direct payments net of any contribution from the recipient.
  I realise that the hon. Member for Darlington seeks to reflect the situation for services, where the local authority is required to provide the service that it assesses someone as needing before seeking to recover any charge for that

  83
  service. I do not think that it follows that local authorities should pay out more cash than they have judged appropriate and then seek to recover a contribution from the individual. Incidentally, the amendment does not create any power for the authority to recover the individual's contribution once it has assessed it. The amendment might, in fact, prevent authorities from securing any financial contribution where they make direct payments. Again, the level playing field would be out the window. [Laughter.] I said that I would get that phrase in again.
  Direct payments are not a benefit to be added to the recipient's income. The money is paid to the individual to enable that individual to secure the services he has been assessed as needing. There is no reason why a local authority should be required to pay someone more money than it judges he needs to enable him to secure him those services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Milburn: I rather like the Minister's idea of throwing the level playing field out the window. Perhaps that would have avoided all the discussions and debates we have had over the past couple of months. They seem to have been about level playing fields and little else. That may be a fitting way in which to end our discussions on the meat of the Bill before we move to Third Reading.
  Concerns have been expressed by disability organisations about the way in which, potentially at least, direct payment recipients will be treated in relation to direct service recipients. However, I am sure that we shall return to the issue when the Bill is implemented. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

  DIRECT PAYMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 12, in page 3, line 8, after `Act,' insert
  `and
  (b) the person is of a description which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations,'.
  No. 17, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'pay' and insert `make'.
  No. 18, in page 3, line 9, leave out from 'him' to second `of' and insert in respect'.
  No. 19, in page 3, line 10, at end insert
  `, a payment of such amount as, subject to subsection (2) below, they think fit.'.
  No. 20, in page 3, leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert—'(2) If—

  (a) an authority pay under subsection (1) above at a rate below their estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service concerned, and

  (b) the person to whom the payment is made satisfies the authority that his means are insufficient for it to be reasonably practicable for him to make up the difference,

  84

  the authority shall so adjust the payment to him under that subsection as to avoid there being a greater difference than that which appears to them to be reasonably practicable for him to make up.'.—[Mr. Bowis.]

  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Bowis.]
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: This is one occasion when I am happy to agree with the Minister. I am sure that we are quite relieved to have reached this stage; despite our robust debates, we are anxious to see the Bill move to another place and be enacted. Many people outside are looking forward to that opportunity as well. I hope that, although only a minority of councils are involved at the moment in indirect payments, many other councils will see the opportunities in the Bill. It is very much in their interest and in the interest of community care generally.
  One of the most important points made this afternoon was that by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Although I fully understood why the Minister did not feel free to give an immediate response, there may be a case for giving a bit more study to pilot schemes.
  Some problems remain, such as the problems of the independent living fund and family carers. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington did a fine job in Committee and on the Floor of the House in dealing with the important issues of residential care, domiciliary care and other matters. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) did a great service to us all this afternoon.
  I congratulate the Minister on the competent way in which he has handled the Bill. He has given us many good ideas for what we intend to do in 12 months' time. I look forward to the assistance, research, guidance and wisdom that both sides of the House have received from disability organisations, from elderly people, from organisations for elderly people and, of course, from local authorities. In that spirit, I look forward to seeing the Bill enacted. I know that, despite its limitations, it improves the prospects of better delivery of care in the community.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Bowis: I simply want to respond to the gracious comments with which the hon. Member for Monklands, West has concluded for the Opposition. I appreciate them. We have had some good discussions and debates not only in the House but in Committee. I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee. I am also grateful to members of the Technical Advisory group, who have contributed to our discussions and helped to produce a good Bill. The Bill represents an idea whose time has come. We are moving forward with a measure that will give independence, dignity and choice to disabled people and enable real advancement. The House can be proud of what it has achieved today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Arbitration Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified.]
  7.50 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am grateful for the support that hon. Members have given the Bill, which has made for its smooth passage through the House. The fact that the Bill has completed its stages with such ease is due in no small measure to the care with which it was prepared and drafted.
  I pay tribute once again to Lord Justice Saville and members of his advisory committee for all their work in advising my Department on the Bill's policy aspects. The advisory committee brings together a considerable weight of expertise on arbitration matters and its support has been invaluable. I also thank the draftsman for the magnificent way in which he has reflected the agreed policy with such clarity.
  We made some minor technical amendments to the Bill in Standing Committee. Those have refined the text on the question of the courts and jurisdiction for arbitration matters. That will give us flexibility in the allocation of arbitration business that may not have been possible under the previously proposed arrangements.
  I am pleased to have been responsible for steering the Bill through the House. It is an important Bill and its technical nature should not blind us to the benefit that it will bring to those who make use of arbitration throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the responsibility of Government to ensure that business has access to a cost-effective and speedy mechanism to resolve disputes that crop up in the course of its activities. The Bill will much improve matters. It sets out the law more comprehensively and clearly, which is in itself a great improvement, and condenses the law into a single document.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I should perhaps mention an interest as a solicitor who has long practised arbitration law in the City of London. Is my hon. Friend aware how much the Bill will reinforce London's paramount position as a world centre for arbitration, especially maritime arbitration; how much it is supported by my colleagues in the London Maritime Arbitrators Association; and how much they and I endorse his kind remarks—although justified—on Lord Justice Saville's contribution?
  Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend. He expressed his remarks handsomely. I am glad that they are on the record and, with his permission, I shall not attempt to gild the lily.
  The Bill also provides for a system that offers finality and the minimum involvement of the courts. At the same time, it offers the parties the maximum opportunity to decide how the arbitration will be conducted. I hope that business will take advantage of that possibility to shape the arbitration process to meet its needs.
  86
  The Bill will also help to strengthen the competitiveness of the arbitration industry. I feel sure that as well as attracting arbitration business from companies here, the Bill will enhance the attractiveness of London as a venue for international arbitrations. International arbitrations are a lucrative source of foreign earnings, but the business is highly mobile. I am confident that the Bill will do much to give London a more secure position in that competitive world and, indeed, advance London as the capital of the arbitration world.
  I know that many people are looking forward to the Bill's enactment. Even as we speak, there is much activity across the country as preparations are being made for enactment. Even as we deliberate, books are being written and seminars are being held to explain the Bill's provisions. In the circumstances, we should wish the Bill well on its way to the statute book.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs for his brief eulogy to the Bill. How nice it is to be at the Dispatch Box with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Creep.
  Mr. Bell: I shall not repeat the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention, but I remind him of Lord Jenkins's comment that flattery is not such a bad thing as long as one does not breathe in. I believe and have long since supported that.
  I was intrigued by the Under-Secretary's remarks about all the books that are going to be written. Having done an annotated version of the Children Act 1989 some years ago, it is of great relief that no one has asked me to do an annotated version of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].
  The Under-Secretary said that the principles behind the Bill are clear. They restate existing legislation on arbitration while, at the same time, codifying principles established by recent case law. They introduce certain changes in the law that are designed to improve arbitration as a fair, speedy and cost-effective way in which to resolve disputes. If I may use the more eloquent—almost grandiloquent—language of Lord Mustill, the Bill combines thoroughness and accuracy in all its contents with remarkable facility, felicity and clarity of expression.
  Practitioners, too, have welcomed the Bill, on which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) touched. I have seen such descriptions as "user-friendly language" and "logical layout" which would certainly have appealed to the House, practitioners in the City of London and to King Solomon. One might ask what King Solomon is doing in our debates. His wisdom has been passed down the ages. He had to arbitrate in a particular non-commercial dispute. He had before him two women and a baby. Each woman declared the baby to be hers. Solomon offered to cut the baby in two to please both women. The real mother thought that that was a dreadful idea, the false mother did not mind half the baby, and Solomon entered his judgment accordingly. Lord Justice Saville, who chaired the committee and has been a leading light in the Bill's preparation, to which I shall return, might say that that was an example of adjudication rather

  87
  than arbitration. The Under-Secretary, who was a solicitor, and I will leave that semantic argument for another day.
  I am glad that the Under-Secretary referred to Lord Justice Saville, and I should like to refer to him, too. Lord Justice Saville, the Court of Appeal judge who formerly headed the commercial court, has, in the words of The Times, "almost single-handedly" rewritten all law on arbitration into a single statute. He has also modernised procedure in line with the trend towards more user-friendly ways in which to settle disputes. If he is following our proceedings with care, which I am sure he is, his honours fall thick on him.
  According to the consultation document issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Bill's purpose is to restate the major aspects of the current law on arbitration in a clear and accessible so way that it is readily understandable to all those who are considering using arbitration. The Department of Trade and Industry hoped that the Bill would do something that present legislation does not—explain the main provisions of English arbitration law in non-legalistic English so that those who are contemplating arbitration and those who are engaged in such arbitration will know what that entails without the need to consult experts.
  I have seen some criticism—not much, I grant—that ordinary persons will not understand the Bill's language, and that, therefore, it has failed. I imagine that most ordinary persons would not understand the intricacies with which the parliamentary draftsmen have to deal, and I am grateful to the parliamentary Under-Secretary for giving praise where it is due to the draftsmen. In this instance, we are not talking about ordinary persons, but with ordinary persons who have a dispute and wish to resolve it without going to court. It has been said that people may unwittingly be deprived of their right to go to court, but those who accept binding arbitration in a contract separate from the main agreement—as the Bill permits—will understand that that means that they can avail themselves of a route designed to be less costly and speedier than the route through our courts.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State referred to the flexibility of the Bill. We prefer that Bills be flexible rather than inflexible. We do not want to fill the statute book with "thou shalts", but rather with "thou mayests". Indeed, the Bill has been praised by practitioners, who applaud its flexibility. They are attracted to its mandatory and non-mandatory provisions, where the parties are encouraged to make their own rules and provisions. Only in so far as they do not does the Bill then provide a model set of rules for the conduct of the arbitration that the parties can either include, exclude or rewrite as they wish.
  In addition to clarity and certainty in the law as it relates to arbitration, it is hoped that the codification of past law and its fusion with case law will ensure that the City of London remains the world centre for the resolution of commercial disputes—a fact to which the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred. In this sense, the Bill brings together current statute law which has hitherto been spread across three Acts of Parliament—the 1950, 1975 and 1979 Acts. It fuses into statute law the case law of the past few years. The Bill, among other things, is designed to ensure that the City of London does not lose its pre-eminence in
  88
  relation to arbitration. A large proportion of arbitrations within the United Kingdom involve one or more foreign partners. The benefit—incremental no doubt, for who would wish to benefit from disputes—runs into many millions of pounds.
  In the global economy; in the age of the Internet; in an age when communications span the planet with such rapidity and, sometimes, with such force; and in an age of domestic and international issues—to which the Under-Secretary referred—it is clear that our arbitration services need to be able to adapt. They need to be speedy and as low in cost as possible. As the European Union develops and—I can say this to such an empty House—moves towards the era of a single European currency, and as other European countries adapt their own laws to be able to compete within the Union, with arbitration, as with everything else, we cannot and should not be left behind.
  I mentioned earlier the judgment of Solomon, which reminds me of the famous trip that Napoleon took to St. Helena, where he spent much of his time settling disputes between his cook and his butler. Perhaps it was at that time that he coined the famous phrase:
  "There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous."
  Perhaps Lord Justice Saville will tell me whether Napoleon arbitrated or adjudicated, without having the clarity of this Bill, as Lord Mustill put it. Upon this piece of useless and irrelevant information, I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.4 pm
  Sir John Stanley: This is a lengthy and extremely complex Bill of 110 clauses and four schedules. It is rare that the House has the opportunity to consider legislation in this complex and important area. That being the case, I believe that there is a real obligation on this House, and the other place, to give every opportunity for those outside to be able to convey their views to Members at all stages of the Bill's passage.
  For those outside, the most important stage of a Bill's proceedings is its Committee, as that is in effect the only point at which amendments tabled that are in order are automatically debated. I make no criticism of the members of the Standing Committee that the Committee stage of this Bill took a total of 36 minutes, as that is a matter for them. But this House gave those outside much less than a fair opportunity to have amendments considered in Committee by the minimum gap between the appointment of the Committee members and the commencement of the Committee.
  A constituent who is a practitioner in the field of arbitration and a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Mr. Adrien Sturgeon, indicated to me at an early stage that he wished to raise a number of amendments with members of the Committee. I obtained the details of the membership of the Committee at the earliest possible moment when they appeared on the Order Paper on the Thursday, the day after the Committee of Selection had met. I sent those details to Mr. Sturgeon, who very rapidly wrote to all members of the Committee. The fact that the Committee sat the following Tuesday and for only 36 minutes meant in effect that the members of the Committee had no opportunity to consider Mr. Sturgeon's amendments. In effect, the Committee's proceedings concluded before the members could consider the amendments.

  89
  I make no criticism of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary because these matters are not in his hands, but I believe that there is a serious and substantive issue for the House to consider. There was no need in terms of the timetable for this Bill for it to be as speedily expedited as it was. The Committee Corridor is more or less deserted at this time of a Session, and in no way can the Bill be said to require the maximum accelerated progress. For such Bills, it would be infinitely better if a clear week elapsed between the selection of the Committee members and the commencement of the Committee's proceedings. I personally regret—and ask the House to note—that there has been a material inability in our democracy for expert members of the public to have their amendments considered by Standing Committee members.
  Mr. Bell: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's constituent in this matter, and I agree with him about the procedures of the House. He will be aware that the Bill was given a thorough hearing in the other place, where it began its life. It was then proposed that it should be sent to a Special Public Bill Committee in the other place, and that motion was discharged. The Bill was then considered by the whole House in the Moses Room. Every opportunity was available in the other place—a part of our institution—to give the Bill a thorough airing. Of course, the proceedings did not stop at Committee. They came to Report, when there were additional opportunities for Members—had they so wished—to table amendments.
  Sir John Stanley: I am aware of the Bill's proceedings and the procedure in the other place. I make my point in relation to this Bill, but I believe it may have wider application. It is a desirable step that there should be a reasonable period between the selection of a Standing Committee and the commencement of the Committee proceedings for those outside the House to be able to contact members of the Committee, and for the members themselves to take a considered judgment as to whether they wish to table amendments at that stage. The House
  90
  will understand that I wish to bring my remarks to the attention of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for consideration by that Committee.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: By leave of the House, I had not intended to reply to the debate, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has raised a point to which it would be discourteous of me not to respond. It is a matter of record that Lord Justice Saville's committee consulted very widely. However, not every representation won the day. Like my right hon. Friend's constituent, some were disappointed, but Lord Justice Saville's committee dwelt on the issues for more than a year. The total gestation period of the Bill has been no less than five years, including extensive consideration in the House of Lords.
  I do not know whether it is seemly to refer to my right hon. Friend's constituent by name, but I should let him know that Mr. Sturgeon wrote to me. He made a number of points that I considered carefully and I replied to him at some length as to why we would not accept his proposals.
  On a happier note and to bring my remarks to a conclusion, I omitted one name from the credits that I gave in support of the Bill. It was, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who worked closely as Parliamentary Secretary with the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Having repaired that omission, I shall resume my seat.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  HEALTH
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Richard Spring be discharged from the Health Committee and Lady Olga Maitland be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Heron Line
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  8.11 pm
  Sir Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the future of the Heron line. I should point out straight away that the Heron line is a railway. I am glad that the Minister replying to the debate appreciates that fact, but not all those who made inquiries about the title of the debate appreciated that I was talking about a railway. Those who got nearest to the right answer thought it was a bus route, and others who were nowhere near it thought that it might have ornithological connections.
  The Heron line is part of the network run by the West Anglia Great Northern railway company, or WAGN as it is somewhat inelegantly known. It is principally the service between Liverpool Street and Cambridge and it passes through my constituency. There are five stations in my constituency: Stansted Mountfitchet, Elsenham, Newport, Audley End and Great Chesterford. There is also the station at Stansted airport. Although its route uses most of the Heron line, it is now called the Stansted skytrain service, but it is very much part and parcel of the West Anglia section of the WAGN railway company.
  I was disappointed that, in shaping the franchises, the opportunity was not taken to split West Anglia from Great Northern so that we would have had competing services from King's Cross to Cambridge and from Liverpool Street to Cambridge. It was one of the natural opportunities that arose for competition in the privatised railway, but it was decided otherwise. I shall not reopen that issue tonight. However, the decision to include both services to Cambridge within the same franchise has certain consequences.
  I regard tonight's debate as timely as there are concerns in my constituency about the future of the Heron line and how it will fare as part of a railway franchise, as it is clear that the premier service to Cambridge is seen as the one that departs from King's Cross. There is now an excellent service—railway operators call it the Cambridge cruiser—that enables people to travel between the two cities in 52 minutes—a time that cannot be matched on the Heron line. So questions naturally arise in the minds of my constituents that, in the longer term, the stations on the Heron line will become less attractive to the railway operator. Of course they go on to think the worst. Therefore, I thought it might be useful to make a number of points ahead of the publication of the passenger service requirement for the franchise, and more particularly, the award of the franchise.
  I should like to make a few points about the shape and scope of the franchise, mentioning the future impact of the Thameslink 2000 project—I am delighted that the Government have given approval to that project. It is of strategic importance to provide improved services north-south through the capital, but it seems that the possibility of making those additional north-south journeys will not be available until early in the next century—perhaps around 2002. Therefore, my first question is what length of franchise will be considered appropriate for WAGN, as the big question mark of Thameslink 2000 is hovering and that and other connected
  92
  franchises might be reconfigured in the light of Thameslink 2000. If, in order to keep options open, the franchising director goes for a short franchise for WAGN at the outset, the chances of certain improvements taking place in the service—to which I shall allude in a moment—seem somewhat reduced if it is envisaged that another franchise operator will take over once the Thameslink 2000 concept is realised.
  My second consideration is whether trains operating on the Heron line from Cambridge through the stations in my constituency will have access to the Snow Hill tunnel which—according to the Thameslink project—allows trains to travel through London from north to south. Although there would have to be minor infrastructure changes to allow that physically to happen, it would seem that if it does not, there will be no opportunity to travel from Audley End to Guildford and Brighton on a direct train service, whereas that opportunity will be open to people travelling from Cambridge through the stations served by the line into King's Cross. That would further the impression that the Heron line is of less importance.
  I recognise that the alternative opportunity for passengers on the Heron line was originally seen as the east-west link through London known as crossrail, but I do not have to remind my hon. Friend that there is doubt about the future of crossrail at the moment, so the opportunities for my constituents being able to travel directly through the tunnel into Liverpool street to the stations that were planned on the crossrail line seem somewhat diminished. Obviously, I hope that it will be possible to resurrect the crossrail project, but in the absence of that certainty, it appears that some of the advantages that will flow to passengers using the Cambridge-King's Cross service will not benefit passengers using the service through my constituency.
  I hope that the franchising director will want to include in the franchise the potential of Stratford as an alternative terminus for trains. It will not be many years now before Stratford will provide an interconnection with the cross-channel rail services and with the Jubilee line, providing a faster connection to the west end. I certainly hope that the prospect of services to Stratford along the Heron line from Cambridge will be included.
  To look further ahead, I wonder whether the franchise would be enhanced if the line between Ely and Peterborough were electrified. Those passengers wishing to travel to Peterborough and further on the east coast main line would benefit if there were a direct service that did not require them to change at Cambridge or Ely. I hope that such a suggestion might bolster the potential of the franchise.
  The scope of that franchise should also include improvements to the infrastructure, particularly the signalling. I am not a technical expert on railway engineering by any stretch of the imagination, but the type and age of the signalling facilities south of Bishop's Stortford towards Liverpool Street is such that the newer types of rolling stock cannot use it. That is disappointing. If the Liverpool Street and the King's Cross services to Cambridge are included in the same franchise, that means that there cannot be commonality of rolling stock. It would be advantageous if the railway operator who wins the franchise were able to use his rolling stock on either line, as it suited him.

  93
  The system is inherently inflexible if one cannot use the same rolling stock on both lines. At the moment, perversely, the same rolling stock is used on both lines, but later this year the Great Northern line is due to switch to the new type 365 Networker trains. Surely that switch will offer a glaring example to my constituents of what the haves have in relation to the have-nots. The haves will enjoy faster services in new rolling stock, whereas the Heron line will still have 20-year-old rolling stock. That does not seem sensible. If there is a justification for having a combined franchise, one should take advantage of that and ensure that there is commonality of stock. That cannot be achieved unless the state of the signalling is attended to in the near future. I want to know whether that will be a condition of the franchise.
  Such improvements would have the advantage of providing a diversionary route from Peterborough. If there were any difficulties on the Great Northern section of the east coast main line, it would be possible to run trains from Peterborough on electrified track all the way to Liverpool Street. That would also offer the further possibility of enlarging and enhancing the catchment area for employees of Stansted airport, because people would then be able to use a fast, reliable service to the airport from Peterborough.
  Certain questions must be asked about the scope of the franchise. I should also like to comment on the quality of the service that my constituents may expect. They will be left with 20-year-old type 317 rolling stock. I hope that the franchising director will consider it important, whatever the length of the franchise he decides to award, bearing in mind the considerations that I have mentioned that may be in his mind, too, to promise at least refurbished rolling stock on that line. It would be unacceptable to continue to run unaltered 20-year-old rolling stock. It is daft not to hold out the promise of new rolling stock once it is possible for it to use the Heron line.
  At the moment, it is galling to my constituents that some of the stations on the Heron line are closed on a Sunday—some are located in my constituency and others are south of it. The reason for that is that engineering works on the Great Northern line preclude a fast service from Cambridge on a Sunday. In order to provide a faster service, trains travel on the Heron line, but, to achieve that fast service, certain stations on that line are closed on a Sunday. People therefore cannot take advantage of those train services. That is not satisfactory and I hope that those Sunday services will be reconsidered as part of the franchise.
  I must mention late-night services. It would be wrong to instance the needs of a Member of Parliament, trying to get away from this place at 10.15 pm, if he is lucky, who must catch either the 10.33 pm or the 11.33 pm. The gap between those services is lengthy, especially at Liverpool Street station, which may be beautiful to look at but is not beautiful to dwell in for a long time. There are just about 20 seats on the entire concourse at that station, so it is not an hospitable place late at night. If we are to encourage people to use the railway to come into London for an evening function, the cinema, the theatre, concerts or whatever, they must have the prospect of getting back home at a reasonable hour. The 10.33 pm train is a bit too early, and if they miss that they have an hour's wait. If people go out for a meal after an evening function they are not sure even that they can catch the
  94
  11.33 pm service. That does not encourage people to use the railways. I hope that late-night services will also be examined when the franchise is being considered.
  I have already mentioned the possibility of links between Stansted airport and Peterborough. When the airport was opened, we went to great expense to build a spur northbound from the airport towards Cambridge, in addition to the southbound spur to carry passengers from London. It was thought sensible and useful to provide such a northbound spur, connected to the Heron line up to Cambridge. The service was run by the Regional Railways. I am afraid that in the early days of the airport, it did not attract many passengers and Regional Railways lost money. It decided to take advantage of regulations whereby it runs just one train a week—effectively no service.
  There is a great interest in my constituency in seeing that service reinstated. I do not see why that should not be done by the franchise operator of the West Anglia Great Northern railway. That service should be examined when awarding that franchise. If we are to take the pressure for new housing off the rural part of my constituency and overcome the threat posed to it by urbanisation, it makes great sense to give people north of Stansted the opportunity to travel to work at that airport. I am thinking not just about passengers but about potential employees at the airport. Employment opportunities at the airport are growing steadily by the year. We should make use of the northbound spur, having gone to great expense to build it.
  It is also important to consider the impact of the railway on airport employees from stations to the south of Stansted. The Stansted skytrain stops at Tottenham Hale and possibly one other station to provide the fastest possible service for airport passengers. What about the possibility of picking up employees at some other stations on the line? The pressure for new housing and the congestion on roads would be relieved if that service could scoop up more airport employees at those stations.
  I have laid before my hon. Friend some of my concerns about the shape of the franchise, and what services it might include, and I have also put down some markers about what my constituents will be looking for, and are entitled to look for. I believe that some of those decisions should be thought through now and not put off until the next century. We should not award a franchise on certain assumptions and change them once Thameslink is operational or we have made a fresh decision on crossrail.
  We should not perpetuate a situation in which my constituents are kept waiting, longer than they need, for the delivery of a better service with new rolling stock. They, too, should enjoy the benefits of privatisation that are already apparent from the franchises that have been awarded. Those benefits are the product of the Government's privatisation policy. I want my constituents to share that to the full and I have tried to outline the way in which that can best be done.
  8.29 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst) on initiating a debate on the future of the Heron line. As he said, the debate is timely. He and I have discussed the issues before, and I know that he is concerned that his constituents receive a high standard of passenger rail services.

  95
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on the Transport Select Committee, where he has clearly demonstrated his commitment to see that the Government's railway policy is translated into benefits for passengers and taxpayers alike. My hon. Friend expressed the concern felt by some of the Heron line's customers in the West Anglia half of West Anglia Great Northern, who feel that they are the poor relations and fated always to see improvements on the Great Northern route that are not matched on their route.
  The Government do not view any passengers as poor relations. Indeed, I note that almost half WAGN's passenger revenue comes from the Heron line and its branch lines. Furthermore, performance in terms of punctuality and reliability is very impressive. The performance consistently exceeds the passengers charter standards and it is marginally better than that of the Great Northern section of the franchise. Clearly, the line is an important and integral part of West Anglia Great Northern, and it is the intention of the train operating company and of the franchising director that it should remain so.
  My hon. Friend has expressed concern on previous occasions that West Anglia Great Northern might be left at the tail end of the programme to franchise the 25 train operating companies. He has been keen to avoid any risk of the Heron line going into decline in the interim period, while its customers have to wait an unduly long time before enjoying the improvements from franchising already being seen elsewhere on the network.
  There is no question of the current British Rail management retrenching on the Heron line pending franchising. I am glad to confirm that passengers on the Heron line and the other routes on WAGN will not now have long to wait until the benefits associated with franchising are introduced. The franchising programme is moving forward with increasing momentum. On 25 April, the franchising director issued an invitation to potential bidders to apply to pre-qualify to receive invitations to tender for WAGN and six other train operating companies.
  I am pleased to see that, yet again, tremendous interest has been shown. A total of 91 applications have been received from 28 different organisations, with at least 10 applications for each company. The companies are bidding competitively for the right to operate the West Anglia Great Northern franchise. My hon. Friend can be assured that there will be a healthy competition for the right to run the services.
  I understand that the draft passenger service requirement for WAGN is likely to be issued later this month and, as with previous PSRs, the appropriate local authorities and the rail users consultative committee will be consulted. Furthermore, I shall draw to the attention of the franchising director the views that my hon. Friend expressed this evening. Invitations to tender are likely to be issued later this summer and, on the experience of the franchises let to date, WAGN is likely to be transferred to the successful bidder by early next year.
  I refer to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend. In relation to the modernisation of infrastructure, Railtrack has carried out a series of measures in recent months to modernise infrastructure on the Heron line to
  96
  good effect. The results can be seen in the excellent performance in respect of punctuality and reliability—consistently above the passengers charter standards—of services on the Heron line. I understand that WAGN will shortly be discussing with Railtrack the potential for greater operational flexibility, which can be fully achieved only through upgrading the infrastructure.
  My hon. Friend spoke of the interrelationship between Thameslink 2000 and WAGN. The Thameslink 2000 project, which is planned to commence operations in the year 2002, will enhance services on WAGN by linking stations such as Peterborough, Cambridge and King's Lynn with stations in the south, via central London. The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will consult the Rail Regulator and other interested parties when determining the most appropriate service specification.
  However, as Thameslink 2000 will operate from King's Cross-St. Pancras, it will not serve the Heron line, for which the terminus is Liverpool Street. There would have to be a new link across north London for that to be facilitated. If the operator believes that the demand is there for such a service, and if a commercial deal can be struck with Railtrack, that might be considered in the future. As my hon. Friend reminded the House, it will be some years before the additional capacity provided by Thameslink 2000 is available. It is a £600 million project and it will take some time to deliver.
  My hon. Friend also referred to crossrail. Crossrail is expected to come after the Jubilee line extension, Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link in the sequence of major new rail projects for London. That sequence of projects takes account of affordability and disruption—it is clearly not sensible to have too much upheaval at one time on London's transport system.
  My hon. Friend referred to services to Cambridge. I am sure that the competition for the West Anglia Great Northern franchise will secure benefits for passengers served by the intermediate stations on the lines to Cambridge. The franchising director will be looking for the best deal, and he anticipates healthy competition for the service. In addition, the passenger service requirement will safeguard services to intermediate stations to Cambridge, as well as to Cambridge itself. My hon. Friend will be aware of the instruction to the franchising director, in comparing bids for franchises, to take account of those that offer service levels and enhancements over and above the levels that he specified.
  I recognise the frustration that passengers on the Heron line must feel at having to use class 317 rolling stock, while passengers on Great Northern are served by new class 365 stock. Unfortunately, considerable work on infrastructure—such as the replacement of old-fashioned track circuits, platform lengthening and improvements to track and signalling—would be necessary before class 365s could use the Heron line.
  I recognise that that has all been undertaken already on Great Northern, but a significant factor was that the line was also used by Eurostar services and the costs were shared with the international operator. The cost of similar work on the Heron line would be borne by WAGN alone. That is an important consideration to bear in mind. Any operator will have to think carefully before committing to such investment. However, if I may give some hope to my hon. Friend, some previous franchise awards have included commitments to refurbish existing rolling stock.

  97
  If the existing rolling stock on the Heron line is not replaced, it may be that potential bidders for WAGN will look hard at ways in which it can be improved for the benefit of passengers. A feature of virtually every franchise that has been let so far has been the commitment to new rolling stock or to substantial refurbishment.
  WAGN originally cut back on Sunday stopping services on the Heron line in 1994, in a successful attempt to build on the tourist market—particularly passengers wanting to travel quickly from London to Cambridge. It is true that fast through services are now timetabled from King's Cross following improvements to that line. However, I understand that Railtrack needs to carry out even more extensive engineering work on Great Northern on Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings, to avoid disruption to weekday services. The only way to maintain the burgeoning tourist market is to maintain the Sunday through trains on the Heron line, but WAGN has promised to reassess the situation when the engineering work on Great Northern is complete. I am sure that it will have listened with interest to what my hon. Friend said this evening.
  Matters such as late-night services can be addressed extremely well during consultation on the PSR if my hon. Friend, his constituents, local authorities and the rail users consultative committee are not satisfied with the level of service specified in the PSR.
  Clearly, services to Stansted airport are important, particularly in the context of our overall transport policy, through which we wish to encourage people to travel to airports by rail rather than making them feel forced to use their cars. WAGN is currently working on proposals to enhance services to and from Stansted through the southern part of the Heron line by extending off-peak services from Liverpool Street to Bishop's Stortford.
  As my hon. Friend said, such proposals would particularly benefit shift workers at the airport who use the Heron line. The proposals would be introduced in the May 1997 timetable, and WAGN will consult the local authority and rail user groups later this summer. In addition, along with BAA, Stansted Airport Ltd. and Essex and Cambridgeshire country councils, WAGN has commissioned a study looking at the feasibility of reintroducing services to and from Stansted to the north of the line. I understand that it expects to receive that report in the near future.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned electrification of the Ely to Peterborough line. I understand that Railtrack and the local authorities have been looking at possible options for improving the Ely to Peterborough cross-country route
  98
  to accommodate more freight traffic to and from the port of Felixstowe. It will be a commercial matter for Railtrack and the new owners of Freightliner—the company that moves container freight via Felixstowe—to consider whether to pursue any of the available options. My hon. Friend will be aware that the new owners of Freightliner have explained that they have plans to increase their volume of business by 50 per cent. over the next five years.
  In addition, the Felixstowe to Holyhead route is represented on the draft rail and combined transport trans-European networks maps. Therefore, any project that Railtrack wished to pursue on that route would in principle be eligible for assistance through the TENs programme. But it would, of course, be in competition with other projects for limited funding, both in this country and on the continent of Europe. My Department would give careful consideration to any such future bid from Railtrack, but Railtrack has not yet come forward with a bid for TENs funding for that route from this year's budget. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that there are firm proposals for developing that route which would justify categorising it as a TENs priority.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the potential for connections with Stratford station and the channel tunnel rail link. Clearly, the growth of docklands and the enhancement of services through the forthcoming Jubilee line extension might well make it feasible for WAGN to serve Stratford from the Heron line. I understand that it intends to keep its options open on that matter and to assess whether it becomes a viable option.
  As my hon. Friend recognises, privatisation is about improving quality and taking advantage of commercial opportunities to enhance services. It is about establishing contractual safeguards that will guarantee the future of every line and station on the network. In the light of what we are seeing throughout the rail network as an increasingly large proportion is transferred to the private sector, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend not only that the Heron line's future is safeguarded, but that its future under privatisation is in fact brighter than before. The persistence and eloquence with which my hon. Friend advances the case for better services on the line for his constituents and the detailed knowledge that he has of the services provided and the potential for new services will help to guide the beneficial development of services into the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Nine o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31408]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Saxton Bampfylde International plc, an executive search agency, was employed in 1994–95 to assist with the recruitment of the chief planning inspector at a cost of £33,000. No other agencies were employed in that year or in 1995–96.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31521]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Where it is necessary to procure high-level advice in search and selection not available within my Department, and where it represents good value for money to procure processing capacity to handle occasional recruitment exercises, in all cases within the requirements of the civil service commissioners.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers from his Department on official duties abroad. [32409]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not available centrally as costs of private office staff accompanying Ministers are included with costs for Ministers, while records for other officials are held with their corresponding divisions in the Department. This information would, therefore, be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his powers to stop local authorities from acting in an anti-competitive way in respect of compulsory competitive tendering, with reference to his powers to compel local authorities to re-tender work where they have failed to ensure competition. [31976]
  2
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Section 19A of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 and section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 give my right hon. Friend the power to serve a notice on an authority which it appears to him has acted anti-competitively in deciding to undertake certain work. If, after the authority has responded to the notice, it still appears to him that the authority has acted in this way, he can give a direction under section 19B of the 1980 Act or section 14 of the 1988 Act. The direction may be a complete or partial bar on the authority's power to carry out the work or require the authority to fulfil conditions including retendering the work, before it has the power to continue to carry out all or part of the work. My right hon. Friend judges each case on its merits, but does so against the background of statutory guidance issued under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992.

  Terminal 5 Inquiry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made with and the expected time for completion of the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry. [30623]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The public inquiry into the proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow airport, which began on 16 May 1995, is running close to its timetable. The timing and conduct of the inquiry is a matter for the inspector. On present estimates, it is expected that the inquiry will close in summer 1997, subject to an additional time which may be required to deal with recently published highway orders for links to the M25 and M4.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is making for the disposal of surplus stocks of animal feed containing mammalian meat and bone meal following the recent ban on feeding mammalian meat and bone meal to farm livestock. [32479]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have today sent a letter to all livestock farmers, feed merchants and feed compounders in the United Kingdom offering to fund the collection and disposal of any residual stocks of MBM or feed containing MBM. Thereafter, after consultation with the appropriate organisations, an order will be laid to make it illegal to have MBM, or feed containing MBM, on farms or in the premises of feed merchants or at feed mills.

  Parliamentary approval of this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for class III, vote 2—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: operational expenditure, agencies and departmental administration. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £6 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.
  3

  Veterinary Fees
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance his Department provides towards payment of fees to veterinary surgeons for treatment of injured wildlife. [30792]

  Mrs. Browning
  No direct help is given towards payment of fees to veterinary surgeons for treatment of injured wildlife. The Pesticides Safety Directorate under the wildlife incident investigation scheme does arrange for disease incidents where pesticides may be involved to be investigated at no additional cost to the veterinary surgeon involved.

