Sitting of 4 March 1996

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

    National Lottery
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many charities have now been awarded funds from the national lottery. [16350]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The National Lottery Charities Board has made 2,460 awards, worth £159 million, to charities and voluntary organisations. In all, lottery distributors have made 4,394 awards, totalling £556 million to charities and voluntary organisations. That accounts for more than 85 per cent. of all awards made to date.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that staggering reply and draw her attention to the fact that the national lottery has meant a bonanza for my constituents, with more than £1.2 million spent in my constituency and the immediate surrounding region—and that achieved without any substantial fall in charitable giving for any significant charity. May I congratulate her on that excellent result?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate his constituents. He has a formidable list of
    2
    charities being supported by the national lottery. They include Homestart and church and sports projects. With other hon. Members, he is benefiting from the great national lottery. Contrary to expectations, the evidence is that contributions for charitable giving have not fallen.
    Mr. Maclennan: To put this in perspective, what has been the Government's tax take in the period for which the right hon. Lady gave those figures? What study are the Government undertaking of the lottery's impact on people whom the charities board is most concerned about: the poor?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with figures on the tax take. Of course the Treasury would benefit from other ways in which the public spent their money if the national lottery did not exist.
    As to the effect on charities, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of some of the surveys of what has happened. A recent survey showed that, although 2 per cent. of people thought that they would give less, 4 per cent. thought that they would give more. Gallup found that 5 per cent. said that they would give more. The UK charities lottery and many of the people moving into scratchcards have benefited. The medical charities finally reported that, contrary to expectations, despite the lottery, they had had an extremely successful year. The Home Office is formally monitoring the position and that information will be available in due course.
    Mr. Jessel: To put this in true perspective, is not the national lottery a brilliant national achievement that has given tremendous pleasure to millions of participants and has raised enormous sums for charities and other good causes? Is it not a fact that charities such as the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Appeal have increased their uptake since the national lottery started?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.
    Dr. John Cunningham: It is tempting to accept the right hon. Lady's suggestion that, under the national

    3
    lottery, everyone is a winner, but the story beneath the headline numbers that she has given is not quite that good. More than 80 per cent. of all lottery funding has gone to voluntary organisations, but 40 of those awards total almost £1 billion. Traditional street collecting, fund-raising charities—the tin shakers and ticket sellers—have been most badly affected, as figures from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations graphically demonstrate. Sadly, many small and medium local and regional charities are adversely affected by the national lottery's impact and its huge success in gathering money. We need to consider much more carefully and closely those effects, especially on small revenue-raising charities.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we need to consider keeping all aspects of the lottery under careful review. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced—as he said that he would do during the Committee stage of the Bill that introduced the lottery—that the Department is monitoring not only giving, but how much charities are receiving.
    Charitable giving has fashions and although tin collections are not having an easy time, those organisations moving into scratchcards seem to be doing very much better. The British Legion, recently the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the United Kingdom Charities Lottery have all recorded considerable increases in the amounts being made available. A particular charity says that it is losing contributions and that turns out to be a reduction in legacies—it is hard to understand how it could be thought that the national lottery is responsible for that.

    Seaside Piers
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total sum contributed by the national lottery to seaside piers; and if she will make a statement. [16352]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The national lottery has contributed £790,042 towards two projects aimed at assisting seaside piers.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I applaud the generosity of the national lottery in giving funds to what appear to be modest and unambitious pier projects. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unique features of Southend pier, which is the longest pier in the world—more than 1 mile long—and which has a wonderful train running its length? It has survived three fires and vessels crashing into it. Given that great record, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if Southend council applies for help further to improve that wonderful pier, careful consideration will be given to that application?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The piers of the realm need careful protection and I am delighted that the national lottery benefits them. My hon. Friend will be aware that I do not have direct control over the lottery distributors—more is the pity, I sometimes think. However, I shall do all that I can to encourage the chairmen of the distributing bodies to give piers every favourable consideration.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am all in favour of lottery money going to seaside piers, but I hope that no lottery money
    4
    will go to hereditary peers. Will the right hon. Lady make it quite clear that no lottery money will go towards funding a royal yacht, just in case it crashes into Southend pier?
    Mrs. Bottomley: No such application has been made. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of hereditary peers are chairmen of some of the distributing bodies that make the decisions on how lottery money is allocated.

    National Stadium (Manchester)
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received about the siting of a national stadium in Manchester for the Commonwealth games in 2002. [16353]
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had with the Sports Council about the siting of a major national stadium in Manchester. [16361]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. fain Sproat): I have received a number of representations about both Manchester's plans for the Commonwealth games stadium and the city's bid to develop the new national stadium using lottery money. I have followed the debate closely, although it has always been an important principle of the national lottery that distribution of the proceeds should be independent from the Government.
    Mr. Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a phenomenal number of visitors to the north-west when the games are held in Manchester in 2002? I am sure that he wants the games to be a success. However, to have a world-class games, Manchester will need a world-class stadium. Will he give the House a commitment today that the athletes, the phenomenal number of visitors and the people of the north-west will not be let down in 2002 by the facilities on offer during the Commonwealth games?
    Mr. Sproat: I am sure that visitors and athletes will not be let down. I am aware that my hon. Friend has taken the lead in looking after the interests of the north-west in this matter. The Sports Council is looking at the project for the national stadium, which may or may not be the stadium for the Commonwealth games. If it is not—it is a big if because the Sports Council has not made up its mind between Manchester and Wembley—I am sure that any other stadium will be absolutely fitting for the Commonwealth games.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Manchester city council is working hard to improve the chances of the Manchester bid being successful by attending to the traffic and public transport implications? Is he aware that those of us who represent constituencies in the nine other boroughs of the county of Greater Manchester would like to be confident on that point?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, Manchester city council is looking very carefully at two transport matters—car parking and

    5
    the metro and rail facilities for the games. I know that both are being kept under very close consideration and my Department is keeping in touch.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Minister, from that Dispatch Box, assure the House that, whichever of the two cities succeeds in its bid, not one penny of lottery money will go into the pockets of private shareholders? Were that to happen, would that not be a gross misuse of such money?
    Mr. Sproat: Any distribution of lottery funds is a matter for the appropriate distributing body.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that such a stadium would be important not only to Manchester but to Lancashire and the entire north-west? Will he do everything possible to ensure the necessary transport links in Lancashire so that we will be able to make full use of the facilities that will be provided for 2002?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I will certainly do everything appropriate for my Department, and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about transport in general to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

    National Lottery
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes have been awarded funds from the national lottery in south-west England. [16354]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In the south-west of England, 377 national lottery awards totalling £52,681,000 have been awarded. City Screen Ltd., the Riding for the Disabled Association and the Devon branch of the British Red Cross have received awards and are three examples of 10 awards that amount to more than £1 million in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my hon. Friend on, and thank her for, the wide range of awards to my constituency and to the south-west. However, will she accept that the tremendous success of the national lottery has created its own problem because many organisations face increasing difficulties in raising matching funds for the grants that they have been given? Will she therefore consider relaxing the rules of matching funds to ensure that many such projects reach completion in future?
    Mrs. Bottomley: All the distributing bodies have flexibility in the extent of partnership funding for which they ask. The Sports Council, for instance, recently announced a number of initiatives for which it wants only 10 per cent. funding. The caring charities do not ask for partnership funding at all. In spite of the cries of concern, the evidence to date has been that matched funding is increasing. Overall, for every £1 of lottery money, £1.49 has been produced in partnership funding. Figures for the latest three months suggest that for every £1 of lottery money, £1.61 has been raised in partnership funding. In other words, lottery partnership money is improving in the same way as business sponsorship of the arts last year increased by one fifth on the previous year.
    Mr. Barnes: Is it not demeaning for hon. Members to have to get up in National Heritage questions to try to get
    6
    funds for their constituencies or to be informed by the Minister how much money has gone to their areas? Why do we not have proper Question Times such as those that we used to have on energy and on employment, which address serious matters rather than who happens to get what for his area in the log roll?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I think that hon. Members know that it is not within my power or gift to distribute lottery money. They also celebrate the fact that many arts, sports and heritage projects are able to receive funding on an unprecedented basis. That is a source of great pleasure and a great achievement for all those who are benefiting throughout the country through more than 5,000 different awards.

    Millennium Projects (Wales)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the projects in Wales which will be considered by the Millennium Commission before the end of March. [16355]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Millennium Commission has considered applications for funding for the Welsh national stadium in Cardiff and the Middleton botanic garden. The Millennium Commission awarded grants of £46 million and £43 million respectively to those projects. The commission does not expect to consider any further applications until April.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is it not true that, after the Cardiff opera house fiasco, the Millennium Commission never had any other intention but to award the national stadium to Cardiff? Consequently, the Bridgend proposal was strung along to the extent that, on the day that the announcement was made, Jennifer Page, the chief executive of the Millennium Commission, wrote to the Bridgend consortium saying that its proposal was insufficiently developed and, without the backing of the Welsh Rugby Union, would not succeed, while a Millennium Commission projects officer wrote on the same day to say that Bridgend's project was under initial consideration and that all projects would be reviewed by the end of April.
    Will the Secretary of State commission an inquiry into why Bridgend was deliberately misled by the Millennium Commission? Will she release a copy of the report given to the Millennium Commission and a transcript of the proceedings, which I believe were fixed? The Bridgend proposal was never going to be considered by the commission.
    Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman had had his way, there would not have been a lottery in the first place. Along with 41 Opposition Members, he voted against the national lottery. If he had had his way, there would be no national stadium in Cardiff and no botanic gardens. Some 23 per cent. of the Millennium Commission's money has gone to Wales, but not a penny of it would have gone to Wales if Opposition Members had had their way. The Millennium Commission looks carefully at each application. The decisions are never easy; I can say only that the commission takes great care and great trouble. I believe that the stadium in Cardiff will be a magnificent place to accommodate the 1999 Rugby world cup.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Millennium Commission that, when it considers

    7
    projects in Wales, it should consider that some in Wales want not to celebrate, but to destroy our national heritage by making Britain a republic?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely agree. As Secretary of State for National Heritage, I believe strongly in protecting the institutions of this country. Those who flirt with republicanism are likely to get the result achieved by the Labour party in Australia.
    Mr. Fisher: What is the Secretary of State's policy towards millennium fund projects in Wales and elsewhere whose grants lead directly to an increase in the profits and capital assets of the private sector companies that happen to own the sites in question? How will she ensure that the public benefit from, and share, the huge profits and increase in land values that British Gas is likely to gain if the millennium exhibition goes to its site in Greenwich? What lessons are there more generally—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates entirely to Wales. If the hon. Gentleman relates his supplementary question to Wales, it is acceptable; otherwise it is not. The question is specifically about one area of the country.
    Mr. Fisher: I was asking what lessons there were for millennium projects in Wales from the actions that the Secretary of State intends to take in Greenwich.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question; it is an important matter which needs clarification. On all occasions, the Millennium Commission seeks to get value for grants. If the Millennium Commission had such a project in Wales, it would ask somebody of the calibre and ability of Sir Peter Levene to ensure that any grant that it invested in a project delivered the best possible return for the people.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes have been awarded funds from the national lottery in the west midlands. [16356]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Three hundred and thirty-one national lottery awards totalling £53,426,000 have been awarded in the west midlands.
    Mr. Coombs: In contrast to the carping of Opposition Members, may I reassure my right hon. Friend that the national lottery is extremely popular in my constituency? Is she aware that the national lottery has meant that £25,000 has gone to Age Concern to fund anew its minibus for people in the area and that we are getting no less than £1 million for a regional sports centre between Kidderminster and Stourport? Will my right hon. Friend consider, through national lottery funds, funding for a permanent home for the Bewdley festival, which has become such a success in my area over the past decade?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am delighted to hear about the great contribution that the national lottery makes in my hon. Friend's constituency. His Age Concern project is one of 40 Age Concern projects that have received almost £2 million so far from the national lottery. There have
    8
    been well over 840 awards for the arts—more will be announced tomorrow—throughout the country and particularly the west midlands. I shall pass on to the chairman of the Arts Council and its lottery board my hon. Friend's concern for his particular project.
    Mr. Olner: The Minister will realise that Nuneaton rugby football club in my constituency will not be happy with her answer, as the club had a perfectly good bid turned down for no transparent reason. Is she aware that no lottery money has come to my constituency? Does she agree that a transparent answer should be given to organisations that have been refused bids? Does she further agree that people in the west midlands require a transparent answer as to why the millennium exhibition will be in Greenwich, despite the fact that the midlands' bid was better?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The national lottery has been distributing grants for less than a year, but 176 awards amounting to more than £13 million have been made to football in that time. I very much hope that the club to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be one of the lucky ones in the year ahead.
    Mr. Fabricant: While I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) about the Millennium Commission not putting the exhibition in Birmingham, was not the British Tourist Authority—which promotes this country's tourism overseas—right to say that Greenwich was the only possible location for the exhibition, which will receive international recognition? Does my right hon. Friend deplore, as I do, the claim that jobs will be lost in south-east Staffordshire, of all places, because the exhibition will not be held at the national exhibition centre?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am confident that the millennium festival in Greenwich will be a tremendous success, providing a national and international focus and an opportunity to gather together the nation to look forward to the next millennium. I appreciate the disappointment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and others about the Birmingham bid. There will, however, be good news tomorrow for the west midlands, which will receive a further 13 arts awards amounting to more than £3.5 million.

    "Informing the Debate"
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the closing date for responses to the consultation document, "Informing the Debate". [16357]
    Mr. Sproat: The Government's discussion with interested parties is now effectively complete. We shall shortly announce our proposals, which Parliament will then be able to debate fully.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Following the Government's humiliating defeat—yet again—in the House of Lords on the issue of listed sporting events, will the Minister assure the House today that mainstream television channels will be granted full access to those events in the future?
    Mr. Sproat: The Government are strongly and sympathetically aware of the concerns expressed by

    9
    Members on both sides of both Houses. If the hon. Lady follows the proceedings in the other place tomorrow, she will no doubt get an answer to her question.
    Mr. Whittingdale: In considering responses, will my hon. Friend the Minister pay particular attention to the views of the governing bodies of the sports concerned? Does he accept that the market created following the advent of Sky has resulted in millions of pounds going to sports that those sports would otherwise not have received?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is quite right. A sport such as cricket, for example, receives about 40 or 50 per cent. of its funding from television rights. In respect of the question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, it is interesting that the Sports Council—totally uninfluenced by the Government—has greatly developed its views from those expressed in its letter of 16 January to those in its letter of 22 February, which I hope hon. Members will have a chance to see. That letter places strong weight behind my hon. Friend's point.

    Five Nations Championship
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations she has had with the rugby football unions of the five nations in the five nations championship concerning its inclusion in the schedule of listed events. [16358]
    Mr. Sproat: Representatives from the English and Welsh rugby football unions were among those who participated in a meeting with my officials last month to discuss issues raised in my Department's discussion paper on broadcast sports rights. The meeting covered a range of general issues, including the contents of the list of protected events.
    Mr. Morgan: Despite Wales having lost yet again on Saturday and despite me becoming for the past 48 hours the first in-patient that the Samaritans have ever had, does the Minister agree that this matter is important for the long-term future of the game of rugby football, and for inspiring young people to take up the game and for helping pensioners who may not have Sky—some of whom may be old enough to remember Wales winning a rugby match—to watch the game? Was not the list of eight events that left out the five nations championship drawn up defectively? Should it not be put right at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Sproat: I thought that Wales, although they were beaten yesterday, put on a terrific show and I hope that they will smack the French in the next match.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that not all the home unions want the Five Nations to be a listed event. However, the Government are considering that event and the question of listed events is kept under review. No doubt, the House will have the opportunity to discuss the matter during proceedings on the forthcoming Broadcasting Bill, when it comes to this place.
    Mr. Waller: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Rugby Football League about the inclusion of rugby league events in the schedule? Does he agree that
    10
    the trick must be to try to ensure that rugby league receives proper remuneration for sports rights, while, at the same time, the maximum number of viewers have access to the important games?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend gets the balance right. I think that some 26 out of the 32 professional rugby league clubs were, or are, insolvent and in desperate need of the money that comes from television sports rights. At the same time, we want the maximum coverage on television so that people who cannot get to games can be inspired by, and enthused about, the sport.

    Sport
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her Department's role in promoting greater public involvement in sport. [16359]
    Mr. Sproat: My Department fully recognises the general benefits of sport and recreation, and aims to improve opportunities for both champions and the general public. That is why we issued the sports policy paper last summer, which outlines our proposals to improve sporting opportunities, starting with young people in schools. We are also involved in promoting the benefits of sport in "The Health of the Nation" initiative.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend spell out the Government's policy on the selling off of school playing fields? Is he aware that Essex county council is trying to sell off a playing field that currently serves Hadleigh junior and infants schools in my constituency? Does he agree that those fields should be retained for the children's use and that communities in that area should be protected from further house building?
    Mr. Sproat: On my hon. Friend's specific question about Hadleigh junior school, I believe that today is the last day on which representations on the appeal to allow what he wants can be made to the Department of Education and Employment. Then it is up to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. On his general point, we want school playing fields to be protected and we are consulting about whether the Sports Council should become a statutory consultee in all future sales of school playing fields.
    Mr. Pendry: Does the Minister agree, in spite of last week's helpful announcement by the Sports Council of a national junior sports programme, and while recognising, as did his department's document "Sport: Raising the Game", that there is no substitute for introducing sport to the wider public through sport in schools, that local authorities have a vital role to play, too? If he does agree, why have 75 per cent. of local authorities been forced to reduce expenditure on sport and recreation over the past year, why has the sportsmatch scheme been cut by 15 per cent., and why has the Sports Council's budget been reduced by £2.3 million? Is he aware that these cuts must be viewed against the background of a decline in the number of PE teachers from 42,000 to 24,000 and of the selling off since the Conservatives came to power of over 5,000 playing fields? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he wishes to promote greater public involvement in sport,

    11
    he should do it not merely by throwing lottery money at the problem—robbing Peter to pay Paul—but by putting in place a well-structured sports policy. When are we going to get it?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman has got it. It was called "Sport: Raising the Game" and it came out on 14 July last year. That document clearly states that an extra £1 million will be put towards training teachers, £1 million from Sportsmatch will go to schools and another £2 million will be put forward to be bid for so that schools and clubs can improve their links, one with another. On playing fields, we are consulting about whether the Sports Council should become a statutory consultee. In addition, there is PPG note 17 and the 1981 regulations that stop schools selling off sports grounds where there is not a certain ratio of pupils to hectares.

    National Lottery
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes have been awarded funds from the national lottery in south-east England. [16360]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Four hundred and eighty-two national lottery awards, totalling £116 million, have been awarded in south-east England.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the residents of Hastings and Rye are already seeing the benefits of some of the awards to my constituency, many of which are extending the tourism season? Is she also aware that people in Hastings enjoy gambling on the lottery? Does she agree that, if we are to extend the tourism season, high-quality casino gambling would be very acceptable? Would she please make representations to the Home Office to that effect and to ensure that no money from the national lottery goes to new build casinos?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. Lottery money is promoting the tourism industry particularly in coastal areas and the English tourist board has submitted a bid to the Millennium Commission further to promote our coastal areas. She will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is consulting on casinos and bingo, which also have an important contribution to make to the tourism industry. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: As someone who takes her holidays in a seaside resort, the Secretary of State is no doubt aware of the importance to the local economy and national built heritage of some of our local seaside towns. As there have been capital controls on local authorities that have prevented them from investing in many of our national seaside heritage buildings, resulting in dilapidation and decay, would she be prepared to undertake a national review of seaside resorts and, in particular, of how investment in them can be facilitated?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware of the work undertaken by the English tourist board to promote our coastal towns. As far as I am concerned, we need a
    12
    booming tourism industry. The greatest threat to that industry is that the Opposition should reach power and introduce the social chapter and the minimum wage. That would, at a stroke, do more damage to our tourism industry than anything else.

    Personal Privacy (Media Intrusion)
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to introduce legislation to protect personal privacy from media intrusion. [16362]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: There are no present plans to do so.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern of many people that personal privacy is being persistently abused by the media? I refer in particular to the unauthorised use of material from overheard telephone calls, notably on mobile phones, which is published in the press. I also refer to snooping photographs, which are taken of people in their homes and without their consent. Will my right hon. Friend consider legislation in that regard? It would be a great tragedy if we allowed technology to abuse and kill our freedoms.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks for many in the House when she describes her profound concern about intrusions into privacy. She will be aware that interception of private calls can be a criminal offence—it is a matter for the police to investigate. The Press Complaints Commission has warned newspapers that the publication of any material achieved as a result of an intercepted call might be a breach of clause 5 of the code.

    "Competing With the Best"
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made towards implementing the proposals in "Competing with the Best". [16363]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We have made excellent progress towards achieving the two main objectives of "Competing with the Best"—improved quality and more effective marketing. We are continuing the drive to increase competitiveness by undertaking a major investigation into how well the industry uses and invests in its most important resource—its people.
    Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the speech made last week by the chairman of Bass about the remarkable competitive advantage of this country in the matter of non-wage labour costs as compared with countries such as France, Italy and Spain? Given that the Spanish have just thrown out their labour party after far too long in power, would this be the right moment for this country to consider introducing socialist measures such as the national minimum wage and the social chapter, at a time, when other countries may well be considering how damaging to their tourism industries such measures are?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Sir Ian Prosser identified the non-wage costs, which go

    13
    from 10 per cent. in the United Kingdom to 43 per cent. in Italy. He said in his speech last week that Europe and the European Union are at a crossroads, and asked:
    "Is it going to be a deregulated, business friendly, high growth region—or … a tradition-led, inward-looking region concentrating on attaining long-term political objectives without regard for the short-term consequences for business or employment?"
    The Government are quite clear about the answer—deregulation and low labour costs are the way to more employment and greater wealth for Britain.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the number of unsuccessful lottery bids. [16366]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In the 12 months from 1 January to 31 December 1995, almost 7,000 applications were received by the four arts councils, the four sports councils, the national heritage memorial fund and the Millennium Commission. Of those, fewer than 1,000 have so far been turned down—a rejection rate of 14 per cent. In the same period, the National Lottery Charities Board received more than 15,000 applications, of which around 13,000 were rejected.
    Mr. Pike: Has there been any attempt to advise those whose applications were rejected as to why they failed? Are there any examples of applications from deprived areas that were unable to meet the matching requirements that are necessary to get a grant from the lottery board?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am anxious that, as we make progress with the national lottery, there should be greater assistance to those who have difficulty processing their applications and those whose first applications were unsuccessful. All the distributing bodies are trying to set in hand precisely such schemes. All the distributing bodies have flexibility over the partnership requirements for which they ask. The Sports Council for example, provides up to 90 per cent. funding for projects in areas of high need.

    World Cycling Championship
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the progress being made by the British Cycling Federation in its organisation of the world cycling championship in Manchester; and what assessment she has made of the value for money provided by the grant given by the Sports Council. [16367]
    Mr. Sproat: The British Cycling Federation has assembled an experienced organising committee to prepare for the championships and has provided appropriate assurances that satisfactory arrangements are in place. It is for the Sports Council to consider the value for money provided by its grants to governing bodies.
    Miss Hoey: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he share my concern that some of the arrangements for the world cycling championships to be held in Manchester at the end of August have not gone very well? Does he agree that it is particularly important that everything
    14
    possible is done to make the world championships a successful event? Has any further decision been made on televising them—there have been difficulties—and will he take a personal interest in ensuring that they are promoted successfully so that they bring success to our cyclists and show that Britain can organise and compete in an event in Manchester?
    Mr. Sproat: I agree with everything that the hon. Lady says. It is certainly true that the championships were bedevilled by difficulties between the British Cycling Federation and Sport for Television and by the structure of the velodrome. I hope that those difficulties are now completely settled. I also agree that it is important for us to show that we can run world championships in Britain. We have seven world championships this year and we aim to make them world class indeed.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good for British sport that we have two world beating cyclists in Chris Boardman and Graeme Obree? Does he further agree that the development of new facilities, such as the velodrome in Manchester, is extremely important to the promotion of Britain in world sporting events?
    Mr. Sproat: I very much agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. One of the prime objectives of the new UK Sports Commission is to attract the greatest number of world-class sporting events to Britain. I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for Mr. Chris Boardman and, as proof of what I say, we have invited him to be part of the new English Sports Council, and he has accepted.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many orchestras in the east midlands have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [16368]
    Mr. Sproat: There have, as yet, been no awards to orchestras in the east midlands. However, there have been 38 awards to arts projects in the region, totalling some £8 million. Of those, seven awards have been made to bands and one to a choir.
    Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend will realise that Leicestershire is the centre of English rugger, with the Leicester Tigers being the main side in the county. Will he help me make it the centre of English music-making by increasing the publicity his Department gives to applying for an award under the national lottery scheme? I am sure that many orchestras—not least the Wigston orchestra in my constituency—would be very pleased to know the details of how to make such an application so that they may benefit as a result.
    Mr. Sproat: As to my hon. and learned Friend's reference to Leicester and rugby, a son of Leicester—Dean Richards—made the single greatest contribution to England's Calcutta cup victory on Saturday. As to giving more publicity to how to make lottery applications, my right hon. Friend recently authorised the distribution

    15
    of a leaflet on the subject. If my hon. and learned Friend has any difficulties in that regard, I would be glad to answer any questions.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much revenue the national lottery has generated for good causes.[16369]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Revenue generated by the national lottery for the five good causes totals £1.613 billion.
    Mr. Greenway: That news is very welcome. My constituents are particularly delighted that the Greenford lawn tennis club has received £51,000 from the national lottery to open a new and much needed pavilion, which will be used by everyone in the area. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pavilion will prove so good and useful that it is fit to be opened by the Prince of Wales, the Princess of Wales or the Queen—if Labour Members would leave them alone?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members in welcoming the contribution of national lottery awards to their constituencies. It is bringing communities together, promoting sport, encouraging arts activities and restoring heritage and many rural areas. It is a magnificent success.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Public Record Office
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representation he has received about the rules governing the date of release of documents from the Public Record Office. [16441]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Neither the Lord Chancellor nor I have received any recent representations either about the 30-year closure period for public records provided for by the Public Records Act 1958, or about the criteria for closure for longer than 30 years.
    Mr. Banks: I shall make a representation now. The Government continue to bang on about freedom of information, but there are records relating, for example, to the force-feeding of suffragettes or the abdication crisis and the Nazi past of Edward VIII that we are not allowed to know anything about. Is not it right that we should be told what has occurred in this country's history? All of those records should be freely available now and in the public domain.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the 30-year period rule was established in 1967 by the then Labour Government and that the 30-year standard closure period—
    Mr. Banks: The suffragettes were more than 30 years ago.
    Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman want to listen to the answer? The 30-year closure period is standard in
    16
    most European Union countries. Notwithstanding that fact, in 1992–93, the Government decided to undertake a policy review in the area. After receiving representations, we came to the conclusion that 30 years was appropriate in those cases which the advisory council on public records—chaired by the Master of the Rolls—considers should be subject to the closure.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that much more must be done to improve access to the public records by people who cannot make the difficult journey to the Public Record Office at Kew? Will he, therefore, encourage the keeper in her work of ensuring that finding aids, indices and some of the records are available through on-line databases and other forms of new technology?
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I share his concern about ensuring that public records are maintained and made available to the public. We are dealing with a substantial number of records, which is one of the reasons why the move to Kew was undertaken. His points about indices and matters of that nature are well taken.

    Mental Incapacity Report
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration underlay his Department's decision to organise a consultation exercise on its response to the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity. [16442]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: In considering the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity, the Government recognise that that is an important and sensitive subject which raises moral and ethical issues about which many people have strong personal views. Therefore, the Government believe that it would be inappropriate to make any proposals to Parliament in the absence of there being full public consultation.
    Mr. Khabra: Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that competent patients' advance refusals of treatment for their medical conditions are legally binding on doctors by virtue of case law?
    Mr. Evans: I do not intend to be drawn into giving at the Dispatch Box answers about hypothetical legal situations. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has some of those strong personal views to which I referred. He is keen to see voluntary euthanasia made acceptable, but the Government fully support the conclusion of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics that euthanasia is unacceptable. Further, the Law Commission's report on the subject made no proposals for the legalisation of euthanasia.

    Family Law Bill
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further representations he has received in relation to the Family Law Bill. [16443]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have received a number of further representations in relation to the Government's divorce reform proposals.
    Lady Olga Maitland: In the light of the overwhelming vote in the House of Lords last week, will my hon. Friend

    17
    consider reviewing the fair and just division of pension assets for divorced women? Does not he accept that the subject is causing great concern because it is unfair that women who have devoted their lives to bringing up children should be beggared in later life because they have not been able to take full advantage of the family assets?
    Mr. Evans: I note my hon. Friend's observations about pension splitting and, of course, the Government will give close attention to the views that were expressed in the other place. My noble Friend Lord Mackay made it clear in that debate that there were a number of practical difficulties in the proposals. Those practical difficulties were not removed by the vote that took place.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying which vote she meant, because there was another vote on Thursday that supported, by two to one, the Government's proposals for removing fault from divorce.
    Ms Lynne: Will the Minister make a commitment today that the vote on splitting pension rights on divorce will not be reversed on the Floor of this House?
    Mr. Evans: I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that there are a number of practical difficulties in the proposition that has been made. I do not think that I could have been clearer. It is appropriate for the Government to consider the views that were expressed in the other place and that is what the Government will do.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not the assertion that the Family Law Bill would make divorce easier a total misunderstanding? Is not the situation that anybody can get a quickie divorce today, on demand, by making allegations of fault and causing bitterness which, most importantly, distresses the children? The Bill would not allow quickie divorces and everyone would have to wait a year, during which the matter could be reconsidered, and there would be no obligation to make any allegation of fault that would cause bitterness between the parties and the children.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. and learned Friend is right about the proposals in the Bill. A wide range of concerns have been expressed about the arrangements to which he refers. I should like to mention some of the observations that have been made by those who have the greatest practical experience of couples who are, sadly, involved in marital breakdown. For example, the chairman of the national trustees of Relate, the former Marriage Guidance Council, said on 23 February:
    "The Family Law Bill is the best piece of social legislation for the last 20 years".
    Mr. Boateng: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise and accept that women and children are all too often the financial victims of divorce and the domestic victims of violence? Does he also accept that there is no majority in the House for a Bill that does not address effectively both those concerns? Will he indicate clearly and categorically from the Dispatch Box this afternoon that the Government support pension splitting in principle and that they support—in principle—giving more powers to the police to deal effectively with domestic violence?
    18
    Does the Parliamentary Secretary understand that, unless he is able to give those assurances, he will not find a majority in the House for his Bill? It is time that the Government started putting families and their protection first.
    Mr. Evans: Of course I accept that the interests of the parties—the wife and the children—are of great importance. That is why certain measures have been introduced by the Government.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that, during the divorce process, there is an obligation on the legal practitioners acting for the parties to take whatever the pension fund may be into account. I recognise that that was not considered sufficient. Pensions earmarking was, therefore, incorporated in the Pensions Act 1995.
    Mr. Boateng: Not enough.
    Mr. Evans: I have spelt out some of the practical consequences of pension splitting, but I have also made it clear that the Government will take account of the vote in the other place.
    The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Law Commission's recommendation that there should be additional power in the hands of the police should be made a part of the Bill that is now in another place. That matter was considered by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and by the Special Standing Committee that considered the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill last year. Those Committees concluded that the recommendation should not be included in legislation.

    Magistrates
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken to differentiate between active and passive support for a political party when considering an applicant for the magistrates' bench and assessing the balance of appointments to any particular bench. [16444]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: None. The political views of applicants are taken into account to achieve a balance on the bench, but it is not considered necessary to distinguish between active and passive support for a political party.
    Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that the majority of applicants to the bench tend to be Conservative voters. As a result of the Government's obsession with political balance and the fact that the overwhelming number of people who come forward vote Conservative, Conservative-voting applicants have been turned down while there has been a scramble for applicants for the bench who vote Labour, perhaps councillors or other activists. Given that, in my constituency, there is one example of a highly inappropriate appointment, could we perhaps differentiate between those who passively vote for a party and those who are activists? We would not then overlook many good applicants and end up with a few unsuitable ones.
    Mr. Evans: The only distinction that it would be relevant to raise in relation to active and passive support is in those cases where it may in some sense affect the

    19
    impartiality, as it were, of the bench. It is important that those who are appointed have a clear understanding of the rule of law, are people of good character and command local confidence. I am not surprised, therefore, that there is a significant number of Conservative applicants. Political views are taken into account only to maintain balance on the bench. As the House knows, the Lord Chancellor's Department is engaged in an advertising campaign, using the local press, television and radio, in areas where it is concerned that there might not be a balance, to encourage applicants with the qualities that I have outlined to come forward.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that most of my colleagues would be astonished to find more Labour applicants and more Labour justices of the peace than Tories in the areas that we represent? In Bolsover, throughout the 26 years that I have been a Member, there have always been more Conservative than Labour supporters on the bench. That is true of many other areas. There is only one solution: it is high time that we elected magistrates. We could try elections for judges as well, and retire them at 65.
    Mr. Evans: This seems to be one of those times when several Labour Members come through with Labour's secondary agenda. We shall have to wait to see whether the hon. Gentleman's proposals are adopted by his Front Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). A survey at the end of 1995 revealed that, of all appointments made in that year, fewer than 40 per cent. of those appointed to the bench were supporters of the Conservative party.

    Legal Aid
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made on the reform of the legal aid scheme. [16445]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The Lord Chancellor published a Green Paper setting out proposals for the reform of legal
    20
    aid in May 1995. Approximately 200 responses have been received. The Lord Chancellor has been examining the responses and intends to make an announcement on the future of the legal aid system before the summer.
    Dr. Spink: When considering reform of the legal aid system, will my hon. Friend seek to improve or increase protection for my constituents and, indeed, for the taxpayer, from the people who occasionally use the legal aid system improperly, and particularly from vexatious litigants?
    Mr. Evans: I am very much aware, from responses to the Green Paper received by the Lord Chancellor's Department, of concerns about whether those who are granted legal aid are advantaged in relation to costs. That, in essence, is one of the points my hon. Friend has raised, and I have had correspondence with him about it. He will be interested to know that that concern was also raised by a number of people who responded to the consultation, and it may well be one of the areas that is addressed in the response.
    Mr. Llwyd: As the availability of legal aid has decreased, from about 80 per cent. when it was first introduced to just under 30 per cent., may I suggest one immediate saving that could be put in train—an appointment system in magistrates courts? Rather than have 10 or 12 legal aid lawyers wasting time all morning, give them an appointment system such as they have in the civil courts.
    Mr. Evans: That is an interesting idea and it might be taken up by the magistrates courts themselves. The hon. Gentleman will know that magistrates courts committees are independent.
    Eligibility is somewhat higher than the hon. Gentleman said. He is right to say that it has diminished, but the overall legal aid budget has grown inexorably. That is why the reform announced by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is so very important.

The Monarchy
3.30 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the controversy, especially over the weekend, about the monarchy, may I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether anything in our Standing Orders prevents the House from debating the future of the monarchy, and whether any Minister has approached you with a view to ensuring that such a debate takes place in the near future?
Madam Speaker: Nothing prevents the House from debating the monarchy. It is for the Leader of the House and the Government to make time for such a debate. At the present time, I have not heard that we are to have a statement or a debate on that matter.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Given the confusion that exists as a result of the comments of a senior spokesman on the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), I wonder whether he or the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has come forward to request time to make a personal statement about the confusion about Labour party policy on this matter.
Madam Speaker: No. What happens outside the House is not my concern, thank goodness.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There can be no further points of order on that.
Mr. Corbyn: In view of the comment that you have just made about a debate on the future of the monarchy, can I take it that you would accept an application for a private Member's debate on the relationship of the monarchy just as much as a motion from the Leader of the House? In other words, could any hon. Member propose such a motion to discuss the future of the monarchy in this country?
Madam Speaker: There are no private Members' motions days left, so I could not accept such an application—I was quite correct in my answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A number of Labour Members who are very concerned about this and clearly oppose the monarchy are demanding a debate. I feel that you may want to give in to the request for a debate, so that we can sort out exactly what is happening in the Labour party. The country wants to know. Officially, the Labour party is in favour of the monarchy, but clearly some Labour Members are against it.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Speaker of the House does not determine the time that is given to debates. It is for the Government to do that, or for the Opposition on their Supply days. We have heard all the exchanges across the Floor of the House on this matter. We shall now proceed with the debate on the economy.

