Sitting of 13 June 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 20 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Housing Legislation
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [30922]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I propose to make provision, through an Order in Council, for Northern Ireland to move from the present mandatory grants scheme to the broadly discretionary scheme provided for in the Bill.
    I also propose to make provision for construction contracts along the lines of part II of the Bill by means of an Order in Council under the negative resolution procedure, while the Bill already provides for the provisions of part III on the registration of architects to extend to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Minister for that reply and his encouraging response to extend the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill to Northern Ireland. However, he missed one item. We are advised by Ministers in Committee about the involvement of local government in the administration of a great number of those initiatives. Will the Minister take action to involve local government in Northern Ireland with some of the administration of the Bill, as that would encourage local people to be closer to the people and decision making?
    Mr. Moss: There is already machinery for negotiation and discussion with local authorities on many aspects of Northern Ireland legislation. The hon. Gentleman might be referring to an item in the Bill on home energy. That
    406
    will become the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development, which will take charge of the Northern Ireland energy efficiency scheme. However, there will be close liaison with local authorities on that and other matters.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is there any point in introducing further grant legislation when there are inordinate delays in processing those grants?
    Mr. Moss: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we are experiencing some delay at the moment, but we are taking steps on repair grants to make sure that there are no delays in future. I would point out that we have steadily increased spending on private sector housing grants in Northern Ireland from £32 million in 1993–94 to £47 million in the coming financial year.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures on inward investment to Northern Ireland. [30923]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): During the year ended 31 March 1996, Northern Ireland secured 35 inward investment projects, offering 4,869 jobs and representing a total investment of £432 million. It was our best ever year for inward investment.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply and for the good news about inward investment in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that one of the hidden bonuses of an IRA ceasefire would be the creation of even more inward investment and more jobs, which would help the people whom the IRA keeps saying it is trying to help—those in Republican areas who are currently out of work? That would be an extra boost to the economy of the area and the future of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland.
    Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best incentive to inward investment would be political stability and a firm and lasting peace. Certainly, everybody who is involved in politics in Northern Ireland must take every opportunity to remind those who pursue violence as a means of pursuing their political purposes that they do a disservice to their community, as my hon. Friend has set out. Peace can bring jobs, jobs can bring prosperity, and prosperity is what the people of Northern Ireland want.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Given the excellent record of the Industrial Development Board in attracting investment from many parts of the world, would not those efforts be greatly enhanced by the establishment of an all-party economic committee based in both Houses of Parliament?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that the matter has been of interest to him for some time. I also know that my noble Friend Lady Denton regards the assistance of Members of both Houses in promoting the economy and economic development in Northern Ireland as very valuable. I am sure that she will look for further support in that direction.

    407
    On the subject of using committees to promote the values of investing in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman should not overlook the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which can be used for that purpose.
    Mr. McGrady: I join the Minister in welcoming the good news which he has articulated this afternoon, especially that of the past week, with the announcement of 1,800 jobs in west Belfast, Cookstown, Newtownabbey and Larne out of the total of 4,800 that he mentioned. Great praise is due to the Industrial Development Board and the Department for that achievement.
    In no way detracting from that praise and credibility, may I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, yet again, the statistics for 1995–96, which I received in a written answer, show that there is no new inward investment in the entire area of the districts of Newry and Mourn, Down and Banbridge? Of the total number of visits either by potential investors or by industrialists, less than 5 per cent. and 0 per cent. respectively were made to those areas. Will the Minister make an effort to ensure that would-be investment is directed to areas where there is high, consistent and endemic unemployment, as well as areas that are benefiting from worthwhile endeavours?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and his congratulations on the performance of the Northern Ireland economy over the past year. It is interesting to note that the London-Belfast air route is now the second busiest in Europe, which says something for Northern Ireland's prospects. Industry and investment cannot be directed to places; they can be encouraged. Obviously, my noble Friend Lady Denton does what she can to ensure that businesses that go to Northern Ireland are spread as effectively as possible.
    I have noticed that, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, Stewarts Supermarkets Ltd. has been granted planning approval to develop a supermarket on the site of the old Albion clothing factory in Newcastle and Cottage Catering at Donaghcloney was recently awarded a FEOGA grant towards its expansion; so there is also development in his constituency.

    Decommissioning
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the issue of decommissioning paramilitary arms. [30924]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government are co-operating closely in drawing up legislation designed to underpin any decommissioning scheme emerging from the talks process.
    Mrs. Prentice: Does the Minister agree that, given the appalling history of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland, it is essential to address decommissioning? Given that the whole House wants a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, it is essential that we have all-party talks. Will he tell us the precise criteria by which he would be prepared to admit Sinn Fein to those talks?
    Sir John Wheeler: The criteria for the admission of Sinn Fein to the talks process are well established. First, there must be an unequivocal ceasefire; then Sinn Fein will gain entry to the talks process. But it must agree to the Mitchell principles. All the parties attending the talks process so far have so agreed. There is no excuse for the continuing violence in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland. The sooner those who talk about a commitment to democracy choose to honour that commitment, the greater will be the progress towards peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland and in the island of Ireland as a whole.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that the real task facing us now is to take the gun for ever out of our politics? In my own opinion and judging by my own experience, we now have the best opportunity ever to do so. Will the Minister reaffirm the fact that the real challenge that now faces us is that, although the talks process threatens no section of our people, it in effect challenges all of us to come up with the new thinking that will accommodate both our traditions and give us the lasting stability that all sections of our people are now screaming for?
    Sir John Wheeler: I agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman; he is quite right. If there is to be progress, all our voices must be used to stop, for example, the petrol bomb attacks which occur regularly. There have been 62 such attacks in Northern Ireland since 1 January. There must also be an end to the appalling cycle of violence through punishment attacks, of which there have been no fewer than 407 since August 1994. So long as those events are taking place, there will not be the confidence within the community and among the democratic parties which foregather for the talks process that the terrorist groups genuinely seek to take the gun and the Semtex out of politics.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Minister encouraged, as we are, by the fact that the loyalist paramilitaries have now been in ceasefire mode for 20 months, which is longer than any other ceasefire during the past 25 or 26 years? Is he aware that the elected representatives associated with the loyalist paramilitaries have given their assent to the Mitchell principles? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the difficulty that those people will face when they agree in principle to abide in every way by the Mitchell principles, but feel unable to put that into tangible effect because there is no pro rata agreement or arrangement by the republican paramilitaries? Does he agree that we must all try to establish the confidence-building measures that will encourage progress in that respect?
    Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise confidence-building measures. Of course people can sign up to the six Mitchell principles, but that means that they must use their influence, they must condemn and, so far as they can, they must ensure that punishment attacks, petrol bombing and racketeering all end, so that, progressively, the people of Northern Ireland can enjoy a peaceful environment. It is extraordinary, for example, that Sinn Fein could not even condemn the murder of a detective constable in the Republic of Ireland last week.
    Rev. William McCrea: Is it not true that, although there is much talk about the IRA-Sinn Fein wanting to come into the talks process at some time, at present, while the talks are going on, those people are actually regrouping, restocking and retraining with the weaponry of war? Is it not also true that a mere declaration for the Mitchell principles will not be acceptable, and that there must also be a surrender of weapons and of the teeth of war if we are to have peace?
    Is it not strange that, as I read in the paper today, the Irish Republic has recruited 800 extra guards along the border to keep cattle from Northern Ireland out of the south—the most expensive security operation in 25 years, and indeed in the history of the island—yet it could not use those 800 troops to stop the terrorists coming from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the Provisional IRA has proved to be a formidably organised terrorist structure, and it is doing what he describes. If Sinn Fein is to be part of the talks process, an unequivocal ceasefire must be announced, followed by Sinn Fein signing up to the six Mitchell principles, which must then be honoured. During the weeks after that, a start to decommissioning will be made. Until those events occur, there will not be confidence among those seeking a democratic way forward for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I endorse 100 per cent. the views expressed by my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is the only key to the door of a genuine ceasefire and lasting peace? Does he accept that the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—on both sides of the religious divide—believe that weapons should be handed in? Would it not be a betrayal of the trust of the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland—whether nationalist or Unionist—if the Government allowed terrorists to retain their weapons?
    Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is right, but there are many keys on the key ring, including that of talks and negotiations. The most important key of all is the commitment to decommissioning that is part of the six Mitchell principles. Once made, it must be honoured. Once decommissioning starts, people will believe that the process will gain momentum. The horror of the murder of the Garda constable in the Republic of Ireland last week has struck home widely in the island of Ireland. My hon. Friend is right to say that, overwhelmingly, the people want to see the start of decommissioning and a total end to violence.

    Elections
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the motivation of Sinn Fein in taking part in the Northern Ireland elections. [30925]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): None, Madam Speaker. It may be supposed that Sinn Fein wished to qualify itself to participate in all-party negotiations. But it is excluding
    410
    itself from these, because both Governments have stipulated that there must first be an unequivocal restoration by the IRA of the 1994 ceasefire.
    Mr. Robathan: Further to the answer by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the IRA and Sinn Fein are playing cynical games with the peace process and with the lives of people in Northern Ireland? Are they not using a ceasefire as a bargaining counter, dangling it as a lure in front of the noses of the Government and both communities in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that Sinn Fein is not allowed near peace negotiations unless a total, genuine and permanent commitment to peace is made?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is certainly required by the people of Northern Ireland, and far more widely. The Irish and British Governments are at one in stipulating that, before Sinn Fein can enter the negotiations, the IRA must restore unequivocally the 1994 ceasefire. It is wholly incompatible with a professed commitment to peaceful and democratic methods to be associated inextricably with an organisation that has used arms for nationalist purposes in the past and refuses to restore the 1994 ceasefire.
    Mr. Trimble: In those elections, the people of Northern Ireland elected delegates to a forum, which will have its first meeting tomorrow. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in wishing it well, because it can and will make a significant contribution to dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that Sinn Fein can tomorrow have its mandate recognised by taking its places in the forum and that, if it fails to do so, we can conclude only that its commitment to democracy is as hypocritical as its commitment to peace?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the forum, as declared in the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996, is to promote dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein is not prepared to take its place in a body with such objectives, what conclusion should be drawn? The hon. Gentleman correctly reminds the House that Sinn Fein is entitled by virtue of its election successes alone to take its places in the forum. I believe that people in Northern Ireland, and much more widely, will look to see whether Sinn Fein is there and will draw their own conclusions if it is not.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the problem with the public having confidence in Sinn Fein-IRA saying that it has a total and permanent commitment to peaceful settlement of the problem is the fact that it retains its arms? If it retains its arms during negotiations, it could at any stage resort again to violence. For the public to have any confidence in its word, it needs to give up those arms.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course my hon. Friend is right in associating the issue of arms and their decommissioning with confidence by everybody else that Sinn Fein is wholly committed to peaceful means, as both Governments have insisted all parties must be if they are

    411
    to participate in all-party negotiations. It is a question of confidence, and there can be no compatibility in a democracy with the retention of arms for the purpose of holding them illegally to secure political advantage.
    The arms must begin to be decommissioned alongside the negotiations to which Sinn Fein has secured a mandate by way of the elective process on 30 May, but from which it is excluding itself because there is no restoration of the ceasefire. Once that happens, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, it must make the declaration which everyone else has made of commitment to the Mitchell principles and then it must, at the same stage, address decommissioning in the way that Mitchell's report, by way of a compromise, has recommended; that is, decommissioning begins alongside the negotiations—not at the end, not at the beginning, but during the negotiations.
    Dr. Hendron: I know that the Secretary of State will agree that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland of both traditions want the IRA to call a ceasefire forthwith. They want an end to punishment beatings and to the daily intimidation in my constituency.
    On Sinn Fein's motivation for fighting the recent election, hon. Members know that most parties in Northern Ireland participated in the election because it was imposed. It was an unnecessary election. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important for all parties, including Sinn Fein, to participate right away? I appreciate his points on the ceasefire.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course that is right. There would not have been all-party negotiations, as a matter of reality and practice, had there not been an elective process first. That was recognised several months ago and the process has now taken place. It is very necessary that those who have been elected should take their place at every stage of the negotiations if the full purpose that the House—among other bodies—required is to be achieved. Of course that is the case. That extends right across the board and it includes Sinn Fein, which received an elective mandate, principally, I believe, from people who wanted to see it demonstrating its commitment to peaceful methods. Let it end its self-imposed exclusion now.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Further to what my right hon. and learned Friend said, does he believe that it ill behoved certain sections of the British press to show a photograph of Messrs. Adams and McGuinness that portrayed them as having been locked out of the talks, when they had locked themselves out? Is it not the height of cynicism for Sinn Fein to take part in democratic elections and then not fully uphold the principles of democracy?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree warmly with both parts of my hon. Friend's question. I have made my views known about the second part, but let me say a few words about what he said at the beginning. Those photographs dutifully and predictably appearing in the newspapers of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness peering through the bars were deeply misleading. Why was the reality not shown of a gateway open to them, through which they passed in order to have explained to them within the talks building why they were not entitled to take part in the negotiations?
    412
    Newspaper after newspaper played straight into their hands by showing misleading pictures which suggested quite the opposite of the reality.
    Ms Mowlam: Does the Secretary of State accept our acknowledgement and welcome of the progress that has been made this week while at the same time we add our condolences to those of the Minister of State to the family of Garda McCabe? Does he agree that, whatever the individual motivations may be, the persistence of a culture of blaming and finger pointing will be inimical to the talks process? Does he agree that the talks process will be greatly helped by the presence of Senator Mitchell and his team? It is unfortunate that the failure of the constitutional parties to reach agreement has turned attention away from the crucial fact that the absence of a ceasefire is keeping Sinn Fein away from the talks and that we would like that ceasefire to occur as soon as possible.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for that assurance, which comes as no surprise, and also for what the hon. Lady said at the beginning.
    As for the central part of the hon. Lady's question, it is perhaps best to concentrate on the outcome of the first two days of difficult discussions. It was inevitable that they would be difficult, but leadership and courage have been shown and an outcome has been reached, which resulted yesterday in the process beginning, with Senator Mitchell in the chair and the other two chairmen appointed. Progress was made and I believe that we shall move on constructively from that beneficial process.

    Peace Programme Funding
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the disbursement of the European peace programme grant aid to Northern Ireland. [30926]
    Sir John Wheeler: A total of £5.53 million has been paid out to approved projects and funding bodies. This consists of £4.147 million from the European Commission and £1.383 million of matching funding.
    Mrs. Jackson: What external monitoring procedures has the Minister put in place to monitor progress and to have a view to applying for an extension to the funding regime beyond 1998? Will he give assurances that he sees the grant aid programme both now and in the future as additional to existing Northern Ireland funding regimes?
    Sir John Wheeler: It will be possible for the funding to continue—we hope beyond the period that has already been approved. There is a substantial arrangement for measuring accountability. Not only has a novel delivery structure been established but the House of Commons, through the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, will be able to monitor because part of the additional funding which is provided comes from the Northern Ireland block. In addition, the European Parliament has its own arrangements for monitoring expenditure. So there are many and considerable arrangements for monitoring and scrutiny.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that, despite his confidence that the monitoring arrangements are right, the European Parliament does not have a great record in monitoring European fraud and that the novel arrangements for distributing the money leave many gates open for misappropriation? Can we have an assurance that, when the funds run out, councils and councillors will not be left with extra expenses when community bodies and business men run away from their commitments because they do not have their hands on public money?
    Sir John Wheeler: No Finance Minister can give a copper-bottomed guarantee about what will happen in the future when funds may no longer be available. There will be a review of priorities and financial needs at that time. The monitoring programme and the monitoring committee, which is local in Northern Ireland, will be well seized of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. There will not be dependency on European Parliament structures alone—local arrangements and the responsibilities that the House has in monitoring the use of public money will also be taken into account.
    Mr. Dowd: What action is the Minister pursuing to ensure that all such expenditure is directed to produce the most beneficial and enduring long-term effects? What steps is he taking to dissuade the Northern Ireland Office from its disproportionate concentration on grand capital schemes, rather than seeking to make progress with the agreement of the other social partners and organisations in Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: The bodies that approve the expenditure decide who the beneficiaries of the funding will be. That is inevitably the case. It is essential that as much of the money as possible provides schemes that are of lasting benefit to the people of Northern Ireland and are not superficial. It is the objective of the Northern Ireland department responsible for these matters to ensure that that happens.

    Information Super-highway
    Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in constructing the information super-highway in Northern Ireland. [30927]
    Sir John Wheeler: Significant progress has been made in developing an information super-highway in Northern Ireland. In early 1994, a major project was initiated by the business development service on behalf of Northern Ireland departments, their agencies and the wider public sector. In February 1996, the information society initiative was launched by my noble Friend Baroness Denton.
    Mr. Jones: What plans does the Minister have to ensure that every citizen of Northern Ireland has access to the information super-highway? What help is he giving schools to ensure that they can plug in to the information super-highway? What steps is he taking to ensure that terrorists do not abuse the information super-highway for their own purposes?
    Sir John Wheeler: The business development service, in conjunction with consultants, is carrying out a telecommunications strategy study to ensure that the very best communications infrastructure is available to Government Departments well into the 21st century. In Northern Ireland, Cable Tel is in the process of establishing a broad-band infrastructure, which it is hoped will meet the hon. Gentleman's needs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering the implications for the education sector. The use of these facilities by terrorists is a matter that has to be pursued on a case-by-case basis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the difficulty of constraint.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how Sinn Fein-IRA is able to have a world wide web address? The cause of nationalism has been promoted using the world wide web. Can we ensure that the cause of peace is given an equal opportunity to be promoted on the world wide web? Will the Government ensure that the British Government's point of view, and that of the Unionists, are also put out on the world wide web?
    Sir John Wheeler: I assure my hon. Friend that the Northern Ireland Office is making use of the facility to get across information across about the achievements of Northern Ireland. Political parties will have to judge their use of the facilities. I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend.

    Drinking Water
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the operation of the drinking water supply system in Northern Ireland. [30929]
    Mr. Moss: The Department of the Environment's water service assesses the drinking water supply system on a continuous operational basis. A water resource strategy has recently been completed and reviewed in the light of experience of the 1995 drought.
    Mr. Forsythe: As the vast majority of Northern Ireland's local councils oppose the fluoridation of drinking water in Northern Ireland, will the Minister assure the House that the will of the people and of elected representatives will prevail in this matter, rather than that of unelected and unrepresentative board members?
    Mr. Moss: Boards must take into consideration district councils' views, but they must also consider their duty to improve the health and social well-being of their populations. Until I have considered the requests from health and social services boards in detail, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the consultation exercise, but it is vital for them to demonstrate appropriate and thorough consultation.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the incidence of BSE in the Northern Ireland herd for the most recent year for which figures are available. [30930]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: In 1995, there were 170 cases of BSE in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prentice: Mercifully, Northern Ireland is largely free of BSE, but what steps have been taken in the framework document to ensure that herds in Northern Ireland can be certified BSE-free? While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister to comment on the revelations in the science magazine Nature, published today, that Britain's exports of contaminated feed doubled after that contaminated feed had been banned in this country? Was that not criminally irresponsible?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not believe in commenting on texts that I have not read. It is in the interests of Northern Ireland producers that we have an electronic system of tracing beasts back to the farm of their birth. We can identify the life history of every animal, including whether it has ever been associated with a herd infected with BSE. That is a great advantage, which I trust will serve the interests of Northern Ireland producers quickly in terms of having the ban lifted.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State appreciate our dependence on beef exports in Northern Ireland, and that we cannot survive this blanket ban much longer, especially not until other regions of the UK catch up with our traceability records? What does the European Union expect from us in Northern Ireland? What is its criterion? What assurances does it need? Will he seek to enable Northern Ireland to meet those assurances as soon as possible?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and know how greatly he is concerned about these matters. Seventy per cent. of all Northern Ireland-produced beef is exported, not just over the water, but outside the UK. It is a matter of enormous importance to Northern Ireland. It has been accepted reluctantly that Northern Ireland must take its place with the whole of the UK in getting the ban lifted, but there are considerable advantages, which I have just alluded to, that Northern Ireland can pray in aid. The European Union has never given clear criteria to the lifting of the ban, but it is clear that it expects more extensive culling to take place. The Government believe—indeed, they know—that there is no scientific justification for the ban and they have presented their eradication plan to the Commission. I am confident that Northern Ireland will be well placed to meet any criteria that may eventually be defined. They should be defined straight away. All farmers throughout the UK receive the same compensation for 30-month and above stock that is compulsorily slaughtered.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some optimism among Ulster Farmers Union members that the framework document for BSE's eradication will be accepted by the European Union? That will be of advantage to Northern Ireland farmers, because 90 per cent. of their herds are grass fed, there is a low incidence of BSE, and the tracing system is in place. If the framework document is accepted, and if herds in Northern Ireland meet the conditions in that document, will the Secretary of State support the lifting of the ban in Northern Ireland before other regions of the United Kingdom?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the framework document for eradication is met, it will be applicable to the whole of
    416
    the United Kingdom—although not every region may benefit at the same time. As I have said, it seems as though Northern Ireland will be able to benefit much sooner. I look forward to that occurring, as Northern Ireland is very well placed.

    Primary School Budgets
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the state of primary school budgets. [30932]
    Mr. Ancram: The total funding available for delegation to primary schools, including resources for the primary 1 initiative in 1996–97, is estimated at £275 million. That represents an increase of 4.55 per cent. from 1995–96.
    Mr. Taylor: I have visited some 20 primary schools in Strangford in the past three months. Is the Minister aware that there is a decline in morale in primary schools, that many schools are operating on deficit budgets, that primary school teachers are being made redundant this year, that pupil-teacher ratios are worsening, that management committee members are considering resigning and that teachers face an increasing administration burden? Will the Minister, therefore, urgently reappraise the financing of primary school education in Northern Ireland? Will he redirect some of the existing funding within his Department and the education area boards to our primary schools?
    Mr. Ancram: While I do not for a moment deny that schools in Northern Ireland suffer the same difficulties as schools elsewhere, I think that the right hon. Gentleman paints a very black picture. I remind him that, in the past four years, the capital per capita allocations to primary schools in Northern Ireland have risen by 14 per cent. That is demonstrated by an improving parent-teacher ratio in the primary sector from 23.2:1 in the late 1980s to 21.6:1 in 1993–94. The provisional figures for 1994–95 show a further improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio to 20.8:1. That proves that conditions in Northern Ireland primary schools are improving.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30952]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Arnold: Is it not increasingly clear that the Government's firm and resolute management of the British economy has created the best performing economy in Europe? Would it not be a crying tragedy if that were thrown away by tying up British industry in red tape and by transferring our monetary policy—and, indeed, our

    417
    gold reserves—to Frankfurt, which is what would follow a Labour Government's subscription to the social chapter and a single currency?
    The Prime Minister: The economy is doing very well. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's analysis of the impact of the Labour party's alternative policies. In the past few days, we have had two separate illustrations of how well the economy is doing: first, the excellent news about jobs; secondly, the excellent news about inflation. We are now in the fifth year of steady growth, and that is what will deliver continuing prosperity.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following? Is it true that two of his Back Benchers gave the Government an ultimatum on Monday that, unless they received firm assurances that the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital would be replaced by a full emergency unit, they would withdraw support from the Government; secondly, that the ultimatum was to expire last night; thirdly, that they then met the Health Secretary; and, fourthly, that they now say that they have been given those assurances and have withdrawn the ultimatum? Is that substantially true? If it is, is it not a disreputable way in which to run a Government?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not substantially true, and I have to say that there is no possibility of the Government responding to approaches of that sort from any hon. Member. We do not respond to such activities and we will not respond to such activities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured.
    Mr. Blair: No, Madam Speaker, I am not reassured. Which of the facts that I have just listed does the right hon. Gentleman dispute? We know that the ultimatum was given. That is a matter of record. We know that the ultimatum was withdrawn, and the two Conservative Members concerned say that they have been given the assurance that the full emergency unit will now be given. What are we to make of this? Was it one of life's happy coincidences?
    I would like to ask the Prime Minister, specifically, were those Conservative Members given the assurance that they say they were given by the Secretary of State for Health—that the accident and emergency department would be replaced with full emergency cover, details to be announced later? Were they given that assurance by the Secretary of State for Health or not?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is distorting and misunderstanding, and I shall try to explain it to him. A lot of people have made representations about Edgware—local medical people, local churches, my hon. Friends and many others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened carefully, but he has made it clear that we will not retain the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital. We will not retain it, and
    418
    it is the gravamen of the charge that that is what he was asked to do. The policy that we are following is the policy that we have been pursuing for some time.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Closing hospitals.
    The Prime Minister: Not closing hospitals; providing better facilities—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) must come to order.
    The Prime Minister:—for hospitals in London and elsewhere; facilities utterly run down when the Government took power in 1979.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has not answered the question about whether such an assurance has been given. [Interruption.] He has not answered it. When he gets to his feet again, let him say, yes or no, whether such an assurance was given. [Interruption.] Have Conservative Members any idea of the anger that people feel at the way in which decisions are taken when such closures are happening all round the country? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), along with other hon. Members, must come to order. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) must also come to order.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: What about the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have just called the hon. Member for Thurrock to order.
    Mr. Blair: I think that most people know that the way to save the health service is not to have Back-Bench Tory Members of Parliament pressuring a weak Government, but the election of a Government committed to the NHS.
    I repeat: will the Prime Minister answer that question? Is he aware of the contempt that people feel for a Government whose policies now seem to be determined solely by the imprint of the last person who sat on him? Will not they conclude that this is a Government with no thought for the national interest and no purpose but survival?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's cheap insults do not provide arguments or enlightenment. I answered the question earlier. The problem for the right hon. Gentleman is that he did not get the answer that he wanted.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced as long ago as last December that he was discussing the nature of the casualty service. He has not given an assurance to retain the accident and emergency department at Edgware and the right hon. Gentleman knows that.

    419
    The Government's spending on the national health service is at a record level—£116 million every day, £5 million every hour, £81,000 every minute. That is a commitment of which to be proud, and it will be retained by this Government in this Parliament—and in the next.
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30953]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: In view of the disturbing and increasing number of child abuse cases, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do all within his power to get to the root of the problem, thereby to prevent such tragedies from happening in future?
    The Prime Minister: I can give that assurance. I am personally horrified by some of the events that have been reported. Children in residential care are self-evidently among the most vulnerable members of our society. We discussed the matter this morning at some length. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health have been considering what action to take, and we agreed their proposals this morning in Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is finalising arrangements for an inquiry to address what happened in north Wales, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is to invite Sir William Utting to assess whether the safeguards now in place, which have been much tightened in recent years, are adequate to protect children and are being properly enforced. My right hon. Friends will set out their detailed proposals, the terms of reference, the name of the judge and other matters in a full statement to the House early next week. I feel that the House would wish to know the direction in which the Government propose to take this matter.
    Mr. Ashdown: That answer, at least, will be very welcome.
    In what way is what the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) tried to do any different from what the Euro-rebels have been allowed to do—get the Prime Minister in an armlock and get their way? Surely they should not be criticised for trying that, but the Prime Minister should be for encouraging it. Is not it perfectly clear that we have a Government whose party has been suborned by a foreign millionaire, whose decisions are daily subjected to blackmail by any passing Back Bencher, whose Prime Minister is now cooking up a fudge to cover a surrender for a European policy that has failed, and that it is an Administration that has no further purpose except to ensure, by whatever means and at whatever cost, their own limping and miserable survival?
    The Prime Minister: It would be a lengthy business to refute all the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman just uttered. I shall use just one illustration. If the Referendum Bill was designed solely as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, why did one of his hon. Friends vote for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two!"] Two. That is a dangerous split in a party of that size.
    420
    The tactic, by anyone, of threatening to withhold support generally in response to a specific demand will not work. It is not acceptable. It has not worked, and it will not work now or at any stage in future. No Minister would respond to such an approach.
    Sir John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to support what he said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition? Will he confirm that the agreement that the Secretary of State for Health made between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was not the retention of an accident and emergency department in its fullest extent, but an alternative that the Secretary of State has been discussing with us for the past six months with regard to a casualty unit, which instead of having nurses would have qualified doctors 24 hours a day, and that when patients were in a stable condition they might have to be moved?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Hon. Members: More.
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said is that the matter has been discussed with him—and, I have to say, with a large number of other groups. It has been under consideration for many months, as my right hon. Friend has made clear on a number of occasions. The demands that it is said were made were not met by the Government and would not be met by them, either in this instance or in any instance in the future. I hope that that is entirely clear to the leader of the Labour party and everyone else.
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30954]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacShane: Does the Prime Minister recall that, on Tuesday, he saw no problem with the financing of the anti-European campaign of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) by Sir James Goldsmith, but yesterday—Wednesday—he and the Chief Whip ordered the hon. Member for Stafford to confess the error of his ways and stop taking the money? What caused the Prime Minister to change his mind?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should see exactly what was said. It was clearly unacceptable for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to accept funds from the principal figure behind a list of candidates likely to stand against the Conservative party in the general election. My hon. Friend has made it clear that he will not receive any funding from that source, and I congratulate him on his decision.
    Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, last month, the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body met in the village of Adair in County Limerick, and that I was accompanied throughout the visit by a Garda officer,

    421
    Gerry McCabe? Is he aware that, last week, in that same beautiful village, that outstanding officer was gunned down by an IRA gang? Will he join me in sending our deepest sympathy to the widow and family of Gerry McCabe, and to Commissioner Culligan and all his colleagues in the Garda Siochana?
    Does this not underline the fact that violence is an evil that threatens everyone throughout the island of Ireland and throughout these islands? Should not we reaffirm our support for all who are now bravely seeking to resolve difficult issues by democratic and peaceful means?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will wish to echo my right hon. Friend's words about Mr. McCabe and his brutal murder. That murder, and the murder of another Garda officer—which, I understand, Sinn Fein has yet again refused to condemn—only demonstrates even more clearly precisely why Sinn Fein cannot join in the talks that are currently taking place until such time as there is a clear-cut and unequivocal ceasefire, and we can be confident that it is going to be maintained. That is the British Government's position and the Irish Government's position, and it will not change.

Competitiveness White Paper
3.32 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's third competitiveness White Paper.
The Government's objective is simply put. It is to make this country the enterprise centre of Europe, which will lead to improved living standards and a better quality of life for all. The White Paper reports on progress towards that objective, and on further actions in hand and in prospect.
As the 1996 survey of the United Kingdom by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently reaffirmed, progress has been highly impressive. Over the last economic cycle, gross domestic product in the UK grew faster than in any other G7 country except Japan. The International Monetary Fund expects the United Kingdom to grow faster than the G7 average in both 1996 and 1997.
Since 1979, UK business investment has risen by over a third and has accounted for a higher proportion of GDP than in France, Germany, Italy and the United States.
As we heard this morning, inflation has now been below 4 per cent. for 44 consecutive months—the best performance for almost 50 years. That has allowed the Chancellor to cut interest rates four times since December, without jeopardising the Government's inflation target.
As we heard again yesterday, unemployment continues to fall. It is more than 800,000 lower than in December 1992. The unemployment rate is lower than in all other major European Union countries. We have combined that continuing fall in unemployment with a significant closing of the productivity gap, the best industrial relations performance for a century and one of Europe's highest levels of employment, while our refusal to embrace the social chapter means that our indirect wage costs remain competitive—indeed, the lowest among the G7 countries.
Exports, too, are growing strongly. They are up by 9 per cent. by volume in 1995.
The most visible demonstration of our success in making the British economy the most enterprising in Europe is that we have the highest level of inward investment as a proportion of GDP of any developed country. We attract more than a third of all inward investment into Europe, and that is the biggest vote of confidence that we could have. Those huge investment decisions are freely taken by world-class companies from the United States, Japan and Korea—but also from countries within the European Union, led by Germany and France. Siemens, Samsung, QVC, Ford and many others have invested billions of pounds over the past 12 months alone.
White Papers are a focus for our determination to improve performance year by year, in all the key areas that contribute to our competitiveness. They provide objective analysis and, where necessary, set out the action needed to bring this country's performance up to the standards of the best.
I draw the House's attention particularly to three matters. Last year, the Government promised to audit skill levels in the United Kingdom against international standards and to publish the results. The full skills audit report is published today and covers France, Germany,
424
Singapore, the United States and the UK. It shows that the UK is strong in the areas of higher education, lifetime learning and young people's information technology skills.
Mr. Stuart Bell: In relation to whom?
The Deputy Prime Minister: In relation to all the countries compared, self-evidently.
The audit report shows that more of our work force have higher-level qualifications than any of the audit comparator countries except the United States. It also shows that we are doing better than in the past, but that we need to continue to improve our performance, particularly in basic literacy, numeracy and key skills.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced far-reaching proposals to reform teacher training and to promote self-improvement in schools. She announced that the Government would publish a White Paper on schools, focusing on extending self-government, choice and diversity, and that we would legislate in the autumn to bolster schools' authority to deal with discipline problems.
The competitiveness White Paper sets out the action being taken to continue the transformation of this country's education and training system, building on the extensive programme of improvements on which the Government embarked in the mid-1980s.
The Government are also committed to build on our regional diversity. Over the next few weeks, each Government office in the English regions outside London will publish a document, on behalf of local partners, describing the contribution that their region makes to the UK's competitiveness and setting out actions to improve that contribution.
Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is today publishing a competitiveness report on Wales.
The Government have concentrated particularly on the creation and growth of small businesses. Today there are over 1 million more businesses in Britain than there were in 1979. Those firms are at the heart of our national competitiveness. We have created the most comprehensive support system we have ever had for such companies.
Ninety-three per cent. of small and medium-sized firms in England are within easy reach of a local business link outlet. There are now nearly 230 such outlets. Nearly 700 specialist advisers are in place and 90 per cent. of the personal business advisers have managed a small business. At the last count, more than 617,000 businesses were registered on business link databases and around 6,000 businesses a week have been using business link. The Government will continue to give the highest priority to developing the business link network, so that it can realise its massive potential for helping our smaller firms.
Over the past year, the Government have undertaken a series of formal consultations with the people running smaller businesses in this country. We have listened carefully to what they have told us. The deregulation initiative has swept away a whole raft of outdated, unnecessary and over-burdensome rules. We are reviewing the working of the system of uniform business

425
rates and the rates burden on small firms. We are also looking at the possibility of raising the threshold of the statutory audit requirement, and we shall consult on industrial tribunal claims and procedures. Tax administration is being simplified. We have consulted particularly assiduously on the proposal for a statutory right to interest on late payments.
Eight of the nine small firms' organisations support the Government's view that legislation in that area would not be appropriate. We intend, however, shortly to publish a consultation document on whether public limited companies and large subsidiaries should be required to publish their payment performance, and tough new targets for Government Departments have been published today.
A further strong message was that the Government's support for business was over-complicated, with too many schemes with confusing objectives run by too many Departments. We are therefore launching a major consultative exercise todayon how best to target and simplify our support in order to meet business needs, building on the success of training and enterprise councils and business links.
We propose that Government support for small and medium-sized enterprises will be brought together into a £200 million local competitiveness budget, up to 25 per cent. of which will be made available on a challenge basis. We propose also that sectoral support across Government be combined as a new sector challenge budget, building up to £40 million a year. Trade associations and other sector bodies will be asked to design programmes to improve the competitiveness of their industry.
This White Paper bears testimony to the vigour of our economy and provides a clear basis for further improvement of the skills infrastructure, managerial ability and entrepreneurial drive that are enabling this country to win. It sets out clearly why and how this country, incontestably, is becoming the enterprise centre of Europe. I commend it to the House.
Mr. John Prescott: I welcome the latest White Paper on competitiveness—the third in a row—especially if it does anything to improve the prosperity of our country and its people. It is certainly bigger than before and fatter than before; it has more pictures than before and there is more than a whiff of the forthcoming general election about it. Of course, hon. Members will require some time to digest the detail. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when the House will have an opportunity to debate it, as I assume it will?
This is the third such White Paper. The title of the first in 1994 was "Helping Business to Win". The second was called "Forging Ahead". They are positive titles, but what have they achieved?
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The best economy in Europe.
Mr. Prescott: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the White Papers, but we cannot rely entirely on what they say.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that it is hard to judge what has been achieved, when it is so difficult to trust the Government's own statistics? We are told
426
that unemployment is falling—something that the House would welcome—but can he confirm that the official unemployment figures measure not the full extent of unemployment, but only the number of people seeking work and receiving benefit? Will he confirm that recorded unemployment has risen by more than 1 million since 1979 on the present fiddled figures, our work force having fallen by more than 1 million since 1990?
Is it not true that the Government have tried to condition us by accepting some of those shortcomings? The Deputy Prime Minister told the Japanese chamber of commerce on Tuesday:
"There is plenty of good news, but in some areas we are still behind".
That is quite an understatement. The House has a better idea of what he means.
Has not the Deputy Prime Minister published his third White Paper in the 18th year of a Tory Government, during which the United Kingdom has slipped from 13th to 18th in the prosperity league? The House will have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman relies a great deal on the OECD country survey of the United Kingdom, but what really matters are the comparisons with our major competitors. International comparisons show that we are down in education, competitiveness, skills and qualifications.
Every time the Deputy Prime Minister publishes a White Paper, the United Kingdom seems to slip further down the international league tables. Is he aware that we fell from 15th to 19th in the International Institute for Management world competitiveness league? Even the World Economic Forum's global league table—which is more favourable to the Government and which they quote—puts us in 15th place. In respect of gross domestic investment, we are 48th out of 49 countries. For the supply of skilled labour, we are 34th out of 48 and in education standards, we come 35th.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman hopes—and it is the aim of his policy—that Britain will become the enterprise centre of Europe, but on that analysis, we are light years away from ever achieving it.
We welcome the skills audit—an idea that I proposed several years ago. Clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister has been reading my documentation. We also welcome his intention to utilise the private finance initiative, as I advocated in the House well before the Government, although they still have not managed to implement it properly. I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but why do they keep making a mess of good Labour ideas?
The skills audit report published today confirms that the United Kingdom has fewer entrants and a smaller proportion of the total population qualified to level 2 and above than France and Germany. The figures for new entrants are 58 per cent. for the United Kingdom, 65 per cent. for France and 70 per cent. for Germany. Those are international comparisons—the figures that really matter.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that a recent internal Treasury paper admitted that things were going from bad to worse and forecast that, on present trends, within five years we shall be out of the premier league altogether and vying with Thailand for our place? There are lies, damned lies and Heseltine statistics.

427
The thrust of the White Paper relates to the skills audit, and we welcome that. It also demonstrates the Government's conversion to the idea that regions can play a major part in developing economic prosperity—another idea that Labour set out in considerable detail.
Although the Deputy Prime Minister promises small businesses a great deal, more than 200,000 were made bankrupt last year. Does he accept that many small businesses will be listening once again to his recommendations of more deregulation, help with tribunals, a review of value added tax and so on—which he has promised year after year after year? What he has said today is not a conclusion, as there is to be a further review. Small businesses play an important part in the development of the British economy. They will get no comfort from what he has said today, which will riot help them to contribute to making the United Kingdom the enterprise centre of Europe—the target of the White Paper.
The White Paper is the work of a Government trying to make a virtue out of managing decline and manipulating propaganda. We need investment in manufacturing, skills and education and proper support for industry. This is the third and last White Paper from the present Government. What the country really needs is not the last in a series of White Papers, but a change of Government.
The Deputy Prime Minister: May I say how much I appreciate the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the White Paper? He was fulsome in his welcome. It is an interesting contrast with what his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said three years ago when we introduced the concept. He dismissed the whole thing as a coffee-table document.
It is, of course, no small measure of the degree of cultural conversion achieved by the competitiveness agenda that there has been an internecine war in the shadow Cabinet for the privilege to respond to this White Paper. The shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the shadow Chancellor and the deputy leader of the Labour party have all been hoping to have the chance to take this issue on as theirs. At least I have achieved something: I have got the members of the shadow Cabinet talking to each other—even if it is at the top of their voices in a bar-room brawl.
I should like to help the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I was intrigued by some of the statistics that he quoted. He was talking, for example, about the skills audit, which is arguably one of the most important things that we have done. We have said to ourselves as the Government that we shall analyse on a peer-group basis British education, which everyone knows has been a source of concern since the end of the 19th century, with a determination to drive up our standards to the best. That is what we have set out to do.
Every change that we have introduced in the education system since 1986 to drive up standards has been resisted by the Labour party—every single one. If Labour Members have the first idea how to drive up standards in our schools, and as they now control most of those schools, why do they not do it? Before anyone talks about undermining
428
confidence, they should consider that the person who has done more to undermine confidence in the local education system is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who moved his child out of Islington because he thought that standards were quite inadequate. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) moved her child from Southwark to Bromley because she knew that, under the Labour party, schools would never be properly run—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that it is the season of the mad cow, but could the Deputy Prime Minister please explain what children's schooling has to do with efficiency, bureaucracy and time-saving? I thought that we were here to debate serious matters, not to have a knockabout, silly-billy session.
Madam Speaker: Although I doubt that that is a point of order, I think that we should keep our discussion within the context of the White Paper. I have already made a statement this month about how Ministers might handle questions and deal with such matters.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The deputy Leader of the Opposition referred extensively to the White Paper on the skills audit, which is published today. I am making a statement about that White Paper's central, new initiative. The idea that the competitiveness of our education and training is not the most vital ingredient after the macro-economic condition displays a degree of naivety that would terrify any observer of the scene.
I shall deal with what I regard as the most deplorable part of the Labour party's tactics in response to the White Paper. It has today put out a statement, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that we have slipped from 13th to 18th in the prosperity league table while the Government have been in office. It has done that with the backing of the OECD and the Library of the House of Commons. In order to make the position worse, Labour has included Hong Kong and Singapore in the statistics, which of course are not members of the OECD. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did last year."] They are not members. In order to make the position look as bad as possible, Opposition Members choose an arbitrary position so as to put those two countries into the chart, in which, as they are not members of OECD, they are not entitled to appear. The Opposition have decided to fiddle the figures.
Indeed, the Opposition have done worse than that. I have a certain sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, because his difficulty is that the latest figures from the OECD do not include 1979. The document that I have here contains the latest figures. So the Opposition have had to rely on another document. The difficulty for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is that that other document was revised by the OECD.
Far from being 13th in 1979, we were 15th, so according to the OECD's analysis, our relative position has moved from 15th to 16th.
Mr. Prescott: Forging ahead.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Let me help the right hon. Gentleman, who patently has not read the OECD report.

429
Why was the economy deteriorating in the 1979 period? What do we read in the OECD report about that time? First, we read that
"by the end of 1978 British external competitiveness was at its worst level since 1966".
That was another Labour record, the record that we inherited, and we have had to address the issues. The difference today is that whereas we inherited a persistent decline in Britain's rating, we are now seeing an improvement in that rating. We went down from 15th to 19th and now we have recovered to 16th. That is the fundamental difference. Under the structural changes that we have brought about, this country is now improving its relative performance.
The OECD report dated 1996 says:
"UK economic performance remained good in 1995 following the previous year's strong results.
In the longer term, the economic outlook is good".
Mr. Prescott: A Treasury forecast.
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is the OECD paper, referring to the prospects for the British economy. It continues:
"International cost competitiveness remains sound."
After the structural changes of the past 17 years, we have now reached the position in which all independent analysis outside this country agrees that we are attracting 40 per cent. of all the inward investment coming into the European Union.
That is not the judgment of the Labour party or of the trade unions, but the judgment of the men and women who have to invest their money in the best economic circumstances to earn profits and to make a return. According to their judgment, we are the best country to choose. That is why we believe that we are the enterprise centre of Europe.
Mr. John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend write to all the poor-performing education authorities in the country drawing attention to the problems of numeracy and literacy? Will he ask them to introduce more whole-class teaching, better methods of teaching reading and writing, and more learning of tables and other traditional methods that work elsewhere, yet are being denied to the children in those authorities' schools? As new Labour is finding it so difficult to get its message across to its own supporters, perhaps my right hon. Friend will invite the Leader of the Opposition to co-sign the letter.
The Deputy Prime Minister: We know what the Leader of the Opposition would do: he would opt out of the process. That is exactly what he does. I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend, and if the Labour party knew what to do, it could do it now. The Labour party controls most of the schools in this country. But the fact of the matter is that Labour has neither the will nor the ideas to take on the unions in those educational establishments and to take the necessary action to drive up standards. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is so much to be admired. With her predecessors, she has reversed the decline in our education standards to a point at which we can look forward to closing those gaps.
Mr. Nick Harvey: The Deputy Prime Minister presented an upbeat picture this afternoon, but
430
what would he say to the 250,000 people who lost their jobs in the first quarter of this year, the highest number since the winter of 1992–93? Will they enjoy the better quality of life for all that he has talked about? Was he not nearer the mark when trailing the White Paper in yesterday's Financial Times? He said:
"We must now further raise the quality of our education system, training, innovation and a host of other factors if the UK's performance is to match the rest of the world."
After 17 years of Tory government and a raft of education measures, is not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledging that the triumph that he has proclaimed this afternoon is a long way from reality?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I would say that unemployment has fallen by 800,000 in the past three and a half years and that we have the highest proportion of our population at work. If one wants to prejudice that, the surest way to do so is to impose social costs or to raise income taxes, which both Opposition parties stand for.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the extraordinary increase in the number of prosperous small businesses in this country. Will he spare a thought for very small village pubs, which are an essential part of the framework of our society? Will he consider including among the imaginative ideas that the Government have canvassed, for rate relief for post offices, a similar measure for small village pubs?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that we take extremely seriously the representations that have been made to us, and we are considering them. We have taken steps regarding small businesses in rural areas, and they will be considered carefully.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his statement is an insult to the people out there in Britain, including the 4 million who do not have a job? That is the total—never mind his fiddled figures. The public sector borrowing requirement has increased by £10 billion, by the Government's own calculations, in the past 12 months. The Government are privatising British Rail and handing over £850 million a year to subsidise it, and they are stuffing nuclear power with another £1 billion a year. He talks about competitiveness, but he closed the last 31 pits, all of them in north Derbyshire. A survey in my constituency found that unemployment stands at more than 60 per cent. in three of those pit villages. That is the reality of 17 years of Tory government, and it is high time somebody else blackmailed them. We could then get rid of them and make a fresh start.
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is precisely because the hon. Gentleman and so many of his hon. Friends talked such nonsense in the post-war world that the coal industry was destroyed. They sold the miners down the river. If the miners had achieved the productivity under Labour that they are achieving today, there would he more profitable pits exporting coal, and everyone knows that.
Before the hon. Gentleman gives his customary diatribe, he might bear it in mind that he was content to support a Labour Government in 1979, when only a quarter stayed on at school—the figure is now up by 60 per cent.—and when only one in eight went into higher

431
education. The figure is now one in three. He talks loudly about helping people, but his views, philosophy and negative attitude are wholly destructive of their interests and of those of this country.
Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend take encouragement from the figures that he announced this afternoon, showing that 1 million new firms have been created during the past 17 years? That is in no small measure due to the enormous number of changes that we have made in legislation, to encourage small and medium-sized firms. Will he continue that work? Will he also ensure that large public companies state how many days they take to pay their bills, so that people can look in their accounts and see what they are doing? Will he examine the statutory audit? I know that he mentioned that earlier, but it is important that the exemption limit is raised, because if it is not, we shall still be at a disadvantage compared with most of our main competitors.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who has done so much to argue the cause of deregulation and lightening the load on small businesses. It is right that one of the most successful aspects of the rejuvenation of our economy is the fact that there are now more than 1 million more small businesses and that their number is rising as we lead Europe out of recession.
To start a small business, money must be retained in the hands of society at large. It is interesting to compare the tax situation in the OECD report of 1979 with that in the recent one. The 1979 report states:
"Amendments to the Finance Bill in Parliament"—
led by the Opposition, who were then the Conservatives—
"led to a reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 34 to 33 per cent."
That is an example of how then we were trying to force the Labour Government to reduce the basic rate of tax from 34p to 33p. Today, we are looking at a chance to move the basic rate from 24p to 20p. That is a fundamental ingredient of a situation in which small businesses are worth starting, and in which, when they start, they can keep enough money to expand.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman has a justifiably high reputation as a successful business man. What would he say to a manager running one of his businesses who started with a struggling company placed 15th in the sales league and whose 17-year performance took it down to 19th and then back up to 16th, one place below where he started? Would he not have sacked that manager long ago and does not that fate—with justification, for having just such a record—await the Government?
The Deputy Prime Minister: But if the alternative managers had been responsible for creating the conditions that nearly destroyed this country's economy and if every time they had been elected, they had devalued the currency in a crisis, forced up taxes and inflation and put the unions in power, one would not spend 30 seconds making a choice about leaving the Government in power.
432
The hon. Gentleman should join us, because he knows as well as I do that there is only one party with any understanding of the challenges and opportunities of running a capitalist society. We are that party and the Opposition had better remain glued to their Benches.
Mr. John Butcher: Taking the company analogy further, does my right hon. Friend agree that a company that seeks to remain competitive in world terms has to be honest in the appraisal of its weaknesses and must always have its door open to new ideas, which is precisely what the White Paper does? I congratulate him on his approach in it. Does he agree that we can learn two things from Germany? It is folly to load on-costs on to the costs of employing people—to the extent that, in April, Germany laid off 180,000 workers. We can learn also from Germany's great advantage in what management trainers call the mastery of detail in their middle managers. The management of detail through their meister and techniker classes is something that we could perhaps mirror and improve on. I urge him to put his full weight behind the national vocational qualification programme and modern apprenticeships, because it is in that middle area that we have some catching up to do.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend and I appreciate his view, which I think is the mature political view, that starting the process of catching up in areas where the comparisons are not satisfactory requires frank analysis. That is what we have done. We have great strengths, but there are some areas that need improvement.
The easiest way to destroy our competitiveness is to increase the on-costs of employing people. That is one of the issues that divides the two sides of the House starkly and absolutely. We will not accept the social chapter. The truth is that we shall be proved right, as we have been on so many other occasions, because the Europeans know that they are going to have to make adjustments to the structure of their social funding to lighten the load. They know perfectly well that German, French and Dutch firms are moving to Britain because of the relative costs. To undo the advantage, as the Labour party would do, would severely prejudice the British national self-interest.
Mr. Prescott: So why is all the capital flowing out?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Because we live in an open society. Here we have a fascinating example of the narrow-minded view of the Labour party. Labour Members cannot understand that if we invest overseas, earnings are repatriated to this country. The obsession of the Labour party is not with the British economy, but with the 20 per cent. of the economy that the manufacturing economy represents, where Labour's trade union paymasters are the strongest.
Let us take the most obvious example. We have a trade deficit with Japan, but we have a balance of payments surplus with it because repatriation of earnings through tourism and other invisible earnings more than make up for the trade deficit. The Labour party has to come to terms with the fact that this is a global world. The Labour party talks about protectionism and stopping the ex-flow of capital. Is the Labour party going to do that?
Mr. Richard Caborn: No.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am now weary of comments from a sedentary position from the Opposition Front

433
Bench. [Interruption.] Order. A number of Members are impatient to put their questions and I am impatient to call them. At this rate, they will not all be called.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I simply make the observation that there is an in-built hostility to British investment overseas. Labour Members do not understand the nature of the global world in which we operate.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will answer me three straight questions without a tirade. First, why is it that, with the reduction in safety measures that has resulted from the removal of red tape and bureaucracy, there are more accidents? Why is it that, with the removal of many safeguards, abattoirs have not been able to cope with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, simply because we no longer have the right regulations for rendering plants and abattoirs? Thirdly—here I declare a professional interest on behalf of many professional men—why are the Government the slowest payer of any body with which we deal?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, find it easy to make such allegations. If he can show me scientific advice to the Government in respect of BSE that the Government have not meticulously followed, I should like to see it. If he can show me safety measures that the Health and Safety Executive—a tripartite body representing the trade unions as well as the employers—has urged the Government to introduce and which we are not introducing, I should be interested to see them. The fact is that he cannot. All that he can do is indulge in the worst sort of scare tactics and unsubstantiated allegations, without any regard to the damage that they do to the national interest, presumably in order to make some cheap publicity and in the hope that the harm that it does is forgotten the day after. It is a deplorable abuse of the House that an hon. Member is prepared to make allegations of that sort about safety without backing them up.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that we had the greatest growth in the economic cycle of any country in Europe, but does he agree that the important fact is not only that, but that our growth has been greater than inflation for the first time in many decades, so we are making real strides in improving our economy?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. There are numerous examples of the strength of the British economy. It is today looking forward to one of the most exciting prolonged periods of expansion that any of us can remember.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Many of us came here to have a serious discussion on the White Paper that the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced. We have had three White Papers on competitiveness, because our economy is in a very serious situation. There is no doubt that some of the White Papers have tried to remedy the situation. But the fact is that we have the White Papers—they are a symptom of something deeply wrong with our economy and with the management of it for the past 17 years.
434
Does not the Deputy Prime Minister have to accept the fact that, if one wants to destroy an economy, one fails to invest and one fails to educate and train the population to a sufficiently high level? That is the accusation against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman reduced the tone of the debate this afternoon when he referred to the education of the children of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). [Interruption.] Yes, he did—and the tone of the debate dropped. The Deputy Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have never supported public education. We have failed to educate and to train the ordinary children of this country sufficiently well.
The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not of political significance when the Leader of the Opposition takes his child out of a Labour borough's education system and if he thinks that that is not a reflection of the quality of education in Labour authorities, I do not know what is. [Interruption.] Of course he is entitled to do so—and I suppose that it is his responsibility, as a member of the Opposition, to put forward the most gloomy view. I have to ask myself a different question. The OECD, in surveying the British economy, said:
"UK economic performance remained good in 1995 following the previous year's strong results.
In the longer term, the economic outlook is good".
Do I believe the OECD or the Labour party? That is not a difficult question for me to answer.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will realise that competitiveness and enterprise are most particularly driven in detail at local level. He said a good deal about education now being stultified by local education authorities that are controlled by the Opposition parties. Does he agree that, at the local level, the Opposition parties that are in control of councils produce far too much bureaucracy and far too many petty officials, and constantly come forward with silly ideas for regional authorities, such as a reborn GLC?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. I have another criticism: in too many Labour authorities, there is no real awareness of the need to drive up standards. They are preoccupied with spending money—they are on the side of the producer, not the consumer. The essence of the Government's competitive thrust is to be preoccupied with what the market will require and with what the customer expects on an international and national basis. That is the only way to succeed.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I accept what the Deputy Prime Minister said about the importance of business links. He indicated that 7 per cent. of small and medium-sized enterprises are not in easy contact with a business link. East Lancashire still does not have a business link. Whose fault is that? Is it the Government's fault? Is it the East Lancashire training and enterprise council's fault? Will he give a kick, where necessary, to ensure that we have a business link as soon as possible?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a serious question, and I shall deal with it seriously. Quite frankly, the disputes locally have not been resolved, and I regret

435
that—it is of ill service to the local industrial and commercial communities. I believe that the arguments are not valid. They are born of rivalries—perhaps they are historic or personal. It is apparent that we have put a business link chain more or less throughout England, to the immense benefit of small businesses: 6,000 of them use it every week. It is regrettable that there is not a business link in east Lancashire because they have not been able to get their act together.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on reaffirming the vital importance of education and the basics to industrial competitiveness. Is it not a fact that the announcement by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment yesterday, about the reform of teacher training colleges and a close examination of what happens in those colleges, is of vital importance to the policy that he has put forward this afternoon? Will he confirm that that will be a root-and-branch look at those colleges, to drive forward the policy that he has so ably put forward this afternoon?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has deep personal experience of the education world, and I appreciate that. The Prime Minister made it clear—I repeat it on his behalf—that nothing is more important than to drive up this country's education standards. It is of fundamental importance to our competitiveness agenda. That will happen only if we apply a range of policies throughout the education world. In 1986, the ground of opportunity was laid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). From that moment on, in the teeth of resistance, we have introduced the necessary reforms. The benefits are now beginning to flow, but we have not yet closed all the gaps, particularly at the lower level of some skill requirements. We must do so and we shall put our whole endeavours into achieving it.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that yesterday's investment of £113 million by Emersons and Caterpillar in F. G. Wilson in Larne in my constituency, which will create nearly 2,000 jobs in Larne, Monkstown and west Belfast, is a vote of confidence in the UK economy and in the education and training provided in Northern Ireland? In today's statement, he referred to this country and to England and Wales. Will he assure me that the policies being pursued will be brought to the attention of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, so that all of us in the UK can benefit?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reaffirm that. The competitiveness agenda is, in the main, dealt with in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The other day, I had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland. It was one of my most exciting visits, and that is sincerely meant. I saw some of the most exciting companies that I have come across. Recently, I took 270 companies on my visit to China. Some of the most forceful were from Northern Ireland. They enjoyed their visit as much as we enjoyed having them.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The UK economy is prospering and the White Paper's measures
436
will further assist in advancing our economy's interests, but does my right hon. Friend agree that manufacturing is a vital sector of our economy? We need to encourage more investment, albeit that investment has increased recently, but from a fairly low level. Has he any plans to seek to improve the investment level? There is undoubtedly a problem in respect of capital spending reductions in higher education, and the private finance initiative has not yet taken off. Will he consider that matter, to find out whether he can, through his Department, assist in ensuring that capital expenditure reductions in higher education do not prejudice the tremendous success of higher education, which is vital to our economy?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the tremendous success and tremendous expansion of higher education. We consider carefully—we shall do so again in the forthcoming public expenditure round—the requirements of the higher education sector, indeed, the whole education sector. The extent to which the private finance initiative is beginning to become adopted in that sector, which has great benefits, and the degree of partnership that is being established between academia and the British industrial and commercial base, are encouraging. Manufacturing industry is, of course, a critical part of our economy. One cannot preserve sectors simply because they are historically excellent, but investment is flowing into some of the more advanced technologies in manufacturing today, which is extremely exciting.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has in place about as effective a means of support and sponsorship of the sectors for which he is responsible as there has ever been. One of the things that we have introduced in this year's competitiveness White Paper is a list of sponsorship responsibilities for each sector of industry, Department by Department, to focus attention clearly on where companies can turn for the support that the Government now give. We do not subsidise them or have cosy relationships with them, but we work together to try to increase their opportunities.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Deputy Prime Minister address himself to section 6 of the White Paper, relating to competition in transport? Why does it mention all modes of transport except aviation and airports? There is a clear lack of competition in that field, as the British Airports Authority has a monopoly vested in the three principal London airports and British Airways recently announced its intention to join American Airlines—a move that is being challenged by a number of people in the market who believe that it represents unfair competition. Therefore, is there not a case for making a statement or producing a supplement to the White Paper, in order to address—via legislation in this place and references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—the question of the monopoly in London's airports and the threat to competition posed by British Airways' tie-up with American Airlines?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Nobody would support the hon. Gentleman more than me, in paying tribute to the remarkable achievements of the civil aerospace and aviation industry in this country. It has been a great triumph since it was privatised. [Interruption.] There is

437
no comparison between the scale of the British aviation industry or the British Airports Authority, their national and international roles and effectiveness as major players now, and their positions before privatisation. I know that, because I was the Minister who sponsored them in the mid-1970s.
The hon. Gentleman raised some competition policy issues. There are several controversial matters on the tapis at the moment, so he will understand if I am not drawn into discussing them. He knows that there are regulatory authorities, and it is not for me to double-guess them.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the Davos World Economic Forum global competitiveness league, to which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred rather selectively. Does it not show that Britain has been promoted from 18th to 15th place, while Germany and France have been relegated to 22nd and 23rd places? That means that Britain is No. 3 in Europe, and demonstrates that we are becoming the enterprise centre of Europe.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We look very carefully at the World Economic Forum reports. Their analysis is often conducted on the basis of surveys of industrialists—which is a very interesting means of analysis. We think that the forum tends to be rather more selective in its sampling and more subjective in its judgments than the analysis that we have tried to introduce into our White Paper. If I had sought to put a gloss upon the improvement in Britain's competitiveness, I could have easily switched the basis of calculation and chosen the most favourable existing surveys—I assure the House that there are more favourable surveys than the ones that we have produced. As to the integrity of the competitiveness agenda, the vital factor is that we do not change the basis of comparisons year by year.

Business of the House
4.27 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 17 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Family Law Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 18 JUNE—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the fight against fraud in the benefit system. Followed by a debate on the privatisation of the nuclear industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 19 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on sentencing policy on a Government motion.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
THURSDAY 20 JUNE—Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 21 JUNE—Debate on the strategy against drugs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Defamation Bill [Lords]. The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE—In the morning, until 12.30 pm, there will be a debate on the second report from the Employment Committee on the right to work/workfare followed by a debate on the sixth report from the Treasury Committee on the private finance initiative. Those debates on Select Committee reports will be followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, the 17th Opposition Day, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which is to be announced.
THURSDAY 27 JUNE—Until 7 o'clock, motions on the structural and boundary change orders; that is, local government reorganisation. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 28 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 June, there will be a debate on the administration and control of CAP compensatory aid in European Standing Committee A, and that on Wednesday 26 June there will be a debate on small and medium enterprises in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 19 June:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 7181/96 relating to CAP compensatory aid: administration and control. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 51-xxii (1995–96) and HC 51-xx (1995–96).
Wednesday 26 June:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 6141/96 relating to small and medium sized enterprises; (b) 6929/96 relating to loans to small and medium sized enterprises. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 51-xix (1995–96) and (b) HC 51-xxii (1995–96).
Thursday 20 June:
Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The following documents are relevant:
The White Paper on Developments in the European Union July to December 1995 (Cm 3250); First Annual Report on Progress in Implementing the Action Plan for the Introduction of Advanced Television Services in Europe 8567/95; The Commission's Recommendation for the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community (11/207/96-EN REV 1); The Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 12 June (House of Commons Paper No. 306 ii).
Thursday 27 June:
Motions on the structural and boundary change orders. The relevant orders are as follows:
The Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; the Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Cheshire (Boroughs of Halton and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; the Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; the Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996; the Shropshire (District of the Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996.]
Finally, I am glad to say that I am now in a position—the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will say "at last"—to answer a question that the hon. Lady has asked me on a number of occasions by telling her that the summer economic debate, as it is known—the debate on the economy—will take place on Wednesday 17 July.
I am also in a position to tell the hon. Lady something that I do not think that she has yet asked about, but no doubt soon would, which is the date of the Budget. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget statement on Tuesday 26 November.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. As he has said, on several occasions recently I have asked him about various matters, including the date of the summer economic debate, and I am grateful that he has been able to give us some notice of when that debate will take place. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the summer economic forecast will be available on 9 July, which I understand is the provisional date for publication?
440
The right hon. Gentleman has been sympathetic recently to a request that I made for a debate on the situation in Hong Kong. He said from the Dispatch Box that he saw good reason for having another debate in the near future and I wonder if he can now tell us whether it is likely that that debate will take place before the summer recess.
The right hon. Gentleman has also expressed sympathy throughout the parliamentary year to my request for a debate on further reform of parliamentary procedures. In view of his general sympathy to discussing such matters, is there any realistic chance of such a debate before the summer recess?
The right hon. Gentleman has not announced a date for the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. He will be aware that my hon. Friends from Wales have made repeated requests for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee so that they can have a full-scale debate on the BSE crisis and its impact in Wales. Does he accept that the need for such a debate in that setting is now extremely urgent and will he take steps to try to ensure that that can happen as soon as possible?
On an entirely different issue, the right hon. Gentleman may have read about the distressing experience of passengers booked on a flight from Orlando to Manchester at the weekend. As the passengers on that flight, including a family from my constituency, had genuine reason to be concerned, and as they believe that their consumer rights were inadequate and that they were given less than helpful advice by the British consulate in Orlando, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is ministerial co-operation to investigate the incident and that, following such an investigation, Ministers report to the House on any changes that might be necessary to deal with such a situation in the future?
Finally, one date that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention but about which there has been a great deal of speculation, is the date of the summer recess. Can the Leader of the House throw any light on that particular matter, even if it is only to remind the House of the dates of the royal garden parties so that we can make some informed judgment as to how far into July the House is likely to be sitting?
Mr. Newton: May I first express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for her words of thanks about the date of the summer economic debate, and in return respond by saying that it is my understanding that the summer economic forecast is expected to be published on Tuesday 9 July? One reason for having the debate on 17 July is to allow a little time for study after its publication but also to allow time for the Treasury Select Committee to take evidence from Treasury officials and, indeed, the Chancellor before the debate takes place. I hope that what I have announced will be for the general convenience of everybody concerned.
I remain sympathetic to the hon. Lady's request for debates on Hong Kong and procedure, but I am not in a position to translate sympathy into an announcement at the moment. There is quite a lot of pressure of business between now and the summer recess, but I shall do my best.
On the hon. Lady's question about the Welsh Grand Committee and the debate that her hon. Friends wish to have on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, I am aware

441
that there has been discussion and correspondence between my right hon. Friend and her hon. Friend about the overall organisation of this particular meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. It is more appropriate for me to leave the discussion to continue between the usual channels than to intervene on the Floor of the House, but I take note of her remarks.
I admire the ingenious way in which the hon. Lady managed to weave a constituency case into business questions, for perfectly good and understandable reasons that I respect. She will understand that I am not in a position to comment in detail, but I shall certainly ensure that her remarks and request are brought to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends.
Lastly—to be honest I cannot remember the dates of all the royal garden parties—the hon. Lady asked about the date of the summer recess, in which I suspect that there is widespread interest. I have already announced some business for 17 July, and it is only fair that I should tell the House that, although I am not yet in a position to give dates for the recess, I anticipate that the House is likely to sit well into the second half of July.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the time that he has allotted for the Defamation Bill? Does he accept that the clause on the bill of rights—if I may put it that way—is probably the most important parliamentary matter that we will have had to discuss this Parliament and arguably for many years? Does he seriously think that a debate that terminates at 7 o'clock with opposed private business is enough? I know that the debate can resume later, but would it not be better to have an uninterrupted day on that particular subject?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's thoughts. He will have heard it said from a sedentary position—albeit not by me—that it is possible for debate to be interrupted rather than terminated by private business, and there are many examples of such a resumption. Indeed, if I remember rightly, I think that it happened when we last debated the Defamation Bill. I note my hon. Friend's points. Much of the Bill appears to be pretty non-controversial, so there should be quite a significant opportunity for debate on the point about which he is concerned.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I support the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the need for a debate on procedural reform? The official Opposition have come up with some fairly new and interesting ideas, and the Liberal Democrats are in the process of doing the same.
May I say in passing that it is useful that the House has been given details of two weeks' business, because it allows me an opportunity to say that I am slightly concerned that up to nine orders will have to be considered in a three-hour debate on Thursday 27 June. Perhaps other parties were consulted through the usual channels about this, but I am nervous about the number of structural and boundary orders that will have to be considered during that debate.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's support for what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said
442
about a debate on procedures, but I cannot add to what I said to her. As for the business for Thursday 27 June, the hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that my proposal seemed to be for the general convenience of the House in the light of discussion between the usual channels; but, as in a sense he is also a "usual channel", I will take that as a representation, and will at least give it what consideration I can.
Mr. John Sykes: May we have a debate about the future of the Crown Prosecution Service at some stage? I ask because yesterday a 16-year-old thug appeared in Scarborough magistrates court charged with vicious assault on a 40-year-old gentleman. It was all caught on camera, but when the youth pleaded not guilty the CPS dropped the charges immediately, without consulting the police as it is bound to do. Is it not high time that we sent the CPS packing and handed responsibility for prosecutions back to the police, where it belongs?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on such a case off the cuff. As he will understand, I feel that the appropriate course is for me to bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has responsibility for the CPS.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the closure of hospitals and accident and emergency departments? He will know that, along with my constituents, I have been fighting the closure of Northowram hospital. My constituents and I are dismayed that the Edgware accident and emergency department is apparently to be kept open in some form because of blackmailing by two local Members of Parliament.
While he is at it, could the right hon. Gentleman please give us the Government's definitions of an accident and emergency department and a casualty department?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said not so long ago when he made it clear that he did not accept the line of argument to which the hon. Lady has returned.
Clearly, the difference between a full-scale accident and emergency department and a casualty service of the kind that exists at one hospital in my constituency is largely one of scale. The degree to which all kinds of modern equipment are available is another factor.
Mr. Barry Field: When may we have a debate on the competitiveness White Paper that was announced today? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be surprised to learn that, when the Deputy Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade, he was instrumental in securing regional assistance and a business link for the Isle of Wight—as well as the regional office, which has been very helpful under Gillian Ashworth. Despite all that assistance, we have the lowest percentage of higher-rate taxpayers in the country, and we still have one of the highest levels of seasonal unemployment. We hear all the grizzling and grumps from Opposition Members, but their economies have been transformed with the Government's assistance. I hope that my right

443
hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to bring his entrepreneurial skills to bear on the island's economy, and crack the problems.
Mr. Newton: I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging the importance of the policies that the Government have been pursuing, whose further development was set out by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon. My hon. Friend will realise that his request for a debate is the third that I have received so far this afternoon, against a background of some anxiety about the date of the summer recess. He will appreciate that I may be trying to put a quart into a pint pot unless the House actually wishes to sit well into August.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House has been very helpful when I have pressed for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Will he encourage the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to convene the Committee in the near future—before the recess—so that it can consider the report of the examiner's statutory rules for the past two or three years? I have been speaking to the parties from Northern Ireland that are represented here today, and they are sympathetic to that request.
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has quite a lot on his mind, and indeed his plate, at present. Much of it will have been vented earlier in Northern Ireland questions. I will, however, remind him of the pressure that the hon. Gentleman is exerting.
Mr. Michael Stephen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on an earlier occasion, I raised in the House the practice of granting legal aid out of public funds to persons who are not ordinarily resident in this country. Can he find time for a debate on that important subject? As I am sure he will know, our constituents consider it entirely wrong that they should be denied legal aid on the ground that there is not enough money in the fund, although they have paid taxes all their lives, while there seems to be enough money to grant legal aid to foreign persons.
Mr. Newton: That is request for debate No. 4. In the event of future requests, I shall want a signed piece of paper offering me an undertaking that the hon. Member concerned will be here in August. Meanwhile, I can tell my hon. Friend—perhaps more helpfully, although my first remark was also intended in a friendly spirit—that the Lord Chancellor intends to issue a White Paper on the future of legal aid before the summer recess, although whether there will be time for it to be debated before the summer recess is a more questionable proposition.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Has the Leader of the House seen my early-day motion 972?
[That this house is concerned about the recent change of legal interpretation of regulations by Television Licensing, whereby it was previously accepted that, providing there was no simultaneous use, a television licence for the main home would also cover the use of a
444
television at a second home (including static caravans); observes that this change of interpretation now means that even where it is proven that there is no simultaneous use of a television a second licence will need to be purchased; recognises that many retired people have static caravans and could not afford two television licences; and urges the Government to change the Consolidated Television Licence Fee Regulations 1991 in order that Television Licensing can reinstate its original interpretation in particular for retired people.]
The motion concerns people who are forced to buy two television licences, although there is no simultaneous viewing. The situation has been caused not by any change of regulations by the Government, but by a change in legal interpretation. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make a statement in the House about how she intends to redress the position? It is clearly unfair: people cannot be in two places at once, so why should they be charged twice for one service?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 981?
[That this House notes the statement of the honourable Member for Falkirk West, when referring to the Leader of the Opposition, that it ill becomes the product of an elitist school who has rejected the local education authority system for his own offspring to pontificate on teaching methods in comprehensives; admires his courage in defying the party spin-doctors; and finds his comments revealing in highlighting the real opinions of Labour backbenchers.]
My right hon. Friend will recall that the motion highlights a particularly vicious attack on the Leader of the Opposition by a senior Labour Back Bencher. Such a debate would allow that hon. Member, and a long string others who have indulged in similar practices, to defy the spin doctors and come to the House to articulate their views on the leader of their own party.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the scale and extent of divisions in the Labour party on education policy, which were no doubt also visible during the debate earlier this week. If I can find further opportunities to make them even more visible, I shall of course do my best.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Leader of the House will be pleased to know that he can count on my support for the structural order relating to Essex. I ask him, however, to consider the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). If so many orders are to be debated in only two or three hours, 80 or 90 hon. Members may legitimately wish to have their say. I feel that we need more parliamentary time to discuss such a long list of orders.
May we have a statement about lindane getting into the food chain? A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about that. One of your distinguished deputies, Madam Speaker, before being elevated, initiated a powerful Adjournment debate about it some time ago. We do not want to encounter the same

445
problems that we have encountered in relation to other aspects of the food chain. The matter requires urgent consideration and debate, and a statement from a Minister.
Mr. Newton: I will bring that last request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, it was not actually a request for another debate, but it was close to being one, which would make it No. 5. I take note of it—in addition to the points raised by one or two hon. Members—but some judgment really must be made about how long the House wants to go on sitting.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the need for a debate on adoption? The Government have published a draft Bill on the subject, and the end of the consultation period in relation to it is 28 June. It would be very helpful if we could have a debate, if not before that date, very shortly after it.
Mr. Newton: That is request No. 6. The list grows by the minute—but once again, in my usual spirit of friendly co-operation, I will add it to what I have come to call my little list.
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you and Madam Speaker—who is the guardian of Back Benchers' rights in the House—are privy to the recess dates for the summer recess, if we are likely to be sitting into August, may I ask that you put in a kind word on behalf of the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight? The royal yacht will be visiting Cowes week in the first week of August—for the very last time, because it will be going off to Hong Kong—and I am sure that all my constituents will wish me to be there, as I have fought so valiantly to retain it. It will be a very historic occasion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Being a kind man, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
    Clause 52

      CODES OF PRACTICE: POLICE POWERS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 34, line 17, at end insert—
      ("() The Secretary of State may make codes of practice in connection with—

      (a) the exercise by police officers of any power conferred by Part II of this Act or by that Act; and

      (b) the seizure and retention of property found by police officers when exercising powers of search conferred by any provision of this Act or that Act.