  Mr. Jonathan Stirling
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, columns 139–40, when the inquiry into the performance of Mr. Jonathan Stirling as a licensed veterinary inspector was completed; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions. [31204]

  Mrs. Browning
  The investigations into the allegations made on the "Dispatches" programme have not yet been concluded.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many local veterinary inspector-certified consignments of animals were exported through the port of Brightlingsea during 1995; and what proportion of consignments were certified by Mr. Jonathan Stirling. [31208]

  Mrs. Browning
  Some 1,048 consignments of animals certified by LVIs were exported through the port of Brightlingsea during 1995 of which 29 consignments were certified by Mr. Jonathan Stirling.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, columns 139–40, in respect of which consignments certified by Mr. Jonathan Stirling for export animals were subsequently rejected by Ministry officials including and excluding animals rejected as unfit to travel under the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994; and when such consignments arrived at Brightlingsea wharf (a) during 1995 and (b) from 1 January to 8 March. [31206]

  Mrs. Browning
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) During 1995 of 29 consignments of animals certified for export by Mr. Jonathan Stirling, through the port of Brightlingsea, Ministry officials rejected as unfit to travel, one animal from one consignment on 13 February 1995 and two animals from one consignment on 21 June 1995.

  (b) No animals have been exported from Brightlingsea so far during 1996.

  Quarantine
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual cost to public funds in maintaining the six-month quarantine system. [31318]

  Mrs. Browning
  The annual cost was approximately £435,000 in the financial year 1995–96. This figure includes the cost of policy and administrative work on rabies in the industry's animal health group, some of 4
  which is not directly concerned with maintaining the six-month quarantine system, but this cannot be separately distinguished.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to reply to the written questions regarding quarantine tabled on 25 April. [32195]

  Mrs. Browning
  I answered one of the hon. Member's questions on 1 May 1996,Official Report, column 571, and the others have been answered today.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has access to animals in quarantine kennels; what plans he has to review these procedures; and if he will make a statement. [26651]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: The RSPCA is not able to enter quarantine premises as of right. However, anyone can go into quarantine premises with the permission of the premises owner. Additionally, licensed quarantine premises, all of which are privately owned, are inspected quarterly by MAFF veterinary officers who have the right to be accompanied by another person authorised by them and assisting them in their duties. I have no plans to change these procedures at present.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been(a) the total number of animals accepted by each quarantine kennel since 1990 and (b) the total number of animal deaths at each quarantine kennel since 1990. [26652]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: The number of animals licensed to enter quarantine in Great Britain from 1990 to 1995 was:

  Year

  Dogs

  Cats

  Other mammals

  1990

  5,999

  3,687

  150,631

  1991

  5,290

  3,289

  63,674

  1992

  5,175

  3,190

  61,320

  1993

  5,738

  3,633

  35,515

  1994

  5,554

  3,863

  31,620

  1995

  5,394

  4,126

  81,054

  The number of animals which are recorded as having died in quarantine during the same period is:

  Year

  Dogs

  Cats

  Other mammals

  1990

  79

  52

  3

  1991

  49

  34

  20

  1992

  71

  67

  1

  1993

  72

  93

  5

  1994

  61

  65

  4

  1995

  61

  56

  4

  Information concerning individual quarantine kennels is considered commercially confidential.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met with the Quarantine Kennel Owners Association; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement. [26654]
  5
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: I met members of both the Quarantine Kennel Owners Association and the Quarantine Kennel Professional Associates on 13 May 1996 to discuss animal welfare standards in quarantine kennels.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total revenue received by the Government from quarantine kennels in each of the last five financial years. [26656]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: The only revenue which the Government receive from quarantine kennels is that which comes from their ordinary payment of taxes. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not receive any direct revenue from quarantine kennels.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals have been imported into the United Kingdom through quarantine, by country, since 1991. [26650]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: Prior to April 1995, when a computerised licensing system was set up, quarantine records were filed under a manual system. Therefore, the historic information sought cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. I can, however, tell the hon. Member that, since that date, licences have been issued for the import of animals from 122 different countries. These are:

  Country

  Number of animals for which licenses have been issued

  Abu Dhabi

  6

  Algeria

  2

  Anguilla

  1

  Antiqua

  5

  Argentina

  6

  Armenia

  1

  Australia

  355

  Austria

  26

  Azerbaijan

  2

  Bahamas

  5

  Bahrain

  47

  Bangladesh

  1

  Barbados

  12

  Belarus

  5

  Belgium

  137

  Belize

  1

  Bermuda

  21

  Bolivia

  1

  Botswana

  14

  Brazil

  17

  Brunei

  7

  Bulgaria

  5

  Cameroon

  4

  Canada

  383

  Canary Islands

  35

  Chile

  4

  China

  27

  Columbia

  5

  Croatia

  1

  Cuba

  2

  Cyprus

  211

  Czech Republic

  17

  Denmark

  15

  Dominican Republic

  1

  Dubai

  20

  Egypt

  28

  Ethopia

  4

  Falkland Islands

  2

  Finland

  67

  6

  Country

  Number of animals for which licenses have been issued

  France

  1,528

  Gambia

  2

  Germany

  984

  Ghana

  9

  Gibraltar

  15

  Greece

  118

  Guyana

  4

  Hawaii

  1

  Honduras

  1

  Hong Kong

  165

  Hungary

  18

  India

  8

  Indonesia

  92

  Israel

  299

  Italy

  95

  Jamaica

  1

  Japan

  275

  Jordan

  2

  Kazakhstan

  1

  Kenya

  19

  Korea

  4

  Kuwait

  19

  Latvia

  2

  Lesotho

  3

  Libya

  1

  Luxembourg

  5

  Malawi

  15

  Malaysia

  46

  Malta

  26

  Mauritius

  735

  Mexico

  4

  Monaco

  2

  Montserrat

  3

  Morocco

  2

  Mozambique

  2

  Namibia

  5

  Nepal

  3

  Netherlands

  207

  New Zealand

  61

  Nigeria

  11

  Northern Cyprus

  5

  Norway

  42

  Oman

  28

  Pakistan

  11

  Peru

  1

  Phillippines

  430

  Poland

  8

  Portugal

  64

  Qatar

  18

  Romania

  2

  Russia

  34

  Saudi Arabia

  69

  Serbia

  1

  Seychelles

  2

  Singapore

  67

  Slovakia

  2

  South Africa

  389

  Spain

  293

  Sri Lanka

  3

  St. Helena

  1

  Sweden

  175

  Switzerland

  5,923

  Syria

  1

  Tahiti

  1

  Taiwan

  10

  Tanzania

  6

  Thailand

  11

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  Tunisia

  3

  7

  Country

  Number of animals for which licenses have been issued

  Turkey

  13

  Turks and Caicos

  1

  UAE

  101

  Uganda

  1

  Ukraine

  1

  USA

  9,501

  Uzbekistan

  1

  Venezuela

  1

  Virgin Isles

  1

  West Africa (country not specified)

  2

  West Indies (coutry not specified)

  1

  Yemen

  3

  Yugoslavia

  2

  Zambia

  5

  Zimbabwe

  8

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how regularly quarantine kennels are required to be inspected by MAFF vets; under which legislation; and how many inspections of quarantine kennels by MAFF vets have taken place since April 1995. [26653]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: All 79 quarantine kennels authorised to operate in Great Britain must be inspected by MAFF veterinary staff at three monthly intervals to ensure that the standards required under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 are being maintained. Additional ad hoc inspections may also take place if the Ministry's local divisional veterinary manager considers them necessary. It would not be possible to quantify the total number of routine and ad hoc visits which had taken place since April 1995 without incurring disproportionate costs.

  January 19951

  April 19951

  January 19961

  Country

  Value (£000)

  Tonnes

  Value (£000)

  Tonnes

  Value (£000)

  Tonnes

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  237

  68

  376

  117

  368

  134

  Denmark

  242

  117

  65

  33

  165

  83

  Finland

  —

  —

  60

  40

  0

  0

  France

  2,191

  1,332

  2,089

  950

  1,433

  803

  Germany

  239

  169

  167

  72

  132

  70

  Irish Republic

  8,779

  3,786

  8,814

  3,094

  7,223

  2,107

  Italy

  —

  —

  26

  10

  52

  20

  Netherlands

  1,805

  575

  1,376

  407

  1,130

  335

  Spain

  386

  135

  96

  34

  32

  17

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Argentina

  790

  161

  1,891

  566

  1,362

  463

  Australia

  1,690

  479

  1,395

  409

  2,151

  808

  Botswana

  —

  —

  514

  160

  2,073

  798

  Brazil

  141

  34

  1,479

  400

  598

  169

  Namibia

  422

  134

  912

  299

  623

  212

  New Zealand

  —

  —

  533

  281

  361

  160

  Paraguay

  —

  —

  59

  26

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  —

  —

  31

  23

  219

  82

  USA.

  168

  70

  277

  116

  520

  256

  Uruguay

  1,897

  591

  2,241

  886

  1,632

  587

  Zimbabwe

  1,102

  255

  2,793

  878

  2,199

  253

  Total

  20,089

  7,906

  25,192

  8,801

  22,274

  7,358

  1 Provisional

  8
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to implement a statutory code of practice on animal welfare for quarantine kennels; and if he will make a statement. [26655]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on 26 March, official Report, column 528.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 640, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31455]

  Mr. Boswell
  More than £450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31497]

  Mr. Boswell
  None.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a breakdown by country of imports of beef under heading 011 in(a) April 1995 and (b) April 1996. [31766]

  Mrs. Browning
  The latest month for which detailed official trade statistics are available is January 1996. The table shows imports of beef, under heading 011, for January 1995, April 1995 and January 1996, by country:
  9

  Slaughtered Cattle
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the exemptions he makes from his general policy of requiring the destruction of carcases of cattle over the age of 30 months; and what controls he has introduced to monitor such disposals. [31579]

  Mr. Boswell
  No such exemptions are made as the EC regulation (716/96) governing the over 30 months scheme requires destruction of the carcases.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to investigate allegations of abuse of the cattle disposal scheme with special reference to giving preference to dealers or farmers for improper reasons; and if he will make a statement. [31627]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have made it clear that abuses of the scheme will not be tolerated. Collection centres found to be breaching scheme rules will be removed from the scheme. No allegation of abuse of the kind referred to by the hon. Member has been substantiated. Anyone with a complaint about infringement of the rules has been invited to make it either to the Intervention Board or to the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he collates in respect of the 8,855 animals which were rejected as unfit to travel prior to export from the United Kingdom in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [32102]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is a considerable variety of circumstances in which animals may be rejected as unfit for an export journey. Central records are kept only of the numbers rejected.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 380, what were the ages of the 1,313 bovines and the 668 bovines exported from Great Britain to the Irish Republic in 1994 and 1995 and the 18,340 and 25,044 bovines exported from Great Britain in Northern Ireland in 1994 and 1995. [31785]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The number of bovines exported to the Irish Republic were as recorded in the overseas trade statistics. These provide statistics on the exports from the United Kingdom as a whole and not just Great Britain.

  The ages of bovines exported is not recorded within the overseas trade statistics, nor within the Animo system. However, so far as exports to the Republic of Ireland are concerned, Community rules in force since 1990 have prohibited the export from the UK to any member state of bovine animals over six months old.

  Avoparcin
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the use of avoparcin 10
  with particular reference to his assessment of the available data for the European Commission's Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition. [31947]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: Avoparcin is authorised for use throughout the Community as an additive in animal feeds under directive 70/524/EEC. No feed additive is permitted unless it satisfies the criteria set out in the directive, including a requirement that, at the level permitted in feeding stuffs, it does not adversely affect human or animal health or the environment.

  In July 1995, as a result of concerns expressed by Denmark, the Council of Ministers decided not to support the continued authorisation of avoparcin for use in feed for dairy cows. The Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition has recently considered data presented by the Danish authorities and their report is expected to be made available to member states shortly.

  The Government will continue to argue that any future decisions on the authorisation of avoparcin must be taken on the basis of good scientific evidence.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the interested parties who were consulted in drawing up the guidelines which will accompany the consolidated food labelling regulations which will come into force on 1 July. [31572]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: Six hundred and sixty-four interested parties representing manufacturers, retailers, consumers, individuals and enforcement authorities have been consulted on the draft guidance notes. Seventy-one detailed responses were received and have been taken into account in preparing the final version.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice and recommendations she has received from the British Veterinary Association regarding the steps needed to eradicate BSE from British herds. [31040]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: Ministers and officials regularly meet with representatives of the British Veterinary Association to discuss, amongst other things, BSE. Their advice and recommendations concerning proposals for the eradication of BSE are carefully considered and, where appropriate, reflected in the control measures.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31500]
  11
  Mr. Willetts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 6 June 1996,Official Report, column 518.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 495 (1) how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested; [31461]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 March, Official Report, column 405, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31465]

  Mr. Howard
  More than £450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.

  Karamanjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the case of Karamanjit Singh Chahal. [31437]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Mr. Chahal's case was heard by the European Court of Human Rights on 25 March. No judgment has yet been given.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases during 1995 it was claimed his Department's presenting officers had misled immigration appeal adjudicators; and if he will make a statement. [31949]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  None of which I am aware. Presenting officers do not knowingly mislead adjudicators.

  Mr. Sodagar Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received a letter from the hon. Member for Bradford, West, dated 10 May, concerning the case of Mr. Sodagar Hussain who has applied to join his wife and children in the United Kingdom; if he will authorise a visa to be issued to Mr. Hussain on the basis of the job awaiting him in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [31950]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The letter was received on 15 May and I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the 12
  cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31406]

  Mr. Howard
  The following table gives information about the use of executive search or employment agencies in 1994–95 and 1995–96 for centrally managed recruitment schemes.

  Supplier

  1994–95

  Number of staff recruited

  1995–96

  Number of staff recruited

  RAS

  *

  49

  *

  97

  Coopers and Lybrand

  *

  2

  *

  5

  GKRS

  *

  2

  *

  2

  Korn Ferry

  —

  —

  *

  —

  St. James's Management Recruitment

  —

  —

  *

  1

  Saxton Bampfylde

  —

  —

  *

  1

  PJR

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  *

  4

  Love Pirbhai Prichard

  —

  —

  *

  1

  Jones Resourcing

  —

  —

  *

  1

  Total

  —

  53

  —

  112

  Information is not readily available about the use of employment agencies whether recruitment was conducted locally.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not our practice to disclose the size of the contracts awarded to individual agencies. However, the combined value of these contracts was £350,326 excluding value added tax in 1994–95 and £611,309 excluding value added tax in 1995–96.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search on employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31519]

  Mr. Howard
  Executive search or employment agencies are used in making appointments to the Home Office and its executive agencies where it is thought that they will be able to supplement usefully the field of applicants.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many complaints have been received by the Data Protection Registrar relating to the Child Support Agency; [31999]

  (2) what action is being taken by the Data Protection Registrar in respect of breaches of the Data Protection Act 1984 by the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [32000]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Data Protection Registrar has received 457 letters of complaint about the Child Support Agency since it began operation in April 1993. Three hundred and thirty-two were investigated because they raised issues relating to compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984. In cases where the registrar felt there was a possibility of the 1984 Act being breached, she negotiated with the agency, which has subsequently altered its practices regarding disclosure of information. The registrar will make a statement on the current position in her next annual report to Parliament, which is due in July.
  13

  Pets (Quarantine)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what administrative reforms would be required if the six-month quarantine system for pets were replaced by a vaccine-based system; and if he will make a statement. [31312]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  The present rules on quarantining of pet animals are set out in the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974. Any changes would require amendment to that order. Any vaccine-based scheme would need to be founded on proper vaccination before exposure to rabies infection, satisfying a blood test, conclusive identification and evidence of residency. A new system for processing applications as well as inspection arrangements to ensure that the rules were properly complied with would need to be put in place.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31512]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No specific instructions were issued in respect of flying the European flag on 8 May. It is not our general practice to fly the European flag from Government buildings. On appropriate occasions, such as the UK's presidency of the European Community in 1992, it has, however, been flown.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual profit of(a) British Gas, (b) Central Electricity Generating Board, (c) each of the previously publicly owned water companies and (d) British Telecom in each year since 1979. [31760]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is published in the accounts of the nationalised utilities and in the annual reports of the privatised utility companies. Information on the water companies is published in the Office of Water Services' "1994–95 Report on the Financial Performance and Capital Investment of the Water Companies in England and Wales". Copies of all of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Encryption Services
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government have yet decided how encryption services may be provided for business and commerce. [32544]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Following the discussion between Departments to which I referred in my replies to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) of 6 March 1996,Official Report, column 229, and 25 March 1996, Official Report, column 411, I am today publishing a paper outlining the Government's policy on
  14
  the provision of encryption services on public networks. Copies of the paper are available in the Library of both Houses.

  The Government aim to facilitate the development of electronic commerce on the emerging global information infrastructure. This is of significant importance in maintaining the UK's competitiveness and is a component of the Department's information society initiative. There is a growing demand for encryption services to safeguard the integrity and confidentiality of electronic information transmitted on public telecommunications networks. The Government therefore propose to make arrangements for licensing trusted third parties who would provide such services. These TTPs would offer digital signature, data integrity and retrieval, key management and other services for which there is a commercial demand. The licensing policy will aim to protect consumers as well as to preserve the ability of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight serious crime and terrorism by establishing procedures for disclosure to them of the encryption keys, under safeguards similar to those which already exist for warranted interception under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Officials within my Department have held preliminary discussions with industry groups on the concepts set out in the paper. The Government intend to bring forward proposals for legislation following consultation by the Department of Trade and Industry on detailed policy proposals.

  Magnox Electric plc
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the objectives he has set for Magnox Electric plc. [32545]

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. The Government wish Magnox Electric plc to be a robust public sector entity which will enhance competition in the electricity market and secure the best possible value for the tax payer from its operations. The company must operate in a commercial manner, judging any investment by commercial rates of return. In doing so, it must:

  1. demonstrate in all its activities that safety is the foundation of its business;

  2. have full regard to the environmental impact of all its operations;

  3. maximise net revenue from electricity sales by operating its generating plant as fully, and for as long, as is consistent with safety requirements;

  4. meet all its nuclear liabilities as cost effectively as possible;

  5. maintain and develop its core skills and capabilities to meet its current and future operational needs. Magnox may exploit these skills and capabilities in appropriate new business areas, as agreed with the Government; and

  6. seek a basis for integration with British Nuclear Fuels which will provide the combined company with a clear incentive to maximise the net revenues from magnox generation and to minimise all Magnox-related reprocessing and other back end costs.

  Insurance Ombudsman
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to extend the powers of the insurance ombudsman to cover insurance policies taken out by commercial concerns. [32160]
  15
  Mr. Nelson
  None. The insurance ombudsman bureau is a voluntary body established and paid for by the insurance industry. Any changes to the scheme would therefore be a matter for the industry to decide.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases of alleged insider dealing have been(a) reported for investigation, (b) referred for prosecution and (c) prosecuted before the courts since the coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. [32056]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since the coming into force on 1 March 1994 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, 52 cases of possible insider dealing have been reported to my Department, leading to the appointment of inspectors in 25 instances, of which inquiries in respect of 14 are still continuing. In this period, four prosecutions, involving five defendants, have been commenced of which one is under the new legislation.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases of alleged insider dealing have been(a) referred for prosecution and (b) the subject of conviction since 1980. [32057]

  Mr. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) on 21 March 1995,Official Report, column 183. The report, "Companies in 1994–95", has now been published and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Since 1 April 1995, a further 32 referrals have been made from the London stock exchange leading to 16 appointments of inspectors. There has been one conviction.

  Exporters Database
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to institute a national database of British exporters. [31910]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government have no plans to provide a national database of exporters. This kind of professional information gathering is best left to the private sector and the UK already leads the world with a number of companies producing excellent commercial database. My Department is currently looking at ways of helping the private sector to set up trade directions on the Internet.

  Patents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total of patents registered in(a) the United Kingdom Patent Office and (b) the European Patent Office in each of the past five years. [32096]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The total number of patents granted in each of the last five years at the United Kingdom Patent Office and the European Patent office is shown:

  Year

  UK Patent Office

  European Patent Office

  1995

  9,475

  41,609

  1994

  9,530

  42,001

  1993

  8,330

  36,664

  1992

  9,421

  30,409

  1991

  9,346

  26,642

  16

  Euro 96
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that counterfeit merchandise for Euro 96 is being imported into the United Kingdom. [31830]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I understand from HM customs that two seizures of goods which infringe UEFA's registered trade mark have been made.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated annual saving to business from the Deregulation (Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials) Order 1996. [31385]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The burdens by this order fall both on suppliers of fillings for beds, furniture and toys and on the manufacturers of such items. In view of the diversity of these industries, it has not been possible to construct reliable estimates of the total direct and indirect cost savings the order will achieve. However, one firm, which is the biggest single producer of fillings in the UK, estimates that the cost of testing alone to demonstrate compliance with the rag flock legislation is in its case £4,000 each year. Despite the difficulties associated with determining total figures for the whole industry, informal inquiries have suggested that direct cost savings could be, for the fillings industry alone, over £100,000, for each year after the burdens are removed. Total savings to suppliers and manufacturers should therefore be well in excess of this figure.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what work has been done by his Department to evaluate the Danish broker model within business links and training and enterprise councils. [31891]

  Mr. Page
  A business networking project based on the Danish broker model has already been piloted in the south-west. Business networking was one of three key areas identified for support under the second competitive White Paper, Cm 2867. As such, it figures prominently amongst the projects being developed throughout the country by TECs and business link partnerships.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of British companies are so far included in business links databases. [31909]

  Mr. Page
  The latest management information returns, which cover about two thirds of the country, indicate that some 617,000 businesses are registered on business link databases. This represents approximately 47 per cent. of the 1.32 million value added tax registered businesses in England. The requirement is for business links to record on their databases details of businesses with 10 or more employees, but many business links include other businesses.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to which Government Department he expects business links to answer primarily. [31908]

  Mr. Page
  Although business links receive considerable financial and other support from the Government, they are not Government agencies. As
  17
  such they do not "answer" to any particular Government Department. They are, however, required to show the Departments which provide financial support that public funds have been used for the purposes intended. In addition, business links must meet the accreditation and branding requirements specified by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as agreed with national business link partners.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that business links databases are integrated into a national database of exporters. [31904]

  Mr. Page
  All business links are required to collect common core information for all businesses with 10 employees or more, including whether companies are exporters and, if so, the percentage of sales that are exported, and be able to output this information in a common form.

  Business links are private companies. Decisions on whether to integrate this information into national databases is a matter for them to consider on a commercial basis.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance his Department issues to business links regarding the largest companies which should receive their services. [31906]

  Mr. Page
  Each business link is expected to provide a service to firms of widely differing sizes. The business link prospectus suggested a need to concentrate its services on businesses with between 10 and 200 employees. In developing business links, however, it has become clear that the real target is firms with the potential to grow, not firms of a particular size.

  ISO 9000 Status
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms with under(a) 10, (b) 20, (c) 50 and (d) 100 employees have attained Internation Standard Organisation 9000 status. [31948]

  Mr. Page
  My Department does not hold comprehensive information concerning the size of firms assessed to ISO 9000. The 1996 edition of the DTI QA register, "The United Kingdom Register of Quality Assessed Companies", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, lists some 51,500 organisations which have attained accredited certification to ISO 9000. Entries in the register are voluntary and there is no breakdown by size of organisation.

  Torness Power Station
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on warnings given by the nuclear installations inspectorate concerning the failure of maintenance requirements of Torness power station to match the safety case with particular reference to the shortage of suitably qualified and experienced personnel at Torness and safety problems arising from the employment of outside contractors; [31624]
  18
  (2) if he will take measures to increase the provision of maintenance staff and in-house provision at Torness power station; and if he will notify those bidding for shares in British Energy of his proposals in this area. [31625]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answers 7 June 1996]: Scottish Nuclear put forward a safety case to the nuclear installations inspectorate on proposals to make modifications to the maintenance regime of Torness power station. The NII raised some apparent discrepancies with Scottish Nuclear about what was written in the safety case and what was actually in place. Scottish Nuclear reacted promptly and effectively to those concerns. The NII is satisfied with the range of improvements which Scottish Nuclear implemented to its procedures.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  West Bank and Gaza Strip
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the British Government plan to take through bilateral and international aid programmes to improve hospital bed availability in the west bank and Gaza strip. [31868]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Overseas Development Administration is helping the Palestinian Ministry of Health to strengthen its management capacity through a three-year project. The project's goals include improved planning and management of hospital services, and increased utilisation rates and hospital bed availability. The team of ODA-funded health consultants led by Sir Duncan Nicholl is working alongside a World Bank-funded programme which constitutes a part of its $20 million education and health rehabilitation credit.

  The EU is financing the construction of a 232-bed general hospital near Gaza city. Construction began in October 1993, commissioning will begin in the early autumn, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency which administers the hospital expects it to be fully operational by March 1997. The UK share of the £18 million cost will be over £3 million. There has also been substantial UK involvement in the hospital's design and construction.

  UNRWA, to whose core budget the UK makes annual contributions, is upgrading a small cottage hospital in the west bank.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the annual amount spent by the United Kingdom Government through bilateral and international aid programmes on the provision of health care in the west bank and Gaza strip for the period 1970 to 1996. [31870]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA's record of expenditure on assistance to the health sector in the west bank and Gaza strip does not date back to 1970. The following table shows UK bilateral aid, and assistance through the EC and UNRWA, since 1978–98. Assistance from the World bank for the west bank and Gaza is only just starting: it
  19
  has recently declared a $20 million education and health rehabilitation credit effective.

  UK aid flows to occupied territories/west bank Gaza strip health sector 1987–88 to 1995–96

  UK financial year

  ODA bilateral1

  EC2

  UNRWA3

  Total £'000s

  1987–88

  137

  74

  —

  211

  1988–89

  148

  81

  —

  229

  1989–90

  198

  211

  —

  419

  1990–91

  247

  240

  —

  487

  1991–92

  534

  1,782

  —

  2,316

  1992–93

  565

  987

  —

  1,552

  1993–94

  510

  1,120

  —

  1,630

  1994–95

  420

  776

  —

  1,296

  1995–96

  636

  2,300

  45

  2,981

  Notes:

  1 ODA bilateral: constitutes regular bilateral programme, Emergency Aid and Joint Funding Scheme flows.

  2 EC: based on exchange rate of 1 Ecu: £0.80, and UK average share over the period of 16 per cent. of total EU programme.

  3 UNRWA: Figure refers to year one of third year £400,000 ODA-funded Family Health Project. Both UK and EU make regular annual contributions to UNRWA's core programme budget which includes health sector activities. These cannot be disaggregated.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what existing measures the British Government support through bilateral and international aid programmes which assist polytechnic education to train technical and managerial workers in the west bank and Gaza strip; and what is the United Kingdom financial contribution to such programmes; [31871]

  (2) what was the annual amount spent by the United Kingdom Government through bilateral and international aid programmes on the provision of polytechnic education in the west bank and Gaza strip for the period 1970 to 1996; [31867]

  (3) what future steps the British Government plan to take through bilateral and international aid programmes to assist the development of polytechnical education to train technical and managerial workers in the west bank and Gaza strip. [31869]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom bilateral aid programme for west bank and Gaza does not fund tertiary level education projects.

  The European Union is providing running cost support in 1996 for nine universities and 12 community colleges. Four of the community colleges—the term polytechnic is rarely used in west bank and Gaza—are technical or management colleges. Their share of the support will total 1.96 million ecu—£1.64 million—of which about 16 per cent. can be attributed to the UK.

TREASURY

  Kenya
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about the International Monetary Fund's enhanced structural adjustment facility for Kenya. [30596]
  20
  Mrs. Anglea Knight
  A three-year programme under the enhanced structural adjustment facility worth SDR 149.55 million, was approved by the IMF board on 26 April.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of the conditional exempt works of art inheritance tax rules to the Inland Revenue at constant values in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995. [31209]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated cost to the Exchequer of granting conditional exemption from inheritance tax and capital transfer tax to works of art and chattels is:

  Year

  £ million at 1994–95 prices1

  1984–85

  64 million

  1989–90

  123 million

  1994–95

  55 million

  1 Converted using the GDP market deflator.

  A comparable figure for 1979–80 is not available. The exemption is conditional, not absolute. Its broad effect is to defer payment of tax on the qualifying items for so long as the conditions of the exemption are met.

  Abortions
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions(a) in total and (b) per 1,000 women were carried out in England and Wales in 1995. [31316]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested is not yet available. Abortion data for the first three quarters of 1995 have been published in Office of Population Censuses and Surveys/Office of National Statistics monitors AB96/1, AB96/2, AB9/3 and are available in the House of Commons Library. The December quarter monitor is expected to be published on 27 June 1996. The 1995 annual monitors are expected to be published in September 1996.

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31501]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  No European Union flags were flown by the Treasury or the Chancellor's agencies on 8 May 1996.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 257, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31444]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  More than £450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.
  21

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the cost to a family of four of the common agricultural policy and (b) the pecuniary benefit which such a family derives from United Kingdom membership of the EEC. [31761]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The common agricultural policy imposes costs on consumers estimated for 1993 at some £3 per week per person. A note setting out the calculations of the costs to United Kingdom taxpayers and consumers has been placed in Library of the House.

  However, while such an assessment of the costs of the CAP can be made, to carry out an assessment of the pecuniary and wider benefits of UK membership of the European Union for a family of four would be time consuming and expensive. It would not be possible to disentangle the direct impact of EU membership over more than two decades from changes which are due to other factors.

  Exports
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on exports of changes in the strength of the pound against other currencies since January 1996. [31932]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest trade data, to March, show that the volume of United Kingdom exports of goods—excluding oil and erratics—increased by over three per cent. in the first quarter of 1996 compared with the previous quarter. However, exports depend on a wide range of factors, of which the exchange rate is only one, and it is difficult to disentangle the various influences. In any case, the sterling effective exchange rate index changed little between January and April 1996.

  Assets
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people over 60 years have assets of £50,000 or more at the latest available date; and how many such people there were five years ago and 10 years ago. [31548]

  Mr. Jack
  The available information is as follows. I regret that separate estimates for people over 60 years are not available.

  Adults in the United Kingdom with net marketable wealth1 of £50,000 or more

  Year

  Estimated number

  1983

  3 million

  1988

  6 million

  1993

  10 million

  1 Includes all assets held by individuals for which a value can be immediately realised, net of liabilities, but excludes the values of accrued pension rights.

  Obstetrics
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total number of(a) live births, (b) stillbirths and (c) maternities which occurred in England and Wales in 1995 and the number of each which occurred in
  22
  (i) NHS hospitals without consultant obstetric units, (ii) NHS hospitals with obstetric units, (iii) other hospitals, (iv) at home and (v) elsewhere. [31855]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Available data requested are shown in the table.

  Births and maternities in England and Wales by place of confinement, 1995

  Live births

  Stillbirths

  Maternities

  NHS hospitals

  632,378

  3,530

  626,633

  Non-NHS hospitals

  2,689

  14

  2,667

  At home

  12,464

  41

  12,487

  Elsewhere

  607

  15

  617

  Total

  648,138

  3,600

  642,404

  Separate figures for different kinds of NHS hospital have not been collected centrally since 1992, when 98.6 per cent. of all maternities in NHS hospitals occurred in hospitals with consultant obstetric units.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the number and proportion of manual, non-manual and part-time employees on adult rates earning less than(a) £3.95, (b) £5.26 and (c) £5.52 per hour, excluding overtime payments, in total and for (i) men and (ii) women and by (1) standard economic region, (2) each county in England and Wales, (3) each London borough and Greater London as a whole, (4) each regional authority and borough in Scotland and (5) Great Britain as a whole for April 1992; [31175]

  (2) if he will list the number and proportion of manual, non-manual and all full-time employees on adult rates earning less than (a) £148.13, (b) £197.25 and (c) £207.13 per week, excluding overtime payments, in total and for (i) men and (ii) women and by (1) standard economic region, (2) each county in England and Wales, (3) each London borough and Greater London as a whole, (4) each regional authority and borough in Scotland and (5) Great Britain as a whole for April 1992. [31174]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I am placing the available information from the "New Earnings Survey" in the House of Commons Library.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual saving to business from the Deregulation (Bills of Exchange) Order 1996. [31384]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Association for Payment Clearing Services has estimated that savings to the banking industry will be in the region of £30 million a year.

  Custody Services Regulation
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish his consultation document on extending the scope of the Financial Services Act 1986 to cover regulation of custody services. [32549]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have today published the consultation document. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Comments are invited by the end of August.
  23

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many registered disabled people are employed by his Department; and what percentage this is of the total figures. [30778]

  Sir John Wheeler
  At 1 May 1996 there 1,120 staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service—3.96 per cent. of the service—who self-reported a disability. Of these 450–1.6 per cent. of the service—were, or had been, registered as disabled. In addition, 71 registered disabled people are working in the Northern Ireland civil service under the employment support programme.

  Of the home civil service staff in the Northern Ireland Office two are known to be registered disabled–0.9 per cent. of the work force.

  Postal and Proxy Votes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applicants for postal or proxy votes for the election to be held on 30 May, have been refused by the chief electoral officer because they stated that they would be on holiday; what plans he has to take steps to reverse this ruling; and if he will advise the chief electoral officer to amend the existing application form so that applicants know to state where they will be on holiday. [30832]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 56 applications for a postal or proxy vote were refused to individuals who cited leave or holiday as the reason for recruiting an absent vote for the 30 May election. The precise reasons for the refusals in these cases are, however, a matter for the chief electoral officer alone to consider. The application form that is used by those wishing to apply for a one-off postal or proxy vote at a particular election already advises in the notes on the reverse of the form that the applicant should indicate where he or she will be on holiday.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Pesca funding is available for fishery projects in Northern Ireland in 1996–97; how much was paid in 1995–96; and if he will list those projects funded and the amount each project received. [32192]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The financial information for the Pesca programme is available only on the basis of calendar year and not financial year as requested.

  The funding available for measure 3 fisheries projects in 1996 and 1997 is as follows:

  1996: £67,000

  1997: £76,000

  There was no expenditure incurred on fisheries projects in 1995–96 financial year.

  A nil return should be recorded against list of projects funded and amount each project received.
  24

TRANSPORT

  British Rail (Assets)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the value of(a) land, (b) property and (c) rolling stock and other railway assets in the ownership of British Rail. [30616]

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail's 1994–95 annual report and accounts show that the total value of BR's fixed assets was £2,748 million at 31 March 1995. The annual report and accounts for year end 1995–96 are being audited and will be published in July.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of his travel on official business has been undertaken by rail in the last year. [30620]

  Sir George Young
  I travel regularly to work by rail and, during the last year, I travelled by train on approximately 75 per cent. of official visits in the UK outside London. On Friday, I travelled on seven separate trains.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase public transport use; and if he will make a statement. [30628]

  Mr. Norris
  We aim to increase the attractions of public transport through targeted public investment and through greater involvement of the private sector in offering the services people want.

  Airport Capacity
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to respond to the Second report of the Transport Committee on United Kingdom airport capacity, HC67, Session 1995–96. [30629]

  Sir George Young
  I received the report towards the end of last month and aim to respond as soon as possible.

  Bus Lanes (London)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to review the economic impact of the introduction of bus lanes in London; and if he will make a statement. [30630]

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently updating our guidance note "Keeping Buses Moving". However, I have no doubt that bus priority measures in London are delivering real benefit, and this is reflected in our commitment to complete the bus priority network by 2003.

  Disabled Parking
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to examine misuse of the orange badge parking concession scheme; and what plans he has to curb such abuse. [31873]

  Mr. Norris
  Following a comprehensive review of the working of the scheme new regulations were introduced in 1992 which, among other things, sought to reduce
  25
  abuse of the scheme by making enforcement easier. We are seeking a legislative opportunity for the creation of new powers which will allow traffic wardens and parking attendants to inspect orange badges on demand.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months, to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress his Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31536]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department advertises all promotions, internal vacancies and open competitions on an equal opportunity basis. During the last 12 months, women have been among those particularly encouraged to apply. Over the last five years, the Department has run courses designed to specifically develop the potential of women in management positions. The Department is actively involved in Opportunity 2000.

  National Rail Network
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the future of the national rail network; and if he will make a statement. [30615]

  Sir George Young
  The future of the national rail network is more assured than ever as a result of our privatisation programme. Railtrack, now in the private sector, has published a 10-year plan to spend well over £ 1 billion per annum on the network. Passenger services are being transferred to the private sector, with, for the first time, key services and network benefits legally guaranteed through franchise contracts.

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31513]

  CTG

  DSA

  DVLA

  VCA

  TCA

  HA

  MSA

  VIEA

  TRL

  Totals

  April 1994—April 1995

  Number of permanent staff recruited (FTA 1 incl.)