The Economy
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.34 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on the fundamental health of the British economy, as demonstrated by nearly four years of sustainable growth, the best inflation performance for almost 50 years, Government borrowing coming down, 29 months of falling unemployment and an increase of over half a million people in jobs since the recovery began, and recognises that this is a result of the Government's economic policies which are making the United Kingdom the enterprise centre of Europe.
We are discussing the British economy, which currently enjoys the most favourable circumstances that any hon. Member present can remember. We are debating, in Government time, the most attractive economic prospects that have obtained for a generation. Let me begin by setting out a few facts—facts on which any sensible debate must be based.
We in this country have enjoyed sustained economic growth for nearly four years. All the conditions are in place to ensure that that healthy growth is maintained. This year, the level of growth in the United Kingdom will be among the best—perhaps the best—in the G7 economies. Exports have performed strongly, thanks to improved competitiveness; unemployment has fallen every month for the past 29 months, bringing registered unemployment down by more than 750,000. The number of people in jobs has been boosted by half a million since the recovery began.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Clarke: In a second. First, let me finish giving the background, for my hon. Friend's benefit.
We are enjoying the longest period of low inflation for nearly 50 years. We are on course to meet the Government's inflation target. According to the Bank of England's latest inflation report:
"Underlying inflation in the United Kingdom is more likely than not to be somewhat below 2½ per cent. in two years' time."
Public sector borrowing is on a firm downward path, and we are on track to balance the budget over the medium term.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that those essential facts will assist my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to make his helpful intervention.
Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the great improvement in the British economy that has taken place under the present Government—which all Conservative Members acknowledge—dates back very nearly to 16 September 1992, when we abandoned the idea of fixed exchange rates? Why, in an interview that took place a few days ago, did he express sympathy for the concept of a single currency, although tens of millions of voters in this country and throughout

23
Europe are deeply opposed to it? Its manifestations so far have generated the prospect of the worst unemployment rate in Europe for 40 years.
Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend knows very well, I believe that our recovery dates from before our exit from the exchange rate mechanism. The circumstances that I am describing, however, are due to the Government's policies on taxation, public spending, inflation and deregulation over the past three or four years. Those are clear policies on which all members of the Conservative party are agreed.
As for the article that my hon. Friend mentioned, I was trying to give an interview about the economy to a journalist with whom I am otherwise friendly, but whom I have always considered to be obsessed with the single currency. I was just waiting to see whether I could give an interview that remained free of the subject. The experiment proved unsuccessful.
Today's debate, however, is about the economy. If my hon. Friend studies what I actually said—the parts of the interview that are in quotation marks—I think that he will find it to be an impeccable explanation of why our long-term interest rates were higher than those of France and Germany for many years. Those rates were dependent on our history of inflation and devaluation. Now we are putting that behind us, and establishing a track record that will stand the country in good stead. Whether or not we join the single currency—if and when it ever happens—the British economy will be safe in our hands.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Before the Chancellor leaves the subject of the interview, will he tell us whether he is sympathetic to his predecessor's view that a single currency would inevitably lead to a single European Government?
Mr. Clarke: No, I am not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: If I may return to the subject of the British economy—
Mr. Gordon Brown: I thank the Chancellor for giving way: I see that another of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), wishes to intervene on the European issue.
Does the Chancellor still believe that those who support the idea of a referendum on a single European currency are—as he told "Newsnight" two years ago—"slightly up the creek"? Does he support those who favour such a referendum, or not? Yes or no?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot really complain about the hon. Gentleman wanting to turn to the issue of Europe. I can only say that, whenever we mention the British economy—even when I last faced him, in Aberdeen—it is the last thing on earth he wants to talk about, and he welcomes any opportunity to change the subject. As for quotations, I prefer to see what I have said in full and in context. I tend to find that partial quotation—even by my hon. Friends, let alone by my opponents—of what I sometimes say on these subjects is extremely misleading.
24
I should like to get back to the subject we are debating.
Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: With respect—
Mr. Brown: With respect, the Chancellor has changed the subject and refused to answer the question. I should be very happy to quote in full what he said on "Newsnight" on that day, but will he answer the question whether he supports a referendum on the single currency—yes or no?
Mr. Clarke: The Prime Minister has made it extremely clear that, if and when we ever face the choice of whether to join a single currency, a referendum is one of the things that could be considered at the time. That has been my view. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is my view—I have repeated it very frequently. A referendum on the single currency has nothing to do with a debate on the British economy.
I will therefore, with your permission, Madam Speaker—
Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
Mr. Clarke: No; really, my own Back Benchers do it better. I have indulged the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend.
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot have two hon. Members on their feet—[Interruption.] I presume that the Chancellor is giving way?
Mr. Clarke: No, Madam Speaker—I was deferring to you.
Madam Speaker: I am simply telling the House that I cannot have two hon. Members speaking at the same time.
Mr. Clarke: To get back to the point, let me remind hon. Members from both sides of the House of last year's Budget, which contains a summation of what I have just described. I was able to reduce taxes by £3 billion in total, leaving the British people with more of what they earn and save. I kept the total of public spending under firm control to pay for those tax cuts, but I was still able to spend more on the public services that people care about: the health service, education and the police service.
That combination of tax cuts, cuts in public spending to pay for them and increased resources for the national health service, schools and the police service is a combination that only good government can deliver.
The experience of this recovery demonstrates the British economy's potential.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor recall that, on David Frost's programme, in September 1994, he said that he would not favour an income tax cut if borrowing was in excess of £30 billion? With borrowing now forecast to be in excess of £30 billion, does he think that he was right to cut taxes?
Mr. Clarke: I am always delighted to find that my words are followed with such close and rapt attention.

25
My forecast for the public sector borrowing requirement in the Red Book, as it happens, was £29 billion. Partial quotation is no good. My policy for three years—,[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) can quote my Budget if he wishes to know what the Government's economic policy is.
My policy for three years has been to get public borrowing under control and to move towards balance in the medium term. The Red Book in front of the hon. Member for Gordon clearly shows that we are on course to achieve that. Of course we had to spend to finance the tax cuts I made this year, and we did so—which is why the Labour party had no opinion on the subject at all. The hon. Gentlemen voted for tax increases in the face of all that, but, as far as I am aware, in order to spend the revenue raised by those tax increases rather than to cut borrowing.
The combination of those policies has also put us on course to achieve what I believe is the sole object of economic policy: increased prosperity, falling unemployment and the prospect of creating a healthy enterprise economy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall in a moment.
We are enhancing the British economy's potential. The Government's liberalising, free-market reforms in the past 16 years have transformed the British economy into a flexible success story. I have a quotation to support that. Last year's OECD survey of the United Kingdom said that our
"sweeping structural reforms … are yielding dividends in a more flexible, competitive and less inflation prone economy."
That is what the Government have put into place, and that is what we are debating today.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman also agree with the OECD that Britain has slipped from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league?
Will he now answer a question on public spending that has been put to him in the past but which he has failed to answer? The Prime Minister has said that he wants to get public spending as a share of national income down to 35 per cent., but the Chancellor is quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying that 40 per cent. is the maximum. Does he support the Prime Minister's figure—yes or no?
Mr. Clarke: If I am allowed time, and if there are not too many interventions, I propose to deal with all this rubbish about league tables at a suitable and later point in my speech. These bogus tables give a misleading impression of British economic performance since 1979—clean contrary to the everyday experience of people old enough to remember what things were like before 1979. That certainly deserves an answer, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to give him one later.
I have set a target—it remains the Government's target—of reducing the proportion of GDP taken by the state to below 40 per cent. In my interviews, and in those given by the Prime Minister, we have made it clear that we would like to go beyond that, if that proves possible. No one in the Government has ever set a target of 35 per cent.; we are reducing the figure to 40 per cent.
26
The proposition is a straightforward one: in any given year, when the totality of Government spending grows by less than the growth of the economy, the proportion taken by the state falls. No party in the United Kingdom—or even in western Europe—could succeed in this endeavour as well as we have over the past few years.
I am proud of our economic performance during the recovery, but I am also optimistic about our prospects. I am confident that the British economy will defy its detractors and have yet another good year in 1996. [Interruption.] I should like to outline the solid reasons behind my confidence when I assert my 3 per cent. growth forecast—which I heard someone on the Liberal Bench questioning a moment ago.
I believe that 1996 will be a good year, first, because I expect investment growth to pick up this year as firms expand their capacity. The conditions for firms to invest have rarely been better. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has been going on about his meaningless strategy for investment—never as yet explained—for the past three years. We now have the conditions that stimulate investment, however.
Inflation is low and stable, providing the environment that business needs when making long-term decisions. Company balance sheets are in good shape, with profits up by about 6 per cent. over the past year. Because we have inflation under control, I have been able to reduce interest rates to historically low levels. That is the right strategy for investment, and its effects will flow through in 1996.
Secondly, in 1996 I also expect an upturn in the growth of consumer spending. This year, increased consumer spending will be the main source of growth in the economy. I estimate—it is only an estimate—that it will be up by 3.5 per cent. on last year. Consumers will be able to pay for the extra spending. People will see the effects of the Government's policies, which are putting an extra £9 a week in the average family's pay packet, after tax and inflation.
On top of that increase in disposable income, every household has just benefited from a £54 reduction in its electricity bill as a result of the sale of the national grid. On top of that, mortgage rates are now at their lowest for 30 years. Mortgage payments for average borrowers are about £150 a month less than they were in 1990.
On top of that, many people will also benefit from another £1.3 billion of building society payouts this year, as more societies turn themselves into banks. On top of that, many people's TESSAs will be maturing—more than £20 billion in total. I believe that most of that money will be saved, but the amounts involved are enormous, and some of the money will be spent.
For these reasons, quite a lot of money will feed its way through into the domestic economy this year, some of it undoubtedly into consumer demand. These are all solid reasons for my growth forecast for 1996.
Mr. Skinner: The Chancellor has been talking about the feel-good factor and claiming credit for things that are not the responsibility of the Government. Interestingly, he has said nothing at all about tax revenues.
It has been reported that, in the run-up to the end of this financial year, there is a likely shortfall of about £9 billion compared with the Chancellor's expectations.

27
That massive shortfall is surely due in part to the fact that some of the people who are supposedly in employment are actually in part-time work, and hence not paying the sort of tax that they would pay if they were in full-time employment.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it appears likely that there will be a shortfall compared with my forecasts in the previous Budget on tax revenues this year. I have never heard anyone putting forward the explanation for it that he has. Differing explanations exist, but that shortfall is one reason why my plans will lead to a higher public sector borrowing requirement than I forecast in November 1994. Good government, however, is to respond in policy terms to that. That is what I did in the last Budget, which showed the public borrowing requirement on a downward path.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The Chancellor paints a rosy picture of the state of the economy, but will not a typical family still be paying more tax after next year's Budget tax cuts than in 1979? Is that not the real state of the economy?
Mr. Clarke: I paint a rosy picture—which I have not always done as Chancellor—because I give solid reasons for expecting such a picture in 1996. That is no thanks to the hon. Lady and her colleagues, who voted against most of the things that underlie it. The tax take in 1979 was artificially brought down by the Labour Government, who incurred vast sums of public borrowing.
It is true that, from 1979 to 1981, in the early years of the Conservative Government, we raised taxation as we controlled public spending to bring public borrowing back under control. It was unsustainable in 1979. When they left office, the Labour Government must have known that all that borrowing was merely tax deferred, so, under Baroness Thatcher, we raised taxation and cut public spending. The tax level is now below its level in the early 1980s. It is on the downward course again, and our party believes in a downward force on taxation.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: Perhaps in a bit.
I have given the reasons for my forecast growth of 3 per cent. The key thing is that everyone, I think—every financial commentator certainly—expects that 3 per cent. will be healthy, non-inflationary growth and good for our economy's medium and long-term future. That growth in 1996 will be the product of good government and the firm foundation for our ambition to make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe.
The nature of the recovery is also interesting. In 1996, the ordinary citizen will at last begin to feel the real benefits of healthy economic recovery on his or her family finances. To produce today's good prospects, I have had to take some tough and unpopular decisions in the past three years. Sorting out public finances after a recession and keeping down inflation after a devaluation is good for business, but it can be hard in the short run on the taxpayer and the job seeker. However, in 1996, middle
28
England will begin to realise that our promise of greater prosperity and of more jobs without a return to boom and bust is beginning to be delivered.
I believe that consumer confidence will increase in 1996, for justifiable reasons.
Mr. Grocott: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clarke: Let me just finish 1996, and then I will give way.
Added to what I have said, I am cautiously optimistic that the housing market is beginning to show signs of life. My cautious optimism about the housing market is again based on solid evidence. Mortgage rates are at the lowest level for nearly 30 years, and house prices in relation to incomes are at their lowest level for more than a decade. Nationally, house prices are just beginning to edge up a little.
Mr. Robert Hughes: You said that last year.
Mr. Clarke: I did not say that last year.
The Halifax house price index has risen for six months in succession. The latest figures from Nationwide, published on Friday, confirmed the tentative trend, with an increase of no less than 1.4 per cent. in the last month alone. Since last June, the number of mortgage loan approvals is up 13 per cent., and there are great bargains for first-time buyers on today's house market, so spring 1996 could be a good time for our housing market as well.
Mr. Grocott: As the gist of the Chancellor's argument is that middle England should be exceptionally happy with his management of the economy, rather than exchange insults across the Chamber, why not put it to the test? The South-East Staffordshire by-election is awaiting the movement of the writ by the Government. For nearly three months, it has not had a Member of Parliament. Let us end the words, put the argument to the voters, and find out what the people of middle England think about the Government's handling of the economy.
Mr. Clarke: From the interventions so far, it seems that some Labour Members need to be better informed before they face the electorate of South-East Staffordshire. I should not like them to mislead that electorate about where we are at the moment. However, I should like them to think of some mitigating reasons for voting against most of our measures that have produced the improvements, or even think of some policies of their own that might show how things could be done better.
Labour Members are singularly bereft in both those aspects. I have not spent my time over the past three years coming to this House and presenting a rosy picture. We have had some tough times, and all the improvements are not yet being felt by the ordinary citizen. That is inevitable, but again the Opposition will not face up to that.
A modern, flexible economy is an uncertain place for working people to earn a living for themselves and their families. No Labour Government could change the nature of the modern industrial world. The combination of modern technology and free trade causes rapid and massive changes to traditional patterns of employment.

29

A competitive economy must respond rapidly to those changes, but that will inevitably mean that fewer people will have jobs for life. People and businesses will increasingly favour more flexible working patterns, although that can be taken to extremes. The apocalyptic message, put about by some merchants of doom, that there are no safe jobs at all any more is plainly nonsense.
The creation of a buoyant, dynamic enterprise economy creating ever more new jobs is the only credible answer to today's insecurity. No left-wing stakeholder alternative can substitute for that; it is simply a return to old, failed left-wing nostrums. Job security in this country will be increased as this Government continue to deliver sustainable economic growth, better job prospects and rising prosperity. After 29 successive months of falling unemployment, I am glad to say that British workers are beginning to regain the sense of job security that is essential to public well-being.
People are understandably wary, but their confidence will grow as the Government continue to deliver a sound macro-economic environment, low inflation and sound public finances; as we continue to cut red tape, to cut taxes when we can afford to, and to reduce the share of national income that goes on public expenditure; and as we continue to modernise our public services and make sure that they and our welfare system are affordable—in short, as we continue to create the very best conditions for businesses and individuals to prosper by their own efforts.
I will not be satisfied with a one-year-growth wonder. That is not what the Conservative Government have been labouring for over the past few years. I would not expect the British people to be satisfied with that, either. I am determined that the British economy will continue to deliver a world-beating performance into the next decade.
I want to refer to the league tables. Labour does not look to the future; it has no views on the future beyond the next polling day. It has no economic policies that it dares to utter. It denies that it has any tax plans. It is for ever denying the spending promises of its Front-Bench spokesmen and the lobbies to which they pander. It has no inflation target as a guide to monetary policy. Labour actually hides its economic policies in shame. It tries to divert attention from the optimistic present by giving a distorted and depressing picture of the past, by blathering on about our supposed decline in international league tables during the Tory years.
I believe that today's enterprise economy is actually founded on the success of our free market policies in the 1980s, and that we are poised to resume our climb to the top of the league tables. If we go into the international comparison game, those comparisons can properly be based only on the period of the international economic cycle.
Let us look at the United Kingdom's performance over the last OECD internationally standardised cycle from 1981 to 1993. Over that cycle, the full international cycle—
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Clarke: When I finish the point; it is perfectly valid. [Interruption.] I shall go into hon. Members' date-picking later. I am taking the only respectable method of comparing performances—over the full
30
international economic cycle. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is laughing nervously. It is an unusual gesture for him, but we always like to see it on the rare occasions that it evidences itself. He is laughing nervously because he knows the figures for the past full international cycle.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Clarke: I will in a moment. Let me give my facts first. Opposition Members who understand the matter are getting nervous about what comes next.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Clarke: No.
Not all Opposition Members understand this. In the OECD internationalised standard cycle from 1981 to 1993—a good long period—the United Kingdom ranked equal second with Germany of the G7 countries for gross domestic product per capita growth. Of the G7 countries, only Japan beat us, and since then it has seriously lost its way—temporarily, I hope. Our growth over that cycle was faster than that in Italy, the United States, France and Canada. We grew faster than the G7 and the European Union averages.
That is the picture when the sensible figures for a full international economic cycle are used. The cycle coincides with Conservative economic policies beginning to come into effect in 1981. The Labour party uses figures—[Interruption.] There is more nervous laughter from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. The Labour party uses figures showing us slipping in a bigger league table from 1979 from 13th to 16th. It arbitrarily adds two new countries chosen at random to put us in 18th place and to try to make us look worse.
Even in that table, all the lost places from 13th to 16th occurred between 1979 and 1980. We have not slipped in the 15 years since—even on Labour's league table. That fall between 1979 to 1980 was entirely due to the economic mess that the last Labour Government left this country as its legacy.
Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for the Chancellor's fantasy, which if I can digest it properly means that he is heaping praise on his predecessor Lord Lawson for his boom and bust management of the economy in the late 1980s, which swelled certain figures.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the reality in Britain, he will see that our car industry is owned by overseas interests, more and more of our banks are being taken over, and most of our industry is on standstill—destocking, de-investing, laying off. The image he presents is pure fantasy in the manufacturing heartland of Britain.
Mr. Clarke: My predecessors Lords Howe and Lawson were extremely successful Chancellors of the Exchequer. They took over a totally collapsed industrial economy that in 1979 was making us the laughing stock of Europe. They got hold of public finances, reduced inflation and allowed people to manage their own

31
industry. We deregulated the labour market, and by the late 1980s we had one of the most successful economies in western Europe.
Yes, we got monetary policy wrong, but not as wrong as we would have done had we listened to the Labour party's advice. It was still urging us to cut interest rates in the late 1980s. Yes, we suffered in the recession, as did all other countries in the western world, because unsustainable public indebtedness brought us all down. Britain has recovered first from that, and stronger than our competitors, and the picture is that which I have just given.
Britain out-performed its rivals during the past full international cycle from 1981 to 1993. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) says that that is a fantasy, but he is old enough to remember the winter of discontent, the state of the British car industry in those days, our complete failure to attract investment, and the brain drain caused by high tax rates in this country. He can remember all those things, yet he seeks to deny the plain and obvious fact which is recognised by all, even those in Geneva, who look at this country.
Mr. Gordon Brown: If all that is true, why, on the same OECD figures, were we 13th in the world prosperity league in 1974 and 13th in 1979?
Mr. Clarke: Because other people were doing pretty badly as well. I am asked about Lord Howe and Lord Lawson. Does the hon. Gentleman pine for the great days of Harold Wilson? Does he think that Lord Callaghan's Government were good for business, investment and jobs in this country? Good grief! The hon. Gentleman should go to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson); even he does not peddle that nonsense. That is the past that the Labour party is trying to bury; it is not something that it is digging up and saying that it will imitate if it ever gets back into power.
Mr. Sheerman: Surely the Chancellor will lose all credibility if he paints out of history the fact that, unlike all our major industrial competitors, the decline in British manufacturing industry, down to just below 20 per cent. of GDP, has left us with less than the critical mass necessary to fight our way back as a leading competitor.
Mr. Clarke: The condition of British manufacturing industry over the past three years has been extremely good. Manufacturing industry slowed down at the end of the last quarter of last year, but not in terms of manufacturing for consumption. There has been some destocking in terms of investment in intermediate goods. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he meets people in manufacturing, the position has been extremely good. We are attracting more investment in manufacturing from overseas than ever before.
The hon. Member for Rotherham again gave us echoes of Labour's real self when he went on about the foreign ownership of factories. That is a good old-fashioned Labour prejudice, which Labour Members still have. We should be proud of the fact that Japanese, Koreans,
32
Americans, Germans and Frenchmen think that this is the right place in which to invest if one wishes to manufacture goods and services.
Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although we hear all this nonsense from Opposition Members about the foreign ownership of British firms, we never hear anything at all about the substantial British ownership of firms throughout the world?
Mr. Clarke: I agree. We are the great open traders and open investors of the world. More British investment is going into the United States than there is Japanese investment. There is more overseas investment per head of the population, compared with our GDP, than is the case for any other developed country. The income from that investment contributes about 7 per cent. of our GDP and helps the prosperity of our pension funds and so on.
I will continue—enough of the 1980s. In the 1980s—[Interruption.] No doubt we shall have the league tables dug up again in a moment. The truth about the 1980s is that we banished some familiar ghosts; militant trade unions, penal tax rates and inefficient state industries were spectres that we faced and dealt with. In the 1990s and beyond, there are new big challenges.
International markets are becoming ever more open and integrated. Competition from the Asian tigers, from Latin America and from eastern Europe is becoming ever more fierce. Technological advance becomes ever more rapid. The British economy will have to be ever more competitive and ever better at responding to change if it is to continue to succeed. That is why we cannot have the Labour party taking over.
Inflation in Britain will have to match that in Germany and Japan, year in and year out. The Government will have to borrow less, spend less and tax less over time. That is the only way in which to create a low-tax environment in which British business has the right incentive to generate jobs, investment and wealth.
Success will require a Government who are committed to those economic principles and who have the determination to stick to them through thick and thin. The truth is that the Labour party represents the biggest single threat to the achievement of that success, and the delivery of that ambition. It has no ideas and, as we have just heard, it has old instincts which would take us back to the worst days of Harold Wilson.
I quote the words of the disillusioned Bryan Gould. Hon. Members must remember him, because he was a colleague. Quite recently, he was a leading member of the Opposition Front-Bench team, but he has now been exported to New Zealand. I quote from his article in The Independent. It was not written a long time ago; the quotation is from 6 November 1995, only a few months ago:
"From 1987 onwards, Labour ducked out of the battle of ideas—not a very comfortable position for a supposedly radical Party. If a discussion of ideas proved unavoidable, the Party managed to suggest—discreetly most of the time, but overtly when necessary—that it accepted much of the Thatcherite agenda. But we preferred to avoid ideas altogether. They meant too many hostages to fortune."

33
That is a quote from one of the most recent Front-Bench colleagues of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) agrees with every word of that quote—we know he does.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a second.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition Front Benchers have not changed, and he knows that we know that he agrees with Bryan Gould and with my comments on Opposition Front Benchers.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall let the hon. Gentleman say something rude about his erstwhile colleague if he wishes to curry favour with his current Front-Bench colleagues.
Mr. Skinner: I just want to get the facts straight. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about the views of my ex-colleague Bryan Gould on the state of the Labour party and the British economy. But he fails to tell us that, after the 1987 election, that same Bryan Gould—I remind my hon. Friends, as well as Tory Members—stood at the Dispatch Box and talked about taking over the argument on privatisation. I opposed him then. That is why I do not take too much notice of what he says now.
Mr. Clarke: Conservative members have always acknowledged the consistency of the hon. Member for Bolsover, but we have never expected any consistency from any Opposition Front-Bench Member. The fact that Bryan Gould changed his views after 1987 does not surprise me—the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has done the same thing.
The main appeal of those on the Opposition Front Bench to the City, the business world and the public is a vague implication that a Labour Government would somehow carry on our existing economic policies, give or take a little tweak or two. Labour tries to avoid frightening the voters by implying that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would imitate me if he were to become Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There is even talk nowadays of "one-nation Labour". That is an illusion. Labour has never voted for the one-nation Conservative policies that I have proposed as Chancellor; nor has it voted for any of the policies that I and my colleagues have pursued in every office that I have held. The current Labour Front-Benchers have fought vigorously against every policy initiative I have taken in every office I have ever held, and I do not believe that they have changed their positions at all.
The clear red water between the Labour party and modern enterprise economics and public services remains as wide as ever. Labour would tax and spend and would allow inflation to rise, as the deputy Leader of the Opposition sometimes incautiously reveals. Labour would take Britain back into the relegation zones in any international league table, with the social chapter, the minimum wage and trade union legal recognition rights—all the baggage that socialism, and even social democracy, lays on the enterprise economy in Europe today.
34
We are facing an ever more competitive world, and we want the British people to get the best out of it. But we will only do this by keeping our competitive edge. In the 1990s, there is still no alternative to the enterprise economy that we are creating, and we have not created our present prospects to hand them over to yesterday's Wilsonian men. That is why the Prime Minister has made it clear that our Conservative goal is to make this country the enterprise centre of Europe, as that is the way to continue to succeed and prosper this year, next year and into the next century.
The reason why we are having a debate on the economy in Government time—and the reason why the Opposition never debate the economy, in their time or anybody else's—is that the Opposition know the truth of every word I have spoken about our prospects, and every word of the indictment against them.
4.13 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"rejects Government complacency about an economy in which the investment and skills gap with competitors has been growing and in which, during 17 years, the United Kingdom has fallen from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league; notes also the Treasury Committee report which questions the Government's economic forecasts; regrets the widespread job insecurity throughout Britain; condemns the loss of the Community Action Programme which once again deprives the unemployed of a stake in society; and calls for welfare to work measures that would, over time, reduce social security bills as part of an economic strategy that would raise levels of investment in the economy, bring sustainable levels of growth without risks to inflation and end a situation in which unemployment is more than one million higher than in 1979.".
The Conservatives called this debate today to boast of the claim that they make in their motion, that Britain is
"the enterprise centre of Europe."
But today's events, with the anti-Europeans attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have demonstrated that the phrase "enterprise centre of Europe" is just about the only mention of Europe that their party can tolerate without fighting breaking out in its ranks.
The Chancellor built his case on three things. He argued, first, that the league tables that we produced on Britain's relative decline were wrong; secondly, that his investment forecasts were right; and thirdly, that the feel-good factor was returning to the housing market. Before we enter the full debate, let us deal with those issues.
First, the Chancellor was unable to deny that Britain had slipped from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league. It is significant that he has not been able to challenge that figure.
Mr. David Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is Hong Kong and Singapore that have moved up the table and overtaken Germany, France, the United Kingdom and several other countries? That is why the numbers have changed. Perhaps he does not understand that. In that table, Britain is fast catching up with Germany and France. That casts a different light on his interpretation.
Mr. Brown: If Britain had fallen from 13th to 15th, the right hon. Gentleman might have had a point. Britain

35
has fallen from 13th to 18th. We have fallen behind Italy, Norway and Iceland. The fact is that we have fallen from 13th to 18th. [Interruption.] I am quoting not my research or a Labour party source, but the Government's own competitiveness review, published only last year. Does the Chancellor want to say that that review is mistaken? Does he want to withdraw it? Does he not recall that it was signed by him, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and eight other Cabinet Ministers?
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No; as I pointed out, my case against the hon. Gentleman was that the fall from 13th to 16th, which is what the tables that he relies upon show, took place by 1980, when we were in 16th position. Between 1970 and 1980, we fell from 13th to 16th. We are still 16th in that league table. I pointed out that between 1981 and 1993, taking a proper international cycle, we outperformed practically everyone in the G7 and had growth well above the G7 and European averages.
Mr. Brown: The facts are that we have fallen from 13th to 18th and that most of the fall did not occur in the early 1980s, as the Chancellor was trying to tell us today. The biggest fall happened between 1990 and the present day. When we entered the 1990s, we were 14th in that league; we are now 18th. The Chancellor had better get his Treasury statisticians to check the full facts, because he is entirely wrong and will have to apologise to the House. For all his bluster this afternoon, nobody can deny the central fact that Britain has fallen down the world prosperity league under a Conservative Government.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of this important debate, having regard to the fact that unemployment rates in Europe are the worst for 40 years, to repudiate on behalf of the Labour party any idea of returning to any form of exchange rate mechanism and the idea of a single currency, which has been repudiated by opinion poll after opinion poll throughout Europe?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman this morning called on the Chancellor to consider his position because of statements that he made in The Daily Telegraph. We support the principle of managed exchange rates, as does the Chancellor. We support the principle of monetary union, but we must consider the details of what is on offer, and we shall do that.
Sir Roger Moate: The hon. Gentleman is fond of yes-or-no questions; will he answer the question that he put earlier? Is the Labour party in favour of a referendum on a single currency, yes or no?
Mr. Brown: We are absolutely clear that we are in favour of a test of opinion, whether at a general election—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I see this afternoon something that is typical of the modern Conservative party. It is entirely a matter of honourable Gentlemen; there is not one woman on the Conservative Benches today.
36
The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) asked me to give my position on the referendum; I have given it clearly. We favour a test, whether by a general election or a referendum. What is the Chancellor's position? I shall give way to him so that he can answer.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have already given a much better answer. The hon. Gentleman's answer is ridiculous—as one of my colleagues said, it would give rise to the possibility of a phone-in. We shall make up our mind on economic and monetary union in the British interest at the time—if and when it happens. Whether a referendum is required will be a question for that time. That is our position and it seems a whole lot clearer than the hon. Gentleman's.
Mr. Brown: I take it clearly from his answer that the Chancellor would resist any proposition in the Conservative party that a decision be made to hold a referendum before a general election. In other words, he is putting forward the view—Conservative Members had better get used to it—that he is against the proposition that a commitment to a referendum be included in the Conservative election manifesto. The House has understood him correctly this afternoon.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman does not have an idea in his head about anything. Can he not make up his mind? Does he know what day of the week it is? He was asked whether he was in favour of a referendum. May we have an answer?
Mr. Brown: I made the position absolutely clear—[Laughter.] Indeed, I did. The Chancellor made it clear to Conservative Members, and they had better understand it, that he is against the proposition that a commitment to a referendum should be included in the Conservative general election manifesto—exactly what Conservative Members have been calling on the Prime Minister to do. The Chancellor made it clear this afternoon that a decision on a referendum can be made only after the question whether we join the single currency in 1998 or 1999 comes up. It cannot be made before the general election. I understand the Chancellor perfectly correctly, as I think the whole House now does. That is the source of division in the Conservative party.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up the matter completely? He said that it would be put to the test—either in a general election or by some other means. If the currency went ahead during the next Government, and were Labour in government, the Labour party would not have set out the position in its manifesto. So, does he or does he not agree that there would be a referendum on the issue—yes or no?
Mr. Brown: I made the position absolutely clear. It is for the Government to make their position absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman may want to attack me this afternoon. but he was on the radio attacking the Chancellor this morning.
Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
Mr. Brown: I really must progress, but because there is so much interest, I shall give way.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we are to have a referendum, it is useful if we all know

37
what it is to be about? A few moments ago, he said that the Labour party believed in managed exchange rates. If the managed exchange rate takes the form of membership of a single European currency, who does he think will be managing that exchange rate—will it be the British Chancellor or the German Chancellor?
Mr. Brown: I have read the Maastricht treaty, unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I understand the position very clearly. The principle that I am talking about is that of a single currency. The details obviously have to be considered. When we have made up our mind about them, we shall put that view to the country. It will be put to the test in either a general election or a referendum, and we have made that position clear. What is amazing this afternoon is that Conservative Members have still not grasped from the Chancellor's answers the important fact that he is refusing to support the idea of a referendum being inserted in the Conservative general election manifesto. He cannot deny that fact.
The second issue that the Chancellor raised was that, because he could now see that investment forecasts for 1996 were going to be realised, he thought that the economy could grow at 3 per cent. He has a history on investment forecasts, and we should understand what he has been saying for the past few years. Last year, he told us in his Budget statement that investment would rise by 10 per cent. In fact, it rose by only 2 per cent. He has been wrong every year that he has been Chancellor, and he has been wrong by substantial figures.
If the Conservative party were right, from the beginning of the 1990s, investment would have increased by more than 30 per cent., according to its forecasts. It has barely increased. The one consistent fact about the Chancellor's investment forecasts is that they are wrong. I read only the other day that the head of the Meteorological Office had to return his performance-related bonus because he had consistently got the weather forecast wrong. The Chancellor is wrong in his forecasts on investment, the public sector borrowing requirement and growth, so perhaps he should look at his own pay arrangements.
When the Chancellor tells us that investment this year might rise by about 10 per cent., I agree with the Select Committee—on which there are Conservative Members. Without further explanation from the Chancellor, I doubt whether that forecast is credible. Conservative Members must face up to the fact that, as a result of the recession in the 1980s, we have the slowest ever growth in investment—slower than even in the 1930s. If we are to build the modern capacity that is necessary to achieve high levels of sustainable growth without increasing inflation and interest rates, we must close the investment gap with our competitors, which is noted again in the Government's competitiveness report.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman aspires to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he wants to be taken seriously as a contender for that role, he will have to make up his mind about the following fundamental issues. Should we have inflation targets or should we not? Is the present one too high, too low or about right? Are interest rates too high, too low or about right? Is Government spending too high, too low or about right? Whenever we have an economic debate, the hon. Gentleman avoids those questions.
38
Has he yet made up his mind and, if so, will he take the opportunity of today's debate to give the country the answers to those fundamental questions?
Mr. Brown: Of course, we shall have an inflation target. If the hon. Gentleman believes that public spending is too high, the reason is that we are paying the high cost of unemployment. The proper way to solve our problems is to have a Government who are serious about dealing with long-term and youth unemployment.
The Chancellor presented the House with his rosiest ever forecasts. He said that, as he had made pessimistic forecasts before, we should take these ones seriously. Let us recall the most recent published minutes of his meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England and quote what they agreed in January:
"Manufacturing output weak, housing market flat, short-term prospects for growth uncertain, extent and timing of firms' destocking unclear, growth below trend."
The document continued:
"Manufacturing output had declined fractionally. The construction sector had contracted again, the housing turnover had continued to fall, the new homes sector remained weak, the housing market fairly flat."
If that is not a damning picture, showing the gap between Conservative rhetoric and the reality that has to be expressed at meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, I do not know what is. It is just another example of the Conservative good news machine trying to create a good impression among people who are still suffering a great deal as a result of tax rises and job insecurity. The Conservatives are trying to build up a picture simply to fight a general election.
We have had many economic debates in the past 17 years when the Conservatives have been in power. Each time, the Conservatives find a new phrase to justify what they are trying to do. At the beginning of the 1980s, we heard about the triumph of monetarism. That was no longer heard about after the money supply ran out of control. In the mid to late 1980s, the Conservatives claimed to have created an economic miracle. We no longer hear about that as it caused the biggest recession since the war. Had there been an economic debate before the previous general election, they would have told us that they had created the biggest ever programme of tax cuts. We no longer hear about that, as 21 big tax rises have given Britain the greatest tax rises in history.
What is consistent about the Conservatives is that they pull out a phrase such as golden scenario, enterprise capital or centre of Europe, use it for a few months until reality dawns and they cannot justify the figures, and then bury it unceremoniously and move on to another variety of Conservative central office propaganda. The country will not be fooled by the Conservative party.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman cannot shrug off a question about the inflation rate merely by saying that Labour would have a target—particularly in the light of the fact that the Labour party does not have any credibility on that front, as the average inflation rate was 15½ per cent. when it was last in government. As investment depends on a stable economy, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what his inflation target would be?
Mr. Brown: I have made it absolutely clear: we will set an inflation target. We shall consult the Governor of