      () The Secretary of State may make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by members of Her Majesty's forces of any of their powers under Part II of this Act.
      () In this section "police officer" means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.")
      4.49 pm
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
      Sir John Wheeler: Clauses 52 and 54 re-enact in part section 61 of the current Act. They place a duty on the Secretary of State to make codes of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons who are detained under the terrorism provisions. However, the Bill was drafted against the backdrop of a prevailing ceasefire situation, and it omits that part of the existing provision that confers on the Secretary of State a discretionary power to make codes of practice in connection with the police and Army's powers of arrest, search and seizure known as "part II powers".
      No such codes were made during the lifetime of the current Act, and the ceasefires had seen a significant downturn in the use of the part II powers. In those circumstances, it was decided that the provision could lapse.
      The Bill has been overshadowed by the provisional IRA's decision to end its ceasefire. We have seen a return to violence in the form of the bombings in London, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the security forces' part II powers will be needed for some time to come.
      It seems sensible, therefore, to re-enact the power to create as necessary that type of additional safeguard, which codes of practice would provide.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: We welcome these amendments. Memory tells me that, during discussion of the Bill in Committee, we urged the Government not to drop this provision. It is regrettable

      447
      that the Government have felt it necessary to bring back the provision, because that is a reflection of the deteriorating position. There was a ceasefire when the Bill was introduced, and that ceasefire has ended.
      It would be interesting to hear from the Government whether there is a firm intention to introduce such a code. We already had a power to introduce a code, but it was never used. I should be grateful if the Government will tell us whether they will prepare a code.
      These matters are being considered by the Lloyd review. The Government recently assured us that the Lloyd review—which affects this amendment and every other provision in the Bill—would be delivered by October. As a matter of clarification, will the Lloyd review be published in October, or will it be delivered only to the Government, for private consideration, for some months before the Opposition and the public can see it? It would be useful to know whether we will be able to have public discussion of the review in October or whether it will be some months after that.
      Sir John Wheeler: I shall reply very briefly to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and tell him this about the codes. No decision has yet been made to commence work on codes of practice in respect of the part II powers. As he will know, those powers have been used much less frequently than when terrorist activity was at its height.
      If, however, the security situation deteriorates and the use of the powers increases significantly, the Government would give careful consideration to the drawing up of such codes of practice as an additional safeguard for the public and for members of the security forces.
      As I have said elsewhere, the Lloyd review will be published in October and will be available for scrutiny by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and by all others with an interest in this matter.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

    Clause 62

      COMMENCEMENT, DURATION, EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 39, line 27, after ("it") insert
      (", or a corresponding earlier enactment,")
      Sir John Wheeler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment seeks to address a gap in the Bill as drafted. Clause 15 restricts the remission granted under prison rules in respect of those convicted of scheduled offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more; in such cases, remission is restricted to one third of the sentence. Clause 16 requires the court to order that a person imprisoned for a scheduled offence during a
      448
      period of remission must serve the unexpired portion of the sentence for his previous offence in addition to the sentence for the subsequent offence.
      These two provisions are temporary. Clause 62 provides that in the event of the expiry—or cesser—of either provision, its operational effect shall continue in relation to an offence committed while the provision was in force. However, in the event of the expiry or cesser of clause 15 or 16, the intention would be that the expiry or cesser should affect only offences committed after that event. In other words, offences committed before the expiry or cesser of clause 15 or 16 should continue to be subject to those provisions. The clause does not quite achieve that result because it omits a reference to offences committed before the enactment of the provision—in other words, offences committed during the lifetime of a predecessor provision.
      The current wording of clause 62 omits any reference to predecessor provisions. The amendment corrects that.
      Dr. Joe Hendron: I should like to speak to the Lords amendments on clause 52 and clause 54. My original intention was—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This Lords amendment deals with clause 62; we have already discussed Lords amendments to clause 52 and clause 54. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Lords amendments to clause 62.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 63

      SAVINGS, AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 39, line 46, at end insert—
      ("() Schedule (Scheduled offences: transitional provisions) (which makes transitional provisions in relation to scheduled offences) shall have effect.")
      Sir John Wheeler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 5.
      Sir John Wheeler: Because the Bill has the effect of removing certain offences from the current list of scheduled offences—that is, offences that merit special treatment under the emergency legislation—it is necessary to spell out precisely how cases involving such offences, whether committed or alleged to have been committed at the time of the Bill's enactment, should continue to be dealt with after that date.
      The amendments would add a new schedule to the Bill which would set out the transitional arrangements for each case, taking into account its individual stage in the criminal justice process at the time of the Bill's enactment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

      Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
      4.59 pm
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
      That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.
      The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland departments, authorises expenditure of £3,617 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in February, this brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £6,438 million, an increase of 6.2 per cent. on 1995–96 provisional outturn. The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. I remind the House that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office covering law and order services are not covered by the order before us.
      As is customary on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £164 million. In vote 1, net provision of some £20 million is to fund European Union and national agriculture and fishery support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom.
      The net provision covers the various pre-funded market support measures under the common agricultural policy, which total £135 million. The vote includes some £6 million to assist structural improvements, by way of various capital, environmental and other grants. Some £14 million is to provide support for farming in special areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep, while £6 million is in respect of processing, marketing and fishing projects, which are wholly funded by the European Union.
      In vote 2, some £140 million is for on-going regional services and support measures. This includes £60 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Some £27 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside and fisheries and forestry services; £24 million is for central administration, including information technology and specialist accommodation services; and £5 million is for the rural development programme. Some £18.4 million is for watercourse management, which is due to become a next steps agency with effect from 1 October 1996.
      This vote also contains net provision of £9.3 million in respect of the EU peace and reconciliation programme which incorporates agricultural, rural and water-based projects.
      In the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, some £134 million is required for the Industrial Development Board. This will enable the board to continue to attract and support industrial development in Northern Ireland, mainly through the provision of factory buildings and selective financial assistance to both new and existing companies. In 1995–96, the board supported some 35 inward investment projects offering 4,869 jobs.
      In vote 2, some £115 million is required. Thirty-two million pounds is for the local enterprise development unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. This will allow the agency to maintain its excellent record in
      450
      developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of the important small firms sector in Northern Ireland.
      Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the excellent news that 300 new jobs are coming to Cookstown in my constituency. I wish to put on record our appreciation for all the efforts made by the Industrial Development Board and for Baroness Denton's help in getting those jobs for Mid-Ulster.
      Northern Ireland's major industry is agriculture. Does the Minister accept that, as we have heard this afternoon, Northern Ireland is practically bovine spongiform encephalopathy free? Will he encourage the Secretary of State, the Cabinet and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to get the European ban lifted and allow Northern Ireland to lead the United Kingdom out of the present awful situation, bearing in mind the quality of our produce, which is respected across the world?
      Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks in which he thanked my noble Friend for her enthusiastic and sterling work on behalf of his constituency and the whole of Northern Ireland. She will be much sustained and encouraged by his observations. I know that the hon. Gentleman works unceasingly to support his constituents by sustaining the business environment and he is aware that he is appreciated for doing so.
      As for the BSE problem, it is simply not acceptable that the UK should have been placed in the present position. It is the Government's policy that the ban should be lifted not only for Northern Ireland but for the UK as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's specific remarks about Northern Ireland's excellent record are, of course, well understood and will undoubtedly form part of the Government's case in Europe to see that the ban is lifted as soon as possible. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
      I was giving the House some financial information. A total of £15.5 million is for the industrial research and technology unit, primarily to promote the competitiveness of local companies by encouraging innovation, industrially relevant research and development and by technology transfer. This underlines the importance that the Government attach to helping Northern Ireland industry to grasp the technological opportunities that underpin successful economic development.
      Finally in this vote, £14.6 million is for the Northern Ireland tourist board to support the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. This coming year will be an important challenge for tourism in Northern Ireland. In 1995 we saw the seventh consecutive rise in visitor numbers: a record number of almost 1.6 million people came to Northern Ireland, a 20 per cent. increase on 1994. Investment in tourism remains healthy with a number of major development projects announced in recent months.
      In vote 3, £212 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. This will enable the agency to continue to provide a range of comprehensive training and support measures, and includes £73 million to fund 16,000 training places under the jobskills training programme. Some £45.6 million is for the action for community employment and community work

      451
      programmes, which will provide some 8,000 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. Furthermore, £23.7 million is to assist companies to improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their work force and to provide training for those intending to pursue management careers in industry.
      I deal now with the Department of the Environment. In vote 1, £180 million is for roads, transport and ports. This includes some £147 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the share of funding allocated to DOE roads in Northern Ireland is totally inadequate for current needs? We were disappointed in East Antrim that both the A8 and A2 projects were removed from the major works scheme. We would like them to be reinstated. Yesterday's announcement of major investment by Emerson Electric and Caterpillar in F. G. Wilson will increase substantially the number of heavy goods vehicles travelling between the new plants in Newtownabbey and west Belfast to and from Larne. I would ask that consideration be given at the earliest possible date to increasing the amount of money both for new projects and for road maintenance throughout Northern Ireland.
      Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is a doughty champion of the road to Larne and all adjacent roads and he argues his case with conviction. The roads programme is assessed on an annual basis and has to take into account circumstances, time, financial priorities and other objectives. However, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for roads will be replying to the debate and I have every confidence that he will wish to respond to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and possibly to other comments about roads which may be made during the debate.
      To continue, maintenance of the road system remains a priority with some £72 million being spent this year. The maintenance programme is complemented by new road construction, minor road improvement and safety schemes. This year, some £3.4 million has been made available for phase 2 of the cross-harbour bridge scheme, with completion of the M3 Lagan Bridge to the Sydenham bypass scheduled for October 1997.
      Vote 2 covers housing, where some £210 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the voluntary housing movement. That is an increase of some £4 million on 1995–96. When net borrowing and the housing executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be some £607 million. That is an increase of some £5 million over 1995–96 and will support the continued improvement of housing conditions enabling the housing executive to start some 900 new houses and housing associations to start some 1,250 new dwellings.
      Vote 3 covers expenditure by the new Water Service Agency covering water and sewerage services where gross expenditure is estimated at £181 million. Some £75 million is for capital expenditure and some £106 million is for operational and maintenance purposes and administration costs.
      452
      In vote 4, about £200 million is for environmental and other services. That includes provision for the environment and heritage service, the planning service, the construction service and land registers of Northern Ireland, all of which achieved agency status in April 1996. Some £37 million is for urban regeneration measures that continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. Those measures provide the catalyst for higher overall investment through partnerships with the private sector. Some £25 million has also been made available under the European Union peace and reconciliation programme, of which some £18.5 million is being funded from EU receipts.
      The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,422 million, an increase of 2.5 per cent. over last year's provision. Vote 1, which now incorporates the provision previously provided in vote 2, includes £877 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards—an increase of £34 million over 1995–96. It includes £829 million for schools and colleges of further education.
      Vote 1 also provides some £48 million for libraries, youth services and administration, £39 million for boards' capital projects, some £35 million for capital projects in voluntary and integrated schools and £134 million for recurrent expenditure by voluntary and integrated schools. Those amounts include some £24 million for integrated schools—an increase of £9 million over 1995–96.
      Also in vote 1, £116 million is provided for local universities to enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom and £125 million is for mandatory student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including some £17 million for arts and museums and some £3 million for community relations. About £11.5 million has also been made available under the EU peace and reconciliation programme, some £8.6 million of which is being funded from EU receipts.
      The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. Vote 1 provides £1,432 million for expenditure on hospital, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services. That represents an increase of 2.5 per cent. on last year's provision.
      In vote 3, £26.5 million is for expenditure on certain miscellaneous health and personal social services costs. Costs of the services now borne on that vote were previously provided for in vote 3 administration and miscellaneous services. The provision sought reflects a 12.1 per cent. increase over last year's final net provision.
      In vote 4, £150 million is for the Department's administration and other miscellaneous costs. It includes £99 million for the Social Security Agency, £7.5 million for the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency, £9 million for the Health and Social. Services Executive and £4 million for the Health Estates Agency.
      In vote 5, £1,628 million is for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 9.2 per cent. on last year and covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1996, but an increasing number of beneficiaries.

      453
      In vote 6, £370 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living funds, housing benefits, the social fund and payments into the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
      Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel, where, in vote 3, £5.8 million is sought for the community relations programme. In addition, some £3 million has also been made available through funding from EU receipts under the EU peace and reconciliation programme. It reflects the importance that the Government continue to attach to community relations in Northern Ireland.
      In my opening remarks, I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the estimates. In replying to the debate, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will wish to respond to points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before I call the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), it may be helpful if I make clear that the debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security, including the current peace talks, are the principal excluded subjects.
      5.18 pm
      Mr. Eric Illsley: The order is wide ranging, and as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pointed out, it covers the votes to the various departments of the Northern Ireland Office. We welcome the order. I shall comment on a few areas covered by it and ask a few questions to which I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to respond this evening. If he is not, he will no doubt respond in writing to any points that remain unanswered.
      The BSE crisis is having a devastating effect on the beef industry in Northern Ireland and on the Northern Ireland economy, despite the fact that the incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland is extremely low. As I have said in previous debates, the beef industry is extremely important to Northern Ireland. Agriculture is one of the largest sectors of the Northern Ireland economy—if not the largest—and the beef industry is very important to it. Eighty per cent. of Northern Ireland's beef is exported, much of it to Europe, so the ban is having a devastating effect on the more than 16,000 farms in Northern Ireland that rely to some extent on cattle for the beef industry.
      The cull is also causing one or two problems in the Province due to the backlog and delays in dealing with animals. I should like to put one or two points to the Government. I understand that young bulls aged between 24 and 30 months, which were not part of the original cull scheme, have now been accepted. The rate of compensation for those animals will be 171p a kilo, which is about 20p below the intervention rate. Although farmers in Northern Ireland are grateful that the bulls have been accepted into the cull programme, I understand that they are disappointed that the compensation payments fall short of what those animals would have made on the open market. In overall terms, each animal is worth about £1,000 on the market, but farmers will receive about £750 in compensation.
      There are also fears that this week's meeting of the beef management committee in Europe will recommend reductions in the compensation rates payable to farmers
      454
      for the beef cull. One payment that is in line for a reduction is the 25p top-up payment, which is paid in compensation for steers and heifers reaching 30 months since 20 March 1996. I understand that there are different rates of compensation for an animal's live weight and its dead weight. The Government topped up the dead-weight payment by 25p, but there is a fear that that payment will disappear. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will press for those compensation payments to remain?
      Compensation for a dead-weight animal is 171p a kilo, as opposed to 85p a kilo live weight. The difference is a factor of two. It is envisaged that it may be reduced to a factor of 1.6, which would reduce the 171p a kilo compensation payment to 140p a kilo. There is concern among farmers in Northern Ireland that they will lose out if such reductions are implemented. I urge the Minister to use whatever influence he has to mitigate any change in those payments proposed in European meetings. Northern Ireland farmers are asking the Government to ensure that farmers do not lose out as a result of the backlog in dealing with animals that will be part of the culling process.
      The framework document that is before the European Union is likely—I hope—to be accepted. If it is, Northern Ireland will be in an advantageous position compared with the rest of the United Kingdom; 90 per cent. of herds in Northern Ireland are grass fed, there is a low incidence of BSE and a traceability system is in place. Will the Government take on board the possibility of the ban being lifted early in Northern Ireland if the framework document is accepted and the herds in Northern Ireland meet its criteria?
      Fears have been flagged up in the press recently that a further 200 jobs might be lost at Shorts as a result of the collapse of Fokker. There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding those jobs. I understand that there is a possibility that Shorts might undertake a contract to build 70 aircraft wings. I urge the Minister to do all that he can to try to mitigate the effects of the collapse of Fokker, to assist in securing that contract and to protect the jobs at Shorts.
      Also under the heading of the vote for economic development is the assistance voted to the Northern Ireland electricity industry, which is a long-standing problem in the Province. The issue surrounding electricity prices is worsening by the day. It is estimated that the difference between average Great Britain prices and those in Northern Ireland is 20 per cent., but in some areas it is even greater. The annual bill for a consumer in the London Electricity area, whose prices are close to the Great Britain average, is £305.12, compared with an estimated annual bill in Northern Ireland of £366.95—a difference of 20 per cent.—but the relatively higher level of consumption of electricity in Northern Ireland means higher electricity bills. The average bill in the London area of £305.12 should, therefore, be compared with a bill in Northern Ireland of more than £400—a difference of 32 per cent.
      For pre-payment meter bills, which are in use for the lower paid in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, an average annual bill in the London area is £317 compared with £430 in Northern Ireland—a difference of 36 per cent. The difference between prices in Northern Ireland and Great Britain is, therefore, anywhere between 20 and 36 per cent.

      455
      It is interesting that, this week, Northern Ireland Electricity announced that its profits have increased by just under 12 per cent. to £105.9 million. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there are headlines in the press in Northern Ireland such as:
      "Northern Ireland Electricity Upbeat About Economic Growth".
      The Government provided £15 million this year to keep electricity prices in Northern Ireland lower than they would have been. The price increase was kept to 2.6 per cent. as a result of that money, which is part of a package of £60 million that the Government have made available. They must consider other ways in which to spend the rest of that money because, next year, Northern Ireland Electricity will require a grant of £30 million to maintain those price reductions. All that that £15 million is doing is delaying the price increase that will come about when the payments cease. We must consider other ways of using the remainder of the £60 million. I urge the Government again to consider providing money towards Northern Ireland Electricity's capital investment programme, which would have a direct effect in reducing prices, as part of the price review that is under way.
      That review will have to address two major problems associated with Northern Ireland Electricity, which were caused by the way in which it was privatised. First, contracts with the generators allow the complete pass-through of Northern Ireland Electricity's costs in power purchase agreements. They allow for fuel costs, plus availability payments, to be passed through—despite the fact that there is overcapacity in electricity generation in Northern Ireland. The only good news for electricity consumers in Northern Ireland comes when the power stations break down, because then they are not required to make the availability payments. Any efficiency savings are kept by the generators as profit, and not passed through.
      The Labour party proposed a windfall tax on utilities not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the rest of the country, but the contracts for electricity generation in Northern Ireland allow any tax increase to be passed straight through to the consumer, so those profits cannot even be taxed by a future Government.
      Northern Ireland paid a total of about £500 million for its electricity last year. NIE and the generators made about £150 million profit out of that. Last week, NIE announced profits of £104 million. Last year's profit was £87 million, achieved from a turnover of about £498 million. About half that turnover represents a straight pass-through of generating costs, so NIE made an £87 million profit on a turnover that is really nearer £250 million. That is an excessive rate of profit, and the Government should look at it long and hard.
      This week, Warburgs said that NIE shares were still a good buy. That may be something of an understatement. The Office of Electricity Regulation Northern Ireland will produce a document later this month on the price review and a possible reference of the generating contracts in Northern Ireland to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but because of the problems in Northern Ireland I urge the Government to refer the whole situation to the MMC now rather than wait for the production of that document.
      456
      Under the votes for the Department of the Environment, I shall mention the fire services. I ask the Minister to confirm that a budget has now been set for the Northern Ireland fire brigade, which recently explained that it had particular problems because of the shortfall in funding for the service. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Northern Ireland fire service that its budget problems will be resolved.
      Under the heading of the Department of Health and Social Services, I refer the Minister to mounting concern about the provision of health services in Northern Ireland. It would appear that the Under-Secretary of State now acknowledges that efficiency savings in the health service are no longer available, and that cuts will be implemented.
      There have been warnings of cuts in services at several hospital trusts, and the Under-Secretary is on record as having said at a recent conference that he had to "come clean" and tell those assembled that
      "efficiency savings are just not possible … Therefore I acknowledge that there will be cuts in services",
      although he did not like the fact. How can the Government keep referring to the 3 per cent. as efficiency savings, when there are no savings to be made? Surely the 3 per cent. now amounts to across-the-board cuts that will affect the level of health services provided in Northern Ireland.
      I said that several hospital trusts in the Province had complained about the level of cuts being imposed on them by the so-called 3 per cent. efficiency requirement. At the conference the Under-Secretary also said that he did not think that any hospital closures would be envisaged in the near future. Perhaps he will reaffirm that when he replies.
      I draw the Minister's attention to the widespread concern about the cuts that is being reported. The press in Northern Ireland is describing the efficiency savings as a "meltdown" in the health service. The Royal Victoria hospital will have to close its operating theatres for five weeks in the summer, which will mean the cancellation of hundreds of operations, and there are fears that people are being discharged too soon after surgery.
      The South and East Belfast trust has made a cut of £1 million, involving a whole tier of management. I do not oppose that at all—I have long been an advocate of cuts in management, especially since Government reforms foist on the country a bill for more than £1 billion for extra health service management—but it would appear that the same trust is contemplating a reduction of a further £1 million. That will lead to the closure of wards and operating theatres, to longer waiting lists and to the closure of residential homes. Musgrave Park hospital describes "drastic" reductions, with more closures of operating theatres and wards.
      We welcome the appropriation order and some of the votes that the Minister mentioned, especially those for tourism and training schemes. We welcome investment in Northern Ireland. None the less, we hope that the Government will take our suggestions on board and consider them closely.
      5.35 pm
      Sir James Molyneaux: Under the heading of the Department of Economic Development, vote 1, may I mention that, since I put my supplementary question at Question Time this afternoon to the Minister

      457
      of State, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), about the possibility and desirability of the establishment of an economic committee representing both Houses of Parliament, I have been asked by interested Members to explain what I have in mind.
      I have explained that I have in mind a body established not by rigid legislation but by simple resolution, perhaps even for a trial period. At the time, the right hon. Gentleman wondered whether the need for such a committee could be met by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is a worthy body, but it suffers from having far too wide a remit. Only occasionally can it concentrate on matters connected with the economy, and its members cannot be expected to meet at short notice to discuss with people such as Baroness Denton matters that require urgent attention, to consult overseas investors or to support the Baroness at major international conferences.
      I do not imply or suggest that the committee, when it is formed—I shall not say "if' it is formed—should go to such places as a whole body, but a balanced team representing the various parties in the House, not the Northern Ireland parties alone, would be able to do much to underpin what Ministers, especially Baroness Denton, do when they go abroad to those prestigious gatherings.
      There have been some such gatherings in the recent past, and many have been fruitful. I dare to suggest that they could have been even more fruitful if such a back-up body had been in place. Such a body, consisting of people experienced in industry, business and technology, from both Houses of Parliament, would do much to co-ordinate and boost measures to expand Northern Ireland's economy, not on a temporary basis, but on a rock-solid permanent basis.
      Under the heading of the Department of Education, vote 1, I make a special plea for funds for two school replacements, and I shall give two examples of pressing need.
      One is Ballycarrickmaddy primary school. The Official Reporters will be relieved to note that I propose to give them the spelling of that name in block letters. It is a rather ancient and small building that forms the core of a school that consists almost entirely of portacabins connected by muddy paths. It is unprotected from the weather, which is of the type one would expect on a hilltop site. The South Eastern education and library board has approved plans for a replacement school, which have been forwarded to the Department of Education.
      I ask the Minister of State and his colleague to transmit to the Minister responsible for education a plea to ensure that account is taken of the fact that several other schools have been closed in that locality, the pupils from which are being bussed into Ballycarrickmaddy school. The roll has rocketed to 135 pupils, and it will be further increased in September because of the recent construction of 50 new homes within the catchment area. It is fashionable to advocate new schools as status symbols, but I am making this request, which is driven by dire necessity, on behalf of the South Eastern education and library board, the governors, teachers and pupils.
      Another worthy funding request comes from the governors, teachers, parents and pupils of Tonagh school in Lisburn for a relatively small extension to a fairly modern school, where the number of pupils is increasing. Funding for the project would be comparatively modest. The number of pupils is increasing partly because of the
      458
      housing estate in which the school is situated, and partly because of the adjacent estates from which pupils are attracted by the high standards of teaching and discipline for which the school is noted. I visited the school recently, and I was shown the sketch plans at the site. Even to my inexperienced eye, the proposed extension represented no real structural problems within the curtilage of the site, as there is plenty of space. I hope that this modest requirement will be sympathetically considered for early action.
      I apologise to Ministers for bouncing a matter on them unexpectedly, but I received correspondence on an urgent matter in this afternoon's post. I shall give the Minister of State copies so that he will be au fait with the details of a matter that must be dealt with by his colleague, the Minister with responsibility for education. The present chief executive of the South Eastern education and library board, Tom Nolan, is to retire. All of us who have had dealings with him will concede that he has been one of the most efficient education officers in Northern Ireland for a long time. His retirement will leave a big gap in the administration of education throughout Northern Ireland, and I hope that—as he is a comparatively young man—he will find another role. I say that as a 75-year-old.
      The board wrote to the Department of Education on 5 March 1996 to inform it of the retirement of the chief executive, and asked for guidance from the Department on how to trigger the procedures necessary for the appointment of someone as important as a chief executive. The board is up against a timetable, as the new chief executive has to be in post by 1 January. The Minister will know that there is a staged sequence of events in such appointments, starting with advertising and followed by listing, short-listing and innumerable interviews and assessments. The effect is that the board now faces a deadline of no more than six or seven days.
      I apologise for appearing to bounce the issue on Ministers, but I need a response. There may be a good reason why the Department failed to acknowledge the letter from the board of 5 March. Two reminders were sent, but neither was replied to. The board now needs advice on how to proceed. Without such advice, it would be quite illegal—given all the restrictions placed on such appointments—to proceed unless and until the board has the Department's permission. The Department must respond within the coming week to the responsible request from the board.
      The vote on health was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). On 12 February 1996, the Minister said:
      "The resources are simply not available to meet all the demands placed upon health and social services"
      and added that spending on existing services would have to be reduced by 3 per cent., or £30 million, throughout the Province.
      The Down and Lisburn trust is based in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and it is calculated that it will lose £1.8 million in the current year, but the situation is far more serious than that. Because of the late notification of the reductions announced on 12 February, there was no time to make the necessary adjustments. As a result, there will be serious service reductions in what I would call non-emergency areas of the health service in the current year, 1996–97. In those areas, the cut will not be

      459
      3 per cent., but about 30 per cent. We can imagine the effect of that in human terms—it will be disastrous. The missing services will distress patients and the general public, and it is forecast that additional reductions will be made in 1997–98. That will mean the disappearance of many facilities.
      Since the Minister's statement on 12 February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as is his right—has been holding forth about the national finances. In a major speech recently, he indicated that education and the health service would be protected sectors and would not suffer when the Government made any cuts necessary to keep the national finances on course. The Chancellor implied that, if across-the-board cuts were forced upon the Government, they would not be applied to those protected areas. I regret that I do not have to hand the exact reference, but that was the broad sense of the Chancellor's statement and I have reason to believe that it is the broad sense of his views.
      My plea to the Minister is this: in the short term, if extra funds can be found—as I believe they can—priority should be given to a booster injection in the current year to relieve the hardship that will undoubtedly result from the fact that the announcement was made comparatively near to the commencement of the current financial year.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I always understood that appropriation debates dealt with money delivered to the Northern Ireland Office which did not include security funding. Surely the fact that there has been a security bonus should not result in money being deducted from the Northern Ireland appropriation fund, as we were told that these were different budgets.
      Sir James Molyneaux: That has always been a puzzle. I can never understand where we benefited from the peace dividend and the savings on security and security-related measures. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. For one moment, I thought that my hon. Friend was going to ask what had happened to the billions of pounds that have accrued over the past five years from privatisations. It is not a piffling sum, but in the region of £87 billion. That little nest egg must be hidden away somewhere, too. Goldsmith does not have it all.
      I mentioned my first priority, and I shall repeat it for good measure. If there are any lottery funds lying around, please devote them to a booster injection for the health service in the current financial year. My second priority is slightly longer term. In the 1996–97 expenditure round, I plead with the Minister to move heaven and earth to ensure that there will be no—repeat, no—further reductions in the Northern Ireland allocation for health for 1997–98 and beyond.
      My party, under successive Treasury spokesmen, has supported the Government's monetary policies, which have now borne fruit. The battle against inflation is won; interest rates are steadily reducing; unemployment continues to drop. It is not outrageous to suggest that we, the Government's supporters, who have kept the faith through all those tough years, are entitled to a share in those achievements. That does not apply only to one sector of Northern Ireland, but I have highlighted those that need it most.
      460
      I hope that my words can be conveyed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I ought to do it myself instead of inviting someone else to incur his wrath by suggesting that it is not time for pre-election tax cuts. The Chancellor made his position on that clear last night, which was the right and honourable thing to do. I gently remind him that our nation, which has suffered pretty badly over many years, is entitled to support the Chancellor in proclaiming his faith that the Government will protect health and education, irrespective of whatever further troublesome cuts may be required elsewhere.
      5.52 pm
      Mr. A. Cecil Walker: The appropriation order debate gives us the opportunity to bring to the notice of the House various factors in relation to the provision of funds that are of special concern. It also allows us to express our views on matters that directly relate to our constituencies, under the terms of the order.
      As I have stated on many previous occasions, north-west Belfast is an area of severe material deprivation. In addition, my constituency has suffered more murders and civil unrest than any other part of Northern Ireland over the past 27 years. It has a disproportionate number of elderly people, many of whom live in isolation, poverty and fear. They are honest, decent people who have contributed over the years to maintaining normality in their communities.
      In supporting the remarks of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), I must say that the health and social services available to my elderly constituents have declined steadily in recent years. This year, there has an overall 3 per cent. reduction in the health service budgets, a move that I and my colleagues deplore.
      To add insult to injury, the Eastern health and social services board, the purchaser of services for my area, has devised a formula for funding services for the elderly that has reduced services to them across north and west Belfast by a further £2.5 million. On the basis of a half-completed study by Sheffield university, the board has decided, in the interests of so-called equity, to transfer £2.5 million out of the most socially and economically deprived part of Northern Ireland. It has done so on the basis of a formula that does not recognise that elderly people are affected by deprivation. That, in turn, affects their needs for health and social care.
      In real terms, the cuts mean the closure of three elderly persons' homes in my constituency, an area where there is little private care; a 5,000 hour a week reduction in home help services, which are a lifeline to many elderly constituents; and the loss to the local community of 120 jobs. The difference between maintaining many elderly people in their own homes through a modest service and maintaining them elsewhere is reflected in misery, human suffering and neglect. The Government are supposed to be targeting social needs in north-west Belfast and providing additional programmes to give it a chance to catch up. The Industrial Development Board is striving, with some success, to bring jobs into my constituency and that of my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron).
      What is the Eastern health and social services board playing at? How can it present the transfer of resources as equitable? How can it argue that social deprivation

      461
      does not affect the elderly and infirm? Why has it acted on the basis of a half-completed study, without bothering to wait for the final outcome, when the results are such a kick in the teeth to my constituents, and fly in the face of the Government's policies, which aim to regenerate the most deprived areas of Belfast, Protestant and Catholic alike?
      I pay tribute to the Minister for giving the hon. Member for Belfast, West and me a sympathetic hearing when we recently talked to him about our concerns for the elderly in our constituencies. However, I say with all respect, we need more than sympathy. We need a complete reappraisal of the conditions that affect the elderly in north and west Belfast. Research shows that people in disfranchised groups suffer more ill-health and die younger but are also less likely to receive, or benefit from, health and social care. For the elderly population, the dilemma is even more acute because the cost of health care services rises dramatically with age. Hence, the dominant factors in allocating services to this group have been the numbers of the elderly and their age distribution, which is normally broken into the age groups of 65 to 74, 75 to 84 and 85-plus.
      However, the people of deprived areas are unlikely to live as long as the general population. The health status of the surviving elderly in such areas may be worse than that of their counterparts elsewhere. Thus, the health needs of the 65-to-74 age group in deprived areas may be similar to those of the 75-to-84 group in a more affluent area. That is the situation that pertains to north and west Belfast. We have more chronically ill elderly, across the age spectrum, than any other part of the Province. We need extra resources to cater for their needs, not fewer.
      The Minister knows how concerned I am about the cuts in orthopaedic surgery. It is inconceivable that elderly people who have subscribed all their lives to their country should be sentenced to pain and suffering, some of them for the rest of their lives, because of monetary considerations. It is an indictment of the Government for them to say that, because joint replacement is not life-threatening, it should be the subject of major financial savings. It is envisaged that the reduction in orthopaedic surgery will mean ward and theatre closures and job cuts. That will be another traumatic blow for a long-suffering elderly population.
      On housing, I am pleased that the Government have recognised the efforts of the Housing Executive in contributing to meeting the housing needs of the Province by strengthening its strategic role. The transfer of the Department of the Environment housing functions in relation to housing associations and the private rented sector will facilitate a more comprehensive approach across all types of housing tenure.
      In north and west Belfast, some housing factors are different for different religious sections of the population. In general, Catholics suffer more from overcrowding whereas Protestants suffer more from older housing. For both communities, housing remains a significant factor for their regeneration. Issues such as expansion of housing capacity, upgrading of older housing and improving tenure mix remain most important for many residents.
      I am extremely concerned about the difficulties and delays associated with the Housing Executive grants process. Delays of up to three years are just not acceptable, especially when applicants are living in
      462
      unacceptable conditions. I should like to see more of the executive's budget directed to dealing with the backlog, in the interests of the whole housing stock.
      Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is my hon. Friend not also concerned that handicapped people for whom occupational therapists have recommended certain things are kept waiting, sometimes for years?
      Mr. Walker: I am pleased that my colleague has brought that subject up. We are very much aware, particularly in north Belfast, but throughout the Province, of the terrible delays in providing for elderly people the facilities that they need to give them a meaningful life. I thank my colleague for bringing that to the notice of the Minister at this stage.
      I am also critical of the Housing Executive's redevelopment programme. Decisions are taken to redevelop an area without adequate provision for those who are displaced, especially those who wish to live in the immediate area. I am also concerned about the criteria for valuing properties in redevelopment areas. The basic offer often does not reflect the true value of the property, when compared to other properties in the immediate area. I cite an area in Crumlin road—Rosewood, Yarrow and Albertville drive—where excellent three-storey brick houses have been incorporated into a redevelopment scheme. The houses are mostly owned by elderly occupiers who do not wish to leave their home, where they have lived for most of their lives. The houses have been vested. There is no public sector housing in the area suitable for them. They have been offered less than half of what it will take to purchase a house of less than half the size, where their furniture will just not fit. To top it all, the executive is taking up to £15 per week in rent to allow those elderly people to live in their own homes.
      Quite a number of elderly people, some of whom are infirm, will not be able to cope with the trauma of moving home at their age. They will either have to stay in their houses, thereby holding up redevelopment, or move to residential care, where their assets, including their homes, will be required to keep them. There should be some discretion within housing management to cater for situations in which residents live in their own homes after vesting. They should not be subject to rent. The property should not come under executive ownership until the value of the house has been fixed and paid. Then, and only then, should rent be demanded.
      I welcome the introduction of the order on industrial pollution control. North and west Belfast citizens suffered much in the past as a result of serious and life-shortening pollution emanating from a mill environment. There was a serious lack of attention to any form of pollution control in such circumstances. Health and safety factors were largely ignored in the continuing quest for increased production, to the detriment of the health of the community.
      I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and, in particular, Mr. Bob Brown and his staff. Our bird population in Northern Ireland has suffered much in recent years from human activities. It is noticeable just how many of our young people now take an interest in this important aspect of our environment, but unfortunately such dedication is not matched by Government action, which is often perceived to be

      463
      retrospective and sluggishly bureaucratic. How often have we watched helplessly as other species have become almost extinct, as another habitat falls to development pressure?
      While I am fully aware of the global nature of the problem, I feel that each of us should act directly in respect of our local concerns. For that reason, I continue to campaign for an independent environmental watchdog in Northern Ireland. I want a body with power and purpose to protect and police the whole local environment without becoming embroiled in political wrangles. I believe that such a body is essential to match the enthusiasm of our young people and is the most important single step that can be taken to preserve what still exists for successive generations.
      6.6 pm
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in the appropriation debate. I should like to touch on one or two aspects of some of the headings of expenditure which are before us this evening, beginning with the Department of Agriculture. My first comment is a fairly modest one about the problems facing agriculture and fisheries. Will the Minister take on board the suggestion that what was known as the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development should be reinstated? The scheme was suspended in March 1995 because of over-subscription and insufficient finance, but that showed the very need to continue the programme, which has not been reinstated after more than 12 months. For the uninitiated, SPARD is a scheme to assist farmers to update and modernise the facilities on their farm. My request is modest, but reinstatement soon would be welcome assistance to the farming community of Northern Ireland.
      Under the heading of agriculture, two major problems face Northern Ireland. One is the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, which has been dealt with in considerable detail, and with eloquence, by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on the Front Bench. It would not be to the benefit of the House if I repeated all that he had to say. I simply underscore one or two points by way of brief sentences.
      As my hon. Friend said, the problem is much more severe in Northern Ireland than it is in Great Britain because 70 per cent. of our production is exported, whereas only 10 per cent. of British production is exported. Recovery of home consumption, which I understand has progressed to 85 per cent. in Britain, does not touch the problem in Northern Ireland. It would not do so even if home consumption recovered 100 per cent., because of our export dependency. It is important that, in the negotiations that are now taking place, a decision be taken to treat Northern Ireland as a special case, in view of its special history, of the lack of prevalence of the disease and of the computerised tracing system, which can trace an animal from any beef, dairy or other herd right back to its source.
      Such a tracing system is not available anywhere else. I do not think that it is even available in Europe. It gives us the facility to identify immediately that which is capable of eradication and the measures that will have to be applied if the present suggestions do not produce immediate success.
      464
      In the meantime, one or two issues, such as the storage of carcases between slaughter and rendering, must be addressed. The existing rendering facilities must be examined. I reaffirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said: there must be a continuation of the top-up supplement that is paid for steers and heifers—and it should be extended to beef bulls. If those matters were addressed on a day-to-day basis, it would help to alleviate some of the problems.
      Another problem facing agriculture in Northern Ireland is the harvest from sea fishing. The recently published Lassen report gives a benchmark to the Northern Ireland fishing industry of minus 40 per cent. In other words, the European Commission is asking Northern Ireland to reduce its fishing fleet by 40 per cent., and it has already been reduced. I know that Baroness Denton has an active and productive interest in representing the interests of the fishermen. The latest suggestion is at variance with the requirements of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland—and it is contrary to scientific evidence.
      All sides—the fishing industry, the processors, the Department of Agriculture and the scientific advisors to the Department—consider the Lassen report to be based on a false premise. The benchmark of 40 per cent. refers to nephrops, or prawns, and the other species that are caught incidental to them. It would be horrendous if the fishing industry were cut by 40 per cent.—it would kill the industry.
      It is frustrating that the evidence in the report is contradictory. The report says that nephrops are not an endangered species, yet they are being used as the reason for the 40 per cent. reduction. I hope that the Department of Agriculture is represented in Brussels, as we speak this evening, and that it is putting the case for the fishing industry. The fishing industry and the farming industry in my constituency, and in many other constituencies, will be devastated economically.
      Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we have anything like the cut in the fishing fleet that is demanded, the on-shore infrastructure will also disappear because it could not be supported by the smaller number of fishermen coming ashore? Does he further agree that there is an abundance of haddock in the Irish sea and that it will not be harvested if the cuts are implemented? Does not the Hague preference militate against the Northern Ireland fleet, but help the southern fleet—which cannot catch the quota that it already has?
      Mr. McGrady: I agree 100 per cent. with the three points that the hon. Gentleman raised. With respect to the Hague preference, there is a non-Hague official swap between the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland fishermen on the various catches. The downstream job creation from the fishing industry is fundamental to the economic welfare of my constituency and to other constituencies in Northern Ireland.
      The people who hope to provide the infrastructure for tourism in Northern Ireland are frustrated. The Northern Ireland tourist board and the Department of Economic Development deal with tourism, but they do not have a cohesive policy. There was a huge upsurge in tourism to Northern Ireland during the ceasefire—and it has been sustained because of the de facto ceasefire. The immediate problem was the creation of bed accommodation for the tourist industry.

      465
      My constituency is a tourist-orientated and scenic part of the country—all hon. Members are welcome to visit it during the summer. Tourists were turned away and had to be sent to the Republic of Ireland for accommodation. The people who are now trying to provide the infrastructure, and who can do it quickly and efficiently, are not getting any assistance or encouragement because of the lack of policy of the Northern Ireland tourist board. That situation must be addressed quickly. I understand that there is a target development strategy and that the Northern Ireland tourist board has identified that, between 1995 and 2000—just four years from now—we shall need a 59 per cent. increase in bed accommodation.
      Up to April 1996, the board's policy was to concentrate its entire budget and effort on three or four big hotel projects. However, tourists—as distinct from those attending conferences—want to stay in small, family-run hotels that are convenient to their places of pleasure. I mean that in the sense of amenities, seasides and mountains, rather than the city types of pleasures to which other hon. Members would be more accustomed than I. The tourists want small, well-run, high-class hotels and guest houses.
      I know of two hotels in Warrenpoint, which is a tourist area, and of two in Newcastle, one of the biggest tourist centres in Northern Ireland. They could produce 50 beds within a matter of months, but they cannot get any assistance because of the absence of a policy. We need a policy to address the accommodation needs of our tourists.
      I shall deal with job provision against the background of my constituency's inability to cash in on the tourist industry, of the terrible problems in the agricultural industry and of the problems faced by the fishing ports. During Northern Ireland Question Time, the Minister gave us some information about the economic upsurge in Northern Ireland. He said that 4,800 jobs have been created over the past three or four years. In the past week, 1,800 jobs have been created in West Belfast, Newtown Abbey, Larne and Cookstown.
      I find it puzzling that, fiscal year after fiscal year, only 6 per cent. of first-time visitors to Northern Ireland, and only 5 per cent. of repeat visitors, come to an area that is covered by the three council districts of Banbridge, of Down and of Newry and Mourne, which includes all of my constituency and another constituency. Not one single inward investment job has been created.
      That statistic is repeated year after year—and year after year, I ask the same question and I am assured that this is accidental. At some point, statistics have to be believed and someone has to say, "There is a flaw here; there is something wrong here." We are accessible: we are 10 miles from the harbour of Belfast in the northern half of Northern Ireland, and there is the relatively new Warrenpoint in the southern half. The problem spills over into industrial site provision. The Industrial Development Board was to close the Warrenpoint site. The acquisition of the Downpatrick site has gone for on six years without any sod being acquired by the board. I can no longer consider those matters to be entirely accidental.
      Against that backcloth of economic difficulties in the fishing, farming and tourist industries, I ask again for a review of the siting of jobs because, as I have often said, if we are to have equity and justice, job location is just as important as job allocation.
      466
      An item in the programme of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland—a simple one involving the written test for driving licences—might seem a small matter to raise in such a lofty debate. People in the whole of Northern Ireland are being asked to go to six separate centres. In his reply to my letter on the subject, the Minister said:
      "While the theory test contract provides for fewer theory test centres than there are practical centres, this reflects both the differences between the 2 types of tests and the necessity to maintain the theory test fee at a reasonable level for all candidates … Adding additional centres to cope with only 30,000–40,000 theory tests a year would be an uneconomic proposition and would require a significant increase to the theory test fee for everyone."
      I do not know how the Minister obtained that information because, as I understand it, the new agency is hiring new offices, new furnishings, new equipment and new everything else, although hundreds of education institutions are willing to provide this service for as little as £35 a test, however many people are in that test. Therefore, it has nothing to do with economics.
      Primarily, teenagers will be taking the driving test. They are students, trainees and the unemployed and they will have to travel 50 or 40 miles to do a half-hour written test. It is a bit ludicrous. They will have to have a driver with them, to take a day off school, training or work, and to flake off to those places.
      People cannot get from where I live to the nearest driving test by public transport. We do not have trains in my constituency and we have an infrequent bus service. The local institute of technology can say, "Here is our examination hall. We will charge you £35 a session all in." What more economy would the Government want than that? Therefore, I ask the Minister again to consider closely the provision of some more centres, which will be more economic.
      I shall quickly move on to the Department of Health and Social Services, to echo what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) has said about Mr. Tom Nolan and the services that he has rendered to education. I urge the Department to give the authorities a direction as to whether they must fill the post of chief executive, which expires, I think, in August this year. It is ludicrous that they are not able to move one way or the other.
      I echo what my colleagues have said regarding the Minister's statement of 12 February that there would be a 3 per cent. cut in funding. He announced a £54 million increase, but said that a 3 per cent. cut was required in efficiency. I give him one credit, and I have said this publicly before. He said that there would be a 1.5 per cent. cut in finance and a 1.5 per cent. cut in services. That was the first time I heard a Minister say, "Services will be cut." They certainly will be.
      The community care budget of the Lisburn and Down trust has been cut by 30 per cent. in one go. That means 10,000 man hours. Remember what those man hours are. They are spent not in an assembly line or a shop, but with old, invalid and physically disabled people. A total of 1,200 visits have been cancelled in my constituency. That affects the most vulnerable and dependent parts of our communities. It is scandalous.
      To be fair, I know that the Minister or the Department did not intend that to happen. Some of the gurus, whiz kids or whatever they are called nowadays—consultants

      467
      perhaps—in the Department of Finance and Personnel got their sums wrong. As a consequence, people are suffering. If, as anticipated, there is a 3 per cent. cut in 1997–98 and in 1998–99, I assure the Minister and the House that the health service will totally collapse in Northern Ireland. That is not an alarmist statement, because we see what is happening in the service.
      An anomaly is hidden within all this. The 3 per cent. cut is across the board in terms of hospitals, irrespective of whether people are efficient or a fat cow, as I say. My local hospital has been credited as being one of the most efficient and cost-effective. With due respect to my other colleagues, city hospitals seem not to have the same degree of cost-effectiveness, yet they will both be penalised in the same way.
      I throw in a little minnow to find out whether I can catch anything. Is it true that hospitals that are not able to meet their budgets have been given some supplementary funding of £400,000, although others which have met their budgets have been squeezed further and further? There is a difference between cuts in Northern Ireland and cuts in Great Britain. Money from cuts in Great Britain is recirculated in the area in a different form and reapplied to the provision of service. In Northern Ireland, the 3 per cent. cuts in funding go to the Treasury and cannot be used to provide better additional services. That is another reason for the Minister to consider the matter carefully.
      I seem to have taken up more than the allocation of time. I should like the Minister to respond—perhaps not this evening, but in writing through his colleagues—to some of my points because the matters that I raised in the appropriation debate on 19 February 1996 still await an answer.
      6.27 pm
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I rise to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and to note that, in an important debate that deals with everyday, bread-and-butter Northern Ireland issues such as the economy, it is left to the Social Democratic and Labour party to join us in the Ulster Unionist party to look after the interests of Northern Ireland's people. In that context, I trust that the hon. Member for South Down will not think that I am trespassing into his territory when I refer to the Department of Education vote 1 and welcome the introduction of the voucher scheme into Northern Ireland and the additional funds that will be arriving there.
      I underscore the importance, about which some of us learnt this morning, of young people being introduced at an early age to reading. It has been recognised that in America that $1 spent in the pre-age teaching of reading will save $7 later. It might be worth bearing that in mind as we consider the whole concept of education.
      I want to deal with a specific request to me from the Tyrella primary school, which I believe is in South Down. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember, and Ministers may have had time to read it in Hansard, a question put during Defence questions this week about the funding of the teaching of officers' children in boarding schools.
      Many children from the base at Ballykinler attend the Tyrella primary school. As it is a mobile base with people coming and going, the school faces difficulties as the numbers ebb and flow. Many children who attend the
      468
      school may have been to two or three other primary schools during their school life, so it is important that the school be retained. I understand that it has been threatened with the loss of another two teachers. I ask the Minister to discuss the matter with his colleagues and to consider whether we should give the support necessary to provide education for local children and for the children of those who serve in Northern Ireland as part of the mobile forces.
      I draw the attention of the Minister to the Department of Health and Social Services vote 1. I reject the specious argument that is made time and again that Northern Ireland is funded at a higher per capita rate than the rest of the United Kingdom. It is no longer true that our funding is greater than that of Wales or Scotland and it is only greater than that of England by 14 per cent. or 11 per cent. per capita. It is ridiculous to compare per capita expenditure in a nation of 48 million with large conurbations—much of the money goes to those areas, particularly in the south-east and the midlands—with expenditure in a community of 1.5 million which is scattered throughout Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to examine that question of funding.
      I empathise with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) who referred to care for the aged. I often wonder whether the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. For example, a contract has been awarded to paint a social service establishment that is to be sold. If hon. Members intend to sell their houses they do not paint them first as it is unlikely that they will get a return on their money. The new buyer will be interested not in the decor but in whether the building has solid foundations. Decisions have been taken to paint rooms without consulting the office workers about the colour. They then request that the rooms be repainted a different colour, only to see them painted again in the original colour. That is a waste of money.
      It is time that there was an in-depth examination of the administration of health and social services in Northern Ireland. While it is a rule of the military that one protects one's base, I am not convinced that it should be translated into providing luxurious accommodation for administrators while cutting expenditure at the coalface. Such issues are causing tremendous concern in Northern Ireland.
      Unfortunately, I have not been successful in the Members' ballots so I have not spoken about health issues in Northern Ireland for some time. However, I have tried to probe the changes to the charter mark, particularly regarding waiting lists. Has the charter mark been set aside completely, irrespective of the fact that people have been on the orthopaedic waiting list for more than a year? Some of them have urgent conditions, but they are told that there is no money.
      It is interesting to note that that money comes primarily from boards. I have examined the situation and I have discovered that trusts are prepared to do work for fundholders. I do not criticise them, but I think that they should provide similar services for the boards. The trusts currently provide services for boards at the end of the year when they may have more money. That results in a mad rush to complete contracts in a short time rather than steady work throughout the year.
      I am not convinced that the closure of wards in July and August represents a sacrifice. I believe that it may simply be convenient for the institution's administration to close over the holidays. It is time that we faced that issue rather than blame the closure on a shortage of funds.

      469
      As I am not dealing only with local issues, I draw the Minister's attention to the Sperrin Lakeland trust in Fermanagh and West Tyrone, whose team attended the nursing awards. I congratulate the team members on their achievements, although I do not know the results of those awards as I had to leave before they were announced.
      Home-start in West Tyrone was working with the Sperrin Lakeland trust, but the Western board has now decreed that it will not be possible to fund West Tyrone home-start because of the Department's requirement to reduce expenditure by 3 per cent. Its important work has now ceased. It is very difficult to motivate voluntary workers when their co-workers are suddenly dispensed with. That service to families in West Tyrone appears to be a casualty of the decisions and the mechanisms of boards and trusts. The Northern Ireland assistant director of Home-Start United Kingdom said:
      "it is difficult to identify where responsibility lies and neither body would appear to be taking ultimate responsibility for this decision".
      Nevertheless the staff have gone and the work has been impeded.
      We are still in the midst of discussions about the amalgamation of hospitals in Northern Ireland, particularly those in Belfast. I must confess that I empathise with the work that is going on, but at times I cannot fully understand the rationale behind the decisions. Not much light is shed on the subject when we write asking for guidance and information. I follow in the tradition of John Robinson, who never refuses light from any quarter, but I have difficulty glimpsing any light when I write to administrators and others requesting information about why decisions have been taken.
      For example, I may receive the bland response that every consultant in dermatology had been consulted. However, I then discover that that is not so. Some dermatologists may favour basing the service at the Belfast City hospital, but the Department recommends that it be provided at the Royal hospital. I do not know whether that is a juggling exercise, but the Belfast City hospital has been decentralising service provision for some time and it does not seem sensible to change that arrangement completely.
      I come now, under vote 1 of the Department of Education, to the Sports Council. Is the Minister aware of at least a suggestion in a report which has been drawn to my attention that the Sports Council has named the Boys' Brigade and the Churches League$football leagues under the Football Association$as sectarian? As a Boys' Brigade officer in the past and a chaplain for a long time, I know that no one was denied membership of the Boys' Brigade as long as he was prepared to work within the brigade's rules. In a world where discipline is sadly lacking, the discipline of the Boys' Brigade is needed.
      People from outside denominations and outside religious bodies have been members of the Boys' Brigade, and to speak of the Churches League as sectarian because it may be identified with particular churches is surely more fallacious than recognising the Gaelic Athletic Association as a bona fide body to receive grants. It is more sectarian than any other and is anti the security services of the Province. If that is the direction in which the Sports Council is going, it is time that it was brought back into line.
      470
      Many of our international footballers, some of whom have gone to high positions in football clubs in Great Britain, have begun by kicking a football in a Boys' Brigade team. It would be a tragedy if that development were impeded.
      Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that a boy's football team in the Portrush-Port Stewart area was unsuccessful in its application for funding to visit Holland from the Department of Education because it did not have a 60:40 mix? There is no chance of getting such a mix in that area. Surely that means that the religious criteria that the Department is applying with regard to funding for cross-community purposes should be looked at carefully and grants should reflect the area in which children live.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Department continues down that road there will be a very cross community because it will result in biased decisions which impede development. All our communities are, to some extent or other, cross-communities. I happen to represent a constituency, compared with other constituencies, with a high proportion of ethnic communities, including Chinese and Indian. To what extent should people be told that they should be in the majority group when they may want to be in the minority group?
      What about vote 1 and the Department of Economic Development? I have tabled a question to the President of the Board of Trade asking how many representations he has received concerning the Europe Tool Company investment in Northern Ireland. I was told that that was a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My information is that the President of the Board of Trade had received complaints from particular industries in Great Britain, saying that that was unfair competition which would damage some of their tool companies.
      I have not yet had a reply from the Northern Ireland Office, but the reality is that some of the companies that are complaining are purchasing tools from Korea when they could be manufactured by British people in the United Kingdom, strengthening the United Kingdom economy and giving it another base in the world. Therefore, I question whether the Government are pressing ahead with that development under that vote.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Down has gone because he regularly pleads the case for South Down and Newry and Armagh. I want to make a simple plea for Belfast, South, which is fifth in the unemployment league in Northern Ireland out of 18 constituencies and has the highest number of female unemployed. I do not know whether that has something to do with changes in the textile industry, in addition to which now there is the possible move of the Ormeau bakery. We are not sure where it is going and I hope that it will remain in my constituency, but I cannot guarantee that until the final decision has been made. If not, we will have lost another considerable pool of employment in the constituency. I ask that consideration be given to that.
      The media has said that the large vote for the women's coalition which came from South Belfast was because there were so many professional women there, but I urge journalists to consider the matter in greater depth. There are intelligent women who do not come from the professional classes who are trying to find their way.

      471
      Some of the most advanced work has been done in south Belfast by women and others who have sought to try to raise the standards for women in their community. I should like to think that we would find that redress in balance reflected in our unemployment figures.
      Other things could be said, but we have opened up issues. We welcome the funds that are coming in, but we must constantly ask whether they are being used in the right way or whether attitudes have become entrenched and people have been able to use their positions to steer money in a particular direction. We must regularly ask ourselves whether we can do better with the available funds. I think that we can. At the moment, we are not necessarily doing the best for the people of Northern Ireland in our spending on health and education.
      6.46 pm
      Mr. William Ross: I, too, listened with care to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) making a plea for his constituency. He and I and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) have the same problem, and it is one to which we shall no doubt return with increasing frequency during the coming months and years unless there is a considerable improvement in the distribution of investment from overseas in Northern Ireland. Many of us are not very happy when we find our constituencies and folk bypassed time after time. Often, as in my case, they are areas which have been completely peaceful for the past 25 years, and they do not think much of their reward for good behaviour.
      I had not intended to start there, but rather with the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) on fluoride during Northern Ireland questions today which, if I may say so, received a most unhelpful answer. I noticed that the Minister quietly skated around my hon. Friend's point, which was simply that such mass medication was not acceptable to the population at large or to the representatives of the people at large, and had nothing whatever to do with whether it was good for us. But we are told by the experts that what we think does not matter because they believe that it is good for us, so they will cram it down our throats anyway. Such an attitude is not acceptable in a democratic society.
      I have talked to dentists and others and they have said they do not think that there is any harm in fluoridation, and that it is quite a sensible idea because it stops tooth decay and so on, but one lady said to me, not so very long ago, that while she herself did not believe that it did any harm, it was completely wrong for an unelected quango, appointed by the Ministry, to tell people what they should and should not drink. That is my principal objection to the fluoridation of water. It is mass medication whether people want it or not. For that to be said by a smiling Conservative Minister is strange, coming as it does from a party which demands freedom of choice.
      As it is possible for anyone who wants fluoride to take it in tablet form, I should have thought that it would be much cheaper to make fluoride tablets freely available through chemist shops at much less cost than adding it to the water, and then folk could make up their own minds whether they wanted decaying teeth or fluoridated teeth. That is what I call freedom of choice, and it is a far step
      472
      from mass medication. It is not the fluoridation of water that can cure the problem but rather a change of diet. If we can reduce our children's sugar intake, no doubt most of them would have much healthier teeth. I cannot say that I disliked sweets when I was young, but parents now take more interest and are constantly concerned about the amount of sugar that children consume in sweet drinks and so on. We need a fundamental change of attitude in the home between children and parents. That issue touches on the health and social services budget, which leads me to the next issue that was raised with me—the pay and conditions of service for employees of Foyle Health and Social Services trust.
      I have to confess that my information is somewhat sketchy, because the matter arose only at the weekend, but my understanding is that doctors and dentists, and probably some others, received a 2 per cent. increase in salary this year, and that it was, as usual, staggered. I understand that it is a national pay award and that it has nothing to do with the trust as such. My understanding is that the increase should be paid by May, but it has not been paid as yet, and, it seems, it will not even be discussed by the trust until the June meeting.
      I presume that, somewhere along the line, the money is available to the trust. I presume that it is sitting in the trust's bank account and that the trust is drawing down interest on it. If it is, that is quite unforgivable. It should be in the bank accounts of those who are entitled to it. I should also be grateful to know what pay increase has been agreed for nurses and industrial staff. Will they get anything on top of the national agreements? When will they get their increase, as cleaners and the other industrial staff are fairly poorly paid and need any increase that is available? No worker should be deprived of money for which they have laboured for any longer than is necessary.
      I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who quite properly asked about BSE. Only now are people throughout the country waking up to the size of the problem, which is one of vast proportions. As I do so often, I waited in vain for some lead from the hon. Gentleman as to how the Labour party would resolve the problem. The Labour party needs to say what policy it would follow, as the problem will be with us for some time. It is a difficult problem, and I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have said rather more than he did.
      Having said that, I believe that responsibility still lies with Ministers on the Treasury Bench, so I shall make some points to which I hope to get sensible answers. First, I want an assurance that compensation for 30-month-plus animals will remain at its present levels until the huge backlog of cattle for slaughter has been dealt with. We cannot kill the animals quickly enough and the backlog will be with us for some time, especially in Northern Ireland, which exports so much of its stock. I believe that the figure is nearer 80 per cent. than 70 per cent. Indeed, 28 per cent. of all United Kingdom beef exports came from Northern Ireland. They went to Europe and South Africa—to all sorts of places—and some of those markets will start taking beef again if we can get the ban lifted. Until that happy situation arrives and the backlog of cattle has been dealt with the present compensation levels will remain.
      We have an enormously difficult situation in that the beef market has collapsed and there is an urgent need of additional finance and support to prevent many farmers

      473
      from getting into severe financial difficulties and possibly going out of business, in the sense that they will not have the money to replace their present stock when they sell it. They will probably have to sell it for less than they paid for it. Farmers are small businesses. They do not have large bank accounts. They are dependent on a steady flow of money as their wages every year, and unless something more is done, the entire agriculture industry in Northern Ireland will be in a very depressed state. There is currently no market at all for young bulls under 24 months of age and those more than 420 kg deadweight, and therefore there is an urgent need for the 420 kg upper limit in intervention to be removed, or some other outlet for such cattle.
      The reality is that farmers, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central said, are losing a lot of money. They are losing £250 to £300 a head, which is their entire profit plus part of the buying price of their cattle. They are being sold at a considerable loss. The farmer simply cannot open the door and let them out. He cannot walk away from them. He cannot stop them eating—unless they are slaughtered. There is a real problem with such stock. The Government must go a bit further than they have and deal with the problem. We must have an assurance that once the United Kingdom and the European Union agree the criteria for the removal of the export ban and it is up and running, the ban on Northern Ireland will be lifted immediately. I think that Northern Ireland can meet the agreed criteria, as we are further ahead than any other place, but we need some light at the end of the tunnel, and some confirmation that Northern Ireland will be free to export as soon as the agreement is reached.
      The reality, however, is that the lifting of the ban is not the end of the problem. There is a tremendous marketing job to be done in the former markets and in new markets once the ban is lifted, and that will also need financial support. It is not only a Northern Ireland problem but a United Kingdom problem. I hope that the Government are taking that fact on board as well and that in a week or so cold storage will be available in Northern Ireland so that we can get rid of the existing backlog of cattle as soon as possible.
      I draw the Minister's attention to two other difficulties. When a holding in Northern Ireland is flagged up as "BSE contact", it is the holding that is flagged up, not the animals on it. It is therefore conceivable that the farmer sells every animal, cuts his losses and gets out. Let us say that he has bought a lottery ticket so that he is able to replace his stock and that he has been very lucky. But that does not get rid of his problem. The holding is still flagged. He takes his cattle to the market six months or a year down the road. The computer will still show that these are flagged cattle and that the holding is "BSE contact". It is completely new stock. It has had no contact with BSE, but it is still flagged up and as a result is pretty well valueless.
      What will the Government do to resolve that difficulty? How will they remove the flagging from the holding to the cattle? What will they do about the other problem that is sitting grinning at us like a death sentence three months down the road with regard to suckler herds? Suckler herd farmers cannot keep their calves over the winter. They have to be sold in September, October or November. There is no food for them. There is no way of keeping them. Quite a few flagged suckler herds in Northern Ireland are in that position. I know that the Ministry of
      474
      Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was looking at the problem. What has been done about it in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Many people seem to be being caught because they bought an animal five or six years ago from a milk herd that had been in contact with BSE. There may be nothing wrong with their stock. That problem needs to be resolved quickly.
      I shall say no more about BSE and the horrors associated with it, but turn to a problem that I have already discussed with the Minister: the new hospital at Coleraine, and, in particular, cancer services there. The Minister has already been given a copy of one of the several hundred letters that I have received from people in the Coleraine area. If he has not yet replied to me, I hope that he will do so soon. Coopers and Lybrand is currently conducting a review; consultants at the hospital tell me that if the hospital is not given a cancer unit, the effect will be considerable. The area really needs such a unit. If my office has not already asked the Minister for a meeting, it will do so no later than tomorrow. I want to take a delegation to discuss the problem with him.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I do not want to detract from my hon. Friend's argument in favour of cancer provision, although there may be other arguments to deploy. Does he share my concern, and that of many other people, about the fact that the boundary line and environmental works have been completed, but the hospital that is required first and foremost has not been built?
      Mr. Ross: The laboratory has already been built, and the final reassessment has now taken place. That scares the living daylights out of the folk in the area, who feel that the place has been reassessed to death. They want to see contractors on site. A total of £47 million has been committed to that hospital. I have been told time and again that it is safe, but I want to hear the Minister tell me so yet again from the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will also tell me that he will meet the delegation that I want to take to see him. Those people want to know what is needed, and are prepared to argue their case. They do not want to be fobbed off with suggestions that they should go and see members of the trust or the board. The matter should be dealt with by the Minister, and I am becoming a little fed up with being told to talk to someone else.
      Another problem—in which the hon. Member for South Down would no doubt have been interested had he cared to remain with us—relates to the use of asbestos cement pipes from Mourne to Belfast. The Minister and I have corresponded about that in the pages of Hansard. I asked a parliamentary question about it, and was told that the asbestos fibres were removed by coagulation and filtration, which removed the bulk of the suspended material. My question was carefully worded, as was the answer. That process does remove the bulk of the material, but it does not remove all of it. According to the Green Book published by the Department just after the contract was let, the use of asbestos cement pipes should be avoided. How does the Minister justify the continuing use of such pipes, which are made outside the country anyway?
      At that time, the contract had not even begun. The Government laid down the rule that would avoid the use of asbestos cement—I do not suppose that they did that just because it is good for people—and then, all at once,