  30

  62

  45

  3

  29

  7

  23

  36

  63

  298

  April 1994—April 1995

  Cost

  £269,182

  £34,000

  nil

  £4,983

  £26,352

  £36,450

  £17,102

  £54,000

  £75,000

  £517,069

  April 1995—April 1996

  Number of permanent staff recruited (FTA 1 incl.)

  37

  240

  97

  1

  45

  27

  23

  68

  114

  652

  26
  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6 June,Official Report, column 518, by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis).

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31415]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has used Recruitment and Assessment Services and other specialist recruitment agencies for external recruitment. The total number of staff recruited using these services was 19, for the 1994–95 financial year, and 223 for 1995–96. The overall estimated recruitment costs including agency costs—which are not separately identified—in each financial year was in the order of £300,000. The following agencies were employed in the period in question:

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  Link-up Recruitment

  Murray and Co.

  Harrison and Willis

  Saxton Bampfylde International plc

  NB Selection Ltd.

  Sanders and Sidney Outplacement Consultant Beechwood Executive Search

  Prospect Recruitment Ltd.

  Comtex Solutions

  Principal People

  PTC

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31400]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures requested for recruitment in my Department are contained in the following table.
  27

  CTG

  DSA

  DVLA

  VCA

  TCA

  HA

  MSA

  VIEA

  TRL

  Totals

  April 1995—April 1996

  Cost

  £188,965

  £104,500

  £9,100

  £1,609

  £28,085

  £46,944

  £23,428

  £58,000

  £103,000

  £563,631

  Total permanent recruitment (for both periods)

  67

  302

  142

  4

  74

  34

  46

  104

  177

  950

  Total costs (for both periods)

  £458,147

  £138,500

  £9,100

  £6,592

  £54,437

  £83,394

  £40,530

  £112,000

  £178,000

  £1,080,700

  1 FTA (Fixed Term Appointments) not including casual recruitment.

  CTG = Central Transport Group.

  DSA = Driving Standards Agency.

  DVLA = Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  VCA = Vehicle Certification Agency.

  TCA = The Coast-Guard Agency.

  HA = High-Ways Agency.

  MSA = Marine Safety Agency.

  VIEA = Vehicle Inspectorate.

  TRL = Transport Research Laboratory privatised April 1996.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31528]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its executive agencies use executive search or employment agencies where it is felt that this provides a better and more cost-effective service than the normal recruitment methods.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on future likely levels of investment in Britain's rail network. [30619]

  Mr. Watts
  Investment in the rail network has been at record levels in recent years and is expected to rise following the privatisation of railtrack and other rail businesses.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of rail privatisation on the amount of freight carried by rail rather than road. [30612]

  Mr. Watts
  I expect rail freight privatisation to be a resounding success. Both North and South Railways and the new owners of Freightliner have ambitions to develop the rail freight market.

  Railway Research Projects
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed by British Rail on railway research projects; and if he will list the current projects. [31591]

  Mr. Watts
  The number of people employed by BR on railway research projects, and the nature of those projects, is a commercial matter for BR.

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the locations of all sections of motorway which have overhead lighting, by parliamentary constituency. [31599]
  28
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Frank Field, dated 10 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the location of overhead lighting on motorways. You asked for this information by parliamentary constituency.
  The Highways Agency's locational information for road lighting does not include references to parliamentary constituencies. The lengths of motorway in England with overhead lighting are however recorded and these are identified on the attached table.
  The Agency does not have information about the short lengths of principal road motorway in England or the motorways in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The following sections of motorway, in England, contain stretches of road lighting:

  Motorway

  From junction

  To junction

  Kilometres

  Miles

  M1

  1

  20

  122

  75.8

  M1

  21

  22

  6

  3.7

  M1

  23

  27

  22.9

  14.2

  M1

  46

  47

  0.6

  0.4

  M2

  6

  End

  3.2

  2

  M3

  Start

  2

  0.9

  0.6

  M3

  2

  3

  1.9

  1.2

  M3

  12

  End

  5.1

  3.2

  M4

  Start

  8/9

  32.8

  20.4

  M4

  10

  13

  12.6

  7.8

  M4

  20

  21

  1.7

  1.1

  M4

  21

  22

  5

  3.1

  M4

  22

  Wales

  0

  0

  M5

  Start

  3

  14.7

  9.1

  M5

  4

  9

  43.3

  26.9

  M5

  14

  20

  15.7

  9.8

  M5

  28

  30

  3.2

  2

  M5

  30

  31

  0.9

  0.6

  M6

  Start

  1

  2.1

  1.3

  M6

  2

  3

  2.1

  1.3

  M6

  3

  11

  36.4

  22.6

  M6

  15

  16

  4.8

  3

  M6

  19

  28

  37

  23

  M6

  28

  33

  15.4

  9.6

  M10

  1

  2

  0.8

  0.5

  M11

  Start

  3

  4.2

  2.6

  M11

  5

  7

  7.6

  4.7

  M11

  13

  14

  1

  0.6

  M20

  1

  3

  2.8

  1.7

  M20

  4

  8

  11.3

  7

  M20

  10

  13

  9.2

  5.7

  M23

  7

  9

  4.1

  2.5

  M23

  10

  End

  1

  0.6

  M25

  1a

  3

  3.6

  2.2

  M25

  5

  5

  2.5

  1.6

  29

  The following sections of motorway, in England, contain stretches of road lighting:

  Motorway

  From junction

  To junction

  Kilometres

  Miles

  M25

  6

  8

  2.2

  1.4

  M25

  10

  17

  33.8

  21

  M25

  17

  22

  12.6

  7.8

  M25

  23

  27

  25.1

  15.6

  M25

  27

  31

  25.5

  15.8

  M27

  3

  4

  2.9

  1.8

  M27

  5

  8

  2.9

  1.8

  M27

  11

  12

  4.1

  2.5

  M32

  Start

  1

  1.2

  0.7

  M32

  1

  3

  3.3

  2.1

  M40

  1a

  2

  1.4

  0.9

  M40

  3

  6

  13.5

  8.4

  M42

  Start

  2

  3.1

  1.9

  M42

  3

  4

  1.3

  0.8

  M42

  5

  9

  9.6

  6

  M45

  Start

  1

  0.4

  0.2

  M50

  Start

  1

  0.7

  0.4

  M53

  Start

  3

  3

  1.9

  M53

  4

  12

  12.2

  7.6

  M54

  Start

  3

  7

  4.3

  M55

  Start

  3

  2.2

  1.4

  M55

  3

  End

  0.7

  0.4

  M56

  Start

  7

  7.4

  4.6

  M56

  8

  10

  4.8

  3

  M56

  14

  End

  5.1

  3.2

  M57

  6

  End

  0.4

  0.2

  M58

  Start

  1

  0.6

  0.4

  M58

  3

  4

  7.4

  4.6

  M61

  Start

  4

  4.8

  3

  M61

  9

  End

  0.8

  0.5

  M62

  Start

  7

  7.1

  4.4

  M62

  7

  11

  4.9

  3

  M62

  11

  28

  66.1

  41.1

  M62

  37

  End

  0.7

  0.4

  M63

  Start

  End

  22.7

  14.1

  M66

  Start

  1

  0.1

  0.1

  M66

  1

  3

  6.6

  4.1

  M66

  3

  5

  1.4

  0.9

  M66

  4

  End

  0.1

  0.1

  M66

  11

  12

  3.8

  2.4

  M67

  Start

  End

  5.8

  3.6

  M69

  Start

  1

  1.6

  1

  M69

  2

  End

  0.9

  0.6

  M180

  Start

  2

  1.5

  0.9

  M180

  4

  5

  1

  0.6

  M606

  1

  2

  2.3

  1.4

  M606

  2

  3

  1.7

  1.1

  M621

  Start

  End

  8

  5

  A1(M)

  Start

  2

  0.9

  0.6

  A1(M)

  1

  5

  6

  3.7

  A1(M)

  37

  38

  1.6

  1

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the codes of practice on standards of road testing for licensing drivers of motor vehicles, including heavy lorries, in each member state of the European Community. [32015]

  Mr. Norris
  All member states comply with, or are taking steps to comply with, Council directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences which is available in the Library. Annexe II of the directive sets out, among other things, the contents of the practical driving test for motor vehicles, including heavy lorries, and provisions on the manner of assessing candidates by examiners and on the training and supervision of examiners.
  30

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to have large signs showing maximum permitted speeds alongside all speed camera signs; and if he will make a statement. [32047]

  Mr. Norris
  Existing legislation requires all speed limits to be signed. I do not propose additional requirements to add speed limit repeater signs alongside enforcement camera signs. On urban roads where there is a 30 mph limit, repeater signs may be used only where there is no street lighting to indicae the presence of the speed limit. Inconsistent use of repeater signs would lead to enforcement difficulties arising through drivers claiming uncertainty about which limit is in force. The west London enforcement camera trial clearly showed that drivers—who slow down when approaching known camera sites—know the limits in force.

  Traffic Area Network
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his plans are for reorganising the traffic area network. [32552]

  Mr. Norris
  In order to streamline the work and reduce the costs of the traffic areas, the work of the current eight offices will be reorganised into six offices, each with its own traffic commissioner. The offices in Cardiff and Manchester will be closed in 1997. It will be our objective to resolve the problems of staff surpluses by voluntary redundancy means wherever possible through offers of voluntary redundancy and by identifying alternative job opportunities in DOT agencies and other Government Departments for staff in these two offices who wish to remain in the civil service.

  We shall be consulting shortly on proposals for boundary changes to the traffic areas so as to achieve a more even distribution of work.

  London Transport Fares
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on fares charged by London Transport. [30627]

  Mr. Norris
  The general level and structure of London Transport fares are the statutory responsibility of LT. However, as our document "A Transport Strategy for London" indicates, we believe that, in future, LT fares are likely to rise more in line with inflation than with earnings, implying average fare increases lower than in recent years.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters and submissions he has received supporting the Bull Bars (Prohibition) Bill; and how many have opposed it. [32092]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has received 197 letters and submissions supporting the Bull Bars (Prohibition) Bill and 10 opposing it.
  31

  Thames Piers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions he has received from the Port of London Authority to comply with the recommendation of the River Thames working group to review the location and availability of piers on the Thames. [31475]

  Mr. Norris
  The Port of London Authority is working with the Cross River Partnership to examine in detail the location of, and potential demand for, existing and possible new piers in central London. This study forms part of the cross-river integrated public transport study which is expected to report next year.

  In addition, the PLA has recently completed a review of the availability of space at the existing piers under its control, in response to a number of proposals to start new passenger services, and last week invited bids for the use of the available space.
  32
  Proposals are anticipated in due course for new piers and the upgrading of existing piers. The Government welcome such initiatives which, if implemented, would increase the total pier capacity in central London and facilitate increase use of the Thames for passenger transport.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the evacuation time of all passengers and crew that can be required of all ferries using British ports licensed to carry more than 1,000 passengers. [32094]

  Mr. Norris
  The precise time taken to evacuate any such ship would depend upon individual circumstances. Under the safety of life at sea convention, all survival craft needs for the abandonment of the ship must be able to be launched fully loaded within 30 minutes from the time the abandon ship signal is given.
  33

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what. use her Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; which agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to her Department. [30573]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has made no use of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 or 1994–95.

  Of my two agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces agency used the services of private detectives on one occasion during 1995–96 and the Royal Parks agency used a private investigator for one inquiry during 1995–96.

  As both these inquiries were of a confidential personnel-related nature, it would be wrong to provide more specific information.

  National Lottery
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many organisations have been awarded funds from the national lottery five good causes; what is the total amount in pounds; and how much of that money in percentage terms from each of the five good causes has not yet been paid out to these organisations. [28143]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about lottery awards is collected on the basis of awards and projects rather than on the basis of recipient organisations. At 2 May 1996, 5,498 awards for 6,588 projects totalling £1,484,691,164.76 had been made by the 11 lottery distributing bodies throughout the United Kingdom.

  It is a general principle in the distribution of lottery funds that cash will be paid out only to an award recipient on receipt of an invoice relating to the lottery-funded project, consistent with the prudent management of public funds. Until that time, the funds allocated and committed to the future costs of projects remain invested in the national lottery distribution fund, where all the investment returns earned accrue to the good causes.

  It is therefore important to distinguish between the commitment of funds to awards and the draw-down of cash from the NLDF. The figures for awards include a significant proportion of projects which have not yet drawn down from the NLDF, either because the award is very recent, or because the project has not yet met all the particular conditions placed on the award. They also include the total value of awards to over 4,000 capital projects whose expenditure is spread out over many years to come.

  My Department ensures that the future commitment of funds by the lottery distributing bodies remains within prudent levels consistent with their share of the expected income to the NLDF.

  The figures for each of the five good causes for funds allocated from the NLDF at 31 March 1996 are shown in the table:
  34

  Lottery receipts £ million

  Amount awarded (including future commitments £ million

  Amount drawn down £ million

  Percentage of amount awarded awaiting draw down from NLDF

  Arts

  363

  403

  35

  90

  Sports

  363

  254

  29

  92

  Heritage

  363

  173

  36

  90

  Millennium

  363

  494

  5

  99

  Charities

  363

  159

  19

  95

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what sums of public money(a) have been spent and (b) are allocated to the national coaching foundation scheme for Scottish and national vocational qualifications for coaching. [30327]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council will provide £1,500,500 grant aid to the National Coaching Foundation in 1996–97 for a work programme which will include assistance to the national governing bodies of sport to help them develop their coach education programmes. A total of £183,000 is to be allocated to work on the Scottish/national vocational qualifications—S/NVO. This will involve assisting the governing bodies of sport to convert their existing coach award schemes in line with S/NVQ standards. For the last three years, the corresponding figures for Sports Council grant to the NCF have been:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total grant

  1,494,000

  1,420,000

  1,550,500

  S/NVQ element

  164,000

  153,661

  176,136

  I understand that funds are also made available by the Further Education Funding Council.

  Roman Road
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the extent of the surviving Roman road on the site of the HAT redevelopment of the Lefevre Walk estate on the Parnell road, Old Ford site; and what measures are planned to ensure that the surviving Roman road remains(a) undisturbed and (b) accessible for further investigation. [31308]

  Mr. Sproat
  Archaeological remains, including a small part of the Roman road which extended from London to Colchester, exist at the Lefevre Walk estate redevelopment site and have been properly investigated in accordance with English Heritage's advice. As recommended in Government guidance on archaeology and planning, a condition has been included in the planning permission given by the London borough of Tower Hamlets to ensure that the foundations for the new housing development will have as little impact as possible on these remains.
  35

  Euro 96
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what emergency accommodation arrangements local authorities are providing for fans attending the Euro 96 football championships; what is the estimated cost involved in making these arrangements; and who is meeting the cost of this accommodation. [31328]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand that local authorities have been examining ways of meeting accommodation needs for fans attending Euro 96. The costs involved are a matter for the local authorities themselves.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department spent in recruiting staff to her Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruitment in each of these years. [31403]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department and its agencies spent £101,793.05 on recruiting 60 staff during the financial year 1994–95. During 1995–96, we spent £136,449.75 recruiting 57 staff.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what use her Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within her Department or executive agencies administered by her Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts; [31418]

  (2) in what circumstances her Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within her own Department or its executive agencies. [31531]

  Mr. Sproat
  Neither this Department nor its executive agencies have used executive search agencies or employment companies to fill any vacancies during the financial years 1994–95 or 1995–96. Therefore, the question of whether we use executive search agencies or employment companies in preference to using personnel staff is not applicable.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) pursuant to her answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 518, how much her Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested; [31459]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 28 March, Official Report, column 724, how much her Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31452]

  Mr. Sproat
  More than £450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.
  36

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures her Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with her Department and its executive agencies; and what progress her Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31533]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since the Department was created in April 1992, promotees into senior positions in the Department of National Heritage and its agencies have been selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The Department is committed, through the departmental equal opportunities policy statement and action plan, to monitor the progress of women at key stages in their career development, and to take any action appropriate to remove any significant barriers to career progress.

  The agencies abide by the principles set out in the policy statement and action plan. The Department has been developing non-discriminatory personnel practices, and procedures including flexible working arrangements, child care provision for employees, and appraisal and promotion systems, which are fair, and do not discriminate against a particular group. As a result of these, the Department and agencies have a good record in respect of the employment and promotion of women.

  British Academy of Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 294, about the British Academy of Sport (1) what factors led to her inability to provide the information requested; [31585]

  (2) when she expects to be able to provide the information requested. [31584]

  Mr. Sproat
  The detailed analysis of the consultation exercise is an internal document, never itself intended for publication. It is the basis of internal discussion and advice on a policy which has yet to be finalised and announced. The selective release of some elements of the information from the exercise would be misleading. It would also be premature, given that I have said in my previous parliamentary answer that a summary of the main conclusions of the consultation exercise will be published along with the bid prospectus.

  Museums and Coal Mining
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to implement the recommendations in the Museums and Galleries Commission report on museums and coal mining. [31635]

  Mr. Sproat
  The report on museums and coal mining has been prepared by an independent consultant for the Museums and Galleries Commission. The commission is currently considering the recommendations in the report. If, following that consideration, the commission wishes to raise any specific aspects of the report with the Government, my Department will be prepared to consider these, in consultation with the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office.
  37

  Royal Fine Art Commission
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement regarding Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield's report into the royal fine art commission. [31573]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer Friday 7 June 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 9 May 1996, Official Report, columns 213–14.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kashmir (Elections)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the electorate in all Kashmir constituencies voted in the recent national elections; how many United Kingdom nationals observed those elections on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; if he will arrange to place their report in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [31420]

  Mr. Hanley
  Official Indian election commission figures for the voting in the recent elections in Kashmir are as follows: Jammu 49.1 per cent., Ladakh 83.3 per cent., Anantnag 39 per cent., Baramulla 46.6 per cent., Srinagar 41 per cent. and Udhampur 52 per cent. A member of our high commission in New Delhi visited the Kashmir constituencies during the elections. The high commission's reports on those visits are internal documents and will not be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 386, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested; [31447]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 29 March, Official Report, column 796, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31450]

  Mr. Hanley
  More than –450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31392]

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of recruiting permanent staff to this Department and its agencies, and the numbers in each period were:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cost (£)

  996,806

  962,711

  Number

  253

  188

  38
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31407]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department and its agencies have not used executive search agencies during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96, but have used the following employment companies:

  2 Heads better for business

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of staff recruited

  46

  66

  Cost

  £48,167

  £51,177

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31520]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department and its agencies use employment agencies to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff since it represents best value for money.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures her Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress her Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31544]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have an action programme in place to ensure equality of access to recruitment, training, career development and promotion for all women. Graduate recruitment into the fast stream is particularly targeted to help redress the under-representation of women at senior levels. The policy is seeing results—in 1995, 57 per cent. of the fast stream intake were women. We encourage the retention of women through a number of initiatives including flexible/part-time work, generous career breaks, subsidised nursery facilities and holiday play schemes for school children. We have been an active member of the Opportunity 2000 campaign since 1992.

  We are seeing a steady increase in the percentage of women at all levels in the FCO. The number of women at DS5—top level of middle management—has increased from 9.6 per cent. in 1991 to 13.7 per cent. in 1995. The number of women in the top three grades of the DS has increased by 1 per cent. in 1995 to 3.7 per cent. in 1991, a level that has been maintained to date. There are now eight female ambassadors/heads of mission compared to two in 1991.
  39

  Chazanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received about the detention in Mirpur prison of Chazanfer Ali; and if he will make a statement. [31421]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our high commission in Islamabad was told on 6 June by the Mirpur prison authorities that Chazanfer Ali, a Pakistani national, is still making regular court appearances and that he is in good health.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to market testing the services provided by his Department's agencies; and if he will make a statement. [31558]

  Mr. Hanley
  A prior options review of the diplomatic wing's executive agency, Wilton Park, took place in 1995. The study recommend that the commercial—that is, non-conference—operation be market tested by November 1997. This would not affect Wilton Park's core business of organising conferences on foreign policy matters. This has been endorsed by Ministers.

  The ODA's agency—the Natural Resources Institute—has recently been transferred to private ownership.

  European Court of Justice
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many judgments were given against each of the member countries in the European Union by the European Court of Justice in each year since 1989; [31607]

  (2) on how many occasions each of the member countries in the European Union were taken to the European Court of Justice in each year since 1989. [31619]

  Mr. David Davis
  The most up-to-date information is in annexe II of the 12th annual report on monitoring the applications of Community law, OJC No. 254, 1994. The data for 1989 are in annexe II of the 11 the report, OJC No. 154, 1993. The 13th report will be published shortly. The reports are in the Library of the House. They summarise the progress of all infraction proceedings against member states.

  Seal Pups
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the numbers of harp and hooded seal pups taken in the region of the White sea in 1996 to date. [31832]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None. The question of seal culling in the White sea was last raised with the Russian Environment Ministry by our embassy in Moscow in December 1995.

  The embassy in Moscow has been instructed to ask for an update on the latest position and I shall write to the hon. Member in due course.
  40

  Embassies and Missions (Running Costs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the total costs of staffing and running embassies and missions in(a) Vilnius, (b) Riga and (c) Talinn (d) Paris and (e) Rome in each of the past three years. [32212]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is in the following table:

  £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Vilnius

  213,196

  267,328

  267,481

  Riga

  663,185

  698,407

  450,518

  Talinn

  243,013

  210,379

  239,960

  Paris

  12,522,331

  12,577,264

  12,582,954

  Rome

  6,220,557

  6,192,928

  5,893,770

  African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's recent signature to the African nuclear weapons free zone treaty; and what restrictions the treaty places on the use of nuclear weapons against an African party to that treaty which has used other weapons of mass destruction. [32050]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK signed, subject to ratification protocols 1 and 2 to the African nuclear weapons free zone treaty on 11 April. Parties to protocol 1 undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against parties to the treaty. On signature, we stated that we would not be bound by this undertaking if a state party to the treaty attacked us in alliance with a nuclear weapon state, or was in breach of its own non-proliferation obligations under the treaty. Our statement also noted that compliance with international agreements to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is vital to the maintenance of world security.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31498]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on 6 June 1996,Official Report, column 518.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what evidence he has evaluated that suggests that the taking of soft drugs leads to the taking of hard drugs; and if he will make a statement. [30637]
  41
  Mr. Newton
  The Government have neither commissioned nor evaluated evidence on this specific point as we do not find the distinction between so-called hard and soft drugs helpful: all illegal drugs carry physical and mental health risks.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on measures to combat drug abuse. [30639]

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's drugs strategy for England for the period 1995–98, "Tackling Drugs Together", was published on 10 May 1995. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on 13 May,Official Report, columns 341–42, I described the considerable progress made in implementing the strategy during its first year, and on 14 May I wrote to all hon. Members in England outlining the work of drug action teams. Similar strategies are in place in the other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he had made in ensuring provision of resources for drug rehabilitation. [30641]

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's policy is to ensure that individual drug misusers have access to a range of advice, counselling, treatment, rehabilitation and after-care services. The independent task force set up to undertake a review of effective treatment services for drug misusers has reported to Ministers and its report was published on 1 May. Guidance to purchasers will be issued in the summer. Additional resources are being made available this year to boost drug treatment services: an extra £6 million will go to health authorities, and £5.1 million will be invested in treatment programmes in the Prison Service.

  Health Strategy
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his role in the co-ordination of health strategy. [30638]

  Mr. Newton
  I chair the Ministerial Sub-committee on Health Strategy. The sub-committee's purpose is to oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy, and to co-ordinate the Government's policies on United Kingdom-wide issues affecting health.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment the group he chairs on tackling drugs has made of drug trafficking via Holland. [30640]

  Mr. Newton
  The Ministerial Sub-committee of the Cabinet on the misuse of drugs, which I chair, has the task of co-ordinating the Government's national and international policies for tackling drug misuse, and reporting as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs. As part of its remit, the sub-committee makes periodic assessments of drug trafficking patterns and of the arrangements in place to combat them.
  42

  Summer Recess
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration he has given to sittings of the House in September; and if he will make a statement. [30634]

  Mr. Newton
  I cannot yet give the House the proposed dates for the summer adjournment, but I have no plans to make any radical departure from recent practice.

  Parliamentary Procedures.
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what changes he proposes to simplify parliamentary procedures. [30636]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the oral answer I gave him on 22 April,Official Report, column 18.

DEFENCE

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; what agencies have been employed; for what purpose; and at what cost to his Department. [30567]

  Mr. Soames
  I am aware of only one case where my Department made direct use of the services of a private detective agency or investigator during 1994–95 and 1995–96. This was in respect of a claim for compensation, at a cost of less than £2,000. I understand that solicitors, and an insurance company working for my Department, may sometimes employ inquiry agents when pursuing debtors and in connection with cases involving claims for compensation. While such services are not paid for directly, they may be included in final costs submitted to my Department.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 441, how much his Department estimated it would have to cost to provide the information requested. [31463]

  Mr. Soames
  More than £450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.

  Unidentified Objects (Rendlesham Forest)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, columns 19–20, if he will list the titles of the papers held by his Department in respect of unidentified objects seen in Rendlesham forest, Suffolk; and if he will make a statement. [31490]

  Mr. Soames
  Apart from a report of the events written at the time by the United States air force deputy base commander at RAF Woodbridge, which has been in the public domain for a number of years, the documents held by my Department are internal staffing papers and correspondence from members of the public relating to the alleged events.
  43

  Bourlon Barracks, Catterick
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the structure and fixed equipment of building 36 at Bourlon barracks, Catterick, for the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers light aid detachment; and if the final payment for that building has been made by his Department. [31612]

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of the structure and fixed equipment of building 36, Bourlon barracks, REME LAD, was £524,179. The final payment for this building—that is, the release of retention—has not been made.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of modifications to the crane, doors and exhaust ventilation system in the LAD building (No. 36) at Bourlon barracks, Catterick, to facilitate maintenance work on Warrior armoured personnel carriers. [31614]

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated cost for the modification of the crane from a single to a two-speed motor is £5,500. There are no plans to modify any of the doors in building 36. The exhaust extraction system was modified in January 1996 at an approximate cost of £2,500.

  Sea Training
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which operational sea training facilities the United Kingdom will make available to the Western European Union, following the Birmingham declaration of 7 May. [31746]

  Mr. Soames
  We will make available, for national or collective participation by WEU nations, the Royal Navy's operational sea training facility at Plymouth, and the joint maritime courses which are run off the coast of Scotland.

  Western European Union
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to develop further the Western European Union's intelligence section. [31750]

  Mr. Soames
  The intelligence section agreed by Ministers in 1995 is not operational. Any further development of its capabilities would be undertaken by WEU in the light of experience.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the Western European Union mobility study following the Western European Union Ministerial Council meeting in Birmingham and the meeting of Western European Union Chiefs of Defence Staff in London. [31752]

  Mr. Soames
  Following endorsement of the strategic mobility concept by Chiefs of Defence Staff and by Ministers, a special WEU working group has begun examining the most effective means by which the concept might be implemented.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made as to when the Western European Union will be in a position to conduct a full-scale Petersberg-type operation. [31747]
  44
  Mr. Soames
  Our target is for the WEU to be capable of conducting a small-scale crisis management mission by the end of 1996. Achievement of this goal depends on the WEU making further progress on the operational improvements we have initiated during our presidency.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries have not to date offered to provide intelligence data to the Western European Union's intelligence section. [31751]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the nations concerned.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures will be taken to increase the involvement of the associate partner members in Western European Union's work on operational development with particular reference to Africa peacekeeping, exercise policy and humanitarian task force operations. [31749]

  Mr. Soames
  WEU associate partners have already taken part in discussions on the specific issues referred to by the hon. Member. They have also been invited to provide information on the forces that they might make available for WEU operations. We look forward to their further involvement in discussions on other operational matters.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will encourage the Western European Union to add a public relations element to its current crisis exercises, Crisex 96. [31753]

  Mr. Soames
  The WEU intends to use this exercise to promote its operational role to the media, and plans a press visit to the exercise. The WEU will also be testing internally new procedures for operational public information policy, developed as a UK initiative.

  Sea Harrier Aircraft
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Harrier aircraft have been lost in the last year; how many new aircraft from the attrition batch whose procurement was announced in January 1994 have now been deployed in squadron service as replacements; and what navigation system was fitted to those replacement aircraft when they were delivered by British Aerospace. [31758]

  Mr. Soames
  In the year since 1 June 1995, there have been two major accidents involving Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft. The first was on 20 October, when an aircraft caught fire while preparing to take off from Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, Yeovilton; and the second on 13 February when an aircraft ditched into the Adriatic. Additionally, a Royal Navy Harrier T4 crashed near Wellington, Somerset on 23 February, tragically killing the two personnel on board.

  Four Sea Harrier aircraft from the attrition batch whose procurement was announced in January 1994 have been deployed in squadron service. A further aircraft is currently in the maintenance group and will be delivered to a front-line squadron shortly. The replacement aircraft delivered by British Aerospace were fitted with the Navigation heading and attitudes reference system.
  45
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost to his Department of procuring new navigation systems for Sea Harrier aircraft; and what share of the value of that contract will be passed on to British Aerospace. [31757]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The total cost to my Department of procuring new navigation systems for the Sea Harrier aircraft is estimated to be in the order of £35 million at current prices inclusive of VAT. This includes the costs of equipment, its integration into the aircraft and flight trials to ensure system safety and airworthiness. It is not possible at this stage to quantify the precise value of the British Aerospace element of the programme because contract negotiations have not yet been concluded. Contract price values are, in any case, usually commercially confidential.

  Torrejon Satellite Centre
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the United Kingdom has to explore possible links between the Western European Union satellite centre in Torrejon and the Pentagon before the end of its presidency of the Western European Union. [31748]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK has no plans to explore such links.

  Exports Licensing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on the current defence exports licensing policy of the recent agreement to join the Franco-German Arms Agency. [31986]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Exports licensing policy is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. However, there are no plans to change UK export licensing policy in the context of participation in the Franco-German armaments structure.

  Trident D5 Missiles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he expects to place an order for further Trident D5 missiles from the United States of America before the summer adjournment. [32052]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Orders for Trident D5 missiles are placed on behalf of my Department by the United States Department of Defence. The next tranche of orders will not be placed before the start of the US fiscal year 1997, which commences on 1 October this year.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons HMS Victorious is deployed with less than its full complement of Trident D5 missiles. [32054]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 18 January 1994,Official Report, column 505.
  46

  Bett Review
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to make a statement on the outcome of Sir Michael Bett's review of conditions of service, including pension arrangements, in the armed forces. [32090]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on 20 February 1996,Official Report, columns 96–97.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he received a document entitled "Outbrief-Environmental Compliance Status Survey, Menwith Hill Station"; what action he took upon receipt of this document; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [31954]

  Mr. Soames
  The document referred to is an internal US report dating from 1992. Remedial action has been taken by the station in accordance with its recommendations and a rolling programme of improvements is underway. The document is for US official use only and as such will not be made available for public dissemination.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are maintained concerning the disposal of hazardous waste from RAF Menwith Hill; how and where such hazardous waste from RAF Menwith Hill; how and where such hazardous waste is disposed of; and if he will make a statement. [31958]

  Mr. Soames
  Records concerning the disposal of hazardous waste are maintained in accordance with US and UK legislative requirements. Hazardous waste is disposed of by licensed specialist contractors.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to ensure that the containment dykes for above-ground storage tanks at RAF Menwith Hill are sufficiently secure to ensure that no spilt material can escape; and what action is being taken to improve the health and safety standards in the storage and labelling of hazardous material, with particular reference to chlorofluorocarbons at RAF Menwith Hill. [31956]

  Mr. Soames
  The station continues to pay close attention to the containment facilities which are regularly inspected in order to verify their integrity and avoid spillages. The handling of hazardous materials at RAF Menwith Hill has improved and a project is under way to build a permanent segregated compound for the storage of these materials. A control of substances hazardous to health assessment of all chemicals is undertaken when materials arrive on site in order to ensure that proper labelling and user instructions exists. A staff hazard education programme has also been implemented. Significant progress has been made in the last four years limiting the use of CFCS and other class 1 substances in accordance with the requirements of the Montreal protocol and management of these substances now conforms to agreed international standards.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what systems are in place to monitor levels of radiation at RAF Menwith Hill; who is responsible for
  47
  such monitoring; if their reports are made available to the public; and what precautions and preventative measures are being taken to protect the health and safety of the base population, the local community and local environment from the effects of radiation emitted by operations at RAF Menwith Hill. [31953]

  Mr. Soames
  No monitoring systems are required since there are no ionising radiation emissions from any facility at RAF Menwith Hill. Radio frequency signals similar to those used in FM radio broadcasting are relayed through the station, but these signals have a very low energy level and do not cause molecular changes or "ionisation". Hence there is no risk to the base population, the local community or the local environment from emissions of this type of radiation.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions and arrangements are taking place concerning the renewal of the security of tenure in May 1977 at National Security Agency, Menwith Hill station between the US army and the British Government; and if the renewal arrangements will be brought before the House. [31957]

  Mr. Soames
  None. The site at Menwith Hill has been made available to United States authorities by Her Majesty's Government under arrangements that exist for our mutual defence. The precise nature of these arrangements are confidential.

  Suicides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, columns 559–60, how many people who served in the Gulf war have committed suicide since 1991. [31789]

  Mr. Soames
  Since January 1991, the total number of personnel who served in the Gulf war and subsequently committed suicide, while still serving in the armed forces, is 10.

  Exercise Purple Star
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 559, what was (a) the nationality of owners, (b) the nationality of crew and (c) the age of vessel of each of the merchant ships chartered by his Department for Exercise Purple Star. [31787]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name of vessel and age

  Head owners nationality

  Disponent owners nationality

  Crew nationality

  Kidira (20 years) Kapitan

  Bermudan

  British

  Russian

  Mezentsyev (17 years)

  Ukrainian

  —

  Ukrainian

  Chodziez (8 years)

  Polish

  —

  Polish

  Arcade Eagle (16 years)

  Norwegian

  Spanish

  Croatian

  Arcade Falcon (16 years)

  Norwegian

  Spanish

  Croatian

  Norcliff (1 year)

  Not Declared

  Swedish

  Polish

  48

  Name of vessel and age

  Head owners nationality

  Disponent owners nationality

  Crew nationality

  Sochi (new)

  Russian

  Swedish

  Russian

  Dana Hafnia (17 years)

  Danish

  —

  Danish

  Prince of Scandinavia (20 years)

  Danish

  —

  Danish

  Condock V (12 years)

  German

  —

  Kiribati

  Condock III (13 years)

  German

  —

  Kiribati

  Armed Services (Land)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hectares of land have been occupied by each of the armed services in each of the past five years. [32095]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is published annually in table 3.5 in "UK Defence Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Units (London)
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average time a patient in an accident and emergency unit has to wait before treatment in London hospitals, by local authority. [31324]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis need is assessed in accident and emergency units in London; and what system of prioritisation is employed. [31325]

  Mr. Horam
  Under the patients charter, all patients attending an accident and emergency department should be assessed by a nurse or doctor within five minutes. Patients are then treated according to their clinical priority.

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31504]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Minister for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), gave him on 6 June,Official Report, column 518.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31398]
  49
  Mr. Horam
  During 1994–95, the Department of Health and its agencies spent £233,482 recruiting 123 staff. Expenditure for 1995–96 was £707,292 when 265 staff were recruited.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31413]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1994–95 and 1995–96, the following executive search agencies or employment companies were used by Department of Health and its executive agencies to recruit staff:

  Amount spent

  Number of staff

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Agency name

  £

  £

  RAS

  37,431

  166,956

  6

  37

  Talentmark

  —

  4,888

  —

  2

  Pax

  —

  2,748

  —

  1

  Office Angels

  —

  7,558

  —

  2

  Alfred Marks

  —

  6,448

  —

  2

  Challoner James

  —

  6,163

  —

  2

  Task Force Pro Libra

  —

  1,410

  —

  1

  Accountancy Additions

  —

  2,297

  —

  1

  Angela Mortimer

  —

  2,948

  —

  1

  Saxton Bampfylde

  —

  107,889

  —

  4

  NB Selection and Riley/Lopex

  —

  57,897

  —

  17

  GNW

  21,154

  —

  18

  —

  Total

  58,585

  367,202

  24

  70

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from the chairman of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Mexborough Montagu NHS trust concerning the level of management overheads and the need for further economies at(a) management and (b) staff level; and when he expects to receive a report on the future shape of the trust. [31434]

  Mr. Malone
  We have received no such representations from the chairman of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Mexborough Montagu national health service trust and no report is expected.