39
the Bank of England—as the Chancellor does and considers to be very important—and other interested parties, including Government advisers, and then we shall set our inflation target. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
The Chancellor boasts about inflation, but he should face the fact that last week we discovered that Britain is not top of the European Community inflation league—it is not second or third, but 10th. Far from the Chancellor's record being magnificent, as he claims, the Conservative Government have had a very poor record over the past 17 years.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: No; I have given way sufficiently during my speech.
The Conservatives should face two facts about the British economy, but they refuse to do so. First, there is not only widespread job insecurity in the economy, but a responsibility on the part of Government to adjust their policies to tackle that problem. Secondly—as has been mentioned already—investment in this country is neglected. We cannot cast that fact aside and say that it is irrelevant at the point at which the economy begins to grow. Long-term neglect of investment is the single biggest reason why we have grown more slowly than most of our competitors since 1979, why our share of world trade is now at the lowest level this century, and why we have learned in the past week that we are importing more manufactured goods than we export and that British consumers are buying more foreign-made goods than those made by British firms. The decline of British manufacturing industry is a sad indictment on the Conservative Government.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: No, I shall not give way again; I have given way enough times during the debate. I think that it is about time that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) put his questions directly to the Chancellor, because he is criticising the Chancellor, not me.
I draw the attention of the House to a study of unemployment conducted by the Central Statistical Office. The Chancellor boasted a great deal about the Government's record in that area. In the past decade, the Central Statistical Office has created a new database—the JUVOS database—which it calls a unique source of longitudinal information. It shows very clearly what is happening to people around the country who are worried about their jobs.
According to the study, 8.7 million people—5.8 milzlion men and 2.9 million women—have suffered a spell of unemployment since the previous general election. This is the Government who fought the 1992 election on the basis of their claim that people would be more secure if the Conservatives were elected. The Conservatives must face the fact that there is a fear of unemployment and job insecurity: it affects every region, every occupation and every class.
40
New policies must be implemented to deal with that problem. When the Prime Minister assumed his position in 1990, he said that he wanted a nation at ease with itself—a classless society; an opportunity Britain. However, the study states in its own words that approximately 10.5 million different people have experienced a spell of unemployment since 1990. It continues:
"Approximately one quarter of the work force were affected by a spell of unemployment during the period."
Those are astonishingly huge figures. The President of the Board of Trade is in the Chamber this afternoon: he should apologise to the House for saying that job insecurity is only in the mind. It is reality for millions of people up and down the country, in every class and in every occupation.
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): If the hon. Gentleman does me the compliment of quoting me, will he do the House the courtesy of quoting me accurately? What he said is not what I said.
Mr. Brown: While I look for the quotation, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade can tell me what he did say. [Interruption.] What the President of the Board of Trade said—and I stand to be corrected—is that job insecurity is only a state of mind.
Mr. Lang: I shall have the opportunity to reply to the debate later on. The hon. Gentleman mentioned job security and job insecurity. What matters is which Government and which party have the right policies to reduce that insecurity. The figures that the hon. Gentleman has given the House simply show the rapid flow of people out of unemployment back into employment. Will he tell us by how much employment has risen in the past few years and, therefore, how many job opportunities have been created as a result of the Government's policies?
Mr. Brown: I note that the President of the Board of Trade has not corrected me and given us the proper quotation. It appears that he has something to hide on the subject.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment issued a press statement this afternoon, which stated that 750,000 fewer people were unemployed now than in 1992. What her press statement did not say is that there are 250,000 fewer people in employment now than since that date in 1992. If the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor faced up to the fact that job insecurity is widespread and needs new policies to deal with it—and that it is not a lack of moral fibre that prevents people from getting jobs—we would do better. [Interruption.] The Chancellor asks, "What new policies?" I shall tell him. The first action that I would take would be to refuse to abolish the community action programme, which he will abolish at the end of the month.
Will the Chancellor explain to us why that programme—which was set up to give help to 30,000 long-term unemployed people; which was extended for three years in the 1994 Budget because, as he and his colleagues said, it was a success; which all the voluntary organisations that had a part in it welcomed; and which

41
an Employment Minister called a testimony to the Government's willingness to deal with the problem of unemployment—will be abolished at the end of the month? Why is that happening?
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It will be replaced by better and more cost-effective programmes.
We have reduced unemployment by more than 750,000 and increased the total number of people in work by 500,000 through our policies for the long-term unemployed, including the family credit proposals and the national insurance holiday for employers, which will come into effect in April. That is how we have reduced long-term unemployment and increased job security.
As far as I am aware, the new policies that the Labour party suggests include the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would destroy employment. What other employment-creating measures does the Labour party have? It does not have policies on inflation, taxation, public spending or any other economic issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The House will know my views on interventions. They should be short, even from Front Benchers.
Mr. Brown: The Chancellor said that the community action programme will be replaced by another programme. Will he tell us what it is?
Clarke: I cannot remember its name. A whole series of programmes, produced by the Department for Education and Employment, have been effective in reducing long-term unemployment and increasing opportunities for people to move from unemployment into work. The hon. Gentleman tries to obfuscate that by choosing one programme which he likes and which is now being phased out because it has been judged alongside other programmes and is not cost-effective.
The hon. Gentleman got me to my feet because I wished to challenge him on his policies. The social chapter and the minimum wage would destroy jobs. What polices does he have to compensate for that?
Mr. Brown: The Chancellor does not know which programme has replaced the community action programme, but 30,000 places have gone and very little has replaced them. The reason that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment gave when she scrapped the programme was not that she would replace it with something else. She said that it was not needed. There are 800,000 long-term unemployed, and the Government's attitude is that that programme is not needed. There is anger among voluntary organisations, charities, community groups and others who have been involved in that programme. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has stated:
"A programme that was helping the unemployed back into work and giving them skills has simply been scrapped by the Government to save £70 million of money."
Let us remember that—
Mr. Redwood rose—
Mr. Brown: I will not give way again.
42
A Minister at the Department for Education and Employment said that the programme's very existence was clear evidence of the Government's determination to tackle unemployment. What signal is sent by the programme's abolition? It is one that most of the country will understand. We, the Opposition, are prepared to say that, with a windfall levy on private utilities, we would create opportunities for work for young people under 25 and tackle the problem of long-term unemployment. The Government are prepared to accept a situation where 800,000 people have been unemployed for more than a year and 600,000 young people under 25 are out of work. In addition, there is 30 per cent. youth unemployment in many areas of our inner cities. Black youth unemployment in central London is 60 per cent. The Government are prepared to leave a situation that is socially divisive and causes a huge loss of economic output. They are not prepared to take the necessary action.
The central question about the future of the economy is how we shall create the necessary investment to ensure that we can build the future that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking about, but to which he has not, over recent years, directed his forecasts. The question will not be solved by Conservative Members. It will certainly not be solved by Conservative central office. Conservatives give the impression that every problem that the United Kingdom faces has already been solved. We have speeches such as those made by the Deputy Prime Minister. His speech on Friday was entitled "The Mood is Changing". That was just after the debate on the Scott report. He talked about a "new sense of optimism" and claimed that we face the "best economic circumstances" for a generation. He then talked about
"urban resurgence in parts of rundown Britain not witnessed since the last century."
I am aware that I have often been accused of doom and gloom by Conservative Members. I am aware also that there is activity in the building trade round the country. There is some significant inner urban development. Building works are taking place. They are big works on a grand scale. They are the brainchildren of grand visions. There is a development here and there with which the Chancellor is intimately associated. I must tell the House, however, that even with the best will in the world, the extension of the Deputy Prime Minister's office, however grand it may be, does not add up to an
"urban resurgence … not witnessed since the last century."
Adding another floor or two to the ministry of propaganda will convince no one that the real economy is flourishing.
Mr. Redwood rose—
Mr. Brown: I am not giving way again, because I am nearing the end of my remarks.
Mr. Redwood rose
Mr. Brown: Conservative Members are anxious to intervene. But what do they really think about the feel-good factor? Is there not one good barometer of what the feel-good factor is for the Conservative party? It is that 52 Conservative Members are retiring at the next general election, many of them in their 40s and 50s. Thirteen Conservative Members are relocating from marginal seats to not-yet marginal seats, which they will be fighting at

43
the next election. Is not that the most reliable measure of what they see at first hand under a Conservative Government? They say that we have the best prospects for a generation, but what do they do? We know that 52 are leaving. They say that for the next 10 years, Britain will have the best set of circumstances throughout Europe, but what do they do? Thirteen are moving to other constituencies, so that they will have majorities. To use a phrase of Conservative central office, they say one thing and do another. That is what happens under the Government.
Until the Conservative party faces the investment gap in the economy, we shall not solve the long-term problems. The solutions to those problems have eluded the Government. They are responsible for our decline in relation to our competitors abroad. Promises made by the Government have been broken. That is why people are angry. They feel that their trust in regard to taxation, public services and even public borrowing has been betrayed by the Government's failure to keep the promises that the Conservative party made at the general election.
People saw at first hand the Government's failure to keep their promises with the Budget in November, which we can now discuss. We have seen the Conservatives give with one hand a small tax cut, but at the same time introduce council tax increases, increases in prescription charges, rent rises and rail fare rises. New mortgage protection schemes are costing more. Water bills and petrol bills have increased. Vehicle duty has increased. An ordinary nurse has not even been given the benefit of a full national public sector settlement. She is in a position where a small tax cut is having to be paid for by huge increases in bills that she must meet, including the rise in council tax for which the Conservative party must take responsibility. That rise is the result of the Government's settlement.
It will soon be 17 years since the Conservative party came to power. The Government said when introducing their first Budget that their responsibility was to end the relative decline that Britain had suffered. The then Chancellor said that ending that relative decline was the central issue. We know from this debate that ending the relative decline has not happened under this Government. We have fallen behind many of our competitors abroad. We know also that Britain's share of world trade is at its lowest this century and that it has fallen substantially during the 17 years of Conservative government. We know that, far from the manufacturing trade deficit being solved, that deficit continues to cause us problems.
No slogans, no expensive posters and billboard advertising, and no speeches by the Deputy Prime Minister, will obscure the central fact that the Conservative party has failed on the economy, taxation and public services. It will not be able to con people at the election, whenever it comes. The Tory lie machine will fail.
Look at what has happened to the Conservative Government. In 1983, they had a majority of 140. In 1987, it was 101. Even in 1992, they could boast of a majority of 21. The Government are now down to a majority of one and they are poised to take their leave of government. They have lost all authority. They have lost any credibility that they might have had. They are rapidly losing their
44
majority. All that is left to them now is to lose office. For the millions whose trust has been betrayed, whose prospects have been blighted and whose hopes they still deny, that leaving cannot come too soon.
4.46 pm
Mr. David Howell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a most excellent account of his stewardship of the economy, an account which the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) failed to dent in the slightest respect. What my right hon. and learned Friend had to say is extremely encouraging.
When we begin to study the not always reliable media both here and abroad, it is extraordinary how the concept of Britain has changed. Britain is seen now not as a failure or a salutary warning to others but as a model that demonstrates how to adapt, deregulate and modernise economies.
I can remember that, when I first entered the House, there was a tremendous cry from the party of Tony Crosland, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and others that we must all follow the Swedish model. That was the thing. We were told that we must all see how the Swedes managed their social security spending, for example. That has long gone. Unfortunately, the Swedish example did not work in the end. It blew up and the Swedes had to introduce completely different policies.
People are now coming to the United Kingdom from throughout the world and studying the British model. They are saying, "How did they have the political guts to push through all sorts of measures, with the Opposition"—it was the Labour party in the 1980s—"resisting every one of them, to lay the foundation for the British model?" I accept that it may have many faults, but it seems to have the qualities of flexibility and adaptability to meet current circumstances. It is an exciting state of affairs to have reached.
I greatly admire my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for the way in which he has seized the opportunities that difficult struggles have provided. He has built up a British model which, as I have said, others admire. It is not only Conservatives who take that view—it is shared by the foreign press throughout the world. The model is admired by people who are far away from British politics, not only by Conservative central office.
I want to add only two messages to the account that my right hon. and learned Friend presented so excellently and with such panache. First, in the new trading conditions, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity, in both economics and politics, from Europe and the Atlantic countries to Asia. That is not a threat. Those who see the Asian challenge as a threat will make entirely the wrong policy judgments. It is a challenge that offers us a colossal opportunity. The whole of our policy and our industrial effort from now on—and for some years past—needs to be built around the ability to seize those opportunities.
My second message, which I want to sketch out briefly, is that the United Kingdom is superbly positioned to take advantage of the opportunities. I fully concede that Opposition Members, or anyone else, might say that it has all been a long time coming, that many years have passed and that, to put it mildly, not everything has gone right. I remember making an endless number of speeches in the

45
1960s and 1970s—a long time ago—hopefully asserting that just around the corner was a high rate of growth and low inflation, that it would be sustainable, that we would have falling unemployment, high productivity, a strong economic performance generally and that sterling would be able to look other currencies in the face and be strong. One hoped for those things. Opposition Members and Labour and Conservative Governments all set the same objectives. Everyone tried very hard to the best of their lights, sometimes with disastrous policies and sometimes with successful ones.
What is extraordinary about the situation today, which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has not begun to grasp, is that those things are now happening. We are delivering low inflation, sustained performance and export performance in all areas—not just in manufactures, which is an old-fashioned concept, but in a wide range of foreign earnings activities throughout the planet. We are delivering superb productivity. We are the dominant magnet for foreign investment from outside Europe. Asian investment is pouring in—40 to 45 per cent. of all investment from outside Europe comes into the United Kingdom.
We are also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) rightly reminded us, a gigantic overseas investor with worldwide interests and huge invisible earnings from our tradeable services and from dividends and investments. That all gives the country a power that it has not had for 30 years.
When the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East talks about the narrow trade figures, he does not understand that, in the global economy, one has to measure the remittances and the profits that are generated by British firms with huge subsidiaries overseas. Those are the profits that come back to this country, even though the figures do not show up in the exports, because the goods have been sold in the market overseas. His emphasis on the old-fashioned economic aggregate concepts, including the trade statistics, is completely wrong. He does not understand the nature of the modern global economy.
It is not just in the statistics that the new situation has to be interpreted and seen. It is quite extraordinary—one almost has to pinch oneself to believe it—that 60 of the 100 largest corporations in Europe have their headquarters in London. It is quite extraordinary that banks are not gathering in Frankfurt, which is supposed to be the centre of the financial system of the European region, but coming to London. They are fighting for space in the City of London.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East talked about our being marginalised, isolated and so on, and about our not being in the centre of Europe. The financial wizards of Europe take a different view and are seeking to come to London and acquire assets and enterprises here at a great rate. I fully declare my interest and involvement in the financial world. The financial wizards are demonstrating that, far from Frankfurt being the centre of things, London is increasingly not only the enterprise centre but the financial motor of the entire European region and, indeed, the wider region as well. That goes beyond the statistics and demonstrates just how powerful and attractive the British model is proving to be.
Then there are the exports. It is not just a matter of products, manufactures, metal bashing and so on. The entire pattern of trade is changing, and there is ever
46
greater emphasis on tradeable services. This country is extremely good at tradeable services. The British market share of financial services is overwhelming: 80 per cent. of all international funds are managed in London and other UK financial centres, mainly Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is not just finance. Other tradeable services, such as educational products, consultancy services, accountancy, scientific research, management skills, civil engineering, military and law enforcement training packages and a variety of other products are the resources that the British are extremely good at.
The most attractive prospect of all is the fact that those are the products that the great expanding markets of Asia want. Those are the information-intensive and technology-intensive products that will fit into the booming markets of the next 20 years. People think of products, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East does, as manufactures, as motor cars and laptops. Asia will not want them, as it can make them cheaply and to the highest quality. It wants the management skills that this island is very good at providing, and which are getting better all the time. What is more, we have a particularly good advantage. Sometimes I would like to urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to build on that advantage a little more than they have. We have in the Commonwealth a fantastic club network—an entree into all the new markets—of a kind not available to our immediate competitors and neighbours in Europe. The more we build on that, and on the fact that almost all the business of the planet is conducted in English, the better.
A considerable and forceful Labour leader of the past, a bigger figure than many we see today, I fear—Ernie Bevin—once described this country as an island
"almost made of coal and surrounded by fish".
Our coal now has to compete with that from other countries and I had better not say any more about the fish—but most of them have gone—so we have to look to other resources.
I am indebted to Sir David Puttnam—I do not believe that he is a Tory supporter, but he is an excellent fellow—for saying the other day that this country is an island of creativity surrounded by a sea of understanding. That "sea" is the enormous reach of British culture and language into every part of the global system. That is the opportunity for us. It is not just the future—we are exploiting it now.
Our audio-visual industries, which already employ more people than the whole motor components industry, are racing ahead. We are the second largest CD-ROM publisher in the world. We hold a massive chunk of the fast-expanding market for electronic education systems—and so we should given that the entire electronically stored information supply around the world is in English, that an estimated 1 billion people are learning English, and that the Internet is in English. It should be a marvellous opportunity for us and it will be, provided that we do not attack enterprise and undermine educational excellence, which would set us back and let the Americans take all the opportunities.
The picture that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor painted was not only accurate but rather modest. It understated the colossal opportunities that are already being exploited by this economy and which are showing up in the figures.

47
Now we come to investment, about which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East made much. He alleged that we have failed—or are failing—in the investment league. In fact, personal savings—the idea that savings are related to investment may be old-fashioned, but it is one that I hold—are rising, and the general habit of saving up a bit and investing in shares and other routes has spread vastly during the Conservative years.
I feel very proud that the dreams of two or three decades ago of a property-owning democracy and a capital-owning democracy—the great projects promised by my party—have duly been delivered, while Opposition Members have mumbled, although I do not think that we heard it today, about stakeholding, which is yesterday's story and should be put aside. We are moving to a completely different pattern of ownership and a completely different society.
As for investment, we should try to clarify some of the figures. While Japan led the field in investment growth between 1980 and 1994 which, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, is a reasonable time scale to measure, Britain was second, with an annual growth rate of investment two thirds higher than that of Germany and 90 per cent. higher than that of France. I take my figures from very detailed analyses in The Wall Street Journal, which I have no reason to question. They are just as reliable, if not more so, than those given by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East.
In real per capita income growth, between 1980 and 1994, Britain stood fifth among the world's richest nations and—this is the point that the hon. Gentleman did not pick up—it is closing the gap steadily with the United States, Canada, Germany and France. Among the 10 largest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Britain was second, at 74 per cent.—beaten only by Switzerland—in the proportion of the working population that it absorbed into the labour force over that period.
All that stuff about our dropping from 13th to 18th in the league table, which seemed to be the main platform of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, is a canard. In 1980, Britain was in 16th position. It is now in 18th position, because Hong Kong and Singapore have overtaken us. They have also overtaken Germany and France, as I observed earlier, and we are now breathing down the necks of Germany and France. That is not surprising. In terms of income per head, we are now six percentage points behind Germany and three behind France, and the gap is closing as—I take no great joy from this; in fact, it is a worry—those two countries become increasingly bogged down in layers of regulation, state control, subsidy and uncompetitive practices. Britain has been a pioneer in throwing off those shackles.
Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend find it strange, as I do, that although the shadow Chancellor says that he wants to get investment up and unemployment down, his two main policy recommendations that differ from the Government's are the adoption of the social chapter and a return to the exchange rate mechanism, linking us to the deutschmark rather than the dollar? Surely those are the very two policies that have led to
48
much higher unemployment in France and Germany, and to some of the other problems that my right hon. Friend is describing.
Mr. Howell: No, I do not find that strange. I know that new Labour is trying, but it is still stuck in an intellectual time warp. It does not understand what is happening to the modern economies of Europe—economies such as Germany's—which have not deregulated fast and have concentrated on rather outdated concepts of heavy manufacturing. Those economies now face desperate circumstances.
Germany is having to put up taxes, and take-home pay there is said to be no higher than here—possibly lower. The same applies to France and other European countries—because they are having to invest outside. Siemens is going to Newcastle, not because of low wages—take-home pay here is just as high as it is in Germany—but because we have a deregulated, open economy, that enables it to jump into the new world markets outside Europe. Volkswagen is to go to Alsace—outside Germany. Germany is investing massively in the admittedly low-wage areas of eastern Europe, and in Asia. The net effect is that the German economy is ceasing to be the wonder machine that it has been for the past 30 years.
I forecast—I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor cannot—that the mark is in for a fall: that the deutschmark will move down as sterling moves up. I believe that the mark will go the same way as the almighty dollar, the unchallengeable currency of the 1950s and 1960s. Look at what has happened to it since. I expect to see grave difficulties in both our neighbouring countries—France and Germany. That should cause us all sorts of worries, but the one thing that we should not do is copy them. On the contrary, we should encourage them to come and view the British model, as they have been doing.
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The picture that he paints is enormously encouraging. I recognise that we have many social problems, but the point is that we can build on success rather than on the crumbling edifice of incompetence and failure with which we found that we had been left when we came into government in 1979. Lagging Britain is yesterday's story, presented by yesterday's men and women. It is not only very boring, but inaccurate and out of date.
I see the need for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—and, indeed, the whole Labour party, as it prepares for the great election that lies ahead—to "do a Harold Wilson". The trick is somehow to convey the idea that the whole of society is fracturing and falling apart, that people such as the genial Mr. Will Hutton, who wrote the ludicrous book "The State We're In", are right—that everything is going wrong, and that investment is down. Labour must try to prove the truth of that vision.
Harold Wilson was extremely clever—and lucky. He was able to secure figures to support his claim that the Tories were not doing well, that things were falling apart and that he would put everything right. The problem for today's Opposition Front Bench is that the script is not turning out as they want. There are no figures to confirm that things are falling apart, that our country's performance is lagging behind that of others and that we are isolated and a passenger in Europe. Indeed, the figures show that we are leading the pack, that we are the

49
pace-setter, that we have the kind of economy that is suited to the 21st century, that others are trying to copy us, that our investment is rising in the outside world and that we are now gaining a dominant position in the great markets of the future—particularly as trade now follows investment, and our investment, and the trade that follows it, are beginning to score.
I draw confidence—though not complacency, I hope—from the excellent picture that my right hon. and learned Friend has painted. Nothing in Labour's analysis seems to connect with today's and tomorrow's problems and challenges. I believe that, if we understand what is really going on in the global economy, we in the Conservative party will be able to rise to the challenge and see Britain through to the prosperity for which we have fought for so many years.
5.4 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) drew attention to a fascinating aspect of Tory party policy: the way in which the Tories always take some accidental by-product of their own incompetence, and then trumpet it as though it were the new philosopher's stone of economics—the new discovery that will lead the country, and indeed the world, to greatness. In the early 1980s, British manufacturing industry was being closed down on a massive scale. The great discovery then was of lean, mean, fit, dynamic manufacturing. We were told that those that survived the process of anorexia were ready to take on the world, lean, mean and dynamic—before so many of them closed.
Then there was the great discovery of low inflation. That is not difficult to achieve, if enough people are put out of work and made to fear for their jobs. The credit explosion of the late 1980s gave people control over their own credit, allowing it to be used as a lever for economic growth; that discovery seems to have come from Roger Douglas in New Zealand. In 1990, there was the exchange rate mechanism. Suddenly, we were going to be at the heart of Europe, committed to Europe and to working within the ERM. That was to be the basis of economic management and control over inflation.
The contribution of George Soros to Government economic policy was not sufficiently recognised by the Chancellor today. In so far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had any success at all in economic policy, that success is largely because Mr. Soros forced us out of the ERM. Thanks to him, we discovered export-led growth, which was to be the new dynamic. Somehow, however, it has not quite materialised. The latest boast concerns financial services and the financial sector of the economy—the enterprise capital of Europe. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) treated us to a litany on that subject, but, although the factors that he listed have boosted services—especially financial services—they have done little for jobs and the fundamental strength of the economy.
That sector was to be the new enterprise capital of Europe because it would be a deregulated, cheap-labour, de-unionised economy with low social costs, providing an attractive base for foreign investment. Japan, Korea and America, for instance, would see it as a kind of Mulberry harbour enabling the invasion of Europe, because of the low taxes on business.
50
Unfortunately, that sector cannot substantially lower unemployment, which is the curse of the economy. Unemployment is still far too high, and, as it has fallen, no great improvement or surge in public finances has followed. Most people returning to work are taking casual, part-time jobs that are not particularly well paid. Many are still receiving income support. The tax take therefore does not rise, the benefits spend does not fall substantially and we still have an horrendous public sector deficit. This year's borrowing level will be about as high as last year's, despite the Chancellor's persistently expressed hope that he will bring it down and that we are moving towards a balanced position. We are not; we are accumulating an increasingly heavy deadweight of borrowing for future generations to bear.
The revival for which the Government hoped—that, indeed, they boasted about—is not there. Certainly, it has not been experienced in the Grimsby area: business people there have not observed the surge of enterprise and dynamism described by the Chancellor. They have not experienced the surge in demand or the enormous improvement in export markets that the Chancellor spoke of, essentially because there has not been a real revival in the base on which the economy rests, which is manufacturing. Manufacturing is the base that makes things in this country and supplies them to the world.
Most of our deficit is in manufactured trade. Most of world trade is still in manufactures, but our economy's manufacturing base has shrunk drastically, to below the level of viability. Manufacturing has not only to generate jobs—though it can never generate jobs on the old scale—but to support more jobs and a healthier superstructure of services, and to generate the economic growth to spread the well-being that makes people feel better off.
In the 1980s—I am afraid that it is still going on—we lost more than 3 million jobs in manufacturing; we experienced more shrinkage than any of our competitors. Manufacturing production is still around its 1990 level, and only a few percentage points above its 1973 level. That appalling record has not been matched by other economies, most of which have substantially increased production since 1973. We have not, and all the problems of the British economy rest on that fact.
Import penetration of domestic manufactures markets, which was about 17 per cent. in 1970, has risen to about half of demand. Our share of world trade in manufactures has decreased. That is the cause of our long-term failure, and there cannot be a real and substantial recovery in the British economy unless it is remedied. The factors mentioned by the right hon. Member for Guildford are flashes in the pan without a firm base to support them, which is required to pay our way in the world.
Mr. David Howell: The hon. Gentleman would find it easier to reconcile events with his thesis if he accepted that the concept of manufactures, which he keeps using, is very narrow. Nowadays, a manufactured product—even this pen or this piece of paper—requires a vast range of information and knowledge services in its manufacture, from research and design right through to marketing and sales. The service content of any manufacture gives it power and the ability to penetrate world markets. Because he keeps talking about manufactures, he has not noticed

51
that the service content of manufactures is constantly becoming more dynamic and delivering the type of results that puzzle him.
Mr. Mitchell: I am happy for the right hon. Gentleman's lesson in monetarist economics to continue, if he wants, but the fact is that all those services rest on a healthy manufacturing base. Our base has shrunk because it has long been unprofitable to produce manufactures in this country, due to policies of dear money and an over-valued exchange rate. The test is whether it is profitable to manufacture in this country, and it has not been. That has been demonstrated by our sending many manufacturing processes to overseas manufacturers and reserving assembly for people in this country—a sort of "Amstradisation" of the British economy.
We need all those services. I am not arguing about their importance, or about the need to increase and upgrade those and other skills and to introduce more of the information technology that the right hon. Member for Guildford talked about—Robert Reich is preaching that in the United States—but the essential point is that a healthy manufacturing base is required to sustain such expansion.
We still need to make the basic items because most world trade is still in manufactures, and we pay our way through them or we run a deficit. As the manufacturing base shrinks, so does our ability to pay taxes and to support healthy public sector finances. We have a public sector deficit because we have put so many people out of work and they are not contributing to the tax take or to economic growth. That is the legacy of 17 years of overvaluation and dear money.
The lessons of what has gone wrong under the Conservatives are far too obvious to need reiterating. The Labour party has long emphasised those lessons. The problem is that we have a lame, limping and inadequate recovery, which is now petering out effectively because the Chancellor has blown it. After the devaluation, which occurred because we were pushed out of the exchange rate mechanism—
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mitchell: No.
After that devaluation, we should have gone for growth. That was our chance to recover the ground lost, particularly in competition with Europe. The Government assumed instead that we had economic growth and an export-led miracle and that they did not have to do anything more about it. They should have sustained the growth. The Chancellor then deflated the economy by increasing taxation and kept the difference between actual interest rates and inflation too high—at almost double the historic average for real interest rates since the second world war. To compound that, in 1994, he increased interest rates when they should have been decreased again to sustain expansion in demand and to lower sterling so that our exports were more competitive and imports were penalised.
That example shows the folly of a system in which the Governor of the Bank of England is given a bully pulpit to preach his reactionary views on economic policy and
52
to make his insistent demands for ever higher interest rates. It is the wisdom of the parrot. When anything goes wrong or anything has to be said, the Governor automatically parrots, "Put up interest rates." Providing him with that pulpit, from which he can exacerbate the fears of an always nervous financial community. ties the Chancellor's hands and creates an impossible pressure for higher interest rates.
The Governor's advice in 1994 was absolutely wrong. We should have done the opposite and brought interest rates down to expand the economy. Even since then, there has been consistent pressure against a reduction in interest rates, which should be lowered by a couple of per cent. to bring down the pound, stimulate exports, penalise imports and allow us to expand the economy. That pressure is still on because the Governor is obsessed with the fear of inflation.
Inflation is not currently a problem. We can and should take risks with inflation. If not inflation, what will bring down the heavy burden of the dead-weight debt that the Chancellor is accumulating? This year, the public sector deficit will be almost as big as it was last year, which is just another massive addition of debt. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might want to keep the public sector deficit within the Maastricht criteria—just as other European countries are being squeezed and deflated, in an anti-Keynesian fashion, to meet those artificial criteria—but, in a deflationary situation, all that debt is a dead weight imposed on the economy.
In the early 1950s, public sector debt was about 200 per cent. of GDP. In 1931, it was 150 per cent. of GDP. What brought it down? It was not the expansion of the economy but inflation. We need inflation to float us off the rocks of debt that have trapped not only our economy but, even more so, the European economies and every householder and person with an overdraft in this country. We can take risks because we need to expand the economy.
While Europe is in a deflationary welter because of the obsession with the Maastricht criteria, this is our chance to improve our trading position, to increase our exports to Europe, to win back the markets that we have lost and to reverse the flow of imports to win back the jobs we need. The Chancellor is just not taking that opportunity. I do not mind that he is not achieving economic growth and the feel-good factor that he needs to stand any chance in the election, but I do mind the disastrous damage that those policies are still inflicting on the manufacturing sector, which is central to our economy.
For all his ebullience and bounce, the Chancellor has been far too over-awed by the persistent counsels of caution from the Governor of the Bank of England, who has been put in far too strong a position by these regular discussions. The need now is to do a better deal for manufacturing industry and its prospects—by getting interest rates and the pound down to more competitive levels, and by giving a boost to the growth that this country needs.
5.19 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I was disappointed but not surprised by the tone of the shadow Chancellor's speech. Yet again, he talked down Britain's achievements of the past 16 years. He also indirectly insulted the people in my constituency who have done an

53
enormous amount, in the manufacturing and service sectors, to improve productivity and competitiveness and to make their firms among the most competitive in the world.
The Labour party needs reminding of the fact that when it left office—thank heavens, a long time ago—the British ambassador in Paris referred to the British economy as the sick man of Europe. Most of us can remember the Europeans looking down on our economy and regarding it as some sort of sick joke because of its low productivity and appalling strike record. In 1979, for instance, about 29 million days were lost to strikes. We suffered from the Red Robbo syndrome: complete industrial inflexibility.
By contrast, the president of the German CBI, Mr. Henkel, felt able to say only a month ago that the British economy is the best placed in Europe to deal with the challenges of global competitiveness—such has been the transformation. The British economy has made remarkable strides in productivity, competitiveness and the flexibility necessary to deal with global market challenges. This was the analysis of a man who ought to know—a man from a country that used to regard ours as the sick man of Europe.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was not inventing his figures when he talked about the achievements of the past few years. Output has been growing for no fewer than 15 consecutive quarters. This year, growth—even on the most conservative estimates, and irrespective of whether we agree with the Chancellor's forecasts—is expected to run at about 2.6 per cent.
A poll of GDP forecasts for next year conducted by The Economist clearly shows that Britain, with 3.1 per cent., is forecast to have easily the highest growth of any country in the OECD or the developed world outside Australia, which is 0.1 per cent. ahead of us.
All this has had an impact in my constituency and on employment prospects there. Britain is the only country in Europe where unemployment has fallen significantly in the past four years, dropping by 770,000. Since the 1992 general election, unemployment in Wyre Forest has fallen by no less than a third—and these are not part-time or temporary jobs, which account for only 7 per cent. of the total. That 7 per cent. is itself one of the lowest figures in Europe. In human terms this means that 1,400 people who did not have a job in 1992 have entered good, competitive jobs in my constituency as a result of what the shadow Chancellor would call the "appalling" policies followed by this Government.
Between 1980 and 1994, an even longer period, Britain was surpassed among OECD countries only by Switzerland in its ability to find jobs for the additional people who become eligible for work. Of those eligible for the work force, 74 per cent. have been absorbed into it—a tremendous achievement over a long period. In line with the growth forecasts to which I have alluded, that success is set to continue.
How has all this come about? I believe that three reasons can explain it. The first is that, for the first time in three decades, people can invest in this country with confidence. They know that our currency is stable. Under Labour, inflation averaged 15 per cent. and reached 29 per cent. at one point. Today, our currency is being protected. The money that people invest will not have devalued by the time their investment returns come in.
54
Secondly, our industrial relations have been transformed. Compared with the 29 million days lost to strike action in 1979, there were only 203 stoppages in 1993, at a time when a record number of people were in the work force. Sixty-eight per cent. of people in this country—a higher proportion than anywhere else in Europe—are in the work force. To be sure, the number of stoppages rose in 1994, but only to 205.
In short, what has changed is the fact that a climate of confrontation has been exchanged for a climate of consensus. Every company with a successful record in any market today operates by consensus—management reach down to what used to be called the workers; ideas go both ways; success is the result.
The third ingredient is investment. I was interested to hear the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). The Wall Street Journal did say that between 1980 and 1994 investment in this country grew two thirds faster than in Germany, and 90 per cent. more than it grew in France. We were second only to Japan in terms of increased investment. That is why productivity and competitiveness improved here, and why the gap between our economy and the French and German economies—we used to look up to them in 1979—closed.
More evidence of how the British economy has been transformed is to be found in the fact that people from abroad are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. Over the past year the west midlands has enjoyed £1.25 billion of foreign investment. That equals 11,000 jobs, 6,000 of which are new and 5,000 of which have been safeguarded. It is certainly significant that 40 per cent. of all Japanese and American investment in Europe comes to this country. Moreover, all the top 10 consumer electronics firms in Japan have recently invested significantly in the United Kingdom.
As Mr. Henkel of the German CBI recently said, over the past 14 years our "declining" British industry has managed to attract no less than nine and a half times as much inward investment as German industry has, despite the fact that the latter is supposed to lead Europe.
To any person of common sense and objectivity it is easy to see why this inward investment has come. People want to put their money where they believe they will get the best return on it, and where the labour force is flexible and skilled. The British tax burden as a proportion of GDP has fallen, from 42 per cent. It is still too high; as the Prime Minister recently said, we want to get it below 40 per cent.—and then on down to 30 per cent. The countries that keep their tax take at near 30 per cent. of GDP—Switzerland, Japan and the United States—are the most successful at creating jobs of the kind that we want for all our constituents.
Another reason is that we do not burden our companies with the sort of non-wage costs that are increasing in Europe. It is significant that, in Britain, additional labour costs are about £18 for every £100 in basic wages, but in Germany the figure is £32 and in France it is £41. Small wonder that Mr. Henkel says that in Germany:
"We have too rigid labour laws. We have too high social costs and taxes. We work the shortest working week in Europe. The German government spends 50 per cent. of GDP as opposed to 42 per cent. in Britain. No wonder we have a problem."
The problem of a shorter working week, a minimum wage, more social costs and more taxation will be exacerbated if we have a Labour Government. That is why