      475
      we were told that the use of asbestos would go ahead, but that the bulk could be removed by filtration. The filtration fount, however, is at the wrong end of the asbestos pipes. Documents published in the United States raise concerns in my mind, and I hope that the Minister will give the matter careful consideration.
      The asbestos problem is probably a bit like BSE. It is pretty safe to eat British beef—I have never stopped doing so, because I do not think that there is any real danger—but there is the question of perception. The perception is that the use of asbestos should be avoided, and it could easily be avoided through the use of pipes made in Northern Ireland, or even steel pipes made in Great Britain. No doubt that would be very useful, if such pipes are still made here.
      Finally, let me raise an interesting constituency case. If I do not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister—or, rather, from his colleague the Minister of State, who is in charge of education—I may raise it in the House again. My constituent received the following communication from the Social Security Agency:
      "Regarding your letter concerning your daughter's … claim for Income Support from September 1992 and October 1993. The Senior Adjudication Officer has informed us that the judgement in the Clarke and Faul case was not followed in Northern Ireland. The decisions of the Higher Courts in England and Scotland are not binding in Northern Ireland. The Adjudication Officer has looked at your daughter's case again and has decided that there was no error of law. and therefore there are no grounds for review in this case."
      That is remarkable. The famous Clarke and Faul case was brought by the students union when two students in Great Britain were refused income support. The Library tells me that they fought their case all the way to the Court of Appeal, where three Lord Justices were divided on the issue. Two said that the students were entitled to income support, and dismissed the case. The students received their money. It appeared that any students who were refused income support would henceforth be entitled to it.
      The Government, however, knew perfectly well that they had made a mistake in their original legislation. They then introduced regulations that reversed the Court of Appeal's decision by removing certain words from the legislation. The Government had a right to do that, but I feel that my young constituent—who has now left university, and whose parents had to support her during the year that she was out of university—had a perfectly sound case.
      The Government may turn round and say that, because of a little loophole in the law, although income support is a United Kingdom benefit and although the person concerned lives in the United Kingdom, they will not grant it. The different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom must all have a case fought through—Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as England. If such a case came to court either of those jurisdictions, the lawyers would immediately call in aid the decision of the highest English court, and would invariably win.
      It strikes me as incredibly petty of the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland to say that, although the case was fought and won in England—and, presumably, many students in England benefited from it—they would not allow the same arrangement in Northern Ireland. It is scandalous. I think that the Minister should examine the position again, and should tell the senior adjudication
      476
      officer and his officials to exercise a bit of common sense and apply what happened in England to the students in Northern Ireland. He should also advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has been foolish enough to follow the Northern Ireland practice, to do the same. If we are one nation, we should treat all our young people in the same way in regard to income support and other social security benefits.
      7.9 pm
      Dr. Joe Hendron: I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). For years there was all-party support for building a hospital on a green-field site in Coleraine, and I know that he led that campaign. As the health spokesperson for my party, for years I was involved in many meetings, as were the spokespeople for the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Alliance party. I am absolutely surprised that the contractors have not yet even been on site.
      I should like to start my speech on a happy note, by thanking the Minister at the Department responsible for economic development and the Industrial Development Board for the fact that, as mentioned earlier, 400 jobs are to come to my constituency. The headquarters of F. G. Wilson Emerson Electric—an international concern—will expand in Larne and will also come to my constituency. The fact that an international company with worldwide markets is coming to west Belfast is a vote of confidence in our available and well-educated work force.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members mentioned the deprivation and league tables in their constituencies. I understand why they do that, but, once again, I—with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker)—must repeat that west Belfast and north Belfast contain the most deprived wards in Northern Ireland, and probably anywhere in these islands.
      I certainly welcome the fact that F. G. Wilson Emerson Electric is coming to our area, and I fully appreciate that that was brought about by the good work and professionalism of the IDB, the Minister and the Department. Their work has also meant that Fujitsu and BCO Technology have recently come to us, and that there have been extensions to Mackeys International and to Deltaprint. Those developments are good news for West Belfast, a constituency in which the news, although about many other things—is not usually about jobs.
      I should like to say one thing—this also concerns the hon. Member for Belfast, North—about the Department of the Environment. About three years ago, I was walking on the Shankill road with the Secretary of State. It was a very sunny afternoon, and he mentioned the beauty of the Belfast hills—which run around the periphery of north and west Belfast—to some of the local people. We have often approached the Department of the Environment, the Minister and his predecessors on the development of the hills. I believe that those at Making Belfast Work are considering the matter. Any development of the Belfast hills would be a tremendous asset to the city of Belfast and to the constituencies of west and north Belfast.
      I should like to mention the LaSalle and St. Genevieve schools in my constituency. I fully appreciate that all hon. Members are concerned about their constituencies and their schools and about getting a proper financial

      477
      allocation, but the LaSalle school is one of the biggest secondary schools in the most deprived part of these islands. I shall not deal with the option that seems to have been accepted by the Government, but the difference between it and the option desired by the schools is £2.4 million. I appreciate that final decisions may not have been taken, and I again appeal to the Secretary of State and to Education Ministers to re-examine that matter.
      I do not want to repeat what other hon. Members have said about the Department of Health and Social Services, but I am of course aware that health boards are suffering from a 3 per cent. reduction in their baseline funding. In the case of the Eastern health and social services board, the cut represents £13 million. That is a catastrophic cut, as it comes on top of reductions made in recent years because of capitation shifts. I appreciate that a new formula has been adopted and that the financial position of the board may improve.
      In the meantime, however, I am very concerned about the long-term prospects for hospitals such as the Royal Victoria, which not only serves the city of Belfast—as do the City hospital and the Mater hospital—but is one of the main regional hospitals in the north of Ireland.
      The time spent on waiting lists for hip-joint replacements at Musgrave Park is increasing. The hon. Member for Belfast, North and I have drawn the Minister's attention to that fact in the past few days.
      I am deeply concerned that reduced funding for the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services trust will severely affect the most vulnerable group in our society—the elderly. I appreciate that the Minister has said that funding has increased, but what about the percentage of funding? In 1993, the trust received 27 per cent. of the Eastern health and social services board's allocation for services for the elderly. This year, the figure is 24 per cent., which is a difference of £2.5 million.
      The immediate impact of that change in programme is a reduction in care and home help services of 1,450 hours per week. The Secretary of State has drawn attention time and again to targeting social need in the most deprived areas of Northern Ireland. West and north Belfast are at the top of that deprivation league. It does not make sense for the Secretary of State to State to refer continually to targeting social need when services for the elderly are being cut.
      It is common knowledge in Belfast, although there has been no official announcement, that Shankill house, a home for the elderly, is under threat of closure. Grove Tree house, on the Falls road, is also under threat. That is just not good enough. There will be a loss of jobs, but what happens to those elderly people is a matter of even greater importance.
      On the matter of trust funding, I drew the Minister's attention to how moneys were allocated by the Eastern health and social services board according to a formula, which meant that proper funding was not going to the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services trust. Elderly age distributions are broken down into 65 to 74, 75 to 84 and 85-plus. But populations in deprived areas are unlikely to live as long as those in better areas.
      I have no doubt that people in Bangor, for example, live longer than those in north and west Belfast. Many people go to Bangor and similar places to retire, but they do not live as long as they do in other areas. Those who
      478
      work out the formula do not seem to appreciate that people in the age group of 74 or 75 to 84 suffer much more ill health than do those in other groups. I draw the Minister's attention to that problem.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has emphasised deprivation and the restrictions on resources in caring for the aged. Does he share my concern about problems in north and west Belfast in caring for children, because of cuts, not replacing staff and pressure on social workers who deal specifically with child abuse—of which there has been a high percentage in that area?
      Dr. Hendron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He and I could talk for nearly a week on sexual abuse and deprivation, which are extremely important subjects.
      I have already referred the subject of my next comments to the Minister. A report is to be issued in the next 10 days. About three years ago, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and I approached the then Minister about deprivation in west and north Belfast. As a result, an economic working group was set up with the support of the Government. A report was commissioned by either the Industrial Development Board or Making Belfast Work. The report has been sitting on someone's desk for the past six months—I understand that it is not on the Minister's desk but somewhere at the IDB. Why has the report not been published? Perhaps there will be many red faces when the facts are known, because it will be appreciated just how minimal the funding or the allocation of resources for north and west Belfast is.
      I have here a summary of the report. This is not the time to go into detail, but one of its recommendations is that there should be a strategy for north and west Belfast. A few months ago, I put to the Minister at the Department for Economic Development the case for some sort of strategy and co-ordination for the whole area. We have Making Belfast Work, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the IDB and Phoenix, all of which are doing good work in their own way, but there is no co-ordination or overall strategy. I asked that someone be appointed as overall co-ordinator. I do not care who that person is or where he comes from as long as there is some co-ordination. I ask the Minister again to study the report carefully in the hope that some strategy can be worked out for west and north Belfast.
      7.21 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): As usual on such occasions, we have had a wide-ranging debate. I shall try to answer as many questions as I can—it says here "in the time available", but I understand that some hon. Members are pressed for time and may have to leave. In the time-honoured tradition of junior Ministers when they wind up, I shall be writing to hon. Members about matters that I cannot answer directly now.
      I begin with a few words on the general economic outlook in Northern Ireland. The latest figures show that the Northern Ireland economy has grown relatively faster than the national economy. Over the year to March 1996, the seasonally adjusted number of employees in employment in Northern Ireland rose by 1.6 per cent. to 576,010. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in

      479
      eight of the past 12 months and, at May 1996 stood at 85,600, or 11.1 per cent. of the work force. However, that is a decrease of 2,700 on May 1995.
      Public expenditure in Northern Ireland in the financial year 1996–97 will be in excess of £8 billion. That is equivalent to almost £5,000 for every man, woman and child. It is a clear indication of the Government's continuing commitment to the provision of a wide range of high-quality public services for the people of Northern Ireland and it includes an extra £25 million for industrial development.
      The IDB has reported its best ever net jobs gain for a 12-month period since statistics have been recorded. Net employment in IDB client companies increased by more than 1,600. The underlying strong growth in client companies is further reflected in the fact that in the period April 1995 to March 1996, the IDB attracted record inward investment totalling £432 million, with a significant number of new companies choosing to locate in or adjacent to disadvantaged areas.
      A number of hon. Members mentioned the possibility of encouraging IDB inward investment into their own constituencies. Clearly, the policy will be to spread it as widely as possible to make sure that disadvantaged areas get their fair share. However, the IDB does not direct companies; it can only give guidance. If we had more gross investment, we could no doubt spread it more evenly across Northern Ireland.
      I was interested to learn that Cookstown, which is a deprived area, is to benefit from significant inward investment. It brought a smile to my face, because I am told repeatedly that investors will not invest in locations that do not have excellent road communications and motorways, but Cookstown is in the middle of the Province, and one could not say that it has the best road communications of any town in the Province.
      Mr. William Ross: With the greatest respect, there is a perfectly good road from the main east-west routes down to Cookstown.
      Mr. Moss: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman shares that information with the hon. Member who represents Cookstown, who is always telling me that the roads are not adequate.
      There was also significant growth in tourism last year. Total visitor spend exceeded £200 million in 1995 and will see an extra £3 million increase over the next three years.
      Inward investors who have located in Northern Ireland have specifically complimented the road system, telecommunications and the potential to create links between industry and the universities. In terms of location advantages, they found Northern Ireland operating costs to be significantly lower than anticipated, even when electricity and transport costs are included.
      I deal now with some specific questions and start with those asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley)—the Opposition spokesman—who mentioned BSE. His questions were mirrored by those from other hon. Members. The first question related to young bulls. The problem that he highlighted is unique to Northern Ireland. There is a special problem, because
      480
      some 6,000 young bulls on 200 farms are intended for a specific market—the Dutch market. I am delighted that last Friday the Government announced a scheme to slaughter those animals and compensate their owners. I believe that the scheme was widely welcomed. It is essential that the animals are slaughtered as quickly as possible, and I hope that we can rely on the patience and co-operation of farmers to ensure that the scheme runs smoothly. However, I take on board the comments made today, and they will be passed on.
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and others mentioned the problem of possible reductions in compensation payments, especially for steers and heifers. I shall certainly pass on their concern to Baroness Denton, and I assure the House that she will be using her influence to mitigate any possible reductions in compensation levels.
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and others also raised the question of special status for Northern Ireland. The European Union ban applies to the whole of the United Kingdom beef industry. The Government's principal objective is to have the ban lifted in its entirety, and all our efforts are being concentrated on that objective. From evidence provided not only this evening but on other occasions, we know that the Northern Ireland beef industry enjoys a very special reputation and is organised in a unique way. We are confident that once the ban is lifted, Northern Ireland will meet any requirements and perhaps meet them in a short time scale.
      The Opposition spokesman also mentioned electricity prices in Northern Ireland. It is more expensive to produce and distribute electricity in Northern Ireland than in most regions of Great Britain, because our power stations are smaller, the spinning reserve margin is higher and customers are on average more dispersed. The most effective way to keep energy costs down is through the promotion of competition and the pursuit of efficiency in production transmission and the use of electricity. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government are providing £60 million over three years from April 1996 to assist Northern Ireland customers. The Government will continue to encourage both efficiency and competition.
      The Director General of Electricity Supply is currently engaged in the first electricity price controls review since privatisation and his proposals will take effect from 1 April 1997. In January this year, he published a consultation paper on the introduction of greater competition and consumer choice in the electricity market in Northern Ireland, and he plans shortly to issue a further paper outlining his definitive proposals. It is for the director general and not the Government to consider a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as requested by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about the fire authority. I suspect that he was referring to the funding of a new command and control system for the Northern Ireland fire brigade which was flagged up in a newspaper recently. Fire authority funding in Northern Ireland has increased from £16 million in 1985–86, to £32 million in 1991, to more than £42 million for the coming year. I am satisfied that the fire authority has sufficient resources to provide a new command and control system and that there is no threat to the ability of Northern Ireland's fire brigades to respond to fire calls.

      481
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central and almost every other hon. Member who has spoken tonight mentioned health funding. I recognise that there are some difficulties, but we should consider them in the context of the overall Northern Ireland block.
      The Government have increased the resources available to health and personal social services next year to some £1,580 million. That represents a real—terms increase, thus honouring the Government's commitment to give real increases to the health service. That pledge was made at Cabinet level and certainly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It represents a real—terms increase of 0.8 per cent. on 1995–96. As we spent more last year, the increase was only 0.2 per cent. in real terms, but that must be considered in the context of an impressive 57 per cent. real—terms increase since 1979–80.
      That settlement included a requirement from the Department of Finance and Personnel to the health service to find 3 per cent. efficiency savings. I discussed that with all the trusts and boards, and we concluded that it would be extremely difficult to find 3 per cent. efficiency savings, but that savings of 1.5 per cent. were possible. Instead of being prescriptive, we agreed to guidelines of 1.5 per cent. efficiency savings and 1.5 per cent. cuts in services. Although we have not yet finalised all contracting, some boards have managed 2 per cent. efficiency savings—more than the anticipated 1.5 per cent.
      I have allowed the boards and trusts to remain flexible. To a certain extent, I am pleased with the way in which they have addressed their problems. I do not yet have all the final contracting. Once I have that—and I am pressing boards and trusts to reach a final resolution—I intend to meet them to review the position.
      The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) referred to in-year money. I am flattered that he assumes that I can secure any, but the man responsible—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—is not too far away. Perhaps some pleadings should be addressed in his direction, but we shall be considering the overall position and preparing our case for next year, as next year's public expenditure round is about to start. We shall have information relating to the impact on this year and our plans for next year.
      I should also point out that there has been real growth in certain services. Additional resources have been provided, including £2 million for renal services, particularly dialysis, just under £1 million for additional drugs for cancer patients and £1.1 million for neurology. I have allocated money to the proper implementation of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995—a matter that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has raised with me previously. We also included in the budget this year an extra £12 million for community care.
      When we came to decide where cuts should fall, we decided on elective surgery, as we cannot limit accident and emergency admissions and we cannot touch the family health service or the GP service. Nor can we reduce the drugs bill. We have to address the drugs problem in Northern Ireland. There has been exponential growth in the drugs budget, so I have to allow a contingency reserve of what might be required, as I cannot allow that budget not to be met in the financial year. We are holding back a great deal of money, which I want to
      482
      release to front-line health care, if I can get assistance from GPs and the public at large on the exponential growth of the drugs budget.
      The average cost of prescriptions per head of population in Northern Ireland is £98 compared with £68 in Great Britain. It has been said that we should not compare cost-per-head figures and expenditure in Northern Ireland with those in Great Britain. I am prepared to accept that there are differences, as there are certainly areas of severe deprivation in Northern Ireland where we would expect to spend more on health services, including drugs, but I am not sure that I agree that a differential of £98 to £68 is acceptable or reasonable. Any money that we save on drugs can go back into front-line health care.
      Mr. Jim Dowd: The Minister mentioned the difficulty of comparisons between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He admitted that there will be cuts in health service provision in Northern Ireland. That stands in stark contrast to his counterparts in the Department of Health, who resolutely refuse to admit to that. Apart from his obvious greater honesty and candour, what is the reason for that distinction?
      Mr. Moss: There is a distinction primarily on the basis that we spend far more on health per head of population in Northern Ireland than we do in Great Britain, although spending in Scotland is high. There is a differential of 14 to 15 per cent. in spend per head of population. Northern Ireland obviously has a high cost base that needs addressing in one way or another. In the rest of the United Kingdom, there probably would be 10 district general hospitals per 1.5 million head of population; in Northern Ireland we have 19. I am not saying that we should get rid of nine—I hope that that will not be tomorrow's headline—but we have to look carefully at the number of hospitals and what they do.
      There is a higher cost base, which needs to be addressed in the medium term, but short-term measures are difficult. Earlier this evening, attention was drawn to the fact that 3 per cent. cash-releasing savings is different from what has been asked of the health service in England and Wales—and, I believe, in Scotland. I met the boards and trusts, to try to establish a way forward that would help to minimise the effects of cuts in some activities. We selected elective surgery because it would also affect the fundholder budgets that are used to purchase elective surgery.
      In the past few years, Northern Ireland has had an excellent record of increasing the throughput of in-patients, out-patients and day surgery. Our waiting lists are extremely low in most activities, and I do not believe that the impact of the cuts will be as draconian or dramatic as people claim. Until I get the full list of contracts, I cannot review the position, but I intend to do so very quickly.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: In respect of the drugs budget, how far has the Department proceeded with the pay review? Is there a disparity in drug prescription in particular areas or by individual doctors? I am not suggesting that we should save money by reducing the

      483
      prescription of modern, expensive drugs, which ultimately might prove cheaper, but I believe that there is a disparity in prescription.
      Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a disparity, and we have statistics on it, but it is a different matter from publishing a list of what individual GP practices prescribe. We have had some considerable success in reducing the drugs budget through our fundholding GP practices. We want non-GP fundholders to try to emulate that success. We shall be launching a campaign in the near future. I have not yet brought all the strands together, but I am looking carefully at the matter, and making inroads into it is a major plank of our policy over the next year. I shall certainly consider any specific suggestions that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may make to me.
      The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the funding of two schools in his constituency, and I shall certainly convey that information to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
      I was somewhat surprised that the South-East education and library board, to which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) also referred, had not yet replied to a letter of 5 March. I find that very strange and will certainly take up the matter.
      The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the statement that has been made—he mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think that the statement has also been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Certain key services—the health service and education—were particularly mentioned. I can speak this evening only on the health service. The health service has been protected in so far as we have given it a real—terms increase this year.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) also raised health issues. He referred to the capitation formula, on which a moratorium is being conducted at the moment. When he and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) came to see me, I said that the Eastern board had begun a moratorium, and we are looking at that again. It is true that finding a capitation formula that is acceptable to all is extremely difficult. However, we believe that we have built deprivation factors into our formula—for distribution not only to community trusts but to boards. It is difficult to arrive at a formula that meets everyone's approval. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, North for his comments on the strengthening of the Housing Executive's role, especially in a strategic sense, and I endorse the importance of housing not only to his constituents but to those of every hon. Member in Northern Ireland.
      The issue of grants came up at Question Time this afternoon, and I accepted that there had been some delays, especially for disabled people. That is because of the lack of occupational therapists. We are addressing that and hope to bring it into line in the very near future. The amount of money allocated for grants has increased year by year. There has been a £3 million increase—I think—this year to £47 million. The problem of mandatory
      484
      repairs grants that were eating into the total budget has been addressed, and we have reduced the maximum amount available to £500. That should make quite a difference.
      The hon. Member for South Down raised the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development. It is true that the capital grant elements of that scheme were suspended from 24 March 1995 because, as he noted, commitments to applicants risked outstripping the available financial resources. A decision about reopening the scheme will not be made until an assessment of funds required to finance the applications received has been made. We shall take stock at that time.
      The hon. Gentleman also referred to fishing. We agree that the European Union proposals are unacceptable at this juncture. We accept the view that the assessments of over-fishing in the Irish sea are probably wrong. I am sure that my noble Friend Baroness Denton, together with my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be arguing the British case very strongly in European meetings.
      The hon. Member for South Down again mentioned theory test centres. I have written to him and said that we are starting off with—I think—six test centres, but I shall review the position at the half-year point. Essentially, we are trying to keep the costs of the tests down. We have calculated that every extra test centre might cost us £55,000 a year, which would put £1 or £2 on each candidate's test. I heard what he said about £35 for the hire of an educational establishment in Downpatrick. Obviously, I shall have to check that out with the usual sources.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned the bad publicity about theatre closures at the Royal Victoria hospital. I was pleased to have his support on the fact that at least some such closures happen every year, but are just not publicised. Doctors and nurses have to take a holiday. August is a holiday time in any case, and the number of people admitted to hospital in that month drops dramatically. The information is not new, but I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of the Government's position. I shall refer the issue of Tyrella school to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, South also made a plea for investment in south Belfast. That will be passed on accordingly, but it should be borne in mind that every hon. Member who speaks for Northern Ireland makes a personal plea for his constituency. I am not aware of any problems with Sports Council funding, so I cannot comment this evening, but I shall look into it for him.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised the issue of fluoridation. It is true that the four boards have formally requested that I consider introducing fluoridation in Northern Ireland. They are tasked with conducting a thorough and adequate consultation, not only with the public at large but with district councils, and they must take those views into account. It is common knowledge that, if the consultation process has not been as thorough and proper as it should have been, the boards could lay themselves open to judicial review. I have not seen their request, but I shall be looking at it fairly soon. The important thing is that they consult properly in their areas. I have to balance—as indeed they do—the points made for fluoridation against the general thrust of their policy, to look after the health and well-being of their populations.

      485
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about a pay increase that was due in May and has not yet been received. I shall look into that, but it surprises me. Last year, we agreed the full 3 per cent. pay increase for nurses. As far as I was concerned, that was financed by the boards and trusts. The proposal made by the pay review body this year is for a 2 per cent. increase for nurses. The proposed increase for doctors was higher. We are in negotiations on where we go from that 2 per cent. baseline, but we are not in a position to make any announcements at this stage.
      I should be happy to welcome any deputation that the hon. Member for East Londonderry would care to bring from the Coleraine area, on cancer services at the new Causeway hospital. Contractors are on the site, and it has been cleared. We are about to go out to tender, but we are conducting one final financial assessment before we lay the first stone. I am convinced that that assessment will be through in the near future.
      Sir James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) apologises for having to leave to catch a flight.
      Mr. Moss: I had noticed that he had gone, but I did not refer to it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comment.
      The subject of asbestos cement pipes was raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry and by a number of hon. Members who represent the Belfast area. I hope to make an announcement on that very soon. My Department has received a report from the water research centre. We are looking at it very carefully and hope to make an announcement in the near future, at which time the report will be made available in the Library. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter of income support for a student in his constituency.
      Finally—I do not think that I have missed out any hon. Members—the hon. Member for Belfast, West spoke of the Belfast hills. The Department of the Environment is anxious that we should have a policy on the hills because
      486
      they are—I would not say that they are a hidden asset, because one cannot miss them—a unique asset and much under-utilised by people in Belfast. I shall refer back his question about the LaSalle and St. Genevieve schools. The hon. Gentleman asked for a little extra money, but I believe that the capital programme for both of them has already been more or less agreed.
      The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of home closures. I can assure him, and the hon. Member for Belfast, North, who also raised the matter, that those are not related to the present economies. The closure of statutory homes takes place because, although we need sufficient beds in the public and private sectors to accommodate those who need residential and nursing home care, the emphasis now is on care in the community, with people being looked after in their own homes. So we do not need so many beds in either the statutory or the independent private sector. We are simply rationalising the provision to ensure that we have sufficient beds, with a mixed provision of care across the two sectors—or rather, across the three sectors. I have not mentioned the voluntary sector, which is also important.
      I have not seen the paper on the economic position in north and west Belfast. The hon. Gentleman held up a copy, and if he would like to give it to me afterwards, I shall take it away and consider it. We can liaise with the IDB in that respect, because we are interested in finding a sensible way of measuring deprivation, not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but throughout Northern Ireland, so that funding in, say, the health service, can be targeted under the heading of social need for those key areas in our overall policy.
      I have answered as best I can most of the questions that have been raised, and I shall write to hon. Members about those that I have not answered. I commend the appropriation order to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

      Crown Office (Gavin McGuire Case)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
      7.51 pm
      Mr. William McKelvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to air problems of great concern not only to my constituents, but to people throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I have a sad story to tell.
      A young constituent of mine, Mhairi Julyan, a schoolgirl innocently making her way home from a pantomime just before Christmas last year, was set upon by a vile pervert, a man who hated women, who preyed upon defenceless women and was violent in the extreme. He subjected her to torture and sexual assault and then murdered her. As with all crimes of violence and every tragic loss of a young life, the people of Kilmarnock were—and remain—shocked and distressed. I am sure that the House will have great sympathy for Mhairi, for her parents, the rest of her family and her friends.
      What sets this hideous crime apart from many others is the fact that the perpetrator, Gavin McGuire, had been allowed to return time and again to the community, sometimes committing the same types of crime for which he had been committed to prison, but sometimes committing even worse crimes. That fact poses a number of questions that my hon. Friends and I believe require a full and independent inquiry in public.
      We must ask the following questions. What treatment did McGuire undergo while in prison? What assessment was made of any such treatment? Why were police and social services not alerted when he was released from prison? What procedures are in place to oversee the behaviour of sex offenders, especially those who have shown violence, to try to prevent recidivism?
      Last week, I visited the Lord Advocate, Lord MacKay of Drumadoon, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Paul Cullen, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who is with me in the Chamber tonight, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), our Front-Bench spokesman. We were seeking an independent public inquiry, which all right-minded believe is now imperative.
      We were promised an inquiry, but it will not be held in public; it will be carried out internally by the Crown Office. Although that is better than nothing, it can in no way replace the fullest of inquiries, whose participants would come from outside the Crown Office system. An independent public inquiry would provide a fresh view and a comprehensive study in order to make recommendations that might prevent a known vicious serial rapist such as Gavin McGuire from ever being free to terrorise, to mutilate and to kill again.
      It is important that the House be made aware of the evil within that man, which spiralled over the years and appears to have gone unchecked, other than during his periods of incarceration. It is said that Gavin McGuire was always a loner, an outsider with few social skills and unable to make close relationships. He was the eldest of three sons of a working-class family in Stevenston in Ayrshire. His father was made redundant when Gavin was a child and seems to have spent a lot of his time drinking and gambling, leaving the three brothers to fend for themselves.
      488
      McGuire's parents separated when he was young, and he first went into care at the age of eight—that sounds like something out of Charles Dickens, but it is not. During his 25-year career of crime, and even before, since the age of eight, he had done time in every form of institution—assessment centre, borstal, list D school, young offenders institution and eventually prison, including the top security Peterhead gaol, where he shared segregation with some of Scotland's worst sex offenders.
      In 1976, McGuire was arrested for assaulting three young women in Stevenston, one of whom he sexually attacked. In each of those cases either the victim fought him off or he was disturbed by a passer-by. The first attack took place five months after he left the list D school.
      McGuire's first victim was a 15-year-old schoolgirl from Auchenharvie academy. He knocked her to the ground, punched her in the face and bit her nose before her screams alerted help, and he ran off. In the second attack, a 15-year-old holidaymaker was dragged on to a patch of waste ground, where he punched her repeatedly and dragged her by the hair before sexually assaulting her. Again, he ran off when passers by came to her aid. The third victim in McGuire's first phase was attacked just two days later, when he pushed an 18-year-old girl against a wall, but she escaped after hitting him with her shopping bag.
      I relate those details to demonstrate that even early in his perverted career, McGuire showed no mercy and no restraint towards the women he attacked. In fact, in all three of those cases, only good fortune prevented even more serious harm.
      When McGuire initially came to court in Kilmarnock, the sheriff court—rightly in my opinion—refused bail, but bail of £10 was granted on appeal to the High Court. While out on that £10 bail the following month, he assaulted a pregnant woman, kicking her to the ground, and robbed the garage in which she had been working. He also robbed another garage.
      One week later, he followed a woman, grabbed her and tried to pull her to the ground, but she ran off when a car approached. Later the same day, he held a piece of glass at the throat of a 23-year-old woman whom he had grabbed in a shopping arcade. He dragged her behind a store, stripped her and raped her.
      When McGuire finally came to court, he admitted eight charges, including rape, serious assault with sexual intent, assault and robbery, theft of a motor car and theft of money. For those offences he was sentenced to 10 years in a young offenders institution. His Member of Parliament at that time, John Corrie, demanded an inquiry to discover why he had been bailed for the first three offences, which had left him free to carry out further vicious attacks—but Corrie had no success in bringing about an inquiry. More is the pity.
      McGuire was released on licence seven years later. Within months, that monster subjected a holidaymaker in Saltcoats, Ayrshire, to a terrifying three-hour ordeal in the dead of night. He brutally attacked, beat and raped her, then threw her into Saltcoats harbour. I do not believe that his intention was other than murder, but the murder charge was dropped, although he had watched the woman floating in the harbour for some time. During that time she feigned unconsciousness and kept herself afloat until he left the scene. She then swam for the shore and for

      489
      help. It was stated in court that had she not been a good swimmer she would not have not survived that hellish ordeal.
      Despite his obvious intent, the charge against McGuire was reduced from attempted murder and rape to assault and rape, for which he was sentenced in August 1986, again for a period of 10 years. The presiding judge, Lord Dunpark, in sentencing McGuire, described him
      "as a menace to society, and particularly to women."
      Again he was released on licence after having served part of his 10-year sentence, and again he preyed on vulnerable women soon after his release.
      The next victim we know about was a young woman who was set upon by McGuire. When defending herself, she bit his finger very hard and drew a lot of blood. She alerted the police, and drew their attention to the fact that she had injured him. He was arrested eight days later after the victim recognised him in the street. He appeared at Kilmarnock sheriff court on 21 August 1995 on a charge of assault with intent to rape and robbery. He was remanded in custody while the police and the procurator fiscal investigated.
      On 28 November 1995, McGuire was liberated by the Crown on the ground that there was insufficient evidence in law to provide corroboration, which is required by Scots law. Nineteen days later he murdered Mhairi Julyan.
      It was necessary to go over this man's offences—at least those that we know of—in some detail to demonstrate not only his evil intent, but the continuing nature of his crimes. For at least 20 years, he has been raping and brutalising women whenever he gets the chance. It is only very good fortune for the woman concerned that he was not facing a murder charge in 1986. Indeed, that might even be said of the other women he abused who escaped when he was disturbed. He showed no humanity to his victims, and his disregard led to escalating violence that culminated in the death of Mhairi Julyan. Forty-seven different injuries were found on this lovely young girl's body, the combination of which led to her death.
      I am aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland believes that he has found a solution. "Two strikes and you're out," I think it is called. That is to say two sex offences and then prison for life, but is that really an acceptable solution? I believe it is a knee-jerk reaction of a Secretary of State backed into a corner because of criticisms of our system of justice in Scotland. The policy has not been thought out, nor has it been tested on the many strong and able legal minds in Scotland. Many organisations in the penal system are likely to have strong opinions which may be of use, and psychiatrists and others may be able to provide a much better and less wasteful solution at an early stage.
      It is for that reason that my colleagues and I are again calling on the Government to set up an independent public inquiry. As well as looking at the particular circumstances of this horrific case, it could include changes that add any remission to later sentences. I believe that it is essential that the inquiry investigates the treatment of offenders and makes the compulsory completion of psychological treatment and assessment of the possibility of recidivism the main criteria for release, thus bringing about a stark change in sentencing policy for sex and violent offenders.
      I am also convinced, as are my colleagues, that an inquiry must look at the law of evidence in Scottish courts regarding sex offences with a view to abolishing the
      490
      mandatory requirement on the prosecution to provide corroborative evidence before a case can proceed. The tragic consequences of that requirement protected McGuire from prosecution and led to his liberation on 28 November last year. He was then free to go out and murder just 19 days later.
      I would like a public inquiry to examine the possibility of introducing instead a discretionary power for judges to warn a jury in summing up about the lack of corroboration when there are no witnesses other than the victim. That should provide protection against malicious accusations, and it would bring Scots law in line with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Without such a change, women remain very vulnerable. Other offenders may be liberated—just as Gavin McGuire was, time after time—only to re-offend, perhaps with equally awful consequences.
      I look forward to the Minister's response to these accusations. Without a full public inquiry, we will never be convinced that the last evil murder of this man could not have been avoided. Although we await the results of the internal inquiry in the Lord Advocate's office, we feel that such an internal inquiry will not provide the answers.
      8.4 pm
      Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I intend to be brief to allow the Minister ample opportunity to reply to the many questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) has asked. My interest in the case is that Gavin McGuire is my constituent. That is no great distinction, and it is sad that I find myself speaking as the hon. Member who represents a man who has caused so much grief.
      This debate is particularly significant for Ayrshire, as other important factors have still to come to the surface. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made the important points, but they must be reinforced. The case demonstrates the complete and utter shambles in the Crown Office and the judicial system. I want to examine some areas of concern. First, the case has clearly demonstrated that there is a problem with resources. Secondly, constituents who have seen me in the past few weeks have suggested that they no longer have confidence in the system in Scotland.
      We must consider resources, and what went on in the office of the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock and in the Crown Office. When we realise that evidence that clearly demonstrated that this man should never have been allowed out so that he was able to murder that young girl was available in the procurator fiscal's office, we get angry at the inability of those responsible to hold him in remand and prosecute him to ensure that he was not in society. We are all aware of the lack of resources. On the basis of what he has learnt about the case, will the Minister—as the Minister responsible for the matter—recommend that additional resources be made available to the procurator fiscal's department and to the Crown Office?
      The Government tell us that they are hard on crime. They have had 17 years to show us that. This significant case shows that their hardness on crime does not work in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned the meeting that we had with the Lord Advocate, where we were promised an internal inquiry. While that signifies some success, it clearly is not

      491
      what we were looking for. The public need answers. They need to know what went wrong. The most important thing tonight is for the Minister to agree at some point to an independent public inquiry, and that is what we are looking for.
      8.8 pm
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on securing an Adjournment debate on this anxious topic. He has raised some questions about the case of Gavin McGuire and I intend to answer them as fully as possible. I first place on record my sympathy for the parents and family of Mhairi Julyan. The death of a teenager is always tragic; how much more so is the callous murder of a young person with everything to live for. It leaves in its wake, as the hon. Gentleman said, shock and distress.
      Of one thing there is no doubt. McGuire is a man who presents a considerable danger to women. In February 1977, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for two charges of rape, a charge of assault with intent to ravish and other offences. On 12 November 1986, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for attempted rape and serious assault. The sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum recommendation of 30 years that was imposed by Lord Clyde on 30 May, is the best protection that women can have against such a predatory criminal.
      The House knows that in the light of McGuire case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week proposals that would require the courts to impose a life sentence, other than in exceptional circumstances, where an offender is convicted of a second offence involving serious violence or sexual assault. That would mean that the judge would still set the minimum time that the offender is to spend in prison, but by making a minimum recommendation rather than by imposing a determinate sentence.
      Thereafter, the benefits of the life sentence become apparent, in that the parole board will then consider whether the offender can safely be released. If after release his behaviour gives any cause for concern, he can be immediately recalled to prison to continue serving his life sentence. If a determinate rather than a life sentence is imposed, release back into the community is automatic after a certain date, no matter how much of a risk to the public the prisoner might still pose, and there is no possibility of immediate recall to prison if his actions should give rise for concern.
      Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has also raised the issue. He wrote:
      "In McGuire's case, such a provision would have meant that he would have been given a life sentence on his second conviction in 1986, and his subsequent release would only have occurred when he had served the full period determined by the judge and the Parole Board had concluded that he could be safely released. If he had been released and there was thereafter concern about his behaviour, whether or not this involved committing an offence, he could have been returned immediately to custody."
      492
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to announce his proposals on "Making the Punishment Fit the Crime" shortly. Meanwhile, he expects to be able to count on the support of Opposition Members for that change.
      Mr. McKelvey: While we understand what the Minister is saying, we are concerned about what we have described as a knee-jerk reaction. How much did the Secretary of State discuss the matter with interested parties such as the judiciary and those who work in the legal system? How much support does he have for pursuing that change and establishing it rapidly?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Judges are always consulted before legislation goes through Parliament. We are not yet at the stage of putting a Bill before Parliament, but when proposals are published, judges will be consulted, just like everyone else. However, we are determined to ensure that there should be more emphasis on the concerns of the victim rather than on the criminal. I hope that the Opposition will support that.
      Mr. McKelvey: This important issue is at the nub of the reasons why we want a full inquiry. There is a case to answer. This man was incarcerated and made a ward of the state at the age of eight. He has already spent 14 years of his adult life in prison. We are concerned about what was done with him while he was in prison. Has he been psychologically examined? Was there such a programme? If there was, how did he respond to it? If a full inquiry gave us those answers, the conditions that could be set by law to improve the position might be more readily agreed.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman takes me off the thread of my remarks, but I shall deal with his question about the treatment of sex offenders in prison. I will happily make inquiries because prisoners come under my responsibility. I shall write to him in due course.
      It is important that sex offenders are given the opportunity to address their offending behaviour while in prison. That is why many long-term prisoners convicted of sex offences are held in Peterhead prison. Grouping them together has made it possible to develop a comprehensive sex offender treatment programme there. It is widely recognised that such programmes are likely to be successful only to the extent that they engage the co-operation of the offender.
      Programmes have been set up in several Scots prisons, including Barlinnie, where emphasis is placed on helping perpetrators to recognise and control the triggers that prompt offending behaviour. An important aspect of the programme is that counselling is also offered to those released back into the community through support groups run by the city of Glasgow social work department. The aims of sex offender treatment programmes are to get prisoners to accept their personal responsibility, for them to address the consequences of offending behaviour for the offender and for victims, and to develop self-corneal strategies and avoid situations likely to lead to re-offending.
      The stop programme in Peterhead has recently undergone an external evaluation. The programme was viewed positively, with participants demonstrating

      493
      increased victim awareness. In the light of that report and other recent research, the Scottish Prison Service is developing guidance on the management of sex offenders in prison. Those who co-operate in addressing their offending behaviour may be allowed controlled access to a range of opportunities in other establishments to prepare them further for eventual release and may be considered by the parole board for release on licence. Prisoners who choose not to address their offending behaviour are unlikely to be considered for early release. Sex offenders released on licence are required to maintain contact with their supervising officer and must observe the conditions of the licence. Failure to do so could be grounds for recalling the offender to prison. Those requirements are intended to reduce the likelihood of the offender being involved in further offences.
      Mr. Donohoe: The Minister should give us a specific answer. Did McGuire go through that programme?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is the programme now in place. The hon. Gentleman's question is historical. I will make inquiries and write to him and to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in due course. I shall move on to less historical, more immediate issues.
      When my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate exercises his duty as public prosecutor, he acts independently of Government. He is accountable to Parliament and it is as his spokesman that I am replying tonight. I can advise the House on his behalf that he and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will examine the history of the case with the Advocate Deputes and the procurator fiscal respectively.
      I should explain what cannot be done and, more importantly, what can be done. Hon. Members asked whether a public inquiry would be the best way forward. I do not believe that it would because a public inquiry into the process of decision-making by the Lord Advocate and his deputies would violate the principle of the independence of public prosecution. The constitutional position of the public prosecutor was explained to the House by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan, in 1959, in a statement concerning the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry in the Waters case. He said:
      "It is an established principle of Government in this country, and a tradition long supported by all political parties, that the decision as to whether any citizen should be prosecuted, or whether any prosecution should be discontinued, should be a matter where a public as opposed to a private prosecution is concerned, for the prosecuting authorities to decide on the merits of the case without political or other pressure.
      It would be a most dangerous deviation from this sound principle if a prosecution were to be instituted or abandoned as a result of political pressure or popular clamour … In reaching his decisions the Lord Advocate's duty in Scotland, like the Attorney-General's in England, is to act in a quasi-judicial capacity".—[Official Report, 16 February 1959; Vol. 600, c. 31.]
      Prosecutors need to assess not only the sufficiency but the quality of evidence and the credibility of witnesses. If prosecutors' decisions could be explored publicly, the temptation would be to prosecute regardless of the outcome—because the easy decision is always to prosecute—and cases could unnecessarily or inappropriately be brought to court. That is not necessarily in the best public interest.
      494
      While I do not see a public inquiry as the best way forward, there are other ways forward and I should like to go into them. I mentioned the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which would meet the situation. They would mean that someone convicted a second time of a very serious sex offence of this nature would attract a life sentence and would then be subject to a much longer sentence.
      Mr. Donohoe: That is clearly important. I do not know if the Minister heard one of the experts in Scottish law dispute that fact. He said that, instead of raping and leaving a woman, someone who had already offended would be more likely on the second occasion not only to rape but to murder.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but fear of detection has often been a source of the most devastating crimes. Fear of detection is always with criminals in all circumstances. We believe that if we impose a life sentence on a second serious sexual crime, which could amount to attempted murder or rape, the person who has committed it will be subject to much stronger control and a much longer sentence than is now possible. I look forward to the hon. Members' support for that proposal in due course.
      I mentioned the other ways forward. First, a working group chaired by a regional procurator fiscal completed a full review last year of the way in which the procurator fiscal service investigates and prepares serious cases and this has resulted in detailed guidance in the form of a handbook which has been issued to all relevant staff. Procurators fiscal are encouraged to take an active involvement in the preparation of all serious cases. That is a particular feature of the Scottish prosecution system. Full details of the examination of the case of Gavin McGuire will be passed on to the working group for its consideration as part of its work of promoting good practice.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland chaired a separate working group which reported earlier this year on the role and recruitment of advocate deputes who prosecute and take decisions on criminal proceedings in the High Court. As a result, a number of changes in working arrangements are already being implemented with a view to giving them more time to consider cases at an earlier stage, but account will be taken of the results of the process of examination which I have mentioned.
      It is appropriate that I should, with the Lord Advocate's agreement, set out in some detail the background to the decision which was taken to release McGuire from custody before his trial last November.
      On 12 August 1995, Lorna Andrew was assaulted in a public park in Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, by a man who forced her to the ground and attempted to remove her clothing. She reported that in the course of the struggle she had bitten her attacker's left index finger. Initial inquiries by the police did not identify her attacker, who ran away.
      Eight days later, on 20 August, Lorna Andrew saw Gavin McGuire by chance in the street and identified him as her attacker. She informed the police and McGuire was apprehended and examined by a casualty surgeon, who found a small injury on the nail side of his left index finger. McGuire's explanation was that he had injured his finger while sawing tree branches on 17 August. The

      495
      casualty surgeon was of the view that the injury could have been caused by a tooth. McGuire appeared in court on 21 August 1995 and was remanded in custody.
      In Scots criminal law it is essential for proof of a charge that the accused is identified as the perpetrator of the crime by corroborated evidence and beyond reasonable doubt. Corroboration means confirmation or support of one piece of evidence by another piece of evidence, each from a source independent of the other. The corroboration rule is regarded as a fundamental protection against wrongful conviction, and one which has thus reduced the risk of miscarriages of justice in Scotland.
      In Scotland it is not possible to rely on evidence of previous convictions for similar crimes in order to prove a case, although I understand that this can be possible in England and Wales in cases of exceptional similarity under a doctrine known as similar fact evidence.
      Mr. McKelvey: We should clear up the matter of the medical evidence. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General told me and my hon. Friends that the examining surgeon believed that the wound on McGuire's finger was less than 72 hours old. That was the reason why the authorities felt that they could not proceed with the case. The attack took place eight days before the examination. It is also worth seeking an explanation of why the assault and attempted rape were lumped in with the murder case in an attempt to try two cases together, when further medical examination had apparently been sought.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I welcome to the Chamber the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who has shown a great interest in the subject. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked whether the doctrine of corroboration was appropriate. I mentioned a moment ago that in England and Wales, in cases of exceptional similarity, under a doctrine known as similar fact evidence, it is possible to rely on evidence of previous convictions.
      We will be studying the law of corroboration in general in the light of the recommendations of the Sutherland committee. The importance of the corroboration rule has been emphasised in the report of the committee on criminal appeals and miscarriages of justice procedures chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, which was published on Monday.
      In the case against Gavin McGuire, Lorna Andrew's evidence was one piece of evidence identifying McGuire as the man who attacked her. The casualty surgeon's evidence was that the injury to McGuire's finger could have been anything up to 72 hours old, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said a moment ago.
      The medical evidence was therefore inconsistent in respect of timing with the account of Lorna Andrew and the casualty surgeon was therefore re-interviewed on the instructions of Crown Counsel and asked specifically for an opinion as to the earliest time prior to her examination on 20 August when the injury could have been inflicted, and whether it was possible that it could have been inflicted as early as 12 August. She remained of the opinion that the injury was no older than 72 hours, but
      496
      considered that it might indeed have been only a day old. She said it was definitely not so old as seven or eight days, and said that she had no hesitation in confirming her opinion that it was no older than 72 hours.
      Faced with this evidence, Crown counsel concluded that the medical evidence could not provide corroboration of Lorna Andrew's identification of McGuire. Crown counsel was, however, of the view that corroboration might come from the recovery at McGuire's home of clothing fitting the description given by Miss Andrew, but which consisted of common items. It was known that forensic scientific examination of clothing of Lorna Andrew and Gavin McGuire had still to be completed, and it was decided to proceed to service of an indictment while the results were awaited.
      McGuire was, accordingly, indicted to appear at the sitting of the High Court at Kilmarnock commencing on 27 November 1995. The scope for forensic scientific examination was limited, not least by the passage of time before McGuire was apprehended. One matter which was explored was the investigation of a cosmetic stain on McGuire's jacket. On 17 November 1995, the procurator fiscal was advised that line of investigation had proved negative.
      The case was plainly a thin one, and there is no question of anyone not appreciating that until the last minute. The case was considered carefully at every stage, particularly because of McGuire's previous record. A number of lines of inquiry were pursued, right up to 17 November. However, by then it was clear that there was only one possible line of corroborating evidence—the injury—but the medical evidence did not corroborate, but actually contradicted, the victim's evidence. If the doctor's evidence as to the timing of the injury was correct, the injury could not have been caused by a bite from Lorna Andrew.
      The matter was considered closely by the Advocate Depute—the prosecutor who was assigned to the case—and he discussed the case with my right hon. noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. It was agreed that the case should not proceed to trial at this time on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. If it did, the outcome would inevitably have been an acquittal by the judge on the basis that there was no case to answer. An acquittal would have served no purpose and the case could never be brought to trial again. Keeping the case open preserved the option of bringing the matter to trial at a later date if further evidence became available. The accused was liberated on 28 November, after the situation had been explained to Lorna Andrew.
      On 16 December 1995, Mhairi Julyan, a schoolgirl, was sexually assaulted and murdered in Kilmarnock.
      Mr. Donohoe: The Minister has not referred to some of the evidence. We have had a meeting with the Lord Advocate. It was suggested that independent evidence was taken from the police surgeon and that a professor from one of the hospitals—I suppose it was the dental hospital—suggested that there was enough evidence to convict, and that there would have been corroboration from that evidence. The Minister has not referred to that. Is he about to? Has he received the same advice as us?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I have received the same advice. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating what

      497
      I am about to say. As a result of police investigations after this terrible murder, the police apprehended Gavin McGuire and charged him with murder. The position with regard to the earlier charges was reviewed in the course of the investigation of the murder. Nothing had changed with regard to sufficiency of evidence on these charges, except in so far as the subsequent crime might be of evidential value in relation to them and they might be of evidential value in relation to the murder case.
      This arose from the doctrine of mutual corroboration, known as the Moorov doctrine after a leading case in the 1930s. This doctrine can be invoked where separate similar crimes are charged. Where an accused is tried on two or more charges alleging similar acts that are so connected in time, character and circumstances as to justify an inference that they are instances of a course of similar conduct systematically pursued by him, the evidence of a single witness in relation to one charge may be corroborated by the evidence of another single witness or from a single source in relation to another.
      Crown counsel took the view that the evidence in the murder case might be capable of providing corroboration of Lorna Andrew's evidence in the earlier case. However, as matters stood, the medical evidence contradicted Lorna Andrew's evidence. Accordingly, further inquiries were instructed in relation to the injury to McGuire's finger and the regius professor of forensic medicine and science at Glasgow university, Peter Vanezis, and the professor of oral pathology, Donald MacDonald, were invited to consider a photograph and enlargements of the injury to McGuire's finger that had been taken on 20 August 1995, and to express an opinion on the origin and timing of the injury in relation to the date of the photograph. The casualty surgeon who had originally examined McGuire was re-interviewed.
      The result of these inquiries was certainly to alter the nature of the available evidence about the injury to McGuire's finger and to suggest that it could have been a bite mark made in the correct time frame to be consistent with Lorna Andrew's evidence.
      Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Whether it strengthened the case to the point of providing corroboration of her evidence beyond reasonable doubt was another, more difficult, question. Professor Vanezis was of the opinion that the injury to the finger was entirely consistent with Lorna Andrew's story and was in the range of one to two weeks old. Professor MacDonald, who is a recognised international expert in the field of identification of suspects from teeth marks, could not state with any degree of probability that the injury was caused by a tooth, but said that it was consistent with Lorna Andrew's account in that her account could not be disproved or ruled out. Neither could wholly discount other causes of the injury.
      The casualty surgeon, who remained the only medically qualified person to have seen the actual injury, was shown the photograph of the injury and now expressed the view that it was an old, rather than a fresh, injury. The medical and expert evidence taken together certainly now raised the possibility that the injury had been caused by a tooth, but it did not raise any clear degree of probability that the injury had been thus caused and there was no question of matching the injury to a specific tooth, as has been achieved in other cases involving forensic odontology.
      498
      The hon. Members have asked why these further inquiries were not carried out at an earlier stage and before McGuire was liberated on 28 November. The medical evidence available at the time unequivocally ruled out the timing of the injury as being consistent with Lorna Andrew's account. Only one doctor—a casualty surgeon—saw the actual wound. I am advised that it is very difficult to obtain expert opinion evidence from a photograph of a single small wound. Once the doctor had been re-interviewed and had stated that the wound was definitely no more than 72 hours old, there did not appear to be any benefit in bringing in experts who would not, of course, be able to see the actual injury.
      The effect of the medical and expert evidence now available was to remove the contradiction of Lorna Andrew's evidence of identification of McGuire. It was now possible to put forward her evidence under reliance on the doctrine of mutual corroboration, relying on the tragic source of evidence from the murder case. It was on that basis that Crown counsel instructed that the charges relating to the assault on Lorna Andrew be included in the indictment for the murder of Mhairi Julyan.
      Prior to the trial, the defence applied to separate the charges on the ground that it would be prejudicial to McGuire to be tried at the same time on both the murder and earlier charges. Although this application was opposed by the Crown and it was explained to the trial Judge, Lord Clyde, that the Crown intended to rely on the doctrine of mutual corroboration in proving the earlier charges, Lord Clyde exercised his discretion to grant the application for separation of charges.
      Mr. Wilson: The Minister will understand that we want to study closely what he has just said, particularly why the second and third opinions from the most expert people in the field were not sought before McGuire was released. Given the enormous circumstantial evidence that existed that McGuire had committed the assault, what degree of observation was he under after he was released?
      According to the Minister, McGuire was released only because the assault could not be proven conclusively to the point that it could be taken to court. However, a strong element of suspicion—to say the least—persisted. Were there any orders that McGuire should be kept under observation because it was possible that charges could be brought against him in relation to the assault if evidence could be put together?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman asks a specific question. I will make inquiries and write to him. Obviously, it may be perceived that an individual is a threat to certain individuals in the community, so in certain circumstances the police have observation techniques in place. If he studies what I have already said, it explains why further expert evidence was not called. Incidentally, it is not always easy to get more than one expert casualty surgeon to examine someone after a crime. It is not always easy to lay on several experts at the same time.
      Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop the narrative a little more? The hon. Gentleman can come back later if he wants.

      499
      As has been mentioned, the trial proceeded on the murder charge and McGuire was ultimately convicted on 30 May and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 30 years. Lord Clyde continued the case until the next day and said to the Advocate Depute that he wished to hear from him as to the Crown's intentions in respect of the earlier charges.
      McGuire's conviction and sentence were clearly especially significant in the Crown's consideration as to the next step in the matter. The earlier charges now stood alone. The position as it existed before McGuire's release again applied, with the sole difference that further opinion evidence had been obtained in respect of the injury to McGuire's finger. That evidence did not provide the necessary corroboration and one can speculate only as to the effect of the contradictions in the evidence if it were placed before a court.
      On any view, it would clearly have been inappropriate to proceed immediately to trial in respect of the earlier charges, because it would have been impossible to secure a fair trial at that time in the light of the massive publicity surrounding the proceedings in the murder case and the revelation of all McGuire's previous convictions. Lord Clyde refused the motion and deserted the case simpliciter—that means altogether. The effect was to bring proceedings to an end.
      500
      All the Crown wanted on 31 May was time to consider further the question of proceedings in relation to the attack on Lorna Andrew because the charges were serious and deserved further consideration. There was no question of the Crown attempting to gag the media. The Crown put all the charges on the indictment. It was only because two of them were "separated" that the judge made an order, at the defence's request, delaying publication of reporting in relation to the earlier charges.
      The Crown never sought an order prohibiting any reporting that there were outstanding charges, except in the context of reports of what was said in court. It was the judge who decided to make an order prohibiting any reporting that suggested that there were outstanding charges.
      On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, I have given the fullest explanation that can properly be given of the decisions that have been taken. This has been a distressing matter and, as I have said, the working group will examine the case as part of its work of promoting good practice. I repeat to the hon. Gentlemen that the Secretary of State's approach in his letter to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North contains significant proposed changes to the law, which, if implemented, would give a significant degree of extra protection not only to women, but to the community in general, which should be generally supported.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Nine o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Car Crime
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, in rank order, the statistics collated by his Department for car crime in(a) the member states of the European Union, (b) the regions of the UK and (c) districts within the north-west for each of the last five years. [32187]

  Mr. Maclean
  Comparisons of car crime statistics in the member states of the European Union are difficult because definitions of offences vary between countries due both to legal differences and statistical recording methods. However, the international crime survey has compared risks of car crime in European countries in 1988 and 1991 and the results are published in Home Office research findings No. 8. Additionally, information on recorded thefts of a vehicle in European countries in 1990 is published in the "Draft European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics". Copies of both these publications are available in the Library. Statistics for each police force area in England and Wales have also been placed in the Library. Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State. Information on districts within the north-west is not collected centrally.

  Firearms Incidents
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce a code of practice for use by appointed investigating officers when dealing with the Police Complaints Authority supervised investigations following firearms incidents; [32225]

  (2) for appointed investigating officers to deal with the Police Complaints Authority supervised investigations following firearms incidents. [32226]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The investigation of police conduct is a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned and the Police Complaints Authority.

  Crime Rates
  Mr. Brian Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the overall crime rate and annual percentage change in each year since 1979 in(a) the west midlands and (b) Staffordshire. [32258]
  224
  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Recorded crime in the West Midlands and Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  Staffordshire

  Year

  Number of offences

  Percentage change over previous year

  Number of offences

  Percentage change over previous year

  1979

  156,671

  1—

  37,952

  1—

  1980

  176,580

  +13

  37,988

  0

  1981

  198,126

  +12

  42,411

  +12

  1982

  222,404

  +12

  44,935

  +6

  1983

  222,294

  0

  48,016

  +7

  1984

  240,015

  +8

  51,103

  +6

  1985

  243,712

  +2

  52,563

  +3

  1986

  268,025

  +10

  57,026

  +8

  1987

  266,799

  0

  57,766

  +1

  1988

  236,553

  -11

  56,654

  -2

  1989

  228,980

  -3

  59,372

  +5

  1990

  264,769

  +16

  72,513

  +22

  1991

  302,864

  +14

  86,285

  +19

  1992

  329,260

  +9

  97,536

  +13

  1993

  330,091

  0

  98,421

  +1

  1994

  315,755

  -4

  93,757

  -5

  1995

  318,087

  +1

  91,496

  -2

  1Not applicable.

  Immigration Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a person detained in prison for an immigration offence is kept informed of reviews of his case. [32468]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Those detained in prisons and immigration detention centres under powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971 are advised in writing by the immigration service of developments in their case on a monthly basis from the date of their detention under immigration powers. Following the issue of revised instructions in May 1995, detained asylum claimants are informed separately about the progress of their applications by the asylum directorate.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police forces in Great Britain employ, or plan to employ, a special constabulary liaison recruiting officer or equivalent; [32232]

  (2) in those police forces which employ a special constabulary proactive recruiting officer or equivalent (a) what salary people employed in these positions receive, (b) how many hours per week they work and (c) how much money was spent on advertisements to recruit them. [32233]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information held centrally is as follows:

  All 43 police forces in England and Wales have force recruitment officers whose responsibilities include the recruitment of special constables. At least two forces employ at least one member of staff who is solely dedicated to processing applications to the special constabulary. In one force, a special constable handles applications to the special constabulary.
  225
  Nineteen out of 43 police forces in England and Wales have appointed, or intend to appoint, specials liaison officers. Their duties and responsibilities vary, but may include liaison between regular officers and special constables across the force, promoting the special constabulary within the community, and helping to plan specials-specific initiatives. The majority of forces employ civilians in the post, but four forces have appointed inspectors, and police constables, for the purpose. All but two of the specials liaison officers are full-time—approximately 37 hours per week. The two part-time posts are for about 20 hours a week.

  The salaries of the civilian employees range from £10,400 to £22,000 per annum: the salaries of the regular officers involved range from some £30,000 to £53,000 per annum. Several of the special liaison officer posts have been funded from Home Office grant provided through challenge funding earlier this year.

  In the majority of cases, the posts were advertised internally and thus without direct costs. In the five forces where the costs were identifiable, they ranged from £170 to £700.

  Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the royal commission on criminal justice review for England and Wales chaired by Viscount Runciman of Doxford. [32304]

  Mr. Maclean
  The total cost of the royal commission on criminal justice, which reported in July 1993, was £2.5 million.

  Bats
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were brought against persons destroying bats and bat habitats in the latest year for which figures are available. [32234]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information collected centrally by my Department on court proceedings under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 9—protection of certain wild animals—does not identify the animal involved or the subsection under which the offence was placed. However, our statistics show that in 1994—the latest year for which figures are available—there were a total of seven prosecutions under section 9.

  Coopers and Lybrand's review of comparative costs and performance of privately and publicly operated prisons Summary of, findings

  Table 1: Percentage by which private sector is cheaper than comparable public sector prisons

  Blakenhurst

  Doncaster

  Wolds

  Comparator Group

  Average of all groups Percentage

  Elmley Holme House Percentage

  Birmingham Elmley Holme House Percentage

  Bedford Cardiff Exeter Percentage

  Cost per baseline place

  18

  13–15

  12–27

  14–28

  Cost per in-use place

  22

  13–15

  12–44

  10–36

  Cost per prisoner

  13

  13–17

  14–21

  3–11

  226

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Brian Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the crime clear-up rate and annual percentage change in each year since 1979 in(a) Staffordshire and (b) the west midlands. [32259]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Clear-up rates in Staffordshire and the West Midlands

  Staffordshire

  West Midlands

  Year

  Clear up rate per cent.

  Change in percentage points

  Clear up rate per cent.

  Change in percentage points

  1979

  51

  1—

  37

  1—

  1980

  47

  -4

  33

  -4

  1981

  49

  +2

  32

  -1

  1982

  49

  0

  33

  +1

  1983

  47

  -2

  36

  +3

  1984

  48

  +1

  30

  -6

  1985

  52

  +4

  30

  0

  1986

  44

  -8

  29

  -1

  1987

  42

  -2

  36

  +7

  1988

  45

  +3

  42

  +6

  1989

  43

  -2

  39

  -3

  1990

  39

  -4

  36

  -3

  1991

  37

  -2

  31

  -5

  1992

  30

  -7

  27

  -4

  1993

  29

  -1

  27

  0

  1994

  31

  +2

  25

  -2

  1995

  32

  +1

  24

  -1

  1 Not appplicable.

  Prisons
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the results of Coopers and Lybrand's review of comparative costs and performance of privately managed and public sector prisons; and if he will make a statement. [33265]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have today placed in the Library copies of a review of comparative costs and performance of privately and publicly operated prisons carried out for the Prison Service by Coopers and Lybrand. The study compared Blakenhurst, Doncaster and the Wolds with the most nearly comparable public sector prisons using 1994–95 data. The findings are summarised in the tables.

  The results show that, after adjusting costs onto a comparable basis, privately managed prisons are cheaper by 13 to 22 per cent. than public sector prisons and deliver equal or better performance on most measures. The findings are broadly consistent with previous findings based on 1993–94 data but suggest that the gap between the two sectors on cost has narrowed slightly.
  227

  Table 2: Comparison of performance against Prison Service Key Performance Indicators

  Blakenhurst

  Comparator average

  Doncaster

  Comparator average

  Wolds

  Comparator average

  Number of escapes

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Assaults as percentage of population

  18 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  34 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  15 per cent.

  11 per cent.

  Number of hours purposeful activity per week

  26

  19

  21

  20

  21

  23

  Number of hours unlocked on weekdays

  14

  10

  12

  9

  14

  10

  Opportunity to exceed minimum visiting entitlement

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Persons of Irish Origin (Supervision)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department how many persons of Irish origin were being supervised by the probation service in England and Wales at the latest available date and for equivalent dates in 1986 and 1991. [32713]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the nationality of those supervised by the probation service is not collected centrally by the Home Office.

  Miscarriages of Justice (Persons of Irish Descent)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of miscarriages of justice have involved persons of Irish descent over the last 15 years. [32714]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Sex Offenders
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to consult on further measures to protect the public from sex offenders. [33278]

  Mr. Howard
  I shall be publishing a consultation document on the sentencing and supervision of sex offenders at 11 am on Monday 17 June. Copies will then be available in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Area Office (Cardiff)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many personal callers visited the south Wales traffic area office in Cardiff in(a) April 1996 and (b) May 1996; and if he will make a statement. [32224]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 June to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland), Official Report, column 30. In April 1996, there were 193 personal callers and 246 callers in May 1996 to the south Wales traffic area office.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of other countries' methods of levying light dues; and if he will make a statement. [32471]
  228
  Mr. Norris
  We contributed to the study of "user pays" carried out by the European Commission by providing an adviser on secondment for one year. We are currently awaiting the final results of that study.

  School Buses
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that where seat belts are fitted to coaches and minibuses for use by school children(a) tested equipment is fitted, (b) equipment is fitted safely, (c) the three-to-two rule is not used, (d) counterfeit equipment is not allowed and (e) seat belts are worn. [32572]

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

  Additional steps beyond the legal measures already in place are not currently considered necessary for three to two, counterfeit equipment and the wearing of seat belts.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that each child on a school bus has a seat; and if he will make a statement on standing on buses and on blocking of gangways and emergency exits by baggage. [32573]

  Mr. Norris
  The responsibility for providing suitable home to school transport for children rests with the local education authority. Both the operators and the LEA must be satisfied that the transport provided enables children to travel in safety.

  The carriage of standing passengers on buses is controlled by the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984. Both seating and standing capacities must be marked clearly on the vehicle. Vehicles intended to carry more than eight standing passengers must meet minimum requirements for both standing space and headroom. Sufficient hand grips must be fitted for each standing passenger. Gangways and emergency exits must not be obstructed at any time.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of discounting of extra expenditure incurred by local education authorities in respect of implementation of the end of the three-to-two rule on school travel. [32571]

  Mr. Norris
  The additional costs to local authorities of implementing changes to the three-for-two concession, following the new seat belt regulations, were taken into account along with a range of other pressures when
  229
  determining the amount for education—education standard spending—in the local government finance settlement, and reflected in the increased funding for local education authorities.

  Domestic Air Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to ensure that slots for domestic services are protected at Heathrow and Gatwick airports; and if he will make a statement. [32796]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport is taking no such action. Recommendations 8 and 9 of the Transport Committee's report on airport capacity, published on 21 May this year, address this issue. The Department aims to respond as soon as possible to the report.

  Airport Capacity (London)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current evaluation of a close parallel runway at Gatwick; and if he will make a statement. [32789]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 22 May 1996,Official Report, column 231.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the future of the CAA following the EU third package on the liberalisation of air services. [32805]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Channel Tunnel (Security)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mandatory requirements are placed on European Passenger Services to undertake security inspections on passengers' baggage in respect of those travelling aboard Eurostar services. [32785]

  Mr. Watts
  EPS is required to security screen a percentage of passengers' baggage. The percentage varies depending on the levels of threat and risk as assessed by Government agencies.

  All unaccompanied baggage—that is, baggage travelling separately from its owner—is screened.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inspections were undertaken by Transec on security measures undertaken at the channel tunnel in each of the last two years. [32784]

  Mr. Watts
  From June 1994 to March 1995, 124 security inspections in relation to channel tunnel services were carried out. The figure for 1995–1996 was 289.

  M25 (Widening)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for what reasons traffic forecasts contained in the official assessment report for the 10 to 12 lane M25 widening scheme between junctions 12 and 15 do not allow 230
  for the road traffic impact of the consequences of a planning permission being granted for terminal 5 at Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement; [31887]

  (2) what allowance has been made within the traffic growth forecasts accompanying the junctions 12 to 15 widening scheme for the M25 for the traffic generation factors that were identified and contained in the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report of December 1994; and if he will make a statement. [31886]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary questions about the M25 widening scheme between Junctions 12 and 15.The traffic forecasts for the scheme have taken into account the factors identified in the SACTRA report, including the potential for generated traffic. The State 3 Assessment Report, which was published with the Environmental Statement on 11 April, indicates that in overall terms, across the geographic area considered within the traffic model, no generated traffic is predicted.Traffic forecasts for the widening do not include the effects of the proposed Heathrow Terminal 5 (T5) since the widening does not depend for its justification on T5.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32664]

  Mr. Norris
  Initial assessment of critical operational systems has produced estimates of around 5,000 date tests needing modification. Assessment of necessary work is the subject of further detailed studies and will form the basis of cost negotiations with contractors. Replacement may obviate modification in some cases. Urgent changes have been made. Many of the Department's operational service and management systems will be replaced by the end of the century and are not being assessed. Studies are planned to cover all other systems in the Department.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of the Wrekin decision of the European Court of Justice on retirement ages, for concessionary travel for pensioners in(a) Greater London and (b) the rest of the metropolitan countries. [32718]

  Mr. Norris
  The European Court of Justice has not yet given its judgment in the Atkins v. Wrekin district council and Department of Transport case. When it does we shall assess the implications.

  Register of Shipping
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if entries on the British register of shipping indicate fully(a) the ownership of a vessel and (b) those with a title to the vessel. [32227]

  Mr. Norris
  The register of British ships records legal ownership. Title proof is required in respect of merchant ships and pleasure vessels on part I of the register, and of
  231
  fishing vessels with full registration on part II of the register. Title proof is not required on part III—small ships—part IV—bareboat charter ships—or for fishing vessels with simple registration on part II of the register.

TREASURY

  European Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper on the same lines as the economic assessment published in February 1970 showing the gains and losses to the average British family resulting from membership of the EU. [31820]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no plans to publish such an assessment.

  Standard of Living
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the gains and losses to the standard of living in the United Kingdom of(a) abolishing the common agricultural policy, (b) ending contributions to the EU budget, (c) ending free trade with the EU and its associations and (d) taking control over (i) fishery and (ii) other resources. [32085]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no plans to do so. Any such calculation would be very imprecise as it would require hypothetical assumptions to be made about the level of UK spending in the absence of contributions to, and receipts from, the Community budget; the policies which replaced those in the EU; the performance of the UK economy outside the Community; and the impact on trade outside the EU.

  British Manufacturing and Research Company
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of the investigation into the BMARC affair; and if he will publish the findings of the investigation. [32199]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 11 June 1996]To date, the direct costs of the Customs investigation into alleged breaches of UK export controls by BMARC have been approximately £20,000. This figure is based on the National Investigation Services' time recording system. The figure does not include costs incurred by departmental management and legal advice provided by departmental lawyers, or the costs of giving evidence to the Trade and Industry Committee. Customs inquiries are, however, not yet complete and decisions on the form of any announcement on the outcome of these inquiries will be taken at the appropriate time.

  Alcohol Smuggling
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the harmonisation of taxes on beers, wines and spirits; and what is his assessment of the revenues lost to the Treasury through such smuggling in the latest year for which figures are available. [32542]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]Member states should be free to set excise duty rates at the level they feel are appropriate to their own 232
  particular circumstances, subject only to the agreed minimum rates. This was the basis of the agreement reached by all member states at ECOFIN on 19 October 1992. Nevertheless, the Government consider that there should be movement towards the approximation of excise duty rates across the EU, and that some steps in the direction of the UK pattern of indirect taxation makes sense. The mechanism for achieving this aim is through the Commission's biennial review of the minimum rates of excise duty, the next such review being due by the end of 1996.