  Community Health Councils
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will require community health councils to publish annually a list of achievements they have made on behalf of those they represent; [31742]

  (2) what is the annual cost of community health councils; [31744]
  50
  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the usefulness of community health councils; and what plans he has to introduce changes to their role. [31745]

  Mr. Horam
  Community health councils were established by Parliament to represent the public interest in the health service in their districts. There are no plans to introduce changes to this statutory role.

  Community health councils are required to publish an annual report on the performance of their functions and to ensure that the contents of the report are known to the public.

  Expenditure on community health councils in 1995–96 was £17 million. The budget for CHCs for 1996–97 is £21.18 million.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to inform the public that they may take complaints about health matters to their community health council. [31743]

  Mr. Horam
  Complaints about health services should be directed to the body which provided that service, for example a national health service trust or general practitioner practice.

  A public information leaflet was produced by the Department on the new NHS complaints procedure which was introduced from 1 April this year. This mentions the important role community health councils can play in advising members of the public when they wish to complain about NHS services or treatment. Supplies of the leaflet were sent to all NHS outlets.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will order the publication of the Audit Commission report on the performance of fundholding general practices; and for what reasons the report has not yet been published. [32091]

  Mr. Malone
  The publication of Audit Commission reports is the responsibility of the commission. Its report, "A study of GP Fundholders in England and Wales", was published on 22 May 1996.

  Coffee (Health Implications)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his most recent assessment of the health implications of drinking coffee; and if he will make a statement. [32093]

  Mr. Horam
  In November 1994, the Department published the report of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy on the nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease. Its assessment was that coffee as drunk in the United Kingdom does not appear to affect coronary heart disease risk. A copy of that report is available in the Library.

  The Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment last considered caffeine in 1983–94. COT concluded that, on the basis of the evidence available at that time, the consumption of caffeine either as an additive or naturally occurring in beverages would not cause any risk to health.
  51

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent reports he has evaluated into the standard of care in Bradford NHS trust hospitals; and what action he proposes to take in respect of these reports. [32103]

  Mr. Horam
  I have received no such reports. This is a matter for the Bradford Hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the acting chairman of the trust, Mr. Richard Wilson, for details.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what instructions were issued to her Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31503]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), on 6 June,Official Report, column 518.

  School Funding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is provided by her Department to assist(a) local education authority maintained and (b) grant-maintained schools which have recently been inspected by the Office for Standards in Education; and, in each case, what requirements exist over how this may be spent. [31835]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In respect of(a), in addition to school effectiveness grants paid to all schools, and grants retained by local education authorities targeted especially towards the weakest schools, the Government have now introduced a new grant payable to all LEA-maintained schools inspected by Ofsted in the 1995–96 academic year. The grant typically amounts to some £17 per pupil. Schools are able to use the grant to address the key issues for action identified in the inspector's report. The intention is that, subject to Parliament's approval of the necessary regulations, grant will be available to support schools inspected in future years.

  In respect of (b), for grant-maintained schools, grants for education support and training activities are supported through the payment of a special purpose grant (development). The calculation and payment of special purpose grants is now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools and I have asked the chairman of the Funding Agency for Schools to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, under regulations issued by her Department, the local education authority contribution to grant for education support and training funding is included in the calculation of the relevant expenditure by a local education authority for the purposes of determining the level of central annual maintenance grant for grant-maintained schools. [31840]

  Mr. Squire
  Yes.
  52
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what regulations or guidance she has issued in accordance with which the Funding Agency for Schools determines the current level of funding per pupil to grant-maintained schools through special purpose grant (development) and the conditions applied to its expenditure by the schools regarding the purposes for which it may be spent. [31842]

  Mr. Squire
  The level of special purpose grant (development) is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. The powers of the agency to pay special purpose grants to grant-maintained schools are set out in paragraph 54 of, and schedule 7 to, the Education (Grant-maintained and Grant-maintained Special Schools) (Finance) Regulations 1996.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current level of expenditure on grants for education support and training in local education authorities and local education authority maintained schools; what is the total number of pupils in local education authority maintained schools; how much of the total expenditure on GEST in the current year is provided by (i) her Department and (ii) local education authorities; what proportion of GEST expenditure (1) must be delegated to schools and (2) cannot be delegated to schools; and what conditions are applied to the expenditure of GEST funding regarding the purpose for which it may be spent. [31841]

  Mr. Squire
  In 1996–97, level of expenditure available to local education authorities under grants for education support and training will be £265.3 million. The total number of pupils in local education authority-maintained schools in England is 6,617,851, as at January 1995, the latest figure available. The total amount of expenditure on GEST in 1996–97 provided (i) by the Department of Education and Employment will be £163.5 million; and (ii) by the local education authorities will be £101.8 million. The proportion of GEST expenditure that must be devolved to schools is £153.5 million and the proportion that must not be devolved is £13.2 million. The purpose for which GEST may be spent is outlined in GEST circular 8/95 and subsequent letters to local education authorities. Copies of the circular and letters have been placed in the Library.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in respect of which educational assets he proposes to allow local authorities to sell and retain 75 per cent. of the capital receipts. [31755]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for local authorities to determine whether to take advantage of the reduction from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the level of capital receipts to be set aside for debt redemption from sales of surplus educational assets obtained between 1 April 1996 and 31 March 1998. This reduction is intended primarily to facilitate and encourage private finance initiative activity in local government.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures her Department has implemented during the last 12 months to
  53
  encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with her Department and its executive agencies; and what progress her Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31555]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Both former Departments had made significant progress in appointing women to senior posts. Since the merger on 5 July 1995, there has been wide consultation within DFEE on a set of values and an Equal opportunities strategy. The departmental values, among other things, stress the importance of valuing people and"giving people equal opportunities to develop and progress as far as they can on merit".

  The Department's equal opportunities strategy undertakes as one of its key priorities to look at strategies to enable women to progress on merit to senior posts. This includes reconstituting an advisory group for women—taking forward work previously under way before merger—with a specific remit to advise the DFEE board on strategic issues and on cultural barriers which can prevent women from reaching the most senior levels.

  At present, 18 per cent. of the members of the senior civil service in DFEE are women. However, data prior to July 1995 relate to the former Employment Department group and the former Department for education and are not comparable.

  Small Firms (Training Needs)
  Mr. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what work has been commissioned by her Department on the training needs of small firms; and what recommendations have been made. [31890]

  Mr. Paice
  In 1995, the Department for Education and Employment commissioned the small business research centre at Kingston university to carry out a survey of training needs and practices in over 800 small firms. A report containing a range of recommendations for the Department to consider will be published by HMSO in August 1996 and a copy will be lodged in the Library.

  Stephen Memorial First School, North Tyneside
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she will take to ensure the provision of a new school building for Stephenson Memorial first school, North Tyneside; and if she will make a statement. [32157]

  Mrs. Gillan
  North Tyneside education authority is responsible for maintaining its school buildings and deciding when any of them should be replaced.

  Learning Vouchers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to introduce learning vouchers or credits for 16-year-olds; and what funding mechanism is to be used. [32155]

  Mr. Paice
  The 1995 White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead", Cm 2867, made it clear that the Government are attracted to learning credits. The third competitiveness White Paper, to be published shortly, will declare the Government's intention to consult on the introduction from 1997 of a system of learning credits,54
  setting out for all 16 to 19-year-olds their entitlement to the education or training they choose. This will not require any change to the existing funding mechanisms for schools, colleges or other education and training providers. But the Government will separately be consulting on how best to secure greater convergence of these arrangements in their own right.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many organisations are approved to verify and assess NVQ portfolios and issue NVQ certificates. [32156]

  Mr. Paice
  There are currently 63 organisations, acting individually and in consortiums, accredited by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to award national vocational qualification certificates. These accredited awarding bodies offer assessment through their approved NVQ centres, of which there are around 9,500 nationally.

WALES

  Over-16 Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the average cost of educating a child for(a) one year and (b) two years in school above the age of 16. [31353]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Local education authority returns to the Welsh Office used to calculate pupil unit cost figures do not separately identify expenditure by age of pupil. As a consequence, no estimates are available on the average cost of educating a pupil aged 16 and above.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of 16-year-old children in each county who returned to school for one year left with(a) an additional qualification, (b) an improved grade at GCSE and (c) an alternative qualification. [31355]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the sum received by schools for each child who returns to school after the age of 16 years; and on what basis and by what calculations such sums are made and paid. [31357]

  Mr. Evans
  No estimates of such sums are made. Local education authorities are responsible for the allocation of funds to schools.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of 16-year-olds in each county who returned to school for two years, left school without (i) an A-level(a) above grade C and (b) above grade E and (ii) an equivalent qualification. [31354]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of 16-year-olds returned to school for(a) one year, (b) two years and (c) three years in each county during the last school year. [31356]
  55
  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Overall, in 1994–95 39.3 per cent. of 16-year-olds at maintained schools in Wales in the previous academic year returned to school.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the percentage completion rates for youth training(a) in each of the training and enterprise council areas and for (b) Wales. [31359]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The figures requested are contained in the following table. They relate to the period April 1994 to March 1995, the last full year for which data are available.

  Youth training/youth credits completion rates

  April 1994 to March 1995

  Percentage

  Gwent TEC

  43

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  47

  North East Wales TEC

  55

  North West Wales TEC

  52

  Powys TEC

  1—

  South Glamorgan TEC

  25

  West Wales TEC

  45

  Wales

  48

  Source:

  Follow-up survey of former youth training/credit trainees.

  1 Due to the small number of trainees in the Powys TEC area responding to the survey, the results are not considered to be statistically reliable.

  Cattle Slaughter
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department is taking to ensure that cattle carcases submitted under the 30-month rule are subsequently destroyed; and what information he has about the number of carcases of such cattle which have either been disposed of by other means or are otherwise unaccounted for. [31580]

  Mr. Hague
  The over-30-month slaughter scheme is run by the Intervention Board executive agency. I understand that following slaughter carcases are stained and transported in sealed containers to renderers or for cold storage before rendering. The process is carefully monitored by the Meat Hygiene Service and state veterinary service and there are no carcases unaccounted for.

  Fishery Projects Funding
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much Pesca funding is available for fishery projects in Wales for 1996–97; how much was paid in 1995–96; and if he will list those projects funded and the amount each project received. [32161]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Pesca scheme will be launched in Wales at the end of this month. Some 0.146 mecu—approximately £125,000—Pesca funding will be available for Welsh fishery projects for 1996–97.
  56

  Sea Empress Oil Spill
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what request for long-term funding he has received from the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee; [31996]

  (2) what funding he has allocated to the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee; how much has been committed to date; and what is the committee's estimate of the funding required to complete its work. [31998]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend has provided £250,000 to the Countryside Council for Wales to help fund the work into the environmental effects of the Sea Empress oil spill. The Department of Transport is meeting the running costs of the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee, and direct support for the work of the committee is being provided by MAFF and the Environment Agency. I am expecting proposals soon on the future work programme of the committee and its resource needs.

  General Practitioners (Training)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner trainees were on vocational training schemes in Wales in each year since 1990–91. [31997]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of general practitioner trainees on vocational training schemes in hospital is not available centrally. However, the number of trainees who were in training with general practitioners in each of the last six years is given in the following table:Number of trainees in training with general medical practitioners at 1 October

  1990: 148

  1991: 138

  1992: 133

  1993: 124

  1994: 118

  1995: 104.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years; [31399]

  (2) what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31414]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  57

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Pensions
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the(a) gross and (b) net cost in each year from 1997 to 2002 of uprating state pensions by (i) the retail prices index and (ii) earnings in these years on the basis of current estimates. [30153]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table:

  The estimates are for uprating basic state retirement pension, additional pension and graduated retirement benefit. The calculations are based on assumptions of annual retail prices index and Rossi index—RPI less most housing costs—increases of 2.5 per cent. and annual earnings increases of 4 per cent. As RPI and Rossi are assumed to increase at the same rate, there is no net cost figure for price uprating.

  Total state pension benefit expenditure

  £ million cash prices

  Gross cost of price uprating

  Gross cost of uprating by earnings

  Net cost of earnings uprating

  1997–98

  840

  1,350

  1,220

  1998–99

  1,740

  2,820

  2,530

  1999–00

  2,680

  4,380

  3,920

  2000–01

  3,650

  6,010

  5,370

  2001–02

  4,660

  7,730

  6,900

  2002–03

  5,700

  9,530

  8,500

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department estimates of annual expenditure on basic state pension and assumptions of annual increases in RPI, Rossi and earnings.

  Notes:

  1. Costs are calculated using 1996–97 rates as a baseline, eg; the cost quoted for 2002–03 is the cost of uprating by the relevant method, in that year, from 1996–97.

  2. Uprating by higher of earnings or prices only applied to basic retirement pension.

  Motability Finance Ltd.
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of the reserves held by Motability Finance Ltd. to safeguard its lease and hire purchase schemes. [30239]

  Mr. Burt
  The value of reserves held by Motability Finance Ltd. at September 1994 was £4.8 million.

  Source:

  Motability's annual report 1994–95.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will implement in full the recommendations of the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on chronic bronchitis and emphysema; what timetable he proposes for the Government's response; and if he will make a statement. [31481]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 21 May,Official Report, column 185.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,58
  Official Report, column 345, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31442]

  Mr. Burt
  More than £450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Software
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's involvement in the development of a software package to allow pay-as-you-earn, national insurance contributions, value added tax, and Central Statistical Office requirements to be integrated; and when he expects this to be possible. [31903]

  Mr. Heald
  The Contributions Agency, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have a number of projects under way as part of their joint working programmes. The programmes are focused in particular on ways to ease burdens on business in meeting their obligations, but there are no plans to integrate the information technology systems.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases have been dealt with by the Newbury field office of the Child Support Agency since 1 June 1995; [31780]

  (2) what geographical area is covered by the Newbury field office of the Child Support Agency. [31781]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Steve Hemingsley to Mr. David Rendel, dated 7 June 1996:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency field office in Newbury.
  Between 1 June 1995 and 31 May 1996, the Newbury office has dealt with 351 cases requiring pre maintenance assessment work. The geographic area covered by the office falls within the following post code areas: RG7, RG8, RG14, RG17, RG18, RG19 and RG20.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what compensation his Department proposes to offer in respect of those who have been subject to breaches in the Data Protection Act 1984 by the Child Support Agency. [32001]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The agency's compensation scheme includes recompense for identifiable losses or harm suffered as a result of maladministration. Such payments could be made, in appropriate cases, to those affected by breaches in the Data Protection Act 1994.

  In addition, it is a criminal offence under the Child Support Act 1991 to disclose information without lawful authority. The Child Support Agency is fully aware of its responsibilities and takes very seriously any suggestion that staff may have disclosed information unlawfully.

  Actors (National Insurance)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of Equity to
  59
  discuss the eligibility of actors for class I national insurance status; and what conclusions he has reached in the light of these discussions. [31581]

  Mr. Heald
  I met representatives of Equity on 1 April and I am undertaking further consultation with other interested parties before we reach any conclusions.

SCOTLAND

  Gemini Housing Association
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Gemini Housing Association operated within the code of conduct during the stock transfer procedures. [31129]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Scottish Homes operates separate codes of conduct for landlords seeking to acquire its houses and as regards the conduct of its own staff involved in transfer proposals. Any breaches of the codes would be investigated by Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from what public funds Gemini Housing Association provided bingo and raffle prizes during the period of the stock housing transfer. [31141]

  Mr. Robertson
  I understand that these prizes were not purchased from public funds.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions during the last five years staff from Scottish Homes have intervened to take over the running of a housing association; if he will name the associations involved; and why Scottish Homes took the action. [31568]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked the chairman, Mr. John Ward, to write to the hon. Member.

  Health Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures exist within the national health service in Scotland for resolving disputes between an NHS trust and a health board about an NHS trust's budget; and which Department within the Scottish Office oversees this. [31467]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: I expect health boards, other purchasers, and NHS trusts to resolve contractual matters at local level, involving their senior officials and board members if necessary.

  However, if they fail to reach agreement there is provision for either of the parties to refer the matter to my right hon. Friend for determination. The decision is communicated in writing to both parties concerned and is final and binding.
  60
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement indicating what will be the impact on patient care of the cuts being proposed by the Ayrshire and Arran health board in the budget of the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust. [31469]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The statements issued by the trust and the health board following agreement on the contract negotiations for 1996–97 make it clear that every effort will be made to ensure that the existing high standards of patient care will be maintained.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he intends to take to ensure that no job losses or reductions in service occur as a result of the budget enforced on the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust. [31470]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: It is for the trust to determine what measures it has to take to live within its contract income. The job losses involved are to be regretted but the cash savings released in the longer term will be available for re-investment in direct patient care.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Department within the Scottish Office has responsibility for approving the performance levels which a health board in Scotland will seek from an NHS trust as part of its discussions with that trust before agreeing its budget. [31471]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The performance and service requirements sought by each health board in advance of contract negotiations are set out in their annual purchasing intentions. These plans are produced and distributed by each board in January each year. They are not subject to approval by any Scottish Office Department.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to refer the budget dispute between the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust and Ayrshire and Arran health board to the independent arbitration procedure operating within the NHS in Scotland. [31472]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: It is for the relevant health board or NHS trust involved in contract negotiation to decide whether to refer a matter under dispute for arbitration.

  I understand that the contract between Ayrshire and Arran health board and North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust has now been agreed and signed.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions officials from his Department have had with the management of the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust and Ayrshire and Arran health board in relation to the proposed budget for the trust. [31473]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: Officials of the Scottish Office Department of Health have been in regular contact with both the trust and the health board during the contract negotiations. While the Department is always ready to offer its assistance, we expect boards and trusts to reach agreement through local negotiation, as in this case.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Carers: Number and Remuneration
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of registered carers at present, how this figure contrasts with the position on 22nd May 1995 (HL Deb., cols. 795–6), and what remuneration is now payable to those registered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there is no formal register of carers. The general household survey estimates that there are about 6.8 million people in the United Kingdom who give some informal care on a regular basis. We do not know how many carers receive money from public funds, although a wide range of benefits is available, depending on individual circumstances.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that the Benefits Agency, with its complicated procedures, might discourage carers who expect some form of remuneration in return for the services that they give?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend has a point. Sometimes people are put off from claiming benefit because of the complications involved. The Government have tried very hard to streamline all those benefits and they certainly put out a lot of information now through libraries, the citizens advice bureaux and various other places.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to see that the noble Baroness is back in her usual place. Is she aware that what is really needed now is a thoroughgoing review of the status, work and income of carers? Can she initiate that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, at the moment we have a review taking place. We shall be putting out a consultation paper in the near future as regards the social services which will cover carers. I am aware that the noble Lord has this issue very much at heart. I shall keep him informed as the work progresses.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is possible for information about carers to be available not only in libraries, but also for some general information to appear in the daily press?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps that is a matter at which the department would like to look. At the moment there are national initiatives. Indeed, the Department of Social Security has a budget of £12.6 million in order to publicise its benefits. At local level there are customer service phone lines and district offices supplying information as well as hospitals and social services advice centres which are all involved in this work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we in the Royal British Legion are most grateful for the concern that she and her department always show? Is she further aware that the situation as regards carers can be somewhat complicated? For example, a man who was wounded might not have needed a carer immediately after the war, but as he gets older the need for such a carer increases. Can that point be taken into consideration and can the Royal British Legion, if it so wishes, come to speak to the noble Baroness about it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall he delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, at any time.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that most people are very appreciative of the greatly increased financial support that has been given to disabled people over the past 17 years? Will she take on board that the training and provision of carers is a very different matter indeed? Will my noble friend take back to her colleagues in the department the fact that the training of carers is in a deplorable state? It is no good referring me to the NVQ qualification, which seems to me to be more about telling carers that they should tell their clients about their rights not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex, ethnic origin or religion, than about telling them how to clean someone else's teeth. Is the Minister further aware that very few disabled people have the financial resources, despite all that has been done, to pay between £500 and £800 as a placement fee to private agencies who produce carers who on many occasions are poorly trained, untrained or unsuitable for the task? In other words, does she not agree that something should be done to ensure that carers, whether as professionals or as members of a family caring for another member of a family, should be given some reasonable opportunity to get adequate, but simple and sensible training?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. I appreciate what he said about NVQs—it is pointless if the whole attitude is one of political correctness and not of practical application, which the courses should be. Perhaps we can look at the contents of those courses. There are some social services departments now which are training carers and which recognise the importance of this area of work. I am sure that there is more that can be done. Perhaps I may come back to my noble friend on that matter.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find myself in somewhat surprising agreement with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said—it must be the first time that that has happened—and that his comments underline the very strong case for having a register of people who are approved to work in other people's homes? That suggestion has been made previously in a Private Member's Bill and I believe that it has been revived. Will the Government think again about exercising some control (through a register or by some other means) so that people who are quite unsuitable do not enter other people's homes in that way?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, we have considered the question of a national register for carers. I believe that Susan Brooks is trying to get a voluntary scheme going. However, a number of difficult issues are involved, such as precisely who would be covered by a register, what standards would be required and how we should enforce those standards. A consultation paper is to be put out shortly which will explore some of those issues. We shall want to see the results of that consultation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may echo my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke in saying how pleased we are that the noble Baroness is back in the House this week. Is she aware that during her absence last week we had some somewhat unilluminating exchanges on the subject of support for carers with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and that she invited the department to look carefully at some of the questions that were put? On that occasion, I asked a question, which I should like to repeat now to the Minister, about the status of the Bill on respite care for carers which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix? That Bill has now left this House, so I wonder whether it is to be given a fair wind in another place by the Government or are the Government to introduce similar legislation to meet that important need of carers?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome back that I have received from your Lordships' House. The rumour that I stayed at home just to watch the Test Match is erroneous. I must say that the National Health Service was excellent, as always.
I have read last week's Hansard report of the Question on carers and I understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness to know the Government's attitude to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which has now left this House and gone to the Commons. I understand that a date has been put down for Second Reading and that that will take place this month. The noble Baroness will have to be patient and see what happens then.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for the past 10 years I have been the chairman of an organisation which has developed a package for the training of carers in the community? Initially, we had tremendous trouble with one organisation over political correctness and now rely on City and Guilds and BTEC for our qualifications which are now used throughout Herefordshire and Worcestershire and are also purchased by other local authorities. It is an employer-led organisation, so the requirements are thoroughly understood.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for that information. I shall see how we in the department can follow that through to try to meet the needs outlined by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, on the question of—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but I observe that we are nearly half-way through our time and that we have finished only one Question. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is now time to move on.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Progress
2.46 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contribution they are making towards the completion of a comprehensive test ban treaty in 1996.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are working actively for a universal, effective and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) by the end of June. We continue to play a leading role in the efforts to design an effective verification regime for the treaty.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the prospects for the treaty are rather more encouraging now? Does she share my view that credit is due to the chairman of the talks, Ambassador Ramaker of the Netherlands? As the treaty would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for non-nuclear signatories to acquire a nuclear capability, do the Government take the view that it is reasonable to expect that a reciprocal obligation to lessen their nuclear capability should also be imposed on the nuclear powers?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I very much agree with the noble Lord about the efforts being made by Ambassador Ramaker to steer the negotiations towards consensus. That is, indeed, what he is doing. In particular, we welcome his recent initiative to table a clean draft treaty text which should concentrate minds in the closing stages of the negotiations. I agree with the noble Lord that there is

1485
now a very good chance of getting agreement by the end of June. But that still requires an active and positive approach by all countries concerned. As we well know, all negotiations require give and take. We shall continue to negotiate actively and responsibly.
As for what the noble Lord said about turning the comprehensive test ban treaty towards a disarmament treaty, I do not think that that would get us to the very necessary goal that we have set ourselves for this year. We want an indefinite end to all testing. That is what the CTBT does: it bans all nuclear weapons test explosions, however small, and all other nuclear explosions. However, I do not think that we can extend that into an exemption for other things. I believe that we should keep our goal and achieve it this autumn.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the procedures for ratification of the treaty? Does she agree that it would be wrong to allow any one country effectively to veto its entry into force because of a failure to ratify it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, obviously we want to have the treaty negotiated and ratified by all. I do not believe there is any danger that any one of the five nuclear powers or indeed the threshold states will seek to veto the treaty or not ratify it in that sense. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness is unduly anxious about the matter. I shall study what she said but it is not my understanding that ratification will be stopped once we have gained agreement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Government intend to protest to China about its nuclear test last week and its threat to hold another one later this year?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as we well know, on this issue we can protest a good deal. One notes that China has announced a moratorium which is to take effect after its final test in September. I hope this means that the Chinese will keep to that commitment. The Chinese have to demonstrate the commitment by being prepared to conclude negotiations by the end of this month and sign up with all other countries in the autumn. That is what we have been negotiating and aiming for. China has said that it is committed to the negotiations. We may protest, but I very much doubt whether it has any useful effect on the Chinese Government.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any representations we may make to China are less effective because of our failure to condemn nuclear weapons tests by the French?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is clear that the Chinese work on exactly the same basis as the French. The Chinese will do so much testing and then stop. It is clear that neither the French nor the Chinese intend to go on testing at the end of this programme.

Vehicle Crime Statistics
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been an increase or decrease in the last three years in the United Kingdom in the crime of stealing motor cars or breaking into cars in order to steal their contents.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, in 1995, 225,700 fewer offences of vehicle crime were recorded by police forces in England and Wales than in 1992. This represents a fall of 15 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, although her reply appears to apply only to England and Wales and my Question related to the United Kingdom.
While better anti-theft designs and devices no doubt have some effect, does my noble friend agree that they are not proof against car windows being smashed usually in order to steal radios and cassettes? Can more be done to deter young offenders, especially those who regard this kind of stealing as a pastime rather than a crime?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise for not including Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland there has been a fall of 21 per cent. in car thefts and a fall of 26 per cent. in thefts from cars. In Northern Ireland there has been a rise of 6 per cent. in car thefts but theft from cars has fallen by 9 per cent. Overall, in the United Kingdom there has been a reduction.
My noble friend makes an important point. A great deal of car crime is opportunist. There is much we can do for ourselves. For example, not leaving goods in cars and not leaving our cars unlocked would be a start. So far as concerns young people a great deal is being done. A great deal of promotional awareness is taking place. We have to toughen up in dealing with car criminals of whatever age. When they come on probation service programmes a good deal of work is done to rehabilitate them from stealing and messing about with cars.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is any work going on in the Minister's department to show whether there is any correlation between the fall in crime and the fall in unemployment? One would expect to find some relationship. It would be interesting to know whether or not that work had been undertaken.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give a scientific answer because I am not aware of the specific research. But I belong to that group of people who do not believe that being unemployed is an excuse for committing any kind of crime, even car crime. We must emphasise to young people in particular that committing crime of any kind is wrong and will not be tolerated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has just given a most extraordinary reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, did not say that to be unemployed was an excuse for committing crime. She just pointed out the fact that in particular in relation to opportunistic crimes—which it is agreed car thefts and theft from cars frequently are—there is likely to be a larger number of offenders who are available because they are unemployed. Does the Minister agree that that is not a slur on the unemployed but simply a recognition of sociological fact?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the question I was asked was whether or not there was a correlation between the two. I said at the outset that I did not have a scientific answer. I also said—I make no apology for saying it and will go on saying it—I did not believe that to be unemployed should ever be regarded as an excuse for committing crime.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there may be a correlation between the fall in offences and the work of her right honourable friend the Home Secretary in persuading courts to impose tougher penalties on criminals?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend. I do not believe that we should let this moment go without recording our thanks to the police in this respect. They are doing a great deal to increase awareness of the risks of crime and the steps that can be taken by the police themselves, motorists, vehicle manufacturers and the insurance industry.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the way in which the figures are collected does not prove anything? There are more crimes committed that are not recorded.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know of many people who have their cars stolen and do not report it. All the evidence indicates that there is a very high recording of the crime of car theft. The noble Lord has a point in regard to theft from vehicles. Not everybody reports a theft from a vehicle, and more work can be done in that regard.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her additional information about Scotland and Northern Ireland, to complete the picture. Is the estimate which appeared in a newspaper yesterday that about 10,000 cars are stolen each week in the United Kingdom correct? Would not the purchasers of used cars be less likely to be swindled if their recirculation were reduced because of the improvement reported by my noble friend?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a very large number of cars are stolen every week. About 60 per cent. of those thefts result from opportunist crime and the remainder, rather depressingly, result from rather more organised and sophisticated crime. One must continue to improve awareness and to make sure that criminals are dealt with more effectively. We have to do what we can to make people more responsible. A great deal
1488
is being done in that respect by way of the production of leaflets, the provision of information and the bringing together of some interesting organisations. I refer to motor manufacturers, traders, the vehicle rental and leasing sectors, the consumer and motoring organisations, the insurance industry, the police and vehicle security organisations. All of those organisations come together in a consortium to advise the Home Secretary on ways and means of reducing criminal activity.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that total crime, not violent crime, had begun to drop before the present Home Secretary began the disastrous regime which has recently been denounced by five former Conservative Home Office Ministers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would claim personal credit for the fall in crime. However, the fall in crime happily coincides with his term of office. I believe that the Home Secretary takes very seriously the prevention of crime and dealing in a more effective way with criminals. He has placed at the front of his policy-making the protection of the community.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that I also agree that unemployment is not an excuse for crime? I was not in the least raising that issue. I was reflecting on the fact that the Home Office had a good research unit and was asking what research was taking place into the relationship between unemployment and crime. It involved no feeling one way or the other. I have not had an answer as to whether or not research is going on.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I appreciate the seriousness of the point that the noble Baroness makes. The personal comments I made were no reflection on the noble Baroness. I am not able to give a sufficient answer because I am not aware of any scientific research that has been done in that respect. However, I believe that the more we go on looking for a correlation between unemployment and crime will we continue to create the perception that somehow or other, because people are unemployed, they have a licence to commit crime or it is easier to commit crime. We do not subscribe to that view.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, what is the clear-up rate in terms of theft of motor cars and property from motor cars? That seems relevant in the light of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not as good as it should be, and more work is being done on that. I believe that it is about 15 per cent. It is different from the theft of cars where the figure is rather lower. The police are targeting more and more on reducing

1489
crime and doing more and more with the community to ensure that young people do not get into crime in the first place.

The Dearing Committee: Selection Criteria
3 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria were used in the selection of members of the national committee of inquiry into higher education (the Dearing Committee).
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we sought to reflect a broad balance of interests in higher education while keeping the committee to a manageable size. Members have been drawn from a range of institutions which provide higher education across the United Kingdom and also from those who benefit from higher education, whether as students, employers of graduates or users or research.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a prime consideration should have been that the committee had the confidence of the whole university community? Is he aware that, alas, the selection does not come up to that criterion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not accept what my noble friend has said. We have seen relatively little criticism. I accept that there have been a couple of letters in The Times commenting on the appointments, but I believe that the committee and its composition have been broadly welcomed. I say to those who object to the appointment of some of those on the committee that it was open to them to put forward their own suggestions.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given the vast size and importance of the faculties of arts and social sciences and humanities in the universities, and given indeed the inherent importance of the humanities in our national cultural life, which appears to be recognised in the terms of reference of Dearing, would not the Minister agree that the excellent credentials of those who will be speaking for industry and science on the Dearing Committee might be matched by equal excellence on the part of those speaking for the humanities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no plans to appoint any further members to the committee. I should remind the House that there are several members with backgrounds in the humanities and social sciences. It is also open to the committee itself to take evidence from individuals or representatives of certain sectors. It will also be open to the committee, should it so wish, to co-opt members on to the committee or on to sub-committees.
Lord Annan: My Lords, while not dissenting from what the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, said, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important that the committee
1490
should consider the colleges of further education? It is upon them that Sir Ron Dearing's committee will have to concentrate, because it is there one finds the greatest of our weaknesses; we need to make professional qualifications at the lower level valid.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should remind the noble Lord that the review is not into further education but into higher education. It is therefore that sector, the representatives of that sector and those who will be making use of that sector who we believe should be represented.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever else they have done the criteria have created a committee with powerful expertise in financial planning, and that university funding is now a matter of the utmost urgency? Does he further agree that the Robbins Committee took three years to report upon a much smaller and simpler constituency, and that the Dearing Committee must not be rushed if its report is to have comparable authority and weight? If he does, would it not be wiser now to defer cuts in capital expenditure until after the general election, and ask the Dearing Committee, as a matter of urgency, for an interim report on funding in the summer of 1997, and a full report thereafter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. Perhaps I may remind him that we spend well over £7 billion on higher education throughout the UK. Over 20 per cent. of the budget is spent on education throughout the country. That is a significant amount of money. It is also a large amount of money considering all the priorities that exist in the educational world. We also believe that it will be possible for Sir Ron and his committee, if they pursue the appropriate methods, to report by next summer. That is what we hope they will do, and what I believe that we on this side and the noble Lord and his party would welcome.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, given that the Dearing Committee can trigger major new expenditure in higher education, in which case it needs, above all, the confidence of the Government, or invite the whole community of higher education to engage in a process of reform, in which case it needs credibility within that community, and given the criterion for which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked, which was to place more emphasis on confidence in government than on credibility within higher education, may we assume that there will be a massive increase in the resources made available as a result of the Dearing Committee report?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret to say that I think that the noble Lord's logic is somewhat tortured. It may be that Sir Ron and his committee will make recommendations that require extra new expenditure, but I have to remind the noble Lord that it will be the Government of the day—I believe that that will be a Conservative Government—who will make the

1491
decisions as to what expenditure is required. Perhaps I may repeat, we already spend about £7 billion on higher education in the UK. That is a significant sum.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Beloff, is it not more important that Dearing 3, as I believe it is known, should command the confidence of the whole country rather than, if necessary, the confidence of the university sector, especially for those of us who are beginning to wonder whether there is any system of quality control at all in higher education?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the dangers of the committee being seen to be a mere cosy collection of academics. That is why we wanted to ensure that the committee represented not just higher education but, as I said, those who benefit from higher education—the students, those who will later employ students and users of the research from the universities.

Business of the House: Stalking (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord McIntosh of Haringey to advance the Second Reading of the Stalking (No. 2) Bill [H.L] from Friday 14th June to Wednesday 12th June. —(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Security Service Bill
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: 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.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Functions of Security Service]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4) above, conduct is "serious crime" if it constitutes (or, if it took place in the United Kingdom, would constitute) one or more offences, and either—
1492

(a) it involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; or

(b) the offence or one of the offences is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more."").