55
it is nothing short of barmy for members of the German Social Democratic party and Mr. Santer, President of the European Commission, to go around Europe, supposedly on a crusade for jobs around Europe, but in reality raising social costs for already competitive businesses in Britain, which would mean that they would be less inclined to employ people and lead to job losses overall.
The failure of Mr. Santer and those party members to recognise that is symptomatic of the appalling misguidedness of the Labour party's industrial and economic policy. Having heard Mr. Henkel's comments, how anyone could suggest that Britain should load costs on to its already competitive companies through the social chapter or, more especially, the minimum wage—giving us, in industrial terms, the sclerosis virus that is undermining European competitiveness—defies belief.
If the Labour party is guilty of that, it is also guilty of the fact that it has never been able to persuade the British people—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, it will not be able to do so at the next general election—that it can keep its hands out of the taxpayer's pocket. Its Front-Bench spokesman may try to give the impression—it is only that—of fiscal rectitude, but every time they do so, in any debate, four out of 10 Labour Back-Bench Members make speeches with specific comments on additional Government spending.
It is disappointing that a man who aspires to be Chancellor should come up—this is the sum total of his fiscal policy—merely with the gimmick of 10p on income tax, which even the Institute of Fiscal Studies said was nonsense and a gimmick, and then talk, as he did again today, about a windfall tax, the proceeds of which have been—we have counted—"spent" no less than 11 times in different pledges by different Labour Front-Bench Members. If that does not show an unwillingness to confront the difficult issues that are involved in running a responsible fiscal policy, I do not know what does.
Sheer incompetence does not come much worse, especially in the realm of economic prediction, than when the shadow Chancellor said in 1993—we should keep reminding people of this because it shows the Labour party's feel for economic forecasting, irrespective of what it says about the Chancellor—that, as the result of the Budget, unemployment would rise this month, next month, the month after and for months to come. What happened? Unemployment did precisely the opposite. In the past six months, it has fallen by an average of 17,900. It is sad that the Labour party does not appear either in the debate or wider afield to confront the realities of an increasingly competitive global world in industrial and economic terms.
The Government are right to emphasise their supply side measures and to pursue their deregulation initiative, although I and some of my constituents are somewhat cynical that that is bearing as much fruit as it should. Only the day before yesterday, when I was out house visiting, one of my constituents, an engineering manager, told me that, as a result of some idiotic health and safety directive, he should have been undertaking stress monitoring for each employee. He said that, if he was expected to undertake stress monitoring and all his other health and safety responsibilities, he might as well shut the factory today.
56
I agree that, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, deregulation is extremely important, but I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take on board the fact that people do not believe that the deregulation initiative is as effective as it should be. Business link is making contacts around the country and doing a valuable job. It should take a greater role in producing information that would allow the Government to act more effectively on that.
The Government are right to try to reduce Government expenditure. I hope that it will go below 40 per cent. of GDP. That means changes in people's attitude to the welfare state. When it was first set up in 1945, it took 4 per cent. of GDP. This country is infinitely richer now, but the welfare state is taking 12 per cent. of GDP. That cannot be justified. Any steps to rectify that position, especially given the huge amount of private savings—£600 billion—in pension funds and investment trusts, should be taken.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that it is essential that the Government clearly say that we should not accept the straightjacket of a single currency and the regulations that are necessary for it, and that it would hamper and hidebound an increasingly competitive economy and mean that Britain may no longer be the enterprise centre of Europe. If we can split from a single currency that is unnecessary, unproductive and, happily—I hope—increasingly unrealistic, given the Government's enormously successful policies on the economy and industry in the past 16 years, we can be the enterprise centre not only of Europe, but of the world.
5.37 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am a little puzzled why we are having the debate today. On Thursday, we thought that we would be debating something else, and suddenly the Government advised us that they urgently needed to have a full day's debate on the economy on Monday. I assumed that it was because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had something new and exciting to tell us, but he did not. He made the usual speech in the usual way—entertaining as always, but adding little or nothing to the sum total of our knowledge about the state of economy and his view of where it is going.
We have had a confetti of statistics, league tables, and perhaps just the beginning of the warm-up of an election debate on the economy tested out. Hon. Members will remember that, in the United States presidential election, for people asking what the issue was, the slogan on the wall said, "It's the economy, stupid!"
I wonder whether we should rephrase that and say, "It's the stupid economy", because it never seems to do what the Government expect it to do. Most of the time, the Chancellor tells us why it will be different next time, but, as I hope to make clear, his and his predecessor's record in forecasting the economy's development and progress is extremely doubtful and inaccurate.
We all want our economy to succeed. The difference between us is on what measures will help to achieve that, what policies the Government should pursue, and what factors must be taken into account. Of course the fall in unemployment over the past 17 months is welcome, insofar as it goes. The relatively low rate of inflation is also welcome, if it is sustained and sustainable, as the foundation for long-term investment. However, neither of

57
those indicators is quite as good or quite as simple as the, perhaps understandable, euphoria of Ministers would have us believe.
The reality is that the Government have acknowledged that things have gone wrong, but say that things would be a great deal worse if there were a change of Government—and that, anyway, everything is about to go right, so we should trust and believe them. The Government talk about the fact—often suggesting that it is something new and startling—that there have been four years of sustainable growth, and that that is some sort of triumph. In fact, it has been a long, slow recovery from a deep and damaging recession. That is a long way short of an economic miracle. It debases language to suggest that it is a miracle.
In fact, we are talking about annualised growth of about 2 per cent., which is below the average of the past 25 years. I accept that it appears to be sustainable, but it is slow by international standards and measured against what we need to do if we are to get our output ahead of our productivity, so that we can create the jobs we need to bring about the economic success we all want.
One thing we might have expected from the Chancellor today, although I know that it is not the form, was a hint about a drop in interest rates. All the commentators tell us that that is likely later in the week. Perhaps today's debate is the scene setting to enable the Chancellor to say, "I told you on Monday that things were going well. We have cut interest rates again, and that proves it."
In fact, if interest rates are cut later this week, it will be not because of the strength of the economy, but because of its weakness. It is growing so slowly that there is not only room for a further cut, but a desperate feeling that something needs to be done if there is to be any hope of meeting the Chancellor's 3 per cent. growth forecast. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be the only person in the land who believes that he can hit 3 per cent. growth this year—and he reiterated that belief today.
Let us examine where the economy is at the moment. Manufacturing output is actually lower than it was a year ago. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that manufacturing was no longer as important as it used to be, and that it is now all about tradeable goods and services. That debate is old hat. The economy is infinitely diverse, and infinitely varied.
Of course tradeable goods and services generate wealth and are valuable, and they need to be supported, but the fundamental fact is that, unless we also create a stronger manufacturing base, the total size of the British economy will not be sufficient to generate the long-term performance we need.
Mr. Sheerman: I substantially agree with the hon. Gentleman, but is not it a fact that the percentage change we need to increase the size of the service and miscellaneous sector is enormous? We would have to take in the Tokyo and New York exchanges and much else. In contrast, just a relatively small increase in manufacturing could solve Britain's economic problems.
Mr. Bruce: That is a fair point, but I am not sure that I want to go down that route. We have dramatically expanded the service sector, so the scope for a much bigger share is limited. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, without a much more successful and
58
innovative manufacturing base, total wealth and total employment will not be sufficient to sustain us in the manner to which all parties would like this country to become accustomed and to feel good and confident about.
Investment in manufacturing, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is now the lowest on record. Indeed, manufacturing investment fell by 9 per cent. in the last quarter of last year. The point is that it is not a matter of not expanding our manufacturing base fast enough; it is still contracting. That is serious, as I hope the President of the Board of Trade will acknowledge tonight. Indeed, I hope that he will remember that he is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, not just President of the Board of Trade. I hope that he will give some recognition of what can be done.
I was amused, as were others, by the article on the front page of today's Financial Times, under the headline "Heseltine to defend UK investment record". The Deputy Prime Minister was basically saying that industrial changes mean that manufacturers can now produce more goods with less spending and therefore the fall in investment is not a matter for great public concern or anxiety. However, the article states:
"Mr. Sudhir Junankar, associate director of economics at the Confederation of British Industry, believes that, while changes in organisation might be having an impact on investment patterns, the general weakness in capital spending is a 'worrying' factor, inhibiting recovery."
Obviously, the Deputy Prime Minister did not get the Government off the hook. The reality is that we need a high-tech, expanding manufacturing sector.
The current position is of a Budget and an economic strategy based on achieving a growth forecast that none of the current indicators suggests is at all realistic. There was an article in The Observer yesterday by Maurice Fitzpatrick, who also wrote a letter to the Financial Times in January in which he set out—it still stands—that,
"to achieve 3 per cent. growth in 1996, the economy would have to accelerate sharply. One would be looking, by way of example, for growth of. 6 per cent. in the first quarter,. 9 per cent. in the second quarter and 1.5 per cent. in each of the two final quarters. That seems unlikely, particularly given the problems that are being faced elsewhere. It may well be only a matter of time before the Treasury downsizes its 1996 growth forecast."
That will have serious consequences for the Government's electoral strategy, let alone Britain's economic success. That is possibly a reason for going for an early election—before it becomes apparent that the Government's forecasts are unachievable, and that the position is in fact much less optimistic than the Chancellor's speech suggested.
The other matter about which the Government have expressed considerable satisfaction is the low rate of inflation. More than once, the Prime Minister has said, "We have got inflation in the box, we have locked it up, and we have thrown away the key." Apart from being a rather complacent comment, it does not square with the reality.
The first question is, what has delivered low inflation? Has it been the successful implementation of Government policies, monetary strategy, or fiscal management? Or is it not simply the fact that there has been a deep recession, in which, generally speaking, prices and price increases have been low throughout the world?
The reality is that, far from having an extremely good performance on inflation, Britain is at the bottom of the European league. Only Greece, Italy and Spain have a

59
worse performance. The Chancellor's bullish remarks not only about his belief in a single European currency but about his determination to ensure that Britain can meet the criteria seemed to be very much off target.
On the latest analysis published last week by the Commission, taking either the national figures or the Commission's estimates for inflation, Britain does not look as though it will be able to meet the inflation criteria and qualify for EMU in 1997. If it is to qualify, it is crucial that the Chancellor gets inflation down to 2.5 per cent. and keeps it there, because that is the top end of the range that would enable Britain to meet the inflation criteria.
I believe that one reason why investment is low in Britain is that there is no deep and abiding confidence among investors that low inflation and interest rates and stable exchange rates are here to stay. They have had their fingers burned too often, and there is nothing to suggest that the encouraging trends will continue, or that the Government have any real control over them. People think that, with any external pressure, the whole cycle could be triggered off again.
That problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Chancellor shows signs of a weakening resolve. I have on a number of occasions praised him for standing his ground in the face of pressure from his party, and ensuring that he does not do the populist thing and knock the economy and then economic recovery off course. As the election draws closer, however, he has shown signs of acceding to that pressure.
The Chancellor has also—he cited it himself—reduced interest rates, with the possibility of a further reduction. Tax cuts are coming through which his own criteria do not justify, and the building society giveaways are also coming into the system. There is a danger that that could create a stimulus in the economy for which there is no buffer mechanism, which could stoke up inflation again. There is no real mechanism to turn the situation around. There is anxiety about whether the Chancellor has the bottle to stick to the policy under pressure from his party.
I intervened on the Chancellor about borrowing and tax cuts, which I am sure are not a source of great comfort to Conservative Members. I am astonished by the way in which Ministers suggest that they are getting borrowing under control and are confident that borrowing is coming down, when the overshoot on their forecast is approaching 50 per cent. Borrowing is clearly out of control.
I have grave doubts about how firmly the Chancellor is committed to reducing borrowing. I quoted what he said to David Frost in September 1994, but he did not seem to believe that I was quoting him word for word. He said that a public sector borrowing requirement of more than £30 billion made tax cuts impossible. He continued:
"£30 billion is not the basis for cutting taxes and would actually worry all those people out there … if they thought I was going to start tax cutting on the back of even a £30 billion public sector requirement."
All the indications are that the outturn in the current year is likely to exceed £30 billion, so what is the Chancellor going to do about it? His good intentions go only so far, and when the chips are down, he runs into the buffers of political opportunism.
Unemployment has come down, and that is welcome. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said that, in his constituency, 1,400 people have found jobs.
60
That is of course good news, but let us be realistic. We are being told that we should be pleased that unemployment has risen from 1.3 million in 1979 to 2.2 million today. The figures may have gone up and then down, but that is a net increase of almost 1 million.
To take a shorter cycle, since 1990, when the Prime Minister took over from Lady Thatcher, the number of unemployed people has risen by 540,000. The Government are still complacent about unemployment, but the problem is more than just a lack of concern for those people. The President of the Board of Trade said in an intervention that many people were going through the cycle of being unemployed and getting back into work fairly quickly, and that there are not too many people who suffer long-term employment. That is not a good enough way in which to dismiss the problem, because it is costing us billions of pounds.
The amount of taxpayers' money that is being wasted on unemployment is the fundamental reason why taxes cannot be brought down, and education and health are starved of funds. Unemployment during the Government's period of office has cost about £150 billion in lost taxes and the payment of benefits. That is more than all the receipts during that period from North sea oil and privatisation.
All that windfall, that unpredicted gain, has been dissipated in paying for the costs of unemployment. The debate about the 43 per cent. of taxation as a percentage of GDP is therefore sterile unless the Government can come up with some way in which to deal with unemployment. The Chancellor is taxing the British taxpayer just as heavily as Denis Healey did, because he has failed to tackle the underlying weakness in the economy.
Although there is some welcome recovery and some dynamic in the British economy, we are a long way from an economic miracle that will generate a feel-good factor, security in employment, confidence to invest, and the sort of growth rate that could conceivably enable us to reduce taxes and maintain public services where people want them to be. Unless that can be achieved, the argument about cutting taxes is also about cutting services, or at least forcing people to pay for more of their education and health care straight out of their own pockets.
We need a more long-term vision in economic policy, which is why Liberal Democrats believe that we should have an operationally independent central bank. That bank, tied into a single currency—I agree with the Chancellor—if it were achievable, would enable sustained lower interest rates year on year than those we could manage to achieve on our own.
We need to review the rules on public sector borrowing so that we can distinguish between capital and current borrowing. The trouble is that, in order to try to meet their borrowing targets, the Government are cutting capital borrowing rather than current borrowing, which is damaging the underlying strength of the economy.
We need to invest fundamentally in education and training. That is the single reason why Liberal Democrats voted against the 1p reduction in income tax. We believed that such a cut could not be achieved in the present climate. We also need to alter the balance of taxation and spending to deal with environmental issues—taxes on pollution rather than employment and wealth creation:

61
a switch from motorway investment to public transport investment and to the reinvigoration of our ailing infrastructure.
All those fundamental changes are necessary for the beginning of what would be an economic miracle: the ability to secure high levels of employment in high-skill, high-earning jobs that would enable people to have a good quality of life, pay a reasonable level of taxes and have good-quality public services. The spending round in the past two years has shown that that cannot be delivered by the Government, because they have not created a climate for sustained and sustainable, low-inflation, investment-led recovery. Until they show that they can do so, this country will not succeed.
I was left lacking any enlightenment on either of the two major parties' position on the single currency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to hold out against a commitment to any possible referendum in the Conservative manifesto. The shadow Chancellor took the same view, seeming to say that somehow the issue would be left to the election, and that there might or might not be a single currency. One cannot put a cigarette paper between the two parties on the issue.
The one thing that Liberal Democrats are consistent about is that we believe that it is in Britain's interest not only for there to be a single currency, but for us to be there at the beginning of it and to shape it. We accept that the decision is difficult, especially at the present time. That is why it is also important to take the people with us.
We should show leadership and vision, and recognise that, in the long term, the prize that can be won through a strong European economy with a strong currency that removes the current frictions is well worth winning, and will enable Europe to compete much more effectively in an increasingly global market. That prize is worth winning, and the Liberal Democrats represent the only party in this country with that vision, which they are prepared to follow through.
5.58 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate which, unfortunately for those who lay claim to parliamentary supremacy in these matters, is rather a sad example. With a vote on a three-line Whip at the end of our debate, we are discussing the central area of politics—the management of the economy by Government, in so far as Governments have much purchase on those matters these days. We see clearly the extent to which the House has more pressing things to do. It is sad: I note that fact in passing.
I was fortunate enough to hear the opening speeches by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). My right hon. and learned Friend set out clearly and persuasively some of the ways in which this Government, under successive Chancellors, have pursued responsible policies, which have made an important positive difference to the way in which the economy performs.
However, I do not think that one should exaggerate that point any more because the theme of my intervention will be that national Governments and national authorities are a great deal less powerful these days than some people in the House and the country fondly believe. It is about time
62
that we politicians were more honest with the general public in our assessment of these matters, so that expectations did not run ahead of what can reasonably be offered.
The Opposition amendment is a fairly clear example of Labour's recent habit of being long on new Labour words, but rather short on substantial explanation about how Labour would put those words into effect if it came to office. When the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was challenged on those points by several of my hon. Friends, both from the Back Benches and from the Front Bench, he was not very forthcoming. Yet we have been there before. We have had that experience when intervening during the hon. Gentleman's speeches, so today was nothing new, I am sorry to say.
It is noticeable in the Labour amendment, for example, that there are some plausible and worthy words about regretting
"the widespread job insecurity throughout Britain".
That is right. All of us know from our constituencies the extent to which a range of people who never expected to experience job insecurity now feel it in their lives. The important point, which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East missed—I wanted to intervene, but he felt unable to give way—is that job insecurity affects those who are now in jobs and who had always assumed that they would be in jobs until their retirement.
The hon. Member tried to answer the Chancellor's point about the community action programme, and he spoke about the various worthy measures that Governments have introduced from time to time to try to help the long-term unemployed back into work. That is, of course, important, but the hon. Gentleman wilfully missed the point. The aspect that should be addressed by Labour Front-Bench Members—I have yet to hear them do so—is how they would stand against the new global developments which are bringing the forces of competition and insecurity into play for a much wider range of people than was previously the case.
I suspect that the only nostrum that Labour would have in its locker if it got into office would be the old Labour policies of protectionism in one guise or another, which would breed a false sense of security in the minds of the electorate. I await with interest the winding-up speech, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I shall look for some flesh on the bones. Failing that, it is incumbent on Labour to explain what it would seek to do to allay the central psychological and political problem of our time.
As I have said, the time has come for both sides in our economic debate to level with the British people, much more than we have felt able to do hitherto, about the new realities of the global economy, and to draw out some of the policy implications of those realities. I shall spend a few moments touching on some of those realities, because I am not sure how widely understood they are.
I remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the United Kingdom has about 1 per cent. of the world's population, but 3.5 per cent. of world gross domestic product. It could be said that we punch above our weight already. The proportion of gross national product that is internationally traded has risen from 20 per cent. for exports and 27 per cent. for imports in 1979 to 23 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively in 1994, which is the last full year for which I have figures.

63
The export of goods and services, at constant 1990 prices, has risen from 22 per cent. of GDP in 1979 to 27 per cent. in 1994. Capital flows in and out of the United Kingdom, about which much was made earlier in the debate, have grown as a percentage of GDP, from 1 per cent. for inflows and 3 per cent. for outflows in 1978, before we lifted exchange controls, which is the relevant benchmark, to 5 per cent. for inflows and 6 per cent. for outflows in 1994, the latest full year for which figures are available.
Investment income from abroad is important to those who worry about foreigners owning our industry. It is just as important to bear in mind the other side of the account, which is the extent to which we earn from wealth-generating assets elsewhere in the world. That process will not diminish, but will increase with the passage of time.
Our investment income from abroad has increased from 9 per cent. of GDP in 1979 to 12 per cent. in 1994, the latest full year for which figures are available. The value of our external assets, which generate some of that wealth, has grown from £72 billion in 1979, producing about £8 billion of foreign income, to £1,405 billion in 1994, producing £78 billion of foreign income. Again, the trend is obvious.
The importance of financial services, which help to generate wealth for the United Kingdom, hardly needs stating. Financial services produce £20 billion of net earnings every year for this country, and are responsible for 13 per cent. of total UK employment. That is a dramatic increase compared with the figures for 10 or 20 years ago. The whole House is well aware of the extent to which we attract the lion's share of foreign direct investment in the European Union from third countries, notably the United States, Japan and the so-called Asian tigers.
I have taken the trouble, in what is not an overcrowded debate, to weary you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with those factual points, because it is important to put them on record. People in the media may not be listening to our debate, but they may at least read our remarks in future, and take account of the way in which the world has changed, and the implications of that. I will highlight three implications which seem obvious to me and which should be obvious to hon. Members on both Front Benches if they are paying attention to what is going on in the world.
The first implication is that monetary policy now has to be conducted in a different framework. It must be used to validate market expectations rather than heroically to attempt to lead or resist market movements and market expectations. If it tries the latter, it will, as sure as eggs are eggs, end in tears, to mix metaphors.
Foreign exchange flows are now 10 times world GDP and 50 times world trade. A group of nations may try concerted intervention, with concerted interest rate movements. However, there are severe limitations on the real autonomy and the real capacity for action of any national monetary authority. We might as well recognise that, and it might as well be our starting point for monetary policy.
The second policy implication is that fiscal policy needs to err on the side of prudence to earn the confidence of the financial markets. There have been many examples in the past 10 or 20 years of the way in which fiscal fecklessness is punished swiftly.
64
The two obvious examples are the Labour Government's experience from 1974 to 1976 and the Mitterrand Government's experience from 1981 to 1983. In each case, a socialist or left-inclined Government sought to make a dash for growth, thought they could defy the laws of international economic gravity, and then suffered grievous consequences. Under the Labour Government, we had some of the largest and most dramatic cuts in public expenditure in any one year of the post-war period. In France, there was a total U-turn and a reversal of policy.
Given that both monetary and fiscal policies are severely constrained by those facts—they are not fiction—one is driven ineluctably to put much greater weight, quite rightly, on microeconomic and supply side policies. That is the new area in which Governments can make a difference, and if only one point in my speech lodges in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight, I hope it will be that.
The approach to supply side policy must be broadly and imaginatively defined. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was right to talk about investment in physical capital and in public and private infrastructure, and investment in human capital is at the core of the areas of consensus between the Government and the Opposition. Such investment is important—the fact that we happen to agree on it makes it no less so—and it must be sustained for a long period to bear fruit.
The phrase "supply side policy" must be defined more broadly. In this, we can learn from the continent, where they know that, in a world of highly mobile capital and high net worth individuals, one must attract to one's shores, and then retain, people who could easily take their energy, efforts and wealth-creating abilities elsewhere. France recognised long ago that, to sustain the growth points in various parts of the country—Montpelier, Nancy, Grenoble and Rennes, to name a few—investment in higher education and even in culture was needed to make those centres more attractive to the people who wanted to invest and lead their lives there.
On supply side policies, one must look across the spectrum of government. It is not just a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, although that Department is obviously important. It is not just a matter of deregulation, although that must constantly be carried out—particularly when it is borne in mind that Brussels may attempt to gold-plate regulations.
I believe that, if my right hon. and hon. Friends were to pay the greatest attention to supply side policies during the remainder of this Parliament and the whole of the next—during which I confidently expect that we will still be in government—it would greatly benefit our people. It would put more people back to work and generate the wealth that would allow us to finance the public services—something we all want.
6.11 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The powerful oration of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on supply side economics and much else could have been his curtain-raiser before joining us on the Opposition Benches. The only part of his speech that rang a little hollow was his mock confidence that he will still sit on the Government Benches after the next election.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, too often in the House, we make speeches of the yah-boo variety, and even the best speeches contain an element of that to

65
maintain one's party and political credibility. When we accept the global dimensions of our problems, however, there is some convergence of party policy—although we do not like to admit that in public too often. It does us harm as Members to pretend that the Opposition are totally opposed to everything that the Government do and that the Government are opposed to every policy initiative that we take, and part of my speech will be on that theme. I intend to refer to a mixture of matters, some of which the hon. Gentleman might agree with, and others—some good party political stuff—that am I sure he will not.
There is no better example of our oppositionist debates in the House than our debates on the economy. That is not surprising, because the Government's handling of the economy is at the heart of our responsibilities as politicians. Our wealth-creating capacity and ability as a nation, both now and in the future, are central to our welfare. We must understand not only the present, but how economic policies have developed in this century—particularly in the modern era, post-1945.
It is our duty also to scrutinise the present and to see how current policies are affecting the lives of our constituents. But we would be dishonest if we did not also look at the way in which the economy might develop in the next 20 to 25 years. As politicians and Members of Parliament, we must look forward to 2020 and 2025 and try to see how wealth will be created in this country and how our constituents, and their children and grandchildren, will earn a living. That is our duty—to look at the past and learn lessons, fearlessly to scrutinise the present and to look carefully at how we can plan for the future.
Lord Healey, when he was Chancellor, said that the British economy was
"like a supertanker—it takes an awfully long time to turn it."
That supertanker is on a much longer journey, on a much broader ocean, than my noble Friend realised when he made that statement, and it will take any incoming Labour Government a long time to reposition that supertanker and rechart its direction. We shall inherit the Government's policies of the past 16 years, and it will take some time to eliminate the poorer polices and modify those that we find acceptable.
We deceive our constituents and delude ourselves by pretending that there are fundamental differences between the parties when, in truth, there is sometimes a convergence of policy. Of the three major aspects of policy of the post-war Labour Government, the one dealing with the economy—promoting full employment and influenced by Keynesianism—was borrowed from the Liberals; Keynes was a noted Liberal, as we all know. Although Labour built the notion of a health service that was free and open to all, the welfare state policy was based on the Beveridge report—Beveridge was another Liberal. We could say ruefully that the only one of the three policies that genuinely came from Labour was that on public ownership, which came from Morrison. I leave the House to judge which of the policies Labour was most successful in pursuing. I shall come back to that subject in a moment.
We have heard much today about the performance of the British economy in terms of international rankings, and I do not want to be one of those saying that we have slipped from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league—enough hon. Members have done so, and there is sufficient
66
evidence that there are worrying aspects of our economy's recent performance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks as if the Government were responsible only for the past three or four years and, within that period, had no real responsibility for the worst recession that this country has had for 50 years. That was all part of the past; something for which the Government were not responsible.
Conservative Members display a strange logic when speaking on the subject. They all know that the British economy led the European economy into recession, but Minister after Minister—and many central office-fuelled Back Benchers—now says, "Aren't we doing well? The German economy is going down the tubes, the French economy is in trouble and the Spanish are struggling." Do they not realise that those countries are not only our competitors but our main customers? If they are heading for another recession. We may follow them into recession this time, and we shall all end up the poorer. I do not understand that logic. We are all in the economy together. I thought that Europe was about helping each other, trying to make sure that all our economies are supportive of each other—albeit in a competitive framework—and that we all survive better, as a wealthier part of the globe, as a consequence. That was why I was disappointed with the Chancellor's speech, which never aimed to get beneath the surface of the argument.
To everyone's surprise, the Government asked for this debate on the economy. In a major debate on the economy, it is not good enough for the Chancellor's speech to be a big puff for the latest chairman of the Conservative party's ambition to get a feel-good factor going. We all know that the Chancellor came to the House to proclaim that very soon, we shall never have had it so good. It was a long but not a thoughtful speech. I have heard him make good speeches, but today's was superficial, dwelt on the surface of things and will give his reputation little lustre.
To return to our responsibilities for scrutinising the economy, after a cool and serious appraisal of the past, present and future, the next step is to find ways of tackling our weaknesses and building on our strengths. We heard little of that from the Government. The way to do it is by spreading best practice and learning from our best competitors, wherever they are in the world. We cannot consider only one model, such as that which was always rammed down our throats when people said that we would never be as good as the Germans and that we must copy them or the Swedes. We must always seek the very best practices.
The competitive edge in the world has shifted from Europe to other countries; it has remained to a remarkable degree in the United States, which is still a very competitive, active and efficient economy. In the fashion for looking at the little tigers, the big tiger and other best practice, we sometimes neglect the economy across the Atlantic, which, by all criteria, is still doing pretty well. It is not without problems, but no economy is without those.
There is no excuse for not tackling the inability of our manufacturing industry to do better. I intervened on the Chancellor in the most worrying part of his speech, when he glossed over the period under Baroness Thatcher, when we lost so much of our manufacturing capacity. In analysing what we have to do now—not dwelling in the past, but asking how we get it right—one of the problems

67
for any politician is tackling the base from which we have to work. How big is our manufacturing sector? It is perilously close to, or just under, 20 per cent.—one fifth of our gross domestic product.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and thoughtful speech. He told us to look across the Atlantic. It is wise not to forget that great economy and its success, but its proportion of manufacturing is comparable with ours. What lesson does he draw from that?
Mr. Sheerman: The United States economy is very different from ours. Many commentators would say that we must consider the whole of north America rather than only the United States. I would lump Mexico and Canada in with the United States if I were making such a comparison. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
Let us dwell on the other problem with getting our manufacturing capacity right. From all the comparisons with our competitors, it is clear that we do not have not enough medium-sized companies. There was a period in the 1980s when many more small enterprises were starting. Worryingly, few of them—not nearly enough—grew into more substantial enterprises. Some of our competitors, such as Germany, have had a capacity to grow small companies into medium-sized ones and some of those into large ones. It is a question not only of a critical mass but of the quality of the critical mass. That is also an answer to the point made by the Chief Secretary. It is the nature as well as the size of the critical mass that counts.
I invite the Chief Secretary to come to the parts of the country, such as that which I represent in West Yorkshire, the west midlands or parts of Scotland, where manufacturing industry is still alive and well in one sense. He should talk to manufacturers who believe that if, for example, the engineering industry in the west midlands or West Yorkshire goes down any further, the critical mass will be below that which is necessary to be able to compete internationally. It will no longer be possible to set up firms in those regions with the confidence that is given by the supply chains and supply relationships that make businesses viable and competitive.
The inability to move nimbly from our industrial base has inhibited our industrial situation over the past few years. I direct Ministers to the important problem—which was picked up well in Hamish McRae's recent book "The World in 2020"—of Britain's inability nimbly to move to new skills. The Chancellor did not deal with our inability to create and maintain a highly skilled work force that is competitive at every level with other countries.
We must prepare ourselves for the new structures and ways of working. We have all seen the literature on that problem. More and more enterprises are moving from hierarchical structures, with bosses at the top sending commands down a long chain, to working as teams with many more technically and scientifically qualified workers. Most experts suggest that we are ill-equipped to deal with that. Only last week, a group of hon. Members heard John Neill from Unipart talking about how he started running his enterprise in Oxford, which both the
68
Chief Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) may know, with people with poor skills. Only by imaginative enterprise and management was he able to change dramatically the nature of those skills. Unipart is one of the few companies in this country that has reached such a level.
Time and again, we get our education priorities wrong and run education policies wrongly. After 17 years of Conservative government, we are still unable to deliver by the age of 16 competently trained and educated young people. The truth is that many of our schools fail our young people. If we fail to educate people before the age of 16, how much more expensive is it to repair the damage post-16? The priority must be to invest in our schools and high-quality teachers, and work with the profession as part of a team rather than as an alienated minority.
Secondly, there has been an amazing change in the further education sector. I was talking recently to the head of my local technical college, who explained that, under the new regime of funding from the Further Education Funding Council, the courses that are being threatened with funding cuts are the day release courses, those for training highly skilled people, the courses that used to supplement apprenticeships and the new apprenticeships to supplement so much of the skilled work force in engineering and many other industries. In the further education sector, the old technical colleges are the institutions that are most in danger.
We heard not one word from the Chancellor about how our universities can transform the British economy. I am one who believes that we are not nearly achieving our full potential—we are using only about 40 per cent. of the potential of higher education—and the full potential of the 100-plus universities to transform the regional economies and our national economy. At a time when we need that university input so much, we have hardly touched that potential.
Look at the successes of Professor Bhaticharia and the initiatives at Warwick, and at what has happened in Salford, as well as at the older universities such as Cambridge. Best practice shows how, in partnership with their local communities and with an entrepreneurial spirit, the universities can transform the British economy. In terms of knowledge-led innovation, the universities will be the secret of so much of our success. Our international competitors know that, so why have the Government consistently cut funding to higher education, which impacts on the quality of the work there?
To give a reasonably balanced view, I must admit that I welcome the fact that about 30 per cent. of the population now goes to university—when I and many other hon. Members went, the figure was only 3 per cent. That increase must be applauded, and I shall not gainsay that. Underlying that improvement, however, staff-student ratios, investment in equipment and buildings and the pay of the people whom we ask to teach and to do research in our universities are at such a poor level as to have a worrying effect on the future quality and effort of the sector.
How could the Chancellor not have alluded to that problem, when his Budget sliced another 7 per cent. off our university sector? I sympathised greatly with the vice-chancellors when they said that a capitation of £300 per student was the only response. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had better come to terms with

69
the fact that we must get the funding of higher education right. I know that the Opposition are working on it and trying to get it right. I must tell the Opposition Front Bench—I shall say it again in other circumstances—that we must make some pretty unpleasant decisions in the education funding world to get it right.
All the evidence shows that those who go through higher education get all the best things in life—they get more training once they have their degree, as well as a higher quality of life and higher salaries. If I were in charge—I am not, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I would put the money in at the other end, especially into skills training for the 14 to 19-year-olds. That is the age that seems to be so crucial to our performance as an economy.
Finally, I must mention the notion of a stakeholding economy—a concept that is dear to my heart, but which raises some interesting responses from Conservative Members every time I mention it. The Chancellor referred to that notion in passing and seemed to deride it, which seems strange when one considers its history. One does not have to go that far back—not back to the diggers and the levellers, who did talk about stakeholding in a very real way.
I was trying to track down where the notion came from. I thought that it was from the khaki election, just after the first world war, when Lloyd George, I think, said that three acres and a cow was every man's right—it was every man's right to have a stake in his country—which was stakeholding with a vengeance. I understand from the Library, however, that it goes back to 1885 and beyond, so it was not vintage Lloyd George.
In recent years, the concept of stakeholding has come, not from politicians, but from the corporate sector—from companies, managers and the heads of the most successful international corporations. It comes from people who say and have been saying for many years that, unless we have stakeholders in this enterprise, we shall not be able to compete with the international competition—the very best in the world—as we shall not be using the full potential of all our employees, including the employees of our suppliers, and of the other stakeholders.
Basically, there are five participants in the process. They are the employees, the managers, the shareholders, the supplying companies—the supply chain, which is made up of those who supply the larger companies, which then go on to supply someone else, is much underrated in this country—and the local community. All are important. Working together, they can assure the real efficiency of a company and an economy.
What is wrong with the Leader of the Opposition using a concept intelligently and realising that, just as we cannot have an internationally competitive company without stakeholding, we cannot have an internationally competitive country without it? Stakeholding makes us corporately and competitively efficient as an economy, but it also makes us efficient in terms of delivering the good things in life to our constituents and citizens. Surely it is worth exploring and working on that concept, and understanding it better. That is worth saying, and valuable.
What is wrong? Is it that the Prime Minister did not say it first? Is it that someone in Conservative central office or at No. 10 has been working on stakeholding for a long time and that, suddenly, the rug was pulled from under him? I suspect so because, on the one hand, the Prime
70
Minister says that it is a ridiculous notion, but on the other, he seems to applaud it. One never knows where he is coming from.
We had hardly got into the debate when there was some to-ing and fro-ing on the subject of Europe. Primarily, it was a debate within the Conservative party, rather than between the Government and the Opposition—our debates on Europe were sorted out a long time ago. That debate seems be continuing fervently and at a pretty high temperature among Conservative Members.
Let me make one final plea. Any discussion of the economy must include Europe. Many of us support Europe because we believe that it will benefit our constituents and Britain's economic health. We care about Europe, so we are often painted into a corner. However, the fact that we are positive about Europe does not mean that we applaud everything about it. Those of us who are pro-European are often called upon to defend the iniquitous common agricultural policy and the ghastly way in which Europe is executive-driven, with no proper legislative check by domestic national Parliaments or the European Parliament. Those deficiencies must be addressed.
I was encouraged by the Confederation of British Industry calling for an intelligent, rational dialogue in Europe, which, according to the director general, should be based on
logic and facts rather than emotion and slogans".
According to press reports, the CBI seems to be fed up with the Conservative party in terms of emotion and slogans about the European Union. I hope that the CBI will look at the logic and facts and not just at the emotions and slogans surrounding the social chapter. Many members of the CBI have not scrutinised the social chapter or its implications.
The future of Europe will change our economy, whether or not we debate endlessly European monetary union. In the run-up to the intergovernmental conference, we must raise the level of the debate, learn from the CBI and begin a rational, pragmatic debate about whether EMU will assist the European economies, and our economy in particular, and whether we shall benefit from the changes that will be discussed at the IGC. We need to talk about the facts, not the myths of European membership. I end my remarks with the faint and vague hope that we can have a positive debate on Europe.
6.41 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: It is always good to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). It is a little known fact that he taught me politics at Swansea university. His influence is demonstrated by the fact that I am standing here and he is sitting over there. It is good to be here after an excellent weekend, in which the socialists were kicked out of Australia and Spain. As I cannot believe that the good people of Australia and Spain are more intelligent than the good people of Britain, no doubt that trend will continue here after the next election.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said in his excellent speech, it is a shame that so few Members are here for today's important debate. It represents a useful opportunity to reflect on the Government's policies and—if we can