  Customs does not, at present, have a reliable estimate of the extent of cross-border smuggling of alcoholic products. It is liaising with the drinks industry with the aim of achieving an objective measurement.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the total value and (b) the total volume of the cross-border smuggling of (i) beer, (ii) wines and (iii) spirits in the latest year for which figures are available; and what value of smuggled goods was seized in that year. [32540]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]Customs does not at present have a reliable estimate of the extent of either the total volume or total value of cross-border smuggling of alcoholic products. It is liaising with the drinks and tobacco industry with the aim of achieving an objective measurement. The revenue value of intra-EU smuggling detected by excise verification officers in the year ending 31 March 1996 is shown in the table:

  Category

  Revenue value detected (£ million)

  Beer

  3.090

  Wine

  0.664

  Spirits

  4.312

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received relating to the impact upon British companies and traders of cross-border smuggling of beers, wines and spirits; and what response he intends to make to those representations. [32541]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]The Chancellor receives many representations from the trade and other interested parties about the cross-border smuggling of alcoholic drinks and its consequential impact on legitimate UK trade. These representations are taken into account by the Chancellor when making his Budget decisions.

  Customs has deployed excise verification officers to seek out and prosecute those engaged in smuggling activity. In addition, in November 1995 Customs, together with the various associations representing the industries concerned, formed an excise alliance for the purpose of developing a co-operative approach leading to the detection of smugglers and fraudsters, and to exchange high level information on excise smuggling and fraud matters.
  233

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32675]

  The Solicitor-General
  The departments and agencies for which my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible are assessing the impact of the millennium date change.

  In the case of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Government Property Lawyers, no significant cost effects are expected.

  The Serious Fraud Office estimates that several man months of work will be required to implement the change.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has started a programme of work to assess the implications of the change but is not yet in a position to give an estimate of costs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32678]

  Mr. Hanley
  In line with Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency recommendations, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing has completed a study to determine which of its computer systms will be affected by this problem. The findings show that approximately 60 per cent. of Foreign and Commonwealth Office computer systms will be affected in some way. Further study is now taking place to determine what the cost will be.

  The Overseas Development Administration is updating its systems, most of which already recognise the year 2000.

  Wilton Park
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Wilton Park agency performed against the targets which were agreed for 1995–96; and if targets have been agreed for the current year. [33275]

  Mr. Hanley
  According to provisional figures which are subject to audit, Wilton Park exceeded all four of the agreed targets set for 1995–96 financial year, for the number of conference participants, income, cost recovery and cost per head to the FCO overall.

  The Wilton Park departmental board met in April. We have agreed to the recommendation of the board that the following key targets be adopted for this financial year:

  To increase overall income from £1,309.000 in 1995–96 to £1,368.000.

  To increase cost recovery from 82.8 per cent. in 1995–96 to 85.1 per cent.

  234

  To increase the target for the overall number of Wilton Park Conference participants from 1,350 in 1995–96 to 1,500.

  To reduce the average cost to the FCO of each participant from £165 in 1995–96 to £160.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of housing association tenants have been in receipt of housing benefit in each year since 1988. [32014]

  Mr. Clappison
  Definitive information is not yet available but on the basis of sample surveys the percentages have increased from the order of 52 to 55 per cent. in 1988 to about 61 to 65 per cent in 1994–95—figures for England.

  Water Leakages
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the average water leakage levels in(a) 1988 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [32048]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Office of Water Supply Services report, "Leakage of Water in England and Wales", published on 30 May 196, gave a total leakage level for 1994–95 of about 30 per cent. of water put into the distribution system. Of this percentage, companies attribute about 23 per cent. to leakage from the distribution system and 7 per cent. from customers' supply pipes.

  Further detail is contained in the body of the report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Leakage levels for 1988 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [326679]

  Sir Paul Bereford
  My Department is aware of the issue and is currently investigating the scale and complexity of the problem and its potential cost effects. The Department's computer systems are primarily based upon modern technology, not affected by the millennium date problem. It is expected that those systems still residing on older technology will reach the end of their natural life and be replaced before 2000.

  Local Government (Professional Work)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to take action under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 against authorities who have subjected white collar professional work to competition; and if he will make a statement. [33153]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today served notices under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 on the London boroughs of Enfield and Hounslow, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and the metropolitan district of Barnsley setting
  235
  out his view that these authorities may have acted anti-competitively during competitions for legal services work. He has also served notices on the cities of Liverpool and Manchester setting out similar views in respect of construction-related services work.

  Although the circumstances differ in each case, the most common grounds cited in the notices are: work was not packaged in a way which took proper account of the market's ability to provide the services, that tender documents did not indicate how much work was on offer, and that onerous conditions featured in some contracts.

  They have four weeks in which to explain their actions in assigning work in-house after competitions against the private sector.

  Special Waste Regulations
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 1 April,Official Report, column 15, what guidance will be issued on the Special Waste Regulations 1996. [33154]

  Mr. Clappison
  Detailed guidance on the Special Waste Regulations 1996 has been issued today in the form of a joint circular from the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department and the Welsh Office. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library.

  The guidance was issued in draft form for public consultation in 1995. The final text takes account of the many comments received. It gives an outline of the procedures which are to be followed by those who handle special waste and incorporates in a separate annexe technical guidelines on the definition of special waste, technical aspects of assessing whether a particular consignment of waste is special, and the hazard criteria which apply.

  Copies of the circular have been distributed to local authorities, the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which will have a supervisory role in the system of controls.

  In addition, we have produced a free 10-page leaflet on the regulations. This is designed for those who handle special waste and answers to the main questions which are likely to arise.

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the allocations for the 1996–97 round of the estates renewal challenge fund. [33236]

  Mr. Curry
  I shall be announcing allocations for the 1996–97 round of the estate renewal challenge fund tomorrow and shall place both copies of the press notice detailing the successful authorities in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the responses to the 236
  consultation papers, "Our Future Homes: Opportunity, Choice, Responsibility" and "More Choice in the Social Rented Sector". [32460]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]Six explanatory and consultation papers were published by my Department setting out the details of proposals in last year's White Paper "Our Future Homes". Copies of responses to these papers were made available for inspection through the Department of the Environment library in line with normal practice.

  Water Companies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what voluntary leakage reduction target each water company has set over the next five and 10 years. [27164]

  Mr. Clappison
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 April 1996, c. 420]The Water Services Association has notified a correction to the data it originally provided. A revised summary table of water service companies' targets for reducing leakage follows:

  Water service company leakage targets

  Company

  Anglian water

  Aim to reduce leakage to around 10 percent. by 2000.

  DWR Cymru

  Aim to achieve a reduction in leakage of 17 per cent. by 2000 and over a third by 2010.

  Northumbrian water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 15 per cent. in the coming years.

  North west water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 22 per cent. by 2000.

  Severn Trent water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 12 per cent. Over next five years.

  Southern water

  Aim to reduce levels to 10 per cent. by 2000.

  South west water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 15 per cent. by 2000.

  Thames water

  Aim to halve leakage by 2005.

  Wessex water1

  Aim to achieve 15 per cent. leakage by 2005.

  Yorkshire water

  Aim to reduce leakage by 60M1/d by 1998 and to 20 per cent. in the longer term.

  Source:

  Water Services Association May 1996.

  1October 1995.

HEALTH

  Tobacco-related Cancer
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Germany have died of tobacco-related cancers in each of the last 10 years. [31765]

  Mr. Horam
  The Health Education Authority report "The Smoking Epidemic", copies of which are available
  237
  in the Library, estimated that there were about 44,000 cancer deaths attributable to smoking in the United Kingdom in 1988.

  No comparable figures are available for Germany.

  Carers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings his Department, at ministerial or official level, has had with the Carers National Association since 1 January 1995 regarding the drafting and implementation of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [32483]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have had several meetings with the Carers National Association since January last year to discuss the legislation, and it was involved in the preparation of the policy guidance and practice guide. We regularly meet CNA—and other organisations—to discuss a variety of issues, including new legislation.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to assist local authorities to implement the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; and what extra funds have been provided for this purpose(a) in England and (b) in each county in the south West. [32482]

  Mr. Bowis
  In February this year, we issued the carers (recognition and services) policy guidance and practice guide to all local authorities. Draft versions of the guidance were issued for consultation in October last year—some six months before the Act came into force. The Act enshrines in law principles of good practice which we recommended in previous guidance issued at the time of the implementation of the community care reforms. Examples of good practice on carers are described in the social service inspectorate reports published in 1995: notably "Caring Today" and "What Next for Carers?".

  The Act should not involve significant extra costs. It enshrines in statute many of the principles of good practice which we had recommended local authorities follow.

  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients had their operations cancelled on the day of admission at Walsgrave hospital, Coventry, in each year since 1990. [32256]

  Mr. Horam
  The information on individual hospitals is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Gary Reay, chairman of the Walsgrave Hospital NHS trust for details.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage of patients not assessed within five minutes at Walsgrave hospital, Coventry, for each year for which figures are available. [32255]

  Mr. Horam
  This information can be obtained from the performance tables publication for 1993–94 and 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library.
  238

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of reported and suspected adverse reactions to Lariam have been notified during the last three years for which figures are available. [32282]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency has received 878 reports of 2,493 suspected adverse reactions associated with Lariam between 7 June 1993 and 7 June 1996. During this time, in excess of four hundred thousand patients have received Lariam. The reports received are consistent with the known safety profile of Lariam as described in the authorised product information.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from professional bodies and the Committee on Safety of Medicines on the anti-malarial drug Lariam. [32284]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department and the Medicines Control Agency have received representations from doctors and other health professionals and bodies representing health professionals and have responded to the issues raised. The Committee on Safety of Medicines, as an independent expert advisory body to the Licensing Authority, provides advice on the quality, efficacy and safety of medicines, including Lariam, to the Licensing Authority.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the indicated side effects of the drug Lariam. [32283]

  Mr. Malone
  Warnings on the side effects of Lariam are included in the product information. This includes the data sheet provided to all doctors and pharmacists and the information leaflet for patients.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average waiting time for an MRI scan in(a) north-east Warwickshire and (b) Walsgrave hospital, Coventry; [32254]

  (2) what is the average waiting time for an MRI scan in the United Kingdom. [32253]

  Mr. Horam
  Information for England is not available centrally. Questions relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [32416]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on 1 March,Official Report, columns 762–64. Within the overall cost of ministerial visits to other countries, it is not possible to identify separately the element attributable to civil servants accompanying Ministers.
  239

  General Medical Services (East London and City)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the general medical services budget and proposed budget in the East London and City health authority. [32561]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 21 April 1995,Official Report, column 312.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1153, what factors prevented commencement of the despatch of letters relating to desogestrel and gestodene before 16.30 on 18 October 1995. [32723]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made an oral statement to the House on 23 October 1995, columns 707–02 which described the urgent arrangements put in place to communicate the Committee on Safety of Medicines' advice to health professionals. In addition, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 June, Official Report, column 448.

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Medicines Commission as at 1 January indicating for each member his or her principal professional appointment, the date of first appointment to the commission, the scheduled termination of the period of membership and which of the criteria laid out in section 2(3) of the Medicines Act 1968 is relevant to the appointment of each member. [32722]

  Mr. Malone
  Members of the Medicines Commission are appointed for their knowledge and expertise which encompass the activities set out in section 2(3) of the Medicines Act 1968. The members of the Medicines Commission, as at 1 January 1996, are listed in the table, indicating for each member his or her principal professional appointment, the date of first appointment and the scheduled termination date of the current period of membership.

  Date of first appointment

  End of current membership

  Dr. Christine McCartney BSc PhD FRCPath Assistant Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service, London

  1 January 1996

  31 December 1999

  Dr. Agnes McKnight MD MB Bch FRCGP Regional Adviser in General Practice, Belfast

  1 January 1996

  31 December 1999

  Mr. David Miller BVMS (Glas) MRCVS Advisor on Medicines to British Veterinary Association

  1 January 1996

  31 December 1999

  Professor J. Michael Newton BPharm PhD DSc FRPharmS Head of Department of Pharmaceutics, The School of Pharmacy, University of London

  1 January 1996

  31 December 1999

  240

  Date of first appointment

  End of current membership

  Professor Stuart Pocock BA MSc PhD Professor of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  1 January 1996

  31 December 1999

  Dr Andrew Renwick BSc PHD DSc Reader in Clinical Pharmacology, University of Southampton

  1 January 1992

  31 December 1999

  Mrs Jane Short BPharm MRPharmS Associate Director, Procter and Gamble

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1997

  Dr. David Williams BSc PhD CChem FRSC Director, Anitox Ltd.

  1 January 1985

  31 December 1999

  Cowan Wilson Esq OBE BVMS FRCVS General Veterinary Practitioner, Fife

  1 January 1985

  31 December 1999

  Professor David Lawson CBE MD FRCPEdin FRCPGlasg FFPM (Chairman) Consultant Physician, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Honorary Professor of Medicine, University of Glasgow and Visiting Professor, University of Strathclyde

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1997

  Professor Stuart Campbell MB ChB FRCOG DObst Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Head of Department, Kings College School of Medicine and Dentistry, London

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1997

  Professor Stanley Davis BPharm PhD DSc FRSChem FRPharmS Lord Trent Professor of Pharmacy and Head of Department, Nottingham University

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1997

  Professor Anthony Dayan MD FRCP FRCPath FFOM FFPM FTBioL Professor of Toxicology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

  1 January 1986

  31 December 1997

  Professor Edzard Ernst MD PhD Director of the Centre for Complementary Health Studies, University of Exeter

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1999

  Professor Ronald Jones MVSc Dr Med Vet DVSc DVA DipECVA FIBiol FRCVS Professor of Veterinary Anaesthesia, University of Liverpool

  1 January 1996

  31 December 1999

  Dr Parveen Kumar BSc MD FRCP FRCP(Edin) Senior Lecturer in Gastroenterology and Consultant Physician at St. Bartholomew's the Royal London and Homerton Hospitals

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1997

  241

  Date of first appointment

  End of current membership

  Miss Ann Lewis LLB FRPharmS MCPP Chief Pharmaceutical Officer, Countess of Chester Hospital

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1997

  Cancelled Operations
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in the NHS(a) last year and (b) in each of the previous 10 years. [32806]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is available for the last two years only. Tables will be placed in the Library.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the statutory basis for the appointment of members for the day of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [32724]

  Mr. Malone
  All members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines are appointed under section 4(5) of the Medicines Act 1968. In the case of members for the day, the terms in their letters of appointment limit membership to a particular meeting of the committee. The statutory basis for such terms is regulation 4 of the Medicines Commission and Committees Regulation 1970 (S.I. No. 746).

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32677]

  Mr. Horam
  Preliminary analysis of the Department of Health's own mainframe computer systems has already been undertaken to assess the likely impact of the change of millennium. A further more detailed analysis is to be carried out during 1996–97 fully to assess the impact and likely cost of the change.

DEFENCE

  Army Courts Martial
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army courts martial were convened each year since 1979. [32551]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of courts martial prior to 1990 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The number of individuals tried by Army courts martial convened since 1990 are as follows:

  1990: 930

  1991: 707

  1992: 780

  1993: 688

  1994: 594

  1995: 440.

  242

  Mormond Hill Radar Base
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for his Department's former radar base at Mormond Hill, near Fraserborough; what public consultation will take place; and if he will make a statement. [32758]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave on 16 April,Official Report, columns 458–59.

  Gordon Foxley
  Mr. David Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about steps to reclaim moneys from the companies involved in the payment of commissions to Gordon Foxley relating to defence contracts. [33235]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A satisfactory settlement has been concluded with one of the companies concerned, Raufoss AS of Norway, under which the company will pay an agreed sum in redress to my Department, including interest and a contribution to costs, for payments made contrary to contractual conditions.

  A statement of contrition by the company, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, forms part of the agreement with the Ministry of Defence. We have decided that in the light of this agreement the company will become eligible to be considered for Ministry of Defence orders, although normal commercial relations will not be resumed for some months during which period we shall monitor the operation of the agreement.

  Discussions are taking place with the other companies involved in the Foxley case, against whom proceedings are still in train.

  Thermal Identity Beacons
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use has been made in the past of thermal identity beacons for military vehicles; if he will make a statement on the new requirement for such beacons in future, purchase No. ASIC/31 of the MOD contracts bulletin volume 10 No. 16; and if such beacons are in use with other NATO forces. [30784]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No use has been made of thermal identity beacons for military vehicles in the past. The new requirement, outlined in MOD "Contracts Bulletin" volume 10 No. 16, is for the United Kingdom contingent of The NATO implementation force—IFOR No. 16 in Bosnia and is being procured to reduce the risk of friendly fire. The beacons are not in use with other NATO forces but we intend to share the technology with other IFOR nations.

  Dump Trucks
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the advantages of(a) leasing and (b) using the private finance initiative in relation to the supply of self-loading dump trucks for the Royal Engineers as set out in tender No. EM and D1A/155 of the MOD "Contract Bulletin" volume 10 No. 16. [30785]
  243
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Self-loading dump trucks to meet the specific military requirement of the Royal Engineers are not currently available for lease on the commercial market. No assessment was made of the advantages of using the private finance initiative for this specific requirement.

  A study commissioned by the Procurement Executive is currently under way to examine the potential for greater private sector/private finance involvement in the management and supply for future requirements of this type. The study will not be complete in time to influence this procurement because the existing fleet has reached the end of its economic life and requires replacement now. Recommendations of the study will be carefully considered for future requirements.

  Royal Navy (Fuel)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the quantity of fuel purchased by his Department for allocation to the Royal Navy fleet in each of the last five years. [32647]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The full information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Fuel purchased for the Royal Naval Fleet (1,000 cubic metres)

  Financial year 1994–95

  Financial year 1995–96

  DIESO F761

  405

  330

  Naval fuel for ships

  AVCAT F441

  36

  20

  Naval fuel for aircraft Commercially supplied fuel for ships

  Marine gas oil

  55

  Not held

  1 These fuels are produced by refineries to specific NATO standards.

  Royal Navy (Exercises)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in how many exercises the Royal Nay has taken part in each of the last 10 years. [32648]

  Mr. Soames
  Royal Navy exercises range in scale from very small activities involving individual elements of establishments, units or ships, to participation in major tri-service and international exercises.

  Details of all of the various exercises in which the Royal Navy has participated in some form over the last 10 years are not held centrally, and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Army Equipment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Army's battlefield equipment reliability return in each of the last three years for(a) Warrior vehicles, (b) Challenger tanks and (c) the multiple-launch rocket system. [32649]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is classified and cannot be released.
  244

  Clansman Radio System
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of spare parts for the Clansman radio system in each of the last three years. [32650]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The cost of spare parts for Clansman for each of the last three years was as follows:

  1993–94: £9.8 million

  1994–95: £10.7 million

  1995–96: £10.3 million.

  EH101 Merlin Helicopter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimated total cost of the EH101 Merlin helicopter; what was the original total estimated cost of the helicopter at current prices; what was the original in-service date and what is its current estimated in-service date; and if he will make a statement. [32651]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The current estimated total cost of the EH1O1/Merlin programme is £4,307 million. The prime contractor is Lockheed-Martin-ASIC.

  The estimated total cost, at current prices, when the Main Production Contract—MPC—was awarded was £3,922 million.

  The in-service date agreed when the MPC was awarded was December 1998 and this has not changed.

  British Companies (America)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart to allow British companies greater access to American markets; and if he will make a statement. [32653]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Regular discussions are held at all levels with the US Administration and Congress to convey Her Majesty's Government's concerns regarding the level of access that United Kingdom companies have to the American defence market. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has raised this issue with Dr. Perry on two occasions this year and during my visit to the United States last month I discussed this subject with a number of senior officials.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32670]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The capability of MOD's existing computer systems to recognise the millennium date change is under investigation and will be the subject of MOD-wide guidance requiring those responsible for current and planned information systems to assess fully the extent of the problem. Until this is known, it will not be possible to assess the cost effects of the year 2000 date change.
  245

  NATO Joint Task Force
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning recent changes to NATO's combined joint task force initiative. [32654]

  Mr. Soames
  The recent meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Berlin welcomed the approval of the combined joint task forces concept which, when implemented, will facilitate the mounting of NATO contingency operations as well as those undertaken by the Western European Union. Ministers asked for a report on implementation of the concept. We expect these recommendations to come forward in December.

  Maritime Patrol Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria to be used in the placing of a contract for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft. [32655]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The contract for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft—RMPA—will be measured against criteria that will offer the best value for money. Many factors will influence the decision including: performance, reliability, commonality with equipment already in service and the cost of operating and maintaining equipment through its expected life. A combined operational effectiveness and investment appraisal exercise is one of the tools which has been employed in determining the best value for money.

  The RMPA decision will take account of the benefits that come from having a strong indigenous defence industry and, in that respect, due weight will be given to industrial capabilities which the UK has an interest in retaining in order to support the equipment we procure. Industrial participation proposals have been sought from the prime contractors and, where foreign contractors are employed, due account will be taken of the nature and cost of the work put back into United Kingdom industry.

  Procurement Decisions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what mechanisms he assesses the impact on the United Kingdom defence industrial base of his Department's procurement decisions. [32656]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department's practice on the consideration of United Kingdom defence industrial base issues in procurement decisions was set out in written and oral evidence to the Select Committee on Defence and Trade and Industry in joint session during 1995. The minutes of evidence were published as daily parts on 9 August 1995 (HC 333-iv) and the Committee's final report was published on 5 December 1995 (HC 61 and 62).

  In its response to the Committee's report, published on 8 February 1996 (HC 209 and 210), the Government noted that industrial factors had always been taken into account in equipment procurement decision making processes. However, following a review of its internal procedures, my Department will in future take a more systematic account of such factors. Guidance is currently being prepared to this end.
  246

  Armed Forces (Dismissals)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been dismissed from each of the services in each of the past five years for(a) alcohol misuse and (b) illegal drug misuse. [32055]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]:

  (a) Those dismissed for alcohol abuse following a sentence of dismissal from service at court martial, summary trial or summary proceedings, or a sentence of imprisonment from a service or civilian court in each of the past five years:

  RN/RM

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1990

  3

  1

  0

  4

  1991

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1992

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993

  3

  1

  0

  4

  1994

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Those administratively discharged for alcohol dependency

  RN/RM

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1990

  10

  7

  —

  17

  1991

  7

  3

  —

  10

  1992

  6

  4

  3

  13

  1993

  6

  0

  2

  8

  1994

  6

  7

  3

  16

  1. No records are held for Army officers.

  2. No figures prior to July 1992 are held by RAF.

  3. RN/RM and RAF figures include officers.

  (b) Those dismissed for drug abuse following a sentence of dismissal from service at court martial, summary trial or summary proceedings, or a sentence of imprisonment from a service or civilian court in each of the past five years:

  RN/RM

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1990

  23

  87

  8

  118

  1991

  65

  87

  13

  165

  1992

  94

  116

  15

  225

  1993

  51

  81

  20

  152

  1994

  45

  59

  8

  112

  Those administratively discharged for drugs offences

  RN/RM

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1990

  0

  35

  —

  35

  1991

  1

  50

  11

  62

  1992

  1

  208

  24

  233

  1993

  2

  204

  10

  216

  1994

  0

  136

  22

  158

  1 The RAF holds no records prior to 1991.

  2 No records are held for Army officers.

  3 RN/RM and RAF figures include officers.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to call out further Army Reserve and Territorial Army personnel in support of the operations in the former Yugoslavia. [33142]
  247
  Mr. Soames
  Approval has been given to call out up to 251 members of the Army Reserve and Territorial Army to provide support to operations in the former Yugoslavia, and volunteers are being sought. The majority will replace those called-out last February, but there is also an additional need to fill 55 posts to reinforce regular units. This arises from some units having dual commitments. Those called out will report to a mobilisation centre between 8 and 12 July, and those who are selected for service will undergo training before deployment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much income has been received in the current year by the compensation recovery unit; and what is the projected income by the end of the current financial year; [2904]

  (2) what was the total amount recovered by the compensation recovery unit in 1994–95. [2905]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Compensation recovery is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about how much income has been received in the current year by the Compensation Recovery Unit; and what is the projected income by the end of the current financial year and what was the total amount recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit in 1994–1995.In the period 1 April 1995 to 31 October 1995 the total amount recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit was £72.6M. Based on the pattern of recoveries to date it is expected that the total recovery for 1995/96 will be in the range of £123M to £130M.The total amount recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit in the period from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 was £110.1m.I hope you find this reply helpful.
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much compensation has been recovered by the compensation recovery unit in the current financial year from sufferers from asbestos-related diseases; how many sufferers there have been; and what have been the individual sums recovered; [2901]

  (2) how much compensation was recovered by the compensation recovery unit in 1994–95 from sufferers from asbestos-related diseases; how many suffers there were; and what were the individual sums recovered. [2907]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Compensation recovery is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about how much compensation has been recovered by the Compensation Recovery 248 Unit in the period 1994/95 and the current financial year from sufferers from asbestos related diseases; how many sufferers there have been; and what have been the individual sums recovered.Statistics are not available about the numbers of sufferers from asbestos related diseases. However, in the period from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 there were 138 recoveries made in relation to asbestosis and the total amount recovered was £1,030,457.77. During the period 1 April 1995 to 31 October 1995 there have been 112 recoveries made in relation to asbestosis. The total amount recovered was £863,370.89.The individual amounts recovered from sufferers of asbestosis during the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 are outlined in the enclosed Table A. Table B details the individual amounts recovered during the period 1 April 1995 to 31 October 1995.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  TABLE A: AMOUNTS RECOVERED FROM ASBESTOSIS SUFFERERS FROM 1 APRIL 1994 TO 31 MARCH 1995

  £42.00

  £100.00

  £126.00

  £173.70

  £399.00

  £433.50

  £484.64

  £621.20

  £621.60

  £672.20

  £787.24

  £852.20

  £862.93

  £1,032.31

  £1,111.29

  £1,114.88

  £1,123.77

  £1,208.80

  £1,219.80

  £1,329.95

  £1,431.85

  £1,491.20

  £1,565.76

  £1,582.87

  £1,677.16

  £1,692.18

  £1,738.24

  £1,773.16

  £1,798.56

  £1,853.68

  £1,927.64

  £1,937.45

  £1,957.64

  £2,069.31

  £2,135.36

  £2,147.76

  £2,288.80

  £2,298.58

  £2,393.92

  £2,414.16

  £2,454.00

  £2,507.88

  £2,547.84

  £2,572.01

  249

  £2,579.18

  £2,627.42

  £2,629.67

  £2,655.15

  £2,676.40

  £2,768.28

  £3,002.10

  £3,061.41

  £3,125.32

  £3,270.80

  £3,361.35

  £3,416.08

  £3,422.72

  £3,662.04

  £3,851.20

  £3,949.30

  £4,010.28

  £4,038.28

  £4,095.03

  £4,119.04

  £4,135.12

  £4,170.67

  £4,279.80

  £4,297.84

  £14,333.49

  £4,357.65

  £4,392.76

  £14,406.56

  £4,498.68

  £4,503.20

  £4,566.90

  £4,582.56

  £14,647.28

  £4,814.80

  £4,831.38

  £4,847.76

  £4,873.36

  £4,904.82

  £5,059.80

  £5,083.30

  £5,263.56

  £5,442.85

  £5,527.24

  £5,909.44

  £6,247.02

  £16,304.15

  £6,546.48

  £6,559.10

  £6,603.92

  £6,668.43

  £6,689.10

  £6,691.50

  £6,870.25

  £6,973.50

  £7,609.61

  £7,758.84

  £8,029.77

  £8,082.43

  250

  £8,610.70

  £8,969.48

  £9,076.00

  £9,416.76

  £9,533.69

  £9,693.21

  £10,022.67

  £10,170.90

  £10,367.62

  £10,595.32

  £10,917.52

  £10,965.35

  £11,037.20

  £11,725.80

  £112,796.04

  £14,464.08

  £14,946.17

  £15,130.33

  £15,421.76

  £15,862.47

  £16,832.00

  £18,781.01

  £19,027.45

  £23,719.15

  £24,395.44

  £25,355.18

  £27,518.62

  £28,421.77

  £28,855.99

  £31,153.19

  £32,203.62

  £35,444.33

  £36,558.38

  £40,268.42

  £47,994.18

  TABLE B: AMOUNTS RECOVERED FROM ASBESTOSIS SUFFERERS FROM 1 APRIL 1995 TO 31 OCTOBER 1995

  £83.30

  £140.10

  £182.80

  £367.50

  £449.00

  £457.80

  £470.40

  £607.10

  £621.60

  £628.00

  £641.20

  £987.80

  £999.45

  £1,058.80

  £1,064.03

  £1,104.75

  £1,167.86

  £1,344.40

  £1,346.88

  £1,403.29

  £1,431.85

  251

  £1,456.32

  £1,478.68

  £1,482.64

  £1,531.70

  £1,685.35

  £1,752.63

  £1,777.15

  £1,814.09

  £2,070.26

  £2,209.73

  £2,238.48

  £2,316.95

  £2,451.20

  £2,574.15

  £2,575.71

  £2,603.72

  £2,696.40

  £2,699.73

  £2,859.10

  £2,867.61

  £2,935.46

  £3,252.84

  £3,257.66

  £3,298.72

  £3,307.22

  £3,455.70

  £3,492.44

  £3,541.62

  £3,827.88

  £3,851.20

  £3,972.04

  £4,003.92

  £4,166.06

  £4,233.05

  £4,347.69

  £4,406.05

  £4,498.68

  £4,762.00

  £5,000.48

  £5,100.01

  £5,521.05

  £5,685.20

  £6,152.34

  £6,244.98

  £6,317.54

  £6,351.20

  £6,448.01

  £6,541.68

  £6,546.48

  £6,658.80

  £6,697.85

  £7,135.82

  £8,014.20

  £8,089.90

  £8,157.48

  £8,690.95

  £9,036.75

  £9,079.60

  252

  £9,154.24

  £9,950.40

  £10,043.62

  £10,376.94

  £10,565.18

  £10,917.90

  £11,341.51

  £11,617.37

  £12,060.65

  £12,752.62

  £13,261.67

  £13,301.29

  £13,621.79

  £14,540.90

  £14,670.20

  £15,185.20

  £15,383.02

  £15,421.76

  £15,840.49

  £15,954.68

  £17,795.40

  £17,970.00

  £18,890.67

  £18,903.48

  £19,258.43

  £22,983.21

  £25,188.08

  £25,663.20

  £26,851.22

  £27,775.25

  £28,414.60

  £34,582.90

  £41,627.15

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been the 10 largest sums recovered by the compensation recovery unit in the current financial year; and if he will list the(a) illnesses, (b) accidents and (c) diseases suffered by those from whom compensation was recovered. [2906]

  Mr. Mitchell
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what have been the 10 largest sums recovered by the Compensation Recovery Unit in the current financial year; and to list the (a) illnesses, (b) accidents and (c) diseases suffered by those from whom compensation was recovered.Claim form CRU 1 asks for the reasons for making a claim for compensation together with the date of any accident and details of the resulting injury, disease or if appropriate the date of death. Further details are not requested about the circumstances of individual accidents.For record purposes information is taken from the CRU 1 about the nature of the injury or disease and recorded in broad categories only. Details of illnesses, injuries and diseases can only therefore be provided within these categories.253 Appendix A which is attached contains information about the ten largest amounts recovered from individual customers by the Compensation Recovery Unit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix A: The ten largest amounts recovered from individual customers by the Compensation Recovery Unit and a brief description of the injury or disease

  £

  Amount recovered

  Brief description of injury/disease

  70,522.25

  Head/facial injury

  67,165.00

  Back/spinal injury

  66,775.53

  1Multiple injuries

  64,704.06

  Back/spinal injury

  61,943.44

  2Miscellaneous

  59,142.57

  1Multiple injuries

  59,137.28

  1Multiple injuries

  59,131.70

  2Miscellaneous

  59,017.48

  3Miscellaneous

  57,773.28

  Head/facial injury

  1 Multiple injury—more than one injury to different parts of the body or a combination of injury/amputation to the same part of body e.g. broken left arm and amputated right arm.

  2 Miscellaneous—this includes lacerations/cuts/bruising or any combination where no specific part of the body is mentioned.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons who qualified for severe weather payments for each month from 1 November 1995 to 30 April 1996, applied to each of the Benefits Agency offices in the Doncaster and Mexborough area; and what were the figures for the period 1 November 1994 to 30 April 1995. [31432]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Once a cold weather period has been identified, a scan of the income support database is run to establish those who are eligible for a cold weather payment. Payment is sent out automatically; there is no need for a claim to be made.

  Information relating to cold weather payments made for the periods 1 November 1994 to 30 April 1995 and 1 November 1995 to 30 April 1996 can be found in the statistical section of the Library. The data are held in the social fund statistical load file under "Cold Weather Payments by District Office".

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the qualification requirements for cold weather payments to enable ex-service men on war pensions but not receiving income support to entitlement to these payments. [32250]

  Mr. Evans
  There are no plans to change the existing qualifying groups. The current scheme targets available resources towards those regarded as most vulnerable during a sustained period of very cold weather.

  Suspension of Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases the suspension of benefit under regulation 37A of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 was lifted following representations by or on behalf of claimants; and if he will give a breakdown of the reasons for the lifting of the suspension in each of those cases and in total. [31808]
  254
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of benefit he has suspended in each year since 1990 under regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987. [31806]

  Mr. Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 May,Official Report, column 392.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of benefit he has suspended pending appeals in the cases of(a) Bate, from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, (b) Graham, from the commissioner to the Court of Appeal, including the reference to the European Court of Justice and (c) Halliday (aka Fairey) in relation both to the appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the appeal to the House of Lords. [31809]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Lead case

  Number of suspensions

  Bate

  2,768

  Graham

  46,418

  Halliday (aka Fairey)

  3,017

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of benefit he has suspended under regulation 37A of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 since its introduction in March 1992. [31807]

  Mr. Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 March,Official Report, columns 480–81.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of people in the United Kingdom who currently receive a war pension. [32252]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that at 31 March 1996, the most recent date for which figures are available, 301,379 people in the United Kingdom were receiving either a war disablement pension, war widow's pension or other war dependants pension.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement in the Scottish Grand Committee of 20 May,Official Report, column 19, what plans he had to review the reduced earnings allowance. [23533]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None at present.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32666]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department is aware of the information technology issues which arise as a result of the millennium, and work is under way to establish the cost effects on departmental systems.
  255

  Incomes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his Department's plans for the households below average income and the pensioners' incomes statistical series. [33113]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I have today published the report of the Department's review of the methodology underlying the households below average income series. A copy has been placed in the Library. One of its recommendations is that future issues should highlight information on income mobility derived from longitudinal sources.

  Incorporating the review results, together with the move in the survey sources from calendar to financial years, means that publication of the next households below average income is expected to be in October. Publication of the pensioners' incomes series, which draws on the households below income database, is expected to follow in November.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [31179]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [31180]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition on to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Royal Family (Records)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of 20 May,Official Report, column 60, if he will list the three criteria which govern closure of records; and if he will make a statement. [31552]

  Mr. Streeter
  The three categories of public record which are to be closed for public inspection for longer than 30 years are as set out in chapter 9 of the 1993 White Paper, "Open Government" (Cm 2290). They are:

  exceptionally sensitive records containing information, the disclosure of which would not be in the public interest in that it would harm the defence, international relations, national security—including the maintenance of law and order—or the economic interests of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories;

  documents containing information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would or might constitute a breach of good faith; and

  documents containing information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause either substantial distress, or endangerment from a third party, to persons affected by disclosure or their descendants.

  256

  Court Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration has been given to market testing of the services provided by the Court Service agency; and if he will make a statement. [31553]

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

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 13 June 1996:

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about market testing of services provided by the Court Service.
  Since the establishment of the Court Service as an Executive Agency on 2 April 1995, no further consideration has been given to market testing its services. Most of the ancillary services it uses such as cleaning, catering, judges' car hire, security and maintenance are already contracted out. Other support services such as IT, Internal Audit and Pay were market tested before the Court Service became an Agency.Statutory constraint and the fact that much of the Court Service's work is in support of the judiciary means that the scope for further market testing is very limited. Consideration is, however, being given to involving the private sector through partnership schemes under the Private Finance Initiative.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32674]

  Mr. Streeter
  My Department is currently assessing the impact of the millennium date change on its computer systems.

  Family Law Bill
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make available information outlining the effect of the amendments tabled by the Government to the Family Law Bill for Report stage; and if the Government intend to maintain or overturn amendments already made in Committee. [33276]

  Mr. Streeter
  This information has been placed in the Vote Office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Port of Tyne Authority
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will report progress on considering the transfer scheme submitted by the Port of Tyne Authority; and if he will make a statement. [33152]

  Sir George Young
  I have been asked to reply.

  The transfer scheme submitted by the Port of Tyne Authority contains a number of provisions which, in our view, would constrain the operation and development of the port. I have considered the arguments offered by the

  257
  authority about the provisions in question and the legal position, and am now minded to make my own transfer scheme under section 12 of the Ports Act 1991.

  Before preparing such a scheme, there is a requirement to consult the port authority. My noble Friend, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, has today written to the chairman of the Port of Tyne Authority to seek the views of the board.

  Arms Embargo (Argentina)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by date the changes of policy since March 1982 in the application of arms embargoes towards Argentina; and if he will make a statement on each specific exception to the embargo in that period. [31326]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since January 1991—the date from which detailed records are readily available—12 exceptions have been made for the export of items falling within the embargo. Two were temporary licences for which the goods were returned. The remainder included equipment to be used by Argentine forces engaged in UN peacekeeping and international search and rescue duties, certain airport security, anti-terrorism and anti-drugs goods and parts for civil aircraft which fall under the embargo. One licence was granted for a sporting gun, one for. 22 calibre ammunition for sporting guns. There was also one for humane cattle stunner blanks where a licence was issued to cover the export during the period when they were licensable under the existing Export of Goods (Control) Order but, where the new, 1994 order has decontrolled them.

  The policy on the application of the embargo on defence sales is kept under regular review.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases, by region, are waiting to be heard in industrial tribunals in England and Wales; and how long his Department estimates it will take to clear this backlog in each case. [32020]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of cases awaiting hearing by region at April 1996 is set out in table 1. The industrial tribunals work to a performance target of 80 per cent. of cases to be heard within 26 weeks of being registered. Performance against this target by region for the first quarter of 1996 is shown in table 2. The two London regions remain below target but have made good progress, following measures taken to reduce delays, and this is expected to continue.

  Table 1: Cases awaiting hearing (April 1996)

  Region

  Awaiting hearing

  London South

  1,535

  Bedford

  873

  Birmingham

  995

  Bristol

  490

  Cardiff

  763

  Leeds

  1,033

  Manchester

  2,138

  Newcastle

  410

  Nottingham

  963

  Southampton

  1,228

  London North and Stratford

  3,097

  258

  Table 2: Performance against target (January to March 1996)

  Region

  Hearing target 80 per cent. within 26 weeks

  London South

  70

  Bedford

  88

  Birmingham

  83

  Bristol

  95

  Cardiff

  81

  Leeds

  93

  Manchester

  81

  Newcastle

  97

  Nottingham

  85

  Southampton

  82

  London North and Stratford

  59

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of inward investment from Korea in each year since 1990. [32073]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The stock of inward direct investment into the UK from South Korea in each year since 1990, as calculated by the Office for National Statistics, is:

  1990: Disclosive (this figure would release details of an investment by a particular company)

  £ million

  1991

  -44.1

  1992

  -29.0

  1993

  -3.7

  1994

  -167.0

  No figures are available on investment into the UK from North Korea, nor are figures on portfolio investment from either North Korea or South Korea.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year since 1979 the number of inward investment strategies developed by his Department for each region of England. [31825]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The DTI Invest in Britain Bureau promotes the benefits of the United Kingdom to potential inward investors. In the English regions, it is the responsibility of each of the regional development organisations to produce an annual inward investment strategy that draws upon the particular strengths and selling points of their respective regions.

  The Invest in Britain Bureau also part funds the RDOs on the basis of agreeing this forward programme of inward investment promotional activities each year.

  Exports
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the value of exports from the United Kingdom for each of the years since 1992 of(a) office machinery and data processing equipment, (b) electrical and electronic engineering, (c) motor vehicles, (d) aircraft, (e) other transport equipment, (f) North sea oil and derivatives and (g) the chemical industry. [32529]
  259
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is given in the table. The figures for 1992 are not exactly comparable with those of later years, due to a change in the system of classification.

  £ billion

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Office machinery and data processing equipment

  6.3

  8.2

  9.6

  11.8

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  12.4

  11.4

  14.3

  17.9

  Motor vehicles

  9.9

  9.6

  11.2

  13.5

  Aircraft

  6.9

  6.2

  5.8

  6.0

  Other transport equipment

  0.5

  0.5

  1.2

  0.7

  North sea oil and derivatives

  2.4

  3.0

  2.7

  2.6

  Chemical industry

  15.8

  18.1

  19.6

  22.2

  Source: Business Monitor MQ10, Office for National Statistics.

  European Fusion Programme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what expenditure Her Majesty's Government have made via the UK Atomic Energy Authority/AEA Technology for the joint European trans-sonic wind tunnel—JET— fusion project and other projects in(a) the last year and (b) since the beginning of the European fusion programme. [32565]

  Mr. Page
  The expenditure made by the Government via the UKAEA for the JET fusion project was £7.7 million in 1995 and £109.12 million since the European fusion programme began. The expenditure made by the Government via the UKAEA for other fusion projects in the UK was £8 million in 1995 and £240.95 million since the UK became part of the European fusion programme in 1973. The UK has received additional support from Euratom for its own programme during the period at a level of approximately 30 per cent. of its own expenditure.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what expenditure Her Majesty's Government have made via Euratom and the JET fusion project and other fusion projects(a) in the last year and (b) since the beginning of the European fusion programme. [32566]

  Mr. Page
  The expenditure made by the Government via Euratom for the JET fusion project was £8.4 million in 1995 and £123.60 million since the European fusion programme began. The expenditure made by the Government via Euratom for other fusion projects in Europe was £13.97 million in 1995 and £168.52 million since the European fusion programme began.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is proposing to encourage the sale of vehicle tax discs and the issuing of passports by smaller post offices and sub-post offices; and if he will make a statement. [32266]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Decisions on the overall number of post offices issuing motor vehicle licences and passport application forms are respectively matters for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the UK Passport Agency.
  260

  Foresight Challenge Programme
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many foresight challenge bids have been received to date. [32660]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Five hundred and fifteen foresight challenge bids have been received to date.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are being used for the evaluation of foresight challenge bids. [32659]

  Mr. Taylor
  The criteria used for the evaluation of foresight challenge bids are contained in section 6 of the challenge terms and conditions document, which was issued to interested bidders by the Office of Science and Technology in September 1995.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the bid timetable for the foresight challenge was announced; and if he will make a statement. [32661]

  Mr. Taylor
  The timetable for the foresight challenge was announced in September 1995, in the terms and conditions document issued by the Office of Science and Technology.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the successful applicants for funding under the foresight challenge programme were also members of the foresight panels. [32657]

  Mr. Taylor
  I shall make an announcement about the successful applicants on 24 June. I shall write to the hon. Member soon after the announcement.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how payments made under the foresight challenge programme are to be monitored. [32680]

  Mr. Taylor
  Payments under the foresight challenge programme will be made and monitored by the research councils.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many successful applications there have been for funding under the foresight challenge programme. [32658]

  Mr. Taylor
  I shall make an announcement on 24 June regarding the winning applications.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32665]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In line with guidance recently issued by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and the Cabinet Office central IT unit, my Department has initiated studies to assess the extent to which its computer systems will need to be amended to take account of the millennium date change. The results of these studies, including estimates of the cost of the corrective work, are expected later this year.

  Home Shipbuilding Credit Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme. [33155]
  261
  Mr. Eggar
  The review of the scheme, which I announced to the House on 15 March 1995, has now been completed.

  I have decided that the scheme should continue. When the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shipbuilding agreement comes into force, the currently subsidised interest rate of 7.5 per cent. will be replaced by the appropriate commercial interest reference rate used in export finance. The scheme will continue to provide credit for up to 80 per cent. of a ship's contract value, the maximum permitted by OECD rules.

  I have also decided to make an amendment to the scheme designed to enhance the scheme's attractiveness in appropriate cases. I have invited main banks involved in shipping business to participate in arrangements which would come into play when the terms offered under the scheme are not able to provide 80 per cent. financing on the basis of the vessel's mortgage and other readily available security, and it is felt that, by the standards of the international market place, better terms should be possible. In such circumstances, the new banking facility would aim to provide an additional tranche of financing. The DTI and the participating bank would share the risk in this additional tranche, normally on a 50–50 basis, although in some circumstances my Department would be prepared to take two thirds of the risk if necessary to secure 80 per cent. financing. Additional margins would be charged to reflect the additional risk undertaken.

  This new banking facility will come into effect as of the date of this announcement. Applications for loans under the scheme, for which offers have not yet been made, will also be eligible.

  The changes to the current interest rate offered under the scheme will be made with the entry into force of the OECD agreement presently targeted for 15 July. The success of this new banking facility will depend on the response from the banks. However, I believe that it is a valuable development of the scheme and responds to the concerns of the shipbuilding industry.

  Overdue Commercial Debt
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the outcome of the review of the case for a statutory right to interest on overdue commercial debt that was announced on 11 January,Official Report, column 293. [33148]

  Mr. Page
  I announced to the House that the Government were meeting the commitment made in the 1994 competitiveness White Paper to review again the case for legislation for a statutory right to interest. That review has been informed by updated submissions from representative bodies which responded to the public consultation on this subject in 1994, the regional "Your Business Matters" conferences and commercial and academic research.

  Following the review, I can confirm that the Government will not be introducing legislation to enact a right to interest on overdue commercial debt.

  It is right that the Government listen to and act upon the views of the business community and it is clear that there has been a significant shift in opinion, particularly by the small firms representative organisations, against
  262
  legislation. Eight of the nine main small firms organisations have stated that they are against legislation because of the detrimental impact they fear it would have on small businesses. Even a number of organisation which responded to the review in favour of legislation had serious reservations about its effectiveness. Additionally the regional "Your Business Matters" conferences concluded against legislation.

  The Government introduced a significant package of measures to tackle late payment in 1994. Good progress has been made in their implementation, although it is too early to gauge their effectiveness. That is something we shall continue to review and evaluate. In addition, the Prime Minister announced on 11 March this year a package of additional measures including consultation on whether public companies should be required to publish their payment performance.

  Recent research by the university of Bradford has identified that effective credit management procedures can significantly reduce the incidence and impact of late payment experienced by small businesses. The Government will therefore continue to work with all sectors of the business community to help small firms improve their credit management procedures. Business links in England, business connect in Wales, local enterprise companies in Scotland and the Local Enterprise Development Unit in Northern Ireland will be able to provide advice and guidance in this area.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the privatisation of the short-term business of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [33149]

  Mr. Lang
  The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), announced on 2 December 1991,Official Report, columns 11–12, the sale of the short-term business of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to NCM Holding NV. The £20 million goodwill element of the sale price included a deferred element up to a maximum of £5 million payable in 1996 subject to the privatised company's financial performance. I am pleased to be able to report that, on the basis of the company's actual performance, a sum of £5,479,127, made up of the basic sum due of £4,928,296 plus index linking, has now been paid to ECGD by the company.

  I welcome this as the final formal stage in a highly successful privatisation which has provided UK exporters with the benefits deriving from the most competitive private sector export credit insurance market in Europe.

  Radio Spectrum (Licensing)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are being made for the contracting out of the management and licensing of the radio spectrum used for making programmes and similar activities. [33150]

  Mr. Lang
  The Radiocommunications Agency published on 15 May the report of its review of spectrum used in programme making and related activities by broadcasters, independent programme makers and others. The spectrum is currently managed and licensed on the
  263
  agency's behalf by ASP Frequency Management Ltd. and the Broadcasters' JFMG Ltd. One of the main recommendations of the review was that a single spectrum management organisation should be established with responsibility for licensing all programme making spectrum. I have decided to accept this recommendation and intend to establish new arrangements under a contract which would run from 1 April 1997. The agency will shortly advertise the intention to appoint a single contractor and will invite expressions of interest. I intend, in exercise of powers conferred by section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, to make an order enabling me to authorise another person to exercise my licensing function under section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 in respect of programme making spectrum. The contract will be made under the order.

  Contracts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response his Department has made to the European Commission's recommendation that public entities wishing to advertise invitations for tenders should break down large contracts into lots. [31889]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: The European Commission is expected to present shortly a Green Paper on procurement policy in the European Union. My Department will consider, in consultation with business interests and with HM Treasury, which are the lead Government Department on procurement policy, any such recommendations which are made.

  "Tenders Electronic Daily"
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what translation facilities are provided by his Department for potential tenderers to the "Tenders Electronic Daily". [31901]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: None. Although overseas tender notices on "Tenders Electronic Daily" are published in full only in the language of the purchasing authority, a summary of such notices is provided in English.

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence his Department has evaluated for the first quarter of 1996 regarding business(a) demand, (b) optimism and (c) output amongst small and medium manufacturing companies. [31905]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: Evidence from business surveys shows demand, optimism and output increasing in the first quarter of 1996.

  Electric Batons
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date Her Majesty's Government were advised that a market report partially funded through his Department's export marketing scheme would state that there was a future requirement for electric batons in a named country; what action he took in respect of that report; and what steps he has taken to ensure(a) that Her
  264
  Majesty's Government does not fund such reports in the future and (b) that the contents of market reports are sanctioned before publication. [31139]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 June 1996]: The report was partially funded through the export marketing research scheme under the terms and conditions applicable at the time for trade associations using the scheme for the first time. The report covered six countries in the Arabian peninsula and was restricted to marketing research only.

  This independent marketing research was carried out on behalf of the members of a trade association. The two lines from the 200-page report which refer to this issue solely reflect the views expressed by the authorities in the named country. The two lines are
  "The Special Forces are interest in procuring anti-ballistic helmets as well as electronic batons"
  and
  "The force has access to riot vehicles and body armour which was rarely used, although interest has been shown in anti-ballistic helmets and electronic batons".
  The Department cannot dictate the contents of a marketing research report. Such reports are a reflection of the views of those interviewed by the researchers and the Department confers no authorisation to any of the views expressed. The Department is not notified in advance of the contents of any reports. However, a copy of the final report of projects conducted on behalf of trade associations is placed in the Department's export market information centre. Accordingly, a copy of this report was placed in the EMIC on 10 August 1994.

  The UK strictly controls the export of military and paramilitary equipment. The use of the EMRS in no way subverts, circumvents or undermines this process.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration has been given to market testing the services provided by his Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency; and if he will make a statement. [31554]

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the CCTA under its chief executive, Mr. Robin Guenier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert Guenier to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 10 June 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning market testing of CCTA's services.You will be aware that, following CCTA's becoming a Next Steps Agency on 1 April 1996, one of the objectives of the Chief Executive is to achieve full cost recovery by financial year 1997–98. In conjunction with this objective, the Chief Executive is also required to achieve demanding annual financial, efficiency and quality of service targets.265 With this in mind, I have a responsibility to ensure that all CCTA services are competitive and provide value for money to those who use them. CCTA, therefore, makes use of whatever efficiency savings are appropriate to achieve these objectives, market testing being one of many options. Of course, use of CCTA's services is not mandatory and departments and Agencies do so at their own discretion. It is, therefore, important for users of our services to ensure that they do so taking into account options such as market testing.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 487, when he expects to declare the results of the review of provisions of the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Medical Stores) Regulations 1995. [31386]

  Mr. Freeman
  We aim to complete the review and consultation exercise by 30 September 1996. An announcement on the conclusions will be made at that time by the Department of Transport.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32667]

  Mr. Willetts
  My Department and its agencies are currently in the process of assessing the impact of the millennium date change on their computer systems, including any costs that may arise.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Burundi
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the French Government about their decision to suspend military co-operation with Burundi. [32567]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain in close touch with our French and other European partners about the situation in Burundi.

WALES

  Official Material
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to make official material available to hon. Members before release to the media. [31243]

  Mr. Hague
  In line with the guidance set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", it is my policy to ensure that, when the House is sitting, major policy announcements are given to Parliament before they are released to the media.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 111, how many (a) representations and
  266
  (b) petitions his office has now had concerning the implementation of the nursery voucher scheme; for each, how many were in favour and how many against the implementation of nursery vouchers; and if he will make a statement. [31846]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In addition to a number of letters to Welsh Office Ministers, some 35 petitions and some 4,000 separate representations have been received, the vast majority of the latter consisting of printed pro forma letters and postcards.

  There continues to be general support for the Government's objective of making nursery education available for all four-year-olds, although only one letter offers specific support for the voucher scheme as the most appropriate means to achieve that objective. This is not surprising, given that most of the representations contain misunderstandings of some basic elements of the scheme.

  Traffic Area Office (Cardiff)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport concerning the future of the south Wales traffic area office. [32288]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local transport has announced plans to restructure the traffic area offices, including the closure of the South Wales traffic area office in Cardiff. The decision to close the Cardiff office is regrettable, but I understand that it is necessary in order to make best use of limited resources.

  Ear Operations
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the NHS trust hospitals in Wales that currently meet the standard set out in the patients charter for waiting times for ear operations; [32150]

  (2) if he will list the average waiting times for ear operations for each of the national health service trusts in Wales. [32152]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At 31 March 1996, there were no patients waiting for admission to Welsh hospitals for treatment in the specialty of ear, nose and throat who had been waiting for more than the standard set by the patients charter for all operations. Information on the average waiting times for ear operations is not readily available. However, the percentage of patients admitted within three and 12 months in the year to 31 March 1996 for the specialty of ENT will be published in "The Patients Charter, NHS Wales Performance Tables 1996" in July.

  Highways (Costs)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the typical works costs associated with(a) the construction of one mile of major dual carriageway in open countryside and (b) on-line upgrading of a mile of single carriageway to dual carriageway. [32038]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Construction costs can be affected by many factors, including topography, the number of structures and ground conditions.
  267
  In the last 10 years, for trunk road schemes constructed to dual carriageway standard in open countryside, the costs at March 1996 prices were (a) in a range £2.5 million to £5.5 million per mile and (b) approximately £2 million per mile.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent during the financial years 1994–1995 and 1995–96 on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers from his Department on official duties abroad. [32423]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at dispropportionate cost.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32672]

  Mr. Hague
  An assessment of the effect of the millennium date change on my Department's computer systems has recently been undertaken. I do not expect there to be any major costs involved in ensuring that my Department's computer systems can cater for the year 2000.

  Welsh Economic Performance
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Welsh economy. [33147]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh economy has made great progress over recent years and is now acknowledged to have significant strength, not least in its manufacturing sector.

  I have today published a comprehensive report, entitled "Meeting the Challenge", analysing Wales's current position. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Scottish Visitors
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of visitors from Scotland to Northern Ireland in(a) 1995 and (b) 1994. [30931]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total number of visitors from Scotland to Northern Ireland in 1995 was 207,000—up 22 per cent. on the 170,000 of the previous year. The number of holidaymakers increased by 76 per cent. in that period.

  Peace Process (Terrorists)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the 268
  number of persons with convictions for terrorist offences who are (a) members of the forum and (b) involved in the negotiating teams. [30933]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The considerable difficulties involved in obtaining the information make it impossible for me to make available the details requested. Such investigations would require not only the full name, date of birth and current address of each individual concerned but, in order to be absolutely sure of correct identification, a full set of fingerprints.

  Terrorist Murders Monument
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to commission a national monument to those civilians and members of the police and armed forces who have been killed by terrorist action. [30934]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are no plans to commission such a monument.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in the peace process. [30935]

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position over political developments in Northern Ireland. [30937]

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the all-party talks process at Stormont. [30947]

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. [30950]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  All-party negotiations began on Monday 10 June in plenary session involving negotiating teams from those parties invited to participate together with the British and Irish Governments.

  The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach opened the proceedings. Following a round of intensive bilateral discussions on 10 and 11 June, Senator Mitchell assumed the chair of the opening plenary session. General de Chastelain and Mr. Holkeri were appointed as chairman of strand 2 and the business committee, and alternate chairman respectively. All the delegations present committed themselves to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence and the Democratic Unionist party and Mr. McCartney also did so during later discussions. The parties are now conferring on various important procedural issues.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current expenditure from public funds on the arts; what it was(a) five, (b) 10, (c) 15 and (d) 20 years ago in real terms; and if he will make a statement. [30936]
  269
  Mr. Ancram
  Government expenditure on the arts in the last year was £7.2 million compared, in real terms, with £6.5 million five years ago; £5.2 million 10 years ago; £3.8 million 15 years ago and £3.5 million 25 years ago.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in decommissioning paramilitary-held weapons in Northern Ireland. [30938]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).

  Terrorism
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the level of the current terrorist threat. [30939]

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an assessment of the current terrorist threat. [30945]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The various terrorist gangs retain their structures and weaponry; they continue to train and to target individuals and installations. Recent activity has included robberies, punishment attacks and murders in Northern Ireland, and the renewed bombing campaign in London.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the current levels of punishment beatings; and what assessment he has made as to the responsibility for them. [30941]

  Sir John Wheeler
  So far this year, there have been 124 so-called punishment attacks. Of these, 72 have been attributed to Republican groups and 52 to loyalist groups, including five victims who were shot.

  These crimes are against all concepts of justice and human rights. There is no doubt that terrorist groups control these barbaric activities and that, if they wished to call a halt, they could do so immediately. Sinn Fein claims to have signed up to the principles set out in the report of the international body, but one of these principles calls for a commitment to try to stop "punishment" attacks and to take effective steps to prevent such actions. The House will note that to date there is no evidence of these attacks ceasing.

  Deregulation (Small Businesses)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making with regard to reducing costs to small businesses as a result of UK deregulation initiatives. [30943]

  Mr. Ancram
  Good progress has been made:

  104 NI regulations affecting business have been repealed or amended;

  food legislation and planning and building requirements have been simplified;

  tax, national insurance and value added tax systems have been streamlined;

  270

  a major initiative to simplify health and safety guidance and reduce paperwork is in hand.

  Elections
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the outcome of the elections in Northern Ireland. [30946]

  Mr. Ancram
  As intended, the 30 May election opened the way to substantive all-party negotiations which began on 10 June and allowed the various parties to come fortified by an electoral mandate. The high turnout demonstrated the wish of the people of Northern Ireland for political dialogue.

  Employment and Training
  Mackinlay
  24. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further measures are proposed to increase employment and training opportunities in Northern Ireland over the next 12 months. [30949]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government continue to give a very high priority to those successful policies which have contributed to the development of the economy and provided increased employment opportunities. This is clearly evidenced by the high levels of employment being maintained, currently at 573,880 (March 1996). Our on-going commitment is further witnessed by the allocation in 1996–97 of some £455 million in support of a wide range of employment and training measures. Additionally, £7.3 million has recently been made available from the EU's special support programme for peace and reconciliation which will support a range of additional innovative programmes aimed at investment and employment development.

  Grammar School Pupils
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many primary school pupils who received grades other than A in the transfer procedure will obtain a grammar school place in Northern Ireland for the 1996–97 school year; and if he will publish a list of Northern Ireland grammar schools and the number of pupils in each grade to be admitted for the 1996–97 school year. [30951]

  Mr. Ancram
  The transfer procedure processes are not yet completed for the 1996–97 school year; and accordingly the information required is not yet available. It will be available in the autumn.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the results of his consultation on restructuring of the RUC. [30942]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government White Paper "Foundations for Policing" stated that the importance of the forthcoming all-party talks was such that no finite consultation period for comments was being set. Work on the fundamental review is continuing. When the report is finalised, the main findings will be made public.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to
  271
  market testing the services provided by the child support maintenance services of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [31556]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for taking forward the competing for quality initiative rests with the chief executive of the Child Support Agency and to date all the agency's support services have been contracted out. The agency will be the subject of an agency review in 1997– 98 and the prior options stage of that review will include, inter alia, an examination of the potential for the market testing of the agency's main functions including child support maintenance.

  Social Security Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to market testing the services provided by the Social Security Agency; and if he will make a statement. [31565]

  Mr. Moss
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced the outcome of the review of the Social Security Agency on 19 April 1996,Official Report, column 622–23. The second stage of that review required the Department to examine the prior options of abolition, privatisation and wholesale contractorisation. The report concluded that there was no scope for abolition or privatisation, nor was there any evidence to suggest that wholesale contractorisation of functions was a viable option, given the lack of a mature market or interest in the private sector for this work at present. However, the study report went on to recommend that the Social Security Agency should develop a comprehensive strategy for achieving efficiency improvements through involving the private sector in all aspects of its business, including benefit administration. The strategy should be completed during the 1996–97 year, for implementation to begin in 1997–98 or earlier. The agency is currently taking forward these recommendations. A copy of the executive summary of the prior options report is available in the Library.

  Sexual Abuse (Compensation)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what provisions apply to claims for compensation by people who are sexually abused as children and take legal action as adults; [32516]

  (2) if adults who were sexually abused as children are not eligible for financial compensation; and if he will make a statement; [32517]

  (3) if he will make a statement regarding the changes he is planning to the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Northern Ireland Order 1988 in order to allow sex abuse victims to claim compensation after they reach the age of 21 years; [32518]

  (4) in what circumstances he may make ex gratia payments to Northern Ireland sex abuse victims who were abused as children and cannot claim compensation after they reach the age of 21 years; [32519]

  (5) on how many occasions he has made ex gratia payments to sex abuse victims who were abused as children and cannot claim compensation after they reach the age of 21 years. [32520]
  272
  Sir John Wheeler
  Under the terms of the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Northern Ireland Order 1988, a person has three years within which to lodge an application for compensation. However, in the case of victims aged under 18 when the injury was sustained, my right hon. and learned Friend has discretion to admit applications made outside the three-year time limit, if there was a reasonable cause for not making the application at any earlier time. This discretion is applicable for up to three years after the victim's 18th birthday, and acknowledges the fact that children and young persons who are criminally injured are not always in an immediate position to protect their interests or have them protected.

  The 1988 order also introduced a three-year time limit for claims made under the earlier Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 which continues to apply to injuries sustained before the 1988 order came into effect on 1 July 1988. However, the order did not make an exception in respect of those criminally injured while under 18. This anomaly was rectified by article 5 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 so that they too could apply for compensation up to the age of 21. In short, 21 is the effective cut-off point for all claims relating to injuries to minors.

  As for violence within the family—which encompasses many sex abuse cases, including incest—article 5(2) of the 1988 order provides that no compensation can be paid in respect of an injury where the victim was, at that time, living in the same household as the person responsible for causing the injury unless:

  (a) the person who caused the injury has been prosecuted (or there is a sufficient reason why this could not happen);

  (b) the victim and the person who caused the injury have stopped living together (unless there are exceptional circumstances which prevent them from ceasing to live in the same household); and

  (c) the person responsible for causing the injury cannot benefit from the compensation if it is paid.

  Officials are currently considering whether it would be feasible to admit for consideration applications made after a victim has reached the age of 21, possibly by way of ex gratia payments to be made in cases which are now time barred but which meet all the other criteria. This work is still in progress. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know when it has been completed. No ex gratia payments have been made outside the terms of the 1988 order to any victim of child sex abuse.

  Economic Co-operation
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to increase trade and economic co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. [30928]

  Mr. Ancram
  Government agencies and private sector business organisations in Northern Ireland have been co-operating with their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland on a wide range of cross-border trade and economic development projects. Co-operation will continue in the future on any initiatives which will contribute to the provision of job opportunities and prosperity for people in both parts of the island.
  273

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32669]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within Northern Ireland Departments there is an initiative to identify the scope of the millennium problem and to ensure that those with responsibility for systems potentially at risk are made aware of the implications. Steps are being taken to ensure that whatever remedial action needs to be taken is planned for and completed by 1 January 2000. Investigations are currently in progress, but as yet there has been no assessment of the full costs involved.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  SHL Software
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contracts his Department and his agencies have with SHL software computer system; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [31436]

  Mr. Boswell
  Neither the Ministry nor any of its agencies hold contracts with SHL. Between March 1994 and June 1996, the Ministry spent £4,494 with SHL Technical Solutions Ltd. for the provision of IT training courses. There are no contract end dates or potential penalty fees. Fees for early discharge of contractual arrangements are a matter for negotiation between the Ministry and its suppliers.

  Fishermen (Early Retirement and Compensation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what practical steps the Government are taking to implement the new measures of Council regulation (EC) No. 2719/95 amending Council regulation 3699/93; and when it intends to introduce an early retirement and compensation scheme for fishermen as prescribed in the regulation; [32532]

  (2) how many EU member states have replied positively to Council regulation EC 2719/95 of 20 November 1995; in what terms Her Majesty's Government have replied; and if Her Majesty's Government are participating in the Commission's study of practical arrangements for complementing the new measures. [32534]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government did not support Council regulation 2719/95, which gives member states the option of using part of their existing financial instrument for fisheries guidance—FIFG—funds to finance early retirement schemes and make payments to crews of decommissioned vessels. No additional EU money is available. The Government believe that FIFG funds should be concentrated on other priority areas, leaving member states' social security systems to deal with any employment consequences.
  274
  The Government have no information on the number of EU member states implementing Council regulation 2719/95 and is not aware of any related Commission study of practical arrangements.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [31417]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information in respect of the use of executive search agencies and employment companies to fill vacancies in core MAFF and the Pesticide Safety Directorate is as follows:

  1994–95

  Trading Standards Advisor

  2 Administrative Fast Stream

  2 Grade 7s (Legal)

  Assistant Statisticians

  2 Assistant Economists

  1 Legal Officer

  1 Grade 7 (PPO)

  5 Fisheries Officers II

  1 Grade 7 (PSO)

  2 Higher Scientific Officers

  4 Senior Professional and Technical Officers

  6 Veterinary Officers

  2 Veterinary Investigation Officers

  Core MAFF also undertook a recruitment exercise for a chief executive, on behalf of the Meat Hygiene Service

  Total costs=£160,538.29

  1995–96

  5 Administrative Fast Stream

  Head of Resource Management Division

  1 Grade 7 (Legal)

  2 Assistant Economists

  4 Investigation Officers (including 1 fixed term appointment)

  1 Grade 7 (PPO)

  7 Horticultural Marketing Inspectors

  1 Higher Scientific Officer

  1 Scientific Officer

  3 Fisheries Officers II

  1 Grade 6

  2 Veterinary Investigation Officers

  Core MAFF also undertook recruitment exercises for a head of operations on behalf of the Meat Hygiene Service; and a chief executive for the intervention board.

  Total Cost = £220,188.06

  All the above recruitment exercises were carried out by the Recruitment and Assessment Services with one exception in 1994–95.

  Executive agencies will reply separately by chief executive's letter.
  275
  Letter from Philip Needham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply direct to your Parliamentary Question in which you ask what use the Executive Agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within the Executive Agency 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. (31417)
  The information for ADAS is as follows:

  Year

  Cost £

  Consultancy

  Staff recruited

  1994–95

  6,000

  St. James's Recruitment Consultants

  One

  1995–96

  4,621

  Cherry Consultants

  One

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service, your questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the use of executive search agencies or employment companies for recruitment and the expenditure on, and number of staff recruited during 1994/95 and 1995/96 have been passed to me for reply with respect to this Executive Agency.(31417)The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was established on 1 April 1995 as an Executive Agency of MAFF and took over from some 300 local authorities the responsibility for enforcing hygiene, inspection and welfare requirements in licensed fresh meat premises in Great Britain. The majority of the Agency's staff are meat inspectors and official veterinary surgeons. Some 711 meat inspectors transferred over to the MHS on 1 April 1995 from local authorities under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 1981.In 1994/95 before the launch of the MHS an initial recruitment exercise was carried out to appoint senior and middle management posts as well as the administrative posts required to ensure the effective operation of the Service. The Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS) Agency were used for the recruitment of 61 staff. Assistance was provided by RAS in the advertisement of posts as well as their staff sitting on the interview panels for the more senior management positions. The total cost for their services was approximately £287,500. £78,000 of this sum was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.The MHS spent approximately £44,000 (excluding expenditure for the services of RAS) in 1994/95 on the recruitment of staff. This was primarily for the services of members of the Personnel team of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and consultants on interview panels for the afore-mentioned posts.Approximately £39,000 was spent by the MHS in 1995/96 on the recruitment and selection of 375 additional meat inspectors and veterinary staff and a relatively small number of administrative and clerical support staff. This sum has been mainly incurred in advertising costs, as the MHS has fully utilised the services of its own personnel department in recruitment exercises.
  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food two questions relating to executive search or employment agencies to recruit staff. The Minister has asked me to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.(31417)It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as filling a very senior or specialist post, that we would use the services of an outside agency for recruitment purposes in preference to our own personnel staff.276 You ask specifically for details of expenditure in the financial years 1994/95 and 1995/96. During these two years no executive search agencies were employed but in 1995/96 an employment agency was used at a cost of £6.5k to recruit a senior member of staff to a specialist scientific post.
  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the use of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.(31417)The Veterinary Medicines Directorate did not use these methods for filling vacancies during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96.
  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your questions on recruitment in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).(31417)The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service. Figures quoted below relate only to the Central Veterinary Laboratory.In reply to your question on executive search agencies and employment companies, the VLA did not make use of any such organisation during 1994–95 and 1995–96.
  The cost of recruiting permanent staff and the numbers of staff recruited are as follows:-

  Recruitment cost £

  Recruitment numbers £

  1995–96

  25,046

  61

  1994–95

  13,347

  45

  The above costs include advertising and the costs of candidates travelling to interview. A higher number of specialist professional posts in areas such as BSE, bovine tuberculosis and rabies have been filled over the last year, resulting in increased costs.
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [31402]

  Mr. Boswell
  It is not readily possible to separate out costs for recruitment.

  The number of staff recruited to core MAFF and the Pesticide Safety Directorate is 426 for 1994–95 and 667 for 1995–96.