The noble Lord said: With the usual slow start that is necessary to enable noble Lords who have no interest or inadequate interest in this important Bill to leave quietly, I move Amendment No. 1.
Anyone looking at the Bill will appreciate that, although it is only a short Bill, it is a Bill of considerable significance both in terms of its object, which is to assist in the prevention and detection of serious crime, by introducing the power for the Security Service to assist in those functions, and because of the civil liberties implications of the Bill as drafted.
As the Prime Minister recognised, the Bill is only one part of a programme of measures to increase the effectiveness and accountability of law enforcement agencies, which are to include the Security Service. The Prime Minister in his speech last year to the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool made a number of points with which I have already expressed agreement and which we on these Benches strongly support. We are in favour of the increased accountability and legislative provision for law enforcement agencies.
Perhaps it is paradoxical that the first piece of legislation to be introduced in implementation of the Prime Minister's wishes is the most difficult, because the Bill before us increases the power of the Security Service to act as a law enforcement agency in this country without in any way performing the other necessary functions of increased accountability and responsibility. Therefore, in dealing with the Bill we are always conscious that our criticisms of it are in the context of support for the Government's ultimate objective as regards this legislation.
However, it is our responsibility, which we are performing today, to look in detail at the provisions of the Bill. We face a number of difficulties in doing so because Clause 1 is couched in terms of amendment to the Security Service Act 1989; Clause 2 is couched in terms of amendment to the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and Clauses 3 and 4 refer only to the extent, the short title and commencement. Therefore, it will be seen that when the substantial contents of a Bill are framed entirely in terms of amendment to other legislation it is peculiarly difficult to express general concerns and make general points. I believe that we have succeeded in doing so in our amendments to Clause 1, but as regards our considerable concerns about Clause 2, I as an amateur found it impossible to express them in the form of detailed amendments. I have dealt with that by giving notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
The difficulty is the greater because although the Bill purports to cover the range of issues which arise as a result of giving these new functions to the Security Service, it deals only with a small number of them. Clause 1 deals only with the new functions of the

1493
Security Service in support of the activities of police forces, and Clause 2 deals only with the issue of warrants. One can imagine a whole series of further controls that will be necessary in order to complete the process which the Prime Minister set out if the Bill were not so unrepresentative an advance guard of the programme of legislation which is required. I am sorry to make such a lengthy introduction to an amendment but it is important to see the context in which we are seeking to debate the Bill today.
Amendment No. 1 relates to the definition of serious crime. The peculiarity of the Bill is that Clause 1 refers to:
"the function of the Service to act in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime".
However, there is no definition of "serious crime" in Clause 1. The only definition occurs in Clause 2, in which it is confined to the basis on which property warrants or interception warrants are to be granted and pursued.
I do not know what that will mean in terms of interpretation in the courts. However, if I were a judge required to consider whether, under Clause 1, the Security Service was acting properly in pursuing its function in support of the activities of police forces I would be inclined, first, to ask, "What is serious crime for the purposes of this section?", and then to say, "Well, there appears to be a definition of serious crime in Clause 2 and I suppose that the safest thing is to apply that definition to Clause 1". That might be a bit sloppy for lawyers but it is the way in which a layman looks at it.
Therefore, in Amendment No. 1 we propose that the definition of "serious crime" that is used in Clause 2 should apply also to Clause 1 so that the courts and anyone else seeking to implement the legislation should know what they are talking about. At the moment it is unclear what definition, if any, of "serious crime" is to be used for the purposes of Clause 1.
Having said that, and having adopted the exact wording of "serious crime" which occurs in Clause 2, I must say that the definition appears to be extremely wide. It refers not only to the detection of crime, where a crime has already taken place, but also to the prevention of crime. In many investigations that could justify a wide range of law enforcement activities. It is also true that the definition involves either (and I stress the word "either"):
"the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; or ‖ the offence or one of the offences … for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more".
I accept the point which the Minister made in her winding-up speech on Second Reading: that the definition of
"a term of three years or more"
is tighter than if it were simply an offence for which a term of three years or more could be given. I accept that there are many crimes for which although a possible sentence is three years or more in prison the probable
1494
sentence for a first adult offender is much less. There are fewer such crimes and therefore I agree that that point is valid. However, it is the fact that "serious crime" is defined so broadly either in terms of the offence involving the use of violence, substantial financial gain or conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose which causes us great concern. Members of the Committee who read the leading articles in yesterday's Observer and today's Guardian will realise that our concerns are felt more widely than simply in the Labour Party.
Perhaps I may give the particular example relating to the involvement of conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. There is no suggestion that it should be a common illegal purpose; it is any common purpose. A great deal of legitimate protest could be included within the definition of "serious crime" for this purpose. In the hands of an authoritarian and unscrupulous Home Secretary—and I am not suggesting that our Home Secretary is authoritarian or unscrupulous—it could lead to a serious curtailment of civil liberty. It is not only the powers of the police (whom we can all see) which are now to be brought into the prevention or detection of "serious crime", but here we are concerned with Security Service personnel, whom we cannot see or call to account in the same way.
The necessity for this amendment is, first, a drafting necessity in that there should be prevention of serious crime for the purposes of Clause 1. But it also provides us with an opportunity to express our concern, which we have not yet been able to express in terms of the drafting of a definition, about the wide scope of the definition of "serious crime" which is used for the purpose of this Bill.
I shall not press this or any other amendment because we are in Committee on a Bill the purposes of which we support generally. Nevertheless, we need reassurance from the Government that they intend to have a definition which is sensible, usable and as tight as possible for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although the noble Lord is entitled to put forward and move the amendment in the way that he did, I rather feel that his argument falls clown when he complains of too wide a definition of "serious crime".
If the Security Service is to be given those new functions in order to assist the police, I do not believe that they should be limited. The police have a very broad responsibility in any event and it is a responsibility which is difficult to discharge in view of what in recent years has been a steady increase in crime. If we were to attempt to limit the scope of the new activities of the Security Service by having, however carefully drafted, a complicated and narrowing definition of "serious crime" we should be making a mistake.
Of course, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about this, but, quite frankly, my instinct is not to feel encouraged to accept this amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support this amendment, although, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out, it has defects. I regret to

1495
say that I disagree profoundly with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If power goes to the Executive, it is essential that it should be constrained and scrutinised strictly. One must look at the whole of the Bill to see the vice of which my noble friend complains.
We shall later be discussing executive warrants, which are dangerous in themselves. Only last week we had an interesting debate about the proper relationship between judicial control and executive power. No voice was heard to suggest sensibly or with any prospect of persuasion that judges' intervention in controlling executive power is wrong. This Bill intends to give power to issue executive warrants.
As my noble friend also pointed out, this is simply a skirmishing attempt to achieve a sense of proportion and public safety. If one looks carefully at the definition of "serious crime", one is aware that it cannot be sensibly upheld. It relates to any offence which "involves the use of violence". Does that include common assault? It does not even have the adjective "serious" to qualify the word "violence". It does not specify that it relates to violence which threatens public safety, public security or state security. It simply refers to violence. Is that power intended to cover such minor offences as common assault? What is "substantial financial gain"? What is,
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose"?
I offer an example which may soon become reality. Let us assume that university students wish to protest against a visit to their campus of, for example, the present Home Secretary. Those students might be rowdy. Of course, they will offer no violence, but they might offer a certain amount of verbal criticism of the Home Secretary, in common with a large section of the rest of the community. They may well be committing an offence—conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Is that the sort of conduct with which we are concerned, where the power is to be unrestrained by judicial control?
What are the Government contemplating here? The Bill relates to an offence:
"for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more".
What sort of examples do the Government have lurking in the back of their mind?
I believe that the press, or part of it, has recently performed a useful public service in drawing attention to some of the defects. There is no doubt at all in my mind that in certain appropriate cases, circumscribed by a proper regime of judicial control, the use of agencies other than the police is essential. Such cases are not limited to security matters. There is an increasing number of cross-border frauds, some of which are linked to European moneys, many of which are linked to the passage of arms and many are connected with drugs. It is the last example which I wish to underline.
But if one has a proper purpose to serve, one first needs to define the purpose and then carefully erect structures and mechanisms for public control.
1496
Unfortunately, this Bill does not recognise those proper objectives and certainly does not get anywhere near fulfilling any objectives.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: If there is a skirmish, I should like to join it. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I have many reservations about the Bill. I expressed them initially in the debate on the gracious Speech and again on the Second Reading of the Bill when I said that I had a nagging feeling that this was not a good Bill. That remains my view. Although I remain, as I was then, an agnostic, and for that reason I wish to participate in any attempt to improve the Bill, I have a feeling that time will show that we have made a mistake and the Bill will be used to intrude into areas of national life which at present are not contemplated.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: having once agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill, it is extremely difficult to amend it to take account of the anxieties which I believe are felt on all sides of the Committee. The attempt to make this amendment is a measure of the difficulties which may follow thereafter.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about the role of MI5 in combating benefit fraud. I understand—although this is outside the area of my knowledge and competence—that such frauds are sometimes organised on a large scale. Certainly within the provisions of the Bill I have no objection at all to the Security Service playing its part in that. But can we be sure that that role will not be extended from organised crime and benefit fraud on a national scale to casual or occasional frauds which may be committed? Once the door has been opened, it will be very easy for it to be opened much wider.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew attention to the proposed new subsection (3B) in Clause 2 of the Bill which states:
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said at Second Reading that the subsection could cover protesters against the Newbury bypass. If that is the case, and if the lack of definition of organised crime in the clause we are now discussing could lead to the Security Service being linked with the police in dealing with protesters of that kind, it would be a serious matter. In another place much time was given to attempting a definition. I remain of the belief that if a definition can be found it would remove at least some of the anxieties for later stages of the Bill. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord Gridley: Having listened to some of the arguments that have been made there remains a puzzle in my mind as to how one will reconcile the information the secret services need, or the way they work, with the functions that one wishes the police to carry out. We must consider most seriously other ways of proceeding. The secret service picks up information and passes it on to the police. The police may have an operation in mind which should not be disclosed. It is not desirable to limit in any way the functions of the police.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The effect of the amendment would be to apply a definition of serious crime to all aspects of the Security Service's work in support of the activities of the law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime. I can see why this may appear attractive but I hope that, on reflection, the Committee will appreciate some of the drawbacks. Indeed those were spoken to eloquently by my noble friend Lord Renton with whose words I agree.
Crime does not always come in nice neat packages clearly labelled "serious" or "not serious". That is particularly true of the kind of work the Security Service will be doing. With its particular skills and experience, the service will be most effective gathering intelligence and infiltrating organised crime groups, who may extend tentacles into a wide range of activities. The very nature of the work means that the service will not always know what it is dealing with, particularly in the exploratory stages. Inevitably, some leads will turn out to be blind alleys and criminal organisations may find novel forms of criminal activity which were on the margins of a rigidly defined serious crime. There is a need for a degree of flexibility—as my noble friend Lord Renton said—and common sense in determining what lies within the function, without transgressing on inappropriate areas of inquiry.
We must avoid a situation where the Security Service is prevented from becoming involved in a case until there is certainty that it meets the requirements of a rigid definition of serious crime. That would hamper the service's effectiveness and create endless opportunities for unscrupulous defence lawyers to challenge the legitimacy of the Security Service's involvement on technical grounds. It is much better that the Security Service should initially have a degree of freedom to develop investigations but, at the point when the service wishes to employ intrusive investigative techniques, such as the entry on, or interference with, property or the interception of communications, it should be required to demonstrate that it is involved in combating serious crime as one of the controls over the issue of warrants. That is why the definition of serious crime in Clause 2, is restricted to the issue of property warrants following the precedent of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
That is not to say that the Security Service will end up dealing with trivial cases. Indeed, Ministers have given repeated assurances that, in practice, the service is to be tasked with the investigation of organised crime, as it is commonly understood. This means that the service's principal targets under its new function will be drug traffickers, money launderers and racketeers.
Furthermore, it is clearly sensible to devote the limited resources which the Security Service will be able to devote to its new function to those areas where it can make the greatest contribution. This means the acquisition of intelligence on complex criminal organisations. The co-ordination arrangements between the law enforcement agencies and the Security Service are designed to ensure that this happens.
1498
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the definition as large numbers of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. The noble Lord said that the conduct does not have to be illegal. However, I refer him to new subsection (3B) of Clause 2 which states:
"Conduct is within this subsection if it constitutes … one or more offences, and either—
(a) it involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
Those pursuing a legal common purpose cannot be caught by the Bill. That is made perfectly clear.
This Bill is one component of a package of measures designed to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can benefit from all the support, skills and structures they need to tackle organised crime effectively. The amendment would undermine the effectiveness of the Security Service's contribution to that effort. It would do so unnecessarily as there are alternative safeguards in place to ensure that the Security Service does not get involved in inappropriate areas. I hope, with that explanation, the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am unhappy with that reply not only because it shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the amendment and indeed the nature of the concerns underlying the amendment, but also because it presents a totally distorted picture of the way in which the amendment was moved and what it states. The Minister is saying that the nature of the involvement of the Security Service in law enforcement in the prevention and detection of serious crime is such that one cannot have what she called a rigid definition of serious crime.
There is no rigid definition in this amendment. There is no rigid definition in Clause 2. The definition of serious crime, which is given in Clause 2 and which we have adopted without change, is so broad as to be virtually non-exclusive. The Minister is right in saying that it refers only to offences which involve the use of violence or,
"substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
However, there is an absence of a definition of what is meant by violence. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn suggested, it could be just common assault. There is an absence of a definition of substantial financial gain. Is it substantial financial gain to the putative criminal, or substantial financial loss to the putative victim? There is an absence of any restriction whatever on the nature of the purpose which a large number of persons could be pursuing. It could be anything from the Gordon Riots to the Peterloo massacre, or any public order event of the past 200 years where there could easily be a minimal offence of disturbing public order when the purpose itself was not only not illegal but could indeed be admirable.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I say with great respect to him—I am trying to help—that I think he has overlooked the limits of

1499
Clause 1(1). It introduces a new subsection referring only to "prevention and detection of serious crime". At that stage there would seem to be no purpose in limiting the activities of the security services to prevention and detection.
However, Clause 2 deals with the issue of warrants. The noble Lord is quite right, and the Government have anticipated that we need to be a little more precise and have a definition. That is what the Government have done. If the noble Lord were to confine his remarks to prevention and detection, it would be more to the point.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: Perhaps I may intervene. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, overstates the case. There is clearly a need to restrain the security services in their activities. Constitutionally it is extremely important that they should not transgress on to what are generally clearly matters for the police. It is essential that the security services should have a clearly distinct role and this intrusion into police matters should be carefully controlled, defined and monitored. That should not be allowed to be as broad or as wide as is being suggested. It is a very slippery slope down the path of non-accountability and potential injustice, not only to the public and the police but also the security services.
I believe that the Bill is seriously flawed. This amendment is an important restraint on what could be an extremely dangerous situation and a constitutional impropriety.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. That is a serious travesty of an interpretation of the Bill. First, the noble Baroness knows that the Security Service will not in any event act independently of the police. It will be tasked by the police, or the work will be done in support of the police or the other agencies mentioned in the course of the debates. The service will be acting only in that capacity.
My noble friend is right. In the early stages of any investigation we want there to be relative flexibility. Otherwise, as I said in speaking to the amendment, it is likely that the early, important activities of investigating and working for the prevention of crime will be thwarted by some legal definition as to whether the interpretation that noble Lords propose in the amendment would restrict the service because the task did not fall neatly into the category of the definition included in Clause 2.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That seems an utterly deplorable approach to the drafting of legislation. The Minister gives us an assurance that the Minister's intention in increasing the functions of the Security Service is to deal with major issues such as drugs, fraud, and so on. I accept that; I am grateful for it. If that were what the Bill said, we should be a good deal happier.
However, I believe that the definition is far wider than the Ministers give credit for. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, specifically said that my point about legitimate public demonstrations was invalid because the function had to be for the prevention and detection of serious
1500
crime. Without the definition of serious crime, one might have a perfectly legitimate demonstration by a trade union, environmental organisation, or whatever, and the police might call in the security services to install surveillance cameras to check people off against lists of what they would call troublemakers—members of Left-wing groups, supporters of the British Council of Churches, and all kinds of subversive groups—on the grounds that by doing so they might be assisting in the prevention of the serious crime of breach of public order.
Where a large number of persons are present in pursuit of a common purpose, there is the definition in the amendment of "serious crime". The absence of a definition of serious crime in Clause 1 makes the situation even worse. In effect, the Minister is saying, "Don't pay any attention to what the Bill says. The Bill deliberately does not have a definition of serious crime. Rely on the probity of Ministers". I rely on the probity of present Ministers. When we make laws, I do not rely on the probity of all possible future Ministers. I rely on our law to be properly discriminatory and to define the purpose and scope of legislation. This provision does not do that. The definition does not do that. The lack of a definition in Clause 1 makes the situation even worse.
If I had not already said that it was a probing amendment I should be sorely tempted by the inadequate nature of the Minster's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In carrying out its function under subsection (4) above, the Service shall be subject to the provisions of Parts VI (Codes of Practice) and VIII (Evidence in Criminal Proceedings) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984."").
The noble Lord said: This is a second attempt to pursue the general line of argument with which I may already have wearied the Committee. However, it is important that there should be a statutory expression for the controls under which the Security Service, like the police service, will operate in the prevention and detection of crime. The police operate under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. For the purpose of this amendment, in particular they operate in accordance with Part VI which relates to codes of practice. There are important schedules attached to Part VI; Part VIII relates to evidence in criminal proceedings. Beyond that, the codes of practice which are subject to lesser parliamentary scrutiny are essential to our confidence in the police force and the rules under which it collects and presents evidence and makes possible prosecution of offenders.
We need to be sure that when the Security Service acts in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Bill, it will be acting also in accordance with the same rules of procedure that apply to the police. I should have thought that that point was self-evident. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support the amendment. If the Government's purpose is, as the Minister indicated, for other agencies to act in support of the police, there must be contemplated circumstances in which agency employees or personnel would be obliged to give evidence. Alternatively, there will be applications by what the Minister calls, I think, clever defence lawyers.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: "Unscrupulous".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was not sure whether there was complaint that one was clever or that one was a defence lawyer. I am obliged for the correction.
There will be a serious question about disclosure, and the discovery of documents—the usual questions that we have discussed and with which the Minister has dealt on many earlier occasions. There must be some regulation in the interests of the security services, defendants, proper transparent prosecutions and the judicial process. Unless one has a regime which is structured in the way indicated by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, there will be serious difficulties; and it will not simply be unscrupulous defence lawyers who seize upon them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: We are dealing with codes of practice. This is the moment when I should say something about the issue of warrants to the police.
Since the Second Reading on 14th May, a senior member of the judiciary has commented publicly on the absence of legislation on eavesdropping devices, also known as "bugs", suggesting that the whole area needed to be cleared up and, where necessary, legislation introduced. I pointed that out in the Second Reading debate; and that telephone tapping by authorities had been closely regulated for many years. But there has been nothing to control bugging, although it is far more intrusive and offensive.
The latest annual report of the Commissioner, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, was issued last week for the year 1995, under the 1985 Act. It records the number of warrants issued by the Home and Scottish Secretaries during that calender year. I remind the Committee that over 22 years ago I was for four years a Secretary of State personally considering whether warrants be issued or not in each case. This annual report gives a satisfactory picture, but in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was saying on the last amendment, on a subject where we all share his concern, I quote from paragraph 9 of the report. It states that the number of warrants issued under the counter-subversion head remains very small. That is good news. From the Government's response to the debate on 14th May, it seems that the subject of the use of bugs by police is to be covered in the forthcoming Bill in the next Session. We will have to wait until it
1502
comes forward before we can discover what is intended. There is nothing at present on the use by private persons or private bodies of eavesdropping devices.
In replying to the debate in the middle of May, my noble friend Lady Blatch said that this would be part of a privacy Bill, but that, as we know, the Government are not proposing such a Bill at present. I draw attention to the fact that there is still a gap where eavesdropping devices are concerned with no codes of practice and no legislation. It requires to be filled, and since the debate I have had the support of a very eminent member of the judiciary.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment affords me the opportunity to state clearly what the position of the Security Service will be in exercising its new serious crime function, as there has been a certain amount of ill-founded speculation on the point.
The Security Service does not have, and never has had, any executive powers. Officers of the Security Service have no powers of arrest nor are they able to exercise any of the other powers that the police may, in certain circumstances, exercise such as the power to stop individuals and search them. That will continue to be the case under this Bill. The Bill confers no new powers on the service—it merely allows the service to exercise its existing powers in a new area.
It has always been the case in connection with the Security Service's existing functions that though the service may gather intelligence, at the moment when executive powers need to be exercised, such as an arrest or stopping and searching an individual, the matter is passed to the police for action. That will continue to be so when the service is acting in support of the law enforcement agencies against serious crime.
The codes of practice which the Secretary of State is required to issue by virtue of Part VI of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act govern the exercise of powers by the police such as arrest and stop and search. Since, as I have explained, the Security Service has none of the powers, the exercise of which the codes regulate, I hope the Committee will accept that there would be little point in applying them to the Security Service and that the first element of the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Some have referred to the fact that one of the codes of practice regulates police searches of premises and it may be helpful if I were to clarify the position. The code of practice in question relates to searches authorised by a search warrant issued by a court. The Security Service may obtain from the Secretary of State a warrant authorising entry on, or interference with, property but these covert operations are very different from the kind of searches covered by the code of practice. As the Committee may be aware, the police too can carry out intrusive operations but when they do so, they are governed by a separate set of guidelines issued in 1984 rather than the code of practice in question.
Continuing in the same vein, may I say that I also believe the second element to be unnecessary. Part VIII of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act contains general provisions that apply across the board and, so

1503
far as they are relevant to the Security Service, it is bound by them. Nothing in the Security Service Act 1989 or in this Bill cuts across or supersedes Part VIII of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Security Service in connection with its existing functions has considerable experience of gathering evidence in a form that can be presented in court. Security Service officers are also increasingly being called upon to give evidence in court. Let me assure the Committee that the Security Service is subject to all the normal rules of court and the laws of evidence apply to the service as they do to any other body or individual.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend who raised the issue of police surveillance operations, that we have accepted the desirability of moving away from the existing administrative arrangements, although we believe that they have served us well up to now.
We have accepted that a statutory system would be preferable, but we need to look carefully, with the police, at the alternatives. There are some highly complex issues here and we are determined not to inhibit their operational effectiveness in this area. It is important to emphasise that the present Bill covers only one discrete element of the package of action against organised crime which the Prime Minister announced last October. Its scope is deliberately limited to a single issue that can sensibly be tackled in isolation. It is concerned only with the functions of the Security Service. We need to settle the question of police surveillance operations in the context of broader decisions including, of course, the details of the new national crime squad and the new arrangements for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. We are working on all those issues with the Association of Chief Police Officers and will make further proposals as soon as possible. In the light of what I have said on the amendment, I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I raised this matter on Second Reading in relation to a case involving a criminal defendant, a Mr. Kahn, a convicted heroin dealer, which is at the moment before the Appellate Committee of this House. The issue is fundamental. I had hoped to receive a letter from the noble Baroness following the Second Reading, as she did not deal with the matter in her reply, for totally understandable reasons. However, I received no such letter.
The question which has been raised in the debate is that MI5 and the police operate under totally different procedures. MI5 requires a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, the police operate under non-statutory Home Office guidelines.
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? He said that the matter is being considered at the moment by the Judicial Committee of this House. Therefore, it is sub judice. It is not only contrary to
1504
practice but wrong for us to comment upon it in case we should try to exercise any influence over the decision of the noble and learned Lords on that committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Nothing I say will necessarily influence the noble and learned Lords who are considering the case. I am discussing the issue of policy involved and merely pointing out that in the case of Mr. Kahn the matter is before the Appellate Committee of this House. The fundamental question which has been raised by the Association of Chief Police Officers repeatedly with the Home Office is whether the system should be perpetuated. Kahn merely illustrates the problem.
The noble Baroness's reply, so far as I understand it, is that the Government will at some stage in the future propose legislation to deal with the problem. However, we are in the last 10 or 11 months of this Parliament. The next Session will begin in October or November this year and the prospect of legislation being carried onto the statute book is a matter of considerable speculation. Why is the issue not being addressed in the Bill? It seems to me to be profoundly unsatisfactory that MI5 should operate under one procedure and the police under another. The police have said to the Home Office consistently that they are deeply uneasy about the arrangement. So far the Home Office has appeared wholly inflexible, save to say that at some stage in the future, maybe in the last three or four months of this Parliament, it might introduce a Bill. That does not seem to me a satisfactory answer in any respect.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is improper for the noble Lord to have invoked the name of Mr. Kahn in the course of this amendment. Anybody reading Hansard will believe that all the noble Lord's following remarks had a bearing on that particular case. My noble friend's intervention was absolutely right.
We are not inflexible. We have made it absolutely clear that there are a number of issues to be dealt with. I hope I made the point clearly enough that this is a narrowly focused Bill, and that this particular issue and the measures in the Bill are freestanding. They do not preclude any of the legislation that may follow. I also emphasised a number of times that the powers of the Security Service are not being changed one jot by the Bill. Under the Bill the service will be able to employ its existing powers in a new area of activity. I believe the safeguard is there.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am well aware of the fact that the powers of the Security Service are not being affected. The point put repeatedly by the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Minister's department is that it is highly undesirable that there should be two different procedures in dealing with cases of very similar character: one dealing with MI5 which means that the Home Secretary has to sign a warrant; the second being the police operating under non-statutory Home Office guidelines. As the Minister will be aware from her officials, this matter has been repeatedly put to her department. It fills some of us with a great deal of

1505
concern that this very unsatisfactory situation will be perpetuated. All that we have received from the Minister is an assurance that at some stage in the future a Bill will be introduced in Parliament. Given the fact that the Government have only some 10 months or less before the general election, the quality of that assurance is not very considerable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that my small amendment has been hijacked to some extent by those who wish to talk about warrants. I was not talking about warrants at all. I suggest that they are properly discussed in the context of Clause 2, and I shall offer the Committee an opportunity to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will therefore forgive me if I do not respond to the points that he made, which are properly addressed in consideration of Clause 2. The same applies to that part of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, concerned with warrants and to the Minister's reply.
It is useful to have the reminder from the Minister of what I said at the beginning of our considerations today; namely, the Bill is only part of a package of measures concerned with increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies. It is the package of measures that we wish to consider. For that reason we find it very difficult to consider constructively a small part of a package of measures put before Parliament without knowing what the remainder of the package is. We have to examine the part that we are offered and take it as all that we are legitimately able to debate. We cannot assume that the Home Office will produce any particular piece of legislation even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, rightly pointed out, there were an opportunity in the next Session of its going into law.
I am also not very happy with the Minister's repetition of the claim she made about there being no new powers for the Security Service. She said that, instead, existing powers are to be used in a new function. That means new powers—unless one is deliberately obscuring the issue, which I am sure the Minister is not. It is like George Bush saying, "Read my lips: no new taxes". He quite deliberately allowed it to be thought that there would be no increase in the level of any taxes, whereas literally what he said was that no new form of taxation would be introduced. When he broke his implied promise not to increase taxes he said: "I did not mean that at all; I simply meant that I would not introduce a new kind of tax". That was a deliberate piece of obfuscation. I hope and believe that the Minister is not a party to that. Existing powers applied for new purposes are in effect the same as new powers. There is no meaningful distinction so far as the scope of activities of the Security Service is concerned.
The Minister gave the assurances I sought so far as Part VIII of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is concerned. At least, I think she did; I shall read her reply very carefully in Hansard. I understood her to say that nothing in the Bill supersedes or detracts from the coverage of Part VIII of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. She did not make the same assertion about codes of practice. However, I hope that she meant that the Security Service, when operating its intelligence
1506
gathering functions under the Bill—we all agree that the Bill is concerned with the question of intelligence gathering rather than arrest or the functions of constables—will be controlled by the same codes as the police. I seek an assurance from the Minister that when the Security Service is called in to assist in the activities of police forces, those called in have no powers that are not available to the police. That is the assurance we are looking for. I should be grateful if the Minister would dot the i's and cross the t's.
Baroness Blatch: I understood that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was to be spoken to with this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 6 is to be spoken to with Amendment No. 3. At the moment we are concerned with Amendment No. 2. Perhaps that gives the Minister a moment or two more to consider the very direct question I am putting to her. Can she give the Committee an assurance that, when the Security Service is called in under the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, it will have no powers that are not available to the police?
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Lord still speaking to Amendment No. 2? The debate has continued for so long that I thought that we had moved on.
The powers that the Security Service has now are not being extended in the Bill. What the Bill will facilitate is that the existing powers of the Security Service will be applied in a new area of activity. Therefore the powers will not be the same. As I have already made clear, the Security Service, for example, has no powers of arrest; the police services do have powers of arrest. Therefore there is already a distinction in that particular area. The Security Service will use existing powers—no additional ones—and will act in support of the police services.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what I feared. So the situation is much more serious than it appeared. We are back to George Bush and his ambiguous election promises.
What we need is not an assurance that the Security Service is being given no new powers over those that it presently has; we want an assurance that when it acts in support of the activities of police forces—in other words, in dealing with the criminal law in this country—it does not have powers that the police do not have. We need to know that there will not be a new body of law enforcement officers coming in to do work which in the past has been done by the police, with powers about which we do not necessarily know, because the Security Service is a secret service, that are not available to the police. We know that the police have powers that are not available to the Security Service. We want to be assured that the Security Service, when acting in support of the police, has no powers that the police do not have.
Baroness Blatch: That sounds a very convoluted way to put the point. But I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the Security Service will have no powers that the police do not have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am satisfied with that answer. I am grateful for it. It is of enormous importance

1507
in a civil liberties sense to know that those who perform functions which have been the functions of the police in this country will be subject to the same rules and the same restrictions on powers as are the police. I am enormously grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.3:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In carrying out its function under subsection (4) above, the Service shall be subject to the provisions of Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Police Complaints and Discipline)."").
The noble Lord said: This is a related but separate amendment. It is the amendment being discussed in conjunction with Amendment No. 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. It is complementary to Amendment No. 2. Once we have established that the Security Service, in performing these functions, has no powers which the police do not have, it is rational to say that it will be subject to the same procedures as those set out in Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—police complaints and discipline—which set up the Police Complaints Authority.
To make sure that I am perfectly well aware of it, the Minister will tell us that the Intelligence Services Act 1994 establishes both a commissioner and a tribunal for the Security Service. I take it that the roles of the commissioner and the tribunal are in no way affected by the Bill; in other words, all the other activities that the Security Service has always undertaken will be subject to the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act.
Without again getting into the new power argument, we are now talking about a new function for the Security Service. It operates alongside police forces in activities which, when carried out by the police, are subject to the provisions of Part X of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which established the Police Complaints Authority. I do not mind whether it is by way of my amendment or the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers; we are simply looking for an assurance that the Police Complaints Authority has the same responsibility for all those who undertake those actions, not just the police. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am happy to respond to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The objective of his amendment, in my view as in his, is the same as that of Amendment No. 6, which I intend to move.
On Second Reading, substantial anxieties were expressed on all sides of the Chamber—notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who is present today, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as well as myself—about the arrangements for dealing with complaints. But they
1508
were barely referred to by the Minister in reply. Principally, the noble Baroness drew attention to the existing arrangements and did not take account of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has referred to as the new function of MI5. In other words, she referred to the roles of the Police Complaints Authority in dealing with complaints against the police and of the Security Service's tribunal and commissioner in continuing to carry out their different duties in respect of the Security Service.
However, there is a new situation. I hope very much, whatever the noble Baroness says in reply, that she will recognise that. The object of the Bill provides for the Security Service and the police to work together. Yet there will be two totally different ways of dealing with complaints. The matter was explored at some length in another place. Some very interesting exchanges took place. For example the Minister was asked:
"If somebody complains to a police force and is unaware that the Security Service is involved and it becomes clear to the police that it was a Security Service matter, will the police tell the complainant that the Security Service is involved?"
The Minister, in reply, said:
"As I understand the present position, the police will investigate. If the matter does not concern a police officer, the police will inform the person that there is no case to answer in the context of any of their people and will give the complainant the leaflet that I described"—
to which I will refer in a moment—
"pointing him in the direction of other sources to which he can make a complaint".
The matter was pursued. Questions were raised about exactly how a complainant would be told that a police officer was not involved and about the need to give the complainant a clear indication of the person to whom he should complain. The Minister replied:
"I understand that that would not be the usual procedure".—[Official Report, Commons; 14/2/96; cols. 1026–271.]
In my experience, when Ministers—I include myself once upon a time—say, "I understand that", they really mean, "I don't understand this at all but this is what I have been told to say." That includes Ministers of both sides. I see that the Minister shakes his head. I have had long experience; it is a well known formula, which is popular with the Civil Service as well as Ministers. Ministers do not usually admit any doubt about understanding what is said. They say, "I know that", "I will" or "I do." If they say, "I understand that", they mean, "I don't understand what is going on but this is what has been written on a piece of paper and I am going to repeat it to the Chamber", whatever Chamber it may be.
That being the case, there is cause for concern. That concern grows at the mention of the leaflets. The Minister may have seen them; I assume that they are in the Library of the House. I expect that they are familiar to all other Members present today and that I alone am ignorant of them. Perhaps the Minister will be very obliging and send me a copy before we reach Report stage. But it is a rather curious procedure. The complainant complains and, after some interval, the police say to him, "Not me, guy. Take this leaflet and see if you can come up with somebody else. Cheerio."