71
wrestle them from Opposition Members—those of the Opposition to ensure that Britain continues on the successful route that it has followed for the past 16 years.
The debate gives me the opportunity to dwell on the fact that we have experienced 15 consecutive quarters of growth. We are selling more abroad than ever before and we export more per head than Japan. Who would have envisaged that 15 or 16 years ago? Inward investment in Britain was a record in 1994–95, with 434 new projects creating some 36,000 new jobs and securing more than 51,000 existing jobs. Britain attracts 40 per cent. of investment from the United States and Japan. We are second only to the United States as a beneficiary of inward investment.
I find it difficult to understand the xenophobic approach of those who say that it is dreadful that foreign companies have bought into British industry. I do not consider that to be a problem, so long as there is free interchange between industries. If British investors can invest abroad, it is only right that foreign investors should be able to invest in Britain.
I should also mention the standard of living in Britain. A married couple on average earnings with two children have seen their income and quality of life increase by more than 40 per cent. in real terms since 1979. It is the Government's stated aim to double the living standards of people in Britain in the next 25 years. Our policy is not boom and bust, but sustained economic development that will benefit everyone.
We need to develop policies that will help British businesses. The Opposition are not content that the red flag should fly above Parliament and the House of Commons; they also want it flying above Buckingham palace. The Leader of the Opposition should get a grip on some of his colleagues and tell them to start concentrating on the issues that concern the British people and the policies that they want, which certainly do not involve the abolition of the monarchy. He should tell his red rebels to concentrate on the issues that the Government are confronting.
We need to consider how we can help our businesses, particularly small businesses. I am vice chairman of the Small Business Bureau. More than 345,000 new businesses were created in the last nine months of 1995. They look to the Government to cut red tape so that bureaucracy—whether it is from Europe, Whitehall or the town hall—is restricted to that which is necessary, and to ensure that Britain remains as competitive as possible. We are competing not only with the rest of Europe, but with the Asian tiger economies, which are expanding significantly and which we ignore at our peril. We must ensure that Britain is economically viable and can compete with those new, strong economies.
I am extremely interested in deregulation and I was on the Standing Committee that considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Those in industry who are following the debate or who will avidly read Hansard tomorrow and may be aware of any rules or regulations that they believe are not essential or are hampering their businesses should bring them to the notice of the Department of Trade and Industry so that, if possible, they can be scrapped. The last thing that businesses want is on-costs produced by rules and regulations that are of no benefit to employees or customers. We should scrap unnecessary rules and regulations as quickly as possible.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, does he agree that the Government should take another look at the business rate, particularly its effect on the small shopkeeper?
Mr. Evans: I remember not so long ago, when we had not the unified business rate but the old rating system. I was a county councillor and business men used to troop into West Glamorgan county council offices and plead with councillors to restrain their spending so that costs would not be heaped on businesses that operated on tight margins. As it was a good, socialist-run county council, the councillors listened carefully and ignored them. Up went the costs and the businesses were penalised. The unified business rate is a massive improvement on the old rates. At least businesses can now predict their rates instead of being at the whim and pleasure of socialist local authorities.
So that our businesses remain competitive, we need to ensure that inflation remains low. We have heard much about inflation today. It is easy to forget past inflation levels, but I shall say more about that later. We welcome the fact that inflation is approaching 2.8 per cent. and that it has been at a sustainable level for so long. We need competitive, low interest rates and they are now running at 6.25 per cent. The 0.25 per cent cut on 18 January was extremely welcome and I look forward to further cuts when possible. That will help businesses, particularly those that must borrow money to reinvest in their companies to remain competitive.
There is a knock-on effect also on mortgage rates. The Chancellor mentioned the families who have benefited to the tune of £150 per month since 1990. Much of that money will find its way back into the economy. Low, competitive interest rates coupled with low mortgage rates will boost the country's economy.
Inheritance tax reform was vital to allow small family businesses to retain money to spend as they choose. The threshold for inheritance tax was increased from £154,000 to £200,000 in the Budget and I hope that the tax will soon be scrapped completely. Families have enough to contend with when they lose someone near and dear to them without the added misery of inheritance tax. I hope that capital gains tax will be re-examined too.
Strikes are an important aspect of business welfare, and they are now at their lowest level in more than 100 years. That is extremely welcome. Low income tax is also vital. A new rate of 20 per cent. has been introduced and the higher rate of income tax has been reduced from 83 per cent. to 40 per cent. Some hon. Members may remember when income tax was 83 per cent. and 98 per cent. of annual income: we must never forget those days.
Corporation tax has been reduced from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent. It has decreased from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent. for smaller companies—and it will drop further to 24 per cent. later this year. Those moves are very welcome. When the Chancellor announced the 1 p reduction in the basic rate of income tax, the Liberals—none of whom is in the Chamber—voted against that measure and Labour Members sat on their hands, as they do on many issues these days. We must reduce income tax to the lowest level possible and allow people to retain and to spend their own money.
The Government's stated intention is to reduce expenditure to below 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. That aim must not be confused with reducing

73
expenditure on essential services, because that will not occur. That expenditure will be met by examining present expenditure patterns and through economic growth. This year's Budget announced increased expenditure for education of £878 million and for health of £1.3 billion.
The Government announced that 5,000 extra police officers will be on the beat and that 10,000 closed circuit television cameras will be installed. We are spending money on essential services while cutting, as a result of growth, the amount that we spend as a percentage of GDP. We must create the conditions that allow businesses to flourish and to expand. Industry must be able to invest confidently in the British economy, sure in the knowledge of seeing a return on that investment.
Businesses must be extremely worried about the threat posed by a future Labour Government. I shall refer to some important issues on which we are not receiving straight answers from the Opposition. The first is the social chapter and the on-costs and extra bureaucracy that businesses would have to bear if we signed up to it. We read in the newspapers that the Labour party is rethinking some of the clauses in the social chapter. Labour Members may like to comment on that during the debate. Is Labour prepared to sign up to everything in the social chapter? I get the impression that the Opposition are so wedded to everything that comes out of Brussels these days that they are prepared to sign the social chapter to make it look as though they are very communautaire.
Mr. James Couchman: Perhaps my hon. Friend heard the interview with the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on the radio this afternoon, in which he said that the social chapter is about terms and conditions of work. However, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) says that the social chapter contains only one condition about works councils. It is very curious that those two hon. Members do not glean the same story from the same hymn sheet.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is much more to the social chapter than meets the eye, and no doubt Labour Members will tell the public as little about it as possible so that they do not frighten the children. The social chapter contains many measures that the European Community will want to introduce—no doubt under the guise of health and safety or by declaring that it will benefit all the people of Europe. However, the tiger economies of Asia do not face the same on-costs and, therefore, we shall find it extremely difficult to compete for export markets. We must be careful when deciding which of Brussels' rules and regulations to accept—whether or not they are in the social chapter.
The second issue is the minimum wage. The Opposition's position on that is extremely shady.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Shady?
Mr. Evans: Yes. Opposition Members refuse to say at what wage level it would be introduced. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that, if a minimum wage were introduced, there would be a jobs shake-out in the economy. I do not see how that view balances with that of other Labour Members who
74
say that they care about unemployment and that they want it to decrease. However, at the same time the Opposition are prepared to introduce a minimum wage, which would result in a shake-out of jobs in the economy and lead to an increase in the number of unemployed in this country.
I am totally opposed to the concept of a minimum wage. It is estimated that, if it were introduced at £4.15, more than 1 million jobs would be lost. That would mean massive increases in the social security costs and other add-on costs that taxpayers would have to meet. While the minimum wage sounds fine in theory, in practice it would be devastating for jobs—not only in the north-west, which I represent, but in the tourist and industrial areas of this country.
I do not believe that the Labour party has a correct inflation policy or target. We forget at our peril what occurred when the last Labour Government allowed inflation to rip in this country—it was 27 per cent. at one point, and averaged 15 per cent. I run a small retail business in Swansea and I can remember wholesale prices on some goods changing regularly—perhaps twice a week—because inflation was running so high.
Pensioners on fixed incomes who had put a little aside for their old age found it very tough: they saw their savings cut in half in four years. Their pensions did not keep up with the rising rate of inflation and they suffered greatly. Their Christmas bonuses were stopped twice by that caring Labour Government.
Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend recall the position of private pension funds, particularly occupational pension funds, under the last Labour Government? Is he aware that the Conservative Government allocated £1 billion to the British Rail pension fund to meet the deficit that Labour left behind? Investments performed so badly in many pension funds during the 1970s that most were in deficit when the Conservatives took office. People's money was not safe in private pension funds at that time.
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. Far more people have private pensions these days. Labour Members make much of the dreadful profits that industries—particularly the former nationalised industries—are making. However, they do not take account of the fact that many people rely on those industries to make a profit so that they can pay for their pensions later. It is vital that we do not forget that and I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised that issue.
I wish to comment about the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions. Many Labour Members, including all shadow Front Benchers, are sponsored by trade unions and the unions have half a say at the Labour party conference. Because the Government have introduced trade union reforms to ensure that the trade union barons do not dictate any longer to employees in industry, we now have good industrial relations.
What is the big message from the Labour party on the future of the economy? Is it the stakeholding economy? I cannot believe that that is the big message that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) let slip out in Singapore. I cannot believe that that soundbite policy is the big message. What is a stakeholder? What is the stakeholding economy? I remember that back between 1974 and 1979, and before, one could say that everyone

75
was a stakeholder in all the nationalised industries. Those industries lost £50 million every week and taxpayers had to put their hands in their pockets and pay out for those great industries in which they were stakeholders.
Now what has happened? Those industries have been privatised. They are far more profitable and they are providing far better levels of service, in the main, than before. They are now contributing £50 million from their profits to the taxpayers. That is the sort of stakeholding that we want to see and that is what is happening now—thanks to the policies that have been introduced by the Government.
We also now have 10 million shareholders who invest directly in industry. We have also heard that some of the trade unions, through their pension funds, invest in newly nationalised industries, because there is a good rate of return for their members.
I cannot believe that stakeholding is the great idea from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, but it would be an opportunity for the Labour party to sidle up to its friends in the trade union movement and give them a greater say in how industry is run. I cannot see how that will be of any benefit to industry.
In a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research in London on 29 February 1996—not that long ago—John Monks, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, explained that a stakeholding economy would mean more power for the trade unions. He called for fundamental changes to company law that would lead to
"a new industrial relations settlement … A start would be a change in Company Law to widen the obligations of directors and require them to take into account the interests of the different stakeholder groups."
Mr. Monks called for "independent voices" to be appointed to company boards, including
"suppliers, the community and employees."
In a crucial passage, he explained that giving extra representation to employees would, in practice, mean extra influence for union bosses:
"employees come together collectively through trade unions. An employee stakeholder interest cannot therefore be expressed unless employees have the right to express their collective views."
There we have it, from the mouth of John Monks. The stakeholder economy would mean a transference of power from the Labour party to the trade unions, which would have a greater say in how industry was run.
We do not need to look back any further than to the years between 1974 and 1979. We do not want to revisit those days. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that we should always remember the past, but he surely did not mean 1974–79. We should remember the past. Last year, we lost only 278,000 days through strikes, yet in 1979 we lost 29 million days. Those who cannot remember what those days were like have only to refer to the situation in France a few weeks ago.
Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend remember the great stakeholder of the 1978–79 winter of discontent, one Jamie Morris? He was a hospital porter who decided which patients should be treated, whether they had cancer or a more trivial illness. That was an example of stakeholding and the Labour party's relationship with the trade unions.
Mr. Evans: I remember a trade union official making those decisions, but I did not know that his name was
76
Jamie Morris. I also remember that if he made the wrong decision and the people died, they could not be buried because another trade union had closed all the cemeteries. Those days were wretched and miserable.
We saw glimpses of the past in France recently in the stoppages. We saw how ugly the scenes were. That is what it was like in Britain in 1974–79 and that is what it would be like again if we allowed a massive transference of power back to the trade unions. Industry now has reliability. Industrialists who produce goods want to know that those goods can be produced on time and at the right price. They also want to know that those goods will be transported so that they can be sold. Industry has changed so much that industrialists know that they now have predictability and that when goods have been produced they will get to the customers. That is what we need. Trade union reform as envisaged in the stakeholding economy is the last thing we want.
We have been successful for the past 28 months with falling unemployment. Unemployment has risen in many other European countries, especially in Germany, which has more than 4 million unemployed, and in France, which has more than 3 million unemployed. Spain has some of the highest levels of youth unemployment in Europe. It is no wonder that Felipe Gonzalez was shown the door yesterday. We have got unemployment down to 7.9 per cent. and it is still falling.
It is appropriate to send our congratulations to all those people in the employment exchanges in our constituencies who do a tremendous job giving advice and help to people looking for work. I visited two branches recently, in Clitheroe and Preston, and congratulated them on doing a splendid job and thanked them for their work. I wish them well for the future. The last thing that we want to do to the people who are looking for work is to disadvantage them by introducing policies such as the minimum wage and the social chapter.
The Government are considering ways to assist people over a certain age who are looking for jobs. I wish the Government well on that and I hope that more can be done. Agism in the work force is the last thing that we need. There is a massive resource of people over 45 who, for whatever reason, have left their jobs and are looking for work. They have a great deal to offer industry and this country. It would be a great advantage if we could entice industry to reconsider some of the older people in the work force who want to contribute that little bit more. I know that a group is advising the Department for Education and Employment at the moment, and I hope that the Government will bring forward some initiatives that will give people over a certain age more hope and opportunities to rejoin the work force.
Europe has been mentioned a few times tonight and I am not going to let the subject pass. Ann Leslie wrote a splendid article in the Daily Mail last week about the situation in Germany. She spent a few days over there. Germany used to be the power house of Europe, but the situation has changed dramatically and Britain is now the power house and the enterprise centre of Europe. That will continue, but Germany has stalled because of the on-costs. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that it costs one and a half to two and a half times more in social on-costs to employ somebody in Germany. It costs three times more in non-labour costs to employ somebody in France. Industries cannot afford those costs. I wish that some of the politicians in Europe would let go

77
of their fixation about a greater Europe and ensure that the single market, which we have now, worked more effectively. We need more improvements in the general agreement on tariffs and trade and in world trade, not a fortress Europe that will not help anybody. Politicians in Europe should also let go of their fixation with the single currency, which I do not believe will occur in 1999. Focusing attention on the single currency will not help the situation.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that non-wage labour costs are becoming increasingly important to industry? Is he aware that P and O Ferries is asking the French Government for subsidies to keep French people employed—
Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend mean Brittany Ferries?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Yes. I am grateful.
Is my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) aware that Brittany Ferries is asking the French Government for subsidies so that it might compete with P and O Ferries in Britain, which has no subsidies and whose non-wage labour costs are half those in France?
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening. Subsidies are the last things with which we should become involved. That route would lead to the paying of subsidies to industries throughout Europe, which would lead in turn to a terrible stranglehold. How will that help us in competing with other countries, such as the United States, and the tiger economies of Asia?
Mr. Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman argues against subsidies. May I take it that he is opposed to the Government's assistance through Europe to Coventry Jaguar? May I have an answer?
Mr. Evans: No. That is a specific point. We were looking for inward investment. We wanted to ensure that it was retained in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Cunningham: Answer a straight question.
Mr. Evans: I am. We wanted to ensure that there was investment in Jaguar. I visited the Jaguar plant in Coventry not so long ago. It does splendid work, exporting more than 80 per cent. of its products. We have been able to retain Jaguar production in this country. I support Jaguar's retention here. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) wishes to ensure that subsidies are not paid because of non-essential labour costs. That form of subsidy will not help Brittany Ferries, the French Government, the French people or Europe.
Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a vast difference between assisting people inwardly to invest in the United Kingdom—the Taiwanese are investing in Scotland and Nissan in Sunderland, Siemens is to become involved and there has been investment in Northern Ireland—through capital grant, and Credit
78
Lyonnais or Brittany Ferries looking for revenue support, support for day-to-day running costs, because of high on-costs as a result of the social chapter?
Mr. Evans: Absolutely. I was trying to make that very point. My hon. Friend did so far more eloquently.
If we take the route of the social chapter and accept the addition of massive non-wage labour costs to the costs already facing industry in this country and in the rest of Europe, we shall be paying subsidies to companies from the rest of the world to come and set up in the United Kingdom. I hope that these issues will be taken up in the White Paper that is shortly to be published. Surely we wish to take Europe forward in the manner in which the United Kingdom is being taken forward so that the rest of Europe may take on board the policies that we have introduced, bearing in mind how successful we have been in reducing unemployment and attracting inward investment. If the rest of Europe followed our policies, its unemployment would fall too.
Like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I am interested in manufacturing. British Aerospace is in my constituency. I cannot think of a finer example of the best of manufacturing industry. It represents all the necessary skills. Its work force received extensive training. It has a superb director of education in Professor Steve Grigg, who is looking at investing in local schools. Schools in my constituency have been beneficiaries of some of the money that has been made available through technology associations and through computers going into some primary schools.
British Aerospace is looking to expand education through a university for life so that it can attract some 15, 16, and 17-year-olds to enter university to obtain the necessary and right skills that will enable them to take employment with the company. The hon. Member for Huddersfield talked about training, and it is indeed vital that we achieve the right training. If we fail in that, the country will be the loser.
British Aerospace is leading the way. I hope that other industries will examine carefully what it is doing and join it or follow suit. The company operates in a competitive industry, especially with the Americans coming in hard. The tiger economies of Asia are considering how they can become involved in producing aircraft. The future will be extremely competitive. As long as British Aerospace invests in its work force, its plants and within its industry, I believe that it will succeed. We have seen that with the research and development that has gone into the European fighter aircraft. That has been achieved in collaboration with other European countries, and I hope that that is how we shall continue to go forward.
I read in the Financial Times over the weekend that Dick Evans of British Aerospace is talking about the European aerospace industry, in which we collaborate in several areas. That is necessary to ensure that our aerospace industry remains competitive in Europe.
Mr. Couchman: My constituency, too, benefits greatly from the arms manufacturing business. The House will be aware that the avionics division of GEC is an important high-tech company that manufactures in my constituency. One of the peace dividends for the company has been a downturn in business, which has led to a reduction in the work force from 7,000 to 3,500 over a short period. Does

79
my hon. Friend agree that some of the rubbish that was uttered during the debate on the Scott report last week will have done our arms manufacturers no good, especially that which we heard from Opposition Members? It will have done a great deal of damage to our position as the No. 2 arms supplier in the world.
Mr. Evans: Yes, that is so. There are those who assume that big defence suppliers, such as British Aerospace and GEC, can weather any storm. That is wrong. At the same time, we must give consideration to the many small suppliers of components to GEC and British Aerospace, for example, throughout the country. When GEC and British Aerospace are hit, component suppliers are hit as well. We must pay due regard to component manufacturers, which rely on larger companies' contracts.
A fine example of the attitude of some Opposition Members is that some Labour Members have signed two early-day motions calling for the contract for the supply of Hawks to Indonesia to be stopped. That would cause the loss of hundreds of jobs in my constituency. The employees involved rely on Hawks being exported. We are assured that the aircraft are being used for defensive purposes and not against the people of East Timor. If they were being used to attack those people, I would join in the chorus and say that Hawks should not be exported.
What attitude do Labour Members take to defence manufacturing in the United Kingdom? Do they support it or do they not? As usual, questions remain unanswered. I suspect that the one that I have just posed will remain in that category.
It is not only British Aerospace in my constituency in which I take pride. I am proud of smaller industries as well, including a company called Ultraframe. Since I became a Member of this place I have seen its work force grow from 200 to more than 500. I shall not take the credit for that. Economic conditions have been right for John Lancaster, the managing director. He has been able to invest. He has a good work force and he relies on local schools to supply him with employees, whom he trains. The company is selling its products throughout the country and exporting them as well.
We must ensure that the right policies are in place to help, not hinder, businesses. That does not mean that governments are good at running businesses because we have seen in the past that they are not. In many instances, however, we must ensure that the right conditions are put in place. At the same time we must get off the backs of businesses. We are doing that with the deregulation initiative. We are ensuring that we have low inflation, competitive interest rates and that we are able to attract inward investment. Manufacturing productivity is increasing. We are the enterprise centre of Europe. We want that to continue, and that will happen with a Conservative Government.
7.18 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having to leave the Chamber to attend a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. It was an important meeting. We took
80
evidence on the Overseas Development Administration and decided to visit the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg to examine how it is managing its affairs and whether we are satisfied with what it is doing. The Public Accounts Committee does not usually make overseas visits, but this is an exception. So many frauds are occurring in the Community that we felt it essential to make that start.
Starting in November last year, annual assurances have been given about the way in which funds are earmarked and spent, which gives us an opportunity to ensure that we have proper control over the way in which the Court of Auditors spends its money and investigates its affairs. That is why I was away for part of the debate.
We have infrequent debates on the economy. The reason for today's debate is that the Government believe that they have a good story to tell. There are some doubts about that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about "trough to trough" and chose the period 1981 to 1983. Whenever the Government talk about improvements in the economy, they always seem to forget the crucial years 1979 to 1981. What happened in those years is emblazoned in my memory. I lost one third of the manufacturing industry in my town, but not because the companies were low tech or anything like that. Some were medium tech and some were high tech. As a result of the Government's attitude to monetarism—they believed in a $2.40 pound and a 17 per cent. interest rate—opportunities were diminished in my constituency.
My community was a prosperous one. The level of employment was higher than the regional average. Pay was higher even than the national average. We had a success story, following the decline of the cotton industry. I have never forgiven the Government for what they did in those two crucial years. One third of manufacturing industry was lost. Skilled engineers, who were supposed to be in short supply, were laid off from companies that will never again be available to us. The wealth that they could have created was also lost.
The current position—I pay tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is that inflation is satisfactory. Nobody can doubt that. Relations with the Bank of England are good. Great tribute must be paid to the Chancellor for the way in which he has dealt with the Bank of England. He has not been frightened of handling it and ensuring that his own views prevailed. Not every Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done that, although a few might have. He must be given credit for the way in which the minutes are now made available. What he cannot be given credit for is investment. Investment is bad, as is the balance of payments.
Since 1992, we have had a 24 per cent. devaluation of the pound against the deutschmark. Despite that, our balance of payments has been in the red ever since. After a devaluation, there is the J-curve effect. At the beginning, one will not gain much from it, but subsequently one does. It has been three and a half years since the devaluation and we should have seen the benefit to our balance of payments, but we have not. In the lifetime of this Government, we have seen a devaluation against the deutschmark of 40 per cent.
Despite North sea oil and the enormous advantages that it has brought, the Government have failed to get our balance of payments right. That is a most serious consequence. We are now finishing the trough and are on the way up. There will be more consumption. Does

81
anybody believe that the balance of payments will improve as a result? Even the Red Book, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced, does not show such an improvement. Given the rise in consumption, there will be an even greater balance of payments deficit, which we have come to expect from the Government.
If we are at the bottom of the trough and still in deficit, I am afraid that, as we come out of it, we will be in even worse difficulty. When will we ever pay our way? The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not believe that investment is poor. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to tell us that we do not need to invest so much because we have better management. He says that investment is good enough because of better management in industries. All I can say is that, five or 10 years ago, our investment was lower than that of almost all our industrial competitors. Did they get it wrong? Are we the only people who know how to do these things? I find that assumption astonishing.
The whole point about better management and investment is that they are not alternatives, but complementary. Decent and good management will want to invest. The failure to invest has been one of the serious consequences of this Government. I do not see how we will get our balance of payments into surplus, or at least into equilibrium, without investment in manufacturing industry. The importance of it is not so much that it creates jobs, because I do not think that we will get many jobs from investment or from the improvements and expenditure in manufacturing industry subsequently; one wants the investment to enrich the economy and to pay our way internationally so that we have the wealth to spend on housing, roads, education and the rest.
Those are the consequences of successful manufacturing industry. Faced with what the Deputy Prime Minister said in his references to manufacturing industry, I thought that I should make that quite clear. I hope that people will begin to understand the importance of manufacturing industry, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) does. Unfortunately, all too few of his colleagues do.
7.25 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I had not intended to speak in the debate. I saw the earlier exchanges between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on the screen in my office while I was answering some of my constituency post.
During that exchange, the hon. Gentleman did his usual trick of selling the country short, which I regret he has done consistently as an Opposition spokesman on economic matters. He seems to think that that is the way to be considered a worthy alternative occupant of No. 11 Downing street. I can tell him otherwise, for I think that people will soon learn that the Labour party has very little to offer in the way of an economic policy.
The recession has been extremely difficult in my constituency. During the recession of the early 1980s, Chatham dockyard closed, throwing out 7,000 job opportunities and many manufacturers. There was very high unemployment—some 17.5 or 18 per cent. It was a time of great sadness in my constituency.
During the relatively prosperous years of the middle 1980s, unemployment gradually fell. New jobs were created. An excellent new industrial park—Gillingham
82
business park—was formed, and prospered, under Grosvenor Developments, which is, perhaps, the best operator of business parks that I have come across. We also had the redevelopment of Chatham dockyard by English Partnerships, formerly English Estates.
English Partnerships is developing one of the biggest development areas in Europe. We are seeing quality development there. New jobs are coming, including 1,000 jobs for the major headquarters of an insurance company, Colonial Mutual Group. The scientific units of the Overseas Development Administration have come to us and a number of other significant employers have moved in to replace the old metal-bashing jobs that prevailed during the long period during which the Royal Navy occupied Chatham dockyard.
That development has been slower than we would have liked is undeniable, and the second recession, of the late 1980s and early 1990s, has been quite hard. It particularly hit the small businesses that were formed out of the dockyard closure. Often small, single-handed or two-handed businesses, they were formed with the redundancy money of people with metal skills who had worked for many years in the royal naval dockyard in Chatham. They went into business on their own account, perhaps making, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) suggested, things for GEC, which has been a superb backbone to the constituency in which I have worked for the past 12 years.
Because of the downturn in defence orders, GEC's work force has declined from 7,000 to 3,500. Unemployment in my area has again risen to too high a level—although it has now fallen to the national average of around 8 per cent.—and we look forward to continuing development of the old Chatham dockyard by English Partnerships.
One reason for our success in Gillingham has been the unique opportunity provided by the Japanese. Some hon. Members will know the "Shogun" story: an English sailor was shipwrecked in Japan, and founded the Japanese navy. My constituency, uniquely, is twinned with two Japanese cities, which has enabled us to exploit a relationship that has caused three second-line Japanese companies to site their European headquarters at Gillingham business park.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said, however, those Japanese companies—along with American companies—would not have chosen to site their European headquarters in this country had it not been for the current benign regime for inward investment. It is obviously important that the Japanese speak English—and the Americans speak a form of English—but it is largely because we have a flexible and skilled work force, and have not lumbered ourselves with the same social on-costs as our German, French and other European Union partners, that we have secured 40 per cent. of inward investment.
As I said in my intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, inward investment is one of the most exciting imports to this country. Major German companies such as Siemens are locating here and big Japanese companies are siting their European headquarters here, as are Taiwanese companies. As a member of the all-party group on Taiwan, I have a close relationship with that country.
Opposition Members have denigrated the state of manufacturing industry. It is certain that too much of the industry was lost in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it

83
was not simply a case of monetarism, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I believe that that loss resulted from our profound economic weakness at the end of the 1970s, which led to a halving of the value of our money in the five years between 1974 and 1979, and the appalling strength and irresponsibility of the trade unions. All those factors brought our industry to its knees during that recession. They will not feature now, although I share the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that, if trade union power is boosted again by some future Labour Administration, it could well drive us back to the weakness of 1979.
I am only too pleased to support what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who gave us an excellent rundown of the state of the economy. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was so downbeat, and so denigrated our economic efforts.
7.33 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I listened carefully to the Chancellor's speech, and noted with interest that, according to him, middle England's prospects were balmy and ambrosial. As I have the advantage of coming from the same county as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have the opportunity of seeing him play both at home and away; I also know what is going on in his own back yard. I should be very surprised if people in Nottingham—which, clearly, is part of middle England—accepted his claim that the prospects are rosy. Many of them visit the Chancellor's surgery, and they tell me that they have been well received; but they tell the Chancellor that, in tax terms, they feel worse off—in effect, £670 a year worse off—since the last general election.
Some of those people will also have noted that the tax-and-prices index rose by 3.7 per cent. in 1995, and that average earnings rose by only 3.25 per cent. In effect, living standards fell. Real personal disposable incomes also fell in the second and third quarters of 1995. It would be interesting to know the figures for the fourth quarter. My impression is that things are not rosy for taxpayers in Nottinghamshire, who look askance at the Chancellor's figures suggesting that they will be £800 a year better off as a result of the last Budget. They do not believe that, because it is unbelievable: it implies a growth rate of 3 per cent. and a wages increase of 4 per cent.
I note that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been present for most of the debate. Last month, he told the House that real incomes had fallen in 1995. Things are not balmy and rosy in Nottinghamshire now, and people know that they can expect another tax rise soon. Many local authorities are setting council taxes this week. The Chief Secretary has told us that he has worked on the assumption of an 8 per cent. rise nationally, but I can tell him that the rise in Nottinghamshire will be around 4 per cent.—still more than 50 per cent. the rate of inflation. I suspect that the average increase in council tax in England as a whole will be around 6 per cent., and it is likely to be about 15 per cent. in Scotland. The Government have taken measures today to try to mitigate the effects of that, but the fact remains that things are not rosy. People have less money in their pockets; their council taxes are to increase; and, worse, they are paying more and receiving less.
84
Nottinghamshire county council set its budget last Thursday. It is to spend £12 million, or 3.4 per cent., more on education than is allowed by the Government's guideline, the standing spending assessment. In his Budget, and in the subsequent financial settlement for local authorities, the Chancellor boasted that Nottinghamshire would have an extra £18.5 million to spend on schools. Next year, the Labour-controlled council will spend an extra £25 million on education, but, despite that, school budgets are being cut by £5 million and 200 teaching jobs are at risk. The prospects are not rosy for those who live in Nottinghamshire.
People complain not just about the revenue costs of education, but about the capital costs. The way in which last November's Budget cut capital spending has not received enough publicity. The state of schools across the country can be described only as deplorable. Local authorities made bids for £1.9 billion to repair, refurbish and replace schools, and they received a borrowing allocation of £416 million.
At schools in rosy Nottinghamshire, there are outstanding repairs of £85 million. If the Chancellor cared to look in his backyard—his constituency of Rushcliffehe— would find that £6.8 million worth of repairs to schools are outstanding. At Rushcliffe comprehensive school—an excellent school, which is only 200 yd from his house—£1.5 million worth of repairs are outstanding.
We need to invest in education—in revenue and in capital terms—and in higher and further education. Education can drive the economy. I noted with interest that the Chancellor is a member of the court of Nottingham university, and that he has an honorary degree from there. Its capital spending has been reduced by 47 per cent. for next year, and the funding per student reduced by 28 per cent.
If the Chancellor took an interest in such matters, he would also know that capital funding for colleges of further education has been reduced by 70 per cent. We have to invest in higher and further education if we want to skill people for a new, changing and dynamic industry. We must provide new equipment and modern techniques and training methods, but the resources that have been made available do not do that.
Let us consider the rosy Nottinghamshire economy. Textiles and engineering are struggling, and the manufacturing base needs investment. There has been a lack of investment and, as the economic cycle picks up, they will face real problems.
Mr. John Sykes: Can the hon. Gentleman share with the House exactly how he thinks that the social chapter and the minimum wage will encourage investment for the hard-struck business men of this country?
Mr. Tipping: Above all, we must move from a low-skill and low self-esteem economy to one that invests in people, puts them at the cornerstone of our economic future and teaches them to adapt and work in teams. It should also teach them how to become enterprising and demonstrate that they can have a stake in the running of their country. That is the fundamental—
Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tipping: No, I will not give way again.

85
That is the fundamental difference. Many Opposition Members believe that investment in education and training is how to make progress—not through an unskilled and unrewarded labour force.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to move from a low-skill, low-wage economy to one which is high-skill, high-wage and highly productive. Those objectives are excellent, but how does he propose achieving them? It would be helpful if he would express not his aspirations but his policies.
Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for a short while, I shall give him some concrete examples.
The recovery in Nottinghamshire was patchy. I should like to use this opportunity—while the President of the Board of Trade is in the Chamber—to talk a little about the Nottinghamshire coalfield and about coalfield communities in general. He will recall that, in 1980, there were 40,000 miners in Nottinghamshire. Today, there are fewer than 3,000. Privatisation has occurred, but the future is uncertain. He will know of the uncertainties that face investments in coal and the future of the Annesley colliery. He will know that Bilsthorpe colliery, which is one of RJB Mining's collieries, is due to close next year. He will know about the difficulties of Asfordby, a super-pit developed under British Coal, which may now never come into production. He will know of the challenge caused by the new contracts with the generators, which begin in 1998.
Mining is a very difficult industry. It has been in decline and it needs help. I have stressed the need for help, and I now ask for the help of the President of the Board of Trade in relation to another matter. This afternoon, there was a serious—perhaps fatal—accident at Thoresby colliery, in Nottinghamshire. The details about it are still coming through. It is the second serious accident at that colliery in the past five months. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to talk very seriously to the mines inspectorate, because people who work underground, and their families, are under pressure. I hope that he will ensure that there is a full investigation into the accident and that lessons are learnt from it so that the men who go underground, from whom we all benefit, will be more reassured about the future.
Given the scale of the rundown of the mining industry, it is important to consider what has happened in employment and unemployment in Nottinghamshire. Since October 1992, when the current Deputy Prime Minister announced the closure of the collieries, unemployment has fallen nationally by 17 per cent. In coalfield areas, the fall has been nowhere near that. Over the same period, in the Mansfield travel-to-work area, unemployment fell by only 7 per cent, and in the Worksop travel-to-work area unemployment fell hardly at all. A scenario is emerging of a greater gap between relatively affluent areas and areas of disadvantage.
I am not asking the President of the Board of Trade to spend extra money on mining areas. I ask him to do the following. First, I ask him to make an early announcement about the sale of British Coal Enterprise, which has brought jobs into the coalfield communities, and to ensure that successor organisations pick up its mantle and continue to develop those jobs.
86
Secondly, I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would carefully look at the difficulties over the transfer of some 80 sites from British Coal to English Partnerships. Discussions have been taking place about that for months, if not years, and the deal is still not done. I understand the issues in relation to liabilities and insuring against them, but those sites are essential to create new jobs in the area. I cannot understand why greater efforts have not been made to ensure that a deal is struck and that the sites are put to productive use.
I also want to speak about youth unemployment. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who has left the Chamber, asked me how we can achieve objectives. One achievement would be to examine youth unemployment and to remedy it. The current scene can be described only as a shambles. In January this year, there were 619,982 young people out of work, of whom 136,000 had been out of work for more than a year. Four thousand of those people have been out of work for more than five years—or, put another way, they have probably never worked productively in their lives. It is important that those young people do not lose hope or represent a waste of talent. They represent an opportunity, and we should be using them. We should examine our approach and policies on young people.
I support in principle the modern apprenticeships scheme, which was launched on 1 April 1995. It should now have 60,000 young people in training.
Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging me again. If he is so concerned about youth unemployment, how does he explain the fact that Spain's youth unemployment is running at 33 per cent. because of the social chapter, which I mentioned earlier, and the minimum wage? What will he say to young people in his surgery in years to come if the Labour Government gain power and impose on business the social chapter and the minimum wage, which will lead directly to the youth unemployment that he is complaining about?
Mr. Tipping: I would say to young people, "You have rights and responsibilities too." For 4,000 young people to be out of work for more than five years reflects badly not only on the economy, but on them. We must ensure that the cost of youth unemployment is worked out.
Sixty thousand modern apprentices should be in training; today, only 15,000 youngsters have gone into the modern apprenticeship scheme. That needs to be re-evaluated and relaunched. The real problem is that, for employers to take on a modern apprentice, they must commit to train them over three years. I understand that, because the economic position is hard to foresee, many employers are reluctant to enter into that commitment.
I should like the President of the Board of Trade to consider a report on youth unemployment that will be published this week by the training and enterprise councils' national body. It will say that 250,000 18 to 20-year-olds are out of work. One in eight of that age group is out of work, out of training and out of education. The cost to the state through benefit payments, crime and other factors is £350 million. What a waste of money. We should have new priorities and be working towards from-welfare-to-work schemes and putting those youngsters back into work to make them productive. That is the sort of programme that I want and it can come by recycling existing resources.