  Executive agencies will reply separately by chief executive's letter.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your recent question about the cost and numbers of staff recruited during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. [31402]During 1994–95 the Veterinary Medicines Directorate recruited five members of staff at a cost of £20,529 and in 1995–96 recruited sixteen members of staff at a cost of £69,288.277
  Letter from Philip Needham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply direct to your Parliamentary Question in which you ask how much his Agencies have spent in recruiting staff during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31402]
  The figures for ADAS are as follows:

  Year

  Cost £

  Number of staff

  1994–95

  21,793

  88

  1995–96

  80,762

  138

  The figures above exclude short term casual appointments and the two posts recruited through an executive search agency.
  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about the cost and number of staff recruited in each of the financial years 1994/95 and 1995/96 in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.(31402)
  The figures are as follows:

  1994/95: £77330; 86 staff

  1995/96: £63465; 250 staff

  The costs relate to recruitment advertising and expenses of candidates and independent members of interview boards. The number of staff includes permanent, causal and fixed-term appointments. The number of staff recruited in 1995/96 shows a significant increase. This reflects recruitment of new staff associated with the Agency's relocation of the majority of its existing sites to a single new site near York later this year and the need to make casual appointments to fill posts where some staff not relocating to York have already left the Agency.
  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:

  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service, your questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the use of executive search agencies or employment companies for recruitment and the expenditure on, and number of staff recruited during 1994/95 and 1995/96 have been passed to me for reply with respect to this Executive Agency. (31402)
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was established on 1 April 1995 as an Executive Agency of MAFF and took over from some 300 local authorities the responsibility for enforcing hygiene, inspection and welfare requirements in licensed fresh meat premises in Great Britain. The majority of the Agency's staff are meat inspectors and official veterinary surgeons. Some 711 meat inspectors transferred over to the MHS on 1 April 1995 from local authorities under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 1981.In 1994/95 before the launch of the MHS an initial recruitment exercise was carried out to appoint senior and middle management posts as well as the administrative posts required to ensure the effective operation of the Service. The Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS) Agency were used for the recruitment of 61 staff. Assistance was provided by RAS in the advertisement of posts as well as their staff sitting on the interview panels for the more senior management positions. The total cost for their services was approximately £287,500. £78,000 of this sum was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.The MHS spent approximately £44,000 (excluding expenditure for the services of (RAS) in 1994/95 on the recruitment of staff. This was primarily for the services of members of the Personnel team of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consultants on interview panels for the afore-mentioned posts.Approximately £39,000 was spent by the MHS in 1995/96 on the recruitment and selection of 375 additional meat inspectors and veterinary staff and a relatively small number of administrative and
  278
  clerical support staff. This sum has been mainly incurred in advertising costs, as the MHS has fully utilised the services of its own personnel department in recruitment exercises.
  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your questions on recruitment in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA). (31402)The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service. Figures quoted below relate only to the Central Veterinary Laboratory.In reply to your question on executive search agencies and employment companies, the VLA did not make use of any such organisation during 1994/95 and 1995/96.
  The cost of recruiting permanent staff and the numbers of staff recruited are as follows:—

  Recruitment cost £

  Recruitment numbers

  1995–96

  25,046

  61

  1994–95

  13,347

  45

  The above costs include advertising and the costs of candidates travelling to interview. A higher number of specialist professional posts in areas such as BSE, bovine tuberculosis and rabies have been filled over the last year, resulting in increased costs.
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [31530]

  Mr. Boswell
  Use of executive search agencies by my Department and its agencies is limited to occasional recruitment, including head hunting, for senior management posts, or posts where a high degree of specialist skill is needed. In addition, employment agencies, most notably Recruitment and Assessment Services, are used wherever this reflects best use of resources to recruit all grades of staff.

  The chief executive of the Central Science Laboratory has replied separately by letter.

  Letter from I. P. Stanley to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 13 June 1996:
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food two questions relating to executive search or employment agencies to recruit staff. The Minster has asked me to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.(31530)It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as filling a very senior or specialist post, that we would use the services of an outside agency for recruitment purposes in preference to our own personnel staff.You ask specifically for details of expenditure in the financial years 1994/95 and 1995/96. During these two years no executive search agencies were employed but in 1995/96 an employment agency was used at a cost of £6.5k to recruit a senior member of staff to a specialist scientific post.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the
  279
  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. [31534]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry has in place a programme of action for women and is a member of Opportunity 2000. Each of MAFF's executive agencies also either has a programme in place or will be implementing one shortly. Promotion is entirely on merit. While there have been limited opportunities for promotion for all staff over the last 12 months in both the Ministry and its agencies, more women are entering the senior grades and progress over the last five years has been steady.

  Total women in grades SEO—Grade 1 in MAFF and its agencies as at 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1995

  Grade

  1990

  1995

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  3

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  5

  8

  11

  6

  10

  22

  7

  113

  226

  SEO

  119.5

  187

  Total

  251.5

  448

  Farming (Jobs)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in the farming industry in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [32333]

  Mr. Boswell
  Statistics on the number of people working on agricultural holdings are collected by the annual agricultural census. The results from 1982 are published in "The Digest of Agricultural Census Statistics" and figures prior to 1982 are available in "Agricultural Statistics United Kingdom".

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [32415]

  Mr. Boswell
  In the financial year 1995–96 the Ministry spent a total of £47,911 on officials accompany Ministers on official duties abroad.

  In the financial year 1994–95, Ministry records indicate that from 23 November 1994, a total of £22,250 was spent on officials accompanying Ministers on official duties abroad.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Funding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average level of delegation of potential schools budgets by local education authorities; and which local education 280
  authorities and what percentage delegate more of their potential school budgets than they are required to under current legislation. [31836]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average level of potential schools budget, PSB, delegated by local education authorities in 1996–97 is 90.5 per cent. This percentage is derived from the financial budget statements published by LEAs in England under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988, and relates to expenditure on schools covered by their schemes for the local management of schools, LMS. All LEAs from whom statements have been received have planned to exceed the required delegation level—85 per cent. of PSB—in the current financial year. I understand that this is also true of the two LEAs—Redcar and Cleveland and York—from whom statements are still awaited.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place a copy of the training and enterprise council operating agreement for 1996–97 in the Library. [32580]

  Mr. Paice
  Copies of the training and enterprise council operating agreement 1996–97 and the TEC licence and annual funding agreement 1996–97 are held in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish lists comparing the most recent general certificate of secondary education results of grant-maintained schools in England and Wales with the results of the same schools in the years before they went grant maintained. [32088]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The data are contained in a number of lists, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The lists give details of the GCSE results for grant-maintained schools in England for 1994–95 with their results for the most recent year before they became grant maintained. No previous results for schools that were grant maintained in 1992 are available since 1992 was the first year of the school performance tables. The information on grant-maintained schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Learning Vouchers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she has had with(a) the Headmasters Conference, (b) the Conference of Head Mistresses, (c) the Professional Association of Teachers, (d) university departments of education and (e) education committees of the county councils associations or associations of municipal authorities concerning the use of vouchers for years 12 and 13 in secondary schools. [32449]

  Mr. Paice
  None. The Government have no plans to introduce vouchers for years 12 and 13 in secondary schools. We have announced our intention to consult on the introduction from 1997 of a system of learning credits. These will set out for all 16 to 19-year-olds their entitlement to the education and training they choose.
  281

  Barred Teachers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what cross-checking is carried out of names recorded on list 99 against those on the Department of Health's consultancy index. [32591]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department of Health consultancy index includes details of people on the Department's list 99. The Department of Health receives an up to date copy of list 99 each year, and is notified of changes as names are added or removed throughout the year.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many applications there have been to check names against list 99 in each of the last five years; [32597]

  (2) how many names have been on the Department for Education and Employment list 99 in each of the last five years; [32596]

  (3) how many names have been removed from list 99 in each of the last five years. [32592]

  Mr. Squire
  Statistics about the number of checks made against list 99 are not collected centrally. The majority of checks are carried out by local education authorities and establishments of further education which hold copies of the list.

  The number of people on list 99 varies as cases are dealt with throughout the year. The most recent version of the list, issued in April, contained details of 1,882 people who are either barred from teaching and related employment in England and Wales, or are subject to restrictions on their employment. The table shows the number of people added to, and removed from, the list in each of the last five years.

  Period

  Number added

  Number removed

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  57

  4

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  49

  5

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  54

  5

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  98

  10

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  85

  5

  School Uniforms
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will investigate the decision by East Sussex education authority to stop grants for schoolchildrens' uniforms; and if she will take steps to ensure that children from poorer families are not penalised. [32646]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by her Department. [32681]
  282
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department is currently assessing the impact of the millennium date change on its computer systems. The assessment will be completed towards the end of this year. Only then will it be possible to estimate the cost of dealing with the problem.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for assessing the working and effects of phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme. [33151]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The nursery education voucher scheme will be assessed in three stages. First, the operational aspects of the scheme will be evaluated, drawing on data on the issue and redemption of vouchers provided by the voucher agent and on surveys of parents and providers. Initial results will be placed in the Library as they become available, with an overall assessment in the autumn. The first inspection reports will also be published in the autumn, and the Office for Standards in Education proposes to publish an overview report of early findings around January 1997.

  Secondly, to assess medium-term changes in the provision and use of places, a survey will be undertaken of current use of places by three and four-year-olds. The results will be compared with those of similar surveys in subsequent years. Thirdly, the Department is considering tender proposals for assessing the longer-term effects of pre-school education by a longitudinal cohort study.

  In all of this, the Department will liaise as appropriate with other bodies making assessments of the scheme.

  County Farms
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local authorities which own county farms. [31589]

  Mr. Boswell
  I have been asked to reply.

  At 31 March 1995, the following county councils in England owned county farms:

  Avon

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Cumbria

  Devon

  Dorset

  Durham

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  283

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many right hon. and hon. Members are currently signed up to the charity payroll giving arrangement operated by the Fees Office. [32075]

  Purpose

  Year

  Cost (£)

  Number of cases

  Agencies employed

  Trace students who have withdrawn from their courses and are required to pay back their grant

  1994–95

  17,993

  685

  Lewis Investigation Services

  1995–96

  10,003

  480

  John Campbell Investigation Services

  Locate individuals or companies who have defaulted on the terms and conditions of their regional enterprise grants

  1994–95

  394

  6

  George Ferrier and Company

  1995–96

  345

  5

  Seals
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the Conservation of Seals Act 1970; and if he will make a statement. [31298]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government's policy on conservation of seals is kept under review. There are no plans to amend the Act.

  Clyde Fishermen (Sharks)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sharks have been caught by lone Clyde fishermen in each of the last five years. [31338]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is not available.

  Bird Habitats
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has commissioned into trends in the number of farmland birds. [31313]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department is currently providing funding for a number of projects covering research into the impact of agricultural practices on the environment, which include bird-related studies. Research
  284
  Mr. Newton
  There are currently 46 right hon. and hon. Members signed up to the payroll giving arrangement operated by the Fees Office.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32668]

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office operates only personal computers and the millennium date change is expected to entail negligible costs, if any.

SCOTLAND

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30566]

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

  work on farmland bird numbers is also being funded through Scottish Natural Heritage, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation matters.

  Examples include the joint funding of the Natural Environment Research Council-led special project on large-scale processes in ecology and hydrology. Three of the projects in that programme are concerned with aspects of bird populations, including analysis of trends. Scottish Natural Heritage has funded research into farmland bird numbers through a Joint Nature Conservation Committee contract let with the British Trust for Ornithology.

  Septic Tanks
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the policies adopted by each of the new Scottish water boards on regular emptying of septic tanks serving dwelling houses, and the charges to be levied for the service. [31615]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The water authorities in Scotland are required to provide on request a septic tank emptying service for dwelling houses where it is reasonably practicable to do so, and where all proper charges for doing so are timeously paid. For 1996–97, each of the authorities has set a charge of £25 for the first emptying of a septic tank; any subsequent emptyings requested in 1996–97 may be charged at a higher rate or actual cost.
  285

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [32422]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Detailed information is not kept in the precise form requested. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on 22 May,Official Report, columns 262–64, which provides information on the cost of ministerial visits overseas.

  NHS Pre-payment Certificates
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has collected through the issuing of pre-payment certificates under NHS regulations in each year for which information is available. [32430]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for Scotland for the financial years 1991–92 to 1995–96 is as follows:

  1991–92: £3.035 million

  1992–93: £3.425 million

  1993–94: £4.103 million

  1994–95: £4.587 million

  1995–96: £4.633 million.

  Water (Fluoridation)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the approval of both a health board and the relevant water authority in an area is necessary before the introduction of fluoride to public water supplies. [32407]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 1 of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 provides that a statutory water undertaker may, where a health authority has made an application to it to do so, increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by it within the area specified in the application.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prescriptions were issued by general practitioners(a) in total and (b) in each health board area in Scotland in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96. [32450]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for Scotland and for each health board for the financial years 1993–94 to 1995–96 is set out in the table. The figures include prescriptions written by general medical practitioners, general dental practitioners, hospital-generated prescriptions, prescriptions from England and prescriptions written for personnel serving in the armed forces. Prescriptions written by other than general medical practitioners account for less than 1 per cent. of the total.

  The number of prescriptions issued to patients but not presented for dispensing is not known.
  286

  Number of prescription items issued: 1993–94 to 1995–96

  Health board

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  Argyll and Clyde

  4,682,393

  4,831,133

  4,955,014

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4,073,508

  4,200,161

  4,291,811

  Borders

  1,049,644

  1,083,012

  1,109,136

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,514,202

  1,602,072

  1,668,424

  Fife

  3,186,806

  3,308,832

  3,427,578

  Forth Valley

  2,761,543

  2,858,780

  2,937,833

  Grampian

  4,288,124

  4,421,445

  4,518,156

  Greater Glasgow

  10,143,448

  10,376,647

  10,608,351

  Highland

  1,771,531

  1,863,025

  1,939,259

  Lanarkshire

  6,105,927

  6,257,910

  6,486,009

  Lothian

  6,249,471

  6,439,037

  6,601,523

  Orkney

  167,126

  169,555

  174,979

  Shetland

  203,180

  205,234

  213,517

  Tayside

  3,783,897

  3,906,985

  4,036,802

  Western Isles

  276,615

  293,959

  305,671

  Scotland

  50,257,415

  51,817,787

  53,274,063

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many private prescriptions were issued by doctors in Scotland in each financial year for which information is available. [32448]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much revenue his Department raised in the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 from NHS prescription charges(a) in total and (b) for each health board area in Scotland. [32427]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. Figures have been taken from audited annual accounts of the 15 Scottish health boards. The figures for 1995–96 are currently not available.

  £ thousand

  Health board

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,553

  2,734

  Ayr and Arran

  2,375

  2,521

  Borders

  753

  826

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,065

  1,146

  Fife

  2,086

  2,559

  Forth Valley

  1,868

  2,004

  Grampian

  3,772

  4,208

  Greater Glasgow

  3,985

  4,257

  Highland

  1,280

  1,443

  Lanarkshire

  3,221

  3,389

  Lothian

  4,535

  4,950

  Orkney

  188

  192

  Shetland

  157

  170

  Tayside

  2,541

  2,756

  Western Isles

  136

  166

  Scottish totals

  30,515

  33,321

  School Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement indicating for the school year 1995–96 how many members of school boards were appointed; how many have been subject to election by parents; and what the average turnout was in these elections for each education authority area. [32231]
  287
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on the number of schools with school boards following the 1995–96 round of biennial elections is currently being collected with a view to publication later this year.

  Ministerial Visits (Prisons)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which penal establishments he has visited since assuming office; and on what dates. [32305]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend visited Her Majesty's prison, Shotts on 31 August 1995 and Her Majesty's institution, Cornton Vale on 26 February this year.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which NHS trusts and health boards in Scotland are currently involved in discussions about financing projects through the private finance initiative. [32446]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  NHS trusts and health boards in Scotland must consider options for the use of private finance for all capital schemes.

  The PFI is being actively explored in the sense that proposals from the private sector have been invited under open competition for the projects set out. These schemes are all listed in the recently published document "Public Services and Private Finance: A Partnership for Scotland"—the Scottish Office, June 1996—which is available in the Library of the House.

  £ million

  Grampian health board: Stonehaven health services

  3.8

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS trust: Stobhill mental health in-patient unit

  7.5

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse NHS trust: new hospital

  56.0

  Law Hospital NHS trust: new hospital

  120.0

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS trust: health information system

  2.3

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust: new hospital

  178.0

  Western General Hospitals NHS trust: redevelopment of hospital

  95.0

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust East Ayrshire community hospital

  8.6

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS trust: day care and maternity unit

  6.0

  Southern General Hospital NHS trust: care of the elderly unit

  8.5

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS trust: rehabilitation unit

  1.3

  Renfrewshire Healthcare: Larkfield development: care of the elderly

  9.0

  Western Isles health board: Benbecula community hospital

  6.0

  Yorkhill Hospitals NHS trust: health information system

  4.2

  Highland Communities NHS trust: acute psychiatric unit

  10.0

  The West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS trust infectious diseases unit will not now be procured through the PFI.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the private finance initiative projects in which NHS trusts and health boards in 288
  Scotland are involved; the organisations they have entered into agreement with in pursuing these initiatives and the amounts of financing involved. [32445]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The recently published document "Public Services and Private Finance: A Partnership for Scotland"—the Scottish Office, June 1996—available in the House of Commons Library lists schemes for which contracts have been signed. Each of these involves the provision of certain services, capital investment by the private sector and risk transfer to that sector, in line with the private finance initiative. The schemes listed are:

  £ million

  Lothian and Forth Valley health boards/Clinical Waste Ltd.—clinical waste disposal

  4.5

  Northern trusts/boards/Scotsafe—clinical waste disposal

  6.0

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS trust/Ferryfield Ltd.—Ferryfield house

  2.5

  Law Hospital NHS trust/HBO and Co.—HISS IT system

  2.5

  There are other smaller projects developed on the same principles which fall within trust and board delegated limits and for which information is not held centrally. Those of which the Scottish Office is aware are:

  £ million

  Royal infirmary of Edinburgh/IGE medical systems—CT/MRI scanner

  2.4

  Greater Glasgow health board/associated nursing services—elderly care beds (Darnley)

  3.5

  Greater Glasgow health board/Takare—elderly care beds (Rutherglen)

  5.0

  Greater Glasgow health board/Westminster Healthcare—elderly care beds (Ruchill)

  3.2

  Greater Glasgow health board/St. Andrew's Homes—elderly care beds (Shettleston)

  3.8

  Lanarkshire health board/Scotcare—elderly care beds (Cumbernauld)

  3.0

  Lanarkshire health board/Takare—elderly care beds (Bellshill)

  2.8

  Dundee teaching hospitals/Bayer technician SMAC analyser

  0.3

  Ayrshire and Arran health board/Irvine Care— elderly care beds (Irvine)

  2.5

  Ayrshire and Arran health board/Takare—elderly care beds (Irvine)

  3.7

  Grampian health board/Skene group—mental illness beds (Elgin)

  1.1

  Health Service (Lifting and Handling Regulations)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that each NHS trust complies with EU lifting and handling regulations as they relate to NHS employees. [32506]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 June 1996]: It is entirely a matter for individual employers to ensure they meet their statutory responsibilities and follow guidance to create workplace safety for their staff. To assist in this respect, the management executive issued comprehensive guidance on 12 April 1995.
  289

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32832]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The following charters are in use in my right hon. Friend's Department:

  Patients charter

  Parents charter

  Tenants charter

  Justice charter

  Further and higher education charter

  Local environment charter

  In addition, the following charter standard statements are in use in my right hon. Friend's Department and its executive agencies:

  Serving Scottish Farmers

  Serving Crofting

  Planning

  290

  Scottish Office Inquiry Reporters Unit

  Rent Registration Service

  Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission

  Scottish Office Statistical Services

  Historic Scotland

  Scottish Prison Service

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  None of these charters or charter standard statements has been withdrawn.

  Computers (Millennium)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [32662]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office does not expect to incur substantial additional costs as a result of the effect of the millennium date change on computer systems which it operates.

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

London Underground Limited
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to privatise London Underground Limited.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, we have no plans to privatise London Underground Ltd.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that definite reply. I have talked to London Underground, and it gives me great pleasure that it has had such excellent success with private investment in certain infrastructure projects on specific lines. Do the Government have any plans for widening the private sector involvement in the operation of certain lines? What proportion of London Underground's turnover is spent on privately contracted supplies and services?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to congratulate London Underground on the work it has done using the PFI. Some good partnerships have developed there. That partnership will be increased when the London Regional Transport Bill becomes law. It will widen the scope for PFIs in this field.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Labour Party has consistently opposed any privatisation which has been carried out by the Government? Does he further agree that the privatisation programme that has been carried out has meant that instead of British taxpayers paying over £50 million per week in subsidy, British taxpayers are now receiving £50 million per week in taxation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on both counts.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, to come back to the London Underground, is the Minister satisfied that the current level of investment—that is, taking into account private sector involvement, funds generated by the Underground itself, and government contributions— is adequate for the needs of the Underground to enable it to become one of the leading Underground systems of any capital city in the world?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes, I believe that the levels of investment are appropriate. All transport infrastructure systems would like to see more investment, but it is worth noting that core investment
1830
in the Underground in the 1990s is twice as high in real terms as in the 1980s and three times higher than in the 1970s.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, I ask: is it not a fact that it is not just the Labour Party that is not in favour of the privatisation of London Underground, but, from the Minister's own reply, the Government? Is it true, as was reported in reliable newspapers, or sober newspapers at least, that the Deputy Prime Minister was urging the Government strongly to give a commitment to the privatisation of the London Underground while more restrained Conservatives— there are not too many of them, I suppose— believe that there are no votes in that for the Conservative Party so far as concerns London?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, our policies are designed to give Londoners the best transport system that can possibly be provided. That has always been our policy. My noble friend was drawing my attention, and that of the House, to the considerable achievements of privatisation in the transport sector— a subject which was fully covered last night.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the House agree that we, as Londoners, are fortunate to have someone like Denis Tunnicliffe running London Underground, because he has such a great understanding of transport in London and has done such a good job in expanding London transport; for example, with the new Jubilee Line extension?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I join with my noble friend in congratulating the management of London Underground. It has done a good job, and I am sure that it will continue to do so.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the investment in the Piccadilly Line in view of the fact that those people who wish to catch an aeroplane at Heathrow now have to leave at least half an hour to an hour earlier in case no train comes along in the evening?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Piccadilly Line is an interesting line. It provides a good service for those who use it, but of course we are always interested in new transport infrastructure developments. That is of course why there is the current project to provide a new line to Heathrow.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as the Minister's noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, chose to propagate the views that are currently contained in all Conservative Party propaganda sheets, does the Minister believe that a bit of balance should be brought into the issue, and does he recognise that there have been £22 billion in debt write-offs since the privatisation programme began? That is the taxpayers' money.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the balance comes from the fact that these days no serious commentators want to turn the clock back and return to the bad old

1831
days. They recognise the benefits which privatisation and private finance has brought to the transport system. They accept that and I believe that even the Labour Party has come to that view.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as regards the Piccadilly Line, has any consideration been given to running non-stop express trains to Heathrow?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Heathrow will be covered fully by the new express line which is being built. In the future, that will be the way to travel to Heathrow if you are in a hurry.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Jubilee Line extension works, which some of your Lordships, including myself, had the privilege of visiting some two days ago and which are on time and largely within budget, are a tribute not only to British engineering but to the management of London Underground and fully justify confidence in London Underground, whatever form that is in?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the management of London Underground and to the considerable achievement of the Jubilee Line extension.

Legal Aid Expenditure
3.14 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the total cost of legal aid in the last year; what was the largest total payment to any individual; and whether it is expected that the total cost will rise or fall this year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, net expenditure on legal aid in 1995–96 was £1.387 billion. The largest total payment from the legal aid fund in respect of a single client amounted to £2.946 million, which was paid to lawyers representing a defendant involved in a serious fraud trial. Expenditure is expected to rise this year to around £1.476 billion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer and express appreciation for the efforts which I know he has made to restrain the growth of this expenditure. However, can he not hold out a little extra hope that it may be possible by drastic measures to secure that only modest increases are made in the payment of legal aid, and that people are not given great quantities of taxpayers' money in order to help them to indulge in litigation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have put out for consultation proposals for a considerable alteration in the legal aid system to enable cases and matters to be given priority. I believe that that will help to ensure more direct control of the amount paid in legal aid and,
1832
as important, that the money available will be put to the best use for as many people as possible in the range covered by legal aid.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is not the individual litigant who is in receipt of the money, as often seems to be inferred by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, puts his question, but it is the legal profession which benefits from the enormous expenditure on legal aid? I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will understand that there are many in this Chamber who greatly appreciate his efforts to reduce the amount of money which the legal profession earns in this way.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is correct that the payments referred to in this Question and previous similar Questions are made to lawyers and not directly to the client. The payments also include outlays; for example, in respect of experts' fees. Therefore, the payments may not be only for members of the legal profession because members of one or two other professions sometimes appear in court to give evidence. Accordingly, some other professions may well be involved as well as the legal profession, which is of course an extremely honourable profession.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the actual outturn for legal aid expenditure in 1995–96 was £74 million less than the supply estimates' figure of £1.46 billion, and that the supply estimates were £67 million less than the original estimates? For this year the supply estimates are £156 million less than the original estimates. I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to confirm those figures precisely, but does he agree that the general picture is the opposite of a budget out of control? Does that not further show that his 1993 eligibility cuts exceeded what was necessary to enable the Government to achieve their spending targets?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is important to notice that the actual figures are going up. For example, the figure in respect of 1995–96, which is £1.387 million, is some £70 million below provision, as the noble Lord said. However, that represents an increase of £88 million over last year. Therefore, the amounts spent net are going up.
I do not accept that the alterations made in eligibility three years ago were in any way shown to be unnecessary. I believe that we need to change the system in order that proper priorities can be assigned to this type of expenditure.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend care to comment on the extraordinary judgment of the European Court that a poll tax payer who should have payed his poll tax should none the less be compensated from the legal aid fund because he did not receive legal aid? Has it been possible to make any assessment of the cost of that judgment?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the judgment of the European Court of

1833
Human Rights in the case of Benham. It is worth pointing out, in case it may have escaped any of your Lordships' notice, that the court was in favour of the United Kingdom on two out of the three points at issue. The point on which the court held the Government to be wrong was in not granting legal aid in a situation in which the defendant was liable to imprisonment. Of course, the ordinary rule is that in civil proceedings, legal aid is not usually granted. But the court held that the human rights convention would require that it was in a case where the defendant was liable to imprisonment and it gave quite full reasons for reaching that judgment.
I have not been able to obtain, as yet, a detailed assessment of the costs but I think that it would cost something in the order of £3 million if we were to change the rules to accord with that judgment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to consultation and to a possible change in the system. In view of the experience that we have as regards the working of legal aid, is there not a strong case for an inquiry?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot think of a better way of inquiring than by putting out proposals in a Green Paper for all those who know about such matters to respond. That has been done and we have received extremely wide responses from a great many people. Included in that are very full responses from the leading professional organisations. I believe that it is possible to make progress. Obviously, I wish to make progress carefully with pilot studies and incremental change.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend explain to the noble Lord opposite that many people are relieved of expenditure which otherwise they would have to undertake by the grant to them of legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that the answer to that is, yes.

OECD Development Assistance Targets
3.22 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What specific action they are taking to meet the targets for overseas development assistance set out in the recent OECD Development Assistance Committee report entitled Shaping the 21st Century: the Contribution of Development Co-operation.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Government were closely involved in the drafting of the Development Assistance Committee's report and we welcome its emphasis on measurable results. The committee has begun work to follow up the indicators of progress set out in it. Britain's development programme is already heavily focused on poverty reduction, improvement of health and education, particularly for women, environmental
1834
protection and the promotion of sustainable development, all of which are highlighted in the report. We shall continue to develop our activities in these areas further.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that the real importance of the report is that it sets specific target dates; for example, for halving the number of people living in extreme poverty in the world? Therefore, does he agree that if the Government are committed to the targets set in the report which they helped to draft, they must commit themselves to meeting those target dates? Will the Minister assure the House that the next Budget, if the Government survive to produce it, will guarantee the necessary funds for the programme?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would not expect me to make a guarantee on behalf of the Treasury. It would be slightly out of the ordinary if I were to do so. We are working out, and the Development Assistance Committee is working out, how to achieve the targets. We are working extremely hard with the committee. We shall listen to what it says and do the best that we can to achieve those targets.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the latest report from the OECD is extremely complimentary about the British economy? The meeting of those targets depends on a sound economy. Does the Minister agree that the latest OECD report confirms that the United Kingdom's economic policy is highly successful?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I agree with him about the state of the economy. However, there is one other important point. Aid is only one of the many ways in which the United Kingdom is helping developing countries. The Government have taken the lead in debt relief initiatives and those are the third largest source of private capital to the developing world. We estimate that in 1994 Britain's overall performance was above the 1 per cent. of GNP benchmark for total aid flows which is used internationally.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following that answer, will the Minister say how the private direct investment to which he alluded can be increased so that more of it reaches the poorest countries of the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa? How can private investors be encouraged to take a long-term view and assist in the development of the infrastructure and human capital, particularly the literacy and health of the people of those countries, in order to form the basis for further investment?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is something which we are indeed encouraging. Perhaps the noble Lord will wait until the debate on the CDC tomorrow when he will hear about the details in relation to encouraging private financing, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether the Government plan to make

1835
the millennium the time at which to cancel certain third world debts in view of the fact that they will not be paid? Secondly, does he not agree that if we can activate third world markets we shall be doing a favour for international trade?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. I do not think that it is appropriate for us to target the millennium for the cancellation of third world debts. We are doing that all the time. We should not wait for the millennium to do so. A major part of development assistance is helping countries to develop their own industries, businesses, employment and education. That is a prime target in our development aid programme.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the analysis of the OECD receives powerful support this week from the report of UNICEF into development problems affecting the world's children, which draws attention to fairly dramatic success stories in parts of the developing world but also to the vast problems which remain? Against that background, should not every OECD country, including Britain, think of revising its development assistance upwards in the years ahead?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I wish that I could promise that we would always be able to revise the aid upwards. However, we have a very important policy, which is to make our aid work more efficiently. Efficiency rather than volume of aid may be much more important.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what proportion of the total direct aid budget is administered through the European Union? Will he say also whether the Government are satisfied that the administration of that aid through the EU is better and better directed than it would be if it continued to be administered directly by the ODA?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, perhaps we should wait until Monday when figures for aid through the EU, the ODA and other countries will be published. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the publication of those figures.
With regard to efficiency we are not satisfied. I do not think that anyone can ever be satisfied that everything is working at its ultimate efficiency. However, we are striving to improve efficiency both within the EU and the ODA.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to wait until Monday for the up-to-date figures but is the noble Lord able to give us the figures which he already has?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, were the noble Lord to wait until Monday, he would have the up-to-date figures. The previous figures have no relevance to what will be published on Monday.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this very searching report by the OECD addresses the problem of suffering and deprivation on an almost indescribable scale? Does he further agree that the
1836
Government, by being co-drafters of the report, have committed themselves to halving the number of people living in extreme poverty by the year 2015? If they have committed themselves to doing that, how are they going to generate the funds to make that possible?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is a target, an aim, and one which we intend to do our very best to meet, with all other countries which also provide aid. Indeed, it is an aim that we are very determined to try to achieve. As to how it will be paid for, I must point out that we are talking about 20 years ahead. I do not believe that it will be sensible to attempt to talk about funding 20 years ahead at this stage.
Lord Judd: My Lords, would the Minister agree that this is seen by the poor of the world as, potentially, cynicism on an immense scale?
Lord Chesham: No, my Lords; I would not.

British Energy plc: Flotation
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the full value of British Energy plc, and what was the total original cost of the company's eight power stations.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the value of British Energy plc will be determined by the market on flotation on 15th July. As will be shown in the prospectus to be published on 26th June, the historic cost of the company's power stations is £9.3 billion.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting, although not totally informative, Answer. Does the Minister agree that the likely value of the company, as tested by the market, will be something in the region of £2 billion and that Sizewell B power station— one of the eight the company has— opened only two months ago and cost £3 billion to build? Is there not something the matter with the arithmetic? Further, are we not giving away a valuable asset in a desperate rush by the Government to privatise the industry before they lose office?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, we are not giving it away. No, I shall not speculate on what might be raised by the flotation. No, the value of the assets is what the market is prepared to pay for them. They must be viewed in the light of the current electricity market. That is what the market will do.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the figure that he gave earlier includes provision for decommissioning?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the figure I gave was for the historic cost of the company's power stations. The figure for the liabilities, including decommissioning

1837
and the cost of dealing with the spent fuel, is £3.7 billion. British Energy will take those liabilities with it, so the liabilities will follow the assets.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, although the ultimate value will be determined by market forces in some form or other, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that proper accounts will be presented to Parliament, drawn up in accordance with the resource accounting measures already agreed by the Government, as per Commands 2626 and 2929 of July 1995 and 1996 respectively? Will the Minister also confirm that figures will be presented which show a true and fair view according to the basic tenets of resource accounting to which the Government are supposed to be adhering?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot quibble with the noble Lord on his accountancy skills, or on Commands 2626 or 2929. The Government will use the proper accounting rules as appropriate. As we have always done with privatisations, we shall be as open as we possibly can.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is no scope for the Government to present those figures in accordance with what he considers to be appropriate rules? The Government themselves laid down the rules. I am asking that the Government keep to them as regards the presentation of figures. Can the noble Viscount give an undertaking that a true and fair view will be presented to Parliament?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have already given the Government's position on the matter. There is no difference between the noble Lord and myself. He says that we cannot vary the appropriate rules; I am saying that we will follow the appropriate rules.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the Government will undertake to study the report of the inquiry into the 1979 accident on Three Mile Island? Are the Government aware that the principal finding of that inquiry was that the accident happened because the plant opened before it was properly ready in order to secure a multi-million dollar tax rebate? Does the Minister agree that that illustrates that there can be safety risks inherent in the commercial operation of nuclear power?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the nuclear industry in this country has an excellent safety record. Privatisation will in no way change that. Indeed, it is a heavily regulated industry, and it is firmly in the commercial interests of the company to produce the best safety record that can possibly be achieved. The view of those who run the company is that if the power stations are not safe they will not run. That is also the view of the regulators.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe the Minister said that the historic cost of the stations is about £9 billion.
1838
I suppose that the replacement cost would be about twice that amount, say, about £18 billion on a rough estimate. As I understand it, the Government are not even remotely thinking they will receive anything like that sum of money from the privatisation. Does that not throw an appalling light on the whole nuclear power programme from the time that it started to the present day, having put in those vast assets? I am not being terribly critical of the Government; indeed, I was a supporter— and remain so to a considerable extent— of nuclear power. However, does the Minister not agree that we will have paid an enormous cost for our nuclear programme if the net value to be realised is only to be a few billion?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, various different governments over the years have taken decisions about the funding of nuclear power stations. The fact is that we have a nuclear industry at present. The Government firmly believe that the power stations which are being floated with British Energy will be better off in the private sector and that it will be to the benefit of the economy and to the country as a whole. On a wider issue, there are the proceeds from the sale and also the sale of some £600 million worth of debt. Moreover, there is the consideration that some £3.7 billion of liabilities are following the assets. All those factors must be taken into consideration.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as regards the £3.7 billion decommissioning costs which are to be loaded on to British Energy, can the Minister tell the House what margin of error that estimate is subject to? If, by any chance, the £3.7 billion proves to be grossly inadequate, can the noble Viscount guarantee that the Government will not pick up the difference?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are fully confident that the £3.7 billion figure is an accurate and an appropriate one. Indeed, it has been generated using a conservative discount rate of some 3 per cent. It is widely accepted in the industry that £3.7 billion is a proper figure. Of course, there is also the segregated fund which has been set up.

Petition: Berkshire County Council
3.39 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I beg to present a petition from Berkshire County Council which prays that this House will call upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to withdraw his current proposal for the abolition of Berkshire County Council and announce that he will not be pursuing further the question of structural change in the Royal County.
The petition also prays that this House will vote down any order placed before it which seeks to implement the Secretary of State's current, flawed proposal for the reorganisation of local government in Berkshire.
Petition presented.

Belfast Charitable Society Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Deer (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a consolidation measure which seeks to consolidate the legislation relating to deer in Scotland. The Bill is not intended to make any change in the existing law. If your Lordships approve, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which will consider the Bill and make its report to the House in due course.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for bringing this Bill before us today. As he knows, we tried an experiment and spent two days in Edinburgh discussing the Bill. That was a valuable experience for those of us who were not totally familiar with the subject of deer. I hope that we have now resolved the matter. Genuine problems have arisen in Scotland as a result of deer overpopulation; these are longstanding problems. I hope that there will not be another deer Bill until perhaps there is another government.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Housing Bill
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 242C:
Before Clause 89, insert the following new clause—
1840
RETALIATORY EVICTION
("—(1) After section 9 of the Housing Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
"Discretion of court not to make an order for possession.
9A.— (1) Notwithstanding section 9(6) above, the court may refuse to make an order for possession if it is satisfied that not earlier than six months prior to the notice of possession proceedings—

(a) the tenant has applied or proposed to apply to the Rent Assessment Committee for a determination of rent; or

(b) the tenant had initiated or proposed to initiate legal proceedings or some other action to secure or enforce his rights as a tenant; or

(c) the tenant had complained to a local housing authority or the local housing authority initiated or proposed to initiate enforcement action; and

(d) the landlord was motivated to seek possession wholly or party by reason of any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above."

(2) After section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
"Discretion of court not to make an order for possession.
21A.— (1) Notwithstanding section 21 above, the court may refuse to make an order for possession if it is satisfied that not earlier than six months prior to the notice of possession proceedings—

(a) the tenant has applied or proposed to apply to the Rent Assessment Committee for a determination of rent; or

(b) the tenant had initiated or proposed to initiate legal proceedings or some other action to secure or enforce his rights as a tenant; or

(c) the tenant had complained to a local housing authority or the local housing authority initiated or proposed to initiate enforcement action; and

(d) that the landlord was motivated to seek possession wholly or partially by reason of any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above.".").

The noble Lord said: There are good landlords and there are bad landlords but it is only proper that tenants should have a proper basis for their tenancies and that tenants should have certain rights which they can exercise without landlords being able to retaliate or evict them. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent landlords from evicting tenants because the tenants have tried to stop their landlords harassing them, or have exercised their rights under discrimination law to get repairs done, or to get unreasonably high rents lowered.
The difficulty with the Government's proposals on tenure is that an increasing number of tenants will have even less security than is the case at present. Even under the present system there are many instances where tenants have made perfectly reasonable complaints to landlords and landlords have used their powers to evict the tenants. As I said, there are good and bad landlords. I am sure that I am talking about a minority of landlords but nevertheless it seems to me proper that tenants should have a measure of protection. This amendment would extend the discretion of the courts in not granting possession to a landlord in cases where the courts judged that the eviction was an act of retaliation following a perfectly proper and lawful complaint by a tenant.
It seems to me that under the shorthold scheme there is a limited period of security. This has weakened the bargaining power of tenants. They cannot always with safety negotiate with their landlords for repairs or

1841
maintenance to be carried out. Tenants may have to pay excessive rents or suffer major disrepairs or harassment, because tackling the problem may have the grave consequence that they lose their homes.
There is another problem. Responsible landlords keep their properties in a decent condition and respond to the views and representations of tenants. However, those responsible landlords will face unfair competition from unscrupulous landlords. When local authority environmental health enforcement teams receive a complaint from a tenant they have to act discreetly in order not inadvertently to disclose the fact that they are responding to the complaint of a particular tenant. They have to adopt a generalised approach. This is a simple amendment. It would simply give the individual tenant a little more protection than he has under the Government's policies. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I support this amendment. It seems to be based on elementary fairness. It would prevent the victimisation of tenants by means of retaliatory action when a tenant has exercised, or has proposed to exercise, his rights and the landlord is shown to have been motivated by the very fact that the tenant has done so. The evidence suggests that this happens all too often. It strikes me that this amendment in some ways replicates the law relating to victimisation in the field of employment. There is, of course, protection from victimisation if an employee asserts his or her rights, for example against discrimination. This amendment seems to me to provide a good way of ensuring that tenants are not unfairly inhibited by fear of possession proceedings when they reasonably assert their legal rights. It therefore provides a useful deterrent against unscrupulous or vindictive landlords. That is not to say that the landlord automatically loses his rights. The court retains the discretion to order possession in appropriate cases.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I declare an interest in that I occasionally let property on the basis of shorthold tenancies. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will clarify the position— or perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will do so. Could a tenant receive legal aid in this situation? The amendment poses a frightening prospect for a small landlord who perhaps just lets one part of his own property. We have all heard of cases where people who receive legal aid sue business enterprises. The business enterprise in question is in a no-win situation because even if it wins the case it cannot recover its costs. It is important to know the financial implications of this measure. I have sympathy with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has made. It is wrong for landlords to be vindictive. I do not know how often that happens but it is a most unfortunate occurrence. However, it would be equally unfortunate if we killed off the assured shorthold tenancy system simply because small landlords in particular could not afford to let their property because of the risk of someone being granted legal aid and therefore being able to take action against them.
The Earl of Balfour: I am concerned about the measure for the following reason. From what I can
1842
gather of this amendment, a case has to go to court. Courts seldom grant an immediate eviction. They almost invariably delay that for at least six months to give the tenant the opportunity to obtain other accommodation. That occurs almost regardless of the circumstances in which the tenancy is proposed to be terminated. I fear that this measure would place an unnecessary burden on the landlord who happens to have an objectionable tenant. Unfortunately such tenants exist.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I, too, take that view. I also let houses on assured shorthold tenancies. They are becoming the only form of rented accommodation available in the country. I always thought that the Government's object in producing the assured shorthold tenancy was to encourage people to let their houses in the short term. I can see a situation arising where a landlord wants his house back and a tenant at once raises some spurious reason to take the matter to court and object to the landlord having his house back when he requires it.
Lord Monkswell: I support my noble friend's amendment. However, it is worth while pointing out to Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber who seem to raise objections that the situation will already be before the court. There is, too, motivation by the landlord. If a good landlord is doing nothing wrong but wishes to gain possession of the property in the normal way, as a result of the amendment there should be no bar, let or hindrance to his doing so.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained that the purpose of the new clause is to deal with retaliatory evictions. He has put forward the view that where tenants have little security of tenure, it is difficult for them to use any of their legal rights because if they take action against the landlord they risk losing their homes. He has therefore proposed that where a landlord is seeking possession shortly after a tenant has complained or exercised some legal right, the court should have discretion not to allow possession even though normally it would have no option.
Before dealing with the detail of the new clause it may be helpful if I put the situation in context. The survey of English housing found that most tenants are on good terms with their landlords. Seventy-five per cent. of assured shorthold tenants say they are on good terms with their landlord and only 4 per cent. say they are on bad terms. The balance say they are on neither good nor poor terms. So in only a minority of cases— 4 per cent.— is there friction. Similarly, over three-quarters of tenants are either satisfied or very satisfied with their accommodation. Nine per cent. are slightly dissatisfied, and 6 per cent. very dissatisfied. I would not wish to suggest that these are grounds for complacency but it does put the private rented sector as a whole in context. For the most part, people are satisfied with what they get.

1843
The new clause deals with the situation where a tenant may have complained and subsequently feels that the landlord is seeking to end the tenancy because of that. I have some difficulty with what the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Meston, are proposing.
The new clause will undoubtedly create enormous scope for dispute, delay, and confusion. By introducing an element of discretion into the grounds, which are otherwise mandatory, or the automatic procedure at the end of a shorthold tenancy, it opens up scope for arguments. There are bound to be court cases. And those cases will turn on the question of motivation. Why is the landlord seeking to end the tenancy? Is it due to the tenant exercising some right, or to some other circumstances? It is extremely difficult to establish what someone's motive may be for acting in a particular way. I understand that those who draft laws in this country seek to avoid using the word "motive" for that very reason. Often people act out of mixed motives. The new clause would allow a court to consider any mixed motive. It would put landlords in a very difficulty position, especially if their tenants were apt to complain.
To go down that route would mean not only that we were presented with those practical difficulties; it would also create uncertainty in the minds of landlords. They would be deterred from letting their property. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes rightly raised the question of a tenant on legal aid. It is a fair point. Fear of the cost of gaining possession is one of the major reasons that people with empty properties are reluctant to let them. My noble friends Lord Balfour and Lord Hamilton of Dalzell echoed that point. The new clause might give a difficult tenant a way of retaining possession when the landlord wishes to cease the tenancy and the possession.
I believe that we should not seek to put any obstacles in the way of people with empty property letting them, especially people with one empty piece of property who do not let it as a business as such. Such people are even more put off if they feel that once a tenant gets into the property the legal structure is designed to be almost entirely in the tenant's, and not in the landlord's, favour.
For those reasons, I do not believe that the fears expressed are justified. On the evidence we have, I believe that they are largely unjustified. The new clause would introduce for landlords the fear of another step to be overcome if they wanted repossession. That could inhibit the growth of the private rented sector which we on this side are keen to see.
It is interesting that there are 14,000 successful actions a year on proceedings for possession out of some 2 million tenancies. The picture painted of the country populated by rapacious landlords who take this difficult view of their tenants is quite false. If they have a good tenant, most landlords would wish to keep him, as the bother of finding another tenant is great. I believe therefore that the new clause and the procedures that the
1844
noble Lord, Lord Dubs, proposes are not necessary. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stallard: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask this question. Is not the landlord already safeguarded? He has an agreement signed by himself and the tenant for six months. What other safeguards does he need?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I understand that the noble Lord's amendment provides that if the tenant decided not to move at the end of six months and if, as my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, mentioned, just before the end of the six months the tenant tries to exercise one of his rights of complaint and the landlord does what he had always intended to do and asks for possession and the tenant refuses to go, when he goes to court the new clause allows the tenant to say, "I am being chucked out because I complained against this landlord." That is the point.
Lord Dubs: I listened with interest to what the Minister said. At the outset I made it clear that only a minority of landlords were bad landlords. I do not suggest that in most instances there would be any need for the provisions of the amendment to be brought into effect. But the fact is that there are not only difficult tenants but also difficult landlords. It was argued that the provision would impose a burden on landlords. Any landlord— he may not make a lot of money— is letting as a business. However, for the tenant it is his home. In those circumstances, it does not seem unreasonable to have at least a balance between the rights of the two parties. My contention is that government policy in the Bill is tipping the balance very much to the disadvantage to tenants and to the advantage of landlords.
If I understood his figures correctly, the Minister said that 15 per cent. of tenants were dissatisfied with their landlords to a greater or lesser extent. He referred to very dissatisfied and partly dissatisfied. Fifteen per cent. means that more than one in seven of all tenants are dissatisfied. That seems a fairly large number of individuals who are in danger of losing their homes if they have the temerity to complain.
I agree with the Minister that motive may sometimes be hard to assess. Perhaps I may cite a few instances. For example, I understand that in one part of the London borough of Camden the environmental health department started a programme of improvement works in HMOs. The department's assessment was that many landlords had evicted shorthold tenants to avoid doing essential improvement work to make the property safe and fit for human habitation. It believes that this led to a 15 per cent. loss of accommodation.
In Bristol, the environmental health department estimates that 10 per cent. to 13 per cent. of private accommodation is lost because of retaliatory evictions after notices have been served. Other local authorities make the same point. Those examples may not represent the majority of tenants. But they present sufficiently clear evidence to make one believe that doing nothing about the problem is unfair and will become increasingly so. In support of my amendment, perhaps

1845
I may refer to the position in one or two places overseas. I understand that in New South Wales, Australia, provision has had to be made for legal measures to protect tenants in such situations. The same has happened in some states in the United States, so it is not just in this country that the problem of retaliatory action by landlords exists. I hope that it happens to a small extent, but it happens in other countries as well as here. I am not at all happy with what the Minister said. Perhaps he could give me more comfort.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is difficult to do so. The noble Lord neatly added 9 per cent. to 6 per cent. and reached 15 per cent. of tenants dissatisfied. However, I remind him of what I said: 9 per cent. were slightly dissatisfied, 6 per cent. were very dissatisfied. It is not fair to add the 9 per cent. and the 6 per cent., although the noble Lord managed to do so and then prayed it in aid. If he wishes to pray the figures in aid, then perhaps the 6 per cent. is the better figure.
We believe that tenants are protected to a reasonable extent, but so also must landlords be protected. Many landlords do not let as a business; they let their homes while they are working away, they let a retirement home that they might have bought and where they hope to live in two or three years' time. Meanwhile, they receive income from letting the property. They are vitally concerned about regaining possession when necessary. One must guard against landlords fearing that the law has swung against them and if the day comes when they need possession of their property, the tenant will be able to use the law to remain in situ, to the landlord's great inconvenience.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a point about enforcement notices and a house not being habitable. I find it odd that a tenant should want to stay in a house if he has asked the local authority to judge it to be not habitable. If the landlord wishes to repair that house, he may need vacant possession, and a tenant insisting on staying would make a nonsense of the reason for the enforcement notice. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, any more comfort on this. I believe that he is asking for something that is unnecessary and, more important, that would lead to landlords being more reluctant to go into the business of letting their properties, especially with the important single property lettings. Many people, not only landlords but also tenants, find them extremely useful and the last thing we wish to do is to create difficulty. By lifting the bureaucracy from the sector we have increased the private rented sector considerably. We still have a long way to go if we consider what our continental colleagues have in the private rented sector. Taking the full package, we believe that the balance is fair and that the new clause would begin to tilt it back against the landlord.
4 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Will the Minister reflect on the arguments that he used when he prayed in aid that apparently only a small proportion of tenants are dissatisfied and would presumably like to obtain redress from landlords? The Minister suggested that
1846
that is an argument for not ensuring that tenants should adequately obtain their rights. If we extend that argument to other areas of society we could suggest that only a small percentage of the population is subjected to violent assaults. The argument could be used that people subjected to violent assaults should have no redress for their difficulties. Is the Minister saying that? I suspect that he would say no. On that basis, I hope that he will reflect on his use of a small percentage of tenants being dissatisfied as an argument for not ensuring that they obtain their rights. That is not a satisfactory way of defending the Minister's position.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that he did not understand what we were talking about because if one has an assured shorthold one has a fixed term which is assured. That is right, but the amendment suggests removing that assurance on the landlord's side. If I am a tenant in a place where I know that I have a fixed six months, one month before it is time to give up possession I can immediately complain because I can keep the fixed tenancy for much longer. The landlord will then consider the position and say: "This is a real hazard, if my vacant possession is never to be vacant".
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that we go back to the days when he and I served on the same local authority in London and the subject was a long-running political argument. The Francis Committee report removed the right of the landlord to regain possession of his furnished property. I remember one day travelling in a car with the then Labour leader of the London Boroughs Association. I told him that the proposal would have a damaging effect and that the supply of furnished tenancies would dry up in the way that the supply of unfurnished tenancies had dried up. He said: "No, I am sure that that won't be so". Noble Lords will remember that the Labour Government implemented the minority report on the Francis Committee which took away any right of the landlord to recover his property. What happened is that all furnished property became almost non-existent. People went to the trouble and financial loss of keeping their properties empty rather than letting them. If a member of their family was about to get married or if they themselves wanted to retire to a property, whatever the reason, they kept the property empty because the one thing they wanted was to be able to regain possession. The assured shorthold process came in after that and suddenly properties were available to tenants.
If we accept the fixed term to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred, and plenty of other people provide fixed term accommodation with shorthold tenancies and a large supply of accommodation becomes available because landlords are willing and able to let their properties, there will be somewhere for people to live. The amendment is dangerous and threatens the whole assured shorthold process.
Lord Meston: I wish to correct the impression which the noble Baroness has gained that the amendment would mean that merely by complaining before the end of the tenancy a tenant could automatically prolong it. That is not correct. Surely, all the amendment means is that if the motivation of the landlord can be proved to the satisfaction of the court, the court will have a discretion. It is nothing more than that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The amendment would slow the whole process down and extend it possibly to great length, instead of the tenancy terminating on the appropriate day of the fixed term to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred. I speak as an Australian and we are all pretty devious. We, as tenants, particularly those who are devious, would go to the trouble of complaining at the appropriate moment to be certain of ensuring our continuing interest. It is a delaying process. It is also risky in that if the tenant succeeds— as he might in a few cases— there is a parallel with the present Asylum and Immigration Bill and whether one wishes to draw things out for a long time. If we do so because of the introduction of court proceedings, we risk damaging the whole assured shorthold process.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I wish to ask the noble Baroness whether we are talking about devious tenants but perfect landlords. To me, it is one-sided, as though all tenants are out for what they can get and all landlords are willing to be the benefactors of those who suffer homelessness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am not saying that at all. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already suggested that there is a small minority of bad landlords, so there is probably a small minority of bad tenants. The question is whether the clause would be of benefit to the letting and availability of properties in this country or whether it would be damaging. Those are the grounds on which I oppose the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I listened with interest to the noble Baroness's remarks. She reminded the Committee of the days when she and I faced each other across the political divide on Westminster City Council. I know that the noble Baroness has a lot of experience of the housing situation in our cities. But I am bound to say that on this particular occasion I differ from her assessment as to the effectiveness of this amendment. I believe it would help to tip the balance just a little more towards tenants and away from landlords, thereby giving them a little more of a level playing field. The amendment would give people living in such tenancies a little more security. That is desirable. In the circumstances, I wish to take the opinion of the Committee.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 242C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kennet, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

McNally, L.

Blease, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Borrie, L.

Meston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L

Methuen, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sandwich, E.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Courtown, E.

Addison, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ailesbury, M.

Ailsa, M.

Crickhowell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cross, V.

Alport, L.

Cuckney, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Balfour, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V.

Berners, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Birdwood, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blaker, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Boardman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brentford, V.

Gainford, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Gisborough, L.

Burnham, L.

Goschen, V.

Caldecote, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Carnock, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Harrowby, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Holderness, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Coleraine, L.

Howe, E.

Colwyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

1849

Ilchester, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Inglewood, L.

Prentice, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Quinton, L.

Knollys, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rawlings, B.

Layton, L.

Rees, L.

Liverpool, E.

Renwick, L.

Long, V.

Rodney, L.

Lucas, L.

Romney, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

St. Davids, V.

McConnell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Anibrecknish, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Selsdon, L.

Shannon, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Merrivale, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mersey, V.

Strafford, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Sudeley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Mountevans, L.

Swansea, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Munster, E.

Tenby, V.

Murton of lindisfame, L.

Terrington, L.

Newall, L.

Teviot, L.

Nickson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northesk, E.

Thurlow, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Orkney, E.

Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wilcox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.19 p.m.
Clause 89 [Tenancies which are assured shorthold tenancies]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 242D:
Page 61, line 6, after ("tenancy") insert (", subject to a written tenancy agreement,").
The noble Lord said: When we come to debate the Question that Clause 89 stand part of the Bill, that will be the better occasion on which to discuss all the principles as regards shorthold being the default tenancy. It would make more sense if we left that point until then. Therefore in speaking to this amendment I shall simply confine myself to the narrower point, which is that the shorthold should not automatically be the default tenancy where there is a written and signed tenancy agreement. The danger is that landlords who do not care very much and are not very effective will not bother to give written tenancy agreements. But they provide some protection for the tenant. Under the Government's scheme the default tenancy will automatically be the shorthold tenancy and the landlord would not even give proper notice that that had happened.
The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that the tenancy would not become a shorthold tenancy unless there was a written and signed agreement to that effect. So the landlord would have to take some steps to ensure that the tenant was properly informed of the
1850
situation. That provides a small safeguard because it means that the landlord has to do the minimum to give effect to achieving the tenancy— which the landlord may or may not want— in the default position. Therefore, it provides something of a safeguard. However, I should like to keep my main arguments on this matter for the debate on the clause as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall try to do the same and keep our arguments on the main points of principle in this clause until the debate on whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. That is quite difficult to do because the amendment now before the Committee is almost the equivalent of voting against the whole clause. So I shall attempt to shorten the argument, knowing that we shall have the same discussion again in a few minutes.
The amendment seeks to exclude tenancies from being assured shorthold tenancies where there is no written agreement. A prudent landlord would, of course, want to have a written agreement. It provides a clear statement of who is responsible for what. It can also put the landlord in a much stronger legal position if anything should go wrong or he needs to seek possession. A landlord can only recover his property using the accelerated possession procedure if he has a written agreement with the tenant.
However, my difficulty with the amendment is that it would create exactly the same procedural trap for landlords as the clause itself proposes to remove. There is no reason why a landlord should face the disproportionate penalty of having a shorthold tenancy converted into a fully assured tenancy simply because he has not provided a written tenancy agreement.
We do believe, however, that tenants with oral agreements with their landlords should have a right to evidence of the main terms of the tenancy in writing if they want it. It is for that reason that we listened to concerns raised in another place and introduced Clause 90, which places a duty on the landlord to provide the tenant, on request, with written details about the important terms of the tenancy relating to rent and security of tenure. That will provide a safeguard against the minority of landlords who might seek to exploit the rights of their tenants. Where a landlord fails to comply with his tenant's request within a period of 28 days, and there is no reasonable excuse for his failure, he will be liable on summary conviction to a fine.
With the explanation that Clause 90 gives tenants the right to ask for a written agreement and puts on the landlord the obligation to provide that written agreement, perhaps we can delay the main argument on the whole principle of Clause 89 until later.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to hear that my intervention seems to concern a couple of Members on the Government Benches. However, as I understand the Minister, if a landlord lets premises to a tenant and says to him, "You can be my tenant for as long as you like and I shall charge you rent as and when I feel like it", it effectively puts the landlord in a very powerful position. He can subject the tenant to all kinds of different conditions or demands for rent. As soon as the

1851
tenant says, "Hold on a moment. This is not terribly satisfactory. Can you give me something in writing to say that I have a long lease on these premises and my rent is fixed at a certain figure?", the landlord can, by default, convert what the tenant thought was a long tenancy into an assured shorthold tenancy. That means that the landlord can then get the tenant out at very short notice.
I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. One of the difficulties when dealing with this whole subject is that the Government start off with the presupposition that the problem is difficult tenants for good landlords, whereas there is a tendency on this side of the Chamber, I suspect, to feel that the problem is bad landlords for good tenants. We should be seeking a solution which protects everybody and does not put any particular party, whether landlord or tenant, in a situation in which he can be exploited.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I always try to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, because he takes a great deal of interest in all the matters which come before the Chamber and he always brings interesting points to our debates. Indeed, such is his workload on the Bills for which I have been responsible that I wonder that the Party opposite should ever think of abolishing hereditary peerages— it gets so much work out of the noble Lord. It seems a reasonably good advertisement for the hereditary peerage. I am surprised that the Opposition Front Bench is so determined to remove his right to sit in this Chamber and ask questions of Ministers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the noble Lord also endorse with equal enthusiasm the efforts of the hereditary peerage on his own Benches?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course, hereditary peers play a very important part in this Chamber and bring to it a wide range of views. But I am not in the position of wishing to abolish my noble friends' right to sit here and take an active part in proceedings. It is the party opposite which wishes to do that.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and without attempting to duck out of this debate, the point that he raised relates to the whole principle of Clause 89. I do not want to make a speech at this point and in a few minutes' time by and large repeat the same speech when his noble friend Lord Dubs moves that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord can contain himself a little until we come to that point, when we can perhaps address the wider issues.
If a landlord and tenant decide that they should enter into an agreement which is a full assured tenancy, the tenant right from the very outset must have a properly written document to show that it is a full assured tenancy. However, if there is just a casual arrangement and, once the tenant gets in, he feels that he would like to know where he stands, then Clause 90, as I explained, can be triggered by the tenant. He can go to the landlord and say, "I know that we made an oral agreement but
1852
I should like to see it in print. Would you kindly send it to me." The landlord is then under an obligation within the time to do so.
So from the point of view of the kind of case hypothesised by the noble Lord, the tenant has the right to have that clear statement. But the general question of whether, in the absence of a strictly drawn up piece of paper, a tenancy should be considered a fully assured tenancy, as it is now, or a shorthold tenancy, to which we propose to move, is a subject for the debate on whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: There is one weakness in the Minister's argument. He says that under Clause 90 the tenant can ask the landlord for the necessary documentation or agreement. The difficulty is that the tenant may not be as well versed in the law as is the Minister; he may simply not know what his rights are. He will find, by default, that his tenure has been altered. It is that point which the amendment seeks to address.
If all tenants were well informed, there would be no need for the amendment. They would know what right they had to obtain an agreement from the landlord and that would be fine. The problem is that tenants do not necessarily know that. They are not aware and therefore a little protection would not come amiss. After all, it is not onerous to produce a written agreement— shops do it all the time for hire purchase. It is common for shops to have agreements available, and the onus is not on the purchaser to demand the document for a hire purchase agreement; the onus is on the shop selling the goods to provide it. I should have thought that in relation to something as important as a person's home, that is not an unreasonable position.
I hoped to tempt the Minister into saying a little more. I shall leave my arguments for the next debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 89 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dubs: I hope that this will give the Committee an opportunity to hear the Government justify what is a fairly significant change in the conditions of housing tenure brought about by Clause 89. It is my contention that this clause completely changes the nature of the private rented sector into a predominantly insecure form of housing and forces that situation even when there is no express intention to do so. As has been said on a number of occasions, it is the default tenancy which then becomes the more important one.
When the Housing Act 1988 was passed, the Government claimed that the deregulation of rents was needed to encourage private landlords to extend the private rented sector. But when the Government developed their forms of tenure under the 1988 Act, there was no suggestion that within a few years we would have the significant change now being introduced— a change which goes against what the Government suggested at the time.