1509
I am sure that that is not the proper patois on some occasions but the meaning is clear. It is a case of saying to the complainant, "We have had a look at it. It may have taken weeks or months. Indeed, I cannot remember when you made your complaint. I am sorry, old chap, but it was not us. Here is a leaflet. Go away and look at it".
It is a very interesting leaflet indeed. Again, according to the Minister in the other place, it contains a comprehensive list of alternative avenues of complaint. The complainant, knowing that it was not the police but not knowing who it was, is therefore left to go seriatim through a long list of other organisations to which he may complain before coming up with MI5.
I make ridiculous what I regard as a ridiculous procedure. Certainly, nothing said so far in either Chamber makes me feel confident that, however few they may be, the way in which complaints will be dealt with is consistent with the high standards that Parliament requires in such very difficult and sensitive areas. Whatever the Minister may say today, I hope that before Report stage she will come up with a better formula for dealing with the problem as we see it.
First, the amendment—Amendment No. 6, to which I am speaking principally—is right in principle in saying that there should be a single, simple channel of complaint. I believe that that is necessary to protect the public, the police and their present arrangements, and the Security Service too. In the absence of such procedures, the Bill—I am not one of its strongest supporters but, given the reservation I have mentioned, I wish it well—will come into disrepute because of its failure to deal adequately with complaints.
I referred to delay. What kind of delay does the Minister anticipate a complainant would suffer before the police came back with the answer that it was not a complaint against the police but a complaint against some other person unknown who may or may not have been involved?
Secondly, how can the Minister ensure that there is no conflict between the police and the Security Service when two persons may have been involved in a single event which led to the complaint? If those two persons, one being a member of the police force and the other a member of MI5, were each responsible for the cause of the complaint, how will the two complaints be dealt with in parallel? Thirdly, given all the experience we have of these sorts of uncomfortable arrangements between two services with different cultures, techniques and backgrounds, can we avoid buck-passing on the one hand or the alternative of collusion on the other, neither of which can be satisfactory?
Finally, it seems to me that one of the victims—I have referred to this but must emphasise it—of the arrangement spelt out in the Bill will be the Police Complaints Authority. We know that in some people's minds, though not in mine, it is not wholly above suspicion. But if the provisions of the Bill stand, how can we be sure that those who may have a legitimate complaint will believe that they can get it through the clear, relatively simple procedures now in place? How
1510
soon shall we find that the probity of the Police Complaints Authority is, fairly or unfairly, called into doubt? I ask the Minister to think again.
Lord Knights: First, I express my regrets that I was not present for the Second Reading of this Bill. It was my intention to be here, but circumstances combined to prevent me.
I should begin by saying that I find myself of two minds in considering these amendments. On the one hand, I can well understand the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, regarding the position where two different organisations are working together. I can well understand their wishes that there should be a clear, open, acceptable system for calling to account the actions of officers, whether working on their own or together. I also recognise the possible difficulties when it comes to their being disciplined and appearing before different tribunals.
On the other hand, I find myself wondering whether the problems are not a little more imagined than real. Have not police officers and security officers worked together before? Have those operations produced problems of this kind? What is different today? Serious crime, organised crime—or whatever other definition one may give to it—is surely no different from terrorism or major international fraud which, together with espionage, have been the remit of the Security Service since 1989 and non-statutorily before that.
Clearly there must be joint working with the police in those fields. What about joint police/Customs operations? They have been going on for a long time. Have any problems relating to accountability surfaced there? It would be helpful if we could know the subject of the 21 complaints levelled against officers of the Security Service last year, and indeed the years before that. Were they the kind of actions which your Lordships had in mind in tabling the amendments?
I suggest that the difficulties we are experiencing in this matter stem from the cloak of anonymity and confidentiality which covers the activities of all the security services. I shall no doubt be accused almost of sacrilege if I inquire whether that is still completely necessary or justified in all the circumstances. It will be interesting to see how the different practices work in joint operations against organised crime.
More to the point, perhaps, until October 1992 it was the police who were responsible for intelligence operations against the IRA in mainland Britain. The officers engaged in those operations were accountable for their actions in exactly the same way as any other police officer. If it were not for the confidentiality and anonymity aspect, we could well see a better way of dealing with complaints against Security Service officers.
The more one thinks about the difficulties, the more one wonders whether they were given any consideration at all before this Bill was presented. Might it not be better to ensure that the police have, in their own organisation, the special skills of the Security Service in the fields of acquiring intelligence, processing and

1511
assessing it—I believe they do—rather than seeking to provide them in this clearly complicated way? On balance, I find myself in favour of the status quo without complicating the matter even further, which is what the amendments would do, and I would therefore be opposed to them.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may add to that. I was deeply impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said. I have two concerns which are relevant.
At Second Reading I said that I was concerned about adding more commitment to an already fully committed and small service. What concerns me now specifically is, for instance, the lack of clarity about the powers of the co-ordinator. Will he have powers to decide that the police should be free to act on information received from a long-term security source asset which the service may need to protect for long-term strategic reasons? Clashes of interest will arise which may be difficult to resolve. For instance, it could easily happen in relation to the IRA or drugs.
Secondly—this relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said—although I realise that security officers may have to relinquish anonymity in court proceedings if that proves to be necessary and I understand the desire for transparency particularly in the interests of justice, the service is a small one. Eventual disclosure of most of its officers could only be bad for its long-term operations. One must remember that if those officers are publicly identified one by one, life will be extremely dangerous for the agents they run. That is true not only in Northern Ireland, but also in other areas. When there are only a few people in an organisation one cannot afford to have them identified quite so happily as one may with the police force. I entirely accept that in certain areas the dangers are the same. But that is another reason why I feel deeply uneasy about the new tasks the service is being given. I hope that some consideration can be given to those factors which are professional but need to be mentioned.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Not for the first time I find myself in broad agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Knights. It is difficult to see, though I agree with the general thrust of my noble friend's argument, how one can deal with the complaints situation effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, said that there is the problem of the climate of secrecy which envelopes the Security Service in this country, unlike the situation in the United States where there is a large sign south of Washington telling one where the offices of the CIA are.
The problem in relation to complaints is an exceptionally difficult one. As the noble Baroness will have been informed, the deputy chief constable is responsible for investigating complaints against a police officer. The complaints can fall into one of two categories. First, it may be a criminal offence, in which case the papers are sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions; secondly, it may reveal evidence of a disciplinary offence in which case the chief constable ultimately, after consultation with the Police Complaints Authority, may bring proceedings against that officer.
1512
The question which my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank asked was this: how does one deal with the problems of the individual complainant? He goes to a police station. There he will obtain the existing leaflet—I have not seen any new one—which tells him what his rights are in terms of making a complaint. He makes his complaint. The deputy chief constable then starts an investigation in an operation in which both the police and the Security Service have been involved. Does the deputy chief constable, in the view of the Minister, have locus in this matter? Can he investigate a complaint of allegedly improper behaviour by a member of MI5? What happens if the complaint is made against three or possibly four people, three of whom are police officers and one a member of the Security Service? Does the deputy chief constable have the responsibility of continuing that investigation or does he say, "I will investigate the allegations against the three police officers, but as regards the member of the Security Service, I cannot investigate that"? I would find that a very difficult outcome because one may be faced with a situation where three police officers may well say, "Mr. X has a legitimate complaint, but it was not us who did it, it was our colleague who is a member of the Security Service". That is the first problem; namely, the position of the deputy chief constable and the investigation of a complaint under his personal jurisdiction.
We then come to the disciplinary hearing. The chief constable will preside and possibly, in some cases, with a member of the Police Complaints Authority sitting in. That tribunal would have only the responsibility of considering the allegations against the two or three police officers and not that against the member of the Security Service against whom the policemen may well say, "He is responsible". He will be judged by a different tribunal. One has only to begin rehearsing some of these problems. They are real problems, because the noble Baroness can take it from me that a number of chief officers have raised this problem with me. We all accept that there has to be a complaints system affecting both the police and the Security Service and, in certain circumstances, Customs & Excise who may be involved in drug-related offences. One has to have a complaints system which has the confidence of the public. How will the noble Baroness reply to the particular questions that I have put to her? I shall be very grateful to hear her response.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank was an exceptional and outstanding Minister. It is just conceivable that he never had to resort to the words, "as I understand". I admit wholeheartedly to fallibility. From time to time I have used the words, "as I understand", but not, I hope, very often because I have no idea what the information is. I have learnt the hard way that in dealing with technical and legal matters it is better not to stand at the Dispatch Box and sound as though I know everything about everything. "As I understand" does at least give me the opportunity to write subsequently if I am not right on the first occasion. The phrase "as

1513
I understand" is useful. It is not a sign of incompetence, but a sign of being cautious where matters are intricate and involved.
That is an important issue and it is right that we should debate it. Amendment No. 3 and new Clause 1 both stem from the wish that Security Service officers, when acting in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies, should be subject to an adequate complaints procedure which safeguards the interests of the public.
The Government share that view. That does not, however, mean that the Security Service should be subject, when working against serious crime, to an identical complaints procedure to the police, as would be the effect of Amendment No. 3. Indeed, there could be positive disadvantages in making the changes that this amendment proposes. Similarly, I am not persuaded that the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is necessary or would enhance the Bill.
Before moving on to the detail of the proposed amendments I should like, with the Committee's indulgence, to describe the complaints mechanism which covers the Security Service at present and which will apply to the new function as well. As part of a wide-ranging set of safeguards, the Security Service Act 1989 established the independent Security Service tribunal to investigate complaints.
Under the 1989 Act, any person can complain to the tribunal about anything they believe that the Security Service has done to them or to their property. That person can be an individual or an organisation and a complaint about a person's property may include the place where they reside or work. Any complaint that is not trivial or vexatious will be looked into. The members of the tribunal are all senior members of the legal profession. For complaints relating to action against property the tribunal will involve the Security Service Commissioner. The tribunal and commissioner have full powers to call on any official documents or information they may need.
If the tribunal finds in favour of a complainant, it has the power to order the termination of the service's inquiries and the destruction of records; it has the power to quash warrants; and it has the power to order suitable compensation to be paid. This constitutes an important and robust safeguard, which must not be taken lightly. These procedures were approved by Parliament; they have been in force for more than six years and they have worked well. The independent Security Service Commissioner, who reports on all aspects of the work of the Security Service, has not had cause to question the impartiality or effectiveness of the complaints mechanism. The procedures have also been endorsed by the European Commission on Human Rights.
Amendment No. 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to superimpose the police complaints mechanism on to these tried and trusted procedures, in relation to the Security Service's new function. The mechanism for dealing with complaints against the police, set out in Part 1X of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, was created with the police in mind. It takes account of the duties and responsibilities
1514
of the police and the fact that the police have daily contact with the public and also have executive powers, such as the power of arrest, which the Security Service do not possess.
By contrast, the Security Service tribunal was established to investigate complaints against the Security Service and in its procedures and operations is mindful of the special needs of the service. So, for example, it is careful to preserve the confidentiality of the names of Security Service officers. That was a point mentioned by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth.
These bodies are separate and independent and I suggest to the Committee that it would be unwise to confuse their respective responsibilities. A consequence of passing this amendment would be that officers of the Security Service would be subject to two different complaints mechanisms—the police complaints mechanism when they were working in the serious crime field and the Security Service tribunal at all other times. It would also mean that it could become possible for a suspect to make a complaint simply as a way of determining under which of its functions the Security Service had an interest in him.
The Security Service already works closely with law enforcement agencies in relation to its existing functions, in particular in the counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation fields. The fact that more than one complaints procedure applies to those working in joint operations has not caused problems. Similarly, the police and Her Majesty's Customs & Excise frequently work together on joint operations yet their officers are subject to a separate complaints mechanism and this has not presented problems, either. Those were points which were very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights.
There is another aspect to this, also related to Customs & Excise. Though the Security Service's serious crime work will normally be conducted in support of the police, on occasion the service will support other law enforcement agencies such as Customs but also possibly the Serious Fraud Office or the Immigration Service. It would be a very strange state of affairs indeed for a Security Service officer, acting in support of Customs, to find himself subject to police disciplinary procedures. Are we suggesting that every time two agencies co-operate over an operation their complaints procedures should be aligned in some way? I do not think that that is necessary or desirable.
The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, takes an alternative approach but I fear that it shares a number of the pitfalls.
Let me deal first with subsection (1) of the proposed clause, which seeks to restate the role of the Police Complaints Authority even though there is nothing in this Bill which would preclude or limit investigations by the Police Complaints Authority. More specifically, the amendment seeks to reinforce the Police Complaints Authority's role in respect of investigations into
"actions undertaken by … police officers in pursuance of activities authorised by this Act",
but this Bill does not authorise any action by police officers, apart from the simple task for the designated chief officer of agreeing co-ordination arrangements

1515
with the Director General of the Security Service. Beyond that, there is no reason why complaints in respect of normal police operations should not be properly investigated as a result of this legislation. There is no statutory obstacle—in this Bill or the 1989 Act—which would prevent the Security Service from co-operating with an investigation by the police into a complaint against a police officer, arising from a joint operation.
The amendment is also concerned with actions undertaken "on behalf of police officers" but the statutory remit of the Police Complaints Authority, as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, restricts it to investigating complaints against police officers. It does not permit the investigation of complaints against actions "on behalf of police officers, and, as I have already suggested, it would not be appropriate to apply a complaints mechanism, drawn up with the powers and procedures of the police in mind, to the Security Service when its officers operate in different contexts and without any executive powers. I would therefore suggest that this subsection is unnecessary.
The second subsection proposes to create a link between the Police Complaints Authority and the Security Service Tribunal so that if a complaint is submitted to the police and they decide it is worthy of investigation but find that it actually relates to a member of the Security Service, the complaint can be sub-contracted to the Security Service Tribunal for investigation. Again, I can see why this may appear attractive, but I think the existing procedures work very well.
At present we rely on procedures which have been tailored to suit the powers available to those officers and the contexts within which those powers are applied. In the unlikely scenario that a person submits a complaint against the police which actually relates to a member of the Security Service, the police will decide whether the complaint merits recording and, if it does, they will investigate it. If they then conclude that it does not relate to the conduct of a police officer, they will explain to the complainant what other avenues of complaint are available. This will include the Security Service Tribunal. All police forces have been issued with leaflets explaining the work of the tribunal and I understand that these leaflets will be revised and reissued in the light of the present Bill.
I have already pointed out that the Security Service co-operates with the police and other agencies under its existing responsibilities. Precisely the same hypothetical situation could arise in respect of complaints from members of the public but there is no evidence that this has caused any problems.
Members of the Security Service have no executive powers. Where executive action such as an arrest is required as a result of an investigation—whether it is a counter—terrorism investigation or a serious crime-related investigation—this will be for the police. Members of the Security Service are not going to be patrolling the streets and coming into regular contact with members of the
1516
public as a result of this Bill. Most complaints about misconduct on the part of police officers arise from this type of situation.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose name has been mentioned in this debate, raised the hypothetical scenario of a defendant claiming that drugs had been planted on him by an officer, who was actually from the service. Let me assure the Committee that if a complaint relates to alleged criminal conduct by a member of the Security Service, the police will be the appropriate agency to carry out the investigation. Members of the Security Service are fully subject to the law of the land.
The amendment does not make clear whether the complainant would be informed of the involvement of the Security Service Tribunal. If the complaint is passed in secret to the tribunal for investigation, this would compromise the integrity and independence of both bodies, without offering any gains in terms of transparency. We believe that complainants have a right to know which body is to investigate their complaint.
If, however, the complainant is informed that the complaint has been passed from the Police Complaints Authority to the Security Service Tribunal, this would confirm that the Security Service has been involved in the case. Clearly this could be exploited by potential targets to secure information about the activities of the service. I refer back to the points made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth who I know is concerned about exposing people who are working in this sensitive area. It would be unfortunate if it was confirmed unnecessarily that an officer was a member of the Security Service as a result of an administrative procedure, thereby potentially compromising its future effectiveness in other capacities. This would also undermine the present procedures, which have been carefully constructed to protect sensitive information.
For those reasons I would suggest that this Bill is not going to generate the kind of difficulties which a number of noble Lords appear to anticipate. There is no evidence that the kind of problems that some of your Lordships foresee arise in connection with the Security Service's existing functions. Perhaps I may borrow a phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and say that I believe that much of this is more imagined than real.
The Security Service and the police have a long history of co-operation in the counter-terrorism field. Although they work together, their officers are subject to different but parallel complaints procedures. That has not caused problems either for the agencies involved or for the public, and we see no reason to depart from it in regard to the service's new function.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to the nature of complaints against the security services. Again, as I understand it, the substance of complaints submitted to the Security Service Tribunal is entirely a matter for the tribunal which does not disclose details of individual cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked what happens if the police and the Security Service working together give rise to a complaint. They will be subject to different complaints

1517
mechanisms. As I have already said, that already happens when the Security Service works with the police in the area of counter-terrorism. It also happens when police and Customs work together. It does not cause problems and there is no reason to assume that problems will arise in the new area.
I have been asked about the length of time the procedure will take if a complaint is lodged with the police. It will, of course, take as long as is needed. In the first instance, we hope that the procedure for determining whether it is a proper complaint that needs to be investigated will take no more than a few days. If it is determined to proceed with the investigation, the investigation will then take as long as is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also referred to the tribunal leaflet. I shall, of course, send the noble Lord a copy of the leaflet. It is specific to the Security Service. My right honourable friend in another place said that the police would supply complainants with copies of all the relevant leaflets—they will all have their own leaflets—with respect to each of the services, such as those covering complaints against the Security Service and Customs and Excise.
Again, I shall have to preface these remarks with "as I understand it" because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to what will happen if a complaint relates to, say, three members of a police force and one member of the Security Service. I think that I am right in saying that if it is a single complaint, either naming or not naming those four theoretical members who are the subject of the complaint, and if that single complaint is substantiated and if any of the police officers is involved, the complaint will be addressed by the Police Complaints Authority. If it is discovered that the three police officers—or however many were involved—were not party to the maladministration or wrong conduct that is the subject of the complaint, the other procedure will apply and the complainants will be given all the information about the other "complaining" authorities and will be able to resubmit the claim, if they want to, to whichever other agency is deemed to be the most relevant.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth referred to the Security Service giving evidence in court. The decision on who needs to give evidence in any particular case is for the prosecuting authorities and prosecuting counsel. In recent years, members of the service have given evidence on a range of issues in many trials, including counter-terrorist cases, where that is necessary to ensure that all relevant evidence is before the court. We have no reason to believe that that should not continue to be the case. It will not affect operational effectiveness. It must be remembered that members of the Security Service have no executive powers. Where intelligence work by the service leads to executive action this will require co-operation with the appropriate law enforcement agency, who will give evidence as normal. This is likely to limit the need for members of the Security Service to give evidence. Officers of the police and security services are subject to the complaints procedures appropriate to their respective organisations.
1518
Both procedures work well in their respective contexts, and we should not confuse the two. I hope therefore that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As I understand the reply of the noble Baroness, a deputy chief constable pursuing an allegation of misconduct by members of his force who finds that one of the people against whom the complaint is made is a member of the Security Service, and, in his view, it is an allegation of criminal misconduct, is to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director would then be in the difficult position of having to decide whether or not to pursue the matter on public interest grounds. I understand her answer. I am not wholly clear what happens if it is an allegation of grossly improper behaviour short of criminal behaviour.
Let us assume that the complainant goes to a police station, makes a complaint and the police begin to investigate it. As I understand it, the deputy chief constable still has responsibility for investigating that complaint, albeit part of the complaint relates to a member of the Security Service who is then interviewed by the police to find out whether or not he has behaved improperly. No doubt either today or in correspondence the noble Baroness will tell me whether or not what I say is correct. If he takes the view that there has been improper behaviour by the police officers he will prefer disciplinary charges against them which will be considered by the Police Complaints Authority and the tribunal at which the chief constable will preside. At that stage the officers will have legal representation if there is any question of either dismissal from the service or being reduced in rank. Those are the present arrangements.
As part of their defence, the police officers might say that Mr. X., a member of the Security Service, was the person who undoubtedly behaved improperly. Referring to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, presumably in that situation the member of the Security Service would or might be obliged to give evidence before the deputy chief constable in order to validate the allegations made on behalf of the deputy chief constable. Presumably, it would mean that the identity of the officer would become known even though the complainant might be a person with a formidable criminal record. I shall be grateful if at some stage the noble Baroness confirms that what I have said represents the truth of the matter. From my knowledge I believe that it is an accurate picture.
What happens to the member of the Security Service whom the police officers say has behaved with gross impropriety? Presumably, his case could be put before the Security Service Tribunal. The police officers, who perhaps had been acquitted, might be asked to give evidence against the officer. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness between now and Report stage can tell me whether what I say represents the Government's belief as to the accuracy of this matter.
The noble Baroness said that there would be no problem because the police and Customs work together. That is perfectly true. But the major distinction is that Customs and Excise is not a secret organisation. There is no question of trying to throw a cloak of secrecy over

1519
the identity of a member of Customs and Excise because, by definition, it is a publicly accountable organisation. Members of Customs and Excise are known. There is nothing like the climate of secrecy which exists in the Security Service. In my view, this issue is fundamental. But it will not arise in the immediate future. At first there are to be only 16 to 20 members of the Security Service involved in this work. But once the legislation is on the statute book there will be the possibility of a larger number of members of the Security Service becoming involved. I believe that all concerned deserve a clear explanation as to what will happen.
Baroness Blatch: I shall read carefully what the noble Lord said and write to him. I will make available my response to all Members of the Committee who have an interest in this matter. When a person complains to the police authority the matter will be dealt with as a complaint to that authority. If, either at the initial stage, or subsequently, it emerges that a member of the Security Service has behaved illegally it will be dealt with. Whether it comes to light in the course of the investigation or in any other circumstances, that person will be subject to the law and the law will take its normal course. The Crown Prosecution Service will make a determination as to whether to proceed with charges.
If, however, in the course of investigating a complaint to the police authority it is discovered that the policemen involved in the particular case are not involved in any impropriety but it is just conceivable that members of the Security Service are, it will be dealt with as a complaint to the police authority. The authority will determine whether or not there is a case to answer. In this hypothetical situation there would not be a case to answer. The complainant will be invited to seek redress for his complaint elsewhere. All of the information as to how to do that and the range of bodies to which the complainant can go to pursue the complaint will be made available. If the particular complaint involves both the police and members of the Security Service but the complaint is proved on the basis that someone in the police authority has caused some grievance to the complainant, the complaint will be upheld and it may or may not involve invoking the Security Service. But the noble Lord raised a number of issues. I believe that it would be wrong for me to try and answer them in any more detail. I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This has been a most interesting debate, notably for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, with his knowledge of the police service, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, with her knowledge of the Security Service. Members of the Privy Council Bench who expressed approval of those interventions should reflect that both speakers were considerably more radical in their response to the Bill than might at first have appeared.
The Minister has no difficulty in persuading me that my amendment is defective and that it should be withdrawn. Although her answers go some way to explain the procedures which will take place on this
1520
complicated issue, they do not go all of the way. What happens if a member of the Security Service commits an illegal act is quite clear. We can be agreed about that. But as to how the public are to know where their complaints should lie and as to the degree of collaboration between the Security Service Tribunal and the Police Complaints Authority, I heard a number of encouraging remarks by the Minister but a rather discouraging remark at the end. I believe that it is best that I read carefully what she said and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, at beginning insert ("After consultation with the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee established under section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment, which is in the same form as other amendments, is perhaps related but it deals with a separate issue. It deals with the issue of the designation, for the purposes of this clause, of the person who is, as we understand it, to be the director-general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. What we propose in the amendment is that such a designation shall not take place unless the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was set up under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, is also consulted.
We appreciate the difficulties which the Government have in that they have not yet found it possible to draft the legislation which will give statutory authority to the NCIS and the NCS. It would of course have been easier to understand the Bill if that had not been the case—if we had not had to tread delicately around this designation rather than having it named directly. But whether it is yet statutory or not, surely this is a sufficiently important role in triggering the intervention of the Security Service in support of the activities of police forces for the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has the function of parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service, to be involved. Parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service, if it is to be complete, has to cover also the functions which are provided for in Clause 1. It would seem logical and natural for Parliament to be involved in this, perhaps minimal, but nevertheless significant way. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord over this amendment. It is important that we should ensure that there is co-operation and no conflict between that important body mentioned in the Intelligence Services Act—namely, the Intelligence and Security Committee—and the police. It is rather significant that, although this is a Bill dealing with the functions of the Security Service, there is to be under Clause 1(3) a chief officer of police to be the responsible person for ensuring that things work smoothly. It may be that the Secretary of State, on advice from the Home Office, would in any event consult the chairman appointed under Section 10 of the 1994 Act, but it is a

1521
point that should somehow or another be covered. It seems to me that the amendment is appropriate, but I naturally wish to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The only anxiety I have on this question is why this issue has not been addressed within the Bill. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the person he intends to designate—f officer of police to whom the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just referred—will be the director-general of the NCIS. I believe that that is the correct person to have that responsibility. It is the only way of ensuring police primacy.
What I still find extremely difficult to understand is why that matter has not been addressed on the face of the Bill. After all, we are introducing for the first time the Security Service into sensitive areas of police operations. That being so, it seems strange that we are being asked to pass a Bill which gives new authority to the Security Service but does not clearly define, on the face of the Bill, the senior police officer who will have that critical role. I find that disappointing. I still hope that on Report or at subsequent stages that matter will be dealt with.
Lord Knights: The point which interests me in this matter is not so much the inclusion of the commissioner or the Security Service people in the appointment of the officer who is to be the link but, as has already been said, that the Home Secretary has already indicated that it will be the officer who is in charge of the NCIS. That officer, under present circumstances, as I understand it, cannot be a chief officer of police. He can only be a former chief officer of police, because he will give up his command as a chief constable when he takes up that post.
If the Home Secretary has already decided who that will be, there does not seem to be much point in consulting someone else before he is appointed. He is the only one who can be appointed. There is no choice if that is where it is to lie. But the whole situation raises, and it will raise later when the legislation to make the NCIS a statutory body comes before this place, the question of what supervision there should be of its activities. At that stage we shall need to consider whether similar arrangements should not be made for a committee to supervise its work in the same way as the work of the security services is being supervised now. That is where the real arguments will come as to the position of the officer in charge of the NCIS.
Baroness Blatch: Although superficially attractive, I have to confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the intent behind this amendment. It seems to me that it would not enhance the Bill and runs the risk of damaging the standing of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Clause 1(2) requires the director-general of the Security Service to agree arrangements with a designated person so as to ensure that the activities of the Security Service in connection with its new serious crime function are co-ordinated with those of the police and the other law enforcement agencies that it will be
1522
supporting. That is an important safeguard which is designed to ensure that in the serious crime field the Security Service acts only in a supporting role and does not act independently. The agreed co-ordination arrangements will cover questions such as tasking and how the Security Service's contribution can best be meshed with the work in this field that others are already doing.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear all along that it is his intention to designate the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS as it is known) as the person with whom the Director-General of the Security Service must agree these co-ordination arrangements. That reflects the key role which all the players have agreed that NCIS will undertake and which I outlined in opening the Second Reading debate on this Bill. Indeed, ideally we should have liked the fact that the designated person will be the Director-General of NCIS to be specified in the Bill. Unfortunately, that is not possible since NCIS currently has no statutory footing. The Committee may be aware that part of the next element of the Government's package of measures, which I have already made clear this afternoon, against organised crime will be to put NCIS on a statutory footing.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Knights, made the important point that some of the detail of the supervisory arrangements will have to be thrashed out during the course of that next piece of legislation. Nevertheless, despite, any uncertainty in drafting terms that may exist, the Government have been in no doubt that the Director-General of NCIS will be the designated person. So far that proposition has received all-party support and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others should call it into question by suggesting that prior consultation is required before the designation process can take place.
I am also concerned that the noble Lord should be seeking to involve the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee in this way. The Intelligence and Security Committee exists to,
"examine the expenditure, administration and policy",
of the intelligence agencies. It is an all-party group of senior parliamentarians and my noble friend Lord Blaker is a distinguished representative of this place.
One of the great strengths of the Intelligence and Security Committee is that it is independent of both the Government and of the intelligence services whose activities it oversees. It can therefore be relied upon by the Members of another place and of this place to carry out its duties effectively and without fear of being compromised. I have every confidence in the ability of the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Tom King, MP. His integrity is beyond question.
Nevertheless, I question whether there is not a danger that the independence of the committee would be called into question if it were to become involved in operational issues which could have a direct bearing on the work of the Security Service. Indeed, a much more likely scenario is that the committee will want to

1523
examine the effectiveness of the Security Service's work in its new function, including the co-ordination arrangements. We believe that seeking its advice or influence in that appointment would run the risk of compromising its independence.
For that reason, and on the basis of the firm undertaking which has been given and which I am happy to repeat—that the designated person will be the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service—I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I make it clear from the outset that I am not casting doubt—indeed, my party has never cast doubt—on the intention of the Home Secretary to appoint the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service as the designated person under Clause 1 of the Bill. I cannot understand how the Minister read that into what I said or into the amendment. We accept that the appointment will be that person.
However, there will be future appointments, and we suggest that since the role of the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service is expanded by the Bill—in other words, in addition to running his criminal intelligence service he also has the responsibility, which is laid down in Clause 1, of defining arrangements for co-ordinating the activities of the service in pursuance of Section 1(4) with the activities of police forces—there is therefore a Security Service role as part of that person's terms of reference. It seems a minimal involvement of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service which is provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee for the chairman of that committee to be involved in the appointment. That does not mean that the chairman will be involved subsequently in the activities of that committee; only that when the appointment is made, parliamentary involvement and the role of the Security Service should be recognised—
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has gone a bit further than his amendment. It properly refers to consultation; the Secretary of State should not be required to do more than consult. To go into the matter of greater responsibility is going beyond his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not intend to go beyond my amendment. It is a minimal amendment. There is a small amount of parliamentary involvement in a very hierarchical way. Only the chairman is involved and not his committee; and he is involved only in a consultative capacity; and he is involved only at the time of the appointment of the designated person.
I am surprised that the Minister reads so much into my small amendment, but it is not one that I wish to press at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("(3C) The Secretary of State shall by order appoint a special police authority to exercise the relevant functions under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1993 in relation to the arrangements made under subsection (2)(c) above."").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 refers to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, in addressing the previous amendment. I agree that the more important matter is to which police authority the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and indeed the national crime squad, should be responsible.
In our lengthy debates on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill 1994 we secured considerable changes to the original government proposals. We secured that there should be a continuation of the tripartite system of control of the police which had served us so well. In every respect—except the control of the Metropolitan Police, where unfortunately the Government changed their mind—the Government agreed that we should continue with the tripartite system, with local authority involvement and with local responsibility for the objectives and conduct of police forces in this country. For that reason, we believe that there should be a comparable body for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the national crime squad, particularly as the director-general is to be the guardian at the gate, so to speak, for the intervention of the Security Service in policing matters.
I believe that even the Home Secretary now accepts that there is a need for a body to which NCIS should report and that is one of the reasons why legislation has not been brought forward to provide the statutory basis for NCIS and why to that extent the Bill is incomplete. In the amendment I have referred to the body as a special police authority, without spelling out in detail its composition. However, I believe that it should include representatives of chief police officers and local police authorities so that the national police work is tied back into the systems and accountability of local police activity.
Clearly, this is a probing amendment. If it found favour with the Government, no doubt there would have to be a considerable amount of drafting in order to establish the constitution and powers of such a special police authority. However, I hope that by presenting the matter in this simple way it raises the issue adequately, meets the longer term objectives of the Home Secretary in this package of legislation and finds favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am relieved to know that this is only a probing amendment because it is defective. It refers to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1993, but in fact it was passed in 1994. I say with respect that, in any event, the idea of having a police authority imposed upon the machinery already envisaged under the Bill is utterly inappropriate. In Section 4 of the 1994 Act, which amends the 1964 Act, the noble Lord will see

1525
elaborate arrangements for the membership of police authorities and their appointment. I cannot imagine that his proposal will find favour with the Government.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I understand the noble Lord's desire for the work of the Security Service in pursuit of its new function to be accountable, but this amendment seems to be a very strange way to pursue that aim. In any case, I believe that the present accountability arrangements governing the work of the Security Service are highly effective.
The amendment proposes that there should be a special police authority to oversee the co-ordination arrangements which will govern the Security Service's support for the law enforcement agencies. By way of clarification, it refers to the relevant functions under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act, whether 1993 or 1994. I am at a loss to see how the functions under that Act would be relevant. The primary objective of a police authority is to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force. In doing so, the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act refers to the police authority's duty to set objectives in consultation with the chief constable and local people and to issue local policing plans and annual reports. Those functions are all appropriate to maintaining a police force with an essentially local focus. They do not seem appropriate to the work of the Security Service.
The Security Service is a different type of organisation and it has its own systems of accountability. Ultimately, the Security Service is accountable to the Home Secretary, through the Director General. By way of independent oversight, we have established the Intelligence and Security Committee, a committee of distinguished parliamentarians including my noble friend Lord Blaker, who represents your Lordships' House. The ISC will certainly be able to oversee the Security Service's new function.
Under the new function, the Security Service will be supporting police forces and law enforcement agencies. All police forces are accountable to their own police authority and organisations like Customs and Excise have their own accountability arrangements. I do not think it would be appropriate for there to be a new police authority duplicating these existing accountability arrangements for occasions when the Security Service is supporting a law enforcement agency in pursuance of its new function.
The other key organisations in the Security Service's new role is of course NCIS. The co-ordination arrangements will have to be agreed with the Director General of NCIS, as the designated chief officer, and NCIS will perform a central role in co-ordinating the contributions of the various agencies. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have views on the accountability arrangements which would be appropriate for NCIS but, I fear, this is not the occasion to pursue them.
It is the Government's firm intention to bring forward legislation placing NCIS on a clear statutory footing, with greater independence from the Home Office. I assure the Committee that we shall address the issue of oversight arrangements as an integral part of that legislation and we are aware of the need for public
1526
accountability. But there are complex issues involved and we are still developing our proposals in consultation with the police and other interested parties. Nevertheless, we hope to bring forward the legislation as soon as possible.
In the meantime, we want to ensure that the co-ordination arrangements which will govern the Security Service's new role are not unduly bureaucratic and do not stifle operational effectiveness. The arrangements will cover practical issues such as mechanisms for ensuring the visibility of Security Service operations; mechanisms for sharing information; and the role of groups such as the Drugs Trafficking Strategy Group. This does not justify the setting up of a new police authority in an oversight role. It would be cumbersome and inappropriate. Instead we should rely on the existing accountability arrangements, which are tailored to the needs of each organisation. In the case of NCIS we have given clear commitments that we will place the organisation on a statutory footing with revised oversight arrangements and therefore I ask the noble Lord to avoid pre-empting that piece of legislation now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Baroness referred to placing the National Criminal Intelligence Service on a statutory basis. As she is aware, a number of us have expressed regret during our debates this afternoon that that is not being done in this Bill. I wonder whether there is any possibility of the Government reconsidering this matter because it would relieve a number of us of our anxieties in that regard.
We heard what the noble Baroness said about the Director-General of NCIS being the former chief officer who will be appointed to the role which had been referred to by the Home Secretary. But it would be far better to deal with NCIS and place it on a statutory footing in this Bill. I still wonder whether it is possible to do that on Report or at Third Reading.
The noble Baroness has told us on a number of occasions that the Government will be bringing forward their proposals. But the difficulty is that the new Session of Parliament will begin in October or November of this year and the Government will then have a life of, at the most, five months to put through the legislation. The Minister refers to a package of measures but, as she will know, a part of that package of measures is highly controversial. The prospect of such legislation reaching the statute book, unless this issue is dealt with in isolation, is remote in the extreme. Why is that issue not dealt with in this Bill?
Baroness Blatch: At the risk of being repetitive, because I have said this a number of times this afternoon, discussions are continuing with all the relevant agencies involved with this matter. However desirable it might have been—and I have said that it would have been desirable—to deal with the matter in this Bill, it is inappropriate to deal with such an important matter by amendment at this late stage in the progress of the Bill. It has already passed through another place and is now completing its Committee stage in this Chamber. Therefore, only two stages remain. I believe that it would be a mistake to introduce

1527
that provision without it being properly thought through. I hope the noble Lord will accept that we intend to deal urgently with the matter and that it will be the next piece of legislation to be dealt with in this package of measures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister really confirms all that I was saying and all that I have been thinking about this issue. Clearly with an amendment of this kind to this Bill as drafted, I could do nothing other than propose a special body which will have the functions referred to in Clause 1.
Equally clearly, if the designated person is to be the director of NCIS then the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service will be subject to the same police authority. But since it does not exist, I could not propose that in an amendment.
The Minister seeks to make a point about the fact that some of the functions under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994—and I acknowledge with thanks the correction of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are not appropriate to this purpose. I did not say that they were. The amendment refers to the "relevant functions" under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act.
We are in a difficulty which is entirely of the Government's making. Because they have not been able to prepare the legislation which surrounds this Bill and makes it make sense, we cannot consider even the most modest provisions of this little Bill in the way that we should if that legislation were before Parliament. For that reason, of course my amendment is very limited and does not do all that we would wish it to. But the acknowledgement by the Home Secretary, confirmed by the Minister today, that there will have to be a police authority of some kind when the statutory basis for NCIS is legislated for is welcome. I hope that it is clear that that will include the functions that are laid down in Clause 1. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Warrants]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In dealing with Clause 2, we come down to earth with a bump because we are now concerned with one of the very many practical issues which will arise from the implementation of Clause 1; that is, the issue of warrants. If it is of any comfort to the Government, the complexity of the arrangements for warrants confirms the difficulty which I can see that they are experiencing in drafting legislation to deal with the other issues which are raised by Clause 1.
When we deal with warrants we are in a very difficult situation indeed. It is proposed that the existing warrants used by the Security Service, which are property warrants and interception warrants, which at present cannot cover action in relation to property in the British Isles shall be permitted for the Intelligence Service and
1528
the Security Service if the activity concerned is, as is now defined, for the prevention or detection of serious crime.
That raises two very important questions which the legislation shies away from. The first issue is in relation to what is the present statutory basis for the use of interception warrants by the police. When this matter was debated in Committee in the other place, it was clear that there was a considerable amount of embarrassment on the part of the Minister concerned because he could not define the statutory basis for the use of interception warrants used by the police. It is quite clear that they are used. However, because of a lack of statutory justification, there is the possibility that a policeman using an interception warrant—bugging, in other words—could be subject to prosecution or pursuit on a civil trespass. Clearly something has to be done to provide a statutory basis for the powers which the police have, although they do not necessarily use them on a statutory basis.
That is not the case for property warrants where the police have to have a judicial trigger. They have to apply to a magistrate, or under certain circumstances to the High Court, to obtain a property warrant. What the Government are proposing in this Bill is a rather curious approach. Instead of rationalising and justifying the police powers—which is what would surely be the right way to approach the matter because that way Parliament and the people would know what the powers of interception and property warrants are—the Government are proposing to provide a statutory basis for interception and property warrants on the part of the Security Service, not in line with police powers but in line with the existing Security Service powers as they apply outside the British islands or the United Kingdom. That raises huge problems because there is no judicial trigger; there is only an executive trigger in the sense that the warrant is granted by the Secretary of State rather than by the judiciary. That immediately raises questions of the propriety, in civil liberties terms, of having the Executive able to authorise bugging by persons necessarily unknown in a way that the police are not able to do.
Therefore, there are two issues that we have to face. First, is there in Clause 2 an extension of the powers of anyone—the police, the Security Service or anyone else—to bug and to plant bugs in the homes, places of work or wherever of the people of this country? If that is the case at the very least we ought to know about it and the extent to which it is proposed that it should happen and we ought to know what safeguards are proposed. Secondly, does the wording of this clause raise the possibility of powers, as between the police and the Security Service, which are inconsistent? In other words, do they have powers of investigation, of bugging and of access to property in pursuit of the same case of detection or prevention of serious crime which are different from each other? If that is the case, I should have thought there is something rather seriously wrong. The issue of whether these powers are being exercised differently by different people or whether there are different powers being exercised by different people