87
It is important to put young people first, to train them to have high skills, to make them adaptable and enterprising and to give them the skills to work in a team. We should excite and enthuse them and consider getting them to work in the environment. I look forward to a revamped community action team scheme that considers environmental issues.
It is crazy that the home energy efficiency scheme has been cut by £31 million. A total of 200,000 fewer homes will not be insulated. We could have a scheme to insulate homes, to guard and enhance the environment, and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but, at the same time, to reduce bills and unemployment. We could create 50,000 jobs. Young people should be clearing derelict areas. In any former industrial area, there is plenty of work for young people.
Young people must have rights and responsibilities, We must stop the waste, recycle and refocus it and give it a higher priority. Over the centuries, miners have always wished better for their children than they have had. They and I believe that, for the first time for generations, their young children face a worse time than they do. Coming from a coalfield community, that is one of my concerns. That is no way to drive forward an economy. We must get young people into work. We must invest in them, in training, in education and, most important, in all our futures.
7.53 pm
Mr. David Shaw: I am pleased to be able to make a good-news speech. There can be no doubt that the amount of good news about the economy recently has been incredible. It has been completely transformed in a host of sectors. We are unquestionably out of a recession that has been tough, long, deep and worldwide, but we have come out of it in good shape.
We know that many changes are taking place in the labour market. They have contributed towards the so-called feel-good factor not being as good as one would like and as the recovery that we are experiencing would normally produce, but the reason is that the labour market is changing enormously, and the number of people in stable, long-term employment—as distinct from shorter-term employment—has changed.
That is a continuing change, with the labour market demanding more flexibility. Provided that the earnings and job creation are there, however, that is no reason why the country should not enjoy not only a period of sustained economic growth, but a sustained opportunity for people to accumulate savings, provide for their future, and create more personal wealth and assets for the future, which I and Conservative Members believe could be a prosperous future for our population.
That is being achieved by a sustained policy of keeping inflation at record low levels. At 2.9 per cent., it is at one of its lowest consistent levels for the past 40 years. Some evidence exists that it will continue at that level for a long time. It compares favourably with the inflation level when we came to office in 1979, when under Labour it averaged at about 15.5 per cent.
With low inflation comes reducing unemployment, which has been falling for about three years. Interest rates are very low—they are at some of the lowest levels in the post-war period. In some cases, they are the lowest levels for 50 years in terms of what business is able to borrow at.
88
In the 1950s, when interest rates were consistently and over a long period at levels approaching today's, the margins at which banks required lending to take place were much higher than today. Today, many businesses are borrowing at just 1.5 per cent. over base rates. In the 1950s, when interest rates were at a similarly low level, businesses often had to borrow at 2, 3 and 4 per cent. above base rates, so the cost of borrowing money to British business is also at record low levels.

When we came into office in 1979, because inflation was so high, banks and savers required a higher rate of return on their money. The consequence was that, when Labour left office, British businesses were having to borrow at about 18 per cent.—a horrendous rate. Today, British business often borrows at 7 to 8 per cent. That is a tremendously improved position compared with Labour's term in office. It is also a good position compared with the Conservative Government's record over 16 years, and with the past 50 years.
I am delighted that the graphs and newspapers at the weekend showed that the number of house price sales has increased modestly. The increase is not massive, but we would not want that. It might be inflationary, and, for young people trying to buy homes, lead to the difficulties that occurred towards the end of the 1980s. We want to avoid the house price spiral of the 1980s. Surely the best way to do that is by having a much more stable economy than when we had uncontrolled growth—welcome though that growth was to some people. who often accumulated their first house and property.
The position is much improving. I hope that, under broadcasting laws, the media devotes as much time to the recovery as it did to the recession. Reporting success stories and some good news stories would be most welcome. British industry and British business has been transformed.
There are still one or two problems. East Kent, for better or for worse, is blessed with being close to France. The East Kent Initiative—a body that promotes east Kent—recently advertised a young people's job training scheme, under which those between the ages of 18 and 27 could get three months work experience in France, attend language schools and live with host families. They would not incur any expenditure, as they would receive a moderate income to cover their costs.
Last year, eight out of 10 young people who went on the scheme found work when they returned to the United Kingdom, directly as a result of expanding their skills and getting better training on the scheme. This year, the scheme has been advertised in the jobcentres of east Kent, where some 9,000 young people aged between 18 and 27 are registered as unemployed. Yet, until very recently, only one young person had applied to go on the scheme. That is incredible, when there are supposedly 9,000 young people unemployed. It is a wonderful work experience scheme, with a good record of success in getting young people into work, yet only one youngster applied—although I understand that a second has now done so.
Our competitive position, both in Europe and worldwide, is very good. The latest good news statistic, about which we should be crying from the rooftops to ensure that everyone is aware of it, is that Britain is now exporting more per head of population than Japan. That is another major achievement under a Conservative Government. The Opposition say that Britain is low on

89
the prosperity league; they say that many countries, including Japan, are ahead of us. The reality is that, in many statistical areas, Britain is well ahead of Japan.
Mr. Sykes: Is it not much more expensive to employ a German than an Englishman; a Spaniard than an Englishman; or a Frenchman than an Englishman? Is my hon. Friend aware that, today, Hyundai announced its intention to invest £850 million in building a factory in Britain? Is that not a good example of why Britain is doing so well and why companies are queuing up to invest here? Of course, if the Opposition were in power, the position would be quite the reverse.
Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Japanese, American and South Korean companies are queuing up to invest in this country. It is a great success story, because, as my hon. Friend said, there are higher unit labour costs in France, in Germany and in Spain—which also has the social chapter and the minimum wage.
Spain has just thrown out its Labour Government, as has Australia. High wage costs put people out of work. In France, when someone loses his job, he is unemployed for three years on average; in Spain it is four years—but in the United Kingdom, it is only nine months on average. A young person in France has to wait 22 months for a job; in this country, he has a good chance of getting a job within nine months.
That is why our method of running the economy, with no social chapter, has been so successful. France and Spain, with their minimum wages and socialist policies, have followed the path of utter madness. Germany, which is run by what we might almost call a Conservative Government, has fallen prey to many socialist policies that have increased its wage costs. The minimum wage and the other costs of the social agreement are so high that jobs are not being created. Indeed, Germany is now exporting jobs, because many German companies want to set up in Britain.
Reference was made earlier to one of the problems of French socialism—the higher indirect costs that companies have to pay for the labour force. In particular—this affects my constituency—there is the outrageous practice of French ferry companies being subsidised either by the French nationalised railway, which has £30 billion of debt, or by the French Government.
It is appalling that our industry in Dover, which is highly competitive and unsubsidised, is being forced to compete with a subsidised French ferry industry. Those subsidies should be stopped and the ships taken off the routes, because they are not as efficient as P and O, Stena Sealink and other British ferry and hovercraft companies that sail out of Dover. The ferry industry in Dover is efficient, while the French has subsidised inefficiency, paid for from massive borrowings by the French Government or French nationalised industry.
Some hon. Members have questioned Britain's manufacturing base. I find it remarkable that they should allege that it is shrinking. The question I want to pose—which I hope my right hon. Friend will answer—is, what do current manufacturing statistics actually mean? About one third of the worldwide computer games industry is produced in the midlands. Britain is better at producing computer games than many American or Japanese
90
companies. Indeed, many foreign companies are trying to invest in or buy Britain's companies. Alternatively, they buy our products. It is a whole new industry that did not exist under Labour. Indeed, it did not exist even a few years ago under a Conservative Government.
Does that industry come into the manufacturing statistics when it manufactures a computer game, or does it come into the service industry statistics when it produces the software that goes into the computer game? Many companies are not included in the manufacturing statistics, yet they employ people in jobs that ultimately manufacture a product or produce computer software that is sold in boxes on the shelves. I regard that as a manufacturing product just as much as a car or a computer.
While on the subject of computers, and in view of my right hon. Friend's previous job as Secretary of State for Scotland, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that 60 per cent.—almost two thirds—of Europe's computers are made in Scotland. Would they still have an export market if they bore the seal, "This computer has to bear a Labour Government tartan tax"? A computer manufactured by employees paying a tartan tax would not be exported past the port of Dover. It would be too expensive to justify the production and sale of such goods on the European market.
There has been tremendous change for the good in our economy under this Government. One point typifies how privatised industries are much more efficient than they were when they were in the public sector. In 1983, when British Telecom was still suffering from the lack of investment under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, I started a business. It took me six months to get a telephone line for that business. I would have gone out of business had I not been able to borrow a friend's telephone line.
Last year, some 12 years later, my wife needed a telephone line for her new business, and she got it in two days. That is the difference between today and when Labour was in power. My wife also had to pay less in real terms for that business telephone than I did 12 years earlier. BT is enormously more efficient, and provides a much better service today under a Conservative Government than it did when it was in the public sector under Labour.
Under the trade unions, Labour talks about stakeholding. As trade union leaders have pointed out, it is another way of taking us back to the 1970s and the interference in British business and industry. Stakeholding is a threat not only to people's jobs and futures but to their private and occupational pension schemes. Those pension schemes have to invest in British business and industry. Stakeholding would damage people's investments through their private pension schemes. It would result in lower returns and the Government and trade unions having a say in the returns and profit of British business.
If business and industry are not making the same returns and profits, where will the dividends come from to pay 10 million occupational pensions and 5 million pensions in private pension schemes? If stakeholding ever got out off the ground, the pensions of 15 million people who had spent years saving for their retirement would be lower, which would be enormously damaging. Their pensions would be under threat as a result of stakeholding.
Labour is also a high-tax party. Regardless of the state of the economy, it is always making commitments to higher taxation and more spending. Although it says that

91
it has not made any spending commitments, Labour Members of Parliament, Labour parliamentary candidates and Labour Members of the European Parliament are making speeches in which they are promising spending increases under Labour. They try not to tell the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) about the promises; they try to make them discreetly in local newspapers.
In my local newspaper, my local Labour Member of the European Parliament has even talked about a tax reduction. He has said that he would lower alcohol duty to French levels. He gave away £3 billion of a future Labour Government's funds just like that, in one little speech of a few words, which were very easily delivered to the local newspaper. Of course he did not have the approval of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East or the Labour Front-Bench team, but he was able to promise it to the trades people of Dover and my constituents none the less.
I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) will disown the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Kent, East, say that his commitment was false, that the promise was totally unjustified, and that there is no authorisation from the Labour Front-Bench team for giving away a tax reduction of £3 billion on alcohol duty.
I also hope that hon. Gentleman will have a word with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the shadow Health Secretary, and that she will be invited to comment on whether the shadow health team supports the statement on the reduction of alcohol duty made by the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Kent, East. Labour Members of the European Parliament are making false promises in local newspaper articles which they are not authorised to deliver. It is disgraceful that Labour is offering the British public so many misleading promises.
Mr. Stephen Timms: Did the Prime Minister have the Chancellor's authority when he promised to abolish capital gains tax?
Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Prime Minister's words very carefully, he will realise not only that the Prime Minister had the full support of the Chancellor, but that it is the Conservative party's long-term aim to abolish capital gains tax.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): Hear, hear.
Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend has just said, "Hear, hear." My hon. Friends are very confident that we can deliver that long-term aim. We do not think that capital gains tax is sensible in the long term. It discourages the accumulation of capital, saving and job creation.
Mr. Deva: Am I correct in assuming that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury and does not therefore require the permission of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor?
Mr. Shaw: Despite the fact that my hon. Friend might be correct, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of

92
Treasury are totally united on the point; there is no division—unlike in the Labour party where we hear from time to time odd bits of animosity between one or two leading members of the Labour Front-Bench team. They do not always agree with one another.
At the weekend, the shadow Secretary of State for Wales decided that he did not like the Prince of Wales. We discovered that the Labour party immediately had to retract the statement on his behalf—before he could retract it himself, it would appear. It is in such a panic about the possibility of debating the monarchy because it knows that so many of its members want to abolish the monarchy, which would be bad for our economy and would certainly not gain the support of people in the United Kingdom, who think about the issues and are concerned about them.
Mr. Sykes: It would be a pity to leave the subject of capital gains tax without my hon. Friend commenting on the following point. Does he think that it is a shame that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) has illustrated his lack of understanding about business? The hon. Gentleman should be calling for the abolition of capital gains tax, because that is exactly what business needs to be able to expand. Family companies are desperate for the Government to abolish capital gains tax. Is that not an illustration of new Labour, old tricks?
Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority about family businesses. Indeed, he has experienced building a business, establishing a number of jobs and ensuring not only that those jobs are secure and safe, but that more will be available in the future. Anybody who has any experience whatever of job creation knows that capital gains tax is one of the taxes that damage job creation. If the Labour party were serious about wanting to create employment and reduce unemployment, it would also be calling for the abolition of capital gains tax.
Getting income tax rates down is very important. I believe that we should be looking seriously at the flat rate tax that has had an airing in the United States. It could not be introduced in the short term in this country, but if the economy continues to grow under a Conservative Government, there will be opportunities around 1999 seriously to consider its benefits. If we had a £7,000 exemption or an allowance of £5,000 per person, we might be able to have a flat rate tax of 15 per cent. That would benefit many people, and would take many others out of tax altogether.
I know that the Treasury's initial costings, which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury produced, suggested that it could be quite expensive to bring a flat rate tax into being, but I point out to my hon. Friend that, when the Treasury did the costings, it did not envisage abolishing all the allowances that it would be possible to abolish if we had one tax allowance at the start of the assessment for flat rate tax of £5,000 to £7,000 per person or per household.
I believe that the cost of introducing a flat rate tax could be well below the initial figure of £26 billion which the Treasury produced if we abolished more allowances, by giving a generous allowance on the flat rate tax, and by having a rate of no more than 15 per cent. We should encourage serious debate on that.

93
The debate must be more serious than Labour's proposals for a 10 per cent. income tax. We have never seen Labour's proposals; they were a soundbite in a speech, then they vanished from the airwaves. I hope that the 10 per cent. income tax soundbite will be explored vociferously by my hon. Friends, because I would like to know what has happened to the 10 per cent. basic rate of tax.
Where is Labour's proposal on that? Why can we not see some costings? I am sure that the Treasury would co-operate by making its computers available to cost Labour's 10 per cent. income tax proposal. We should hear how the proposal would be put into effect, because so far all we have heard is a short wave soundbite, rather than a long wave policy. We have not even heard any guidelines, let alone an explanation of the policy itself.
The economy is improving enormously, day by day and month by month. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is now getting overseas investment in record amounts. We are seeing unemployment fall substantially, on a regular and sustained basis. We see some of the best good news features that we have seen for some time.
There are still some problems; I referred to the fact that the flexibility required in the labour force today is different from what was required before. People must adapt to the changed labour market, but those who can and do adapt—those who have been on Government retraining schemes and those who are taking time out to learn new skills, to get up-to-date information technology and to learn all the requirements of the labour market—have great opportunities under a Conservative Government in the rest of the 1990s.
Those people will see the benefits of an improving economy. We must ensure that the conditions are in place to encourage them to get the full benefits. One way in which people can get the full benefits that the new industries and the new businesses of the 1990s can offer is by re-electing a Conservative Government when the election comes in the next 12 months.
8.22 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I had hoped, certainly in the interests of the 65 million people of this country, that the level of debate among Conservative Members would be higher. I had hoped that, regardless of party politics, the Government would put the country first, and would start to outline the true state of the country's economy and how they intended to remedy it. In fact, all we got was a little bit of knockabout from the Chancellor instead of constructive ideas and constructive proposals. I have sat here since 3.30 pm, thinking that the debate is all stage-managed to lift the morale of the Tory party, with an eye on the by-election in South-East Staffordshire.
I must respond to some of what has been said in the debate, especially what has been said about 1979, to which I shall come in a little while. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said that a Labour candidate for the European Parliament had talked about a reduction in beer tax to French levels. I do not know about the French levels, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that I and a number of his colleagues listened to evidence in the Select Committee that considered beer tax. We looked at the effect of the import of French wines and beers on this country, especially in terms of the black market, and we discussed the consequences for the north of England,
94
where people were threatened to make them sell imported wines and spirits. If the hon. Gentleman has a good look round the north of England, he will be aware of the protection rackets there, and he may change his mind. He may then not pour ridicule on the proposal. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I know that there are serious concerns. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a good look at the report and takes a more serious interest in it.
Conservative Members extolled the Tory party's virtues in terms of its management of the economy. They said that we managed our economy better than any other country on the continent and, by implication, better than the Japanese and the Americans. I am reminded of when I went to Germany and looked at the tramline system in Frankfurt. When I arrived, some Germans who spoke impeccable English said, "How is the weather on the islands?" I said, "I do not come from the Scottish islands. I come from mainland Britain." One of the Germans said, "That is the point." The moral of the story is that the Tories are saying exactly what the Germans said to me. They are supposed to be co-operating in the single market, yet they do not believe in it.
Another theme running through the debate—it came up during the Chancellor's speech and we never got a response to this point—is the question of insecurity, which also predominates in the Tory party's sister party in the United States. There is insecurity among middle-class and working-class people today, on both sides of the Atlantic. People feel as if they do not have a future. Newt Gingrich has gone on record as saying that the American Congress should debate the matter and that it will be a major issue during the next presidential election. The Tories should not pour ridicule on that. If they want to talk about the feel-good factor, they must address themselves to the problem of insecurity. They did not address the problem tonight, although it affects the well-being of the 65 million people of this country. We are not talking about little sections of this country. If we cannot address the issue, we have a major problem. Certainly, Conservative Members have a major problem in lifting the morale of their party. That is not a task for me.
Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cunningham: Not for the moment.
Equally, I was interested that Conservative Members poured ridicule on France, despite the fact that a sister party is in power. One can assume only that the French Government are pursuing the same economic policies as this Government. The same people poured ridicule on Germany and said that we would now outstrip Germany. However, it is only 20-odd years ago that the Conservative party, under a previous Prime Minister, told this country that if Britain got involved in Europe, we would get more holidays, better pensions and a number of other benefits. That was a version of the social chapter from which the Tories have systematically run away during the years since Maastricht. What hypocrisy. The Tories run away and pick only what suits them. When something does not suit them, they take another road.
We have referred tonight to middle England. I represent a constituency, Coventry, South-East, which is part of middle England; it is part of the west midlands which is, in turn, part of middle England. The west midlands was noted as the engine house of the British economy, but we

95
can see what the Tories have done to it over the past 16 years. One can go further. The Tories mention the winter of discontent in 1978–79, but they fail to say that there was also a winter of discontent in 1970, with the advent of a Tory Government. What happened when that Government took office? If I remember correctly, house prices doubled. I remember the three-day week, the Conservatives' equivalent of the 1978–79 winter of discontent. In addition, there was a summer of discontent last summer. The House will remember the nurses' pay dispute and parents marching to demand better teachers and classroom facilities.
The Government have betrayed Coventry's young people. Nearly one third of the city's 16 to 25-year-olds are unemployed; in the west midlands as a whole, the figure is 21 per cent. for the same age group. Many of them have no formal qualifications—that is not surprising, given that 30 per cent. of Coventry's 16-year-olds are not in full-time education. The figure rises to 51 per cent. of all 17-year-olds. With their cuts in youth training and services, the Government have betrayed the hopes and life chances of a generation. Youth unemployment on such a scale represents a massive waste of talent and ability, a waste that we cannot afford financially or socially.
Youth unemployment is personally disastrous and socially destructive, and helps to produce crime and the decay of our very social fabric. What many people in Coventry will find most disturbing is the fact that 16 to 24-year-olds account for 51 per cent. of the convictions in the city. That is a result in part of the failure of the education system, created by the Government, the lack of youth training and the decimation of the job opportunities that are open to young people. The responses to a crime survey in Coventry demonstrated that many people have realised that fewer facilities for young people contribute to rising crime in the city, and the Government must accept responsibility for that.
I invite either the President of the Board of Trade or the Chancellor to come to Coventry and the west midlands. It is noticeable that they can make big speeches on what they are supposed to be doing for the country in the cloisters of the House of Commons, but they do not come to open public meetings to justify their policies. Instead, they leave it to local councillors to defend the Government's decision on cuts. As a result of systematic cuts by the Government in the past 10 to 15 years, the council in Coventry is considering cuts in the wages and conditions of employees—particularly lower-paid workers, such as cleaners.
The minimum wage has been mentioned by Tory Members in the debate, but I have not noticed the Conservatives' sister party in America talking about abolishing the USA's minimum wage. Pat Buchanan raised that issue when he was fighting the South Carolina primary, and he got his answer—he did not win.
Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cunningham: In a moment. In addition, investment is now going to South Carolina and other places in the depressed south from abroad, and—in certain places—2,000 to 3,000 jobs have been created by that investment. The Tories' argument against a minimum wage does not stand up.
Mr. Sykes rose—
Mr. Cunningham: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously very anxious.
Mr. Sykes: I am very grateful. I thought that I was going to have to get up and down like a yo-yo, but the hon. Gentleman has kindly given way. Does he agree with the deputy Leader of the Opposition, who said that any silly fool knows that unemployment will come as a result of the minimum wage?
Mr. Cunningham: I do not think that my right hon. Friend said that and, if he did, I do not know in what context it was said. The hon. Gentleman must not quote people out of context, as the hon. Member for Dover has.
Referring back to the 1970s, I recall the real problems that were related to the winter of discontent. Hon. Members may recall that OPEC raised oil prices, basically because the Conservative party said that we should not give aid to the third world. The third world replied that it did not want charity, but would certainly start raising oil prices.
Much has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the virtues—or lack of them—of the Government. But the debate today is all about the Government trying to cover up their mismanagement of the economy. They have suffered a series of by-election defeats in the past two or three years, and they know what will happen in South-East Staffordshire. That is what this debate is all about.
8.34 pm
Mr. John Sykes: I wish to speak not just as a Member of Parliament, but as a manufacturer with a factory in Filey, close to Scarborough. I am also the director of our family business, which was started in 1845. The firm has survived Whig Governments and Liberal Governments—it has even survived Labour Governments.
Dr. John Reid: Hear, hear.
Mr. Sykes: It only just survived. I hear the hon. Gentleman saying, "Hear, hear." He will be happy to know that my grandfather was responsible for helping to break the general strike in Huddersfield in 1926, a story that I shall tell my grandchildren when I am rocking them on my knee.
I also speak as probably the only Member of Parliament who has gained the class I HGV licence—it took me two goes, but I passed it in 1978.
Ms Dawn Primarolo: What does that have to do with it?
Mr. Sykes: I hear the hon. Lady. I have driven lorries and delivered oil to my customers to keep my customers, in spite of the Labour Government. I mentioned that fact because it does have something to do with today's debate.
The Chancellor, the Government and the Conservative party need no lectures from a party of lecturers, whose only experience of employment is limited to the thousands of research assistants based in Millbank. I joined the

97
family firm—a company called Shaw fuels in Huddersfield—in 1974 when I left school. At the time, we were delivering 400 million gallons of heavy fuel oil a year to factories and mills all over the United Kingdom. When I left school in 1974, Harold Wilson was Prime Minister. By the time I had become manager of the Yorkshire oil depot in 1979, Jim Callaghan was Prime Minister.
I recall the Labour party's winter of discontent. At the tender age of 22, I was in charge of the Yorkshire oil distribution depot. I remember clearly a grown man coming to me and weeping, because his wife and child had received threatening phone calls from trade unionists as he had driven a lorry through a picket line to deliver oil to a hospital. That is real Labour. I was only 22 at the time, but I remember it as if it were yesterday. That man was worried for his wife and family, because trade unionists—those pals of the Opposition—had threatened his wife and child. I shall never forget that.
I also recall going on bended knee to members of a trade union strike committee, to plead with them to allow my lorries to deliver heavy fuel oil to Redfearn's National Glass, because the secondary picket there would not let the lorries through. Had those lorries not got through, the kilns would have run out of oil. As a result, the kilns would have dried up, gone cold and cracked, and 4,000 people in Barnsley would have been out of work. We finally got our way, and our private family company delivered oil when that company needed it badly, and that is why that company is still there today.
I remember one trade union leader commenting at the time that secondary picketing was "anarchy gone mad". But what else is anarchy, if not mad and chaotic? I remember one particularly sordid moment in 1979 when the gravediggers went on strike, and it was said at the time that there would be severe cases of panic dying. The whole country, and business in particular, breathed a huge sigh of relief when the Labour party was finally chucked out of government on 5 May 1979.
Mr. Simon Burns (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): It was 3 May.
Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friend is older than me.
The first thing that the Government did was to sort out the unions—in the teeth of opposition from Labour Members. The second thing that they had to do was to sort out the nationalised industries, which they did via privatisation—in the teeth of opposition from Labour Members. Now, in 1996, British Telecom is cabling the world. British Airways is the world's favourite airline. How many Labour Members remember what a pantomime horse British Airways was in 1979? Do they remember coming back from their holidays to find the baggage controllers on strike, so that they could not get their luggage out of the aeroplane? I remember it clearly. British Aerospace is selling defence products from one end of the world to the other. Rolls-Royce sells its engines across the world. British Gas is laying pipelines across the world. All those were nationalised industries.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sykes: I shall give way in a minute, if the hon. Gentleman can hold his fire. He is a fiery, passionate Scottish Member. I have spoken to him many times and respect him.
98
British Steel is a world-famous company in 1996. I do not remember anyone saying that back in the 1970s. Today, it is an example to the world of the sort of company that we want. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I went on a business trip to Malaysia with my brother in 1990. The news on the front pages there was that they were going to privatise their steel industry the next year. That was an example of how the rest of world is following British Tory policies.
To add to my story about British Steel, there is a famous Sheffield beer called Stones Bitter. The firm that brews it wanted to associate itself more closely with Sheffield. How better to do that than by associating its beer with British Steel? It got a fancy advertising agency up from London.
Mr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sykes: I shall give way in a second, I am coming to my peroration. It is a good story. Unless the hon. Gentleman is considering putting an advertising agency together, he ought to listen to this story.
People from the fancy advertising company came all the way from London to Sheffield. They looked for a firm that could produce grimy men in hard hats shovelling things into furnaces, because that exemplified steel. They could not find one, because British Steel is so modern that everything is mechanised. They had to go to Czechoslovakia to do an advertisement about British Steel. That is where the old-fashioned practices are. British Steel is a wonderful company and a wonderful example of what private capital and privatisation can do. It was the Government who privatised it.
Mr. Cunningham: May I take the hon. Gentleman back slightly, to before he went into his fantasy? What does he think would have happened to Rolls-Royce in the early 1970s if the Government then had pursued the same policies that the present Government pursue? Does he recall that it was a Tory Government who, when Rolls-Royce collapsed, set it up as a separate company under Government control? What does he have to say about Rover in that period?
Mr. Sykes: Rolls-Royce was taken in by the Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but it was privatised by Baroness Thatcher. The Labour party voted against that. It stood up for Red Robbo. I remember as if it were yesterday, driving through Bradford in 1980. I turned the radio on and heard that, for the first time, Red Robbo had been beaten. I knew that once we had beaten him, we had won the argument.
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sykes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I want a word with him in the Lobby afterwards.
Dr. Reid: I shall not take the hon. Gentleman back, because he started in about 1834 in a short speech and has only got to 1980. If all the vast economic improvements that he is talking about are real, why have we fallen from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league?
Mr. Sykes: That is not the sort of intervention that I was hoping to get from the hon. Gentleman. It does not justify his standing in the House.
Mr. Peter Butler: Yes it does.
Mr. Sykes: No, my hon. Friend is being unfair.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already dealt with that. The Labour party has used wrong figures for its own purposes; I do not know why.
To go back to another unanswered question, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who is not in his place, would not answer the question that I asked, because he was banging on about unemployment of young people. I asked him why he thought that unemployment in Spain was 33 per cent. He could not answer. I could have told him, but he would not give way. It is because of the minimum wage and the social chapter.
Unemployment is high in France, Spain and Germany because of the minimum wage and the social chapter. Why is unemployment lower in the United Kingdom? It is because we do not have a minimum wage or social chapter. Everyone thinks that Scarborough and Whitby are all about tourism, but there is much more to them than that. They have manufacturing, service industries, financial services and second-line engineering. There is tons of stuff that goes on. We used to build ships. We built Captain Cook's ship.
We have plenty of manufacturing expertise in my constituency, of which I am proud. We have Pindars, a leading international company that sells goods and services all over the world. Plaxtons is famous for building coaches, which it is turning out like nobody's business. Even as I speak, it is selling them right across Europe. We have McCain, which is a wonderful example of how to start a business. Its productivity is increasing 10 per cent., year by year.
Mr. Deva: Does my hon. Friend agree that in considering the question about the fall from 13th to 18th, we must consider which countries have grown fastest in that league table? Have not the countries that have the same industrial infrastructure as us, such as France and Germany, grown more slowly? The countries that have grown fastest are those such as Singapore and Hong Kong, which have deregulated economies and low taxes—things that are far removed from the Labour party's understanding.
Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I first went to Singapore in 1974. I remember leaving cold, socialist England as it then was—Harold Wilson had just got back into power. Singapore was then the fifth biggest port in the world; now it is the biggest. That is a good example of how the Asian economies have driven forward.
I was explaining about the wonderful business and manufacturing in my constituency. Whitby Seafoods is another example of innovative products. It came to Whitby only a short time ago and is now one of Whitby's largest employers and sells its products across the United Kingdom. It is doing so well because the business climate in the United Kingdom is conducive to that. There is no minimum wage or social chapter.
100
One large company in my constituency could not afford to build a factory in France because of the social chapter and the minimum wage. It doubled its production line in Scarborough, much to the benefit of the people who work in the factory. If one looks out to sea in my constituency when driving up the coast, one sees ferries going at about 10 mph. They come from Sunderland. They are full of Nissan cars and are on their way to Europort. Who would have said 10 years ago that Nissan would be in Britain? It has come to Britain because we have a business climate in which it can thrive. It will continue to thrive as long as there is no social chapter, no minimum wage and, most of all, no Labour Government.
My friends and colleagues who run firms in Europe are fed up with the social chapter and the minimum wage. Their companies pursue policies that are designed to minimise the employment of human beings because once they take people on, they cannot get rid of them. That is why unemployment is so high in Europe. The closing years of the 20th century will magnify how profoundly misguided are Europe's policies of the social chapter and minimum wage. Those policies and the Labour party are fused like Siamese twins. What Europe needs is a good old dose of Tory Anglo-Saxon economic liberalism, and that is what we shall get after the next general election.
8.49 pm
Mr. Stephen Timms: I apologise for being absent from the Chamber for a fair part of this debate: I was attending the Select Committee on the Treasury.
The background to the debate is the disastrous failure of Conservative economic policy in the past 15 years. I was sharply reminded of that failure at the weekend when dealing with constituents and, in particular, when responding to a letter from a couple who bought what they described as their "dream home" for £80,000 in 1989, shortly before the sharp jump in interest rates.
Once the rates went up, they could not keep up the increased repayments and the house was repossessed in 1991. The mortgage company sold it for £45,000. The balance, plus interest and other charges left the couple with a debt of £64,000 by August 1995 and they are struggling to pay it off with monthly payments. Both have been employed throughout the period. Their letter bears relaying to the House. They say:
"This is a devastating plea which we are bringing to your attention because we have come to a point where we feel helpless."
As I said, their house was repossessed in 1991, when the interest rate increased dramatically. They continue:
"Since then, we have been suffering and enduring … financial problems and all sorts of difficulties especially between ourselves …We are living in a very bad nightmare, our social life as well as family life has been destroyed because we always blame each other for what happened. We are even scared to have another child because its too demanding.
However, you are surely aware that thousands of couples like us who had been hit by that disaster are still suffering and living in a silent trauma. So many families have split and so many people have stopped working deliberately to get away. We are honest people trying hard to keep ourselves together and survive, but believe me Sir, its very hard indeed …we can make no saving for our son's future."
Is that fair? They go on to make a plea—it is a novel suggestion—that funds from the national lottery be used to tackle housing debts and so end the nightmare that they are suffering with tens of thousands like them.