1853
At the time the Government were clear that shorthold tenancies were not expected to become the norm. Now they certainly will become the norm. I am unhappy with Clause 89. The conditions for many tenants in our country would be better if the clause did not exist and I therefore ask the Committee not to accept it.
Lord Strabolgi: As another hereditary Peer, perhaps I too may attempt to intervene. I support the arguments of my noble friend Lord Dubs. This is yet another erosion of the security of private tenants which we have seen occurring ever since 1988.
The so-called "assured shorthold tenancy" is a complete euphemism. It means very little. There is no assurance in it at all. If the tenant asks for a written agreement, there is no proof that he asked for it. The landlord may say, "I am not going to give you one because I would rather you did not have the flat. There are a lot of people after it and I shall give it to someone else". If the tenants complain about the lack of repairs and so forth, they often face eviction.
The case arose of a married couple who rented a flat in Fulham which they moved into in 1993. They had a 12-month shorthold tenancy. Before they moved in the landlord promised to carry out some repairs, including the fixing of a loose, dangerous cooker socket. For almost a year they asked their landlord to carry out the repairs and his reply was simply that they should leave if they were unhappy with the situation. Eventually the couple got fed up and called in the Environmental Health Department after a December night when British Gas had to come in the middle of the night and disconnect their boiler because it was too dangerous to use. The couple took legal advice and instigated proceedings against their landlord to get repairs carried out and to claim damages. What happened? The landlord immediately issued a notice to quit and followed that with possession proceedings. That is what happens in the real world.
The 1988 Housing Act allows tenants with shorthold agreements to refer their rents to a rent assessment committee if they consider it to be unreasonably high and the landlord will not agree to a lower rate. That is all very well in theory. But very often a referral of that kind in the real world leads to eviction. So there is little security of tenure for tenants and the landlords can now do exactly what they like.
The Minister claimed that according to a survey there were only 4 per cent. of so-called "rogue" landlords. That may well be true. But surely legislation of this kind is introduced to protect tenants against rogue landlords. I do not know whether noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite read the evening papers; the Evening Standard particularly has printed some horrifying stories. It seems that the ghosts of Rachman are still abroad. I hope that the Government will realise that and think again regarding further protection to the tenants.
Lord Monkswell: Can the Government say what is the standing of a verbal agreement under Clause 89? As I attempted to mention earlier, a situation could arise where a tenant and landlord come to a verbal agreement
1854
that it will be a long-term let. It may be that the tenant cannot read or write and therefore the only agreement to which they can sensibly come is a verbal one.
If, during the course of the tenancy, the tenant complains— similar complaints to those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi— what is the situation? Does the tenant have any security at all? If the tenant takes advice and through advisers asks the landlord to provide a written agreement to confirm the verbal agreement that he thought they had, the landlord can effectively institute a shorthold tenancy in the absence of a written agreement. My understanding of English law is that a verbal agreement can be upheld in court. Presumably the wording of the Bill destroys that ability. Perhaps the Minister can explain how a verbal agreement for an assured tenancy can be protected.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Obviously, my earlier remarks have brought two hereditary Peers opposite to their feet and I welcome the points that they make. Before entering the general discussion on the clause, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that if the landlord offers a verbal fixed term, that is binding; if it is periodic, then that will be a shorthold. A verbal fixed term is indeed binding.
The clause changes the basis for creating assured shorthold tenancies defined in Section 20 of the 1988 Housing Act. It provides that any new assured tenancy created on or after the day the provision comes into force, will automatically be an assured shorthold tenancy unless it meets the conditions in Schedule 6 to the Bill. Schedule 6 lists those tenancies which cannot be assured shorthold tenancies. Landlords who wish to do so will be able to continue to let property on full assured terms by serving a simple notice to that effect or by including a simple declaration in the tenancy agreement itself. Where the tenant has existing rights of security of tenure, those rights will be preserved.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seeks to give greater security to the private sector tenant. I am sure we would agree in principle that security for the tenant is wholly desirable. It would be nice if tenants could live where they wanted for as long as they wanted to. But, frankly, the great majority of landlords are unlikely to let property on that basis, and it was excessive regulation of the private rented sector by successive governments that led it to decline to an all-time low in 1988 when only 1.7 million households were in that sector.
The introduction of assured shorthold tenancies has been a major factor in the recent revival of private renting. Landlords need the flexibility that is available from the assured shorthold tenancy. For example, anyone with a mortgage on a property is unlikely to get the agreement of a building society or a bank to let the property unless the tenancy is on shorthold terms. That is why more than 70 per cent. of tenancies are on shorthold terms, and the number is increasing. If the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is keen to see a healthy private sector, I put it to him that his desire to give tenants greater security than is given in the Bill currently before us and in current legislation which is not being amended by the Bill is unrealistic. It would reverse the revival we

1855
have seen since 1988. It would lead to fewer landlords letting their properties, more properties being left empty and, of course, less choice for tenants.
We do not propose to remove the existing right of shorthold tenants to a minimum of six months' security of tenure; nor is there any reason why a landlord who intends to continue letting his property should want the existing tenant to leave after six months, provided he pays his rent and complies with the terms of the tenancy agreement. Indeed, the average completed length of residence of a shorthold tenant is well over two years.
When shorthold tenancies were first introduced, tenants were accustomed to regulated tenancies which gave long-term security of tenure. In 1988 we felt it appropriate to require the landlord to give prior notice on a special form that the tenancy was to be on shorthold terms and would not provide long-term security of tenure. However, we need to consider what purpose the notice procedure now serves. Shorthold tenancies have been around for more than seven years. Most private tenants— the figure is now 70 per cent.— expect to be offered a shorthold tenancy and know that it will not give security of tenure. If we were setting up a shorthold system from scratch today, we would not invent a special procedure requiring the landlord to say, "If you agree to a one-year tenancy I will give you a separate form, served in a special way, confirming that we have agreed to a one-year tenancy".
Furthermore, the notice procedure can be a trap for the unwary landlord because through a simple administrative error, such as failing to sign the form or even misspelling the landlord's name, the form can be ruled invalid. As a consequence, landlords can accidentally create a full assured tenancy, giving the tenant long-term security of tenure. That puts people off letting property all together. Instead, they may leave it empty, which is liable to lead to disrepair and means that there is one fewer house on the private rented market. What Clause 89 will do is dispense with the prior notice requirement, making it easy to create a shorthold tenancy. That will give more confidence to the landlord and encourage owners of empty property to let it.
When the Bill is enacted, unless the landlord actually gives specific notice in writing that he is creating with the tenant an assured tenancy, the tenancy will be assumed to be a shorthold tenancy. That reverses the current position. As the years have rolled on since the advent of shorthold tenancies— it is seven years now— we believe that it is now reasonable to reverse the procedure we introduced in 1988 which was designed against the background that this was a new procedure and people did not know about it. Now, as I have already said, 70 per cent. of tenancies are on an assured shorthold basis. We believe now is the time to reverse the position so that landlords, who may be deciding to rent a house as a one-off piece of business, will not be put off by the idea that all they have to do is make one mistake and they will suddenly find themselves landed with a fully assured tenancy. This will prevent that
1856
happening. We believe that it is now sensible to take this decision and reverse the position that has held since 1988.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Stallard: As I listened to the noble Lord, I could not help thinking that he is solely intent on fixing the Bill so that it safeguards the landlord at every stage. We know that shorthold tenancies are being used as an excuse to get rid of a tenant or to say that a landlord will get rid of a tenant at the end of six months unless the rent is increased for the following six months. That is what the Bill says to me. Landlords are determined that they will only have to have the tenant for six months before they can increase the rent. That is what the Bill is about. There is no safeguard for the tenant. Landlords will now be assured, without anything in writing or any legal papers, that at the end of six months they can say to the tenant, "You can carry on for another six months but I shall have to double your rent", or whatever the process is. That is what is happening and that is what I think is wrong with the Bill. It is one-sided.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe it is one-sided. As I said, 70 per cent. of new tenancies are assured shorthold tenancies. The normal position now is for assured shorthold tenancies. We believe that it is the advent of those tenancies which has given rise to the welcome increase in the private rented sector.
Lord Stallard: The noble Lord mentions the figure of 70 per cent. Is that an overall United Kingdom figure, or does it take account of the special circumstances of the inner cities? The position in the inner cities is quite different. I live in an inner city area where tenants are in and out. It is like shelling peanuts. They are in and out, rents go up and landlords seem to be doing what they like. Where does this figure of 70 per cent. overall come from?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think the 70 per cent. will be for England and Wales. It includes inner cities, outer cities, country areas and so on. It is 70 per cent. of new tenancies, just as I said. I think the noble Lord has got the wrong end of the picture. In fact, the 70 per cent. is England only. I included Wales but the statistic is for England, although the legislation applies to England and Wales. However, I do not suppose the figure will be much different for England and Wales.
The noble Lord seems to think that at the end of every six months the landlord will decide to get the tenant out and hike up the rent. I do not believe that getting the tenant out does help to hike up the rent because tenancies are already at market rents. If the landlord tries to double the rent to an amount above the market level he may well find that there is little market for his property.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is unrealistic to think that landlords will try to double the rent. Tenants simply would not accept that. It has become a highly competitive market. My experience is that rents are

1857
reviewed annually rather than every six months and assured shortholds are regularly replaced with another assured shorthold, a continuation, an extension, or whatever is the term decided at the time. Many tenants even argue about an increase in line with inflation. Therefore, it is unrealistic to think that landlords will try to double the rent. If you have an adequate supply of assured shorthold tenancies, the tenants have plenty of choice to find somewhere else. At the moment, there is quite a supply available.
Lord Stallard: I do not think I said double the rent. I said increase the rent.
Lord Monkswell: What are the Government's wishes for the private rented sector? Do they wish that the private rented sector should provide just temporary accommodation for people, or do they envisage that the private rented sector should provide permanent homes for people? There is a difference. If 70 per cent.— probably that figure will rise— of private rented accommodation is under assured shorthold tenancies, effectively that means it is temporary accommodation. There is no assurance that people can be certain that their home can become their permanent home.
If that is what the Government want the difficulty is that we shall have the private rented sector categorised as being only for temporary accommodation. I am not sure that even the Government would like the private rented sector to be stigmatised in that way. If that is going to be the predominant form of tenancy then that is the reality for people living in that kind of accommodation. They will not have long-term security where they can say, "This place is my home". It will only be temporary accommodation. If that is the way the Government want the private rented sector to be seen, that is fine, but we shall have to say to the people of this country, "If you want a home which you can call your own and which you can live in permanently, don't rent privately". I am not sure that even the Government would like that to be the situation that the people of this country have to face.
Lord Selsdon: I have listened to Members of the Committee opposite, both hereditary and non-hereditary, and I have listened to my noble friends on this side of the Committee. I have tried to sit back and view the matter dispassionately. But I believe that Members of the Committee are all looking backwards over their shoulders. We must be all agreed that we want more property to rent. We have forgotten the impact of inflation and the return that landlords look for. The Committee will know that many people have accommodation that they would have liked to have let, but were too frightened to do so because of the impossibility of being assured that they could get rid of a tenant when they needed the accommodation for their own family in the future. If we reject this particular clause it will effectively reduce the number of people who will want to let their houses or flats, or indeed invest their pensions or savings in rented accommodation. That will be the impact of rejecting this clause. I cannot understand why Members of the Committee opposite say that they want a larger
1858
availability of accommodation in the country at relatively fair and reasonable rents because rents are fairer and more reasonable now when inflation has gone and indexation no longer necessarily applies. The yield expected by an investor is perhaps only 5 per cent., which is not a large amount. I cannot agree with Members of the Committee opposite.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Further on in the Bill we shall be discussing the situation of people who have been declared homeless where the local authorities say that they cannot help very much in providing accommodation but that they can provide a list of properties which the prospective tenant should see and then negotiate the rent. That means that we might not be giving any help at all to homeless people, who will not understand all the rules and regulations of this Bill. They will be completely distraught that they are homeless and that the local authority cannot help. In those circumstances the shorthold tenancy may be a very precarious way of trying to help a family to get back into secure accommodation. What concerns me most is that that kind of accommodation will be offered to homeless people.
Lord Dubs: I hope that I have understood the Minister's arguments. He said that one must make the market for housing attractive for landlords so that more properties are brought forward. That is reasonable. He further said that over the past few years, since the 1988 Act, the Government have taken certain steps which have resulted in more properties being available for letting. That is fair and good. The Minister is now saying that that is not good enough and that the Government have to do something different. In that last step of the argument I was hoping that the Minister would put more of a case for this particular clause. We are not talking about the effect of deleting the clause because, after all, that will leave us with the status quo and the position that has been maintained for the past six to eight years when the number of properties available has increased.
We are talking about what difference this particular clause will make to that situation. We have not heard very much from the Minister to the effect that this change is necessary. I concede that in years gone by there was not enough property available and landlords were not making properties available in the numbers required, but that is water under the bridge. Changes have already taken place. I am looking for an argument as to why we need this further change.
Perhaps I may set that in context. I disagree with the noble Baroness when she says that there is plenty of choice. For people in our inner cities who are not well off there is very little housing choice. I know that from people who are looking for accommodation. It is very hard indeed to find tolerable accommodation unless one has a great deal of money. Of course, at the top end of the market there is plenty of property available, but for poorer people there is very little.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Lord is overlooking the housing benefit situation, which allows people to take accommodation at very high rents in some parts of London.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the Business Expansion Scheme, which provided a good deal of housing to let at reasonable rents, has now been wound up. I suspect that that is one of the reasons for the changes proposed in this Bill.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure how much that scheme produced by way of accommodation, but that is not an argument that the Minister has used so far. It is not one that I have heard. I am simply commenting on the fact that some of the changes in the housing market that have been necessary over the past 10 to 20 years have had some beneficial results. But to my mind there is no need for this particular clause, or, if there is, a case has not been made out for it. Would the Minister like to elaborate on that?
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: First, perhaps I may go back to 1988. When we introduced assured shorthold tenancies it was felt by the Government at the time that many people might not be acquainted with the concept and therefore it was fair that the procedure should be that unless the landlord specifically entered into an assured shorthold tenancy the tenancy should be considered a full assured tenancy. As I have explained, we now have a situation in England where about 70 per cent. of new tenancies use the assured shorthold tenancy system.
I do not take the rather negative view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, about the ability of people to understand these things. By and large, people can understand matters which concern their daily lives and the questions they have to address. I am not a subscriber to the view that the great majority of the public are unable to look after themselves and that the paternalistic state has to look after them and watch every move they make. I believe people are able to make these decisions for themselves and, given the change over the past seven years, they are certainly well aware that shorthold tenancies now form the majority of the market. I do not agree with the noble Baroness.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Selsdon made the point absolutely clear. We are doing a great deal of looking back over our shoulders. We want to see the progress that we have made improved on and more property coming forward to be let. Now is the time to shift the problem around and to come at it from the opposite direction. If a landlord wants a full assured tenancy that is what he says. If he does not say that explicitly it is assumed to be an assured shorthold tenancy.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked me to try to explain why we have a private rented housing market. Private rented housing serves many needs. Some landlords look on it as a long-term investment, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon mentioned. Other landlords
1860
may want to rent out a property because they have gone abroad for a year or two. I have had the privilege of being the tenant of another sort of landlord. That gentleman bought a house for his retirement, but he was not ready to retire and wanted to let it out for a couple of years. I was the lucky beneficiary of that decision. I can assure the Committee that that gentleman certainly did not want a full assured tenancy— and rightly so.
Therefore, different landlords approach matters from different angles and have different motivations. Just as a landlord may be interested in the short term or the long term, some tenants may want to be in the private rented sector for a long time while others are interested only in a short-term tenancy while, say, they are working away from their normal home or because they know that they are not going to settle in a certain town but need to live there for a while before moving on. Therefore, both landlords and tenants may want to use the private rented sector for a number of different reasons.
As I said earlier, the interesting point is that the average stay in an assured shorthold tenancy is greater than two years. It is actually about two-and-a-half years, so I would not like the Committee to get the impression, which seems to be being portrayed by the Benches opposite (but perhaps not deliberately), that such tenancies last for only six months and then come to an end, leaving the tenant to look for somewhere else. That is not true. Obviously, many wise landlords who rent out property as a long-term business interest will want to continue the tenancy of a good tenant, but they may prefer to do so on a shorthold basis so that if circumstances change they can have some certainty of regaining the property.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked whether I thought that there might be an increase in the number of houses coming forward for rent. I have with me a copy of a letter sent to my honourable friend Mr. David Curry, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, from the Empty Homes Agency, which clearly states that that organisation welcomes the changes proposed in the Bill, adding:
"Anything which helps to make private letting simpler and more certain has our support. In particular, it seems to us to be crucial to the expansion of private letting that small Landlords can be certain that they will not give Tenants security of tenure by mistake".
That is a point that I made earlier. We believe that this clause removes that danger and makes it quite clear that if a landlord and a tenant want to have a full assured tenancy they enter into that form of tenancy.
As I said earlier, we encourage tenants and landlords to have written agreements about the tenancy. However, if there is no such written agreement— if the agreement is verbal— it is assumed to be an assured shorthold tenancy. Although we think that that is wise, I fear that I may not have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, of that. However, I believe that that is the right way to improve the supply of houses in the private rented sector.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for what he has said although I am not persuaded by it. The Minister said that the average stay in an assured shorthold tenancy

1861
was between two and two-and-a-half years, but that average begs a number of questions. One needs to know the range of lengths of tenancy. I put it to the Minister that in inner-city areas it is extremely likely that the average length of a tenancy is shorter than may be the case in other parts of the country. Although I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument, we have had a lengthy debate on the clause and we may return to it on Report.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Duty of landlord to provide statement of terms of assured shorthold tenancy]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 242E:
Page 62, line 8, at end insert—
("() A landlord who seeks to rely on terms set out in a notice provided under subsection (1) above, which were not agreed by the parties, in order to gain possession under any ground, shall be guilty of an offence of illegal eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 242F. We now reach Clause 90, to which the Minister referred on a number of occasions in earlier debates. The purpose of the amendment is to protect tenants from landlords who might attempt to use the clause to change the terms of a tenancy, which could enable them to gain possession or to achieve some other end. The amendment is a safeguard for tenants against the minority of landlords who might seek to exploit their tenants.
We are seeking to build onto Clause 90, which was introduced by the Government as a response to the likelihood that landlords will increasingly fail to provide written tenancy agreements once shorthold tenancies become the default tenancy. This is a simple proposition. It provides an additional safeguard for tenants against that small minority of landlords who might wish to abuse their position by changing the nature of the tenancy in a way that was not agreed originally between the landlord and the tenant. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I should like briefly to support the amendment which stands in my name also. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, Clause 90 is of value but it is open to some abuse as the landlord may try to slip into a written statement a unilateral variation of the oral terms of the original tenancy. There is a sanction within Clause 90 for failure to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement, but it seems that there is no specific sanction or remedy for giving an incorrect or an incomplete statement.
Perhaps I may draw another analogy to the employment field where there is a requirement— indeed, a more stringent requirement— on employers to provide a written statement of the terms of employment. In that area, a dispute as to what was or was not a term of the original contract of employment can be referred to an industrial tribunal. There does not seem to be any equivalent provision in this clause to deal with disputes over terms which the landlord may put into the written
1862
statement when called upon to do so. The amendments would provide a valuable reinforcement of the provisions of Clause 90.
Lord Strabolgi: I support the proposed amendments which stand in the names of my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Without the amendments, tenants who have no written contracts may well find themselves subject to tenancy clauses which they did not originally agree. In the worst scenario, they may find themselves facing eviction based on terms which the landlord has provided but to which the tenant did not agree or on incorrect information. When tenants take up occupation, landlords frequently agree to vary the rent level if the housing benefit is set at below the rent level that is asked. However, at the end of the tenancy landlords often claim arrears of rent based on the original agreement. More often than not, that results in a tenant being unable to get back the deposit.
The introduction of the notices will provide an opportunity for unscrupulous landlords to claim rents which were never originally agreed and to claim possession on the ground of arrears— and they can do that if there is no security. Also, there have been cases where deposits have been given to third parties such as house agents, some of which are fly-by-nights and disappear or go bankrupt. If the deposit is then not forthcoming, the tenant gets the blame and is thrown out. I support the amendments.
Lord Swinfen: I understand what the amendment is intended to do, but if the original agreement was oral, how on earth does the tenant prove that a notice is changing the terms of that agreement?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It might be worth starting by saying that it is sensible both from the tenant's point of view and the landlord's point of view that there is a written statement of terms and conditions before the tenancy is even taken up. That is a sensible precaution for both to take.
Clause 90 was introduced on Report in another place. It acts as a safeguard for shorthold tenants whose landlords do not provide a written tenancy agreement under the new arrangements. The clause would require the landlord to provide the tenant, on request, with the most important terms of the tenancy relating to rent and security of tenure. A landlord who failed to provide the information on request would be liable to a fine on summary conviction.
It may not be prudent, as I have said, for a landlord not to have an agreement in writing. Nevertheless, an oral contract is every bit as binding on both parties as a written agreement. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that a minority of landlords may seek to exploit their tenants' rights by changing the terms of the tenancy in a subsequent written statement in order to gain possession. However, let me reassure the noble Lord that there are safeguards in the system to prevent a landlord from succeeding in such action.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, said that there was no provision for resolving disputes. I do not agree with him. Under existing legislation a landlord cannot

1863
repossess his property without a court order if the tenant is unwilling to leave. If he evicts a tenant without a court order, he is likely to be found guilty of illegal eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. That is an important safeguard for tenants which the Government are committed to retain.
To recover his property, the landlord will have to persuade the court that he has grounds for doing so under the Housing Act 1988. In coming to its decision on whether to grant a possession order, the court will take into account all the facts of the case, including the views of both the landlord and the tenant on the nature and terms of the tenancy. The tenant will have an opportunity to put his views at the court hearing. The court would need to satisfy itself that, where a landlord has supplied a written statement under Clause 90, the terms contained in it are an accurate reflection of what both parties had originally agreed.
In order to reinforce the court's discretion in that area, the Government included subsection (5) in Clause 90. That makes it clear that the written statement provided by the landlord
"shall not be regarded as conclusive evidence of what was agreed by the parties".
In other words, the court is not obliged to regard the written statement as a binding document.
If the court is in any doubt about the nature and terms of the tenancy agreement, that would be reflected in its decision on whether to grant a court order. If the court is not certain that the landlord has a right to repossession, it will not grant an order. If the reverse is true, it will. In neither circumstance would the tenant be evicted illegally.
Amendment No. 242F would impose a criminal sanction on landlords seeking to use the written statement as a means of changing or introducing terms which had not previously been agreed by both parties. As I have already explained, Clause 90(5) provides the tenant with reassurance that the written statement cannot be deemed conclusive evidence of the original oral agreement. If the tenant disagrees with any of the written terms, he is free to pursue that with the landlord and to express his view in a court hearing if the landlord subsequently seeks a possession order. As I have already explained to the Committee, the landlord would have to persuade a court that the statement was a bona fide record of the original tenancy agreement.
I hope that I have explained the situation, and that the noble Lords, Lord Dubs, Lord Meston and Lord Strabolgi can be assured that there are protections against the kind of scenario that they described. Clause 90 provides adequate reassurance for the minority of tenants— it is a minority— whose agreements are made orally. I hope that with those assurances and explanations the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I take some pleasure from a statement that the Minister slipped in at the beginning of his last remarks; namely, that it would be prudent and sensible,
1864
when beginning a tenancy, for there to be a written agreement. The implication of that is that it would also be prudent for there to be a written statement on a change in the agreement, but that was the subject of an earlier amendment. I note that the Minister is conceding the argument after we have left that amendment. As regards this amendment, I hear what the Minister has to say. I am not totally convinced by the arguments, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 242F not moved.]
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Form of notices under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 242G:
Page 62, line 29, after ("possession"),) insert—
("(a) for "two", substitute "six"; and
(b)").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 242H. The purpose of the amendment is to increase from two to six months the period of notice that would have to be given under the shorthold arrangements. Why is that important? It would give some protection against short eviction notice times, and therefore give some stability to the lives of tenants who are being evicted. It would also give tenants more time to find alternative accommodation, thereby preventing them from becoming homeless.
This is a modest proposal. We are merely seeking to give a little more notice time, realising how difficult it is to find alternative accommodation. That of course is where the landlord relies upon the tenancy being a shorthold tenancy and where the landlord can gain possession when a tenant has done nothing wrong. However, in cases where the landlord requires possession on other specified grounds, the length of notice remains unaltered. So we are talking only of the situation where the landlord wants to gain possession under the shorthold arrangements without having to give any reason for it. It is merely that the landlord wants to have the property. In that instance it seems reasonable that the length of notice that needs to be given should be a little longer than two months. The amendment suggests six months. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: I support the amendment. It will give the Government an opportunity to explain why the period is as short as two months. That does not seem to be long enough to give tenants some protection against counter-action by their landlords where they pursue their legitimate right to remedy disrepair or apply for rent assessment.
Also surely two months will increase the number of homeless families presenting themselves to the local authority as homeless, who will be required to be housed. That cannot be in the interests of the nation as a whole. I should have thought that the Government would look favourably on this amendment. Surely a landlord can wait six months, can he not? Two months is no time at all for a family to have to move, arrange for removers, find other accommodation, and so on. In

1865
many cases they will of course become homeless. That cannot be in the national interest or indeed even in the Government's interest. I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose the amendment, because if a tenancy is for six months and there is then a notice period of six months, the length of the tenancy is being doubled. The whole purpose of an assured shorthold is that it is agreed at the outset that the tenancy is for a fixed term. As I understand it, that has to be a minimum of six months, but it can be a year in the first instance.
If a tenant has taken a property knowing that it is available for six months, surely long before the end of the six months was reached that tenant would have inquired from the landlord whether a further period was likely to be granted.
Most landlords are happy to have a tenant carry on, because it means that there is no process of re-letting and perhaps having a void period. Those are all factors to be considered from a landlord's point of view, as any small increase in rent is rapidly counterbalanced by a void period. It is not in the landlords' interests to wish to have people out of their properties. They want good tenants in their properties. But as has been brought out again and again during the debate, landlords have various reasons for wishing to let their property. It might be that they have a posting somewhere else for six months, and at the end they wish to return to occupy the property themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned families being made homeless. However, we are talking not only about families but also about single people and couples. An assured shorthold can be given to any tenant, not just to a family with small children. The noble Lord introduces a slightly emotional element that does not necessarily exist. I believe that an extension from two to six months on what might be only a six month tenancy is disproportionately long and I oppose the amendment.
Lord Monson: The noble Baroness has said everything that I would have wished to say, albeit much better. However, there is a further fact that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has failed to consider. The landlord may wish to sell the property because he may be in desperate need of cash. To force him to wait for six months before he can get the tenants out and refurbish the property to make it suitable for sale would impose a great hardship upon him.
Lord Selsdon: I wonder whether there may be a conflict of interests. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is trying to do and perhaps he has an idea of how to overcome a situation to which I shall draw attention. When I worked in the banking world many people were often sent abroad and they let their property during that time. Other people to whom the bank had given mortgages would let part of their house perhaps in the basement area while their children were at university or were in the Army.
I am not an expert on the mater but I recall that people may try to let a property for a year and know that they would have to let it for at least six months. There was
1866
then a two month period on both sides after the six months letting, or two months at the end of the year. Usually the people who rented the accommodation wanted it for the period of time involved, otherwise they would not have taken up that particular tenancy. Often there would be good will. Sometimes the tenancy would be rolled over or sometimes the owner wanted to sell the house. In those days it was difficult to sell a property if there was a tenant in a part of it.
Perhaps we are talking about two different types of situation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has a way of overcoming the situation that I have described. Many people let accommodation on a short-term basis and there is a two month notice period after the six months. I am not sure how we achieve one without jeopardising or penalising the other.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have taken part in the short debate. My noble friends Lord Selsdon and Lady Gardner of Parkes put forward a convincing argument and I should be dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s of their argument if I spoke at length.
Perhaps I may set out what Clause 91 achieves and therefore what the amendment seeks to change. It amends Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 which requires a landlord to give an assured shorthold tenant with either a fixed-term or a periodic tenancy at least two months' notice if he requires possession of the property. Clause 91 makes it clear that the notices must be in writing; it is two months' notice in writing. If we are carrying out a balancing act I would have thought that that would have been something that I was doing in favour of the tenant.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has chosen Clause 91, which makes that small change of adding a qualification in writing, as a vehicle to increase the period of notice which a landlord must give a tenant before he can seek possession of his property from two to six months, thereby, I believe, undermining the landlord's position which has existed since 1988.
My noble friend Lady Gardner rightly pointed out that if the tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy which must run for six months and at the end the landlord decides he wants repossession, he must give notice in writing of another six months. That takes the period up to a year and, adding in the time that it takes the landlord to go to court to obtain possession, a six months' tenancy rapidly begins to approach 18 months.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is serious about wanting such a change. I believe that it would act against what we are all trying to achieve, which is to encourage landlords to come forward with properties to let. In particular, it would discourage those people who want only short-term tenants because they are going abroad, or to another part of the country, or whatever. They may want to rent out the house only for a short time and will want to be sure that when they return they can return to their own house.
I believe that the noble Lord's proposal would go a long way towards discouraging the owners of empty properties making them available. It would significantly

1867
damage the landlord's right to possession. We have tried to go in the other direction in order to make sure that the landlord believes that if he lets out his property there will be a reasonable balance between himself and the tenant when he wants repossession. It is important that the landlord has that knowledge. I believe that two months gives the tenant a reasonable time to find alternative accommodation, especially if the tenant originally knows that the tenancy is for six months. He will know that at the end of that time it must be in his interest to make some inquiry of the landlord about whether the tenancy will continue and will take steps to find other accommodation. I believe that two months' notice is reasonable. If a tenant believes that he has the right to retain the tenancy, within that two months he can begin action to contest the landlord's right to possession. In any event, as I have already said today, the landlord cannot require the tenant to leave without a court order for possession. There is no question of a tenant being thrown out on to the street without a reasonable period in which to find accommodation.
I repeat that we wish to sustain the recent growth in the private-rented sector and not to reverse it. That is why the Bill includes measures to make it easier and less risky to let property. Landlords have a real fear about not being able to gain possession of their property when they need to. I believe that the amendments would bolster that fear and reduce the supply of private-rented accommodation. I cannot believe that that would be in anyone's interest.
I hope that with that explanation of the clause and of what I believe the noble Lord's amendment would achieve he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: Having heard the Minister's explanation, but not saying that I am totally convinced by his arguments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 242H not moved.]
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Restriction on recovery of possession on expiry or termination]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 242HA:
Page 62, line 42, leave out ("original") and insert ("replacement").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I do not wish to pre-empt a wider debate on the question of whether Clause 92 shall stand part of the Bill. I wish to move the amendment briefly.
As today's debate has already revealed, private-sector housing will be further deregulated by the combined effect of Clauses 89 and 92. Assured tenancies entered into on or after the day on which the Act comes into force will be shorthold tenancies unless the landlord serves a notice on the tenant stating that the tenancy is to be a full, assured tenancy instead. Some exceptions are contained in Schedule 4.
Clause 92 is complex to say the least. As drafted, it raises the possibility that shortholds may in future be periodic from the outset rather than commencing with a fixed term of at least six months, as at present. That is
1868
because the clause adds to Section 1 of the Housing Act 1988 the provision that possession orders made in relation to new shorthold tenancies may not take effect between six months from the beginning of the tenancy.
Where the shorthold is followed by a replacement tenancy— one in which the landlord and tenant are the same as under the original tenancy— a possession order may not take effect earlier than six months after the beginning of the original tenancy. Thus, landlords, if they wish, may recover possession by means of the accelerated possession procedure at any time after six months from the grant of a shorthold tenancy, even though there is a so-called "replacement" tenancy.
I suggest that that allows for too prompt repossession and the amendment is designed to ensure that possession orders cannot take effect earlier than six months after the beginning of each tenancy, whether that be an original tenancy or a replacement tenancy. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be helpful once again if I set out the background to Clause 92 which the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, seeks to change. The noble Lord and I certainly agree about one thing; that is, that Clause 92 is complex. It amends Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. Section 21 sets out the procedures for a landlord to recover possession when a shorthold tenancy expires at the end of the initial fixed term. The initial fixed term must currently be for a period of at least six months. An amendment is required because Clause 89 of the Bill will remove the requirement for a new shorthold tenancy to have an initial fixed term.
Clause 92 will prevent a court from making an order under Section 21 for possession of a new assured shorthold tenancy until six months after the beginning of the tenancy at the earliest. Where the tenancy is a replacement tenancy, the possession order may not be made so as to take effect until six months after the beginning of the original tenancy. This will ensure that shorthold tenants retain their existing right to a minimum of six months' security of tenure even if their tenancy agreement has no initial fixed term— for example, because it is simply a periodic tenancy— or the initial fixed term is for less than six months.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, intends to provide tenants with greater security by offering a minimum of six months' security at a time for each replacement tenancy. Clause 92 as it stands seeks to replicate tenants' existing security of tenure. It offers a minimum six months' security. Many landlords currently negotiate longer fixed term tenancies. The average completed length of residence of an assured shorthold tenant is about two-and-a-half years. This has advantages for both parties. The tenant has longer security and the landlord retains a good tenant. The last thing a sensible landlord would want to do is to evict a good tenant and incur the hassle and expense of finding a new one who may turn out to be not as good.
Indeed, when a fixed term tenancy comes to an end it is often the case that the landlord will offer a further fixed term rather than a periodic tenancy. Conversely, it

1869
may be convenient to both parties to extend the tenancy beyond the fixed term by only a relatively short period; for example, two or three months. The amendment would prevent such flexible arrangements taking place because the six-month period would bite immediately.
Many landlords have very real fears about not being able to gain possession of their property when they need to. The amendment would compound those fears. It is right that tenants should have a minimum period of security from the beginning of their original tenancy and we consider six months strikes the right balance. However, it would not be right to say that if a replacement tenancy is created, a further six months' security is warranted. This would deter a landlord from creating a replacement tenancy if there is the slightest chance he will need to repossess his property before six months have expired.
With that explanation of the clause and the negative impact of the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I need to think quite hard about this matter because, in my mind, it begs the question as regards what is the point of a replacement tenancy. It is a complex area. I wish to reflect and reserve the right to come back at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Applications for determination of rent: time limit]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 242J:
Page 63, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) In subsection (1) after "may" insert "at any time during the original tenancy or any replacement tenancy until such time as the landlord serves a notice under section 13(2)."
(3) In subsection (4) (a) after "application" insert "and, provided there is no change of circumstances, the determined rent shall remain for such period between one and two years as the rent assessment committee shall direct, regardless of any change of tenant or landlord.".").
The noble Baroness said: All opposition amendments are important but we judge this to be among the more important. It seeks to protect from eviction tenants who are trying to reduce their rent to a figure regarded as a fair market rent by the rent officer. The Bill provides tenants with powers to bring down the rent. However, if they exercised those powers, they could be penalised by the landlord and would not be protected.
Perhaps I may give some background. In the late 1980s, Sir George Young decontrolled private rents saying that housing benefit would take the strain. As a result, as we know, housing benefit increased by something like 200 to 300 per cent. The Treasury then kicked in and sought to control housing benefit, despite the fact that it is supposed to be taking the strain, by limiting it to what the rent officer regarded as the fair market rent, given the needs of the family. If the rent was excessive or the tenant was in over-costly or
1870
over-large accommodation, the rent officer would certify only a proportion of that rent as being legitimate for housing benefit.
The position was toughened by further housing regulation changes which further cap the amount of housing benefit that a tenant may receive after reference to the rent officer. As a result, at present in 40 per cent. of all cases referred to the rent officer, housing benefit covers less than the full rent. On average in London, it is by just less than £20 per week. If someone living in London who is receiving income support wishes to keep his home he must take that £19 and top-slice it off an income support of £45 if he is a single person. That leaves him with something like £26 per week on which to live, even though £45 is regarded as the appropriate figure, as indicated by the amount of income support. Therefore, he has a choice of home and poverty or no home and a little less poverty.
In consequence, local authorities have been encouraging shorthold tenants who find themselves in that position to apply to the rent assessment committee to bring down the rent so that it is closer to what the rent officer said was appropriate. But they dare do that only if they know they will not be visited by eviction as a result; hence this amendment.
The amendment achieves two things. First, it allows shorthold tenants greater flexibility when they seek a determination of the rent. It means that they are not permitted to seek a determination only at the beginning of the tenancy but are able to do so if their circumstances change. For example, they may become unemployed and have to claim housing benefit. They may then find that housing benefit does not cover the full cost of the rent because the rent officer has said that the rent is excessive and well above market value. In the circumstances in which the tenants' conditions have changed they should have the flexibility of being able to seek a rent assessment in the course of that tenancy. That seems only reasonable because circumstances may change and the issue of rent may become more significant.
Secondly, once the rent has been determined by the rent assessment committee, it should not last just for six months because, if so, the tenant will be evicted. It should apply for between one and two years, as the rent assessment committee determines. That is not excessive. It still means that the landlord can raise the rent probably after a year, and at worst two years, in line with inflation. He need be no worse off. But it means that there can be no incentive for the landlord to evict the tenant who has tried to bring down the rent because he knows that the next tenant coming in will still enjoy that same rent. Therefore, the landlord will lose the incentive to evict when the tenant has sought to bring down the rent to what the rent officer has said was a fair rent for housing benefit purposes.
I use a phrase much favoured by the Minister when I say that we believe that this achieves a fair balance. The landlord still receives a fair rent and will know that after a year to two years he can raise the rent in line with inflation and will be no worse off. But it prevents his having the power, first, to exploit the tenant, and,

1871
secondly, if the tenant uses his legal remedies, to victimise him for doing so. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I should like to express my support for the amendment on the simple basis that Clause 93, as I understand it, simply introduces an arbitrary limitation on the right to apply to a rent assessment committee. It limits the ability of a tenant with a new assured shorthold tenancy being able to refer an excessive rent to the committee under Section 22 of the Housing Act 1988. The limited security of tenure afforded by an assured shorthold tenancy will be further eroded by that loss of right to refer to the rent assessment committee. Some tenants will be vulnerable to the threat that, as a result of attempting to bargain for a more affordable rent, their shorthold tenancy agreement will not be renewed.
The opposition to Clause 93 is supported by the Law Society which responded to the White Paper produced by the Government by pointing out, quite correctly, that tenants are, broadly speaking, in the economically weaker position and tend to be less commercially aware, and are therefore more vulnerable. They are in greater need of protection, not only in terms of being aware of their position but also in terms of protection against demands for unreasonable rents by landlords who seek to benefit in areas of housing shortage.
There are already hurdles within Section 22(3)(a) and (b) of the 1988 Act which serve to limit the number of cases in which application to a rent assessment committee can be made. In the White Paper, the Government, as I understand it, sought to justify that provision by saying, "Well, the existing rent assessment committee regime is little used". However, the other hurdles which already exist must be taken into account when drawing inferences from the limited number of applications to the rent assessment committee. I suggest that the clause as it stands will do a great deal of harm and, potentially, very little to assist tenants or, indeed, landlords. I suggest the tenant's right to refer an excessive rent to a rent assessment committee should be preserved.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am now back in my more customary position of addressing amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. When I read the amendment before us, I have to say that it seemed to me that she still hankers after the days of rent regulation, as indeed, according to a recent survey by the Roof magazine, do 93 per cent. of her colleagues in local government.
I have to confess that I have some difficulty in reconciling the amendment with the belief that I thought, throughout the time we have run in Committee this afternoon, was shared by us all; namely, that we need to sustain a healthy private rented sector.
De-regulation of the private rented sector since 1988 has allowed landlords to earn a reasonable return on their investment. Research shows that the average gross return from a shorthold tenancy is now about 9 per cent. From that, management and maintenance costs and rent
1872
lost from arrears and voids must be deducted. I do not regard that as excessive. Indeed, research shows that only about two-fifths of lettings have been acquired mainly for investment purposes.
Assured shorthold tenants were given the right in 1988 to refer to a rent assessment committee to provide a safeguard against unreasonably high rents as the shorthold tenancy and market rents were introduced. As Members of the Committee are no doubt aware, the Government originally proposed in the housing White Paper to remove that right on the grounds that it was little used. In 1990 there were just over 400 referrals from 140,000 assured tenancies—less than 1 per cent. Referrals are still running at the same level; that is, about 1,600 a year from over 800,000 assured tenancies. However, in the light of responses to that proposal, we decided to maintain shorthold tenants' right of referral during the first six months of the original tenancy. Six months provides a reasonable opportunity for the tenant to make an application while giving the landlord the certainty that an appeal cannot be made after the deadline has passed.
I believe that the noble Baroness suggested that extending the role of rent assessment committees would save the Government substantial amounts in housing benefit expenditure. However, I should point out that, since last October, rent assessment committee determinations have not been binding for housing benefit purposes. Housing benefit is calculated on the basis of rent officers' determinations, even where a committee has made a determination. The rent agreed by the rent officer for benefit cases may be below the contractual rent for various reasons—for example, the property may be too large or it may be too expensive, despite the fact that it is the market rent for that property. So even if a fixed, contractual rent at market level is there, there is no guarantee that housing benefit will meet it.
The legislation was changed last October in the light of evidence that landlords and local authorities were encouraging tenants to refer the rent to a rent assessment committee in the hope of obtaining a higher rent for housing benefit purposes. We have therefore already dealt with one of the issues which the amendment seeks to address.
Similarly, I cannot accept the proposal that a committee should set a rent for a period of more than a year. The landlord must have the certainty that he can increase the rent in line with market movements. It is unlikely that a landlord would be able to get a rent above the market rent from a new tenant. If he puts up the rent and gets a tenant out, he is unlikely to find a new tenant if that rent is way above the market level. Indeed, he is unlikely to find a new tenant who will take on that tenancy.
Therefore, I do not believe that there is an incentive here to evict as suggested by the noble Baroness. The tenant will have the opportunity to negotiate with the landlord the new rent for any replacement tenancy. He will be able to take account of any determination by the committee during the original tenancy.

1873
If the original tenancy lapses into a periodic tenancy, the tenant will have another opportunity to apply to the committee for a determination if the landlord serves a notice of a rent increase under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. Any such determination will have effect for a year. If the landlord serves a further notice after a year, the tenant can apply to the committee again.
I believe that our proposal in Clause 93 provides adequate protection for the tenant while giving the landlord the confidence to let the property in the knowledge that he can at least cover the costs of letting and perhaps also make a small return on his asset. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am most disappointed by the Minister's reply. I really feel that he failed to engage with what it is like "out there". Because he calls something a market rent, the noble Lord assumes that any rent that follows represents a fair, negotiated balance of power, if you like, between landlord and tenant. That is not the situation. For the most part, it is a landlord's market out there. It is tenants who find it difficult to get reasonable, clean and relatively salubrious accommodation, especially if they have children or are regarded as "DSS".
The same research to which the Minister referred earlier shows that the two biggest groups to which private landlords will not let are, on the one hand, young people, people with children and, on the other hand, "DSS" families. Most landlords will not let to those groups. But they are precisely the groups that are most at risk of falling into arrears if housing benefit does not cover the rent; most at risk of eviction if they fall into arrears; and, therefore, are most likely to add to the growing pressure of homelessness on local authority stock. That is the world out there. It is not the world as the Minister wishes it to be, with markets being somehow a matter of fair negotiation; it is the world of supply and demand where the landlord has most of the cards, and certainly the trump cards.
I do not recognise the response the Minister gave to those two arguments. We argued that it was not unreasonable that because a tenant's situation may change he may appeal to a rent assessment committee. The Minister did not answer my next point. The tenant may suddenly become unemployed and therefore need to apply for housing benefit. He may find that housing benefit will not cover his rent. We need to protect a tenant in that situation; otherwise he may be evicted.
The Minister made much of the point that landlords should be in a position to raise their rents after six months. He said that they were in a market situation and would only attract tenants if their rents were reasonable. That is not the case. People may well accept such accommodation because the alternative is to sleep rough, sleep in a car or go to a hostel. The Minister simply does not know what housing stress is like out there. Once a tenant has accepted accommodation he may hope to negotiate a lower rent but he may find that he cannot do so.
1874
The other argument the Minister offered was that the landlord needed to have the right to raise his rent after six months. Why is that? I thought this was the Government of low inflation and that we had inflation of 2.5 per cent. Why is it that landlords, peculiarly, have to have the right to impose two price increases in a year, even when the rent assessment committee says that it is not reasonable?
This is a simple amendment. It allows the tenant to have the rent reviewed, not just at the beginning of the tenancy, but also later. If the rent is fair, the landlord has nothing to worry about. It is only if the rent is excessive that the landlord has something to worry about. Are the Government really on the side of landlords who charge excessive rents, because that is what the Minister is saying? The amendment provides that if the rent assessment committee so judges it, the rent should be stable for a year to two years, thus protecting the tenant from being evicted for trying to exercise his rights under the law. Is the Minister saying he is on the side of the landlord who evicts the tenant for exercising his rights under the law? Is that what the Minister is saying? I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 242J) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Methuen, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

MLshcon, L.

Berkeley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ciffori of Chudleigh, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.[Teller.]

Dahrendorf, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

NicoI, B.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Geraint, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Russell, E

Seear, B.

Shannon, E.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Strafford, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thurso, V.

Howie of Troon, L

Tordoff, L

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Lawrence, L.

White, B.

McNally, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Meston, L.

Winston, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Blatch, B.

Ailsa, M.

Boardman, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Balfour, E.

Brabazon of Tata, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Berners, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Birdwood, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Blaker, L.

Burnham, L.

1875

Cadrnan, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E

Miller of Hendon, B.

Caldecote, V.

Milverton, L.

Carnpbell of Croy, L.

Monson, L.

Carmegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carr of Hadley, L

Mottistone, L

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Munster, E.

CoJwyn, L.

Murton of lindisfame, L.

Courtown, E.

Nelson, E.

Craigavon, V.

Nickson, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Norrie, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Northesk, E.

Cumberiege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Srnith, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dudley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Prentice, L.

Feldman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rees, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Romney, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

St Davids, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harrowby, E.

Seccombe, B.

Haslam, L.

Selsdon, L.

Henky, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Soulsby of Swaffliam Prior, L.

Howe, E

Stewartby, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Sudeley, L.

Layton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lucas, L.

Tollemache, L

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Tugendhat, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wise, L

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.1 p.m.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Mandatory possession for non-payment of rent: reduction in arrears required]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 242JA:
Page 63, line 31, at end insert ("; and
(c) at the end of the Ground there shall be inserted—
"provided that no order for possession shall be made under this ground if a court is satisfied that—

(i) prior to the date of hearing the tenant has made a claim for housing benefit in respect of the period to which the arrears relate in whole or in part and which has not been finally determined by the local housing authority to which it was made; or

(ii) the tenant has an arguable set-off against the unpaid rent of an amount of liquidated or unliquidated damages capable of reducing the rent outstanding to below the amounts claimed.".").

The noble Lord said: Clause 94 deals with the grounds for making a possession order and amends the mandatory rent arrears ground (Ground 8) to enable landlords to take action when the level of rent outstanding is eight weeks in the case of weekly or fortnightly tenancies, and two months for monthly tenancies. It is a reduction of five weeks in the case of weekly or fortnightly tenancies, and of one month in the case of monthly tenancies.
One wonders what is the case for the amendments brought about by Clause 94. Having read the debates in another place, I have been unable to find a clear justification for Clause 94. If there were clear evidence of substantial difficulties experienced by landlords one might understand the case for Clause 94; but I am not aware of such evidence. All the clause does is to put an increased number of tenants at risk. That is not to say that one does not sympathise with landlords whose tenants will not or cannot pay.
However, there are in practice two problems which the amendment seeks to address. First, delay in obtaining housing benefit is the basis of the first limb of the amendment which I propose. If a proper claim to benefit which would help to meet some or all of the arrears is still pending when a possession claim comes to court, surely it is right that the courts should have a discretion not to order possession. Likewise, if there is an arguable set-off. That is the second problem in practice.
The amendment ensures that landlords are not able to recover possession where the tenant has claimed compensation by way of a counter-claim—for example, for disrepair, harassment or any other breach of the tenancy agreement. An amendment in similar terms was discussed at Report stage in another place. The Government's response at that stage was that there was a potential for the amendment to lead to long and protracted disputes about the cause and extent of the counter-claim; and, further, that the existing state of the law catered sufficiently well for the question. It is that latter proposition which I challenge. Without the amendment it will remain uncertain whether a tenant with a counter-claim for damages can resist a Ground 8 possession claim. The question was specifically left open by the Court of Appeal in a case reported in 1993, Mountain v. Hastings. The landlord will still have available to him the discretionary ground on which possession can be claimed under Ground 10 of the legislation. That would provide for any amount of arrears to be the basis for a claim for possession.
I suggest that mandatory orders for possession should be made only where there is clearly a substantial breach of the tenancy agreement. If there is any doubt about there being a substantial breach, or about the ability of the tenant to rectify that breach wholly or in part—for example, by way of housing benefit when it arrives; or by having a good, arguable counter-claim or set-off—the tenant quite properly should have the benefit of the doubt. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment. One of the increasing causes of homelessness, as we know, is eviction from the private

1877
rented sector, usually, though not always, associated with failure to pay rent. Increasingly that failure to pay rent may be due to local authority errors or delays, for good and bad reasons, in processing housing benefit. A good reason, for example, is where the local authority needs quite detailed information and the employer refuses to co-operate.
Those delays mount up. The Minister may say that payment may be made on account. Nonetheless, anyone who has had to handle housing benefit will know that that is not a satisfactory way forward, in particular if there is doubt about the nature of employment. If a payment on account is made, one cannot subsequently recover it. The local authority is then in difficulties with its district auditor. I would counsel the Minister against encouraging local authorities to go down that route as an easy option.
What are we now seeing? Perhaps we shall cover the issue more fully during the debate on clause stand part. First, we are seeing increased risks of delay in paying housing benefit in particular as local authorities are being asked, rightly, by the Government to investigate more thoroughly to eradicate fraud. Secondly, we are seeing payment of housing benefit four weeks in arrears. Thirdly—it is a point that I do not believe has been mentioned—the Government propose to send out to compulsory competitive tendering the payment of housing benefit. If the tender is successfully won by a private firm it will introduce temporary chaos into the system, thus increasing the likelihood that housing benefit will be delayed and the tenant will risk eviction through arrears. Yet at the same time that that is happening, the Government seek to allow landlords to evict tenants after eight weeks instead of 13.
We all agree, surely, that tenants need protection from eviction where the cause of that eviction—for example the non-payment of rent—is through no fault of their own. The amendment goes some way towards that protection. It allows a tenant to have his eviction delayed where there is a prospect of housing benefit being paid to cover arrears in rent; or where he may expect other payments, such as compensation, to have the same effect.
We need this amendment because at present even if the courts believed that that eviction is unfair they cannot stop it. They have to grant possession. It is mandatory. The amendment allows that mandatory provision to become discretionary in the light of the circumstances: that is, that there is a reasonable possibility for the tenant to pay. I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Strabolgi: I should like to support everything that has been said. There is even more cause for concern since I understand, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said, that there is a proposal to pay housing benefit under the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations four weeks in arrears. That will mean even greater risk to tenants since under most tenants' contractual obligations rent is almost always required in advance. With some tenants permanently four weeks in arrears, even a short-term unexpected change could result in a claimant being eight weeks in arrears. If the
1878
Government intend to press ahead with the payment of housing benefit in arrears, it is surely essential that the mandatory possession ground is not simultaneously reduced from three months to two months. I support what has been said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall deal first with the part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, concerning housing benefit. I imagine that he fears that tenants who have made an as yet undetermined claim for housing benefit may be evicted through no fault of their own. I wish to assure the noble Lord that his fears are misplaced. Even under the new limits proposed in Clause 94, a tenant is unlikely to be evicted until at least three to four months have elapsed since he first started to get into arrears. Perhaps I may explain why.
First, the tenant will have to be at least eight weeks in arrears before the landlord can start any action. The landlord must give the tenant two weeks' notice of proceedings. It will then take at least a month for the case to reach court. A court order can only be made if eight weeks' arrears still exist at the time of the hearing. The whole process will take at least three or four months, which I submit is a reasonable period for a responsible tenant to sort out his financial affairs.
I heard the concerns about the implications of change for tenants whose housing benefit claims are subject to delay. However, under social security legislation, housing benefit claims should be processed within the statutory 14 days of all the required information being received. Department of Social Security statistics show that over 80 per cent. of claims are now processed within this deadline and performance is steadily improving.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether that is the correct statistic. The Minister has used it several times. I may be working on last year's figures, but my information is that the target is for 80 per cent. of housing benefit payments to be made within 14 days and that 70 per cent. of local authorities meet it. It is not as the Minister suggested.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I repeat what I said. The statistics we have show that over 80 per cent. of claims are now processed within the deadline of 14 days. The noble Baroness mentioned in her contribution that if the deadline is not met local authorities have a statutory duty to make payments on account where the delay is not the fault of the tenant. Although the noble Baroness warned me against using that argument, I still believe that it is valid. If the local authorities are fearful of using that responsibility because they fear that the district auditor may challenge them, it gives them a motive for ensuring that they meet the target of the statutory 14 days.
The Department of Social Security has strengthened its guidance as recently as April, to remind local authorities of their legal duties to make payments on account. Housing benefit claimants should therefore not be affected by the change.

1879
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised the question of new claimants and claimants who move having their housing benefit paid wholly in arrears from this October. The change will not affect their entitlement to housing benefit or the frequency of benefit payments. Most people coming on to benefit will have already received some kind of income, such as final wages, which they can use to pay their rent before they are due any benefit. Eighty per cent. of housing benefit applications are delivered within 14 days and I cannot see the situation beginning to get near the eight weeks, let alone the eight weeks plus the two weeks and the month it takes to get to court before matters can be sorted out.
Local authorities must also ensure that the method and frequency of payments suit the reasonable needs of the tenant. They have wide powers to pay housing benefit direct to the landlord. They have discretion to make direct payments if the tenant requests it or if it would be in the best interests of the tenant. They must make payments direct if the tenant is eight weeks in arrears. Recent guidance from my department recommends them to give serious consideration to direct payments if there are about six weeks' arrears. We would therefore expect that where the tenant is receiving benefit and is in arrears with his rent, benefit will be paid direct to the landlord long before the case gets to court. A recent sample survey suggests that some 70 per cent. of payments are made direct to the landlord.
The landlord is contractually entitled to his rent. Furthermore, his lender will not consider his monthly loan or mortgage repayments to have been repaid just because his tenant's housing benefit may be in the pipeline. The amendment would enable a tenant to avoid a possession order by making an application for housing benefit before the court hearing, even though he knew that he would not be eligible for benefit. That cannot be right.
Perhaps I may turn to the other part of the amendment, which seeks to prevent the court from making an order for possession if it is satisfied that the tenant has an arguable set-off against the unpaid rent of an amount of liquidated or unliquidated damages capable of reducing the rent outstanding to below the amounts claimed. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, is concerned about cases where a landlord fails to meet his repairing obligations. But tenants have a common law right to undertake repairs to the property where the landlord is in breach of his repairing obligations and to recover the costs by deduction from the rent, unless there is an express term in the tenancy agreement to prevent that. The court would be able to take this into account as a defence where the landlord is seeking possession under Ground 8 and may decide that no or insufficient rent arrears exist to grant an order for possession.
Tenants also have an equitable right to set off against rent due any damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, for breach by the landlord resulting from disrepair, provided the damages relate to the property on which the rent is due and there is no express term in
1880
the tenancy agreement to prevent that. The court would be able to take into account such a counterclaim by the tenant in deciding whether to grant the landlord a possession order under Ground 8. But requiring the court to offset liquidated or unliquidated damages against rent arrears would encourage tenants to counter-claim for damages due to disrepair in all Ground 8 cases. That would lead to long and protracted disputes and create so much uncertainty that landlords would be deterred from letting property.
The Committee will be aware of the recent Law Commission report on the landlord's responsibility for the state and condition of property. We are considering it carefully and will publish our response in due course. It will cover some of the ground which concerns the noble Lord, Lord Meston. On the basis of what I have said about the housing benefit system and Ground 8, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I wish to question the Minister on one point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. He gave a glowing account of how admirably administered housing benefit was and how quickly it was paid. As I understand it, the statistics he quoted were on the basis of all the relevant information being available to assess the benefit claim. One of the questions which my noble friend Lady Hollis raised concerned the situation where the tenant had provided all the information but the local authority was not in a position to complete the assessment because of other information which was required from employers.
Can the Minister advise the Committee whether there is any legal duty on employers to provide such information, which the tenant may not have? It must come from the employer. Is there a legal duty on the employer to provide that information? Also, is there a time limit on the delay which the employer could cause in providing the information required?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is right that the provision is for 14 days after all the required information has been received. It could be no other than that. I am sure that he agrees that the tenant has therefore an obligation to ensure that all the relevant information is received. We now turn to the employer. In the case postulated by the noble Baroness, if the employer were responsible for the delay, what would the situation be? For most of the afternoon the landlord has been the wicked fairy, but we appear to have moved on and now the employer is the wicked fairy. There is not much change in the historic position of the Labour Party on wicked fairies.
In the case of housing benefit, most of the information comes from the tenant. If a tenant has given all the information that he or she can give, the question of payment on account immediately arises. That is the position. I noticed the noble Baroness throwing her hands up in the air. If a tenant has given accurate information about his employment, and even if the employer is dilatory in backing that up, I cannot believe that the employer will do other than present evidence that will simply back up the information that the tenant

1881
has already given. In those circumstances, I cannot believe that the district auditor would find that the local authority had given a wrong payment.
Lord Meston: I shall resist the temptation to identify the good and bad fairies in this debate. I am grateful for the support I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
My hope was that the Minister would make clear at this stage the underlying case for Clause 94. We may have to wait for the debate immediately following. Whether or not housing benefit delays happen, or should not happen, is by the way. In practice there are delays in providing housing benefit. I have evidence of that from practitioners in this field. At a later stage I wish to reinforce that evidence by introducing an amendment along similar lines.
So far as the second part of the proposed new clause is concerned, I remember sufficient landlord and tenant law to know the common law right and equitable rights to which the Minister referred. However, there still appears to be an uncertainty in the law in that, as I said in opening, the Court of Appeal has apparently left open the question as to whether a tenant with a counterclaim for damages can resist a Ground 8 possession claim. That again is something I wish to research further.
I certainly challenge the Minister's suggestion that this amendment would tempt a tenant to raise a specious set-off when confronted with a claim for rent arrears and a Ground 8 possession claim. To avoid that, it may be that I should return at a later stage and, instead of using the expression, "an arguable set-off", use an expression such as, "a reasonably arguable set-off'.
My remaining concern is that Clause 94 relates to mandatory orders for possession. Some care must be taken on the face of the Bill before abbreviating the period of arrears that must arise before a mandatory order can be made. These amendments are designed to mitigate—and only to mitigate to some extent—the otherwise drastic effect of Clause 94. I reserve the right to come back on this matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 94 stand part of the Bill, as indicated in the names of my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
I remind the Committee of the cumulative pressures surrounding housing benefit that we now see building up. I should like to bring together a whole series of different issues, some in different departments, all of which bear on the issue. I ask the Minister: do the Government really understand the effect that all these interlocking and cumulative decisions have on the housing market?
First, the Bill reduces the mandatory grounds for possession from three months to two months (from 13 weeks to eight). The court has no discretion; it must grant possession. Therefore, tenant insecurity is being
1882
increased. Secondly, however, the Government are introducing this measure at the very time when poorer tenants are experiencing real cuts in housing benefit, partly because of the new regulations. We are likely to find a growing percentage, beyond the existing 40 per cent., of those who now find that housing benefit does not cover their rent. The percentage is increasing.
In addition to cuts in housing benefit, we shall also see further delays in payment of housing benefit. I accept that in some cases that may be due to the inefficiency of local authorities. But before the 14-day clock can start ticking, all the information has to be collected.
The Minister was baffled as to why any tenant should not be able to produce identical information to an employer. The Minister does not seem to appreciate that something like 40 per cent. of all workers are now in part-time, casual, contract or shift work, and the percentage is growing. Those are precisely the sorts of low-paid occupations in which people are likely, while in work, to claim housing benefit. The man or woman in a 38-hour or 40-hour full-time job will almost certainly be earning enough to float him or her off housing benefit levels. That is not always the case, but it is usually so. It is precisely the poorer worker in the part-time, casual, low-paid or irregular job who is likely to be claiming housing benefit and is least likely therefore to be able to produce the information for the statement of earnings for the four prior weeks, and where the local authority will rightly need corroboration from the employer as to average earnings. That is what it is like out there when you are seeking work. This week a person may receive £60; in another week it may be £80, and in another £72. The local authority has to make a judgment in order to assess housing benefit. Of course the information has to be corroborated by the employer. In any case, the employee may very well not have all the appropriate records. So delays arise as a result of the need to collect information.
Another reason why delays occur is that local authorities have, quite rightly, been made aware of the extent of landlord fraud. Mr. Lilley seems to think that housing benefit fraud presently accounts for some £1 billion a year. The latest information to the Select Committee on Social Security suggests a figure of nearer £2 billion a year. Almost all that is landlord fraud—claiming, for example, for 35 tenants, nine rooms and the like. Local authorities agree with the Government that such fraud should be stamped out, because a penny mis-spent is a penny denied somewhere else. But investigation of fraud takes time; and the more it is investigated the more delays will occur. Already, some London boroughs are refusing to pay tenants housing benefit while the landlord is being investigated for fraud.
What would the Government have the local authority do—particularly when the cheques are being paid direct to the landlord? Would they have tenants stop the cheques and risk eviction, or pay the cheques and let the taxpayer risk fraud? What choice would the Government have us make? They have to answer that question in dealing with this clause.

1883
We see cuts and delays in housing benefit; we are to see housing benefit paid four weeks in arrears; and by the time the Bill becomes law another measure will have made the administration of housing benefit catastrophic—namely, the exposure of this service to compulsory competitive tendering. Private companies which may gain the tender, will have no experience and will be in a learning curve. We shall see error, fraud and problems of take-up all being magnified in the process of handover.
So tenants can be evicted more quickly; housing benefit is to be paid in arrears; we see increased delays in the ability of local authorities to be sure that they are paying the right sum; and we see cuts in the amount of housing benefit being paid. Taken together, those factors increase the risk of tenants being evicted by landlords for non-payment of rent.
We are seeing increased insecurity in the private rented sector; increased evictions from that sector; a growth in homelessness coming out of the private rented sector; and added pressure on the ability of local authorities to meet the needs of the homeless. None of that is necessary. This clause is not necessary. There is no evidence at all that we need Clause 94 in the Bill. If we removed it, we might produce a fraction more security in the housing benefit system. I move that the clause do not stand part of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have already gone over some of this ground and I apologise if I do so again. Clause 88 amends Ground 8 of the Housing Act 1988 which requires a court to grant an order for possession of a property let on an assured tenancy when a specified level of rent arrears has accrued. The current level is at least 13 weeks or three months' rent, depending on whether the rent is payable weekly or monthly. That level of rent must be unpaid, both when the landlord serves notice of possession proceedings under Section 8 of the 1988 Act and at the date of the court hearing. Clause 88 will reduce that level to eight weeks or two months' rent.
The vast majority of tenants pay their rent on time and in full. However, our research shows that landlords are concerned that, although the Housing Act 1988 made it easier to recover possession of their property, they continue to have problems regaining possession when the tenant is in rent arrears. The noble Baroness argues the case from the point of view of the tenant. I ask her to consider for a minute what having a tenant in rent arrears, with no prospect of recovering the arrears, means for the landlord. One quarter of lettings are owned by a landlord with only one property. For those landlords, having a tenant who withholds the rent will be very difficult, particularly if they have a mortgage or loan to repay. Small landlords will only let property if they are confident that they can cover their loan or mortgage. They need the certainty that when a specific amount of rent arrears has accrued, they can get their property back.
1884
Even under the proposal in Clause 88, the tenant is unlikely to be evicted until at least three or four months have elapsed since he first started to get into arrears. Perhaps I may just explain the procedure "out there", about which, of course, I know nothing and where the noble Baroness is continually inviting me to look. Under the new proposal the tenant will have to be at least eight weeks (it was 13 weeks) in arrears before the landlord can start any action. The landlord must then give the tenant two weeks' notice of possession proceedings, so 10 weeks will now have elapsed. It will then take at least a month for the case to reach court. In fact, the average time is nearer three months. So should I be kind or unkind in this calculation? I shall be kind and take the month—just four weeks—though I point out to the Committee that it could easily take 12 weeks. Indeed, it is more likely to be nearer 12 weeks before the landlord and tenant have their day in court.
A court order can only be made if, at that point, eight weeks' arrears still exist. The whole process will take at least three or four months, if not more. I should have thought that that is a reasonable period for a responsible tenant to sort out his financial affairs.
I know that there are concerns about the implications of the change for tenants whose housing benefit claims are subject to delays. I have already covered that ground and have no desire to go over it again. But I do not believe that the noble Baroness has proved her case about the difficulties that might arise in regard to housing benefit. We all know that there is a certain amount of fraud in housing benefit. The Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lilley, has spoken about it. We believe that it amounts to about £1 billion. The noble Baroness has quoted £2 billion, which is the figure now favoured by her party. That figure comes from the Select Committee of another place and is based on the evidence of one person extrapolating from the experience of one London borough. We do not believe that that is a fair and proper calculation. Our calculation is much more detailed. A great deal more work has been put into it. We reckon that the figure is £1 billion. But we are certainly happy to have on board the party opposite in our pursuit of fraud in the benefits system—in housing benefit and anywhere else. One landlord fraud is that there is no tenant. There cannot be an eviction if there is not a tenant to evict, so I do not feel that there is a huge problem so far as concerns that particular fraud.
This clause, reducing the period to eight weeks from 13 weeks and to two months from three months, provides a better balance between the interests of the landlord and tenant than do the current requirements, especially when account is taken of the two weeks' notice and the time taken to get to court. Then the tenant will usually ask the court for four weeks in which to find a new house. "Out there" the court usually grants the additional four weeks. At the end of the four weeks, if the tenant has not moved and still has not paid anything, the landlord has to apply for a bailiff's warrant. That may take another two or three weeks. So perhaps 36 weeks may elapse from the day the tenant stops paying rent. At any time during that period the

1885
tenant can deal with the problem of arrears. I should have thought that that is a fair and reasonable balance between the tenant and the landlord.
As I said, the small reduction helps the balance. It will give confidence to those people who currently have property they would like to let but who are fearful about letting it. We believe that, along with the other steps—this has to be looked at as a package—it will encourage further development of the private rented sector. The more properties in the private rented sector, the less may be the market rents in that sector. That is the way market forces work. I should have thought that the noble Baroness would welcome any step that we take to free up the market and get more houses on the market. That way we might see a reduction in the levels of rents which can be charged in certain areas, because shortage—supply and demand—is, of course, a major factor in the market.
I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her suggestion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. If she does not do so and divides the Committee, I trust that those who support me—I am sure, the majority—will accompany me into the Lobby.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may take up that last point. The Minister tries to put all the arguments in the one direction. He says that the Government's primary concern is to continue to strengthen the private rented sector. He points to the success of the past few years. What, of course, he should admit to the Committee (but he will not do so) is the reason for the success of the private rented sector. When we combine that fact with the information that the Minister continues to give—namely, that most houses that are rented are single houses owned by people who do not let anything other than one house—one realises that those houses are let because they cannot be sold. Why cannot those people sell the houses? It is because the Government's policies have wrecked the housing market for owner occupiers.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell the Committee where those people who want to sell their house will live while they rent the house to someone else?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: They may be in the situation in which I have been. My parents died and I have one house which is shared with my brother and sister. In the past I have let it simply because I am unable to sell it in a housing market that has been destroyed by the Government. The moment that the housing market picks up, that house will come on the market for sale. That is the situation in which hundreds and thousands of people—hundreds and thousands—currently find themselves.
All the evidence shows that something like one-third or so of the new lettings that have come on the market in the past three years are the result of people's inability to sell. They have therefore gone on somewhere else and rented and, in turn, have let out their own home. That is what has been happening to the private rented sector. If the Minister had read the research on the matter, he would realise that the private rented sector will shrink
1886
as and when any confidence is restored in the market for purchase. I am sure that he is aware of that. His point that most people have only one house to rent is precisely evidence of the point I make.
The broader point is that in this Bill, in regulations, and in changes to housing benefit and the like, we have seen blow upon blow—those words are not in any way over the top—to the situation of the tenant in the private rented sector. We have seen something like seven or eight shifts in housing benefit regulations and the grounds for possession, every one of which is on the side of the landlord. That undermines the security of the tenant. Indeed the Minister's remarks earlier today seemed to suggest that, even when the landlord is fraudulent, the Government are willing to be soft on the landlord rather than deny him access to the flow of rental income from which he has to pay his mortgage.
There is a huge gulf between us. The Government are interested only in the landlord for whom the property is his income and not at all in the tenant for whom the property is his home. That is why the next government will reverse much of this legislation.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clauses 95 and 96 agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 242JB:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENT OF DATE WHEN SECURE AND ASSURED TENANCIES END
(" .—(1) In section 82(2) of the Housing Act 1985 (security of tenure) for "the tenant is to give up possession" substitute "possession is delivered up to the landlord".
(2) In section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 (orders for possession)—
(a) after subsection (6) insert—
"(6A) Where the court makes an order for possession under this section the periodical tenancy ends on the date when possession is delivered up to the landlord in pursuance of the order."; and
(b) in subsection (7) for "date on which the order takes effect" substitute "date possession is delivered up to the landlord in pursuance of the order".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 242JB is to redefine the statutory ending of a tenancy. Under Section 82(2) of the Housing Act 1985 it is provided that,
"Where the landlord obtains an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, the tenancy ends on the date on which the tenant is to give up possession in pursuance of the order".
In reality—I know that we all claim to occupy the real world out there somewhere—possession proceedings are often used for rent collection. The landlord may obtain an order for possession for arrears of rent or for a breach of the tenancy agreement, but the tenant may then pay up and remedy the breach. Peace, if not harmony, is then restored. The tenant is allowed to stay and, by agreement, stays beyond the date stipulated under the possession order.
Under Section 82(2) of the Housing Act 1985, the tenant will lose the rights he held under his original tenancy agreement after the date the tenancy is deemed to end, and thereupon his status inevitably becomes uncertain until it is redefined either by agreement or by court proceedings. This amendment

1887
proposes that the tenancy should not be treated as having come to an end unless and until his actual departure delivering up the premises to the landlord. That would accord with practical reality and avoid the sort of artificial situation which can arise when a tenant stays on by agreement with his landlord. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The proposed new clause tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would extend the length of a secure or assured tenancy when a court has granted the landlord an order for possession until the tenant gives up the tenancy. Under existing legislation, the tenancy ends on the day the court order takes effect, or in the case of a suspended possession order, when the conditions of the suspended order are breached.
Court procedures will leave a tenant who is subject to a suspended possession order in no doubt about the seriousness of his position. The tenant will already have had an opportunity to make his case in court, and will know that if he breaches the condition of the suspended order, he will lose his home.
Where a court has determined that the landlord has a right to possession, I do not believe that it is right for the tenant to expect to enjoy the rights conferred by the tenancy beyond the date when the possession order comes into effect. Where the landlord is prepared to give the tenant another chance he may offer the tenant a new tenancy.
I understand from research—Rent Arrears in Local Authorities and Housing Associations in England (1994)—that almost without exception social landlords in arrears cases ask for suspended possession and, where agreements for payment are ratified in the court, those cases are monitored carefully for default. Only where arrangements break down irretrievably do the landlords consider using the final deterrent of eviction.
It cannot be right that if somebody is in arrears, has been taken to court and, for example, asked for time to pay the arrears, and the court agreed that the tenant should have that time and stipulated it, that from that point on the tenant should continue to have the rights of a tenancy. The tenancy should not carry on until the tenant leaves as a result, presumably, of not paying arrears. He forfeits his right to a tenancy until he makes good the rent arrears due. The amendment therefore is not sensible and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Meston: Having heard the Minister's reply—for which I am grateful—I cannot help feeling that perhaps we are not as far apart as his reply suggests. I am not talking of non-compliance with suspended orders; I am talking of orders where the statute provides the date on which the order takes effect and that determines the end of the tenancy. Nevertheless, the relationship between the landlord and tenant may continue for months, or even years. An artificial situation is created by the provisions of Section 82.
1888
I shall need to consider this matter further and consult with those more expert than myself. I reserve the right, therefore, to come back to it and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 242JC:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
SUSPENDED POSSESSION ORDER NOT TO BE ENFORCED WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT
(". In section 85 of the Housing Act 1985 and in section 9 of the Housing Act 1988, in each case after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Where an order for possession is suspended on conditions in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) and the order ceases to be suspended by reason of the conditions not being complied with, the order shall not be enforced more than two years after the order was made, without leave of the court.".").
The noble Lord said: This is a similar amendment to Amendment No. 242JB on an analogous point. The simple point, which I hope is self-explanatory, is that a suspended possession order should not be enforced without the leave of the court if it has lasted for more than two years. That would avoid the tenant finding himself in a sort of limbo with a suspended order hanging over him for an indefinite period of time with the risk of the landlord choosing, for good reason or bad, to activate stale orders.
The amendment does not prevent enforcement of orders which have been outstanding for more than two years; it simply requires that the court be asked to reconsider the matter before giving its leave to enforce. On such reconsideration the court can look at any fresh circumstances which have arisen on either side in the period of two years or more which must have elapsed. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is concerned with protecting the interests of those who fail to comply with a suspended possession order from the courts.
The new clause appears to be designed to allow secure and assured tenants another opportunity to make their case to the courts when they have breached the conditions of a suspended order for possession under either Section 85 of the Housing Act 1985 or Section 9 of the Housing Act 1988.
Where a landlord has sought possession of a tenancy under any one of the various grounds where reasonableness has to be proved—for example, certain rent arrears grounds—the county court can decide to suspend the possession order so long as certain conditions are met. In the case of rent arrears, where the landlord's primary interest is in getting the arrears paid and the tenant back into regular rent payment, rather than in evicting him, the condition of the suspension may be that the tenant pays his current rent plus so much per week towards the arrears.
If payments are kept up, the possession order is never enforced; if not, the landlord may apply in writing to the court for the bailiffs to take possession of the

1889
property. The new clause would build in an extra procedural step at this stage in cases where two years had elapsed since the court had made the order, giving the tenant an opportunity for a further court hearing.
Therefore, if the rate at which the rent arrears are being repaid is such or the monthly rate is such that it is still ongoing after two years, the noble Lord's amendment would build in at that stage another procedural step for the landlord if the tenant decided to stop paying those arrears.
The amendment is unnecessary. The tenant will have had an opportunity to make his case. He will be aware of the position he is in; he will be aware of the agreement that was decided upon in order to suspend possession. The court already has the discretion, under the Housing Acts of 1985 and 1988, to suspend an order for a period which it considers fit, and if the tenant's circumstances change and he finds he is no longer able to comply with the terms of the suspension, he may apply to the court for the terms of the suspension to be varied. But the noble Lord's amendment would actually impose a further burden on landlords, requiring them to seek another court hearing in cases where a tenant breaches the condition of a suspended order just, say, two years and a day after the order has been made.
There must come a point at which a tenancy has come to an end, either when a possession order takes effect or where a suspended order is breached. It is up to the tenant, who has the rights under the tenancy, to ensure that he does not put himself in danger of losing his rights through the possession order taking effect or the suspended order being breached. The tenant will have ample opportunity at the court hearing to explain his position and to put his house in order in order to avoid these consequences. It is almost worth pointing out that if the landlord seeks a warrant of possession it is because the terms of a suspended order have been breached. In those cases the court still has the power to entertain an application by the tenant to suspend the warrant for possession.
It would not be sensible to accept the noble Lord's amendment. We should stay with the position we have at the present time. Perhaps it is worth saying as a postscript on this general subject that I understand that the forthcoming report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on access to justice will include proposals for the handling of housing possession cases through the courts. Perhaps it would be sensible to await publication of that report so that the Government and others have a chance to reflect carefully on its findings rather than to legislate in the way proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Monkswell: I am not a legal expert but there seems to be one situation which the Minister did not mention. Perhaps I may put it to him in order to get a response. If the landlord has a suspended order of possession and the tenant breaches that order, which would enable the landlord to take possession, but the landlord does not take possession, does the right of the landlord to take possession at the time of his choosing remain available to him? It would seem to be rather unfair if a tenant inadvertently or almost by agreement with the landlord technically breached the order but the
1890
landlord did not seek to obtain possession but held it over the tenant in some form of threat, that he would use it at a later stage. Could the landlord hold over the tenant that kind of threat, or, if the suspended order was breached, would he have to take possession?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am in a little difficulty with the noble Lord's hypothetical question. Perhaps I may make sure that I understand it. He asks about the position where a landlord has a suspended possession. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it involves paying rent arrears at so much a week or so much a month. Then, before the rent arrears are paid off, the tenant stops paying them. I think I am asked: must the landlord act immediately; and if he does not act immediately—if he lets a week or two elapse—what would happen? Could he let a week or two elapse and then decide to enact his possession? Perhaps he just wants to be sure that the tenant has really meant to stop paying the arrears.
I always find hypothetical questions about legal matters a little difficult. It is the case that if the landlord then decided to activate the situation but the tenant could not respond and the landlord had to get an order for the bailiffs, the court would still have the power to entertain an application by the tenant to suspend the warrant for possession. So before a warrant for possession was granted to the bailiffs, there could at least be an argument in court to allow the tenant to argue the case.
However, I think that much of this depends on the case before the court, if it comes to the court, and the intentions of the parties. There is no doubt that a tenancy can be revived—for example, if the arrears are paid. The situation then continues with the tenancy simply revived. Case law shows that it can revive.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's question. I shall read in Hansard what he asked and ensure that I have not misunderstood the question and that I have given him a reasonable answer to the situation he hypothecated.
Lord Monkswell: I think the Minister has reassured me. However, perhaps I may clarify my example so that he may find it easier to read in Hansard tomorrow. The situation I envisaged was where a tenant was in arrears with rent and the suspended possession order was given on the basis that the tenant would start paying his rent on a particular date, which would have left some arrears. However, the tenant does not start on that date but starts perhaps a week or two later. The landlord then says, "Okay, I'll let it ride", and then at a future stage the landlord activates the suspended possession order—perhaps quite some time down the road—just because the landlord wants to obtain possession when in fact the tenant would have been an assured tenant if the suspended possession order was not available. That may help the Minister when he is considering tomorrow whether the exchanges we have just had resolve the problem.
Lord Meston: I was not particularly reassured by the Minister's answer and it may be that I shall need to come back at a later stage rather than wait for the

1891
valuable reforms which are to be introduced on the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
The amendment is designed to prevent a possession order limping on for years and being held over a tenant, rather in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, or in other circumstances. The Minister criticised it for requiring an extra procedural step. I would prefer to describe it as a safety net. The amendment presupposes that the tenant has complied with the terms of the suspension for at least two years, and it is only in those circumstances that I suggest by the amendment that a landlord should not thereafter be enabled to go straight in and enforce the order without at least going back to the court for the court's sanction to enforce. The Minister said that the tenant is aware of the position. The tenant is, of course, aware of the original position but the court may not be aware of any change of circumstances. The amendment proposes a revision at least by the court of the circumstances of the original order and any developments since then.
I would wish to come back at a later stage with an amendment along these lines. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage resumes not before eight o' clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

In-Work Training
7 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to encourage in-work training.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, all those of your Lordships about to speak are very well informed on employment matters and on the subject of in-work training. I am particularly grateful, therefore, for that support.
Once launched, yet before they had taken effect, a large measure of confidence had already been placed in the commitments given to full employment in the 1944 Government White Paper. Equally, there was conviction from the start that the Beveridge social insurance system would work well. As with all new schemes, it was also expected to improve with use and to mature through time. The planners did not therefore forecast that the results would be much better over the first 20 years than over the following 30 years. The opposite, in fact, occurred regarding both the control of unemployment
1892
and the connected operation of the social insurance system. The first 20-year period proved much better than the following 30 years.
While unemployment is now in decline and the proportion of unemployed people who have been out of work for more than six months is also decreasing, there can be no strong assurance of returning to the lower levels that prevailed before the mid-1970s. One reason is that in recent years new technology has changed the kind of jobs, skills and flexibility required in advanced countries. Another factor is the different attitude which has developed within families towards work since Beveridge's day. Clearly, a job is now seen far less as a career for life. And the man in the family is no longer assumed to be the only breadwinner.
If jobs themselves and attitudes towards them have altered, no doubt a principal task of government is to facilitate training in order to match work which is in demand. This is exactly what the TECs have set out to do. Many of us will agree that they have proved to be both effective and adaptable. As your Lordships are aware, a merger has been proposed between the Scottish qualifications authority and SCOTVEC. This should improve the scope within the Scottish education system for matching teaching and training to jobs in the labour market.
As regards in-work training itself, the current Workstart pilot schemes have undoubtedly alleviated long-term unemployment. Viewed in terms of current national statistics, that is encouraging. Such national figures suggest that of those who have reached two years of unemployment only about 50 per cent. leave within the next year. Your Lordships will be acquainted with the various tests used to assist with the evaluation of pilot projects and to arrive at a judgment on their relative merits. I shall not detain the House with the technicalities. Suffice it to say that, as regards the Workstart pilot projects, if they can be shown to have benefited the long-term unemployed, for that reason alone they must have proved their worth and thus deserve to be a model for further extension.
That brings me to the Government's future plans for in-work training. What modification of the current workstart projects may now be called for in order to improve employment prospects? Given the difficulties, as we know them to be, the Government have surely been wise to proceed cautiously and through pilot projects instead of imposing schemes nationwide too soon and without supporting evidence. Even within pilot projects themselves there is still a need to balance and restrict government intervention in order to obtain a true picture of cause and effect. However, if within a pilot scheme the Government choose to act as employer of last resort they can do so perfectly well without having to compete with other sectors. That was a central recommendation of the recent Employment Committee report of another place. In particular the committee recommended that the Government should experiment with combinations of the Workstart job subsidy programme and the WISE group's intermediate labour market to achieve the delivery of a nationwide

1893
programme of government-subsidised and government-funded employment for unemployed individuals with a high training element.
In view of that, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government are prepared to extend the existing pilot projects in this way and thus facilitate a right to work for the individual and social cohesion for his community?
7.6 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this week's national skills audit confirms that there is a tough training job to be done if we are to catch up with our competitors. With excellent timing the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asks the Government what they are doing to help with in-company training. He is right to concentrate on in-company training because, as numerous people have pointed out, large companies have the facilities to provide it, but small and medium-sized companies rarely do. Your Lordships are all well aware of the importance of encouraging and improving the performance of our small and medium-sized enterprises.
Every manager knows that to remain in business today companies have continuously to improve their products, services and understanding of their market. This same ethos of continuous improvement also applies to staff. The reason is simple. As business becomes more competitive so the demands on employees become greater. Nowadays shop-floor workers are expected to work without supervisors, and so they must learn some of the skills and attitudes needed to supervise themselves. They need to learn the skills of working in teams. There is now less clerical back-up, and so employees must become more numerate and better at record keeping.
These skills, which are necessary to work in a modern business, have to be acquired by training. The major contribution which the Government have made to in-company training in recent years has been the establishment of national vocational qualifications. These NVQs cover all aspects of work; manufacturing and services. Indeed, qualifications are available for some 85 per cent. of people at work.
However, the actual take-up has been disappointing. By the end of 1993 some half a million NVQs had been awarded. By the spring of 1996 this figure had reached 1 million, but this only represents about 5 per cent. of the working population. This seems to be confirmed by a survey carried out by the Institute of Manpower Studies in 1994, and reported in the CBI document Quality Assessed. I quote from page 14,
"only 5% of employers are using NVQs. This rises to 6% if organisations using only the underpinning occupational standards are also added."
By any measure that take-up is disappointing. What are the reasons for the low take-up and what can we do about it? First and foremost, it is because NVQs are simply a standard to be achieved. They do nothing about the means of achieving that standard. The emphasis is on the outcome and not the means of achieving the outcome. What employers are interested in is not only the standard, but how to achieve it and how to encourage
1894
staff to lift themselves to even higher standards of NVQ. However, it is expensive for employers to buy in this training, or to provide the day release for staff to go on courses. No doubt the Minister will tell us that it is the task of the local Training and Enterprise Councils to provide this training, but the figures show that the Government and the TECs have a tough selling job to do.
Away from large companies there is little understanding by employers and employees of the way the system works. A survey in March this year by the Institute of Directors reported that almost half the directors of SMEs do not even know what an NVQ is—and most of those who did, did not think the system was working well.
Among those who do know what an NVQ is, the consultancy services and training projects are not perceived as a partnership between government and business, but are rather perceived to be a compliance system which people have to go through in order to get the grant. It is a hoop through which a company has to jump. The Government must apply themselves to the task of changing that attitude towards training because training has to be far more spontaneous and perceived to be of mutual interest.
A further problem with the TECs is that they are variable. Certainly, some produce excellent training, but others do not. So the quality of training is a lottery depending on where you live. Because there is also inequality between the training provided by large companies and small and medium-sized companies, access to training becomes even more of a lottery. Equality of access is not only socially just, it is essential if we are to improve our nation's industrial performance.
One of Labour's main proposals to even out this inequality of access and to raise the level and quality of training is the university for industry. Broadly, this is the provision of learning and training material using modern, interactive, on-line information technology or CD-Roms. All the elements are available. BT and the cable companies are ready to provide the broadband network, and many colleges, universities and professional organisations are anxious to provide the software. Companies of all sizes wish to participate because the university for industry will provide training and learning in the employers' time or in the employees' time, thereby reducing costs and the need to attend courses off-site—and there is the additional benefit that it will encourage and enable firms to develop their own information technology skills. All the pieces of this jigsaw are there—what is needed is the will to fit them together.
Another task for the Government is to persuade companies of the financial benefits of training. The existing benefits and tax system helps employers to operate old equipment which requires low skill and little organisation. Low pay subsidised by the benefits system and long hours can make that profitable. It is competition which forces employers to invest in new equipment and better organisation and better management which demands more skill and versatility from the staff.