1529
who are exercising for the purpose of this Bill the same functions ought to be out in the open. We ought to know where we stand.
I apologise to the Committee for being able to raise this matter only on a clause stand part debate. I know that in the House of Commons it is always considered possible to have new clauses which raise completely new issues. If I possibly can I prefer to amend the wording of the Bill in order to improve the effect of the Bill. Any Member of the Committee who looks at Clause 2 will realise how difficult it is to change the wording when it is itself an amendment to the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
What we want from Clause 2 is an assurance that the security services have no powers which are not available to the police and that there is congruity between the powers available to the police and those available to the Security Service. If that means a better statutory basis for police powers, so be it. We want an assurance, above all, that we are not, by the back-door and by inference rather than by deliberate legislation, extending the powers of the law enforcement agencies to plant bugs in any of our homes or places of work, or indeed to extend the powers of property warrants. I am not saying that there are not circumstances in which the people and Parliament might not give those powers, but they ought to do so explicitly, clearly and knowing what is involved. Clause 2 does not provide that. It does not provide any answers to those important and difficult questions. I suggest to the Committee that unless the Government have some clear and new answers to those problems, Clause 2 ought not to stand part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, I raised a subject connected with warrants on his Amendment No. 2 because I was keen to make sure I did not miss an opportunity to do so. Of course I did not know what particular point or points the noble Lord was going to raise in his proposal to remove Clause 2 altogether. I wish simply to add to what I said earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is, of course, referring particularly to property warrants, which are the important ones in this Bill. I was referring to the warrants which have been issued over many years to police, as well as to the Security Service, for telephone tapping and interception of postal communications. I made reference to the latest report from the commissioner, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who was present a few moments ago. His report of 1995 was issued only last week. The incidents which he reports on concern only telecommunications and letters. He provides figures in the summary at the end of his report. He lists interceptions only in the categories of telecommunications and letters. A total is given for the two categories.
As far as I know—I am sure this is the case—the noble and learned Lord does not report on what are known as bugging incidents; that is, the surreptitious placing of eavesdropping devices in premises to enable conversations to be overheard from a distance, night and
1530
day, and either to be listened to by an individual or recorded. As I said before, I think that is far more offensive and intrusive than telephone tapping because anyone who picks up a telephone and has a confidential conversation must know that he could be listened to by anyone quite by chance. Personally I would not mind anyone listening to any telephone conversation that I have had for as long as I can remember because I would never use a telephone to speak of any matter which I thought was confidential or which might be indiscreet concerning the reputations of other people.
The report which I am discussing is issued every year. I have just referred to the most recent edition. As far as I can see, it does not deal with bugging; that simply is not mentioned in the report at all. It is an area which needs considerable, careful consideration, clarification and, if necessary, legislation. At Second Reading, my noble friend indicated that the issue would be dealt with at the next stage of the legislation.
I have assumed that bugs are an important part as regards property warrants. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the Committee stage in another place. It did not become clear whether bugs were used already by the police under administrative arrangements. As I said earlier, the interception of telephone communications has been authorised and accepted by Parliament, to my knowledge for at least 30 years. As Secretary of State, I was signing warrants, or withholding my signature, nearly 30 years ago. Therefore that situation has been accepted. It seems strange that that aspect should have been regularised in such intimate detail. Yet nothing has so far been done about placing eavesdropping devices in premises.
I simply speak further on a subject which I raised briefly on Amendment No. 2. It is an important matter to which an eminent member of the judiciary drew attention in recent days.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: I join in the degree of anxiety that has been expressed on Clause 2. I cannot pretend to have my mind round all the ins and outs of the powers currently exercisable in relation to the surveillance of private property, the entry of private property, tapping of telephones connected to British Telecom, tapping of telephones not connected to British Telecom, the long-distance bug, or any of those matters.
In my experience, the present situation is extremely confused. So far as I know there is no statutory authority currently sanctioning the invasion of premises by police to plant bugs. A case is pending in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords where exactly that point is at issue.
I rise on this occasion because apparently I have either the wrong end of the factual stick or I have the wrong judgment. I believe that what is being proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill is a major constitutional shift. There was a famous case in the eighteenth century called Entick v. Carrington which decided that the Executive could not enter premises, search and remove goods; it was not part of its function or rights. As I read the Bill—I speak subject to correction—what is happening is that as part of the process of introducing

1531
the security services into the prevention and detection of crime, powers—people accept, albeit reluctantly, that they have to be exercised in that extremely tricky half-light of espionage—are being brought in to be exercised by the security services, not in the context of espionage but of ordinary police duties. That seems a very serious matter. If the police, or any law enforcement officer, are lawfully to enter and search, ever since Entick v. Carrington a search warrant has been required, granted by an independent judge or magistrate.
As I read the Bill—again I ask for information as much as for anything else—under the arrangement in the Bill an officer of the Security Service (the Minister says that he has no executive power but I am not sure what that means) obtains a warrant that is not signed by a judge or a magistrate but by the Home Secretary or someone to whom that power is delegated. That officer can enter, search and remove things from a private house. The policeman with whom he is co-operating can do no such thing. He requires a warrant.
I hope that the Minister will indicate to us that my fears about what is being done under the meritorious concept of seeking to deal with organised crime is not treading on those matters which we have habitually regarded as the Englishman's basic freedom; namely, the safety of his home.
As regards bugging, we are in fairly advanced days. One does not need to get on to the premises. One sets up some gear 100 yards away; windows vibrate and speech is heard. There are very sophisticated arrangements now in place whereby what is going on inside a man's or woman's house is capable of detection from outside.
I hope that this matter will receive careful consideration before the Government confer on the security services wider, different and non-independent powers to invade the privacy of the Englishman's home. It may well be that I have the Bill wrong. I look forward to finding out why my fears are not realities.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I find myself in substantial agreement with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said. I believe that all of us accept that in the investigation of serious crime intercepts can be of critical importance in a series of cases—blackmail, kidnapping, terrorist offences and so on.
The noble and learned Lord referred to a case before our Appeals Committee. I should not dream of referring to it by name in case that caused displeasure to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. This issue will be addressed in the relatively near future. It is a matter of critical importance. Ministers should have no doubt of the constitutional importance and other implications of this matter.
It seems wholly unsatisfactory that we should have one system of arrangements for the Security Service and totally different arrangements for the police, notwithstanding the fact that the Security Service and
1532
the police will be working together as colleagues in exactly the same operation. I do not see how one can justify that.
I find it a matter of deep regret that on an issue of this kind—I repeat that it has consistently been drawn to the attention of the noble Baroness's department by chief officers of police—this matter is not being addressed adequately within the Bill. I do not see how members of the two organisations, who we assume will be working closely together as colleagues as a result of the passage of the legislation, will have totally different arrangement as regards intercepts.
What can conceivably be the basis of that judgment so far as concerns Ministers?
Lord Knights: Perhaps I may first quote from a report of a Home Affairs Committee in another place on Organised Crime. It was published in July 1995. At paragraph 48 it states:
"We consider that taken as a whole it"—
that is to say organised crime—
"is a cause for serious concern. There is no doubt that, while the level of such crime in the UK may be lower than in some other countries, it is nevertheless substantial and probably growing…We conclude that the Government and the police will need to take effective pre-emptive measures if an irretrievable expansion of organised crime in this country is to be avoided".
The Government have responded to that by saying that the Security Service shall play some part in dealing with that serious matter. If the position is as serious as that, and no one has suggested that it is not, there can be no doubt that there are occasions when clandestine and covert arrangements are essential if the necessary intelligence on which to base further practical operations is to be obtained.
Parliament should recognise that and that we cannot use kid glove measures to meet the dangers which this type of crime presents, not only to society as a whole but to the individual officers involved in it. Only recently it was known that a police officer was killed when seeking to obtain information, in that case not within the premises but while keeping observation outside.
As I understand it, the clause seeks to correct a situation which exists because of the present legislation dealing with the Security Service. Security services under the existing statute can bug premises—and that is what we are talking about—with a warrant from the Secretary of State in the discharge of their responsibilities, but not in furtherance of the responsibility or authority which they have to pass criminal information to the police. Now that they are to be involved in seeking actively to develop criminal intelligence, it follows that they will seek to bug premises.
It may be that today it is not so essential to enter premises in order to bug them and that it can be done from outside. I am not technically minded enough to be able to comment on that, but it would surprise me if the number of occasions on which it is essential to enter premises to bug them is anything more than rare.
Be that as it may, the police do not have such authority at the moment. If any of us is confused, there is a difference. We are not talking about searching

1533
premises for which search warrants must be obtained from magistrates or courts. We are talking now about bugging referred to in the famous book: Burgling and Bugging Across the Country. In 1984—a long lime ago so my memory may not necessarily be accurate—the police were given guidance by the Home Office as to the way in which they should conduct themselves if they were seeking to obtain information in that way. It included not just bugging premises but covering the whole range of covert activities: vision, listening and any other way in which information can be obtained, whether by using binoculars outside the premises or on private land or whatever it is.
The information within those guidelines was and still is helpful. But it leaves one area on which the guidelines give no guidance: the entering of premises without the knowledge of anyone else. Plenty of advice is given as to entering premises with the consent of the owner or occupier, in order to bug the premises to listen to activities or people; but where there is no means of entering the premises with authority, the guidance does not exist. I personally never authorised a police officer to enter premises to bug them unless he had the consent of the owner or occupier. I should be surprised if other chief officers of police had done that on more than a few occasions. It might have been done in dealing with terrorism, but not with ordinary crime. The circular anyway restricts the area of crime in which it would be appropriate to use bugs.
Now that the Security Service has moved in, I believe that there can and will be occasions when it will need and wish to bug premises in a few serious cases without the consent of the people who own them or live there. It follows that if the Security Service is to work with the police, then the police need to have the same authority. I see few occasions when that option will be used, but a chief officer of police would be unwise to authorise any of his officers to conduct such operations without legal authority for doing it. He certainly could not plead a Home Office circular in his defence, if he were brought before a civil court for trespass or some other legal matter. If the Security Service is to come into this area, then bugging must be recognised as being a requirement on rare occasions. I therefore wish to see it included in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: The detail of Clause 2 has not been debated by the Committee but it is none the less important. I entirely accept the mechanism used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in order that we should have this debate. One of the principles which will underpin the Security Service's involvement in the work and to which I referred during the Second Reading debate, is that the Security Service would be able to draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. That is designed to preserve the service's operational effectiveness.
To ensure that the Security Service is able to deploy all its capabilities, it will under certain circumstances require special authorisation to enter or interfere with property. These authorisations are known as "property warrants" and Clause 2 will allow the Security Service to apply for property warrants under its
1534
new function. In doing that, we are merely applying an existing power in a new area. That point was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. The Intelligence Service Act 1994 (and before it the Security Service Act 1989) already provides for the issue of property warrants under the Security Service's existing functions. The 1994 Act also made that power available to the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, though with the additional safeguard that serious crime property warrants could not relate to property in the United Kingdom. This was, in part, because the remit of those agencies is focused on operations abroad.
In keeping with the principle that the Security Service should be able to draw on all its capabilities, this safeguard now needs to be adjusted to allow the service to apply for serious crime warrants in the United Kingdom. The prohibition will continue to apply to the other two agencies.
This is a highly intrusive power which demands the application of detailed safeguards to control its operation. Accordingly, warrants are signed by the Secretary of State with additional oversight from the commissioner, who also assists the tribunal in this aspect of its complaints work.
As a further safeguard, when applying for a serious crime property warrant, the application must meet the test of the definition of serious crime given in Clause 2 of the Bill. This is the same definition that Parliament approved to govern the issue of warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That has worked very well and we see no reason to depart from it now. Furthermore, it would not be sensible if the Security Service required interception warrants and property warrants in the course of an investigation and had to meet different tests for each warrant.
That is the position for the Security Service, but it is true that the position for the police is rather different. The police also carry out this kind of intrusive operation and it represents an important investigative tool for them. At present, though, the conduct of police intrusive surveillance operations is governed by administrative guidelines. These administrative arrangements have served us well and there is no evidence of abuse. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said how rarely the powers were used. But the Government have accepted the desirability of placing this type of operation on a statutory footing.
We are not using the present Bill for these changes, as some have suggested we should, because it is deliberately limited to a single issue that can sensibly be tackled in isolation. It is concerned only with the functions of the Security Service. The question of police surveillance operations is a complex one and we do not want to legislate hastily or improvidently or in a way that inhibits the operational effectiveness of the police in this area. We also need to take account of other initiatives, including the details of the new national crime squad and the new arrangements for NCIS. We are giving careful consideration to the options, in consultation with the police, and hope to bring forward legislation as early as possible.

1535
In the meantime, the simple fact that the police do not yet have a statutory basis for the power is no reason to deny the power to the Security Service, when the exercise of that power is surrounded by a formidable set of safeguards. I can give the Committee the assurance that the Security Service will have no powers that the police do not have. The police have the same powers as the Security Service in regard to entry to or interference with property, but the police exercise those powers on the basis of chief officer authorisation. Although that system has worked well, the Government accept the need to put it on a proper statutory footing at the earliest possible opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the extension of powers to bug. I must continue to repeat myself: the Bill will allow the Security Service to apply for warrants authorising entry on or interference with property in the United Kingdom in serious crime cases. These powers are subject to the safeguards I described. As I have already said, the powers exist; they are being extended to a new situation.
My noble friend Lord Campbell referred to bugging. The power available to the Security Service to enter on or interfere with property, which covers bugging, is overseen by the Security Service Commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, described this as a major constitutional shift. The powers to enter or interfere with property were first set down in statute in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I repeat, there are no new powers. It is merely that the powers that do exist are extended to a new area of activity.
6 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether those powers were exercisable in England in relation to property in England in relation to criminal matters? That is the big move that has taken place.
Baroness Blatch: That of course is the move. They are existing powers which the Security Service has. The new area of activity is precisely the area just referred to in the United Kingdom.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, referred to the case of Entick v. Carrington. That case concerned the requirement at common law for lawful authority before there could be interference with property. There will be lawful authority under the Bill when the Security Service obtains a warrant to interfere with property.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to the 1984 police guidelines not covering entering property without the owner's consent. The 1984 guidelines do cover entry on to property for the purposes of placing a bug without the consent or knowledge of the property owners. The powers are used very sparingly and with appropriate safeguards; but they nevertheless exist.
1536
This clause refers to the Security Service. It is a focused clause and I recommend that it stand part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's reply was truly breathtaking. Let us be clear what we are talking about. We are talking not just about a search for evidence of the kind recognised for many years by a warrant given by a magistrate or by the High Court. We are talking about what is technically called "intrusive surveillance". The Minister herself described it as "very intrusive".
Intrusive surveillance means interception of post and telecommunications, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, reminded us. It involves the planting and using of bugs without the agreement or acquiescence of the owner or occupier of a property. It is about as far as you could go in breaking the rule that an Englishman's home is his castle. It is doing everything that we should well understand in a spy novel were it being done in premises in Moscow or in relation to international spying. To do it in pursuit of what is laughably called "serious crime" in the very wide definition that we have debated in relation to Clause 1 is Orwellian.
The wording that the Minister used is also Orwellian. She did not say that the safeguards are being taken away; she said the safeguard needs to be adjusted. Adjusted, my Lords! She did not say that the police have no statutory authority to do the bugging; she said the authority exists under "administrative arrangements". That was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. In other words, there is no statutory power. A chief officer of police can do what he likes and it is called "administrative arrangements". It is all right so long as those doing the bugging are not caught. If they were caught they could be charged with the civil offence of trespass.
The situation is Orwellian because the Minister says she can assure the House that there are no powers that the police do not have. Those were her very words. But it is quite clear that there are powers that are available to the Security Service. The Minister boasted about those powers. She said that the purpose of the Bill is to bring the whole range of skills and powers of the Security Service to the pursuit of serious and organised crime. And these are being applied in conditions in this country in pursuit of serious crime where the police themselves have no statutory authority.
We land up with the worst of all possible worlds on warrants. We land up with an extension of powers for the Security Service, not because they are new powers for the service but because they are applied for the first time to the people of this country. We land up with inconsistent powers as between police and the Security Service in pursuit of the same objective. We have a different trigger for the exercise of these powers. The trigger we have chosen is not an extension of the judicial trigger—the need to apply to a magistrate or a judge—but an extension of the trigger of the executive power, in other words, the Home Secretary or anybody to whom he chooses to delegate these responsibilities. There is no

1537
provision whatsoever so far as I can see for adequate accountability and scrutiny in the exercise of these powers.
I cannot imagine a situation under which there has been a greater extension of the powers of the state against the powers of the individual—and this by a Conservative Government—being done in such a way that it is virtually incomprehensible when the clause is simply read as drafted; namely, as an amendment to previous legislation. Only under questioning has the extent and enormity of the increase in the powers emerged.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I simply cannot allow that to go on the record as the last word on this amendment. To say that the Security Service is not accountable in the process and to suggest that the Home Secretary can act in some kind of cavalier way is simply wrong. The security services are accountable. They are overseen by the committee; they have a security tribunal; they have a commissioner, who will certainly hold the Security Service in operation to account. If a warrant is applied for and secured, it will be secured on the basis of meeting the serious crime test set out in detail in Clause 2.
We take the view that in the pursuit of serious crime—for example, drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering—these powers are absolutely essential. They will be awarded only on the basis of conforming to Clause 2.
In conclusion, the Home Secretary himself is also fully accountable to Parliament for his actions. The whole situation is entirely transparent. Clause 2 does not refer to safeguards for the police because, as I have said, we wish to put the system on a statutory footing. It is a subject for another debate on another day. Clause 2 refers to the security services. I believe they are accountable; they can be trusted; the system is overseen and is properly transparent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister used the word "cavalierly" in relation to the Home Secretary's use of the powers. The Committee will note that I did not use that word. I simply said that the Home Secretary can delegate his power to authorise intrusive surveillance to somebody else. That is simply a fact. The power can therefore be exercised by the Executive. Ultimate responsibility to Parliament is a fact; but it is a very remote fact when it comes to the exercise of powers of this kind.
I yield to no one and my party yields to no one in our desire to pursue those involved in drug trafficking, racketeering, money laundering, and all those things the Minister mentioned. Serious crime, as defined in Clause 2 of the Bill, is a very much wider issue. It has been made clear that it covers a large number of matters for which the kind of powers being sought through this clause are entirely inappropriate. This is not an issue of law and order in the party sense. There is no disagreement about the need to pursue
1538
serious crimes. It is fundamentally an issue of civil liberties. I am not satisfied with my own approach to this.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I have just been reminded to correct the noble Lord on another point. For the record, the Home Secretary cannot delegate his responsibility for signing warrants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: So, if he is not available, no warrant will be signed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I can intervene. I have with me the latest report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. In paragraph 7 he describes over the year—dealing with telecommunications and postal interceptions—the very rare occasions in emergencies when someone else has to do it. He is perfectly satisfied that it was very occasional and could only be done in certain circumstances. I recommend to the noble Lord paragraph 7 of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is nice to know. He can delegate under exceptional circumstances. Let us hope that the present practice of doing so only in exceptional circumstances will be maintained.
As I started to say, I am not satisfied that a Motion to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill is the right way to achieve our very serious objectives in criticising the clause. I propose to come back at Report stage with precise amendments which precisely set out our objectives and requirements in this most important matter. I shall not pursue the Motion further.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
POWERS AND DUTY OF POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
(".—(1) Nothing in this Act shall preclude or limit investigations by the Police Complaints Authority in respect of any actions undertaken by or on behalf of police officers in pursuance of activities authorised by this Act.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Police Complaints Authority to ensure that any complaint duly made to it by any person in respect of activities carried out in support of the police under the provisions of this Act by officers of the Security Service is forwarded for investigation by the Tribunal appointed under the Security Service Act 1989, which shall report to the Police Complaints Authority on the conclusions of any such investigation.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was fully discussed earlier together with Amendment No. 3. I do not wish to diminish the central question of principle involved in Clause 2, which we have just discussed. However, the whole question of the complaints procedure is not a minor or technical matter. The view of the Minister is broadly that the existing procedures work well. From these Benches and elsewhere in the Chamber, we have sought to demonstrate that we are now dealing with a new

1539
situation. The problem of complaints and the shortcomings of the Bill remain. I shall not proceed with the amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996
6.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that it is for the convenience of the House that we also deal with the Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations and the Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations at the same time.
The jobseeker's allowance provides a new and very different way of giving help to unemployed people. It replaces an outdated, confusing and fragmented system which contained disincentives to job seeking.
We know that the majority of unemployed people want to work. The focus of JSA is therefore firmly and properly on motivating and helping jobseekers to get into employment within a framework which will provide a better and more streamlined service.
JSA will be implemented from 7th October this year. There are still a number of areas in the framework of secondary legislation to be completed before JSA is introduced, and so the Government are bringing these regulations, which have been debated and approved in another place, before your Lordships' House for your approval today.
The main set of jobseeker's allowance regulations was considered by this House in January. During the debate on the principal regulations, we made it clear that it was likely that the Government would need to come back to the House with further regulations, including amending regulations, before JSA was introduced.
My department constantly reviews benefit policy. It is important that the benefits that we pay to people keep up with changes in modern life and reflect the Government's policy intentions and that the public funds to which we all contribute are spent wisely. Scrutiny of income support and changes to that benefit form part of this process and it is right they should do so. A number of changes have therefore been made to income support since the principal JSA regulations were introduced. Because income-based JSA is broadly aligned with income support, we now need to amend the original jobseeker's allowance regulations to mirror these recent changes in income support.
The original JSA regulations are an intricate and extensive set of regulations and it is right that they should be so. It is in the interests of JSA claimants that the rules under which their benefit is paid to them should be fully laid out in law to ensure that they are treated fairly. These amending regulations put right some minor errors in the original regulations, which detailed scrutiny has revealed.
Many of the most important and complex decisions on JSA claims are taken by adjudication officers who are independent of the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment and who use adjudication guidance prepared by the Central Adjudication Service to aid them in their work. It is important that that guidance is correctly drafted to ensure that claimants receive the high standard of adjudication they deserve. Preparation of this guidance has thrown up some areas of possible ambiguity in the original regulations. So we have taken the opportunity to clarify certain regulations so as to put their interpretation beyond doubt.
I turn first to the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th March. They make the type of minor amendments which I described earlier. Your Lordships may like to take particular note of one or two.
Regulation 10 introduces new provisions into the jobseeker's allowance regulations covering persons from abroad and asylum seekers. Your Lordships may recall that the equivalent income support regulations have already been the subject of a full debate both in this House and in another place. These JSA provisions do no more than bring JSA into line with income support and they will ensure that only genuine asylum seekers who have permission to work will be supported by taxpayers' funds while they look for work.
Regulation 11 also follows changes in income support. People on income support who are in residential care, nursing homes or certain other types of residential accommodation will be able to have £16,000 of capital before they lose their entitlement to benefit, and up to £10,000 will be wholly disregarded when calculating the amount of benefit they will receive. These regulations amend the JSA rules to bring them into line with the income support rules. Only a small number of people on JSA will be affected but it is important that they are treated in the same way as recipients of income support.
The Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General)(Amendment) Regulations were laid on 30th April. Again, these regulations are mainly concerned with clarification and with keeping JSA aligned with income support. However, I should like to draw attention to two provisions of particular interest.
The Disability Alliance pointed out to us that the rules governing the ability to restrict the hours for which a claimant can be available for work due to part-time study, voluntary work or temporary lay-off did not link up with the provisions which allowed a claimant to restrict their availability hours due to their mental or physical condition. I am grateful to the Disability

1541
Alliance for drawing that matter to our attention, and I am glad to be able to correct the situation with the amendments in Regulations 3 and 4.
Regulation 33 is an amendment to the income support regulations. It is to ensure that there is no break in the eligibility for income support for a claimant caring for someone with disabilities. At present, a carer is entitled to income support if the person they are looking after has claimed attendance allowance or the higher or middle rate of disability living allowance and is awaiting a decision or is being paid either of those benefits. From 7th October carers will also be entitled to income support in cases where the person they care for has had a decision but payment is not due until a future date because they have not yet completed the qualifying period for attendance allowance or disability living allowance.
The final set of regulations, the Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations, consist mainly of amendments consequential on the introduction of JSA. In many cases the amendments simply bring forward to JSA principles which apply to the adjudication of income support. However, the regulations contain two new adjudication provisions which are needed for JSA. Regulation 56A enables an adjudication officer to decided a JSA claim in the jobseeker's favour and for JSA to be paid while the adjudication officer is still considering a separate question of whether a sanction should be applied. That fulfils our commitments during the passage of the Jobseekers Bill that JSA would continue to be paid in full in advance of any sanction decision. Regulation 56B provides that where a claimant or his partner switches to JSA from income support or vice versa, the existing claim can be terminated where the adjudication officer is satisfied that entitlement will exist to the alternative benefit. In addition, it provides that they will not have to serve the three waiting days for new claims to JSA.
When I introduced the Bill to bring JSA into being, I indicated that the Bill and JSA, when it comes in in October, will provide more help to the unemployed in their search for work. It will be targeted at those most in need and will provide better value for money for the taxpayer. It will offer a better service for the unemployed and will be both easier to understand and simpler to run.
As I recall, the noble Baroness did not completely agree with my views on JSA. Indeed, on 3rd April 1995 at Second Reading, she said:
"the core of this Bill we believe to be nasty and pernicious…it takes as a starting point the blaming of the unemployed for their unemployment and therefore seeks to make life on unemployment benefit, to coin a cliché"—
unusual for the noble Baroness—
"mean, nasty, solitary, brutish and short… We have nothing but contempt for [the Bill]".—[Official Report, 3/4/95; col. 47.]
Those were her words on 3rd April. Her colleague, Mr. McCartney, in another place, on 17th January 1996 said,
"We reject the JSA and all it stands for".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/96; col. 765.]
It therefore puzzles me when poor Mr. Meacher writes an article in Red Pepper—a magazine of which I had not heard until he wrote the article but which is probably compulsory reading for the party opposite—repeating those assurances. At least, I felt that he repeated them, and he obviously thought so too when he said that the Jobseeker's allowance is unacceptable and that Labour will abolish it. However, poor Mr. Meacher had to swallow his words and say that it was the fault of his researcher, Mr. Ian Willmore, who made a drafting error. So it was a drafting error to say that it was unacceptable and that the Labour Party would abolish it.
Furthermore, on the detail, I understand that a few weeks ago Mr. Brown, the shadow Chancellor, vetoed attempts to extend the payment under JSA from six months to one year. As I recall, that was a matter which the noble Baroness particularly thought was "mean, nasty, brutish" and so forth.
I should like to know, as well as hearing a welcome from the noble Baroness for the regulations, exactly what is the updated position of the party opposite on JSA. Were the noble Baroness and Mr. McCartney correct? Was Mr. Meacher's assistant correct when he wrote the article? Or have the headmasters who summoned Mr. Meacher to their study and reprimanded him suggested that JSA is after all a splendid idea which should be backed and encouraged?
With those few thoughts on the wider scene, I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was about to thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. But given, first, that he entered into territory that is clearly unfamiliar to him when he talked about Red Pepper and, secondly, territory that was equally unfamiliar to him when he appeared not to be au fait with the reference to Hobbes and his assessment on the nasty state that currently surrounds us in the body politic of Britain, I have crossed out, rightly, my welcome thanks to him.
JSA replaces income support and unemployment benefit for those in the labour market. Last January we spent almost two-and-a-half hours discussing the JSA regulations—not the Bill but the regulations—that is, 160 pages, 10,000 lines and three times longer than the original Bill. At the time we reminded the House that, as a result of the regulations, 250,000 people were made poorer. Instead of having national insurance cover for 12 months, it was slashed to six. If one was under 25 one received a lower rate even so and after six months it was means tested which meant that if there was a spouse in work he or she would lose pound for pound.
Let us assume that it is the woman in part-time work. It is not surprising therefore that the only women who can afford to work are those who already have a husband in work. That accentuates the work-rich/work-poor divide that is such a problem in today's society. It equally affects

1543
the older man with a redundancy package which may exceed the capital rules and denies him benefit for which he has paid national insurance all his life.
We made the point then and make it tonight that a means test to JSA is a tax on a working wife. It is a tax on savings, and it also encourages dependency. If neither party is working they need more housing benefit and more council tax benefit rather than less; therefore, the partner on JSA will have to earn even more to spring both of them off dependency. He cannot, so he will not. Means-tested JSA locks people onto benefit because it costs too much to get off it. As the Social Security Select Committee recently said, JSA, like other means-tested benefits, may therefore be an additional incentive to fraud.
Last January we debated 160 pages of 172 regulations. Some months later we find ourselves debating amendments to 40 of those 172 regulations; in other words, the Government have found nearly a quarter of their regulations to be defective. The Government say that they need to bring the amendments forward because of what "detailed scrutiny" has revealed. That was the phrase the Minister used; it was used also by the Minister in the other place.
This House has a right to know why detailed scrutiny follows the introduction of regulations rather then precedes it, which is what this House has a right to expect. Therefore, we are having to amend regulations on such important matters as sanctions against young people, payment of training allowances, voluntary redundancy, hardship payments, volunteers, part-time students, short-time working, sickness periods, housing costs and occupational pensions, all to bring JSA and income support into line with each other. Talk about competence in drafting! The Government are giving a new meaning to the phrase "learning on the job". It is a pity about the unemployed who are at the receiving end of the Government's work experience programme.
We have seen exactly the same pattern with the Child Support Agency—it is not a new phenomenon—in which the Government pass a Bill, reject most of the amendments from the Opposition Benches, then six months later pass regulations and then spend the next two years amending the regulations and the legislation because they got it wrong as they were too arrogant to listen to the views from the Opposition Benches in the first place. Therefore, they have had to smuggle back in as regulations and amendments to legislation the very selfsame amendments that the Opposition moved in the first place.
Even the Treasury now admits that it has got it wrong in a wide swathe of social security matters. It has abandoned all considerations other than the narrowly financial. Therefore, the Government, the taxpayer and families have been paying the Treasury bill. The Treasury admits getting it wrong with the CSA and with incapacity benefit, and we now find that disabled people are actually dying before they receive the benefit moneys owed to them by the Benefits Agency. The Government are now getting it wrong on JSA, as these amendments, which represent one quarter of all the effective regulations, show. It is remarkable that after
1544
nearly 18 years in office the Government still cannot get their social security legislation right, their drafting or regulations, let alone their policies. They are all deeply flawed.
The Government are no more competent in getting their sums right. Savings to the Treasury were originally going to be £410 million in the years 1996–1998. That figure then fell to £320 million. Meanwhile, the costs of introducing JSA have soared to £280 million, to be spent on new computers, additional training and nearly £11 million on consultancy fees. That figure has soared also. So obviously the savings target has been cut and cut again. The Minister was very silent on this matter. Will he tell us that the computer problems have now been resolved and that the JSA computers and the income support computers are now talking to each other? Or is it true that we now have two systems which are going to run in tandem for a further 15 months? What sort of chaos will that produce?
We now experience error rates on income support of 22 per cent. Nearly one-quarter of all income support payments are erroneous—not fraudulent—but erroneous from the Government's side. According to the National Audit Office, they have either underpaid or overpaid 22 per cent. of income support. What estimate of error do the Government now anticipate on JSA when they cannot even get their computers talking to each other over income support? Do they estimate a 25 per cent. error rate, or 30 or 35 per cent.? We are talking about taxpayers' money. This inability to deliver the system smoothly is frightening.
Many of the errors will be due to inadequate staff training and resources. The abolition of home visits has meant that inaccurate information is too often processed, so it is not surprising that inaccurate decisions come out the other end. What are the Government going to do about that as regards JSA? Every report we now receive from the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and from the Government's own annual reports, shows that the rate of error and fraud appears to be increasing rapidly. Any means-tested benefit risks high error and high fraud. JSA is a means-tested benefit and will carry with it a similar high likelihood of error and fraud.
We welcome Regulations Nos. 33 and 56A, and some of the adjustments for the disability benefits. But one regulation being introduced today is not an error in the sense that it is a deliberate piece of Government policy. It brings the treatment for asylum seekers for JSA in line with the changes already made to the asylum seekers and income support. When the Government were introducing those changes they claimed that they would save £200 million in denying benefits to people while they were seeking to establish their right to have support in this country. The Treasury might save £200 million, but we argued at the time that costs would be displaced elsewhere on to Churches, charities and local authorities. Will the Government now tell us what the balance sheet looks like? How much will be spent on reimbursing local authorities? Given that one-quarter of all the families have dependent children, how many

1545
such children do the Government expect to come within the Children Act 1989 and what do they expect the net overall savings will be?
It is a deeply wrong policy precisely because the Home Office cannot get its act together. Many asylum seekers are waiting a year or more to have their claims processed. The right way to deal with bogus claimants is to speed up the hearing and not to deny all claimants, other than those at the port of entry, benefit in the meantime whether they are bogus or not. Asylum seekers are losing their benefit not because they are not genuine—how can the DSS know that until the situation has been investigated? —but because the Home Office is not competent. That is unethical. If on top of that the Government do not know how many are affected, how much money will be saved and how many will come to local authorities for survival, they are adding administrative incompetence to deeply immoral policies and then wrapping the whole lot in Tory Party conference jingoism.
In his opening peroration I believe that the Minister said that the point of JSA was the motivating and enabling of unemployed people to move into work. Oh really? There are currently 12 people chasing every vacancy. Will the Minister tell us how, by turning JSA into a means-tested benefit and making it more penal, and by encouraging fraud and error in the process, that will add a single extra job to the labour market? I accept that instead of 12 people chasing every vacancy there may now be 13 doing that. Perhaps that 13th person will take away a job from the 12th person who might otherwise have got it. In what way does that create an extra job? Worse still, perhaps that 13th person would have got that job by being willing to undercut the wages of the other 12 jobseekers. If so, that will cost the taxpayer even more by adding to family credit or earnings top-up, if it is extended, because as we and the Minister know, in-work benefits are now the biggest growing expenditure sector within the DSS budget.
In what way does JSA, and these regulations, create a single extra job save for the private consultants on whom the Government have lavished £11 million? JSA is deeply flawed and we shall review it. As we see today, the Government cannot even yet get their drafting right. We shall have to take the job over.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe I heard at the tail end of the noble Baroness's speech the words "we shall review it". That is certainly a long way short of what I remember being assailed with day after day when we took the Bill through your Lordships' House. Indeed, "reviewing" seems to be the policy for everything as far as the party opposite is concerned. I notice that at least I have made some progress, which is more than my colleagues in the other place have managed to do, in that I have some kind of statement from the noble Baroness that the party opposite will review the jobseeker's allowance. Therefore, I am not surprised that poor Mr. Meacher was reprimanded for
1546
saying what he thought was party policy from last year's passage of the Bill and had to withdraw his statement that the party opposite would withdraw JSA.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for interrupting so early. Our difficulty is that all the evidence shows that the financial situation that the Labour government will inherit appears to be deteriorating by the day. Only when we see the books can we know what we can afford to do.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a good try, but the books are clear. Every year we publish what is called, the Red Book. I commend the noble Baroness to read it where she will see the situation. It is the lamest of lame excuses that her party cannot make up their minds on policy until they win the election. That will not go down very well. Talk about buying a pig in a poke! As I was about to say, my recollection is that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is sorry that he cannot be here this evening, made it very clear that if his party were to gain power or to gain influence, it would abolish the jobseeker's allowance. I suspect that he retains that position. Anyway, we have had a commitment that the Opposition will review it. It does not sound as though they are as concerned about the jobseeker's allowance as some of their rhetoric might lead one to believe. However, I welcome that half-conversion that the scheme is so well founded that a review is all that will be necessary to keep it going.
Turning to the regulations, I have tried to explain why we need them. They are largely minor and, essentially, we need them for three reasons: first, to replicate recent income support changes in JSA. Those changes have occurred since we brought forward the JSA regulations. One of those changes is that mentioned by the noble Baroness and relates to persons from abroad and asylum-seekers. I shall come to that in a moment.
The second reason is that following the passage of the regulations, the Central Adjudication Service started work on them and has advised us that some amendments are necessary to ensure that there is no confusion over interpretation. I should have thought that that was a sensible way for government to proceed in the interests of both good administration and customer service.
The third reason is that a few typographical and cross-referencing errors occurred in the main regulations. Indeed, I recall pointing one out when we dealt with those regulations earlier this year. We have taken this opportunity to put right those errors. I think that those are perfectly reasonable reasons for bringing forward the regulations.
I turn now to implementation. We have always made it clear that it is our intention to implement JSA in October as planned and we are holding to the timetable. The noble Baroness will be happy to hear that trials are running successfully in 29 offices. Those trials are a valuable step in our preparations for the introduction of JSA as we seek to ensure that a high quality service continues and that staff are fully prepared when JSA is implemented in October. Training is a very important aspect of social security matters and is being delivered on schedule to all staff in response to their detailed training needs as analysed.