101
That is the reality of the Government's management of the economy. Behind the self-congratulation in the Government motion, 1,000 people a week are having their homes repossessed—one third of a million have suffered that fate—and there are still 1.7 million people in negative equity. The reason is that the Government have made a hash of it in the past 17 years and everyone is paying the price.
The most grievous indictment of the Government's management of the economy has been the explosion of inequality in the past 17 years. Last year, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded its 15-month inquiry into income and wealth in Britain. Its three key findings ought to have rung alarm bells for the Government. First, income inequality grew between 1977 and 1990 to a higher level than at any time since the war. Secondly, income inequality increased faster in Britain than in any other industrialised country except New Zealand and, thirdly, the poorest 20 to 30 per cent. in Britain failed to benefit from economic growth in any way after 1979, unlike in any other post-war period.
Mr. Sykes: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, what does the Labour party propose to do about it and what does he propose? Would he put up higher rate tax for so-called rich people and at what rate would that tax begin?
Mr. Timms: I am making a critique of the Government's policy and I intend to deal in some detail with tax. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would wait until I get to that subject.
The effects of what I am describing are profound. Families are stretched as both parents are forced to work long hours, giving them less time for their children. Youngsters in low-income families are being denied the network of community support that they need to supplement their parents' primary role.
The Rowntree report also exposes a disturbing racial dimension, finding that the greater risk of poverty and low education qualifications among some of the ethnic minority groups is likely to exacerbate inequality. The report shows, with shocking clarity, how that growing inequality tears at the fabric of our nation.
The cohesiveness of society is not just an altruistic aspiration, but an economic necessity. If we are to function as a modern economy in the new millennium, we will need a flexible and secure work force, who are highly skilled and able to cope with the ebb and flow of the global market. We need a population who feel that they have a stake in Britain, not what we have at the moment—a society in which the poorer members are being driven into permanent poverty and most of the rest are faced with the insecurity of knowing that they could be the next to fall.
The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) has worked hard on the issue of benefit hostels on behalf of some of his constituents. We are both members of the Standing Committee that is considering the Housing Bill and he has raised that issue with other members of that Committee. He should be asking himself why so many people have to live in such hostels. It is not merely the victims of what I have been describing who suffer, but the rest of the community as well. His constituents in Scarborough, whose cause he has properly taken up with
102
great vigour, are suffering because of what Government economic policy has done to the country and particularly to the least well-off. Everyone is faced with insecurity and knows that they could be the next to fall.
The Rowntree report refers to the tax system and shows that inequality in post-tax incomes has grown as fast as that in pre-tax incomes. In other words, the tax system has done nothing to stop the widening gap between rich and poor. There used to be agreement on both sides of the House that the tax system should effect some redistribution from the richest to the poorest, but the system is failing us in that regard and it is failing Britain.
Mr. Deva: Concern for the less well-off and about how to improve their circumstances is very laudable, but would the hon. Gentleman move on from his critique and tell the House whether his solution is less borrowing or an increase in higher rate taxes? What are his policies?
Mr. Timms: I am dealing with the Government's economic policies, which are the subject of the motion, and will continue to do so. I want to concentrate on the Government's intentions for inheritance tax. The plan that has been unveiled to abolish inheritance tax epitomises the Government's abandonment of the one-nation ideal for a lurch to the right.
There was a time when the Prime Minister's aspirations were for a classless society, but that feels like a long time ago. We have come a long way since the Prime Minister could speak in those terms. Today, the vision that he holds out is of a measure that can only reinforce the inherited privileges that remain as entrenched as ever in the Britain of the late 1990s.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has frequently assessed inheritance tax and recently published an interesting report, which I commend to hon. Members. It is entitled,
"Two nations? The inheritance of poverty and affluence"
and illustrates the extent to which people's income and social class is determined by that of their parents. The Prime Minister once said that he wanted a classless society. It shows the extent to which he has failed in that aspiration and the proposed abolition of inheritance tax suggests that he has abandoned it altogether.
The report is based on the national child development study, which tracks the lives of a group of more than 3,000 people born in a single week in 1958. A series of studies has been carried out over nearly 40 years. Those people entered their 20s at about the time the Conservative party entered Government in 1979.
The report reveals, first, the intergenerational transmission of poverty through unemployment. Those people raised against a backdrop of unemployment are about twice as likely as the population in general to end up with a substantial history of unemployment. Secondly, the sons of managerial and professional families are almost three times as likely to end up in managerial and professional occupations as the sons of semi-skilled and unskilled fathers. Thirdly, sons of managerial and professional families are less than one third as likely to end up in semi-skilled and unskilled groups.
According to the report, the son of a father in the top 20 per cent. income bracket is more than three times as likely to end up in the top 20 per cent. income bracket as in the bottom 20 per cent. bracket. More than one third of

103
sons in the top 20 per cent. income bracket had fathers in the same bracket, while only one in 10 had fathers with incomes in the lower bracket. The effect is even stronger in top 10 per cent. income bracket.
Mr. Sykes: How does the hon. Gentleman account for Essex man? None of the survey—which must have been conducted at the expense of the taxpayer by God knows whom—relates to real life. Obviously people who are wealthier should be able to pass their goods and services down to the next generation, but how does the hon. Gentleman explain Essex man and the increase in videos, holidays abroad and wealth that has affected everyone in Britain? The people who conducted the survey must be living on a different plant.
Mr. Timms: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is an extremely reputable body. I shall gladly send a copy of the report to the hon. Gentleman as it makes thought-provoking reading. He should pay close attention to it as it shows the extent to which affluence is inherited in Britain today.
The key factor influencing prosperity is not merit or ability, but parental income. Those social rigidities are not only unfair, but make us all poorer. That is the reality of Britain in 1996, yet the Prime Minister who said that he wanted a classless society proposes to make matters even worse by abolishing inheritance tax. The Chancellor—on this and the other taxes that we discussed earlier—appears to be less enthusiastic about that prospect, and one can only hope that he prevails.
Abolishing inheritance tax would cost £1.6 billion a year. That is not far short of the cost of taking a penny off income tax. Only about 3 per cent. of the 600,000 estates transferred each year pay inheritance tax at the current threshold and the benefits of scrapping inheritance tax would be massively, disproportionately and overwhelmingly concentrated on those who are best off. That exposes what really drives the modern Conservative party.
An analysis of the 1992 figures shows that 30 per cent. of the handout from abolishing inheritance tax would go to 3 per cent. of the estates—those valued at more than £1 million. In 1994, the top 10 wills were worth £179 million, so with inheritance tax at 40 per cent. their beneficiaries would have gained up to £72 million from its abolition. Nearly 5 per cent. of the handout from scrapping inheritance tax would have gone to the largest 10 out of 600,000 estates of extremely wealthy people.
Their preoccupation with giving money to the rich exemplifies the Government at their worse. It is doing terrible damage and leading to the benefit hostels about which the hon. Member for Scarborough said so much. At the same time, we are forcing asylum seekers into penury, closing hospitals and leaving schools in chronic disrepair. We are forcing increasing numbers of people to choose private sector solutions for health and education so we are further exacerbating the divisions in our society which are the worst problem that most threatens the well-being of Britain as we approach the millennium. Those divisions are a blight.
There is not the slightest chance of Britain being a nation at ease with itself while inequality continues to worsen and the Government concentrate on finding ways
104
to make rich people richer, leaving the rest struggling, anxious and insecure. Inheritance tax is criticised—with some justification—because people often avoid paying it. However, as The Economist pointed out last summer, that is an argument for making it work better, not for scrapping it. There are strong arguments for changing the nature of inheritance tax and making it a tax on those who receive the inheritance rather than on the estate that provides it. However, scrapping it altogether would be a dreadful and a regressive move.
Why should people pay tax on their earnings if there is no tax on inheritance? Why should someone who earns £100 pay £25 or £40 in tax, while someone who receives £100 as a gift or an inheritance pays no tax? Why does the Prime Minister hold that up as something to which the nation should aspire? If people could accumulate large sums in inheritance tax free, giving tax advantages to unearned income over earned income would undermine work incentives and damage the prospects of having the innovative, hard-working and highly motivated work force on which our future prosperity depends.
Mr. Sykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging me yet again. The inheritance tax threshold is currently £154,000. Would a Labour Government lower or increase it?
Mr. Timms: I do not think that the threshold should be lowered and it has not been uprated in line with inflation in recent years. I am concerned about the enormous handouts to those with the biggest estates and the huge sums of money from which they would benefit if inheritance tax were abolished. I think that there is a case for raising the threshold somewhat—I do not argue with that, if it is the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It may be that the very rich support the Conservative party, but that is not a good enough reason to hand them hundreds of millions of pounds a year by abolishing inheritance tax, as Conservative Members seem to propose.
I have not spoken about capital gains tax and I do not intend to comment on it at length—although there was an exchange about it earlier. That situation is not dissimilar to inheritance tax: abolishing capital gains tax would cost billions of pounds, the bulk of the benefit would be concentrated on a tiny handful of people, and it would take funds from the public services on which the cohesion of our society depends.
We want to achieve cohesive communities, a flexible, highly skilled work force and a modern economy that benefits from the talents of all people. However, we are becoming increasingly divided. There are more and more people who have never worked and who have no prospect of working. The Government are walking away from what needs to be done to put matters right. Abolishing inheritance tax can only make things worse: huge handouts to a small number of people while inequality worsens further. The resources for public services, such as education, would be reduced even more, divisions would deepen and cohesion would be undermined. We would all suffer as a result—and we have suffered too much already.
9.7 pm
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am conscious of the time, so I shall be brief. The country would pay a heavy inheritance tax if the Labour party

105
were to take office. However, if it won an election, Labour would inherit the best economic circumstances seen in this country for the past 50 years.
I am very privileged to represent the constituency of Brentford and Isleworth, where there are some extraordinarily good multinational and national companies. Along the A4 is a stretch of road called the golden mile and in that area I am proud to represent Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Bull Information Systems Ltd., SmithKline Beecham plc, Gillette Industries plc and many other international companies, including the British Standards Institution.
In the past three years, the rate of unemployment in my constituency has decreased by 100 per cent. and some 3,500 new jobs have been created in the past two years. That is a proud record, for which we commend the Government. Some 770,000 new jobs have been created since 1992—more than in the entire European Union. Inward investment alone has created about 40,000 jobs in this country.
When I listen to the Opposition talk about the British economy, sometimes it crosses my mind that they are talking about a different country from the one that I know. The Opposition talk about the country as they wish it to be, not the country that it is now. Today, we have one of the lowest inflation rates of any country in the world for the past 50 years. Our interest rates and growth are higher than in any other country in Europe. All those facts should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We need to talk Britain up, not talk it down. The trouble with the Opposition is that they are constantly trying to talk this country down when we need to create more jobs and to attract more investment and more money so that we can compete internationally.
I shall spend a few minutes describing what might be the result of Labour's economic policies. We know very little about the Labour party's policies. This evening, we have tried to elicit its policies from Labour Members, but either they do not know because they do not have any policies or they will not tell us. It is, therefore, difficult for us to examine the policies in detail, but vignettes of the Opposition's ideas are revealed occasionally, and we have heard about endogenous growth theory.
If we ask about the endogenous growth theory that the Opposition have talked so long and loud about, we come to some fundamental differences. Let us never believe that the economic policies of the Conservative party are the same as the economic policies of the so-called new Labour party. They are not. The new Labour party has nothing new about it. Its economic policies are as fundamentally different from a capitalist, social market, free enterprise economy as one could imagine. Endogenous growth theory, in other words, is another way to manage the economy—not by commanding the heights of the economy as the late Tony Crosland tried to do, but by managing relationships.
The Opposition would set about managing the relationships between suppliers, producers, retailers, distributors and marketers. They would try to manage the economy by putting a civil servant into every boardroom in every company. That is as fundamental a difference on intervention as one could imagine. It is almost Marxist in outlook. It implies that the Government, civil servants and officials know best how to manage the economy by insisting, cajoling—even possibly forcing—companies to take investment decisions for the good of the country as the Government and officials see it.
Mr. Sykes: Civil servants in Whitehall making decisions would be bad enough, but what about shop stewards? The Opposition would put shop stewards left, right and centre—everywhere.
Mr. Deva: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If we add the endogenous growth theory to the idea of a stakeholding economy, we would find that the trade unions would come back into decision making.
We would find that the national enterprise board and all the other people in the Department of Trade and Industry would return to the boardrooms of every company and tell company directors where they should be investing their money. The officials would tell the company directors not to buy a new plant, but to invest their money in something else. That is what new Labour is about and there is nothing new about it. It is old Marxist Labour.
9.13 pm
Mr. David Lidington: When I was preparing for this debate, I drew inspiration from the current edition of the New Statesman and Society and, in particular, from a telling analysis by Lord Desai, the former Opposition spokesman in the other place. His analysis is very different from the gloomy one put forward by so many Opposition Members tonight. He says that "the story all round" on the economy is positive, and that inflation is likely to "remain within" its target range in 1996, "dipping below 2.5 per cent." He notes that unemployment has fallen every month since March 1993 and now
"appears to be falling faster than it was last year."
Manufacturing employment, on a downward trend since 1966, is now increasing once more and personal incomes are set to rise. In summary, he concludes that it would be foolish to count on the economic position helping Labour. Having listened to some Opposition Members, I think that Lord Desai is perhaps underestimating the extent to which the economic debate favours the Government rather than their political adversaries.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), who spoke with characteristic passion and concern for the poor in society. Throughout his contribution, however, I heard no constructive Labour party alternative to the policies that the Government are pursuing. That is hardly surprising. After all, when we last debated economic matters, on the annual report presented by the Government on the domestic economy to the European Commission, the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), was so confused that he strayed into the wrong Lobby by mistake and voted against his party's policy and against the United Kingdom's obligations under the treaty of Rome. We still have not heard an explanation. It may have been a deliberate act, or it may have been that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was not available to lend the hon. Gentleman a guiding hand. Perhaps the hon. Member for Oxford, East has already written a letter of abject apology to President Santer and has been assured by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—
Mr. Sykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lidington: I shall press on because of the time constraint.

107
The outlook for the immediate future is certainly encouraging. The Government are entitled to take credit for that. The long-term trends, however, undoubtedly present serious challenges. The twin pressures of international competition and computer technology will not disappear. Those pressures are responsible for many of the difficulties experienced by individual firms and families, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have alluded.
We do not have to be uncritical admirers of Correlli Barnett's thesis about Britain's economic history to appreciate the risks of a country or continent that tries to live beyond its means or which seeks to pay for social policies that it cannot generate the wealth to finance properly. The great risk for Europe—not only the United Kingdom—is stagnation, or what is termed by the pundits Eurosclerosis, which would destroy our ability as a continent to generate new jobs at a time when we face fearsome competition from the far east and from the American continent.
It is depressing that Labour Members have failed to acknowledge global pressures along with their uncritical acceptance of the regulatory approach that is peddled in Brussels, which has damaged employment prospects and blighted the economies of some of our continental neighbours. That approach would have the same consequences in this country if the Labour party were ever to get its hands on the levers of economic power.
The Government can point to many initiatives that have helped to provide jobs and to bring investment to the United Kingdom. Through our privatisation policies we have ensured that British firms and foreign firms investing here have lower charges for telecommunications and for fuel than they would have had under the old nationalised regime. They face lower charges than those that apply in many international competitor countries.
Our non-wage labour costs remain lower here than in most of our continental competitor countries due to the Government's policy of keeping regulations and business taxes to the bare minimum.
We should concentrate our attention now on what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) described as investment in human capital. I have been heartened to see in my constituency how modern apprenticeships are being valued both by the providers of that training and by the employers who take on the trainees after graduation. I was encouraged, too, to see how general national vocational qualifications are beginning, at last, to provide the stratum of technical pre-vocational education that has been lacking in this country for a century and which, until the lifetime of this Government, we had never got around to dealing with adequately.
I hope that the Dearing review, which will be reported before long, will carry those developments further. In my view, it is not just a matter of money. If one studies the figures in publications such as "Social Trends", one will see that we compare favourably with most of our competitor countries in terms of spending per head. The key question is how to deliver higher standards in primary education so that we avoid having to take remedial measures later, and in training and university education, too.
I am confident that if we get that right we can build on the successes that Lord Desai recognised and bring a bright future for later generations.
9.20 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith: For a debate that was called by the Government, speeches from Conservative Members fell flat, just as the Chancellor's speech did. We were waiting to hear what great, new initiative of Government policy would be announced. Yet there was no announcement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out, there were no new ideas from Conservative Members, although the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) sought to get Treasury Ministers to commit themselves to a flat tax. I look forward to hearing, when the President of the Board of Trade replies, whether they will consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal. That was the only new idea that we heard.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) took comfort from forecasts in The Economist, which, he said, were exceeded only by those for Australia. I do not know whether he followed the news over the weekend and learnt the right lessons from Australia. His hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) clearly had, and said that the results from Spain and Australia had set a trend. I am not sure that he had the trend exactly right. The correct parallel to draw with this country is that long-established Governments who had made significant changes to their country were ejected from office by an insecure electorate who believed that it was time for a change.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), in a thoughtful speech, highlighted the nature of global competition, the constraints on national monetary and fiscal policy, and the over-arching importance, where resources and capital are mobile in today's world, of investing in what he called "human capital" and what we would call people. That is pretty much the argument that the Labour party has made. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in an excellent speech and with great vigour did precisely that and spelt out proposals to raise education standards and skill levels and to stimulate innovation. The hon. Member for Carshalton got his answer there.
My hon. Friends the Members for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Huddersfield rightly drew our attention to the importance of manufacturing industry, not, as is sometimes misrepresented by Conservative Members, instead of the service sector but as an essential complement to it, because in a essential economy the health of one depends on the other. That is the point that my hon. Friends were making.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) pointed out how alarming it is that, despite the fall in inflation, Britain has had low investment, and that despite a huge devaluation there are pressures on the balance of payments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) rightly drew attention to the importance of training and motivating young people, because it is they who are suffering most from the insecurity that is afflicting the labour market. How indefensible not only that the Government are abolishing the community action programme but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot even remember the name of the projects that he supposes will replace it.
Anyone reading the motion must wonder why people feel so insecure—why only 20 per cent. of the public have any confidence in the Government's economic policies.

109
We know the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade: "It is all in the mind". What he actually said—at a briefing during the CBI conference in Birmingham in November—was:
"What I am saying is that job insecurity is a state of mind."

Because it is out of touch, the Conservative party does not understand what people feel like when they have experienced the sharpest fall in living standards for 14 years, as they did last year; when they have had two years of appalling take-home pay; and when, in place of the year-on-year tax cuts that they were promised—indeed, in the last Conservative party manifesto the present Chief Secretary promised a full 5p off tax—they have been hammered with year-on-year tax rises.
Under the present Government, 400,000 people have had their homes repossessed, and many more teeter on the brink. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfermline, East (Mr. Brown) pointed out, 8.5 million people have experienced a spell of unemployment since 1992. The Conservatives, of course, said that that was a price worth paying. Under the Conservatives, who promised to cut crime, the crime rate has doubled, with incalculable human costs and financial costs of £17 billion a year. Is it any wonder that people who have experienced all that feel betrayed by the Government? Is it any wonder that they feel misled by the Conservatives—misled at the election, misled in Parliament and misled by the Budget? They have been betrayed by a Government who keep promising one thing and doing another.
Mr. Forman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous reference to my speech. That proves that he listened to what some Conservative Members said.
May I put to the hon. Gentleman the point that I would have put to his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) if he had had the courtesy to give way to me? The Labour amendment makes much play of "job insecurity". As I said in my speech, that affects all our constituencies in one way or another; but I should like to know, here and now, what policies the hon. Gentleman's party proposes to deal with the real issues of job insecurity—bearing in mind that its causes have much to do with global markets and technological developments.
Mr. Smith: We keep telling Conservative Members what policies are needed to deal with job insecurity, and to make our economy prosperous and successful. We need an investment strategy to increase productivity and profitable investment; we need the policies for education and training, to improve skill levels and skill standards, to which my hon. Friends have referred; and we need the "welfare to work" proposals that we have spelt out, which would enable us to start to provide employment for the young and long-term unemployed.
The claims in the motion do not square with people's experience, or with the facts. It refers to "sustainable growth". Since the Government came to office, the average annual growth rate—including that resulting from North sea oil—has been 1.9 per cent. That is the worst growth rate since the second world war. The United Kingdom is 10th out of 15 countries in the European growth league, and growth has been slowing for two years.
The Government also boast about their record on inflation. Only last week, the latest Eurostat figures showed that the UK had come 11th out of 14 European
110
countries in the inflation league. Since 1979, Britain has had a worse inflation record than any other industrial nation except Italy. No wonder the Governor of the Bank of England recently said:
"across the Group of Seven we're towards the bottom of the League."
The motion also has the nerve to refer to "Government borrowing coming down". Even on the optimistic growth forecast for this year in the Red Book, the Chancellor proposes to borrow twice as much between now and the end of the decade as he said that he would borrow just a year ago—an extra £39 billion between now and the millennium.
No one will be fooled by the Government's claims about the state of public finances. The burden of public debt has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms since the Tories came into office. Despite all the North sea oil and all the privatisation receipts, every person in work is carrying their share of the national debt—£12,500. Under the Tories, only £1 in every £16 of public spending goes into investment, whereas £1 in every £8 went into investment under Labour. Interest payments on the debt alone are set to increase from £96 billion in the first half of this decade to £115 billion in the second half.
Mr. Couchman: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the Labour party's most recent period in Government, when the value of our money halved in five years, between 1974 and 1979, and the value of the debt doubled?
Mr. Smith: That Labour Government had to deal with a quadrupling of oil prices, and with the type of global conditions with which this Government have never had to contend. We talk about public debt and the reasons for it. Unemployment is one reason, and it is now more than double the level it was when Labour left office. The average number of unemployed people under this Government is 1.5 million more than it was under that Labour Government. That is the £20 billion cost of unemployment, which is part of the price of the economic failure that the Conservatives have inflicted on us.
Mr. David Clelland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the Labour party came to power, in 1974, inflation was running at 13 per cent. and rising, and that when they left office, in 1979, it was 9 per cent. and falling?
Mr. Smith: I confirm that. I also point out that it was under this Conservative Government that inflation reached no less than 22 per cent. They should not mention inflation in their motion.
The last claim in the Government motion is about employment. What they do not mention, of course, is the brutal and undeniable fact that unemployment has more than doubled, at a cost of £20,000 million a year, under this Government. On job generation, the Tories' record in this country since 1979 has been the worst of all the European economies, and there are a million fewer people in jobs now than there were when the current Prime Minister took office.
It is interesting that even this Government, even in such a misleading motion as this one, did not dare to make any claims about investments. We discover why that is when

111
we examine the figures. It is because Britain's share of European investment has fallen under this Government. In the present recovery, such as it is, manufacturing investment is alarmingly low—barely 1 per cent. above its depths in the recession of early 1992. At the same stage after the 1991 recession, investment had recovered by 21 per cent. At the same stage after the 1975 recession, it had recovered by 25 per cent., and yet we have just seen the sharpest quarterly fall in manufacturing investment for five years. It is no wonder that Treasury Ministers did not mention investment in their motion.
Despite Conservative Members' understandable desperation to talk up their economic record, the truth will out. The big picture is that the Government have an appalling record on investment, skills, education and the quality of our infrastructure. They sold off the family silver like there was no tomorrow, and now they are struggling to compensate for all their boom-bust macro-economic mismanagement in the years since 1979.
Britain's record under the Tories is one of a low-growth, low-investment and high-unemployment economy. The tendency has been to increase productivity by shedding jobs, to maintain competitiveness by devaluing the currency and to fund ever increasing transfer payments by cutting public investment.
Public spending goes ever more towards paying the price of economic and social failure, ever less towards investment for success. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East pointed out, the result is that Britain is more divided now than at any time this century—with incalculable consequences for our social fabric and economic well-being.
Taken together, all this goes to show why Britain has gone down the world prosperity league to 18th place, and why it is only the 10th richest country in the European Union. It also explains why the Chancellor can convince so few of his colleagues of Britain's ability to hold its own in an economic and monetary union. These are the facts which all the Chancellor's knockabout propaganda cannot disguise.
From time to time, however, the Chancellor does give the game away. Such a revealing moment came in a "Today" interview a few weeks ago, when he let slip the following:
"In the union of national states that Europe is, what I want Britain to be is the most powerful economic force inside that Union … We have obviously a long way to go."
That certainly blows out of the water all the Government's claims about Britain being the enterprise centre of Europe.
Quite apart from anything else, enterprise centres need confident entrepreneurs. But business is far from confident about the economic position and prospects. The most recent Forum of Private Business survey showed that only a minority of businesses are expanding—38 per cent. of the total. As the summary of the survey said:
"The latest small reduction in interest rates was a welcome move, but the Forum of Private Business is still concerned that it may be insufficient to reverse the current trend of a decline in the number of expanding businesses."
Similarly, the latest CBI small and medium enterprises survey reported a virtual standstill in orders over the four months to the end of January, and said that overall growth was approaching a three-year low. And the main CBI
112
quarterly survey showed manufacturing orders down for the first time in three years, employment falling at its sharpest rate since July 1994, and business confidence still falling.
Yesterday's Sunday Times Coopers and Lybrand survey of middle-market companies warned of a significant slowdown ahead. The fact is that the climate of confidence necessary for business will not be created by the recent Budget, which did nothing on capital allowances and nothing to encourage investment for the longer term, which increased the VAT threshold by half the rate of inflation only, and which increased business rates by 5 per cent. more than the rate of inflation.
Businesses, like people, can no longer trust what the Government say. They cannot trust the Government's claims about the past or their promises for the future. They certainly cannot rely on their forecasts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East pointed out, year after year since 1990 the Government's business investment forecasts have turned out to exceed what actually happens. The Bank of England forecasters are just as badly let down by the Government. Their February inflation report states that economic growth since the end of 1994 has been slower than at first thought. Net exports were weaker than expected; investment growth was not as fast as projected. And the high point of economic achievement is represented by the statement that
"much of the increase in consumption was in spending on the National Lottery".
Is that really what the country has come to? Our economic success apparently owes more to gambling than to manufacturing investment or investment in infrastructure.
The Government's record in no way justifies the smug, self-congratulatory complacency of their motion. That, of course, is why we tabled our amendment. If the Government claim everything is so wonderful, let them explain why they have broken all their tax promises, why take-home pay has fallen two years in succession, why 8.5 million people have experienced Tory unemployment since 1992, why investment is so low, why public borrowing is so high, why we have one of the worst inflation records in Europe and why long-term interest rates are still one quarter higher than those in Germany.
Where British firms and their employees are doing well, we are the first to applaud them because they are succeeding despite the Government's economic policy, rather than because of it. Britain needs the strategy for investment, skills and infrastructure that Labour is calling for. We need the welfare-to-work policies that we have spelt out to remove people from benefit and to provide them with jobs. We need partnership so that people pull together for a strong economy and a fair society.
The mistake that Conservative Members make in their motion is that they judge Britain's economic prospects not against what the country is capable of, but against the dismal record for which they are responsible. When this country has fallen from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league and is 24th on investment and 35th on education, when it has the lowest share of world trade this century, when German and American workers have 60 per cent. more plant and equipment than British workers, when job insecurity here is rife, living standards are running 25 per cent. behind the core of Europe and Conservative Members say they are satisfied, we say theirs is not the enterprise centre of Europe, but the complacency capital of the world. Britain can do better—much better—than that and, with Labour, it will.
9.41 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I have no doubt that the Government were right to hold this important debate on the economy, if only so that we could hear the excellent speeches of Conservative Members. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) drew attention to the rise of the Asian economies and rightly pointed out that, for us, they are not so much a threat as an opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) spoke of the dramatically improved industrial relations that we are experiencing and of the need to press further ahead with our deregulation policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) talked about Governments of all complexions having less ability to influence most issues than we sometimes pretend. His remarks on job insecurity were far more sensitive than those of Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked knowledgeably about small businesses' interests and the benefits of lower tax rates. In an eloquent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) spoke of the benefits of inward investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) spoke knowledgeably of the Government's taxation changes and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) made a telling speech on the damage done to our nation's economy by the winter of discontent and of the great benefits that have derived from our privatisation programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) prayed in aid the New Statesman and Society and spoke of the need to invest more in human capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) pointed out that all the Labour party has done today—again—is to talk Britain down.
I am sorry that I was out of the Chamber and missed the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), but I shall read it with great care in Hansard tomorrow. I was sorry to learn of the mine accident to which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) drew the House's attention and I shall of course ensure that it is fully and properly investigated.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made what I think can be described as a thoughtful speech and I found much in it with which to agree. He spoke of there being more convergence of party policy than we like to admit—certainly much more than the Labour Front Bench likes to admit. He spoke of wealth creation being central and said that he wanted more manufacturing. Unfortunately, he spoiled it all by praising the United States of America and asking why we could not be more like them when, as a proportion of GDP, we are almost identical in terms of the level of manufacturing.
Opposition Back Benchers were more in touch with reality than their Front-Bench colleagues. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spelled out the extremely favourable economic circumstances that face the United Kingdom. For the benefit of newcomers to the debate and of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) I shall précis my right hon. and learned Friend's speech and repeat some of his important points.
We will soon be entering our fifth year of a healthy and sustained economic recovery based on sound public finances and permanently low inflation. All the economic
114
fundamentals are in place to ensure that that continues. Total underlying exports have risen by almost a third since the beginning of the recovery and they continue to rise. Unemployment has fallen by more than 750,000 since the beginning of the recovery; at below 8 per cent., it is at its lowest for five years. Meanwhile, 600,000 more people are in work than at the end of the recession. Perhaps most impressive is the fact that inflation has been below 4 per cent. for more than three years—something we have not experienced in the United Kingdom for almost 50 years.
We are just getting used to low inflation. Our national record on inflation since the war has, at times, been less than impressive. That is why we adopted the current inflation target and, more important, stuck to it. The underlying rate of inflation has averaged just 2.6 per cent. since we adopted the target in 1992, compared with an average rate of 6.5 per cent. in the 1980s and 13 per cent. in the 1970s. Low inflation is vital to providing the confidence to invest in the future. It is the best way to encourage business men and investors to take the long-term view.
I am glad to note that many of our businesses are responding. Manufacturing investment has risen by 6.5 per cent. in each of the past two years. What matters is the long term, not the short-term fluctuations of a notoriously volatile measure, with which Labour Members are so bedazzled. It is a pity that the Opposition will not spell out any of their targets, whether for inflation, investment or any of the other issues that really matter for the management of the economy.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I obviously agree with the right hon. Gentleman that permanently low inflation is a desirable objective. Is he aware of a report published on Friday by the Library which shows that Britain is the fourth worst performer on inflation in the European Union and that we are on course to fail the Maastricht inflation criteria? How, in his opinion, can the Government ensure that we do qualify and that we raise ourselves to near the top of the European Union average?
Mr. Lang: Our inflation rate is low, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that all the inflation rates in the European economies are relatively close. What is significant is that, compared with the appalling record of the last Labour Government, under whom the cost of living doubled, Britain's record has improved dramatically in recent years—as it did in the 1980s.
For the benefit of the Opposition, I shall spell out what a commitment to the long-term health of the United Kingdom economy means in practice. Since 1979, overall investment has risen faster in this country than in any other major European economy. What is more, it has risen six times faster than it did under the last Labour Government. Investment in plant and machinery has risen by more than 50 per cent. and business investment has risen by more than a third. The Confederation of British Industry has reported investment intentions at their highest level for six years.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) spoke about job insecurity and tried to distort and misquote what I have said on the subject. I emphasise, as I have previously, that job insecurity exists, and we must take that into account. People feel a sense of anxiety about

115
future employment. However, the reality is that, by creating a flexible labour market, as we are doing, we shall be best prepared to create the jobs and increased employment that will help to remove the sense of insecurity.
The 1994 labour force survey showed that three quarters of men in employment had been with the same employer for more than two years—the same figure as 10 and 20 years ago. The change is nothing like as dramatic as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East suggested. Another survey of males between 30 and 49 showed that 44 per cent. had been in the same job for at least 10 years. Further research shows that, of those in jobs for five to 10 years, 80 per cent. will still be there in five years and most of those who move will go to better jobs. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the Juvos database, which shows that the number going through unemployment are doing so for shorter periods. Half of those who claim unemployment benefit leave the count in three months and two thirds leave in six months.
The biggest cause of insecurity is unemployment. The fact that unemployment has fallen for two and a half years and is down by almost 200,000 in the past year alone is a considerable boost to the increase in a sense of security. At below 8 per cent., unemployment is more than two percentage points below the European average, three points lower than in France, four points lower than in Italy and almost 14 points lower than in Spain. Britain has more of its people in work and fewer out of work than any other major European country.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Is the President of the Board of Trade not concerned that, of the 25 million people employed in Britain, 6 million are in part-time employment? Only 19 million people are keeping an economy of 56 million people going. Full-time employment is being substituted by part-time, low-paid employment. Is he proud of that?
Mr. Lang: The vast majority of people in part-time employment are in it because that is the kind of employment that they want. The hon. Gentleman will find that, although youth unemployment in Britain is too high—almost 16 per cent.—in France it is almost 28 per cent., in Italy it is 36 per cent. and in Spain it is 38 per cent. In Britain, unemployment among women is 7 per cent., in France it is almost double that at almost 14 per cent., in Italy it is 17.5 per cent. and in Spain it is more than 29 per cent. Almost every comparison that one can find shows that enormous progress has been made in the United Kingdom compared with European Union countries in recent years.
However, we need greater flexibility in employment. It is only by pursuing the Government's flexible labour market policies that we will create more jobs and thus greater job security.
Mr. Andrew Smith: If the news about unemployment is all so good, why are more than 1 million fewer people in employment than when his right hon. Friend became Prime Minister? Is that not a true indictment of the Government's unemployment record?
Mr. Lang: It is to the credit of our employment measures that 68 per cent. of the eligible population in the
116
United Kingdom are in work, which is more than any other comparable country in the EU. The point that I was making is that our flexible labour market policies are creating jobs and thus creating more job security. The Opposition's policies include the national minimum wage and the social chapter, which would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. That is no way to create job security. The rigidity that would come in with the stakeholder policy—the unions would stake out their share of power and fence in the economy—would result in a loss of jobs and a lack of confidence.
The deputy leader of the Labour party—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—said of the national minimum wage on London Weekend Television:
"I knew that the consequences were that there'd be some shake-out, any silly fool knew that".
From their own mouths, Labour's policies stand condemned. The only fools left are those in the right hon. Gentleman's party, who would pursue policies that they know would destroy jobs, not create them.
What are the Labour party's policies? We listened in vain today. We hoped that we might hear more about the social chapter, which was introduced by the Labour party leader as just a set of principles. As soon as he discovered that it would be part of a solemn and binding treaty and an obligation and that most of its proposals, coming through under qualified majority voting, would be imposed on the United Kingdom, he suddenly announced that he would start picking and mixing, backing off, and trying to negotiate some special arrangements.
We know that Labour Members want a national minimum wage, but they will not tell us at what rate because they know that, at £4 an hour, it would cost us 900,000 jobs if only half the differentials were restored. We hear that they are backing off from their training levy. We hear that stakeholding, the big idea of just a couple of months ago, is now just a slogan. The sweetheart deal with BT to set up a cable network around Britain—a special favour for party advantage to a monopolist company—has suddenly been abandoned. All the Labour party's policies are quietly being put back in their box. Like the Cheshire cat in "Alice in Wonderland", piece by piece, Labour's policies are disappearing and all we are left with is the smile.
Labour has no inflation target and no borrowing target. There is just one commitment from the Labour party, and that is for a windfall tax. What an appalling message to send to the people of this country. A windfall tax is, by definition, a one-off tax. It cannot be spent 10 times over, as it has been by the Labour party, on successive policies. It would destroy investment plans, it would be unfair and capricious and it would penalise success. Nothing is more designed to destroy competition in the privatised utilities than such a tax.
Labour Members talk about investment. They should look at our inward investment record as well as the indigenous investment record. Since 1981, not only has our overall investment rate over the cycle been faster than that of every nation in the G7 group except Japan, but we have seen the world's verdict on Britain in inward investment. We see billions of pounds creating tens of thousands of jobs and bringing many new industries and new technologies to this country.
Just as it is with inward investment, so it is with outward investment and with trade. Britain is first and foremost a trading nation, out again on the world stage.

117
With 1 per cent. of the world's population, we are the fifth largest exporter. We export more per head than either Japan or the United States. We are selling more goods and services than ever before. Our underlying export volumes have risen by a third since the beginning of the recovery.
We will continue to work to expand global trade and to secure free trade through multilateral trade liberalisation. Just as we were a key player in the Uruguay round, so we shall seek to secure progress through the World Trade Organisation. We have identified areas in which we can develop the case for further open trade around the world at the meeting in Singapore.
Britain is now back on its feet again. The Labour party has made strenuous efforts to convince anyone who will listen that we have fallen behind many of our main competitors. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor pointed out Labour's deceit in seeking to project a table of world prosperity growth in which, it transpired, the slippage from 13th to 16th place took place not over the term of this Government, but in 1979–80, the first year of our period in office when, as everyone knows, we had a mess to clear up after the Labour Government.
What Labour Members have neglected to say is that our GDP per head is actually in line with that of the European Union and 10 per cent. ahead of that of Europe as a whole. They neglected to point out that our living standards have risen by 40 per cent. since 1979 compared with only 1 per cent. under the previous Labour Government. They neglected to point out that we have closed three quarters of the gap in manufacturing productivity against France and Germany since 1979, a gap that widened under the previous Labour Government.
Labour Members clearly enjoy league tables, so I shall give them some of my own. Between 1974 and 1979, of the major EU countries, the United Kingdom had the slowest GDP growth, the slowest growth in manufacturing productivity, the second slowest growth in manufacturing output and the slowest growth in private consumption. I reinforce what I say with a statement today by Mr. David Kern, the NatWest bank's chief economist. He says:
"Perceptions of UK underperformance are incorrect and need to be carefully reassessed".
Writing in the March issue of the group's "Economic and Financial Outlook", he then says:
"In terms of per capita GNP/GDP, the UK has narrowed the gap with its main West European and North American competitors; while growth has been higher in the UK than in comparable economies since the early 1980s."
He is right.
Since 1980, the United Kingdom has had the fastest growth in GDP, equal to that of Germany. It has had the fastest growth in productivity bar none, the fastest growth in manufacturing output, the fastest growth in investment and the fastest growth in private consumption, with the lowest tax burden.
Free enterprise and free trade are the twin pillars of our economic policy, and both are bringing growing success in an increasingly competitive global economy. Our policies—privatisation, liberalisation, deregulation and flexible labour markets—are increasingly finding favour around the world. We are in the mainstream—we are leading world opinion. We are punching above our weight as a nation because, under this Government, we are competitive again. Socialism is in retreat and decline all
118
over the world. Last Saturday in Australia, the Labor party bit the dust. Yesterday in Spain, Labour bit the dust. Last year in France, Labour bit the dust. Socialism is irrelevant there, and irrelevant here. I urge the House to stick by the Government's policies, throw out the amendment and support the motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 288.

Division No. 66]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dobson, Frank

Ainger, Nick

Donohoe, Brian H

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Dowd, Jim

Allen, Graham

Eagle, Ms Angela

Alton, David

Eastham, Ken

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Etherington, Bill

Armstrong, Hilary

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ashton, Joe

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Austin-Walker, John

Fatchett, Derek

Barnes, Harry

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barron, Kevin

Flynn, Paul

Battle, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bayley, Hugh

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bell, Stuart

Foulkes, George

Bennett, Andrew F

Fyfe, Maria

Benton, Joe

Galbraith, Sam

Bermingham, Gerald

Galloway, George

Berry, Roger

Gapes, Mike

Betts, Clive

Garrett, John

Blunkett, David

George, Bruce

Boateng, Paul

Gerrard, Neil

Bradley, Keith

Godman, Dr Norman A

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Godsiff, Roger

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gordon, Mildred

Burden, Richard

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Byers, Stephen

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Callaghan, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gunnell, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hain, Peter

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hanson, David

Canavan, Dennis

Hardy, Peter

Cann, Jamie

Harman, Ms Harriet

Chidgey, David

Harvey, Nick

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Church, Judith

Henderson, Doug

Clapham, Michael

Heppell, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hodge, Margaret

Clelland, David

Hoey, Kate

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Coffey, Ann

Home Robertson, John

Cohen, Harry

Hood, Jimmy

Connarty, Michael

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

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoyle, Doug

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cummings, John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cunningham, Roseanna

Illsley, Eric

Dafis, Cynog

Ingram, Adam

Dalyell, Tam

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Darling, Alistair

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jamieson, David

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

Janner, Greville

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Dewar, Donald

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Dixon, Don

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

119

Jowell, Tessa

Primarolo, Dawn

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Purchase, Ken

Keen, Alan

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Randall, Stuart

Khabra, Piara S

Raynsford, Nick

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Dr John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rendel, David

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Litherland, Robert

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Livingstone, Ken

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Rooker, Jeff

Llwyd, Elfyn

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Rowlands, Ted

McAllion, John

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Salmond, Alex

McCartney, Ian

Sedgemore, Brian

McCartney, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Macdonald, Calum

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McFall, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McKelvey, William

Short, Clare

McLeish, Henry

Simpson, Alan

McMaster, Gordon

Skinner, Dennis

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

MacShane, Denis

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

Madden, Max

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Maddock, Diana

Snape, Peter

Mahon, Alice

Soley, Clive

Mandelson, Peter

Spearing, Nigel

Marek, Dr John

Spellar, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Stevenson, George

Martlew, Eric

Stott, Roger

Maxton, John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Meacher, Michael

Straw, Jack

Meale Alan

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Michael, Alun

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Timms, Stephen

Milburn, Alan

Tipping, Paddy

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Touhig, Don

Morgan, Rhodri

Trickett, Jon

Morley, Elliot

Turner, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Tyler, Paul

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Vaz, Keith

Mowlam, Marjorie

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Mullin, Chris

Walley, Joan

Murphy, Paul

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wareing, Robert N

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Wicks, Malcolm

O'Hara, Edward

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Olner, Bill

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Parry, Robert

Wilson, Brian

Pendry, Tom

Wise, Audrey

Pickthall, Colin

Worthington, Tony

Pike, Peter L

Wright, Dr Tony

Pope, Greg

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Mr. George Mudie and Ms Janet Anderson.