1895
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he would alter the tax and benefits system to encourage investment in training; how he will break down the barriers of perceptions so that the various schemes will be seen as partnerships and not as compliance; and how he will deliver the in-company training and learning necessary to upgrade our workforce and encourage people to take up NVQs from the present rather pathetic low level.
7.14 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl upon providing this opportunity to debate such an important subject. All training, particularly on-the-job or in-work training, is absolutely vital for all industries, but in my own industry, the hospitality industry, it is particularly important. In my current business, the payroll cost is in excess of 40 per cent. of turnover on an annualised basis and is therefore by far the largest cost we bear. Training is vital both for ensuring a continuous quality of product and for achieving maximum efficiency of operation.
I should like to touch briefly on three points. I turn first to a success. Without doubt, Investors in People, although not in itself a training mechanism, has been a great success. It relies heavily on training to achieve its objectives and consequently promotes it. Investors in People has been warmly embraced by the hospitality industry and is now established as a hallmark of businesses which genuinely believe in the importance of the human resource.
The first requirement of successful training is for the management of any business to have a clear understanding of its training needs so that it can develop a training plan. Investors in People, requiring as it does the establishment of objectives and a plan for the business, ensures that the business has a well-thought-through training plan.
Investors in People also requires management to establish effective communication with all levels in the workplace, which is another key ingredient for ensuring the success of training. Investors in People has therefore been extremely successful in the hospitality industry, and both the British Hospitality Association and the Hotel, Catering and Institutional Management Association, which represent respectively the establishments and the people within the industry, support it fully. The decision by many TECs throughout the country to use much of their funds in promoting Investors in People has been an extremely cost-effective method of maximising the training resource in work. I sincerely hope that they will continue to receive every encouragement from the Government to continue that.
Turning now to NVQs, the picture is less rosy, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said. Without doubt, the concept of providing a qualification to a nationally recognised standard through testing competence in the workplace is an extremely good one. Indeed, it enjoys support from both the CBI and the TUC, as well as many industry bodies. Colleges offer NVQs with great success. However, in the academic situation it should be
1896
noted that NVQs have only replaced other qualifications such as the old City and Guilds and, although the label has changed, the product is pretty much the same.
The concept of NVQs was to extend the ability to earn qualifications into the workplace and, as I have already said, it is a laudable concept. However, in practice in the workplace NVQs are simply not working. In our industry—I believe that this is the case in other industries also—they are too complicated, too bureaucratic and too expensive. Consequently, the very businesses which would benefit most from them, small businesses, are turned off by the work complexity and the cost of attempting to implement them. I can testify to that because that is exactly the decision that we have taken in my own business, although we have gone in for Investors in People.
That fundamental flaw has meant that the take-up of NVQs by businesses has been nowhere near what one would need for it to be counted as successful. I understand that the Beaumont Committee has suggested simplifications, but it is still the view of our industry that NVQs are fundamentally too complicated. I stress, however, that there is absolute support for the concept and objective, but a smoother and less costly mechanism is required for NVQs to become the success that they deserve to be.
I should like to make one final point on a slightly more general note. It is, I think, fairly well recognised—it is certainly alleged by many people—that the strongest influence in senior management in the United Kingdom comes from the accountancy profession. A great many of our chief executives in this country began their career by qualifying as accountants and have reached the top job having been finance director. That is in sharp contrast to what happens in other countries and other cultures, most notably the United States, where the predominant influence in achieving the role of chief executive officer is through a more general business education, such as an MBA.
As a result, there is quite a wide difference in management culture, since we tend to take a narrower cost control and return approach rather than a wider strategic planning and investment approach to the profitability of our businesses. Too often, training is seen as an easy line to cut in the budget when times are tough or the return has to be improved. Without doubt in the short term a cut in training can achieve that, but it also lowers the profitability of the business in the long term.
I greatly regretted it when the training levy was abolished in our industry, because it worked successfully in ensuring that there was continuity of training in businesses. Certainly in the hospitality industry I am constantly struck by the low overall management skills of middle and senior management. They are good at everything we teach them in terms of production, but in overall management and administration we are weak.
To try to help combat that in a small way, the Master Innholders, of which I am chairman, has created a scholarship for people in our industry to attend management colleges. I recently visited both Ashridge and Cranfield as part of that exercise.

1897
More than anything else, if we could find a method by which we could encourage companies, particularly those who would not normally consider training their senior and middle management, to invest in management education, then we would, I believe, make an enormous impact on levels of training undertaken in the workplace, as those managers would, first, understand the need and relevance of in-work training; and, secondly, have the knowledge and skill to implement it. It is always said:
"There is no such thing as a bad soldier, only bad officers".
One could well say the same for managers. Management education is fundamental to the economic success of all industries, and hence of the country. I very much hope the Government will look hard at what they can do in that area.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee for raising this important issue.
Before I begin my remarks, I must declare an interest as chairman of the Engineering Training Authority, the successor body to the Engineering Industry Training Board, which is now an independent employer-led charitable trust, and also as president of Metcom, the Mechanical and Metal Trades Confederation, which has a strong and active interest in work-based training. I receive a salary and a fee respectively from those appointments.
Many of us have read with great interest the conclusions of the recently published report by Sir Ron Dearing and his committee which reviewed the qualifications framework for 16 to 19 year-olds. Of particular relevance to this debate is the emphasis that Sir Ron gives to creating parity of esteem to bridge the perceived gap between academic and vocational qualifications, principally by ensuring parity of quality for the different qualification routes.
I listened with interest, and some surprise I must say, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I do not agree with him that NVQs are the failure that he seems to think. In the engineering industry at least—I confess that my experience is confined to that area—the take up is increasingly encouraging. Nor do I agree, I must confess, with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, about the inadequacy of the qualifications provided. They may be too difficult and too complicated for some industries, but the engineering industry, at least, facing as it does competition from competitors from around the world, has to ensure that its employees are of world standard. Reducing or keeping low the standard available through NVQs will not achieve that.
The timing of our debate this afternoon means that none of us has yet had a chance to study the Government's third competitiveness White Paper, which was published today and which we know contains some valuable information on international skills benchmarking. It was however very clear from the earlier competitiveness White Papers that training, and in particular work-based training, is one of the 10 critical key areas to which our industries must pay
1898
attention if we are to improve the underlying performance and competitiveness of United Kingdom industry.
Engineering is, of course, an industry with a proud tradition in work-based training stretching back at least to the late 18th century, but over the past 20 years or so, the industry has undergone some profound structural changes which have had an inevitable influence on the work-based training scene.
Overall, the number of people employed in engineering manufacturing has almost halved since 1980 from about 3 million to close on 1.6 million. But overall output is about the same as it was in 1980. In essence, large productivity gains have been made, which have closed the productivity gap between the UK and our main competitors but have not yet eliminated it.
Much of the contraction is the result of voluntary redundancy at the upper end of the age profile, and we have seen the average age of the workforce in engineering fall from about 51 years to 39 years or thereabouts.
Technological changes have also altered the skills needs of employers, who nowadays need a workforce which is at once flexible, responsive and multiskilled.
With the significant rise in young people staying on in full-time education past 16, we have seen the expectations of some employers change. Many have been tempted to turn away from the traditional work-based apprenticeship and instead to recruit young people directly from the further education colleges. That trend has, in part, been driven by funding considerations.
The public funding provided to companies via the training and enterprise councils varies from place to place, but is on average just under half that provided for similar training leading to an identical NVQ level 3 qualification via an FEFC-funded establishment.
To train an engineering apprentice costs an employer anything from £26,000 to, say, £40,000, depending upon the type of training provided. The maximum funding available from the local TEC to help with that training would be about £7,000 and can often be much less.
The largest cost of engineering apprentice training comes during the foundation period at the beginning of the training, but most of the TEC funding is output related and therefore comes at the end. Thus, if a trainee discontinues his training before he qualifies, the training provider may receive only a tiny fraction of the costs incurred. I must say plainly to my noble friend that that is a major barrier when trying to convince engineering employers to commit to work-based training.
That is not to say that there are not some bright spots. The engineering modern apprenticeship, which has been developed by employers for employers, is finding increasing acceptance and is fulfilling a real need by encouraging talented young people into the profession via a work-based route.
Early next month I shall be speaking in Cardiff at one of a series of regional conferences that are being organised under the auspices of the Action For

1899
Engineering initiative which was established by my right honourable friend, the then President of the Board of Trade, Michael Heseltine, in 1994.
My right honourable friend set up six specialist task forces to spearhead the initiative and one of those, Task Force 3, was charged with improving the skills and numbers of employees in the engineering industry qualifying at intermediate levels as technicians, craftsmen/women, team leaders and supervisors.
Study of best practice by the task force in engineering enterprises of all sizes has confirmed that those enterprises which are prepared to commit resources and to invest in work-based training are more successful than others in their peer group and also that they are more competitive internationally.
Most of the successful enterprises have made a commitment to the Investors in People national standard, to which reference has been made. This sets a level of good practice for the continuous development of people in the workforce throughout their whole working life to improve the performance of the business.
The main output of the Action for Engineering Task Force 3, which I shall be supporting in Cardiff, will be to throw down a challenge to engineering employers to invest in certain minimum levels of commitment for the training of their new recruits and for the continuous development of their adult workforce.
Companies in all sectors in the United Kingdom are facing an increasingly competitive environment. Emerging nations are achieving rapid growth rates. Advances in technology are opening new markets and transforming existing industries. Those challenges present opportunities to those who seize them and threats to those who do not.
Work-based training is only one of the factors which needs to be addressed within this overall picture, but it is an important one and one which will, if tackled properly, provide a focus for improving the competitiveness and productivity of our workforce, our industry and our country.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I too declare an interest in that I am chairman of the lead body for administration. Like the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I am not prepared to say that the development of NVQs has been so unsuccessful, as suggested by other speakers. The administration lead body has sold a large number of standards. We have been approached, for example, by overseas countries which want to find out more about our standards and to buy them.
I do not believe that anyone will accuse me of being inclined to load praise on the Government Front Bench. I find that a very unusual position to be in. However, the Government must be congratulated on their attempt to tackle the fundamental weakness in the British economy; that is, the gross under-training of people throughout the economy. The imagination in setting up the whole NVQ scheme and supporting it is to be praised, as is the Government's introduction of the new
1900
apprenticeship scheme. That is linked in many interesting ways with the work of the NVQs; the two are closely related.
I suspect that the public as a whole, even Members of your Lordships' House, have not realised what a vast undertaking it is. Is it really understood that the proposal under the NVQ scheme is that every single job in this country should have an accepted standard as a qualification and that that should be done at five levels, starting from the lowest to the professional qualifications. That is a huge and ambitious scheme. It is entirely satisfactory and the Government are to be much admired for taking it on.
However, we must not believe that it will be easily fulfilled. Those of us who are close to the work are most anxious that the Government should continue to back the scheme until the good work that has already been done reaches fulfilment. It is not in the least surprising that there are many understandable and correct criticisms about the way in which NVQs have been developed and the standards that have been produced. The Beaumont Report, while approving of NVQs, pointed out a number of deficiencies. Those deficiencies require a great deal of work if they are to be overcome. Although a certain stage in the NVQ development has been reached, I hope that the Government will not limit their support. That would be an extremely foolish economy because a great deal of money has been given to the development of the scheme. That money has been well spent but the job is not finished. To cut back on resources would be a folly of the first order.
There are a number of things which need to be done. Of considerable importance is the fact, as Beaumont pointed out, that the way in which we are to achieve the proper understanding and knowledge which must underlie the acquisition of skills has not yet been worked out. How can that be introduced into the NVQ scheme and how can it be assessed? It is vital that that knowledge and understanding should be a totally satisfactory part of the NVQ scheme, not just because knowledge and understanding are good things, which obviously they are, but because in the modern labour market and in the modern economy few jobs remain stationary.
Jobs are no longer cast in concrete, if they ever were. A particular job in respect of which someone will be tested for an NVQ will in all probability no longer exist in two or three years' time. The person carrying out the job will have to move on to something else. That may be closely related to what he has been doing but he will not be able to make the transfer, which is an essential part of operating a modern economy, unless he has adequate knowledge and understanding. Without that a great deal of money that is being spent on the NVQ scheme will be wasted because of the speed with which jobs change.
Other weaknesses have also been identified. I agree that there is too much jargon. Every occupation has its jargon; everyone uses it but accuses other people of using jargon and not taking the trouble to use the proper language in which things are described. However, I believe that there could be a great deal of simplification.

1901
The standards are and have been expensive to produce. The Government have put a great deal of money into the scheme. There is no reason why, as it is raising the level of skills and knowledge inside industry to the benefit of employers, someone should not pay a reasonable amount for the use of the standards which have been so laboriously, expertly and expensively developed. There is a danger that the Government will believe that they have spent a great deal of money and that it is about time the scheme paid for itself. There is a fear that there will be cutbacks which will undermine the good work that has already been done.
I wish to make a point that is unconnected with NVQs, although there are problems at the higher levels. A benefit of the NVQs is that they are forcing the jungle of professional qualifications at the middle and higher levels in industry to be sorted out and to become better related one to the other. That is highly desirable, but the process is by no means complete. We need more time and resources to ensure that that is properly carried out.
I turn to a point that I have made in your Lordships' House on previous occasions and one which I put to Sir Ron Dearing who was not uninterested. We are deeply troubled about youth unemployment; about the large number of youngsters between 16 and 18 who have no jobs. Because they have no jobs they have no training. I shall not recite the gloomy tale of what happens to so many of those unemployed, untrained youngsters. The recommendation increasingly in the political programmes of all parties is that there should be daytime release for youngsters to receive education and training.
A few years ago I operated a scheme which was so simple that perhaps people did not realise how easy and beneficial it was. It was done in the company for which I worked. For each job carried out by a school-leaver two were taken on. Half the day was spent at work and the other half in training and education. As 16 to 18 year-olds receive no benefit, the fact that they would not be earning high wages should not be a disincentive. However, if one takes on two school-leavers for each job one makes a sizeable contribution towards reducing the number of school-leavers out of work. One also ensures that by spending half the time at work—many youngsters learn better when they are in work—and half in training one is developing people who have the right kind of training related to work. That means something to them during the crucial years when they should be learning but when a great many of them are not. I should like the opportunity to talk to the Minister about the matter, but I beg the Government to consider such schemes. They would not be expensive and I believe that they would make a great deal of difference.
Finally, I wish to revert to another aspect of NVQs. As I have said, I do not often find myself singing hymns in praise of government departments. However, as regards the development of NVQs I believe that the collaboration between the Department for Education and Employment and the headquarters of NVQs has been extremely beneficial. It is a difficult area to develop and all of us are feeling our way. We do not know the answers; we are experimenting. The advantage of having two authoritative bodies which can rub their
1902
minds together and can check one another is of the greatest importance. I hope that the department will keep its interest in and control over the developments.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Earl for introducing a debate on this important subject of on-the-job training and I should like to express my appreciation to him.
Britain's record in skills training is not a good one. The OECD says that Britain has a skills deficit with other developed countries. Seven million working people in Britain today have no qualifications at all and those with fewer formal educational qualifications are much less likely to receive training than those who already have qualifications. People in small firms, in particular, have fewer opportunities for training than those working in larger companies, and several noble Lords referred to that.
We have seen over the last 20 years the decline of the old apprenticeship training. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to that. That has disappeared, along with much of heavy manufacturing industry and it was at one time the main route to the acquisition of skills for many people from poorer backgrounds—mainly young men, of course, about whom there is now much concern, since so many are without employment or the prospect of it.
The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board has maintained apprenticeship schemes and, indeed, it and the Construction Industry Training Board are much to be commended for the work they have done and continue to do in the training field.
I was for many years a supporter of ITBs. I still believe that the CITB and the ECITB do a very good job—supported by both employers and trade unions—and I have argued, whenever regulations concerning them come before this House, for their retention. The Government have so far agreed to this, although there is still not a commitment to their continued existence.
The grant and levy system by which they are sustained nevertheless does have some flaws. There are exemptions for small firms. I am quite prepared to accept that the ITB system may no longer be adequate in the light of the changing shape of industry and of working patterns, but certainly those two boards should be retained. My union—the MSF—recently undertook a survey, jointly with the University of Leeds, among its own members to ascertain their experience of vocational training. It must be remembered that this was a survey among white-collar employees of a reasonable educational standard. Nevertheless, some deficiencies were revealed. Although the majority of the respondents had received some form of training since joining their present employer, only about 22 per cent. were currently receiving training. Where training was received, it was typically of very short duration; that is, fewer than three days. Only in a relatively small number of cases-30 per cent.—had the training resulted in the award of a recognised qualification, and while 66 per cent. of the

1903
respondents had heard of national vocational qualifications, only 6 per cent. had been given the chance to train for an NVQ.
It is clear that ways must be found to encourage employers who do not provide training to do so, or who do not participate in TEC schemes to do so and to provide the necessary training themselves. It is no longer acceptable that firms who do not train should get by through poaching employees from firms who do train. This is important, not only for the general success of industry and commerce in this country, but also as an attack upon the problem of unemployment.
Individuals also must be motivated to improve the skills they already have. As everyone knows, we now live in an economy which is increasingly globalised. We have no hope of competing with newly developing countries in the Far East on the basis of a low-wage economy. We cannot hope to undercut them by developing a sweated labour force nor should we wish to do so. We have to become and remain a high wage, high tech, high quality economy and the development of a highly skilled workforce is a part of this. We have to equip people to cope with change. Only if we do so can we hope to overcome the deep sense of insecurity which affects large parts of the workforce—in industry and commerce and services.
This lack of security is the cause of the "feel bad" factor since even those in employment wonder just how secure that employment is and whether they will have it next year. This undoubtedly leads to stress with all that can mean in terms of sickness, lack of consumer confidence and even marriage breakdown.
Running an economy on these lines may produce some short-term advantages but they are essentially ephemeral. The "flexibility" which the Government advocate and which has been adopted by so many firms tends to militate against good on-the-job training, since what is the point of an employer bothering to train someone who is on a short-term contract? Neglect of long-term perspectives has led to our present situation, which is far less happy than government spokespersons would have us believe. In fact, we continue to have a serious employment problem, particularly among men, and particularly in areas where there was once heavy industry and most of the new employment created has been part-time, among women, and low-paid.
There have however been a number of government initiatives which have been worth while and upon which we should build. There is the NVQ system under which people may attain continually improving levels of skills and the Investors-in-People initiative. However, far too few small employers participate and the NVQ system needs to be developed so that participants have the opportunity to develop portable skills.
Small enterprises are important wealth creators and employers of labour. There ought to be a suitable statutory framework to encourage them to provide both on the job and off the job training. Six out of 10 small firms have no contact at all with their local TEC. Somehow they have to be persuaded that training is in their interest: it produces greater staff commitment, and
1904
therefore less absenteeism, less wastage and fewer accidents. I do not know whether the possibility of encouragement through the tax or national insurance system has been considered, but it might be an idea. My noble friend Lord Haskel mentioned that. In larger firms, where there is trade union recognition, there have been a number of innovative schemes in which unions have participated. Some unions, including my own, have been entering into training agreements with managements because they rightly see that this is just as important, perhaps even more so, to their members as the next wage round. Pilot schemes have also been introduced by some TECs to promote individual training.
My own party is developing the idea of individual learning accounts from which employees could pay for accredited courses to develop portable skills. In this way the Government could encourage individuals to take charge of their own career development and employers could be encouraged to participate and perhaps to contribute.
It is clear that it is in all our interests to develop innovatory ways of persuading both employers and employees to undertake and maintain continuous skills training. I thank the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity this evening to debate this important topic and await with interest the response of the Government.
7.49 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate. I hope that in the short time available, I shall be able to deal with some of the points which have been raised and assure the House of the Government's commitment to a well-educated and well-trained workforce, which we believe is absolutely crucial to this country's competitiveness.
I referred to a well-educated and well-trained workforce. I make no apology for mentioning education and training because that is very much the reality behind the merger of the former Department of Employment and the Department for Education to form the new department. I believe that that merger has brought a whole new coherence to the concept of lifetime learning from nursery education, which we shall discuss on Monday, right through to adult education.
As I said, we believe very strongly in training, and I intend to deal with that in due course. But it may help if I start with the point made by my noble friend about the Workstart project and the pilot schemes in that field. I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House that the Employment Committee in another place thought very highly of that initiative, as does my noble friend.
The Government have operated Workstart pilots to see whether such a selective approach can help the very long-term unemployed into work without inefficiency and the distortionary effect associated with the more general employment subsidies, which I suspect would be welcomed by the party opposite. It remains the Government's view that employment subsidies may

1905
have a place in whole menu of opportunities, particularly for the long-term unemployed. We shall make a decision on the future of the workstart project based on the evaluation of the pilot schemes.
My noble friend asked whether we would consider other pilots. Obviously, I have to say yes. That is the point behind the experiment and why we would like to continue to try other methods as appropriate. Certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made some most interesting suggestions. Indeed, I would be most happy to look at them in due course should she wish me to do so. However, I am sure the noble Baroness understands that, with the constraints of time which apply this evening, it will be very difficult for me to deal with them more fully at present.
As I said, we believe strongly in the importance of training and, particularly, in-work training. However, the employers must have the lead responsibility. It is they who very much know what their skill needs are; it is they who know their business needs; and, indeed, it is they who know their competitive needs.
The Government will continue to invest in training, as they always have done. But their prime role must be to give leadership and strategic direction and guidance. That is what I believe we have done. At a national level we have put in place the qualifications framework about which many noble Lords spoke. I am especially grateful for the welcome that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne gave to NVQs and even more grateful for the welcome—even if I was somewhat surprised by it—from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. With NVQs I believe that we have benchmarks against which we can measure performance—that is, national targets. However, we do need to involve business, as I believe the noble Baroness, will accept, at all stages. Again, I believe that we have done so.
We fully support the national education and training targets devised by the CBI. We have supported the setting up of NVQs and we have encouraged the Investors in People initiative, mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to which I shall refer in due course. I accept that the targets are tough, but I believe that they need to be tough if we are to compete in the future.
Again, as other speakers mentioned, today we published the skills audit results which highlighted areas where, obviously, further improvement is needed. The targets help us to know where we are. However, for the targets to be meaningful, we need measurements. For education we have the examination results and for training we have both the NVQs and the GNVQs that fit somewhere between the more academic qualifications and the NVQs.
I accept that a number of criticisms have been made of NVQs. That is why we believe that their reform is central to our whole United Kingdom training strategy. I believe that that reform is working. Something over 1 million NVQs have now been awarded, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made clear. There are now 840 NVQs—possibly too many in some areas because I believe that there is a good deal of overlap—which cover about 88 per cent., not 85 per cent., if I may
1906
correct the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, of the workforce. As I believe many speakers made clear, employers like them and are using them. Overseen by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, a business led organisation, I believe that they have cut through the jungle of myriads of qualifications that we had before.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made quite clear, we have reviewed the most frequently used NVQs. That was the Beaumont Review of what we initially called the top 100 NVQs. That is a major strand of the measures to improve the quality, rigour and take-up of NVQs. I am most grateful for the work that Gordon Beaumont undertook in that review. I believe that we could have a whole debate—indeed, a whole day's debate—on what Gordon Beaumont reported and what the likely responses ought to be.
Despite the wide approach adopted and the diversity of perspectives, the findings are remarkably consistent. There is widespread support for NVQs generally and the specific benefits that have resulted. I believe that the findings—and, indeed, the review does highlight a number of weaknesses, as many speakers made clear; and I accept that there are those weaknesses—will help us to strengthen their effectiveness, particularly through simplification (much was made of excessive bureaucracy and jargon) and clearer specifications. In due course, I hope that that will lead to increased coverage and take up.
Obviously I should like to say a great deal more about the success of NVQs; indeed, I could recite a whole number of different cases from different companies in different sectors to show just how much they have done to improve the motivation of their workforce by improved productivity, and so on. However, I am short of time tonight and cannot go into that aspect of the matter. But, as I said, that might be the subject for another debate.
I move on to the training and enterprise councils. I believe that they have been a great success. It is hard to believe that the first one was set up only five years ago. They are now fully accepted, fully efficient private sector organisations that actually do deliver, as I believe my noble friend Lord Trefgarne made clear. Overseen by the TEC National Council and led by top local businessmen, they are the Government's key private sector partners in delivering training in the regions. They are critical to the regeneration and economic development of the community. Sensible but effective financial controls and licensing mean that the TECs provide value for money. I think that I can say that they are very much the Government's training champion at a local level.
The Government are keen to ensure that the resources they devote to training are well spent. That is why they target assistance. They target the long-term unemployed through Training for Work which helps about 200,000 people annually, and they target young people. Again, I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about the importance of improving the levels of unemployment among young people. I accept that they are high; indeed, the figures stand at some 15 per cent. However, I must make the brief political point that, if

1907
we went down the line suggested by the party opposite of signing up to the social chapter and a minimum wage, as likely as not we would see those figures rising to levels that we see in France of some 27 per cent., in Italy of some 36 per cent. and, indeed, in Spain of 39 per cent. I am just reminding the noble Baroness of those figures—
Baroness Turner of Camden: There is no time to interrupt!
Lord Henley: My Lords, noble Lords may think that I am going on too long, but I believe that I do indeed have 12 minutes and I shall continue as I wish.
As I made quite clear, we believe that employers have the lead responsibility for in-work training, but we also believe that we should encourage this—that is what I want to get across to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—through the Investors in People initiative. It is logical that a company's most important assets are its people. It is logical that we should properly develop those people. It is logical that such people will contribute more fully to the company if they are committed. If they are committed, it is because the company cares. In that type of environment the business prospers.
That culture, which after all is only common sense, has produced tangible results, such as greater customer satisfaction, increased profits and generally more effective working of a company's staff and its business. That is why the Government spend about £50 million per annum. I believe that the results are very good indeed. We now have about 21,000 organisations employing 5 million employees who are committed to that very exacting standard.
I believe that that should apply to all businesses, whether large or small. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned small businesses. We know that small businesses need extra help to develop their workforce. Obviously training can be very expensive in terms of time. A simple equation used by some is that time for training equals production time lost. I believe that to be a mistake, short-sighted and wrong. But the competitiveness White Papers have very much addressed that problem. That is why we introduced the Skills for Small Businesses initiative. That is why we conceived the Skills Challenge—a fund for small businesses; and, indeed, why we have small firms training loans.
Many thousands of small businesses have been helped to develop in-work training in that way. Only today, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Government published their response to the points raised from the "Your Business Matters" regional conferences, organised and facilitated by the Government, where small businesses were able to articulate their concerns. We have listened to those concerns and we will certainly act upon the points that were made.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we also believe in the culture of life-long learning. It sees vocational training as an equally valued route for young people into the world of work. A learning culture inculcated in young people will, I believe, last into
1908
adulthood. Training is a means for the individual to reach full potential and for a business to prosper. Again, that is why we have looked critically at the education and training needs of our young people. That is also why we have asked Sir Ron Dearing to look at the routes to the world of work and the qualification structure for the 14 to 19 age group. Indeed, that was also mentioned by my noble friend, and, again, that is why we have introduced modern apprenticeships, which were praised by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We have committed much money to that and I believe we are making a great deal of progress. We already expect to see the number of young people gaining NVQs at level 3 to increase to over 60,000 a year through the modern apprenticeship movement.
Today is a significant day. We have seen the publication of our third competitiveness White Paper. We have seen the skills audit and the Government response to the "Your Business Matters" conferences. All of those had one thing in common—the need to make the best use of our most valuable resource, our people. I believe that the economy is healthy and the country is healthy and that we are now competing with our global rivals. The Government know that to maintain our position we must have a well-educated and well-trained workforce. We are fostering the reality of lifetime learning—as I said at the beginning—from nursery vouchers into adulthood. A key component of that will always be in-work training—a component recognised, encouraged and acted upon by this Government.

Housing Bill
8.1 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 78 [Restriction on termination of tenancy for failure to pay service charge]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 242K:
Page 50, line 37, at end insert—
("() The reference in subsection (1) to premises let as a dwelling does not include premises let on—

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

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

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

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 242K I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 242L and 242M. At last we come to some amendments on which we are totally in agreement. These measures are designed to improve tenants' rights to challenge unreasonable service charges. Many Members of the Committee will be aware of the increasing concern over recent months about a minority of landlords who exploit

1909
their position to levy excessive service charges. The measures in Chapter I of Part III are designed to curb these abuses.
One of the techniques used by these landlords is to exercise the right of forfeiture as soon as any dispute arises. This intimidates leaseholders into paying service charges even when they are excessive. Forfeiture is an important weapon of last resort for landlords to make sure that service charge contributions can be collected and buildings can therefore be insured and maintained. But it should be a last resort. Unfortunately, some landlords use this weapon even while a leaseholder may be seeking to challenge whether a service charge is reasonable.
In practice landlords very rarely obtain forfeiture. If the leaseholder is properly advised, it is possible to resist forfeiture and also to dispute service charges. But many leaseholders may be intimidated into paying up by the mere thought that they may lose their home to the landlord, even though in practice that is unlikely. Clause 78 therefore provides a new arrangement. Landlords will only be able to proceed to forfeiture once it has been established that a service charge is lawfully due. That may be done either by the leaseholder admitting that the sum is due or by the landlord obtaining a court judgment that it is due. So if the leaseholder wishes to fight, he will be able to do so before the court or before the leasehold valuation tribunal purely on the basis of a dispute about the service charge rather than one on the basis of a forfeiture action.
It is the Government's intention that the procedure should apply to residential flats and houses. Although the clause refers to, "premises let as a dwelling", there is some concern that that may not be sufficiently precise. Amendment No. 242K therefore makes it clear that the change applies only to residential tenancies and not to business or agricultural lettings. Those regimes have always been separate and distinctive from the regime applying to residential tenancies, and it is important to clarify that the provisions in the Bill have no impact in those sectors.
Subsection (5) of Clause 78 requires that any landlord serving the statutory notice often required before seeking forfeiture—known colloquially as a Section 146 notice—should make clear that the landlord cannot begin forfeiture until the liability to pay the service charge has been established. Otherwise some landlords might seek to intimidate leaseholders with Section 146 notices implying that forfeiture is imminent. Unless the tenants know better, they might be paying up even where they have a legitimate case. But there was some concern in another place that landlords might do this in obscure or legalistic language. The Government are therefore taking a power for the Secretary of State to prescribe a form of words to be used if that proves necessary or if it seems there would be advantage in having a standard form of words. Amendments Nos. 242L and 242M achieve this. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: In principle I support any amendments which safeguard the rights of tenants; that is, people occupying their flats. However, I wish to raise a specific issue on Amendment No. 242M. The amendment states:
1910
"The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a form of words"
in order that proper notice is given. That provision is quite reasonable but I am concerned about subsection (4) of the proposed new clause which states:
"The information or words required must be in characters not less conspicuous than those used in any other part of the notice".
I appreciate that we do not normally obtain such detail in legislation as regards pieces of paper. However, there is a certain ambiguity here in that we could be talking about a small footnote printed in a small typeface. Therefore the information or words might not be more conspicuous in a footnote. I wonder whether the Minister can find some way to tighten up the wording so as to achieve fully the laudable aim he described.
Lord Lucas: I am delighted that the noble Lord supports the aim of these amendments. I shall certainly examine the point he made about Amendment No. 242M. I shall look at the wording, if I may, at leisure to see whether I can either give some comfort that the words mean what the noble Lord and I think they should mean, or, if an amendment is necessary, bring that forward on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 242L:
Page 51, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 242M:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause—
NOTICE UNDER s.146 OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
(".—(1) Nothing in section 78 (restriction on termination of tenancy for failure to pay service charge) affects the power of a landlord to serve a notice under section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (restrictions on and relief against forfeiture: notice of breach of covenant or condition).
(2) But such a notice in respect of premises let as a dwelling and failure to pay a service charge is ineffective unless it complies with the following requirements.
(3) It must state that section 78 applies and set out the effect of subsection (1) of that section.
The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a form of words to be used for that purpose.
(4) The information or words required must be in characters not less conspicuous than those used in any other part of the notice.
(5) In this section "premises let as a dwelling" and "service charge" have the same meaning as in section 78.
(6) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) may make different provision for different cases or classes of case including different areas.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Determination of reasonableness of service charges]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 52, leave out lines 32 to 47 and insert—
("() The power to make regulations under section 74(1)(b) of the Rent Act 1977 (procedure of rent assessment committees) extends to prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with any proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Act.

1911
() Such regulations may, in particular, make provision—

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

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

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 243 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 244, 245, 246ZA, 247 and 248. This group of amendments is concerned with establishing procedures which leasehold valuation tribunals (LVTs) should follow when dealing with service charge disputes and applications for the appointment of a manager. Amendment No. 243 will allow the procedural rules for LVTs to secure consistency in handling separate cases about the same issue. For example, if a number of tenants in a block challenge the same service charge it may be convenient to join the separate cases or to select one as representative of the class. If a case has previously been decided on the same point and no new evidence is available, the LVT will want to give a summary judgment.
The second element of Amendment No. 243 will allow LVTs to strike out frivolous or vexatious cases or those which are an abuse of process. The provision is aimed equally at landlords and tenants. The Committee will be familiar with the chronically litigious person who is out of step with all his neighbours. On the other hand, the unscrupulous landlords at which our reforms are aimed are quite capable of attempting to wear down their tenants by taking all disputes to adjudication. The LVTs will be able to throw out such cases if they are an abuse of process.
Clause 79 already allows LVTs to order that one party to an action must reimburse the fee to the other. Amendment No. 245 allows the LVT to order that only part of the fee should be reimbursed. For example, there may be a dispute where the landlord has asked for service charges of, say, £5,000, prompting the tenants to apply for a determination, maintaining that only £3,000 is reasonable.
If the LVT decides that the correct figure is £4,000, it may well wish to order that half the fee should be reimbursed to the tenants. Without this amendment it would be all or nothing.
Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 parallel the provisions of Amendments Nos. 243 and 245 for the application to the LVT for the appointment of a manager under Clause 81.
I now turn to Amendment No. 246ZA, and its consequential amendment, Amendment No. 244. Service charge disputes are likely to arise both in the county court as well as the LVT. A common scenario may be that the tenants dispute their service charges as part of a wider dispute with their landlord. The landlord, unable, because of the provisions of Clause 78, to threaten them with forfeiture for their alleged breach of covenant, starts a county court action for the recovery of the debt. The court can remit the determination of the reasonableness of the service charge to the LVT, but it
1912
may be that only part of the service charge is in dispute. It is possible that the painting of the window frames is agreed but the roof repairs are contentious.
Amendment No. 246ZA will allow the court to refer the contentious items to the LVT and to dispose of the rest, enforcing the tenants' obligation to pay the amount which is not in dispute to the landlord. This means that one contentious item will not hold up a decision on the rest. The LVT's determination may then be enforced by the court as if it were its own order. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I particularly welcome Amendment No. 243 regarding the right to dismiss a frivolous or vexatious application. I sit on industrial tribunals. We did not have that power until the last employment Act. It was quite remarkable how many vexatious people turned up. I was told that it involved probably only about half a dozen people in the whole country, but that had a remarkable effect. I am, therefore, pleased about that provision.
I understand that under paragraph (c) of new section (2A) of Clause 79, an application may be made to the tribunal as to,
"whether an amount payable before costs are incurred is reasonable".
Under that provision could a landlord apply to set up a sinking fund for a building? In Australia that is a very common process. A block of flats may have what is called a sinking fund. Every year people pay a small amount into that fund. When a roof or a major repair is suddenly sprung upon the tenant, there are at least already some funds earning interest in hand for the tenants' benefit. That is rather better than suddenly finding oneself faced with an enormous Bill.
If the Minister cannot answer now, I shall be pleased to have the answer to this question in a letter. If the lease does not so specify, can a landlord still go to a tribunal to make such an application? I am not clear whether there is any power in the Bill for that application. It is an interesting point to consider.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may inquire of the Minister about the frivolous and vexatious applicant. Presumably the leasehold valuation tribunal will itself determine that issue. The applicant may think that it is an important issue. It may be a matter of judgment. Does the applicant have any right of appeal against that decision of the LVT? I presume that he would. It would be nice if the Minister will confirm that point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In the case of an industrial tribunal, the applicant can apply to the court. Even if he has been ruled a vexatious litigant, that does not prevent him bringing a genuine case. He can make an application to the court in order to have the right to go to the tribunal. But he cannot routinely put in dozens of applications to the tribunal. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether the position is the same under the Bill.
Lord Lucas: Some things the Minister would be interested to hear too!

1913
As regards my noble friend's question about the sinking fund, that will be only if the lease allows it, and then only to the extent that the amounts are reasonable.
As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, so far as I know my noble friend is right. There is always a right of appeal from LVTs to the court. It is the normal appeal mechanism that one would expect from such tribunals. We would expect the LVT to hear the tenant before ruling on whether or not he was a vexatious litigant.
Lord Dubs: I would have asked a question on the same point. However, the Minister more or less answered it. I fully understand that there is merit in not wasting time on frivolous or vexatious applications. On the other hand, there is always a danger once in a while that an application which seems on the face of it to be frivolous or vexatious has substance to it. However, the person putting forward the application may not express it so fluently that it seems a sound application. One has to be careful that there are safeguards. One does not want more work for the courts because the LVT has declared the litigant to be vexatious. The courts then have to do more work than the tribunal. That would not be the best way forward.
Having said that, I should like to study in Hansard tomorrow what the Minister said. If necessary, we shall have the possibility to return to the matter on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 53, line 3, leave out from ("court") to end of line 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Selsdon Lord Selsdon moved Amendment No. 244A:
Page 53, line 5, at end insert ("except as provided in section 31D").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 244B and 246A which also stand in my name.
The amendments are designed to prevent vexation. They refer to Clause 79 which provides that leasehold valuation tribunals will have a power to settle service charge disputes. Service charges are the bane of everyone's life—landlords and tenants. They are not perfect. There is so much room for misunderstanding. Those charges cause tremendous fear and aggravation if they are not planned in advance and suddenly on the desk or at the home of a tenant appears a large bill for decoration.
This means that where a lessee believes that his service charge is excessive, as the Government have already declared, he may challenge it through the tribunal without the threat that his lease will be forfeited. That is good. This new procedure was introduced by the Government in response to the actions of a small number of landlords who had been levying inflated service charges, pursuing the collection of those charges aggressively through the courts, all the while threatening
1914
forfeiture of the lessee's lease. Under the Government's amendments I hope that this will not be possible in the future.
However, the aggravation does not necessarily end there. There are problems in the general trend. My amendments relate to the landlord's costs under the new procedure. A landlord is not necessarily a titled lord with large land. Essentially "landlord" means whoever is responsible for collecting the service charge. I believe that we all agree that the right to manage, the freedom to manage, the right to be nearer to the decision-making process in relation to one's own house or flat, is good. But that brings with it certain problems.
The term "landlord" essentially involves those who collect the service charge. It may cover, for example, the traditional freeholder, whom to some extent we have been attacking today as a landlord. It may cover the head lessee of a long leasehold property. It could also encompass a management company which may be set up by tenants in a building to manage and run their own block, where the lessees themselves own the freehold.
Finally, if commonhold is introduced—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to it in Second Reading; I support him; and the Minister said that we all believe in it—then commonhold and the management of it would also be covered. Under the new procedures it is not simply a question of collecting the service charges. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out that there are good and bad landlords. Under my definition of "landlord" there will still be good and bad landlords. But there are also good and bad tenants. There are absentee tenants. For example, under a head lease there may be a requirement to paint a building every four years to keep things up to standard.
I speak more of London than of anywhere else. We all know that one of the benefits of London is that there have been good managers where buildings have been painted and maintained on time. If the management falls down, there is a major problem. Often management can fall down when there is a shortage of money. Arguments arise in blocks of flats where six or eight people live, two of them abroad. A requirement to repaint that building every four years may exist but someone says that it does not need painting, "It took a long time to paint it and we are not prepared to repaint it". Someone else may say: "I live on the ground floor. Why should I pay for the lift to be maintained or the entry phone?" Often people who are ill-informed cannot understand the justice of service charges where they are required to pay for things that they think are not correct.
There is inefficient management but my worry is where there is a shortage of money. Under the new procedure, there are two elements of cost. First, the applicant to the tribunal must pay an application fee. Secondly, the parties to the hearing may need to employ solicitors or expert witnesses to present their case. In respect of the first cost, the application fee, the tribunal will have discretion and may make an award.
However, with regard to the other costs, the legal costs, the tribunal is specifically prohibited by the Bill from making an award. Therefore, if the lease does not allow legal costs to be collected through the service

1915
charge—and I gather that almost half the leases say that legal fees can be collected through service charges and the other half say that they cannot—the majority of the costs will be unrecoverable. That could cause problems for landlords of all types in collecting properly due service charges, particularly if the landlord as manager lacks resources and has to rely on the cash flow paid under service charges, many of which are late, and if he does not have a sinking fund.
There is a certain unfairness on the other side. When a lease requires that all costs are borne by the service charges if the freehold or head lessor takes action against a particular tenant for not paying his bills, it is extremely unfair that if there are six or eight tenants in a block and two have defaulted, the costs that those tenants incur in terms of legal fees should be spread across the rest of the tenants. When they took on their lease they might not have understood or appreciated that.
When people feel someone else is paying the legal bills, they do not worry, they let the lawyers get on with it. The lawyers are relatively slow because they know they will be paid in the end. As we know, legal fees can make an enormous dent in service charges if there is litigation due to one tenant who has behaved badly. That is the case for the other side.
My amendments deal with the landlord. It may well be that they should deal with the tenant as well, but I am in an embarrassing situation. I declared my interests on Second Reading and perhaps I should declare them again. I am a landlord, reluctantly, because when we got together to buy a head lease, I ended up holding the head lease. I have to manage the apartment and I cannot tell the Committee the problems when Mrs. So-and-so's washing machine leaks and causes damage on floors below and someone says that the insurance should pay. It is illuminating. However, at the other end of the scale, I am a tenant and own a lease of one of the great estates in London. If I put down an amendment to the effect that if I were to take action against that great estate, my legal costs should be recoverable, it would probably be immoral. Members of the Committee from the other Benches might suggest that, they seem to support the tenant more often than the landlord and I would support them.
The problem would be particularly acute for lessee-owned management companies which have no significant independent resources on which to draw. It is difficult to see, therefore, how they can manage their blocks efficiently in the future—I am not talking about today—using the Government's new procedures as drafted. For example, they might run out of money. Also, one must accept that some may not be efficient but, with the best will in the world, they will try to do what they can. If they are short of money, they will not be able to meet certain costs.
Amendment No. 246A seeks to address the problem by giving the tribunal discretion to make an award for legal costs. Under my amendment, the tribunal would have three options. First, it could make no award, in which case the costs would not be recoverable. Secondly, where a lessee in challenging a service charge
1916
has acted without the support of the residents' association or other lessees in the block, the tribunal could—I stress could—make an award against that individual. That should deter spurious or vexatious non-payment of service charges. Thirdly, where a lessee has the support of the residents' association, or where the lessees challenge the service charge collectively, in those circumstances the tribunal will have discretion to allow the costs to be recovered through the service charge, if it feels that the lessees collectively have behaved unreasonably.
My amendment does not give the landlord carte blanche to recover costs. That would clearly be undesirable. But if the landlord—and I remind the Committee that the landlord could be small groups of people—had patently acted unreasonably, I should expect the tribunal to use its discretion and make no award for costs. The lessees will also have the safeguard of new Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which permits them to apply for the landlord's costs to be disregarded for service charge purposes.
Amendment No. 244B is intended as a saving provision, to ensure that where the lease allows for legal costs to be recovered through the service charge, the new provisions of the Bill will not override that. As some concern has been expressed on the issue by leading counsel, it is important that we put the matter beyond doubt.
I did not draft the amendments, not being a great draftsman, and I gather that the Government are short of parliamentary draftsmen at the moment. The amendments were drafted by professionals and in this world I am an amateur. Perhaps I am not an amateur because an amateur is someone who loves the subject. I do not love the responsibility of having to manage a building. I am told that the amendments are approved by the Federation of Private Residents' Associations, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Association of Residential Managing Agents, as well as a number of managing agents to whom I spoke. Advice was also taken from the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service.
If costs are incurred by a landlord in the pursuit of something legal, correct and proper, he ought to be able to recover the costs. I must not put my own causes, but I feel that that should apply equally to the tenant. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: I declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service and I wish to speak in support of the gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, moved, for the reasons he gave. With regard to tenants' own management companies, which I believe is the real point, if they do not keep reserve funds—and I cannot see how logically they could insist on building up a reserve fund for the purposes of covering otherwise uncovered costs—they would end up with a deficit. They would not be able to satisfy their obligations under the Companies Act. It

1917
seems to me that the noble Lord suggests a neat way of providing that proper discretion is exercised. I should be interested to know what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Coleraine: I have not spoken before on the Bill so it falls to me to declare my interests. In 1993, when the previous Bill was enacted, I was the tenant of a flat under a long lease at a low rent. The lease had eight years to run, so it was collectively enfranchisable. I am now a lessee under a lease of 999 years of the same flat. I am also the owner of one share in the company which owns the freehold. I changed my status and those in my block changed theirs without any need to resort to the provisions for collective enfranchisement in the 1993 Act.
I have a further interest and I am embarrassed that I am declaring it at this stage because I am an honorary consultant to the Federation of Private Residents' Associations. As my noble friend stated, the federation generally approved the provisions of his amendment.
I have grave doubts about the amendment. The principal one is that provided it is in the case of a sole tenant who goes to the valuation tribunal that the cost provisions arise, it sanctifies in some way the position of the majority of the tenants in a building or of the residents' association. We must all recognise that there is in fact no such sanctity, that disputes arise between lessees within a building and that there is no reason why we should assume that it will always be the majority who are in the right and the minority who are in the wrong. As my noble friend said, the provisions of his amendment are one-sided. He would agree that that should be rectified.
If it were the case that a sole lessee who went to a leasehold valuation tribunal were to bear the costs of his application, it should also be the case that, were he to be successful, the landlord should bear the costs. My noble friend clearly agrees with that.
A further point has been made that where the lessees of a building take over the freehold, they will not have the resources to go to a leasehold valuation tribunal under the provisions of the Bill. That is correct and applies to any landlord. The landlord must have resources. I suggest that the proper management of a tenants' buy-out should include some form of agreement whereby it is made clear that, should the situation arise, those who participate in the buy-out must make funds available to enable the costs of an application to the LVT to be paid.
In the long run, however, I think the answer to my noble friend's amendment is that there is probably enough in the Bill to get round the very real difficulties that the decoupling of forfeiture from the collection of service charges has created. That is ultimately where the problem arises.
We have just passed an amendment to provide that frivolous and vexatious applications can be dealt with summarily by the LVT. I feel sure that that is one way in which single tenants acting unmeritoriously will be seriously deterred from going to a tribunal.
An existing provision in the Bill also enables the valuation tribunal to charge "reasonable" fees for the first time. I have no idea what those "reasonable" fees
1918
are. Perhaps, in replying, my noble friend will help me. It is very difficult to envisage an application to an LVT going forward at a cost of less than £500 per day in LVT fees. Those fees could fall on a tenant who has made an unsuccessful application.
Those two provisions are enough to safeguard landlords from the difficulties my noble friend sees. I hope that he will not press his amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My noble friend Lord Selsdon has raised some important points. I believe I can reassure him on some of them, and I shall reflect on some of the others. I deal first with Amendment No. 244B, which is aimed at making it clear that nothing in the Bill undermines any provision in a lease which allows a landlord to recover his costs as part of the service charge. Claude 79 does contain a provision—the new Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on page 54 of the Bill—which allows a leasehold valuation tribunal to order that such cost should not be recoverable. That provision, which largely repeats the existing Section 20C of the Act but extends it to LVTs as well as the court, is to deal with the case where the landlord has behaved unreasonably in some way in defending a case.
For instance, if a landlord has used a legal team of disproportionate weight—a QC, duly instructed by a solicitor, with a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and perhaps an accountant in attendance to argue a minor point about whether maintenance work has been done—the leaseholders could challenge whether the costs have been "reasonably incurred". The LVT would no doubt take a commonsense view.
But if the LVT does not exercise that power, the necessary implication is that the cost of defending an action is recoverable if the lease allows for this type of expenditure to be recovered in the service charge. That is certainly the Government's intention and understanding of what the Bill achieves. I am pleased to place that on the record. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will not press Amendment No. 244B.
My noble friend's other amendments, Amendments Nos. 244A and 246A, deal with responsibility for paying for costs more generally. The effect is to give the LVT a jurisdiction to make a single tenant pay the landlord's costs if he has acted individually or to order that the landlord may recover them as part of his service charge if the case is on behalf of the tenants collectively. In that case all leaseholders would have to pay. I am not sure that Amendment No. 246A quite achieves that because making the costs "relevant costs" does not itself make them recoverable if the lease does not provide for that.
I am not sure it would be right to put individual tenants at risk of having to meet their landlord's costs in this way. Part of the point of giving the leasehold valuation tribunals jurisdiction to settle service charge disputes is to reduce the risk that tenants might have to meet the legal fees of their landlord, which, in the case of some of the less scrupulous landlords, may be

1919
significant—often unreasonably so. There are cases where a minority of tenants, or even one tenant, may have a legitimate case but where the majority are uninterested. I think the amendment goes too far. To that extent I am of one mind with my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
But that leaves the question of how the landlord's legitimate costs are to be met. Many leases, particularly the more modern ones, will include a broad-ranging provision allowing the landlord to include within his management expenses the costs of proceedings of this type. Collecting service charges is part of the job of managing a block of flats. In those circumstances the landlord will be able to recover his costs unless the tribunal makes a ruling under Section 20C which I mentioned earlier.
But some older leases may not make sufficiently broad provision. They may not have anticipated tribunal proceedings. In those cases, unless some new provision is made, the landlord will have to bear the costs himself. I can imagine many cases in which that may not be unreasonable, or may even be richly deserved. But there may be cases where it does pose a problem. For example, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Gisborough raised a point concerning blocks where the leaseholders themselves own the freehold, and there is simply no source of money other than service charges to pay for a surveyor, for example, to present their side of the argument before a tribunal.
I do not think it would be right to introduce a general provision about awarding costs into LVT proceedings. Tribunals generally, not just leasehold valuation tribunals, do not award costs against a losing party in the way a court does. They are less formal and more accessible. Legal representation, for example, is not necessary. If costs could be awarded, the notorious landlords would no doubt continue to intimidate their leaseholders from bringing even well-founded cases for fear of the potentially ruinous consequences of losing.
The better course might be to empower the tribunal to give a ruling (if the landlord asks for it) that his reasonable costs in defending the case should be recoverable as service charges, even if the lease does not provide for that. It is, of course, important that Parliament should not lightly give the LVT a power which amounts to imputing into leases new terms which place new obligations on leaseholders. The LVT should perhaps be allowed to do so only where convinced that it is fair, given all the circumstances of the case, and only to the extent that the landlord's costs are reasonable. In some ways this would mirror the current provisions which allow the tribunal to rule that the landlord's costs should not be recoverable, even where the lease would allow it, if the landlord had acted unreasonably.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine asked what level of fees we might expect from LVTs. He has the right idea. We think that £500 would be about the standard minimum; for longer cases £2,000 a day is about the
1920
level we are thinking of. With those words, I think, of considerable comfort, I hope that my noble friend Lord Selsdon will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On the question of legal costs, at an industrial tribunal people regularly defend themselves and therefore expenses are not high. We hardly ever award costs. Even if the applicants are represented legally on both sides, each party has to bear their own costs.
We recently had a case, the first in over 20 years, in which we awarded costs of £1,000. Everyone in the tribunal building considered that a very high amount. The circumstances were exceptional. They involved someone who had pursued the case, had had it deferred several times, and who in the end did not turn up. Costs were awarded against that person. I doubt whether they will ever be recovered since I believe he has absconded or left the country. So it may only be theoretical.
It is worrying if the "reasonable costs" referred to can be awarded and possibly then come back as part of a service charge. When we talk of legal expenses, the sky is the limit. I should be very concerned about any high costs being added on to service charges, which most tenants find quite worrying to meet now. I hope that the Minister and my noble friend Lord Selsdon will look carefully at the particular point of the type of costs involved and perhaps put a ceiling on what could be awarded.
Lord Meston: Perhaps I may follow up the noble Baroness's point. Her analogy with industrial tribunals is a valuable one. In those tribunals the power to award costs can be a disincentive, which is useful in itself; but the knowledge that in normal cases costs will not be awarded either way is also a disincentive of some value, because the parties know that it is much to their advantage to settle. Win, lose or draw, they are unlikely to get costs against the other side. I feel that the analogy that the noble Baroness drew is very valuable.
Lord Monkswell: I was rather concerned by one of the Minister's remarks. If I did not hear him aright, no doubt he will correct me. He said that the majority of leases granted nowadays contain the requirement that any costs incurred will be added to the service charge. If that is so, it is rather disturbing.
There may be a situation in which the landlord effectively makes excessive service charges, which are being challenged. If the landlord has the right to increase the service charges by any amount because he has incurred costs in defending those excessively high service charges, the poor leaseholder is on a hiding to nothing and the protection that the Government and we all are seeking against excessive service charges will be nullified. It should be borne in mind that, if money is no object and the costs will simply be passed on in service charges, all kinds of experts may be brought in—legal experts, surveyors and so on, some of whom are very expensive—and the person bringing the argument against the excessive service charges may be completely swamped.
I hope that the Minister will look at this matter very carefully and ask whether it is what we seek.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: I should like to support my noble friend. Service charges can become quite a racket. Some years ago there was a block of flats near the Albert Hall where the service charges were allowed to be used for some refurbishment to the building. In fact, they were being used to do up other flats, putting in extra bathrooms and so on, which the owners of the block were then going to sell on long leases and the tenants were receiving the most enormous bills. There have been cases recently too in which people have been able to buy freeholds at auction for a couple of thousand pounds and then do what they liked with the building and the tenants. The so-called accountants who are supposed to assess the service charges are in league with the freeholder, as are the decorators who do up the places. The freeholder is getting a cut all along the line. It is a major scandal.
I remember the old days in the 1950s when many of the flats in central London were owned by old-established companies—key flats and so on—and everybody was very happy. The rents were low and went up normally every year or so. There was a nice porter in the hall with a coal fire and so on. It was a very satisfactory way of living and many people preferred it to living in a house. Then one or two speculators realised that they could make a large fortune by buying up the blocks of flats. They threatened the people with eviction—at that time the Government had taken off all controls—and the unfortunate tenants, in order to remain in their homes, had to agree to buy long leases from the new owners. The owner would then recover in service charges what he had lost in rent. Such people made very large fortunes. However, one or two of them went bankrupt, I am glad to say. It was quite a racket.
I am afraid that the Conservatives taking away security of tenure had absolutely unforeseen repercussions and distorted the whole of the housing market in central London and other big cities. We have never recovered from it. Attempts by the Government to try to control the situation with the 1988 Act and the present Act have all stemmed from that mistake, when they allowed speculators and crooks to take over blocks of flats and distort the market.
The Earl of Lytton: I apologise for rising to speak again on this matter. However, it seems to me that, speculators and racketeers apart, there still remains a problem which I should like to illustrate for the benefit of the Committee. Some years ago I worked in Brighton and I remember a large block of flats in Kemp Town. Part of it had had a bomb dropped on it during the last war, with the result that it had been reconstructed. Part of it was brand spanking new, relatively speaking and the rest was old and—to use common parlance—clapped out. That produced a significant differential in running costs between the two halves. I remember that the method of apportioning service charges was a constant source of problems to the residents.
Returning to the point about the tenants' own management systems, tenants are not a consistent breed. From my personal experience I know of several cases in which one group of tenants has radically disagreed
1922
with what another group of tenants has done in the name of the block as a whole. I referred to those problems at Second Reading when I mentioned the different aims of different tenants. For example, the elderly may want one particular service while the young and fit want another type of service.
There has to be a method of reconciling those views some way or other. It may be rough justice or a little like the Judgment of Solomon, but reconciled they have to be. I feel that what the Minister said about leaving discretion with the tribunal is probably the best that we can hope for in the circumstances. I do not believe that either side should be penalised. I do not feel that a deficit should be left in the hands of the tenants' own management company which will cause it severe legal problems about—apart from anything else—how the unsatisfied debt that it has accumulated will be expunged. Those people may have acted for what they genuinely felt was the benefit of the majority, taking an overall view of the block—perhaps a strategic forward view, based on doing more repairs at the present moment, taking the stitch-in-time rather than the sticking plaster approach. This matter will probably always be a source of contention. I want to see this Bill go forward with the opportunities for contention diminished.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said. Maybe his formula is not quite perfect, as the Minister suggested. Perhaps the Minister's solution—if that is what it is—is a good one. If there is anything that it does not cover, perhaps that could be looked at and considered at a later stage.
Lord Coleraine: I should not like the strictures made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, against Conservative policies to go unanswered when this Bill leaves the Committee. The reason why we have the present dreadful long leasehold system in central London, with all the opportunities for bad dealing, is basically old Labour Party rent controls, which made it quite impossible for landlords to let their flats on short leases. They made it inevitable that they would seek to take premiums and get rid of the flats on long leases. That to a large extent is why we have the situation today.
Lord Lucas: I should perhaps steer clear of that particular controversy. Perhaps I can say two things to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. First, if one buys a leasehold, one had better read the lease. Secondly, most of the problems he described I hope will be effectively dealt with by the Bill.
To the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I say that there are two ends of the spectrum. At one end we have a block owned effectively by the people who live there, where the company owning the back end of a 999-year lease will effectively have no assets and no income other than the service charges which it levies on the people who live there. If one tenant does not pay the service charge, there must be a mechanism by which the company can levy charges on all the other tenants to fund the action it needs to take against the defaulting tenant. That is why that is a common mechanism in that sort of lease and indeed in other leases.