1547
Work on the IT systems is continuing and is progressing on schedule. We have said for more than a year that we are retaining the other two systems—the National Unemployment Benefit System (NUBS2) and the Income Support Computer System (ISCS)—to reduce the risk which anybody who knows about computers is aware accompanies any large-scale new computer system. Existing claims on 7th October will remain on those systems. New claims will be handled on the new system (JSAPS). We shall move gradually from three computer payment systems to a single computer payment system by August 1997. However, there will be a seamless service for jobseekers who will certainly not be aware that three systems are in operation.
The noble Baroness drew your Lordships' attention to the error rate with income support. We are, indeed, concerned about that error rate and are looking at the reasons for it and at the ways in which we can improve upon that situation. It is exactly that which has led us to believe that the far-reaching change programme on which we have embarked in the Department of Social Security must play a key part in reducing that error rate. Frankly, our system is far too complex. It is often driven by the demands of various very small groups which want everything tailored to the very last dot and comma. That complexity alone leads to errors. We are looking for ways to simplify the whole system so that it is fair and can deliver benefits quickly, efficiently and correctly. I hope that, as the years progress, the noble Baroness will applaud our work on the change programme.
I turn now to persons from abroad. The amendments simply bring JSA into line with the changes introduced with regard to income support. If people from abroad apply for asylum at the port of entry, they will be eligible for income support, but naturally they will not have to consider JSA until they have been here for at least six months and until they have asked for and been granted leave to seek work. I suspect that very few will make that move.
On costs and the general point about asylum seekers, we are working with local authorities with regard to some of the costs that may arise for them initially because of the changes that we have made. Of course, there will be great savings to them when the number of people who come here seeking asylum and are proved to have no justifiable grounds for the granting of asylum or of exceptional leave to remain is reduced. There will be great savings for local authorities when that flow decreases, as it has done over the years for most of our European friends. When that flow decreases, which I hope will happen as quickly as it has increased over the past seven to eight years, not only will we be able to deal with applications much more speedily, including appeals, but local authorities will find that they save a great deal of money—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister tell us who our "European friends" are?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows very well that our European friends are all those other members with which we share the European Union, as well as Norway and some other countries in Eastern Europe which are not yet members of the European Union, including Slovenia, which one day we hope to welcome. Many of those countries, with perhaps the exception of Germany, have seen a quite dramatic reduction in the number of their asylum-seekers, following the firm steps that they have had to take following considerable increases earlier.
I know that the noble Baroness will be more than delighted to learn that comparing month for month last year and this year we have seen a steady and gradual decrease in the number of asylum applications. Indeed, the figures for May show a reduction of 49.16 per cent. from 3,450 in May 1995 to 1,754 in May 1996. If that trend continues, what I said when I introduced the regulations on asylum-seekers will, indeed, come about. We shall be able to deal much more speedily with asylum-seekers' first applications with appeals also. Local authorities and others will be saved a great deal of money because they will no longer have to look after the large numbers of people who come here who have no justifiable grounds for the asylum that they seek.
It seems to me that the early figures are encouraging. As I have already explained to the House, most of those who come here are, understandably, economic migrants who see this country as a far better place in which to live than their country of origin.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can answer another two questions about asylum-seekers. What is the Government's current estimate of the net saving and what percentage of asylum-seekers do the Government expect to fall within the local authorities' remit in terms of the Children Act 1989?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is difficult to judge how many people will fall within that remit. If the decline that I have quoted from last year's May to this year's May continues, the number of people coming within the ambit of a local authority in that regard will fall considerably.
As I have said in this House—and as my right honourable friends have said down the corridor—we have promised that we shall help local authorities with unavoidable additional costs which, to be honest, have still to be seen. We have already agreed how that will be calculated with the local authorities. We shall have to see how much money we shall have to give local authorities in order to help them over the problem, as opposed to the £200 million which we estimate will be the benefit saving from not paying benefit to people who apply in-country, who are found not to be genuine asylum-seekers or not to justify the granting of exceptional leave to remain and who appeal. They are no longer eligible for benefit. Against that benefit saving of £200 million, social services and housing authorities will have to spend some money. We have been negotiating on that with the local authorities. We have made clear what we are prepared to

1549
pay. We shall have to see what it comes to, but it will certainly come to a great deal less than £200 million unless there are a lot of imaginary people around—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government must have made some estimate of that figure for the Minister to be so confident that savings will result. What estimates have they made?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not have the figures to hand, but if your Lordships want an exercise in logic, perhaps I may say this: if we reduce the number of people who come here, obviously many fewer people will need the services of the local authorities for education for their children or for their social or housing needs, so a considerable amount of money will be saved. That is what we believe will happen. Once this begins to act properly, as it appears to be, local authorities will find that they are spending less money on asylum-seekers because there will be many fewer of them. I am sure that most people in the country welcome that.
On the general question of employment and whether or not the JSA will help people, one of the important elements is the agreement. There will be a pact between the employment service and the individual in order to try to get the individual back into work as quickly as possible. It is well worth pointing out that two-thirds of people are already back in work within six months of becoming unemployed. We have a number of schemes that are designed to help those who are in long term unemployment and are often very difficult to place in employment. We believe that the jobseeker's agreement along with other schemes that we have introduced will go a long way to help those people get back into work. Of course, we do this against the background of falling unemployment, in contrast to what is being experienced by our major European friends. Their unemployment levels are higher than ours, and rising. However, the Labour Party continues to harp on as if the United Kingdom were the only country in the world with high unemployment, oblivious to the fact that UK unemployment is lower than the average of our European friends and is falling while theirs is rising. I believe that JSA will add greatly to our raft of measures to help people back into work. I commend these regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1996
6.51 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th April be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations 1996
6.52 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HM Prison, Wandsworth
6.53 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the annual report of the board of visitors of HM Prison, Wandsworth.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is probably the first debate that we have had in the House in recent years on the report of a board of visitors of one of our prisons. I believe that it is right at the outset to express our warmest thanks to all the members of these boards, who, both at Wandsworth and elsewhere, make a major contribution to our penal system. Before I come to the contents of the report of the Wandsworth board, I believe it is right to refer to the problems which now confront the Prison Service as a whole. We are told that the numbers in our prisons may rise to the staggering level of 60,000. At the same time, the service faces large cuts in running costs. Over the three years 1995–96 to 1998–99, the service is to be compelled to reduce its costs per place in real terms by 10.2 per cent. or by 14 per cent. if new money, specifically earmarked for security measures following the report of Sir John Woodcock and for the service's drugs strategy, is left out of the calculation.
It is estimated that as a result of these cuts at least 2,800 posts will be lost, including many of the most experienced officers who, because of their position on the salary scale, are more expensive than the younger, less experienced officers. There will be significant cuts in prison education services. A recent survey by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education suggested that in a cross-section of prisons there had already been an average cut of 14.5 per cent. in educational provision. We know from a recent Written Answer given to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, that 85 of the current probation staff of 645 will have their posts wiped out of existence. In addition, there will be reductions in chaplaincy services—a matter which is specifically referred to in the report of the Wandsworth board of visitors—and a cut in the funding of visitors' centres, which do so much to maintain relationships between inmates and their families. Finally, there have been heavy cuts in the prison refurbishment programmes.
That is the background to the report of the Wandsworth board of visitors. Their report rightly pays tribute to the work of the governor and his staff and to some of the improvements undoubtedly made in previous years, such as the refurbishment of C and D wings at Wandsworth. But what the report discloses in detail provides a most disturbing commentary on how the cuts in the service imposed by Ministers will affect Wandsworth prison. The board say that the effects will force a choice between reducing manning levels and drastically modifying the regime in the establishment. Of course, either would be deeply damaging. But in addition they run the risk of creating serious disturbances within the prison.
I should like to deal now with a number of specific issues mentioned in the report. First, what is to happen to A and B wings at Wandsworth? This matter is specifically referred to in the report. For the moment, both have been mothballed; on neither has the planned refurbishment programme begun. The board has asked for an undertaking from the Home Secretary that the wings will never again, in their unrefurbished state, be used to house prisoners. Is the Minister prepared tonight to give the board and the House that undertaking? I remind the noble Baroness what the board has said about A wing at Wandsworth, which is now mothballed:
"Its unreconstructed, crumbling Victorian fabric permitted little in the way of hygiene and the vile procedure of 'slopping out', which took place in the same recesses as the sinks used for washing dishes, made the sense of unremitting gloom even worse".
As to B wing, the report said:
"A feeling akin to hopelessness and despair often seemed to afflict both prisoners and officers."
I am sure that the noble Baroness will not need to be reminded that in his report of March 1995 the Chief Inspector of Prisons said the following:
"The planned refurbishment of A and B wings should not be delayed once C wing reopens".
Well, C wing has reopened, yet there is no sign of any activity as far as concerns the refurbishment of A and B wings. I hope that the noble Baroness will provide a clear answer to the board's question: is this work to begin? If not, will the noble Baroness undertake never—I repeat never—to return prisoners to the existing wings and the disgusting conditions which exist there? That is a clear question, and I believe that the House deserves a clear indication of the Government's intentions.
Next, I come to education at Wandsworth. This year there will be 201 hours of education in the prison. That is 25 hours fewer than last year. In the words of the board, this is likely to drop drastically this year because of the financial cuts to which I have already referred. I remind the noble Baroness of what the board said on this topic:
"Education is the backbone of rehabilitation in a prison and any cuts in this service will be a retrogressive step which will almost certainly lead to greater operational problems".
I should be obliged if the noble Baroness would deal with that specifically in her reply.
I come to the library. The board report:
"It is regrettable that imminent financial cuts are likely to lead to reduced library staff and further reduced access to the library next year".
That of course is this year.
I turn now to the chaplaincy. Its work forms an essential part of the welfare and rehabilitation work of the prison. "In particular", says the board:
"it contributes positively to work on suicide prevention, education and reform of offending behaviour".
There are, says the board, likely to be reductions in chaplaincy staff, because of the national cuts imposed on the service. Is that really so? Can we really be contemplating such folly?
I hope that the Minister will not, like her colleagues in the other place, attempt to shelter behind the governor of Wandsworth, and suggest that those matters are entirely for him, because it is Ministers, not officials, who have imposed these slashing cuts on the service. They are the people who proudly proclaim that "prison works"; yet at the same time as the prison population is accelerating upwards, presumably to the gratification of Ministers, they are, according to what the Minister said earlier this afternoon, cutting the resources available to the service. They are playing an extremely dangerous game, and game it is. It no doubt gets them the cheerful headlines in the Daily Mail and the Sun, but in the real world they are creating conditions which could lead to the development of a most serious situation in our prisons.
On page after page of the Wandsworth report, there are references to the deterioration of staff morale. And of course they are not alone. In a letter to the Home Secretary this April, the Swaleside board of visitors wrote:
"The proposed loss of over 30 staff (approximately 10 per cent.) mainly from uniform and education has already had a devastating effect on morale, and will quite quickly destabilise the regime".
Remembering, no doubt, the shameful way in which the governor of Parkhurst, Mr. Marriott, was summarily removed from office when developments occurred at that prison for which Ministers carried a heavy burden of personal responsibility, the Swaleside board said:
"We wish to place on record that the responsibility for the consequences should not be placed at the door of our Governor or his colleagues".
The report of the Wandsworth board of visitors demonstrates the alarm now felt by many in the Prison Service about the consequences of the Government's conduct. I hope that in her reply the Minister will at least be able to indicate that she and her colleagues have at last begun to appreciate the crisis of confidence which now exists within the Prison Service.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there is a rare quality about the Minister which we admire. I must give her the details on another occasion of a famous statesman who finally felt that he could no longer defend the Government's position. He put aside his brief, saying:
"You must handle this one, I can't".

1553
That moment may come, although possibly not tonight. I cannot imagine a more punishing indictment than that provided by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on the strength of this damaging report. If someone from abroad wanted to find out what was going on in our prisons he would have only to look at this report, where the whole thing is summarised.
I have more than a little interest in Wandsworth. I suppose I have been there many more times than the Minister. I first visited Wandsworth about 40 years ago. Around that time, I visited Maidstone Prison. It was an enlightened prison. I remember saying to a prison officer there, "I wouldn't mind being governor here". He said, "Anyone can be governor here, but you wouldn't last five minutes in Wandsworth". That was Wandsworth's reputation, which the report recognises as being the worst prison in the country.
A little after that, a famous governor—I found him to be a very good chap—was so unpopular because of the regime he had to implement that he was crucified by former prisoners when crossing the common. I was not actually present. Had I been, no doubt I should have offered him some ineffective assistance. At any rate, that was the kind of treatment that former prisoners meted out to the governor, due to the intensity of feeling at that time.
However, in recent years there has been, as the report brings out clearly, considerable improvement under the present much-to-be-admired governor. I am about to say something nice—it may be for the first time, but I hope not for the last—about the present Home Secretary. I visited Wandsworth because I am in touch with a prisoner there. I had a letter from the governor today. I have been visiting Wandsworth and there are restrictions there. They do not compare with the restrictions in some of the other prisons such as Whitemoor, where one has to take off one's shoes and go through a few other humiliations. I said to the young woman who searched me, "I realise that you have to carry out Mr. Howard's orders". She said, "He came here the other day. He was a nice gentleman". She said that in a tone of utmost surprise. That is the first kind word I have heard said about him in a prison in recent years. At any rate, she thought he was a nice gentleman. Let us agree that Mr. Howard is a nice gentleman, but he has the most evil policy that has ever been applied in a British prison. That is accepted by everyone in the prisons.
So we have the situation now in Wandsworth. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, it is astonishing that these cuts have been made which fall so heavily on Wandsworth. They do not fall only on Wandsworth of course. I was at a conference the other day. There was a lady who was responsible for a great deal of counselling. She had been counselling three prison officers, although not from Wandsworth, who had become fearful for their lives because of the atmosphere in the prisons. That is just one example.
The terrible atmosphere has been brought about entirely by the Home Secretary, with the full support of course of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That is the situation throughout the country. In Wandsworth we
1554
have these cuts. I have given the Minister an hour or two's advance notice of what I am going to say. She ought to be able to answer the question that I am putting to her directly, but I bet she does not. Why are these cuts being implemented? We are told that the country is more prosperous than ever. So why on earth are these cuts being made? I am asking the Minister, and I hope that she can answer. Why are these cuts, which are so damaging, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, being imposed?
One explanation, and the most obvious, is that it is the Government's desire to make prisons unpleasant. They are deliberately treating prisoners as second-class citizens. That may be preventive, and I hope that the Minister has the correct information. At a time when, according to the Government, the country is getting richer and richer, why are they making these cuts?
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this matter. The 1995 annual report of the board of visitors to Wandsworth reflects great credit on two groups of people: first, the visitors themselves. There was a total of 543 visits in 1995, with a member visiting the prison virtually every day. Many of the visits were unannounced. The commitment of those ordinary members of the public to the work of this prison, their pride in the improvements that have been made, and their real concerns for its future shine through the words and conclusions of the report.
Secondly, the governor and the staff of the prison must take the lion's share of the credit for bringing Wandsworth from the 19th century very belatedly into the 20th. Until seven years ago, as has been said, Wandsworth was generally regarded as the worst prison in the country, both to be in as a prisoner and to work in: old, decaying, infected, insanitary, depressing, dehumanising and at times plain cruel in its regime.
Since then a vast amount of constructive work has been done in an attempt to provide prisoners with conditions which are at least humane and with a regime which, within the restrictions imposed by budget, staffing levels and accommodation, is a constructive one. Past Home Secretaries deserve credit for the building work which has been done and the reconstruction which has been completed. As a result, staff and prisoner morale has been improved. The appalling A and B wings have been taken out of service, as both the inspector of prisons and the Director General of the Prison Service rightly said they should. A regime, which by any standards is austere, now, through the efforts largely of the staff, tries to provide conditions in which prisoners can begin to address the reasons why they offended and plan for the future.
However, the message of the report is that those improvements are now under threat. That threat comes from a Government who tell the public that prison works and who take steps to ensure that more members of the public will enjoy the benefits of a stay in one of their establishments while refusing to provide adequate funds for the Prison Service to cater constructively for its increased clientele.

1555
The public are well aware that the Home Secretary wants to see those who commit crime sent to prison for longer. I wonder whether the public realise that he has made no plans to pay for that. Do they realise that the net capital expenditure on prisons in the financial year 1995–96 was £330 million; that in 1996–97 it is to be reduced to £117 million; and in 1997–98 reduced again to £110 million? At the same time the prison population has been seriously underestimated. The projected population was estimated to reach 59,500 in 2004. It is now set to reach that figure next year. The public need to know that because it amounts to serious mismanagement of the Prison Service. All those who work within the service agree that overcrowded and understaffed prisons do not work. Budget cuts against the background of a rocketing prison population are a recipe for disaster.
The report shows that in Wandsworth the cracks are already appearing. First, staff morale is damaged. There are fears that those who felt they had a role to play in future crime prevention are being seen by the Government as no more than turnkeys in a lock-up, to use the words of the report. Staff shortages mean that valuable work can no longer be done.
Perhaps I may take two examples from the report. The sex offender treatment programme, a very valuable part of the work of the prison, is suffering from problems because staff shortages make it difficult to produce officers to work alongside probation officers in the scheme. Searches for drugs in the visitors' area, which is the main point of entry of drugs into our prisons, cannot be conducted routinely because of staff shortages. Waiting lists of those wanting to learn, not as A-level or Open University candidates, but simply to read and write, are growing. It is likely that cuts will make the position still worse next year, affecting the contract with South Thames College. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to those issues.
It is feared that the probation staff of the prison will be cut from 12 to five. Already no probation officer can be found for the newly refurbished healthcare centre. By far the greatest fear in the report relates to A and B wings, which held 480 men. In September 1995, less than a year ago, the Government stated that the work of refurbishment would begin by February this year. In January 1996 we were told that the work was still being considered. The fear in the report is that those insanitary, disease-ridden wings will be used again as they are. Perhaps I may repeat the question that was put so forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Will the Minister tell us what the plans are now for that refurbishment? Above all, will she, in the light of the report, give a clear and unequivocal undertaking that neither of those wings will be used unless refurbishment first takes place?
To use those wings again in their present state would be to return to conditions degrading and dangerous for prisoners and staff alike. It would send a message to the governor and his staff in this much improved prison that their work during the past seven years is regarded by this Government as a waste of time.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have read with interest the Wandsworth board of visitors' report and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for initiating the debate. It gives me the opportunity to be as selective as noble Lords have been in the debate and also to put the record straight. I shall not, as the noble Lord accused in anticipation of my speech, hide behind the governor of Wandsworth Prison. From the outset I shall pay a tribute to him and to his staff for the management of the prison. For that part of my speech I shall pray in aid extracts from the report and from the open letter sent by the Board of Governors. It stated:
"This year, with some exceptions, the report finds much to praise as it reviews the strenuous efforts of the governor and his staff to make the prison a place where prisoners, although held in conditions which, by any standards, are austere, can, nevertheless, begin to address their offending behaviour before they return to society".
In response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about improvements in the prison, I shall quote another part of the report. It states:
"The past seven years have seen a sea-change. Much of the fabric has been modernised; the regime has been improved; prisoners spend much more time out of their cells involved in work, education and physical exercise; slopping out has all but disappeared; the bug-ridden kitchens have been replaced by temporary, but hygienic, modern ones. Such changes are designed to fulfil the Prison Service's mission statement and to aim to turn prisoners from crime to law abiding lives".
Nothing that has happened in terms of the budget this year will alter that.
The noble Baroness, I believe rather discourteously, referred to previous Home Secretaries as having been responsible for that programme. Perhaps I may remind her that a good deal of the programme has taken place under the present Home Secretary. There have been drainage and water supply improvements, a new reception, temporary kitchens and improvements in sanitation in G, H and K wings. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred only to C and D wings being refurbished. I can tell him that C, D, E, F and G wings have been refurbished. There have been sanitation improvements in E wing and refurbishment in D and C wings. Healthcare, simple sanitation and security work has been carried out, as has perimeter security work, which is still in progress. The healthcare, sanitation, security and perimeter work to C wing has taken place under my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. That expenditure totals £21.3 million. That is a different picture from that painted so far.
I am glad to be able to pay tribute to the work of boards of visitors. It is always welcoming to know that members of boards of visitors, who are unpaid volunteers, willingly give of their time and effort to prepare a document such as this to alert Ministers to areas of concern and issues that often can require our urgent attention.
Despite the headlines which some of your Lordships may have seen in the national press, the 1995 board of visitors' report on Wandsworth was in fact very positive; particularly in comparison with the report which the prison received in 1994. The board's report for 1995 recognises the efforts made by staff and management to deal effectively and constructively with

1557
prisoners there. Some of the noted successes included the improvements that had been made in dealing with prisoners' requests and complaints; the imaginative way staff training courses have been conducted; the high standards of control and discipline within the prison; and the increased standard of the care within the healthcare centre.
There are, of course, always areas of concern raised by BoV reports and today I shall tell your Lordships what the Prison Service is doing in response to each of the main areas of concern that have been expressed individually.
The board of visitors at Wandsworth is concerned about the programme of cost reductions at the prison. Wandsworth, like the Prison Service generally, is required to make efficiency savings this year. The board has expressed its concerns about those cost efficiency savings and fears that they will impact on the positive progress that has been achieved at the prison over the past few years. The board also fears that prisoners will react to staff reductions and some reduction in time out of cell by acts of indiscipline. While I can, of course, understand the board's concerns, the governor and management of Wandsworth have a wealth of prison experience and the governor too recognises that purposeful activity for prisoners is essential not only to maintain control within prison but to assist prisoners to lead law-abiding lives on their release.
The governor has also planned to ensure that the efficiency savings that are required will impact as little as possible on the regimes that he and his staff introduced successfully at Wandsworth. Although the measures he has implemented have been viewed as drastic by some, they are in the spirit of the instructions issued by the director general: that purposeful activities, especially programmes that address offending behaviour, should be preserved.
It is the Government's policy to exercise firm control over public expenditure and to secure greater efficiency in the running of public services. It is right that the Prison Service should not be exempt from this policy. The savings in unit costs which are required of the Prison Service are broadly consistent with those expected of the public services generally.
There is scope for greater efficiency in the day to day running of the Prison Service; for example, by the cost-effective deployment of staff. Additional funding has, however, been made available for security improvements and to combat drug abuse.
It is essential to maintain the balance between security and control measures, constructive and effective regimes for prisoners and providing support for staff. The emphasis, across the Prison Service, is on reducing costs rather than constructive activity for prisoners, and resources will continue to be given to those programmes which help prisoners to address their offending behaviour.
It is true that there will be a reduction in staff in the probation, education and chaplaincy departments at Wandsworth. The probation department will be reduced not from 12 but from 11 to five staff. But the governor
1558
is confident that this level of provision will enable him to continue to meet his commitments under the national throughcare framework agreement.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain why those cuts are necessary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Earl quite directly when I reach that point. The governor is confident that that level of provision will enable him to continue to meet his commitments under the national throughcare framework agreement and to maintain and, indeed, to improve the quality of sentencing planning at Wandsworth. The governor also plans to reduce by 1.5 the number of chaplain posts at Wandsworth, but this (and the other reductions) coincides—a point not mentioned in the debate so far—with a reduction of 380 prisoners in the prisoner population as wings without integral sanitation have been taken out of use. Therefore, the figure is not 480, as the noble Baroness said. Rather, 380 prisoners are no longer there and that is matched by a reduction in chaplaincy needs. But no prisoner will suffer as a result of that. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows, those wings certainly need sanitation improvements in any event. That is one reason why they were taken out of use. The loss of the posts will not affect the number of prisoners who are able to have access to the church services.
As to the provision of education, emphasis will be placed on meeting prisoners' basic educational needs. A number of classes have, in the past, run with small numbers and were therefore not providing good value for money. Some of these classes will therefore no longer be available. During 1996, however, a further 135 places will be created in workshops to provide additional employment places for prisoners and the emphasis on basic literacy will be intensified and not reduced, as the noble Baroness suggested.
Another major concern of the BoV report is the accommodation of immigration detainees. That was also highlighted in their 1994 report. I know that this is an area of concern which is shared by other boards of visitors across the prison estate. The board at Wandsworth is specifically dissatisfied about the continued detention of convicted overseas nationals who have completed their sentences and are awaiting deportation. The board feels that, when a detainee has completed a sentence for a criminal offence, he should not remain at Wandsworth. The Prison Service cannot give an unequivocal assurance that such detainees will be transferred automatically. My honourable friend the Minister for prisons has previously informed the board that there is no reason why a person who has served a sentence for a criminal offence and is to be deported from the United Kingdom should not remain there temporarily while arrangements are made for deportation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but is the Minister aware of what the Chief Inspector of Prisons said on this issue? In March 1995 he said that those detained for immigration

1559
purposes should not be held at Wandsworth. That is a clear recommendation which the Government appear to be rejecting out of hand.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has not gone on to outline the reasons for that. A prisoner may have completed his sentence but be subject to a deportation order. The view has been taken that he should remain in custody and therefore, he must do so. As I have said, we hope that that will be temporary while deportation arrangements are made. Some prisoners are moved to other prisons but on some occasions, it is not possible to do that.
Where it is clear that deportation will be delayed, transfer to another establishment may be considered. But much will depend on the individual circumstances. This can include the nature of the offence of which the person was convicted and the immigration issues that need to be resolved before deportation can be effected.
The board is also concerned that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office is not "hard charged" for holding detainees in Wandsworth. The Prison Service is, in fact, allocated appropriate funding to enable it to accommodate immigration detainees. The budget allocated to Wandsworth is based on its operational capacity, and additional funding for particular types of prisoner is therefore not necessary.
The board is extremely concerned that A and B wings should be refurbished to a high standard in addition to having in-cell sanitation installed, and should not be used as contingency accommodation to cope with a steep rise in prison population.
A and B wings at Wandsworth were taken out of use in February 1996 to meet the deadline for providing prisoners with 24-hour access to sanitation. Due to the reduction in the Prison Service's capital expenditure, the refurbishment work at Wandsworth, which was scheduled to start in 1996–97, may have to be deferred. I know that the Prison Service is currently investigating all available options to start the refurbishment work as soon as possible and does not plan to operate A and B wings until this work is completed.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and I have no wish to be accused of discourtesy twice in the course of this evening. But perhaps she will clarify a point for me about A and B wings. I gave a figure of 480 and the noble Baroness told me that I was wrong about that. Therefore, is the figure wrong on page 40 of the report, because the board of visitors appears to believe that those two wings taken together can hold 480 prisoners? I should be grateful to know which is right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am told that as a result of the closure of A and B wings, there is a reduction of 380 prisoners in the prison. It may well be that capacity is greater but 380 prison places have been taken out of existence. If I am wrong and the noble Baroness is right, I shall certainly write to her about that, but certainly I have been told that the closure of those wings affected 380 people. My understanding is that that is more than
1560
25 per cent. of the prison population at Wandsworth, which was about 1,100 at the time at which those wings were closed. That accounts for some of the reductions in staff and provision.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I promise that this will be the last intervention. I specifically put a different question. I understand the position in relation to the capital refurbishment programme but I asked a very different question. I believe that the Wandsworth board of visitors and many others would be interested in the Minister's reply. An unequivocal assurance is sought that A and B wings will never again be used to house prisoners while they remain in an unrefurbished state. Is the Minister able to give an answer on that point, because it is a mater of considerable significance to the board and to many of us?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to give a definitive answer. However, I can say that there are no plans to bring A and B wings back into operation before refurbishment is completed. I cannot be definitive because an emergency may arise before the refurbishment. We then have to consider the alternative of police cells. Although we believe that that is an unlikely situation, A and B wings may then have to be brought into operation. But, if that does happen, a view will have to he taken about making those wings habitable for those purposes. That may fall short of a complete refurbishment but we do not plan to bring the wings back into operation until those refurbishments have taken place, which we hope will be as soon as possible.
The governor has ensured that all allegations of assault are thoroughly investigated by prison line management or, where necessary, by an independent investigator, whether that is in-house, a governor from elsewhere in the Prison Service, or the police. The governor took command in 1988 of a prison which he has acknowledged had a reputation for unwarranted use of force against prisoners. He has ensured that there are systems in place which address these problems. I have talked at some length with the governor about the changes that he has brought about. I am more than convinced that he is anxious that he has as open a system as possible and that all prisoners are given open access to make sure that their complaints and grievances are properly heard and properly dealt with.
When the governor took up post independent bodies such as the board of visitors were not allowed unsupervised access to the residential areas and were not therefore privy to the complaints that prisoners wished to air. The board of visitors now has free access to all areas of the prison and is able to listen to prisoners' complaints in an appropriate manner. This is in line with how boards should operate within prisons. The board of visitors' report to the Home Secretary comments on the positive relationships which have been formed with the governor. It is a fact that the governor has facilitated access to the prison for members of the board and ensured that all prisoners have access to them.
The governor has adopted an open attitude and would, and will not, conceal his own concerns about the allegations that have been and continue to be made

1561
against staff by prisoners. It is inevitable that when prisoners are given free access to ventilate their complaints this will raise the number of complaints that are made. It is also inevitable that prisoners will sometimes make spurious complaints. This will happen sometimes to "settle old scores", or as a reaction to the control measures which are in place at Wandsworth.
The police have recently conducted an investigation into the conduct and results of the investigations that had taken place into allegations of assault in 1995. This independent police investigation concluded that the inquiries undertaken at Wandsworth had been carried out appropriately and the conclusions reached were satisfactory. Concerted efforts will continue to be made to ensure that this position is carefully maintained.
It is important not to get carried away with the picture that the press might want to paint of a prison at which nothing is going well. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have tried to outline what staff and management at Wandsworth are doing in response to the board of visitors' report. There is a wealth of other good work which is being done at Wandsworth.
The governor and his staff have been enthusiastic in their implementation of the Prison Service's drug strategy: the establishment was selected this year to become a specialised drug treatment centre, and mandatory drug testing has been implemented effectively at the establishment. The drug dealers who remain in the prison have not taken kindly to the stringent measures the governor has taken to prevent drugs being smuggled into his prison. This year, so far, there have been 48 finds of drugs on prisoners and 26 visitors have been gate arrested attempting to bring drugs into the prison. The positive mandatory drug testing results reflect that these measures have been effective. In April this year 82 prisoners were tested and 10 proved positive; this is approximately one-third of the national average. All prisoners who test positive on the MDT programme are offered counselling and treatment.
In his last year with the Prison Service the governor of Wandsworth continues to implement innovative programmes at the prison. For example, the governor is introducing a programme which is designed to help to break the cycle of offending, which is based on the Cambridge study of delinquency development which followed 397 families from South London over 30 years. The programme will address the needs highlighted by local research to identify the size of the delinquency problem amongst prisoners and children.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who referred to the library services. It is unfortunate that the need to provide cells prevented the provision of a proper library on C Wing. Arrangements have now been made for the end of the ground floor to be used as a library. There are no cuts in access to libraries throughout the prison. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked why there have been cuts. I have
1562
made my next point before but I shall repeat it. We are continuing to seek efficiency improvements and economies throughout the public sector.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, why is it necessary to cut the Probation Service and education service to produce greater efficiency?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the services have not been cut at all. The functions that were carried out by some of those members of the Probation Service are being carried out by the Prison Service. The governor has thought this plan through carefully. Through-care work, both in prison and beyond prison, is an important aspect of prison life and sentence planning. Again, I have talked at length with the governor about this. I believe that the plans he has put in place are effective. I have come clean about why the cuts are necessary; namely, because we believe that the peak of efficiency has not been reached and that more can be done, and we shall continue to pursue that. I would ask the noble Earl whether he would like to pose his question to his colleagues in another place who are not promising any more money for any services whatsoever. That is a pertinent question for members of his party. The Prison Service cannot be exempt from efficiency improvements. The public expenditure settlement for the Prison Service for 1996–97, and beyond, reflects the level of efficiency savings which the Government believe it is reasonable to expect. Extra money has been made available to the Prison Service for extra places and for security.
Much has been said about provision in Wandsworth Prison. It is important to put on record the range of facilities that are available there. There are photography classes and a brass band supported by the London Symphony Orchestra. NACRO runs a gym and power lifting courses. There are 15 computers for 10 sessions a week accommodating up to 150 people. Those courses are run by NACRO. In the main prison there are another 10 computers for nine sessions a week with a capacity of 90 places. The vulnerable prisoners' unit has seven computers for eight sessions a week and provides 56 places. In addition there are basic literacy and numeracy courses and a range of other subjects which can offer fairly high level qualifications. Noble Lords who are familiar with this prison will know that it is a local prison and many of its prisoners are referred to other prisons. If a prisoner arrives at the prison who is already doing an Open University course, provision is made for that. National vocational qualifications are being gained by many of the people who pass through Wandsworth Prison. There are carpentry workshops and work is provided making brushes, and in tailoring, laundry, catering and gardening. A great deal is going on in the prison. In addition, the voluntary sector works within Wandsworth Prison. I refer to NACRO, the Samaritans, the Prisoner Listeners Service, the Bourne Trust, the Prison Reform Trust, SOVA,

1563
Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, the Prisoners Resource Service, the Rehabilitation of Addictive Prisoners' Trust—
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I hope the Minister will be good enough to give way for a moment. She has listed a large number of voluntary agencies doing work and people who are providing what are clearly important contributions to prison life. However, is there really any substitute for properly trained people to do a job? I have in mind page 25 of the board's report. The board comments in relation to the loss of a probation officer for the healthcare centre:
"The loss of a Probation Officer is causing concern; much of the work is being done by nurses which is unacceptable to the Board. Future provision appears bleak".
Are the Government going to do anything about deficits such as that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will be a full reply from the Prison Service to the board of governors on the specific points that it has raised. Of course the noble Baroness is absolutely right. There is a place for the professional, and the professional will provide services. In terms of the through-care programme, it is possible for prison officers to become involved in that work, just as it is possible for probation officers to do so. Indeed many probation officers become prison officer staff and certainly prison officers work with the professionals to provide the services. The first range of provision I referred to is provided by professionals. I do not wish to decry the important contribution that the voluntary sector makes to the Prison Service. I believe that most prisons work with the voluntary sector in a complementary way to the benefit of prisoners.
1564
I shall complete the list. There is the Rehabilitation of Addictive Prisoners' Trust, Fujalto, a service to foreign prisoners, the Visitors' Centre where the CAB provides a regular surgery, and St. George's Drug Advice and Rehabilitation Service Programme.
There is also an innovative programme called the Koestler Award System. It is an award given for works of art. That is co-ordinated from Wandsworth Prison. In 1994 there were 2,000 entries from prisoners; by 1995 the figure had risen to 2,800; in 1996 it has risen to 3,000. That is a patchwork of work undertaken in prisons to ensure that people are profitably spending their time there.
It is also worth noting that when the present governor came to this prison there was no association time. This prison has come a very long way since then. It has met all its targets for times out of cell for prisoners. Even with the budget reduction this year, that is not expected to change; it will remain the same. The prison intends this year to meet its targets for hours out of cell for prisoners.
More generally, Wandsworth Prison performed more than creditably when measured against the Prison Service's key performance indicators. In 1995 there were no escapes from the establishment. On average more than 24 hours a week of constructive activity was provided for prisoners. On average prisoners spent around 10 hours a day out of their cells. This is not a picture of doom and gloom but a good performance from a prison whose staff and management are doing excellent work. I pay tribute to those staff and that management.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Passport Agency: Performance Targets
  Passport Agency: Performance Targets
  ODA: Expenditure Review
  ODA: Expenditure Review
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  Israel: Defence Links
  Israel: Defence Links
  RAF Bentwaters Site: Chris Parker Group
  RAF Bentwaters Site: Chris Parker Group
  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority: NAO Report
  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority: NAO Report
  Track Safety Work: London to Dollands Moor
  Track Safety Work: London to Dollands Moor
  Non-UK Registered HGVs
  Non-UK Registered HGVs
  Central Railways plc: Proposed Rail Route
  Central Railways plc: Proposed Rail Route
  Freightliner: Track Access Grants
  Freightliner: Track Access Grants
  Freightliner: Sale Price
  Freightliner: Sale Price
  Vehicle Number Plate Colours
  Vehicle Number Plate Colours