1923
To deal with people who try to abuse that system, we have given the leasehold valuation tribunal the duty to make sure that the actions by the landlord are reasonable. The proposed new Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985—appearing on page 54 of the Bill—is a provision to deny the landlord the right to recover his legal and other costs through the service charge if he has acted unreasonably.
That provision places a great weight on the wording of the Bill. I would be happy to hear, perhaps on another occasion or through letter, from Members of the Committee who think we may be able to improve the wording to achieve what we all wish to achieve; that is, to make sure the leasehold valuation tribunal deals in a commonsense and effective way with landlords who abuse their position to try and terrorise the tenants. But we have perhaps come to an end of this conversation for now.
Lord Monkswell: One way of reducing the cost for both landlord and tenant in disputes involving the leasehold valuation tribunal is to ensure that in front of the tribunal the parties shall not be represented and shall not call experts. They shall argue for themselves.
Lord Selsdon: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for commenting for 35 minutes on something I hoped would take a brief moment. I am reassured by one thing. I believe for the first time today that the adversarial attitude of both sides of the Chamber appears to have disappeared. I do not know why in the Leasehold Reform Act I had the opinion that those on the other side of the Chamber were permanently in favour of the tenant and those on this side appeared to be permanently in favour of some rich landlord. That attitude did not do your Lordships' House any good.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made the point that there have been some bad things in the past. The objective of this legislation is to improve matters. I still have a hang-up that too many people in this business try to talk through lawyers. When one has an expensive lawyer with a triple-barrelled name on one side and a barrack-room lawyer on the other, one ends up with enormous costs and increased aggravation, particularly for the bulk of people who do not know what "litigation" means and do not understand it.
In this part of the world, in England, I believe property law to be rubbish. Frankly, I prefer it in Scotland. I hope there will be an element of goodwill here. If the Minister had said, "Leave it to the Secretary of State", I would have panicked; but when he says, "Leave it to a nice organisation called a tribunal", I am comforted. My noble friend Lord Coleraine, who knows so much about these matters and who is so much wiser than I am, tells me not to worry. I shall make a note of his remark and if he proves to be wrong, perhaps someone will take action against him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 244B not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 245:
1924
Page 53, line 33, leave out ("amount") and insert ("whole or part").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 245 with Amendment No. 243. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 54, line 4, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding the generality of subsections (5) and (6), an order under this section requiring the payment of fees shall provide that no fee shall be paid or reimbursed by a person whose financial resources are such as to make him eligible for representation under Part IV of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (Civil Legal Aid) without being liable to make a contribution in respect of the costs of that representation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I too begin by declaring an interest. Much of my motivation in tabling this amendment and much of what I propose to say reflects the deep anxiety of the Council on Tribunals which I am privileged to chair.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, reminded us a few moments ago, this part of the Bill addresses a problem which acquired notoriety some time ago. A property company buys the reversion to a block of flats. It increases service charges to an unreasonable degree and then, when the tenants fail to pay, it brings forfeiture proceedings. Of course, it is open to a tenant to challenge the reasonableness of the service charges in the county court under Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. That is sometimes done, as a number of Members of the Committee said, in the course of forfeiture proceedings. The proposal in this clause is to detach that issue from the forfeiture proceedings and transfer the jurisdiction to local valuation tribunals. That is a sensible proposal and has a number of advantages.
The leasehold valuation tribunals have expertise in these matters which no court, exercising a general jurisdiction, could hope to emulate. Furthermore, the proceedings are likely to be less costly and will probably be more expeditious. But there are two items of bad news to which some Members of the Committee have already referred.
First, unlike proceedings in the county court, legal aid is not available for proceedings before the LVT, at least in respect of representation. That may be a source of injustice. The landlords to whom we are now referring are usually property companies and will normally engage the services of experts. They will bring in people who are professionals. Sometimes that is sensible. Sometimes there are issues which require preparation and usually presentation by professionals. They, on their side, will have that advantage.
We know from the researches of Professor Hazel Genn that those who are represented before tribunals have a much greater prospect of success than those who appear unrepresented. As the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, those who have never been to a tribunal in their lives are at a disadvantage when trying to elicit their case.
I say at once in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that she took me to task in a different context some time ago for what I obviously expressed

1925
badly and which she interpreted as a criticism of tribunals. It is not intended in any way as a reflection on tribunals; it arises from the fact that it is difficult to combine the judicial function with trying to elicit everything that can be said on the side of one of the parties. I say at once that it need not be representation by lawyers. Sometimes representation by a surveyor before the LVTs or even by an accountant may be more advantageous than bringing in a lawyer. But to leave the tenant wholly unrepresented against professional people on the other side can make for injustice.
That is not the subject of the amendment, but it is part of the background against which it must be considered. I said that there were two items of bad news. The second is the one to which some Members of the Committee referred a few moments ago. It is to be found in new Section 31B which Clause 79 seeks to insert into the 1985 Act. It is the provision for the fixing and paying of the court fees by the parties to proceedings before the LVT.
I share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. When the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quoted a few moments ago the kind of figures the Government had in mind in this context—if I understood him correctly—and claimed that that was comforting news, I must say that I missed the comforting part. It seemed to me somewhat alarming news.
As I understand it, the intention is that the parties will pay the whole of the judicial costs in relation to this service, and new Section 31B(3) makes it clear that overall the fees are to meet the full costs of providing that service. That is bad news indeed. I am aware that the Government are at present considering proposals for introducing in the courts a system of charging fees to litigants on a full costs recovery basis, which means that anyone availing himself of our system of adjudication would be required to pay for that system. I say at once, speaking for myself, that I find that very troubling. I believe that there are some services provided by the community which ought to be paid for by the community generally and not simply by those who have occasion to avail themselves of the services. I hope we never reach the point when every road in the country is maintained at the expense not of the community but of those who have occasion to drive over the road, so that at the entrance to every road we have to pay a toll. That is a difference of political ethics between the Government and those who share my views. This amendment does not seek to change that policy. In fact, it would not be appropriate in this Bill. But I hope that we would hold the line on any application of that policy to tribunals. In saying that, I do speak for the Council on Tribunals.
As long ago as the Franks Committee, and even further back with Donoughmore in 1929, it was said that one of the great advantages which tribunals contribute to the legal system is that they are inexpensive, so that people—landlords, tenants or whoever—are not deterred from pursuing their rights by the fear of the financial consequences. If that line is to be breached, it should not be in the course of a Bill on a totally different
1926
subject dealing with the part of the jurisdiction of one tribunal. It should be after careful consideration, careful consultation and full debate in Parliament.
But it is not even that principle which this amendment seeks to uphold. It really is a very modest amendment. It is designed to meet what I believe to be a gap in subsections (5) and (6). The Government have recognised that the consequences of these provisions may be financial hardship for those with limited resources. The Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to reduce or waive fees by reference to a party's financial resources and to empower the tribunal to make an order that one party should reimburse the other for the fees he has to pay. The council welcomes that. In fact, we take comfort from the fact that the Government have obviously addressed their minds to some of the consequences of this problem. However, I believe the proposal falls short of what is necessary in two respects.
If a potential party is told that, with luck, he may find at the termination of the process that he does not have to bear the burden of fees, that may not be sufficient to set his mind at rest. Unless he can be sure, he may be deterred from taking the risk of seeking to enforce his rights. People should not be at risk of a possible order. Those of us who spend our lives trying to predict the outcome of proceedings, either in courts or tribunals, know how notoriously difficult that is. No one can ever have an assurance of what the outcome will be. People should not be at risk of an order which could mean a severe financial disaster for them. People will be deterred from availing themselves of a provision which the Government have very sensibly included in the Bill. Unless they can be assured not that their tribunal fees may be waived or that they may be paid by the other side but that, if they meet the financial conditions, they can be certain that they will not be subject to those fees, I believe they will not take the risk.
The effect of the amendment would be that someone whose means were such that he would qualify for legal aid if he were in civil proceedings in the courts and in accordance with the Government's own rules could be assured that he would not be liable for fees or liable to recompense the other party for an outlay on fees. By definition, it relates to those who cannot afford to pay.
The noble Lord may be able to assure us that any order made under this section will include that provision. If he does that, it will go some way towards meeting our anxieties. But that provision falls short. To go the whole way, I believe that that safeguard should be written into the Bill. Legislation by undertaking leads to difficulties which many of us in our parliamentary careers have written on our hearts. I am sure that, if the noble Lord is persuaded of the necessity of the burden of the amendment, he will have no difficulty in writing it into the Bill. I hope that he will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Meston: I support the amendment and in doing so suggest that much of the need for it derives from the really rather curious wording of the proposed new Section 31B(6), which is quite difficult to understand. It

1927
is drafted in a curious way. It refers to "the latter case", which I think must refer back to one of the alternatives in the proposed subsection (5), and then goes on to say,
"the order may apply, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, any other statutory means-testing regime as it has effect from time to time".
I find that remarkably unclear. Even if it were clarified, I would suggest that there is a strong case for the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am somewhat concerned by this amendment because of the point that I have made at other stages in the debate. People tell me that if one is sued or taken on in any proceedings by someone who is legally aided—and this situation is equivalent because of the exemption provision—one has a "no-win" situation. Even if one wins the case the other person cannot lose a penny or be endangered in any way.
As regards the tribunals, I believe that their chairmen go to great trouble to assist unrepresented people. I rarely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but he made a very interesting point when he said that the only way to be sure was for no one to be represented at the valuation tribunals.
Lord Lucas: We have had the pleasure of listening to a very powerful presentation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell on a subject on which he is a great authority. I am sure that we shall ponder everything he said. Perhaps I may be allowed to concentrate on the substance of this particular amendment. As the noble and learned Lord said, in subsections (5) and (6) we have provided ourselves with the power to make arrangements for a leasehold valuation tribunal to waive fees depending on the financial resources of the party by whom they are to be met. We have also provided that statutory means-testing regimes may be used, but we have deliberately not specified which regimes these are as they are subject to frequent change.
At this stage we feel that it is unnecessary to require any order made under this power to reflect a specific means-testing regime such as that proposed in this amendment, to be put on the face of the Bill. We need to give further consideration to the detail of how to operate this scheme flexibly. There is a great deal of work for us yet to do. We need to consider such matters as passporting connected with other benefits.
I believe that the core of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is this. If some poor person is considering going to a LVT and he can see by then—we shall have the order in place—that he is eligible for a remission of fees, how does he know that he will get that remission without having to go through the whole process and take the risk of not getting that remission at the end? We plan that the rules shall be clear enough for that to be settled at the very outset of the application by the clerks to the LVT. We also hope that the rules will be clear enough to enable the tenant to work out for himself whether or not he
1928
will qualify for fee remission. Therefore, in practice, we believe that this is a problem that will not arise because it will be settled at the outset before the fee has been incurred.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to those who have participated in this debate. In particular I am grateful for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Perhaps that is something we should reflect on before Report stage. As regards the two comments made by the noble Baroness, perhaps it was my fault for introducing something which was not directly relevant to this amendment. I accept her comment that legal aid can be unfair in reverse. It does not seem to me that the answer to that is to withhold legal aid; still less to ensure that no one has the benefit of professional advice and representation which both sides so obviously need. That is perhaps an issue which we can join at a later stage.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for at least the assurance which he has given that it is intended to frame the order in a way which will ensure that someone knows at the outset and before committing himself, whether he will be liable for fees. I am not sure whether that includes liability to reimburse the other side for outlays on fees. I invite the Government to consider that.
The Minister's reply does not wholly meet the point which we had in mind because, as I said, legislation by undertaking or even by, "what we intend to put in the order" gives rise to difficulties. I am not wholly clear why it should not be stated in the Bill because this is a principle which is not liable to change. As the noble Lord himself implied, it is the opposite of flexibility which we are seeking here. The problem with flexibility is that it is unpredictable. However, perhaps we should all reflect after this preliminary canter. I give no promises about my future good conduct, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): Amendment No. 246ZA has been substituted for Amendment No. 246.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 246ZA:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert—
("Transfer of cases from county court.
31C.—(1) Where in any proceedings before a court there falls for determination a question falling within the jurisdiction of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Act, the court—

(a) may by order transfer to such a tribunal so much of the proceedings as relate to the determination of that question, and

(b) may then dispose of all or any remaining proceedings, or adjourn the disposal of all or any of such proceedings, pending the determination of that question by the tribunal, as it thinks fit.

(2) When the tribunal has determined the question, the court may give effect to the determination in an order of the court
(3) Any such order shall be treated as a determination by the court for the purposes of section 78 of the Housing Act 1996 (restriction on termination of tenancy for failure to pay service charge).

1929
(4) Rules of court may prescribe the procedure to be followed in the court in connection with or in consequence of a transfer under this section.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 243. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 246A not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 246AA:
Page 54, line 12, after ("tenant") insert ("or recognised tenants' association").
The noble Lord said: I hope the intention of this amendment is obvious. It suggests that it will be useful if a recognised tenants' association, as defined in Clause 86 of the Bill, can make an application under the proposed new section, especially as a recognised tenants' association can appoint a surveyor for the purposes of Clause 81. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: We would expect that most applications would be made by the tenants during the course of proceedings. It would be odd if a tenants' association needed to make a separate application at a later date. We have provided in the clause that one tenant can apply on behalf of everyone, so we do not see what advantage there would be in a recognised tenants' association also having this right. We therefore feel that this amendment is unnecessary as we have provided for its effect in Clause 79.
Lord Meston: I am grateful for the Minister's response to the amendment. I shall need to think about this but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 246B not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Clause 81 [Appointment of manager by the court]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 246C:
Page 55, line 29, after ("made)") insert (", in paragraph (a) (breach of obligation by landlord), omit sub-paragraph (ii) (requirement that circumstances likely to continue).
() In that subsection,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 246C, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 246D to 246G, 247A, 248A to 248G, and 275A, and to refer in passing to Amendment No. 247B.
These amendments make a number of changes to Clauses 81, 82 and Schedule 5 to the Bill which establish the right of a tenant of a flat to apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for the appointment of a manager on the grounds that the landlord is in some way failing in his management responsibilities. There are two changes of substance.
Amendments Nos. 246C, 248B and 275A concern the grounds for appointing a manager set out in the existing legislation; namely, that the landlord is in breach of his
1930
obligations under the lease and that this breach is likely to continue. The amendment deletes the second part of this condition which has been widely criticised by members of the Opposition in another place-and probably would have been criticised here if we had not removed it—and tenants' groups. This is because it allows the landlord to give assurances to the court that although he may have failed in the past, he will mend his ways and not do so in future. It is further suggested that the courts have often felt obliged to accept these assurances, such that there are very few cases of tenants ever succeeding in exercising this right.
The Government have considered those criticisms carefully. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said at Report stage in another place, we have to consider the case where the freeholder was for some genuine reason not able to deliver a service in the past but can demonstrate that he will be able to do so in the future. He may therefore have genuine reasons for a temporary breach of his obligations. However, on reflection we believe that the tribunal will be in a position to take all such factors into account, particularly as the provisions in Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 also require the tribunal to satisfy itself that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case.
Also under the two additional grounds introduced by Clause 81, there is no such requirement for the tribunal to take account of the likely future behaviour of the landlord. This amendment therefore ensures a degree of consistency between the three grounds which the tribunal will have to consider, and should improve the chances of tenants succeeding in cases where a history of bad management can be demonstrated.
Amendments Nos. 247A and 248G will restrict the right of appeal in the cases from a leasehold valuation tribunal to a Lands Tribunal. An appeal will only be possible with the approval of either tribunal. This parallels the appeal procedures that we have introduced in relation to the new jurisdiction contained in Clause 79 of the Bill for leasehold valuation tribunals to determine the reasonableness of service charges. It is designed to deal with the possibility of the quite unacceptable intimidation of leaseholders by unscrupulous freeholders. It is well known that one of the means of intimidation used by some freeholders is to threaten their tenants that they will take every case to appeal, no matter what the strength of their argument, in the hope that the potential costs involved will deter the leaseholders from pursuing their case.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has tabled a similar amendment, Amendment No. 247B. I hope that he feels that our amendment, Amendment No. 247A, achieves the desired effect.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 246D to 246G, 248A, and 248C to 248F are minor drafting amendments to these provisions of the Bill, in relation to the application to a leasehold valuation tribunal for the appointment of a manager. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord has put the case for Amendment No. 247B which stands in my name very well. He said that it is similar to Amendment No. 247A. My inspection of the two amendments suggests that it is identical, so the noble Lord could just as well accept my amendment as the government amendment. I am delighted that the noble Lord has put the case for the amendment and I suppose that he is at liberty to accept either of them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 246CA:
Page 56, line 13, at end insert—
("() In subsection (9) (applications to vary or discharge a management order) at beginning insert the words "Subject to subsection (9A)".
() After subsection (9) insert—
"(9A) An order made under this section shall not be varied or discharged (whether conditionally or unconditionally) by the court on the application of the landlord unless the court is satisfied that the conduct of the manager appointed by the court under this section would have satisfied the conditions for the appointment of a manager contained in subsection (2) had the manager been the landlord.".").
The noble Lord said: The basic point of the amendment is not all that different from what the Minister said in relation to the previous amendment. When there is an order regarding management, in order that that should be discharged, it seems to me that it would be proper that the onus of proof should be somewhat different from the way it is in the Bill. That is to say, if it is right for fault to be established before the management can change, then that should apply equally to freehold landlords and leaseholders so that, if a landlord wishes the order to be discharged, there should be some onus of proof on him as to why the management was not proving effective. That makes it equal as between the situation before there was an order and when there is a request to have the order discharged.I hope that I have made that clear. The Minister looks rather puzzled. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: On considering the amendment in detail, and, in particular, after listening to the eloquent words of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we are clear that the wording currently in the Bill needs looking at, particularly, as the noble Lord said, in relation to the amendments I have just moved, and to the arguments we accepted in that case, and to the potential which the wording in the Bill at the moment might give for an unscrupulous landlord merely to replace managers in never-ending succession, forcing tenants to start the whole procedure again. We do not feel comfortable with the amendment as drafted by the noble Lord, but we shall look at the matter again and write to him or take some suitable action before Report.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for that. I am happy about that. I look forward to his eventual response when he has had a chance to consider the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 246D and 246E:
1932
Page 56, line 14, leave out ("made") and insert ("for an order").
Page 56, line 15, after ("1987") insert ("which are made").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to both amendments with Amendment No. 246C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [Appointment of manager: transfer of jurisdiction to leasehold valuation tribunal]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 246F, 246G, 247 and 247A:
Page 56, line 25, after ("context") insert ("in those sections").
Page 56, line 31, at end insert (", and
(b) in paragraph (a), for "rules" substitute "regulations".").
Page 56, line 45, at end insert—
("() Procedure regulations may, in particular, make provision—

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

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

Page 57, line 11, at end insert—
("() No appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part without the leave of the leasehold valuation tribunal concerned or the Lands Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 246C and 243. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 247B not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 57, line 31, leave out ("amount") and insert ("whole or part").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 243. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as amended]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 248A, 248B, 248C, 248D, 248E, 248F and 248G:
Page 142, line 22, leave out ("rules") and insert ("regulations").
Page 142, leave out lines 40 and 41.
Page 142, line 44, leave out ("court") and insert ("tribunal").
Page 142, line 49, leave out ("court") and insert ("tribunal").
Page 143, line 3, leave out ("court") and insert ("tribunal").
Page 143, line 37, leave out ("court") and insert ("tribunal").
Page 144, line 25, at end insert—
("() No appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part without the leave of the leasehold valuation tribunal concerned or the Lands Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 246C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Notice required to be given by landlord making disposal]:
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 248H:
Page 58, line 20, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").
The noble Viscount said: Before speaking to the amendment, I must declare an interest, in that I am a long leaseholder in a London flat and involvement in negotiations with the head lessor and the freeholder has brought home to me the chaotic state of the law in this area. The outcome of the amendments will not affect me in any way since the pass has already been sold under existing legislation.
In general, Government policy has been and still is to bring a more fair and sensible balance between long leaseholders and their superior landlords. Although during the past 10 years several Acts have made progress in that direction there are still loopholes in the law which seem to me to frustrate the broad intentions of Parliament.
A basic principle of this part of the Bill is that long leaseholders have a close interest in the property which is often his or her home and that interest is just as important as that of any superior landlord. In the case in which the superior landlord has made a relevant disposal of his interest in the property occupied by a long leaseholder, as defined in Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the latter is given certain rights, in particular the right of first refusal to buy the interest being sold.
In that connection I welcome the provisions of Clause 85(1), which go some way to closing a loophole in the existing law. Until now that has enabled a superior landlord to avoid his obligations by taking a share in the buying company and so making it an associated company as provided for in Section 4(1)(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. However, the amendment to that section, which is contained in Clause 85 of the Bill, requires the interest in the associated company to have been held for two years. For a competent property company, planning two years ahead presents no difficulty but this could seriously jeopardise the exercise of the rights of the long leaseholder, who is often relatively inexperienced in these matters. Amendment No. 248H increases the period from two to five years, which will make it much more difficult for the superior landlord to avoid his obligations and will provide a fairer balance between the two parties involved.
I submit that only a slick property owner wanting to take advantage of the relative inexperience of long leaseholders can logically object to the amendment. It more accurately reflects the intentions of Parliament.
I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I support the amendment because on 20th May 1993 I moved an amendment to the
1934
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill at the request of the residents of Harley House in the Marylebone Road. I pointed out the very same loopholes to which my noble friend has drawn attention. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, on behalf of the Government, accepted that in five years they had not found a way to fill them in. He said that he would like to do what he could to continue to examine the issue until a solution was found. The solution provided in the Bill by the Government goes a little way, but only a very little way, towards solving the problem of those loopholes. Nevertheless, it must be accepted in good faith and, if my noble friend's amendment can be accepted, that will be a further step forward.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I very much appreciate what my two extremely experienced noble friends have said on this matter. This is clearly a problematic area and it is also clearly an area which is likely to remain problematic, since, if one were to go the whole hog in preventing such activities, one would freeze up the entire structure of property companies which own leasehold properties and might go so far as to prevent trading in the shares of a public company which happened to own a leasehold property somewhere in its tentacles.
It is necessary for us to strike a practical balance between doing the best that we can as regards the protection of leaseholders without hindering genuine corporate restructuring activity. Although I sympathise with my noble friend's desire to make things more difficult for people who wish to avoid the provisions of the 1987 Act, we believe that Amendment No. 248H would go too far in inhibiting the commercial freedom of bona fide associated companies. I appreciate that this is a matter of fine judgment but I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: I understand what my noble friend says. As he says, it is a fine balance. My view is that the balance is tipped too far in the direction of an experienced property owner but, as he says, it is a fine distinction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 248J to 250 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 251:
After Clause 85, insert the following new clause—
PART I OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987: PROCEDURAL CHANGES
(".—(1) In section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Where a landlord has, in accordance with this section, served an offer notice on the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats, he shall not during—

(a) the period specified in the offer notice under subsection (2)(c), or

(b) such longer period beginning with the date of service of that notice as may be agreed between him and the requisite majority of such tenants,

1935
dispose of the protected interest except to a person or persons nominated for the purposes of section 6 by the requisite majority of such tenants."
(2) In section 6 of that Act (acceptance of landlord's offer)—
(a) for subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) In this section "the relevant period" means—

(a) the period beginning with the date of service of the acceptance notice and ending with the end of the period specified in the offer notice under section 5(2)(d), or

(b) such longer period beginning with that date as may be agreed between the landlord and the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of constituent flats."; and.

(b) in subsection (3), for "the period so specified" substitute "the relevant period".
(3) For sections 7 and 8 of that Act substitute—
"Rejection of landlord's offer.
7. Where—

(a) a landlord has, in accordance with section 5, served an offer notice on the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats, and

(b) an acceptance notice is not served on the landlord by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats within—

(i) the period specified in the offer notice under section 5(2)(c), or

(ii) such longer period beginning with the date of service of that notice as may be agreed between the landlord and that majority of such tenants,

the landlord may, during the period of 12 months beginning with the end of that period, dispose of the protected interest to such person as he thinks fit, but subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 6(3)(a) and (b).
Landlord's response to notice of nomination.
8.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) section 6(1) applies to a landlord, and

(b) any person has been nominated for the purposes of section 6 by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats within the period specified by the landlord in his offer notice under section 5(2)(d).

(2) The landlord shall, within the period of one month beginning with the date of service of notice of the nomination, either—

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

(b) send to that person the requisite contract, that is to say, a form of contract for the acquisition of that interest which includes the principal terms particulars of which were contained in the landlord's offer notice under section 5(2)(a).

(3) If the landlord—

(a) serves notice in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (2), or

(b) fails to send the requisite contract to the nominated person within the period specified in that subsection,

sections 6(8) and 9(4) to (6) shall apply as if the notice were served in pursuance of section 9(4) or, as the case may require, a notice in pursuance of section 9(4) were served at the end of that period.
(4) If the landlord sends the requisite contract to the nominated person within the period specified in subsection (2), that person shall, within the period of two months beginning with the date on which it is sent or such longer period beginning with that date as may be agreed between the landlord and that person, either—

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

1936

(b) offer an exchange of contracts, that is to say, sign the contract and send it to the landlord, together with his remittance for the requisite deposit;

and in this subsection "the requisite deposit" means a deposit of an amount determined by or under the contract or an amount equal to 10 per cent of the consideration, whichever is the less.
(5) If the nominated person—

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

(b) fails to offer an exchange of contracts within the period specified in that subsection,

sections 6(8) and 9(1), (5) and (6) shall apply as if the notice were served in pursuance of section 9(1) or, as the case may require, a notice in pursuance of section 9(1) were served at the end of that period.
(6) If—

(a) the nominated person offers an exchange of contracts within the period specified in subsection (4), but

(b) the landlord fails to complete the exchange within the period of 7 days of beginning with the day on which he received that person's contract,

sections 6(8) and 9(4) to (6) shall apply as if a notice in pursuance of section 9(4) were served at the end of that period.
(7) Except in a case falling within subsection (5) or section 9(1) or 10, the landlord shall not dispose of the protected interest except to the nominated person.
(8) Nothing in subsection (7) shall be taken as prejudicing the application of this Part in any case where, in accordance with the provisions of section 5, the landlord serves a subsequent offer notice on the qualifying tenants of the constituent flats.
(9) Nothing in this section applies where a binding contract for the disposal of the protected interest has been entered into by the landlord and the nominated person."
(4) In consequence of subsection (3)—

(a) in section 6(9) of that Act (acceptance of landlord's offer), in the definition of "the protected interest", omit "(subject to section 9(9))";

(b) in subsection (1)(a) of section 9 of that Act (withdrawal of either party from transaction), omit "by virtue of any provision of sections 6 to 8";

(c) in subsection (1)(b) of that section, omit the words in parentheses;

(d) in subsection (9) of that section, omit the definition of "the protected interest";

(e) in section 10 of that Act (lapse of landlord's offer), for subsection (4) substitute—

"(4) Where—

(a) in the case of a landlord to whom section 6(7) applies—

(i) the landlord has discharged any duty imposed on him by that provision, and

(ii) any such consent as is there mentioned has been withheld, and

(iii) no such declaration as is there mentioned has been made, and

(b) the landlord serves a notice on the nominated person stating that paragraph (a) above applies,

the landlord may, during the period of 12 months beginning with the date of service of the notice, dispose of the protected interest to such person as he thinks fit, but subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 9(2).";
(f) in section 11(1)(b) (duty of new landlord to furnish particulars etc.), for "sections 6 to 10" substitute "sections 5 to 10"; and
(g) in section 20(1) (construction of Part I etc.), in the definition of "the protected interest", omit "(subject to section 9(9))".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 252, 253, 254, 275 and 277. These are extensive and important amendments and I make no apology for the fact that I shall take some time to describe them. I do that to enable noble Lords who do not wish to stay too late this evening to be able to read a full description of our intention in Hansard with a view to returning to us with critical eyes on Report.
These amendments concern the right of first refusal, which is set out in Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Some of these amendments have been drafted to fulfil commitments given in another place, and others have been inspired by responses to the Department of the Environment's consultation exercise.
It may help the Committee if I describe the right of first refusal and how our proposals to curb abuses of this right fit into the rest of Chapter I of Part III. The right of first refusal requires that a landlord wishing to sell his interest in a block of flats must first offer it to the qualifying tenants, which includes both leaseholders and regulated tenants. If he fails to do this, the tenants have a right to buy that interest from the purchaser at the price he paid. I should clarify here that the relevant interest is the one immediately superior to that of the residents of the flats: this will often be the freehold, but is sometimes a headlease.
The Committee may recall that Part I of the 1987 Act arose from the work of the Nugee Committee, which reported in 1985. Although it constrained the previous rights of landlords to sell freely, the principle was accepted in many quarters: the British Property Federation, for example, had already given guidance to its members suggesting that they should offer the residents first refusal when disposing of blocks of flats.
The assumption was, no doubt, that as the price was the same, the freeholder would be as happy to sell to the tenants as to a third party. In the Act's passage through Parliament, no one suggested that landlords might not fulfil their obligations: the right to buy from the purchaser was perhaps thought to be a sufficient safeguard. In this context, penalties for failing to offer the right might be considered superfluous.
The Committee will have noted that the Government have withdrawn Amendments Nos. 249 and 250. The reason is that we need to give further thought to how they are drafted. Clause 85 of the Bill creates a criminal offence if a landlord makes a relevant disposal without first having served notices on the qualifying tenants under Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 offering them his interest in their blocks of flats.
Amendment No. 249 defines the moment when the offence introduced by Clause 85 is crystallised as exchange of contracts. The drafting of that amendment also implied that a relevant disposal itself took place on the conveyance of the landlord's interest. The 1987 Act itself does not define at which stage in the transfer of a property the relevant disposal is made: but the introduction of the criminal offence makes it essential that we do so now, at least for the purposes of determining when the offence is committed.
The Department of the Environment will be considering whether to define a relevant disposal as exchange of contracts (when equity is transferred) or conveyance (when the legal interest is transferred). We should be grateful for views on that point should any spring immediately to the minds of Members of the Committee. If not, noble Lords may care to write to us. We shall return to the matter on Report.
I turn now to Amendment No. 251 which makes changes to the procedures to be followed once the right of first refusal process has been set in motion. Subsection (1) closes a loophole which might become attractive to unscrupulous landlords once failure to serve notices becomes a criminal offence. Without that provision a landlord could serve the notices required to offer the right, thus staying within the law, but frustrate the Act by selling to his preferred purchaser before the tenants have had a chance to reply.
Subsection (2) is consequential to subsection (3) and also allows the "relevant period" between the service of the tenants' acceptance notice and the end of the time allowed for the tenants to nominate a purchaser to be extended by agreement. Subsection (3) itself introduces new procedures to be followed after the service of notices by the landlord. New Sections 7 and 8 are substituted into the 1987 Act by Amendment No. 251. The existing Sections 7 and 8 provide for the tenants to reject the landlord's offer and make a counter-offer, and for the landlord to make a fresh offer and conduct further negotiations. That procedure in the 1987 Act appears reasonable but is a trap for tenants.
The nature of the trap is that even if the tenants make a counter-offer, their landlord can treat the rejection of his original offer as final and may then sell his interest elsewhere, although on no better terms than were offered to the tenants. Our new procedure in new Sections 7 and 8, as set out in Amendment No. 251, works on the principle of advance or withdraw. Once the tenants have nominated their purchaser, the procedures in new Section 8 require contracts to be offered and exchanged, any deposit to be paid, and the transaction completed, within certain time limits. If the parties wish to negotiate, the time limits can be extended by agreement. The alternative is for the party whose turn it is to respond to withdraw. If either the landlord or the tenants' nominee withdraws, that party is liable for certain of the costs incurred by the other. The costs incurred are those which have accrued subsequent to the date which is four weeks after the tenants have nominated their purchaser.
The system to be introduced by Amendment No. 251 eliminates, in consequence, other provisions in the 1987 Act which allow the process to lapse without requiring the parties to enter into a contract. The misuse of Section 10(4)(b), for example, has been a source of great frustration for tenants. A landlord can engineer the lapse of the process by failing to enter into a binding contract within three months of the end of the period for nominating a purchaser. I therefore believe that the new procedures set out in Amendment No. 251 will both simplify the process of the right of first refusal and bring certainty to the outcome.
I turn now to deal with Amendment No. 252. Members of the Committee will be aware that if the landlord sells his interest without first offering to the tenants, the tenants have a right to buy from the new landlord at the price he paid, using the provisions in Sections 11 to 17 of the 1987 Act. Amendment No. 252 will assist tenants by extending the time limits which apply when they wish to exercise their right to buy from a new landlord or respond to notices served by a prospective new landlord under Section 18 of the 1987 Act.
There is a statutory requirement under Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for any new landlord to inform his tenants that the vendor's interest has been assigned to him. At present, Section 11 of the 1987 Act says that after the service of a Section 3 notice, or some other notice if Section 3 does not apply, the tenants have either two months to ask the new landlord for information about the terms of the disposal or three months to serve a purchase notice on the new landlord.
Under our new proposals, which are set out in Clause 86, the new landlord must also serve a notice under new Section 3A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on all qualifying tenants if the sale was within the scope of the 1987 Act. The time limits for serving a Section 3A notice are the same as for serving a Section 3 notice; in practice, we would expect them to be served simultaneously. It is already an offence to fail to serve a Section 3 notice, and it will also be an offence to fail to serve a Section 3A notice.
The Section 3A notice must say that the disposal was one to which the 1987 Act applied; that the tenant may have rights to obtain information and to acquire the new landlord's interest; and that the time limits for action start once a requisite majority of tenants have received the notice. And it must say what those time limits are.
Amendment No. 252 doubles the limits to four months for the tenants to serve notice and six months for the tenants to serve a notice of purchase on the new landlord. The clock will now start running from the service of a Section 3A notice which, as I said, will set out the tenants' rights. We believe that it is entirely reasonable to give tenants extra time to exercise their rights.
I should remind Members of the Committee that the new landlord has only obtained the property because the sale to him was in contravention of the principal provisions of Part I of the 1987 Act. We do not think that he is therefore in a position to complain if we give the tenants further rights against him.
The Committee will be aware of the problem that arose when the Henry Smith charity sold properties to the Wellcome Foundation. We hope that Amendment No. 252 will curtail the abuses that followed on that occasion. Amendment No. 254 is consequential to Amendment No. 252. Amendment No. 253 applies the right of first refusal in three special cases. These are disposals by auction, disposals for non-monetary consideration, and disposals in pursuance of options or rights of pre-emption. These have all been the subject of abuse and I hope that the Committee will agree, on
1940
studying the wording of this amendment, which I think is fairly self-explanatory, that we have dealt with these three cases in a reasonable way.
As regards the remaining amendments in this group, Amendment No. 275 makes consequential changes in Schedule 16. Amendment No. 277 changes the commencement because we will require transitional provisions which will be more conveniently made by order. This package amounts to a considerable strengthening of the right of first refusal. We have taken account of the experience of those who have been used to the existing legislation. Where there appear to have been gaps in the earlier scheme, we have brought forward changes. I hope that the clarification and tightening-up will be helpful to both landlords and tenants. It will be more difficult for landlords to ignore their obligations, and more difficult for them to defeat a tenant's bid by finding a loophole. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I listened carefully to the Minister's detailed exposition. He will appreciate that I think most of us will need to look at his words in Hansard before we can reach a full assessment of the position. My instincts tell me that these amendments represent a change for the better. However, I should like to reach a final conclusion when I have had a chance to consider in detail what the Minister said this evening.
Lord Coleraine: I found the amendments on the Marshalled List extremely difficult to understand. I look forward with great interest to reading my noble friend's contributions. I have one question to ask him. The consultation papers from the Department of the Environment were issued at a late stage. As far as I recollect, what was envisaged at the time was that only the parts of the amendments which needed to be dealt with by legislation would be dealt with; that is to say, the penal sanctions. At that time the proposal was that the remaining amendments to Part I of the 1985 Act would be dealt with under a Henry VIII clause contained in that part. I am, of course, delighted to find that so much of what was envisaged at that time is already contained in the amendments before us today. Are there any further amendments arising out of the consultation papers which remain to be dealt with under the Henry VIII provisions, or have the Government done in these amendments all that they thought needed to be done?
Lord Lucas: Indeed, there are no further amendments to be made under that heading. These days Henry VIII clauses are only allowed in Opposition amendments.
Lord Strabolgi: I wish to congratulate the Government on Amendment No. 252 which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said was to tighten up the matter involved in the Smith charity's sale to the Wellcome Foundation. If I remember rightly, it got round the situation by serving notice over the weekend when it knew that it would not be delivered. I am sure that what the Government have done will tighten up the position. Let us hope that the landlords' too clever by half lawyers will not be working on the legislation to find

1941
further loopholes. At present it looks to me satisfactory. I am very glad that the Government have taken the issue in hand and recognised the scandal, for scandal it was.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation. It may be pertinent to point out that this Bill has been through another place. It has been through quite a lot of parliamentary business already. An amendment of this complexity at this stage of the Bill's procedures seems a little tardy. It would assist parliamentary consideration if such an amendment could be included within the Bill at an earlier stage.
Lord Lucas: High as our opinion may be of our own deliberations, we must allow that occasionally another place will have good ideas and will impress them upon the Government. In that case, as in this instance, the Government will have to bring forward amendments when the Bill reaches this House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 252:
After Clause 85, insert the following new clause—
PART I OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987: OTHER AMENDMENTS
(".—(1) In section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (duty of new landlord to furnish particulars of disposal), for subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) The period referred to in subsection (1) is the period of four months beginning with the date by which—

(a) notices under section 3A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (in this Act referred to as "the 1985 Act") relating to the original disposal, or

(b) where that section does not apply, documents of any other description indicating that the original disposal has taken place,

have been served on the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats."
(2) In section 12 of that Act (right of qualifying tenants to compel sale etc)—

(a) in subsection (2)(a) and (b), for "three months" substitute "six months"; and

(b) after subsection (3) insert—

"(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), a purchase notice—

(a) shall require so much of the consideration for the original disposal as did not consist of money to be treated as such amount in money as was equivalent to its value in the hands of the landlord; and

(b) may provide for any such amount in money to be determined by a rent assessment committee in accordance with section 13."

(3) In section 13(1)(b) of that Act (determination by rent assessment committees of questions relating to purchase notices), after "section 12(3)(b)" insert "or (3A)(b)".
(4) In section 18(3)(a) of that Act (notices served by prospective purchaser), for "28 days" substitute "two months".
(5) Before section 19 of that Act under the heading "Supplementary" insert—
"Application of Part Ito special cases.
18A. Schedule 1A (which provides for the application of this Part to special cases) shall have effect."
1942
(6) After Schedule 1 to that Act insert, as Schedule 1A, the provisions set out in Schedule (Schedule 1A to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987) to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 253:
After Schedule 5, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE SCHEDULE 1A TO THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987
"SCHEDULE 1A APPLICATION OF PART I TO SPECIAL CASES
Disposals by auction
1.—(1) This paragraph applies where, in any case to which section 5 applies, the landlord proposes to make the relevant disposal by means of a sale at a public auction held in England and Wales.
(2) Section 5 shall have effect as if, in subsection (2)—
(a) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—
"(a) contain particulars of the principal terms of the disposal proposed by the landlord, including in particular the property to which it relates and the estate or interest in that property proposed to be disposed of;
(aa) state that the disposal is proposed to be made by means of a sale at a public auction;
(ab) state the effect of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1A and of any election made under that paragraph;
(b) state that, accordingly, the notice constitutes an offer by the landlord, which may be accepted by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats, for the contract (if any) entered into by the landlord at the auction to have effect as if a person or persons nominated by them, and not the purchaser, had entered into it;"; and.
(b) in paragraph (d), for "two months" there were substituted "28 days".
(3) The notice under section 5 must be served not less than four months, nor more than six months, before the date of the auction and—

(a) the period specified in the notice under section 5(2)(c) must end not less than two months before that date; and

(b) the period specified in the notice under section 5(2)(d) must end not less than 28 days before that date.

(4) Unless the time and place of the auction and the name of the auctioneers are stated in the notice under section 5, the landlord shall, not less than 28 days before the date of the auction, serve on the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats a further notice stating those particulars.
(5) Section 6 shall have effect as if, in subsection (3), for paragraph (a) there were substituted—
"(a) that the disposal is made by means of a sale at a public auction;".
(6) Section 8 shall have effect as if subsections (2) to (6) and (9) and, in subsection (7), "subsection (5) or" were omitted.
(7) Section 9 shall have effect as if, in subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—

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

(b) that the other terms on which the disposal is made must correspond to those specified in the offer notice."

(8) A person nominated for the purposes of section 6 by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may, by notice served on the landlord not less than 28 days before the

1943
date of the auction, elect that sub-paragraphs (9) to (12) shall apply; and if such an election is made, those sub-paragraphs shall apply accordingly.
(9) If a contract for the disposal is entered into at the auction, the landlord shall, within the period of 7 days beginning with the date of the auction, send a copy of the contract to the nominated person.
(10) If, within the period of 28 days beginning with date on which such a copy is so sent, the nominated person—

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

(b) fulfils any conditions falling to be fulfilled by the purchaser on entering into the contract,

the contract shall have effect as if the nominated person, and not the purchaser, had entered into the contract.
(11) Nothing in the contract as it has effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (10) shall require the nominated person to complete the purchase before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which he is deemed to have entered into the contract.
(12) Sections 11 to 17 shall have effect as if the reference in section 11(1)(b) to any provision of sections 6 to 10 included a reference to any provision of this paragraph.
(13) If a person nominated for the purposes of section 6 by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats—

(a) does not serve notice on the landlord under sub-paragraph (8) within the period there mentioned; or

(b) does not satisfy the requirements of sub-paragraph (10) within the period there mentioned,

sections 6(8) and 9(1) shall apply as if a notice in pursuance of section 9(1) were served at the end of that period.
Disposals for non-monetary consideration
2.—(l) This paragraph applies where, in any case to which section 5 applies, the consideration required by the landlord for making the disposal does not consist, or does not wholly consist, of money.
(2) Section 5 shall have effect as if, in subsection (2)—
(a) after paragraph (b) there were inserted—
"(bb) state the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1A and of any election made under that paragraph;
(be) state that, accordingly, the notice also constitutes an offer by the landlord, which may be accepted by the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats, for a person or persons nominated by them to acquire the property in pursuance of sections 11 to 17;";
(b) in paragraph (c), for "that offer" there were substituted "either offer"; and
(c) in paragraph (d), after "which", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted "(where the offer stated under paragraph (b) is accepted)".
(3) Section 6 shall have effect as if, in subsection (1)(b), for "the offer contained in his notice" there were substituted "the offer stated in his notice under section 5(2)(b)".
(4) If, within the section 5(2)(c) period, the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats accept the offer stated in that notice under section 5(2)(bc)—

(a) section 8 shall not have effect, and

(b) that majority of such tenants may, by notice served on the landlord within the section 5(2)(d) period, elect that sub-paragraph (6) shall apply;

and if such an election is made, that sub-paragraph shall apply accordingly.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—
"the section 5(2)(c) period" means—

(a) the period specified in the offer notice under section 5(2)(c), or

1944

(b) such longer period beginning with the date of service of that notice as may be agreed between the landlord and the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats;

"the section 5(2)(d) period" means—

(a) the period beginning with the date of service of the acceptance notice and ending with the end of the period specified in the offer notice under section 5(2)(d), or

(b) such longer period beginning with that date as may be so agreed.

(6) If the landlord disposes of the protected interest without contravening section 6(3)(a) and (b), sections 11 to 17 shall also have effect as if—

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

(b) in section 11(2), the reference to four months were a reference to 28 days;

(c) in section 12(2), each reference to six months were a reference to two months.

Disposals in pursuance of options or rights of pre-emption
3. Where—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 11(1) apply to a relevant disposal affecting any premises to which at the time of the disposal this Part applied ("the original disposal"), and

(b) those premises are still premises to which this Part applies, and

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

(d) in pursuance of the option or right, the landlord makes another disposal affecting the premises ("the later disposal") before the end of the period specified in section 12(2),

sections 11 to 17 shall have effect as if the later disposal, and not the original disposal, were the relevant disposal."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Duty of new landlord to inform tenant of rights]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): In calling Amendment No. 254 I have to advise the Committee that should this amendment be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 254ZA due to pre-emption.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 59, line 44, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 251. However, I am conscious that I shall pre-empt an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Caldecote. If he wishes to say something on his amendment, perhaps that will be convenient.
Viscount Caldecote: I, too, found the amendments proposed by my noble friend complex and difficult to follow. In his excellent explanation he covered a lot of ground in a relatively short time. I am not quite clear now whether the amendment in my name is necessary. However, the point I wish to make is that the period of two months specified in Section 11(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, now incorporated in Clause 86 of the Bill, is far too short a period for notice of disposal.

1945
Perhaps I may give one example. Let us suppose that that notice is served in mid-July or mid-December. It is quite impossible in practice to inform all the tenants involved in time for them to take legal advice on the course of action they wish to take.
I may not quite have understood the amendments my noble friend moved and which have been passed. My amendment may not be necessary. However, I should be grateful for an explanation.
Lord Lucas: I can give my noble friend the comfort that the effect of his amendment is subsumed in Part I of Amendment No. 252. Therefore, effectively we have accepted his amendment by proposing ours. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 254ZA not moved.]
Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 254ZAA:
After Clause 86, insert the following new clause—
PROTECTION FROM EVICTION: INVESTIGATION OF OFFENCES
(" . After section 6 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 there shall be inserted—
"Investigation of offences.
6A. It shall be the duty of every local housing authority to investigate alleged offences contrary to this act within their administrative area.".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 254ZAB and 254ZAC. The amendments seek to reinforce the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Under Section 6 of that Act a local authority has the power to prosecute persons for offences of harassment and/or illegal eviction. However, it is only a power. The fact is that some local authorities do nothing and the reinforcement which the first of the three amendments seeks to introduce is to provide that local authorities should have a duty to investigate potential offences under the Act.
In the third of the group of amendments, Amendment No. 254ZAC seeks to add to the category of persons on whom notice may be served under Section 7(1)(b) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977:
"any person presently or previously authorised to arrange for the letting of the premises; or … any person currently engaged in the management of the premises".
It is designed to deal with the problem of shifting landlords. As drafted, Section 7(1) of the 1977 Act enables a local authority to demand from the agent or persons named in the receipt of rent to supply information relating to the name and address of the landlord.
The amendment proposes that the requirement should be extended to cover any persons engaged in the arrangements for letting or managing a property. Of course, there is a sanction within the 1977 Act for non-compliance with a notice, but that sanction does not apply if the person upon whom the notice is served can show to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the facts required by the notice to be
1946
disclosed. I suggest that this is a sensible amendment adding to the range of powers under the 1977 legislation.
Finally, Amendment No. 254ZAB seeks to give additional powers of entry to enable tenancy relations officers to make inquiries to establish whether an offence has been committed within the terms of the 1977 Act. At present, officers are frustrated in their duties by their limited powers of entry. I suggest that even outside the provisions of this Bill, the improvements—which I believe they are—to the 1977 Act have considerable merit. In the context of the Bill and the deregulation which it proposes, it is essential that tenants' remaining rights should be protected as much as possible by conferring on local authorities the necessary statutory powers to make appropriate inquiries. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, seeks to do in the amendments. Perhaps I may put to him some questions about Amendment No. 254ZAB and the powers of entry. I am concerned that we should have adequate safeguards for homes which officials might want to enter, no matter how good the motive. Are these likely to be residential premises as well as business premises? What would be reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under the Act had been committed? How much evidence would the local authority official have to have to indicate that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion and therefore for obtaining entry into someone's home? The right is not something that we should give away too lightly. Although I am aware that many officials have rights of entry to people's homes, I wish to be satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards of the power.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord's Amendment No. 254ZAA would impose a new duty on local authorities to investigate alleged offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I start by assuring the Committee that the Government agree that landlords who harass or illegally evict their tenants should be dealt with severely by the law. That is why we introduced tough new sanctions against bad landlords in the Housing Act 1988.
However, in considering the noble Lord's proposals it is important to put the problem in context. The survey of English housing reports that three-quarters of tenants say they are on good terms with their landlords; one-fifth are on neither good nor bad terms; and only 4 per cent. say they are on bad terms with their landlords. It does not follow that just because the tenant is on indifferent or bad terms with the landlord he or she is at risk of harassment or illegal eviction.
I am aware of a report published by the Campaign for Bedsit Rights in 1994 which states that 9 per cent. of all privately renting tenants face harassment. However, it is important to put this statistic in its proper context. The figure comes from the OPCS survey of private renters in 1990. Seven per cent. of tenants had simply reported that their landlord had made them feel uncomfortable at some time and want to leave. But this does not

1947
necessarily indicate that the landlord was guilty of harassment. There may just have been a poor personal relationship between them or the tenant may have felt uncomfortable when asked for the rent or approached about some other aspect of the tenancy agreement.
These statistics indicate that it is only a very small minority of landlords who are likely to harass their tenants or take illegal action to get them to move. However, I can assure the Committee that I do not underestimate the distress that such behaviour must cause to tenants who are subjected to it.
Local authorities already have a power under Section 6 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to institute proceedings where an alleged offence under the Act has taken place. I have difficulty with the noble Lord's amendment, which would require local authorities to investigate every allegation of harassment. Local authorities' current powers allow them to take action where they believe that an offence may have taken place but do not require them to get involved where, for example, the tenant is alleging harassment simply because the landlord has repeatedly asked for rent arrears to be paid or where the tenant is known to be a trouble-maker. We believe that it is essential that local authorities should retain their existing discretion to act. The noble Lord's amendment would place an unacceptable burden on local authority staff and budgets.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 254ZAB would give local authorities specific powers of entry to the property where the alleged offence had taken place and to the landlord or managing agents' business premises to collect evidence in connection with the alleged offence. It also provides for entry by force. Local authorities do, of course, have powers to enter premises for specific inspection purposes in connection with their duties to enforce environmental health and fitness standards. However, I share the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the noble Lord's amendment would represent a pretty substantial extension of those powers. Such powers are generally available only to the police to investigate criminal offences, and even then strict rules and checks are applied before entry is authorised.
Proposals to give new powers of entry are scrutinised carefully by the Home Office. A new power of entry is approved only if it is clear that it is a vital element in enforcing the law and that the consequences to the public of not having that power would be serious. I do not believe that is the case for the type of offences we are talking about where there is unlikely to be much documentary evidence that an offence has been committed. I do not underestimate the seriousness of the offences we are talking about. However, I do not believe that the situation calls for the very striking extension of local authority powers that is proposed.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 254ZAC would extend the existing notice requirement in Section 7 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 for disclosure of the landlord's name and address to cover anyone arranging the letting of the property or managing the property. I do, of course, accept that the tenant, or
1948
someone acting on the tenant's behalf, should have the right to know who the landlord is and how he can be contacted. The law already requires whoever is collecting the rent, where it is not the landlord himself, to disclose the name and address of the landlord if a notice under Section 7 is served on him or her to do so. I think we can confidently assume that a landlord will appoint someone to collect the rent if he cannot do so himself. This amendment would therefore seem to me to be unnecessary.
In view of the difficulties I have outlined and the assurances I have given in relation to the existing position, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
10 p.m.
Lord Meston: I do not intend to press any of the amendments at this stage but I wish to comment on some of the points made by the Minister. I do not dispute that the great majority of tenants would neither need nor want to invoke the powers which presently exist under the 1977 Act or which are proposed by way of extension in these amendments. But, as I believe he recognises, the problem is a few hard cases involving elusive landlords who may move on, move away or hide away and who need to be tracked down. It is principally for that purpose that we seek to extend the net slightly by Amendment No. 254ZAC.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I accept his instinctive concern about extending any power of entry into private premises, whether they be business or domestic premises, and I must accept that in some circumstances a place of business can also be a place of residence. That is inescapable. The fact is that concern about powers of entry—I remember that they were discussed at length during the passage through this House of the Child Support Act—always emerges when a provision of this kind is suggested. Usually the reassurance has to be given that the power will only be exercisable when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed—that is covered by this amendment—and, of course, that only responsible officers of the local authority or the authority which happens to be invested with the powers provided will be entitled to exercise those powers. But the necessity for these powers, I maintain, is still apparent. I suggest that they are a necessity to give some further teeth to the Protection from Eviction Act to enable local authorities to glean information as to the identity of elusive landlords and the way in which they conduct their business.
As I said, I do not propose to press any of the amendments at this stage. I reserve the right to come back at a later stage. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 254ZAB and 254ZAC not moved.]
Clause 87 [Provision of general legal advice about residential tenancies]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 254A:
Page 60, line 16, at end insert (", or

1949
(c) any aspect of good management practices to be adopted in the running of flat management companies").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, tabled in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is to extend the scope of the Department of the Environment's existing commitment to providing information on enfranchisement and estate management schemes to include advice for self-managed blocks of flats on good management practice.
It is clear that flat management is not an easy task. It requires people to accept wide responsibilities, show a sense of commitment and expend a lot of energy in order to carry out the management function. I say that not from personal experience but having heard it from friends who are in that situation.
The commitment given under the 1993 Act to co-fund the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service was expanded to provide general legal advice about residential tenancies including estate management schemes. However, no commitment is given to providing general advice and assistance on good management practice to groups of leaseholders once they have bought their freehold. Those are the people who have the responsibility to oversee the management.
It has been demonstrated on a number of occasions that the willingness of the residents to get involved and not the nature of the building itself is the key factor in the success of a flat management company. The ability and motivation of the members is therefore crucial, and in order that that can happen effectively there needs to be access to impartial advice. After all, many of the residents in flats find themselves with a management responsibility possibly for the first time. It is not something for which they can plan in advance. Once they achieve the position of being able to exercise management, they must move quickly because it usually happens in circumstances when there has not previously been good management. It is for those reasons that I hope the Government will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: This amendment gives me an opportunity to sing the praises of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service—not, I hasten to add, on my own account, but to pay tribute to the extremely hard work put in by the chief executive and his staff, for which I am enormously grateful.
The Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service welcomes the clause in the Bill because there have recently been more inquiries on the subject of management. Unless I misread the provision, I did not understand Clause 87 as it stands, and in particular subsection (1)(a), to be exclusive of the management provision. It seemed to me that it was not prescriptive as currently drafted.
Bearing in mind that LEAS is a jointly co-funded operation, it seemed to me that the nature of the advice should follow the funding, the source and the remit from that. As an advisory service giving impartial advice, we at the LEAS want to stick to giving advice on what the legal rights and legal remedies might be. The legal
1950
position therefore is a baseline that flows from both the legislative provisions on the one hand and the landlord/tenant relationship under a lease on the other.
I would be a little concerned if the wording of the amendment led us on to the practical application of day-to-day management matters. It would be extremely difficult to be impartial with that degree of detail. On a purely practical note, it could add substantially to the burdens, at any rate on the LEAS, regardless of what may happen to any other advisory service. I may have mistaken the extent of what the noble Lord intended and I appreciate his reasons for tabling the amendment. However, I felt that the Committee should know what my thoughts are on the matter.
Lord Strabolgi: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. Flat management carries with it communal responsibilities. Although self-management is demonstrably better than management by remote freeholders—the kind of people we were discussing earlier—it can suffer from problems of apathy among the majority of residents, particularly in larger blocks of flats such as those in the central metropolitan area of London. Service charge arrears can also be a problem when some tenants do not pay their "whack" on time. There may be a lack of planning for management and maintenance, especially in the older blocks, and a lack of clarity about maintenance responsibilities in leases causes difficulty with planning, particularly in the smaller and older converted blocks.
It seems to me that the provision of good advice on aspects of management will become crucial when the Government deliver their commitment—now a longstanding commitment—to introduce a system of commonhold and when flat owners are offered the benefits of self-management and freehold title. Unless an advisory agency exists to promote good practice and practical advice it is difficult to see how some problems inherent in human beings dealing with other human beings will be resolved.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, mentioned earlier the state of affairs on the Continent which is so much more satisfactory than what we have here, with the system of leasehold and large freehold landlords. Perhaps the Government could also consult our colleagues in the Community, particularly in France, where they have a very satisfactory system of freeholds of apartments, and perhaps get some useful practical knowledge from them. In the meantime, I hope the Government will institute some sort of scheme as suggested in the amendment.
Lord Meston: My name is associated with the amendment and I speak briefly to support it since it seems to me to focus on practical assistance rather than merely the provision of legal advice, and would go a

1951
considerable way to prevention rather than cure of the problems which can arise in the situations which have been described by previous speakers.
Lord Lucas: I have listened with great interest to what noble Lords have said but I think I can boil down my speaking note to, "We don't want to do it".
Lord Strabolgi: The noble Lord must say rather more than that and give some explanation. The noble Lord has been most thorough and courteous the whole way through this Committee stage. I am very surprised at what the noble Lord has just said. I know it is getting late and perhaps we are all getting tired, but I think the noble Lord should give some explanation. He must have a brief. If he has not, perhaps the Box could help.
Lord Lucas: Indeed I do have a brief. I can say in two pages exactly what I have said in one sentence. If noble Lords would like me to do that, I shall now do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has suggested that an agency funded under Clause 87, such as the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service, should also be able to advise on any aspect of good management practices to be adopted in the running of flat management companies.
Clause 87(1)(a), as presently drafted, allows the person or agency funded by the Secretary of State to give advice on any aspect of the law of landlord and tenant so far as relates to residential tenancies. This is a very wide remit indeed. It would include giving advice on matters covered by any code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under Section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Noble Lords will be aware that, under Section 87, such codes are admissible in court or tribunal proceedings and may be taken into account in determining any question arising in the proceedings. The result is that, so far as Clause 87 of this Bill is concerned, such approved codes and their application to individual disputes are to be treated as part of residential landlord and tenant law: and a person or agency funded under Clause 87 will be able to advise freely on such questions.
However, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would go somewhat further than this, in a way which we think would be undesirable. For example, we do not think it would be appropriate for the Government to fund an agency providing general advice on aspects of property management. In particular, this would cut across the Secretary of State's powers to approve codes of practice relating to these matters.
Given my assurances as to the wide scope of the existing powers in Clause 87, I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is willing to withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I may also point out that grouped with the amendment is Amendment No. 278, which is a minor measure which commences Clause 87 automatically two months after Royal Assent. As it is an enabling power, with no transitional implications, there is no need to trouble Parliament with a commencement order.
1952
Automatic commencement also has the benefit of having the legislative cover in place before Parliament will be asked to vote any money.
I see nothing in that which adds to my brief reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I am sorry if I offended the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and others by attempting to speed up proceedings by being summary in my execution. But if the noble Lord has found something extra in what I have just said that I did not say originally, he is a better man than I. But I suspect he is anyway.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I listened to both speeches of the Minister with equal attention, but I was not persuaded by either of them. I can understand his reservations about the particular model that would follow from this amendment. I am a little concerned that the Minister has not accepted that there is a problem. If tenants are going to exercise effective self-management, then some help is necessary. It may be that he believes that the existing help is there in sufficient quantity for any further help not to be necessary. I believe that that was part of the point that he made. There is a problem here. Some tenants, in exercising management, may need some help and support for the system to work well. It is the wish to have that problem recognised that motivated me in tabling this amendment rather more than the thought that the Minister might accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 254B:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
CUSTODIAL DEPOSIT SCHEMES
(" .—(1) A local housing authority may make and submit to the Secretary of State for confirmation by him a scheme (in this section referred to as a "custodial deposit scheme") authorising the authority or another body to register and hold all rental deposit monies charged by landlords letting properties within the authority's area.
(2) A custodial deposit scheme may—

(a) specify the information to be kept on the register;

(b) specify the person required to notify the local authority of deposits charged and to lodge deposit monies with the authority;

(c) make it a duty of such persons as may be specified by the scheme to notify the authority of the payment of a deposit;

(d) make it a duty of such persons as may be specified by the scheme to lodge deposit monies with the authority;

(e) specify the time limit within which the deposit should be lodged with the authority;

(f) make provision for the funding of the scheme through interest raised from deposits held;

(g) set down criteria for the use of interest raised for the benefit of private tenants in the local authority's area;

(h) specify the method by which tenants are to be notified of the lodging of the deposit;

(i) specify the methods by which disputes over the return of deposits are to be resolved.

1953
(3) A custodial deposit scheme shall not come into force before it has been confirmed but subject to that comes into force on such date as may he fixed by the scheme or, if no date is so fixed, at the expiration of one month after it is confirmed.
(4) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of the deposit scheme commits a summary offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and if the contravention or failure continues, he commits a further summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one-tenth of the amount corresponding to that level for every day or part of a day during which the contravention or failure continues.").
The noble Baroness said: At Second Reading I made the point that I thought that it was very desirable to have some formal place where tenants' deposits can be held. I quoted the New South Wales system as being an example where this works very well. Following that, the citizens advice bureaux approached me and asked whether I would accept this amendment which it has worded. I have accepted it and I put it forward tonight as a probing amendment. I have reservations as regards the very first line which refers to, "A local housing authority". I am not sure that such a housing authority will be the appropriate body to deal with this matter.
In New South Wales there is a specific authority called the Rental Bond Board of New South Wales which covers the whole state and which is very much bigger than a local authority here covering a much smaller number of people. I believe that a local authority would be given a great deal of additional work as the proposal is set out in this amendment.
Since I raised this matter and having tabled the amendment, I have received communication from the Small Landlords Association. I am impressed by the fact that it researched the New South Wales scheme, which I knew little about. It made the point that out of all the cases there only 0.8 per cent. were disputed. The consumer claims tribunal for settlement, which resolves who is to get the refund, awarded 16 per cent. of claims to the tenants and another 16 per cent. were fully awarded to the landlords. In the rest of the cases some kind of compromise position was taken.
I am not sure whether my amendment is of the right type or whether it would be preferable to have some kind of insurance or bonding system on behalf of letting agents. A number of them already operate such systems. My concern is about cases where no one is responsible for the money. Someone may well vanish with it. The argument about dilapidation is usually settled through inventory clerks who check in and check out and determine the exact position of a property. I do not believe that that is such a difficult issue.
It is important for people to feel that their money is safely held somewhere. Whereas in the past agents used to give tenants the benefit of the interest on the money, they now say that the cost of administration is so high that they can no longer give tenants the benefit of any interest. I note that quite heavy costs attach to the New South Wales scheme, and that has been pointed out by the Small Landlords Association. It is a disadvantage if the tenants' deposits are going to be eroded by the cost of the scheme, so there are snags to it. I have put
1954
forward this amendment because the principle is a good one. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's comments on it. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said about the situation in New South Wales. In contrast to that, the citizens advice bureaux have told me that, so far as they are concerned, disputes over the return of rental deposits are one of the commonest forms of landlord/tenant disputes with which they have to deal. Those disputes are not only distressing and disturbing for their clients, but they also distort the housing market. They reduce flexibility and choice for the tenant and are a disincentive to renting out property, particularly for inexperienced landlords, and thus act to restrict the revival of the private rented sector.
Since January 1989, as we know, almost all new private tenancies have been either assured or assured shorthold. In future, they will mostly be shorthold. Many tenants pay their landlords security deposits—sums of money held as security against rent arrears, damage to property or removal of furniture. Over here there is no legal obligation for security deposits to be kept in separate accounts or to be returned with interest at the end of the tenancy—although both conditions are, of course, common practice among good landlords. It is with the landlords who are not so good that we are dealing.
Every year the citizens advice bureaux deal with three-quarters of a million housing problems. They tell me that one of the most common forms of dispute in the private rented sector relates to the return of rental deposits. Sometimes the deposits are held by an agency, as I mentioned earlier. I understand that a client in London rented a flat via an agent and paid a deposit of £750. The agency subsequently went into receivership and the client was anxious to recover the deposit. The bureau reported that the local council was concerned about the number of agents going into receivership and the number of deposits being lost.
The amendment would build on initiative by giving local authorities new powers to establish an independent custodial service for rental deposits which could be run by local authorities or other organisations. That would surely provide a value-for-money service for both landlords—good landlords—and tenants, and create greater security in the private rented sector. I therefore hope that the Government will take account of the amendment, which would be a useful innovation.
We are dealing here—this is why we are legislating—not with the good landlords, but with the very murky world of verbal agreements and all that kind of thing, where, at the end of the tenancy when the tenant is evicted because the landlord wants to try to get more rent from somebody else, although the tenant may have paid a deposit, the landlord may deny that he has ever received it or may say that furniture has been damaged when it has not been damaged. We have to deal with such cases. It would be a great advantage if such

1955
deposits could be held by an outside body, preferably by somebody officially appointed by the local authority. I support the amendment.
Lord Meston: I, too, wish to support the amendment—or something like it. It seems to have the potential for considerable practical value. It is encouraging to see that it is based on the considerable experience of the citizens advice bureaux. I agree with what the CAB says about the disproportionate amount of time and effort which is spent on disputes about relatively small amounts of money originally provided by way of deposit.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Baroness about the appropriateness of having the local housing authority as the custodian of the deposit scheme, it seems to me that it might be possible for local housing authorities to make joint arrangements with other bodies. Subject to those remarks, I support the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: I support the principle that the noble Baroness raises with the amendment. However, I do not believe that what she has set out here is the right way forward. What we are talking about is landlords taking pecuniary advantage—I can put it no more kindly than that—of tenants. But the scheme must not be something that is bureaucratic or disproportionate in terms of its running costs compared to the amount being held.
I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, because I, too, am aware of circumstances where landlord management companies have gone into liquidation holding the stake, not just in connection with rental deposits, but money due for repairs and such things. There are not the proper accounting methods. The matter should be addressed, but it must be looked at in the context of the resources necessary to provide it. I should say that the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service is not looking for that task.
Lord Dubs: I have looked at this amendment with interest. Obviously I feel sympathetic towards its aim. I congratulate the noble Baroness on having put it forward. Something of this sort is desirable, but I have some difficulties with some of the detail as suggested within the amendment. We do not, after all, want to impose upon local authorities something so cumbersome and complicated that it will be very time-consuming. I should look for something that was a bit simpler than the scheme proposed. I wonder whether that could be devised.
I worry a little also about one of the points in the amendment which provides:
"set down criteria for the use of interest raised for the benefit of private tenants in the local authority's area".
If I were a tenant and I had deposited my money with the landlord, which I would expect to get back on leaving the property, I would regard that as my money, and I would regard the interest as my money in the same
1956
way as if a solicitor held money on my behalf when I would receive interest from the solicitor for the money that he had on deposit.
I am not happy that money which belongs properly to one tenant should be used for general purposes in an area, no matter how laudable they may be. I am worried that some of the earlier points are very detailed. We have something which is worthy and has a great deal of merit to it, but I am worried about some of the details as they are stated in the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend's new clause would allow a local authority or an authorised body to set up a scheme to register and hold all rental deposit moneys charged by local landlords in its area. As we have heard, the scheme, which would have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, would be able to specify a number of duties and conditions on the person receiving the deposit. Failure to comply with those would carry the sanction of a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
In cases where there is no dispute, involving the local authority or a body authorised by the authority to register and hold deposits is likely to complicate and slow down arrangements which are already working satisfactorily.
My noble friend's amendment would also allow the authority or body operating the scheme to specify the methods to be used to resolve disputes. I recognise the very real difficulty that disputes can cause to both landlords and tenants. In those cases where there is a dispute, the key problem is finding a speedy and effective means of resolving who has the best claim to the deposit moneys. There will be cases where the landlord has a legitimate claim to some or all of the deposit to cover theft or damage. In other cases, the tenant will have every reason to expect the full deposit back.
In the light of what I have said, it is perhaps not surprising that my noble friend's proposal that the schemes could decide for themselves how they would handle disputes causes me some concern. That concern is, of course, that we might be asking the schemes to act in lieu of the courts. I cannot see how that would be appropriate. If I am not right about that, I am not clear what benefits these schemes would bring.
The small claims court already offers a cheap and relatively simple way of dealing with such disputes. If the claim is not contested there is no need for a court hearing. If it is, the amount in dispute is likely to be sufficiently small for the hearing to be dealt with under the informal, small claims arbitration procedure.
I do not want to appear dismissive of my noble friend's proposal. I should like to reassure her, like other noble Lords who have spoken, that I fully understand and share her concern that a small minority of landlords or agents should not be allowed to misappropriate their tenants' deposits. I am sympathetic to my noble friend's suggestion that we should look at schemes in other countries to see whether they have any advantages for our own situation. My noble friend, not surprisingly,

1957
drew our attention to the scheme in New South Wales. If this is a temptation to find me a reason to go to Australia this summer to examine that scheme, perhaps I might indeed welcome her amendment. But I do not think that we should rush to legislate in the matter. I know that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is keen to promote such a scheme. However, other options have also been put forward. The Association of Residential Letting Agents favours bonded schemes run by recognised letting organisations.
As I explained, the issue of handling disputes needs to be thought out very carefully. In that context perhaps I may suggest again that we should wait and take account of the forthcoming report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on access to justice, which I understand will recommend ways of speeding up cases through the small claims court.
While my noble friend has made an attempt to bring forward a possible framework for resolving some very difficult and unpleasant problems which may be occurring, we ought to be careful before we embark on what could turn out to be a fairly complex and bureaucratic system. Perhaps we should study systems in other parts of the world, as we are prepared to do, and wait on the report I mentioned before we come to any decisions on whether we ought to move and whether there is a reasonable scheme we could move to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank those who have supported the amendment in principle. I feel that I must respond to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. He referred to the tenant being evicted. I am not talking about cases of eviction. I am talking about cases where the tenant leaves and the same situation arises. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I am not really speaking entirely about cases where there is a dispute about how much money one should get back. I am more concerned about the type of case referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, where someone goes into liquidation or someone vanishes with all the money rather than an argument between the landlord and tenant. Perhaps the bonded scheme suggested by the letting agents is a good answer. However, the small property people make a point which I think is very important. Many unscrupulous tenants send out the advice through leaflets not to pay the last month's rent and in that way ensure that they will not be looking for their deposit. That seems equally unfair to the landlord because the deposit is there to cover dilapidation and any damage. I hope that we will be able to consider the principle further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Williams of Elvel: No.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that the amendment be agreed do. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Tellers for the "Contents" having not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 51, a Division therefore cannot take place. I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
10.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 88 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 8.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Inglewood, L.

Boardman, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Caldecote, V.

Lucas, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

McNair, L.

Coleraine, L.

Meston, L.

Courtown, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hamwee, B.

Wilcox, B.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Desai, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dubs, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment. The Commons amendments ordered to be printed.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Council of Europe Conventions and Legal Instruments Not Ratified by UK
  Council of Europe Conventions and Legal Instruments Not Ratified by UK
  Transfer of Corpses: Council of Europe Agreement
  Transfer of Corpses: Council of Europe Agreement
  Georgia: UK Assistance
  Georgia: UK Assistance
  Rural Poverty: Alleviation
  Rural Poverty: Alleviation
  Port of Tyne: Transfer Scheme
  Port of Tyne: Transfer Scheme
  Special Waste Regulations 1996: Guidance
  Special Waste Regulations 1996: Guidance
  Warble Fly Treatments: Research
  Warble Fly Treatments: Research
  Orchards: Grubbing Up Statistics
  Orchards: Grubbing Up Statistics
  Family Law Bill [H.L.]: Government Amendments
  Family Law Bill [H.L.]: Government Amendments
  Former Yugoslavia: Army Reserve and TA Call Out
  Former Yugoslavia: Army Reserve and TA Call Out
  Nursery Education Voucher Scheme: Assessment
  Nursery Education Voucher Scheme: Assessment
  Sex Offenders: Sentencing and Supervision
  Sex Offenders: Sentencing and Supervision
  Prisons: Costs and Performance Comparisons
  Prisons: Costs and Performance Comparisons