Prescott, Rt Hon John

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Bates, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Batiste, Spencer

Amess, David

Bellingham, Henry

Arbuthnot, James

Bendall, Vivian

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Ashby, David

Body, Sir Richard

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Booth, Hartley

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Boswell, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

120

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Gillan, Cheryl

Bowis, John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brandreth, Gyles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brazier, Julian

Gorst, Sir John

Bright, Sir Graham

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Burt, Alistair

Hague, Rt Hon William

Butler, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butterfill, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hannam, Sir John

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carrington, Matthew

Harris, David

Carttiss, Michael

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Cash, William

Hawkins, Nick

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawksley, Warren

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hayes, Jerry

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hendry, Charles

Coe, Sebastian

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Congdon, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Horam, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Couchman, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Day, Stephen

Hunter, Andrew

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Devlin, Tim

Jack, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jenkin, Bernard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jessel, Toby

Dover, Den

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Key, Robert

Elletson, Harold

Kirkhope, Timothy

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knox, Sir David

Evennett, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Faber, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fishburn, Dudley

Legg, Barry

Forman, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Forth, Eric

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lidington, David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lord, Michael

French, Douglas

Luff, Peter

Fry, Sir Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gale, Roger

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gallie, Phil

MacKay, Andrew

Gardiner, Sir George

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Gare-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Garnier, Edward

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gill, Christopher

Madel, Sir David

121

Maitland, Lady Olga

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Malone, Gerald

Speed, Sir Keith

Mans, Keith

Spencer, Sir Derek

Marland, Paul

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Marlow, Tony

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spink, Dr Robert

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spring, Richard

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Sproat, Iain

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Merchant, Piers

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mills, Iain

Steen, Anthony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stephen, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Stern, Michael

Moate, Sir Roger

Stewart, Allan

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Streeter, Gary

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Sumberg, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sweeney, Walter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Sykes, John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Norris, Steve

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Thomason, Roy

Ottaway, Richard

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Page, Richard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Paice, James

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Thurnham, Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pawsey, James

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tracey, Richard

Pickles, Eric

Tredinnick, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Trend, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

Viggers, Peter

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Walden, George

Richards, Rod

Waller, Gary

Riddick, Graham

Ward, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Robathan, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Watts, John

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Wells, Bowen

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Whittingdale, John

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Widdecombe, Ann

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sackville, Tom

Wilkinson, John

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Wilshire, David

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wolfson, Mark

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Wood, Timothy

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Yeo, Tim

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Shersby, Sir Michael

Sims, Roger

Tellers for the Noes:

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Simon Burns.

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Amendment accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the fundamental health of the British economy, as demonstrated by nearly four years of sustainable growth, the best inflation performance for almost 50 years, Government borrowing coming down, 29 months of falling unemployment and an increase of over half a million people in jobs since the recovery began, and recognises that this is a result of the Government's economic policies which are making the United Kingdom the enterprise centre of Europe.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

That the draft Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
AGRICULTURE
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 230), dated 5th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT
That the Central Manchester Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1996, dated 6th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

  School Playing Fields, Castle Point
  10.15 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: It is with regret that I present a petition to save Hadleigh school's playing fields. I should not have to save those fields, because the Liberal and Labour-controlled Essex county council could and should even now withdraw its claim to them.
  The petition was raised by Hadleigh junior school and Hadleigh infants school to save their playing fields and was signed by more than 600 of my constituents. The petition reads:
  "To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled, the Humble Petition of the residents of Hadleigh and the surrounding area, Sheweth that we, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Essex County Councillors decided to fence off and claim ownership of part of a playing field which had previously served Hadleigh Junior School. That the aforementioned Councillors did this as part of a political response to the democratic decision of parents to secure for the school Grant Maintained status. That we are deeply concerned that the whole playing field is needed by the children and should be retained for educational and community use. That we are deeply concerned about the County Councillors' intention to build homes on the land or to sell off the land for housebuilding at some time in the future. That we deplore the decision of Labour Borough Councillors to change the Local Plan Draft in order to remove the designation of the field for educational use. That we support Councillor Doug Robert's objection to the Borough Draft Local Plan to reinstate the land usage as exclusively educational and community use which would prevent further housebuilding and all the consequential adverse environmental and traffic implications. We are disappointed that the Educational Assets Board have rejected Hadleigh Junior School's claim against the County Councillors and we seek to have this decision reversed.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray, that your Honourable House do urge the right hon. John Major MP, Prime Minister, to use his powers to reverse the decision of the Education Assets Board and save Hadleigh School playing field for the children.
  And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Campbell's Soups
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Since last October, I have been running a determined campaign seeking the reversal of the decision by Campbell's Soups of the United States of America to close the Homepride plant in my constituency. In an Adjournment debate in November, I set out the background to that decision, while expressing the anger of the people of Maryport over the loss of one of the town's foremost employers. Campbell's Soups, having paid £58.6 million for the plant at the beginning of August last year, promptly announced its closure 11 weeks later.
  The decision was an outrage. It has never been justified commercially, and has been repeatedly questioned during a number of television programmes and articles in the national press—notably the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, the Financial Times, the Daily Mirror, the regional media, and "Newsnight".
  Since the announcement, I have lobbied the Prime Minister, raised innumerable questions on the Floor of the House, used every available parliamentary procedural peg to put the case for my constituents, attended Campbell's annual general meeting in Camden, New Jersey, to lobby shareholders, and visited the King's Lynn Campbell's Soups plant to which production is being transferred, with a personal appeal to the work force for their support.
  During the campaign, I have written to 2,300 newspaper editors in every part of the kingdom seeking publication of a letter appealing for a national boycott of Campbell's Soups products; written to more than 300 major supermarket groups and chains promoting the boycott; approached thousands of organisations throughout the country, either directly or by way of correspondence, drawing attention to the plight of my constituents; and secured the support of 340 Members of Parliament on a motion asking for the company to reverse its decision.
  On the international stage, I have, in conjunction with British trade unions, sought the support of trade unions throughout the western world and liaised with Tony Cunningham, Member of the European Parliament for Cumbria, in promoting the boycott throughout the Community.
  However, all that effort has been to no avail. The company, which is 58 per cent. owned by a single family and its successors in the United States, prefers to thwart the views of the majority in the House of Commons—as expressed in the early-day motion—by insisting upon pursuing its original decision. The motion received the 13th largest number of signatures of the 30,000 similar motions tabled in the past 56 years in the House of Commons.
  The facts are that Campbell's Soups, through its wholly owned, unaccountable British operations, has proved completely insensitive to the very reasonable and commercially sound pleas that it has received from various parts of the world. To cap it all, the Homepride
  124
  work force have been driven into a financial settlement with the company under the pressure of changes in entitlement to unemployment benefit, while the redundancy package has been tailored in such a way as to ensure loyalty until the final day of operations. The work force have been effectively silenced. In my view, it is the worst closure decision in the constituency in the past 16 years—it is an outrage from start to finish.
  My response, with the boycott campaign of Campbell's Soups and Fray Bentos products, has clearly been successful, considering the thousands of letters and approaches that I have had from all over the country. Recent attempts to provoke discussion among Campbell's Soups King's Lynn work force—the beneficiaries of the Maryport closure—have failed. It knows that King's Lynn does not need the Homepride lines. It knows also that offers of employment to Maryport workers ring hollow when the same jobs are being offered to King's Lynn workers.
  The reality is that only half a dozen people are transferring from Maryport—mostly from management—and statistics produced by Coutts to identify employment opportunities in the Maryport area are nonsense. Coutts' statistics are the laughing stock of west Cumbria. Its well-meaning operation has simply succeeded in reducing the availability of job opportunities for the existing unemployed. Campbell's has not created a single job.
  The King's Lynn work force, without union recognition, has been particularly unresponsive, and is kept on a tight rein by Campbell's management. Perhaps that accounts for the lack of national publicity surrounding the five scalding incidents and one fatal accident at the King's Lynn site, which were revealed in a parliamentary answer to me last week. The King's Lynn work force should be asking why Campbell's Soups promotes union recognition in America and not in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, I am sorry, but I wish to complete my remarks. I shall certainly give way if I have time, or the hon. Gentleman can intervene on the Minister.
  To answer the boycott, Campbell's has employed the services of Barclay Stratten for advice. I believe that it has been poorly advised—indeed, journalists have described it as incompetent. It would have been better if the company had used its own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. He would certainly have corrected its wildly inaccurate interpretation of events, and particularly its suggestion that I was annoyed by his intervention. I can only advise Campbell's to review the Barclay Stratten account.
  What of the future? I have argued repeatedly that Campbell's Soups purchased Homepride only for its brand name. The reality is that the Homepride brand name and the "Fred" advertising logo have opened the door to immense further potential in national distribution. Dalgety recognised that potential, which is why it decided to invest more than £9 million in Maryport in 1994.

  125
  Dalgety's former finance director, Mr. Peter Byers, who was responsible for Homepride operations and who now works for Campbell's Soups, recognised the potential for cook-in sauces. I suspect that he was the key to the Campbell's Soups decision. His role in the whole affair raises a number of questions. He, drawing on his time at Homepride, must have known that the Homepride label would open the door to increased market share.
  The die is cast, and we must now look to the future. I now understand, and the House should know, that there have been early discussions in west Cumbria about a proposal to establish a new company, to be called Marypride. That company could manufacture processed food products. The idea is in its infancy. The Marypride brand name knocks on an open door. From the point of view of the local community in Maryport, it would capitalise on pride that the townspeople have in their community. What they have built in the past could be re-created in the future. I wish to say no more on that matter at this stage.
  The House should also consider the lessons that can be learnt from the takeover of Homepride, and there are many. Campbell's Soups' acquisition arose only in conditions of binding confidentiality on bidders at the time of the Dalgety sale.
  The question we need to ask is whether it is in the public interest for a predator in the market, hiding behind a wall of such confidentiality, to be able to acquire a target company without any element of accountability. Under current arrangements, the whole area is unregulated, and it is not my purpose to advocate onerous regulatory requirements that undermine enterprise and impede the operations of the market. Nevertheless, takeover arrangements in those limited conditions require some greater transparency to balance the interests of employees with those of shareholders and corporate decision takers.
  In the Homepride case, at least six organisations submitted bids during the Dalgety auction. Most of the bids came from companies or consortia that intended to keep the Homepride plant open. In the case of at least one bid, I am confident that—if that company had won—not only would Homepride have been secure, but it would have grown into a substantial food manufacturing company over the years, and would have employed many hundreds of people. The problem was that the accepted bid came from a company whose intentions were closure. It all happened behind closed doors. The Mustoe agenda was realised in conditions of total confidentiality. No one knew of the impending holocaust.
  I ask a simple question: is it in the public interest for bids to be transacted in such secrecy? Could corporate takeovers survive greater transparency? What would have happened if, at the time of bidding for Homepride, each bidder—having cleared the preliminary hurdles—had been required immediately prior to bids closing to indicate publicly their interest in Homepride?
  The interested parties—the local authorities, the regional Department of Trade and Industry, the training and enterprise council, the local development agencies, the Member of Parliament and, most of all, the work force—would have known which companies were bidding, and, after the close of bids, whom to approach
  126
  about the prospects for the company. Every bidder would have received an approach as to their intentions. They might have remained silent, but we can be sure that a number of bidders would have been prepared to give assurances as to the future. Dalgety, subject to public pressure, would at least have taken those assurances into account.
  One could easily devise a regulatory framework for such a proposal. All that it would require is a bid notification procedure. That single regulatory change would allow decisions on the acceptability of bids to be influenced by issues other than price, as is the case today on environmental matters. Transparency would open the door to an element of accountability.
  In the Homepride case, if such a procedure had been in operation, Campbell's Soups would probably never have succeeded and, even if it had survived the bidding stage, public pressure would have forced a withdrawal prior to or even during exchange of contracts. Its motives would have been flushed out far earlier, and Dalgety would have been obliged to sell to a more sensitive predator. Alternatively, Dalgety itself, conscious of its public image, might have sought some form of undertaking about Maryport's future, if only to avoid a public row.
  It is arguable that these transparency arrangements could be taken a stage further. Some might argue that bidders should be identified, and that there should be a regulatory requirement on them to define their intentions for a given period—for example, nine or 12 months. That might take the form of a time-limited statement of intent—I call it an SOI—at the time of public notification of the bid. I recognise the complications that could arise under an SOI procedure, certainly in terms of disclosure of commercially confidential information to bidders by vendors. Nevertheless, having given the matter much thought over recent weeks, I do not regard the difficulties as insurmountable.
  The professionals would have to adjust. We could set a threshold below which notification would not be required, so as to avoid unnecessary burdens being placed on smaller acquisitions. I suggest a threshold of £20 million in cash or equivalents.
  Some argue that such proposals might damage the bidder's commercial credibility if he were to fail—markets do not like losers. Equally, an element of market and employee instability might be induced in the target's work force. We must weigh these considerations against the rights of employees to influence where they are going. I believe that the exercise is damage-limitation manageable if the time between bid notification and ink on contract is limited. I accept that problems could arise where a bid is issued for loss-making assets.
  Corporate decisions are often difficult and unpopular. Very often, the inevitable consequence of rationalisation in a sector where losses are being incurred is job losses. Bid notification could prove difficult in these conditions, especially if we regulated for an additional SOI requirement. The answer to the difficulty may well lie in the way in which the vendor presents his own options to his work force. That would certainly sharpen the debate over rescue packages, but these are not uncharted waters for talented management.

  127
  My proposal needs much refining if it is to be included in legislation. It is little more than the embryo of an idea for further consideration at this stage, but I believe that it should be taken seriously.
  I have tried to identify legal frameworks for notification proposals. My preliminary view is that disclosure provisions in the case of bankruptcy under rule 4.11 of the insolvency rules 1986, disclosure provisions for winding-up orders under section 130(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, and disclosure provisions in the use of administration orders under rule 2.10 of the insolvency rules 1986 all point the way forward. In each instance, disclosure is required in the London Gazette, which is published in London, Edinburgh and Belfast.
  I ask the Minister seriously to consider my proposal for what I intend to promote as the Campbell's Soups amendment. Let some good come out of this whole squalid affair.
  10.32 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I acknowledge straight away the concern of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the closure of the Maryport plant. I realise that it is a blow for his constituency. But the matter is for the commercial judgment of Campbell's. It would be wrong for the Government to intervene in such decisions. I say also in the margins of the debate that there is a fair amount of understanding between the hon. Gentleman and myself over this matter. If I do not in the time available cover all the points he raised, I shall certainly refer to the matter in a letter to him.
  I fully understand the depth of the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, but he must bear in mind the fact that Campbell's has been present in the United Kingdom since 1959. The company employs about 1,200 people here, and has shown its commitment to the UK by recently investing over £100 million. The Government would not want to threaten these jobs and investment.
  I realise that closure must be very disappointing for Maryport, and in particular the 120 employees involved, but I understand that Campbell's has offered all employees jobs at one of its five other plants.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware that Maryport is within an assisted area and, as such, qualifies for regional selective assistance for investments that create or safeguard jobs. That means that the site of the Campbell's Soup plant qualifies for RSA. Proposals by companies wishing to invest in the facility would be considered for support against the criteria for RSA awards. Of course, it is not for Government to say what type of business might make use of the site.
  A range of other services is also available through the local Cumbria training and enterprise council, through business links, and through Inward, the north-west development agency, which could assist in attracting new businesses to invest in the area of the Campbell's site. Those services include business advice counselling, diagnostic and consultancy services, exports advice,
  128
  business enterprise services, and technical expertise as well as access to the personal business advisor network. I know, for example, that Cumbria TEC already offers practical help to individual employees of Homepride and will continue to do so beyond closure.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that west Cumbria has European objective 2 status, which gives the area access to funding for business support measures, and also for the cost of training and re-skilling activities.
  Let me remind the House that the food industry is a very successful UK industry. The success of the industry in recent years can be demonstrated by the figures on exports: in 1988, UK exports of food and drink were worth some £5 billion. By 1994—six years later—they were worth some £9 billion.
  The rest of Europe, and, indeed, the world, is finding out how good British food and drink really are. British bread is chic in Paris, and British lamb and Scottish salmon are particularly well regarded there. We are selling pizzas to Italy and ice cream to Spain. Such successes are a tribute to the industry, and also to the Government's determination to create and maintain an economic framework within which such enterprise can be rewarded.
  Sales by the UK food and drink manufacturing industries in 1994 were worth more than £56 billion. With a work force of about 450,000, the sector accounted for one in nine jobs in manufacturing. The industry has continued to compete effectively in world markets, with 1994 exports of food, feed and drink valued at £9 billion.
  The soups and sauces industry is no exception to this success story. In 1992, UK exports were worth some £13 million, with major markets established in Ireland, Germany and France. Not only that, but the UK consumer can choose from a vast array of delicious and imaginative soups and sauces on sale at the supermarket, grocer or corner shop. The competitive nature of the market means that companies are constantly looking for new product types and ideas to provide what the consumer wants.
  The UK soup market has recently been characterised by rapid innovation and increased choice, not only in the variety of flavours on the market but by different product types, such as low-calorie, premium, chilled and fresh. Sales of soup are expected to continue to grow steadily in the near future. I have no doubt that Campbell's Soups will continue to play a significant role in this expanding and innovative market.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the role of merger control. As he knows, the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on qualifying mergers. The director general looked at this transaction, and concluded that it did not give rise to a qualifying merger.
  The transaction met neither of the tests in the Fair Trading Act 1973. The assets being acquired were only £9 million, as I understand it, which is some way short of the £70 million test in the Act. Indeed, it is short of the hon. Gentleman's suggested £20 million. The market share test—that a 25 per cent. share should be created or increased—was not met, either. There was therefore no role for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the matter. He had no decision to make on the acquisition.

  129
  Let me remind the House that a merger can be blocked only if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission finds it to be against the public interest. Furthermore, since 1984, the policy of the Government has been to make decisions about whether mergers are referred to the MMC primarily on competition grounds. That policy will continue.
  The hon. Gentleman called for greater transparency in such bidding procedures. I emphasise that the conduct of the sale of Homepride Sauces was a commercial matter for Dalgety; it would be wrong for Government to intervene in such matters. There are no plans to change existing legislation or policy governing mergers.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Under this Government.
  Mr. Taylor: I am speaking for this Government, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows.
  There have been calls for the Fair Trading Act to be amended, so that smaller mergers can be considered by the competition authorities. As the House will know, in February 1994, the assets threshold for mergers was increased from £30 million to £70 million: that was agreed by Parliament as part of the Government's deregulation initiative. The change does not signal a weakening of competition policy; all larger mergers, and any small mergers that create or increase a 25 per cent. market share, will still be considered under the Fair Trading Act. The measure is clearly deregulatory, and has been welcomed by business generally.
  Let me also make it clear that United Kingdom and foreign companies are treated alike under UK merger procedures. The Government feel that commercial considerations should generally determine ownership of businesses. UK companies themselves do very well overseas, and long may that continue.
  There have been calls for predatory takeovers to be blocked. I understand that Dalgety put the Homepride business up for sale and decided to sell to Campbell's. That was a normal commercial transaction. As I said earlier, it would be wrong for the Government to intervene in commercial decisions: companies must be free to adjust to the competitive demands of the market.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the role of foreign companies in the UK economy. I remind him that the Government welcome foreign investors, and will continue to do so. Nowhere is the competitiveness of our economy better demonstrated than in our ability to attract inward investment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister think that it would be much fairer if a work force knew when the enterprise for which they worked was being put on the market and bid for?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that my knowledge of the company and the transaction is not as detailed as his. In fact, it would be rather surprising if, as Member of Parliament for Solihull, I knew as much about Maryport as he does. I shall reflect on what he has said, because good practice should always involve consultation; but I do not wish to stray into matters involving his constituency or a particular transaction.
  130
  I was talking about inward investment. More than 40 per cent. of all United States, Canadian and Japanese investment in the European Union, together with over 50 per cent. of Korean and over 57 per cent. of Taiwanese investment, has come to the United Kingdom. Our stock of inward investment is now £147 billion—up from £44.3 billion in 1985—and 99 of the "Fortune" top 100 companies have chosen to locate in the UK. Our record in attracting inward investment within the European Union is second to none.
  The UK has a long history of welcoming overseas inward investment—over 100 years. We have made Britain the most attractive place in which to invest. The facts speak for themselves. Since 1979, my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau has registered more than 4,200 inward investment projects, with more than 700,000 associated jobs. In recent months, we have secured investments from Ford, Siemens, Nissan, Fujitsu and Chunghwa. That equals more than 11,200 jobs.
  In the last financial year alone, we won some 454 inward investment projects, supporting some 91,000 jobs. Those jobs are in tomorrow's industries—highly skilled, bringing the best management standards, with exciting potential, down the supply chain of industry.
  Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend will remember that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that there were recognised trade unions at all Campbell's plants throughout the country. Is he aware that the staff at the factory at King's Lynn have been given the opportunity on a number of occasions to have trade union representation, but have opted for an advisory committee? Indeed, they have had many recent opportunities to reverse that decision, but have decided not to.
  Mr. Taylor: I am very interested to learn that. I was not, candidly speaking, aware of what my hon. Friend says. I am very glad that he has put it on the record, however.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may tell the Minister that the King's Lynn work force is one of the lowest paid in the processed food industry in the whole of the UK.
  Mr. Taylor: This evening might have been more interesting if we had had a debate between the hon. Member for Workington and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). I have a role to discharge, however, and limited time in which to do so.
  Inward investors add significant strength to our industrial economy. Overseas-owned manufacturers provide a third of all manufacturing investment, nearly a fifth of manufacturing employment, over one fifth of manufacturing output, and about two fifths of UK-manufactured exports. The Government are determined to maintain this enviable record. We must be competitive to attract inward investment.
  Britain has many attractions for the inward investor: a strong economy, a pro-business environment and the world language. We also have no foreign exchange controls or restrictions on sending profits abroad. Britain

  131
  offers the best available combination of a skilled and flexible work force, low taxes, lower production costs and a mature system of law. These are all good reasons for the United Kingdom's success.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my hon. Friend understand that this whole matter has caused a great deal of unhappiness in Cumbria? I have asked Campbell's to look at the matter again, but have not heard from the company. Will the Minister do the same?
  Mr. Taylor: With only seconds to go, all that I can tell my right hon. Friend is that I shall certainly reflect on
  132
  what he says—the more so since the question comes from him. I shall take his request very seriously indeed.
  The closure of the site in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is, I recognise, an unwelcome event. With the assistance of Government support, through regional selective assistance and other services on offer, I hope that another employer may be able to move into the plant, but let me emphasise again that the closure of the plant reflects Campbell's commercial decision, and it would be wrong for the Government to intervene.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Fundamental Expenditure Review
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government intend to implement the recommendation in the ODA's fundamental expenditure review, paragraph 13.37, that the ODA should reduce further contributions to UNICEF and the United Nations Development Programme; and what account was taken of UNICEF's management review. [18339]

  ODA mine clearance actions since April 1993 (as at 15 February 1996)

  £

  Country

  Project

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Afghanistan

  Halo: Mine clearance and mine awareness in the Shomali Valley

  416,131

  223,087

  275,000

  Afghanistan

  UNOCHA: Minefield surveying, planning and management; mine awareness; clearance and clearance Training

  500,000

  1,000,000

  750,000

  Angola

  MAG: Minefield survey and marking (4 months) Luena, Moxico province, Phase I (£223,243) and Phase II (£498,825)

  —

  722,068

  300,000

  Angola

  Halo: Recce, surveying and demining (5 months) Benguela/Kuito corridor Phase I (£259,243) and Phase II (£640,430 + £103,570)

  —

  899,430

  303,570

  Angola

  Central Mines Action Office within UCAH: two staff posts for one year + equipment and office support costs

  —

  226,029

  —

  Cambodia

  Halo: Mine clearance in Banteay Meanchey and Siem Reap

  277,142

  376,549

  198,350

  Cambodia

  MAG: Mine clearance in Battambang

  50,625

  316,876

  271,388

  Cambodia

  Support of Cambodian Mine Action Centre (through UNDP)

  1,133,333

  1,000,000

  —

  Northern Iraq

  MAG: Training and mine clearance in Halabja

  200,439

  —

  444,750

  Laos

  MAG: Mine eradication and community education programme in Xieng Khouang Province

  —

  —

  454,386

  Laos

  UNDP: 6 months x Programme Management Adviser (PMA) to support Lao national mine clearance programme +12 months x UN Volunteer to support PMA

  —

  —

  89,000

  Mozambique

  Halo: Demining of roads in Zambezia Province (Phases I and II)

  574,586

  414,832

  561,000

  Rwanda

  Support to UN training and equipment of Rwanda mine clearance teams: 20 x Schiebel 19/2 detectors

  —

  30,000

  —

  Somalia NW

  Rimfire: Mine clearance training; clearance management; mine awareness in and around Hargeisa

  —

  —

  —

  Yemen

  Support to UN appeal

  —

  100,000

  —

  2
  Mr. Hanley
  In autumn 1996 we shall be reviewing progress on reform in UN development agencies, including UNDP and UNICEF. This review will take account of evaluations such as UNICEF's management review.

  Meanwhile, we have just announced that our 1996 contributions to UNDP and UNICEF will be maintained at last year's levels.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has given to other countries who have suffered from military conflict in the clearance of land mines; and if he will make a statement. [18262]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Blanau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 19 February 1996 Official Report, column 24, as amended. A copy of the list of commitments has been placed in the Library of the House.
  3

  ODA mine clearance actions since April 1993 (as at 15 February 1996)

  £

  Country

  Project

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Global

  Defence Research Agency: 6 months research into mine detection

  —

  104,928

  —

  Global

  Contribution to UNDHA's Voluntary Trust Fund for Mine Clearance

  —

  500,000

  —

  Total

  —

  3,152,256

  5,913,799

  3,647,444

  Total of ODA's Bilateral mine clearance/awareness actions since April 1993

  12,713,499

DEFENCE

  Construction Skills Certification Scheme
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to ensure that personnel on its construction sites have construction skills certification scheme accreditation. [17436]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  MOD-appointed contractors have specific health and safety responsibilities and are expected to comply with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994.

  The competence of principal contractors is verified by a planning supervisor, a commercial appointment acting for the MOD. Verification of the accreditation of sub-contractors appointed by the principal contractor is the responsibility of the principal contractor concerned.

  Fire Safety (Wheelchairs)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the relative risk to(a) employees confirmed to wheelchairs and (b) other employees in the event of a fire within a Ministry of Defence building following implementation of his Department's new regulations for placing employees confined to wheelchairs in protected areas. [18048]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department's arrangements for employees confined to wheelchairs follow building regulations and British standards which apply alike to Government Departments and the private sector. No departmental assessment was therefore necessary.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to introduce rooms specified for employees confined to wheelchairs in the event of a fire. [18044]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  MOD complies with building regulations and British standards which apply equally to other Government Departments and the private sector. The Ministry is satisfied that as they stand these deal adequately with fireproof areas for the protection of all staff, including disabled people, and has no plans to introduce further measures.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the organisations(a) of disabled people and (b) representing disabled people his Department consulted before formulating its proposed regulations for evacuating disabled employees from Ministry of Defence buildings in the event of fire. [18043]
  4
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry's arrangements follow the regulations which apply alike to Government Departments and the private sector. The Ministry of Defence neither has, nor proposes to have, its own regulations for evacuating people from buildings in the event of fire.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of introducing fireproof rooms for employees confined to wheelchairs within his Department; and if the rooms will be introduced throughout his Department only in response to the number and distribution of employees already in employment that are confined to wheelchairs. [18045]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The need to protect all staff, including disabled people, in the event of fire is a fundamental part of building design embodied in the building regulations and British standards which apply to all MOD buildings. It cannot be presented as a separate cost. Specific local contingency plans are maintained to take account of the number and distribution of employees in wheelchairs.

  NAAFI
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce his implementation plan following the conclusion of the Dart report into the NAAFI; and if he will consult interested parties. [18511]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not the Government's intention to publish an implementation plan in regard to taking forward the recommendations of the Dart report into NAAFI. The plan, if it is to be successful, must be wholly owned and implemented by NAAFI's board of management.

  The steering group set up to advise Mr. Dart has accepted an implementation plan which will now need to be considered by the NAAFI Council. The NAAFI main board has been consulted in the development of the plan and accepted it in principle at their board meeting on 23 February 1996.

  As detailed work on the plan progresses consultations will be held with all relevant organisations.

  Homosexuality Policy Assessment
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the homosexuality policy assessment team has completed its assessment; and if he will make a statement. [19206]

  Mr. Soames
  The homosexuality policy assessment team has, following an exhaustive and wide ranging consultation exercise involving personnel from all three
  5
  services, together with staffs from overseas defence forces, now produced its report, copies which have today been placed in the Library of the House. The team's assessment is that any relaxation of the existing policy is likely to have a detrimental effect on operational effectiveness. For that reason, the Government will continue to support the existing policy of excluding homosexuals from the armed forces.

  The Ministry of Defence will shortly be submitting a paper of evidence, based on the team's report, to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill to assist in its deliberations on the subject.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what actions he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take as a result of the recommendations of the Scott report. [16958]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February,Official Report, columns 590–604.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultation he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16603]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

  Former Civil Servants
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes he plans to make to the rules on business appointments of former civil servants.[19075]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses, for consultation, the proposed text of the revised rules for civil servants. The substantive changes give effect to the recommendations of the Nolan committee on standards in public life by bringing special advisers within the system and by allowing the Prime Minister's advisory committee on business appointments to publicly announce the reasons for its decisions and to advise a civil servant that the acceptance of a particular appointment is inappropriate. We intend that the revised rules will come into effect on 1 April 1996 and will finalise the necessary amendments to the civil service management code in consultation with the Council of Civil Service Unions.

ENVIRONMENT

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he proposes to take to protect the United Kingdom coastline against oil pollution from merchant ships; and if he will make a statement. [17596]
  6
  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I are already taking forward relevant recommendations of the Donaldson report following the Braer accident as announced in the Government response to that report. In addition, we shall be working together with our right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in looking at the lessons to be learnt from the Sea Empress incident.

  Domestic Water Bills
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what research he has commissioned to establish the correlation between household income and domestic water bills based on(a) an unmeasured and (b) a measured charging basis; [18155]

  (2) what research he has evaluated from the Director General of Water Services relating to information supplied by water and sewage undertakers, in respect of the correlation between household income and domestic water and sewerage bills based on (a) an unmeasured and (b) a measured charging basis. [18154]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department and Ofwat jointly commissioned a report, "The Social Impact of Water Metering" from W. S. Atkins Planning and Management Consultants, which was published in August 1992. In addition, the Office of Water Services commissioned a report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, "The Distributional Effects of Different Methods of Charging Households for Water and Sewerage Services." That report was published in August 1993. Copies of both reports are in the Library.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what parties are now involved in discussions on the future of Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement. [18087]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Discussions are continuing between Wandsworth council, English Heritage and the owners on a master plan for the whole Battersea power station site. The Government would like to see the future development of this important site on the River Thames resolved as soon as possible.

  Drinking Water
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he will take in response to the House of Lords European Communities Select Committee fourth report, HL31 of Session 1995–96, with regard to lead in drinking water; [18495]

  (2) what action he plans in response to the conclusions of the House of Lords European Communities Select Committee fourth report, HL31 of Session 1995–96, in respect of the dosing of drinking water with chemicals; [18499]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the conclusion of the House of Lords European Communities Select Committee fourth report, HL31 of Session 1995–96, in

  7
  respect of the urgency with which the problems of removing lead from drinking water have been approached; [18497]

  (4) if he will implement a national strategy for the replacement of all domestic lead piping within a 15-year period. [18496]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend is considering the report from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities about Commission proposals for a revised drinking water directive, and will respond to it, including the recommendation for a national strategy, in due course.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he plans to remove lead from drinking water. [18498]

  Mr. Clappison
  Water companies have installed treatment to reduce lead levels at consumers' taps. In addition they have programmes for replacing lead communication pipes. Lead levels in drinking water supplies are now lower than they have ever been.

  Water and Sewerage Companies (Surplus Land)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 76–77, if he will make it his policy to allow public access to information regarding the projected and actual capital receipts of water and sewerage companies from the sale of surplus land. [18213]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Director General of Water Services has not since 1989 required water and sewerage companies to report projections of receipts from the sale of surplus land. Aggregate capital receipts from the sale of assets in the preceding financial year, including receipts from the sale of surplus land, are given in companies' annual reports.

  Safety Signs Directive
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what actions the Health and Safety Executive has taken in response to EC directive 92/58/EEC on safety signs in relation to United Kingdom brands of tampons; [18561]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that tampons containing man-made fibre display a safety warning sign on the packets to comply with EC directive 92/58/EEC; [18558]

  (3) if he will list the products which are required to comply with EC directive 92/58/EEC on safety signs. [18560]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The EC Safety Signs Directive 92/58/EEC was made under article 118A of the treaty of Rome. This article exclusively concerns health and safety requirements for the workplace. Article 1 of the directive specifically excludes signs used in the marketing of products, and therefore no action of the sort envisaged by the hon. Member is required.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions on EC directive 92/58/EEC on safety signs have been held(a) in the Council of Ministers and (b) with the Commission. [18564]
  8
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The European Commission first produced proposals in 1989 for a directive to replace an earlier, 1977, safety signs directive. A formal proposal to the Council of Ministers was published in early 1991, and common position was agreed by December of that year. The directive was then adopted by the Council of Ministers in June 1992.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to improve environmental protection following the grounding of the Sea Empress. [18468]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment will continue to liaise closely with the statutory environmental protection and nature conservation agencies. The agencies are currently advising local authorities on the best means of ensuring environmental protection in the wake of the Sea Empress oil spill. That advice is being given on the basis of experience and on the findings and recommendations given by the ecological steering groups on the oil spill in Shetland after the grounding of the Braer in January 1993. The success of measures undertaken to protect the environment, and specifically wildlife and habitats, will be reviewed in the light of experience gained in dealing with the current incident.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the next phase of the rough sleepers initiative. [19135]

  Mr. Curry
  The rough sleepers initiative which has operated in central London since 1990 has been an outstanding example of co-operation between Government and voluntary organisations to bring effective help to people in the greatest need. This partnership to tackle the problems of people sleeping rough in central London has helped thousands of people to start a new life away from the streets, and has prevented many more from having to sleep rough. When the rough sleepers initiative began, voluntary sector agencies estimated that between 1,000 and 2,000 people were sleeping rough in central London. The numbers now sleeping rough in this area have fallen to around 270 on any one night. This is a tremendous achievement.

  By the end of this month, the Government will have invested over £180 million through the initiative, providing at least 3,300 permanent homes, 950 short-term hostel places, 700 places in flats and houses leased from the private sector for up to three years, an annual winter shelter programme of up to 400 beds—with further emergency beds available during episodes of particularly severe weather—and, importantly, year-round outreach and resettlement work to engage people sleeping rough and to support them in moving to new accommodation.

  The White Paper "Our Future Homes: Opportunity, Choice, Responsibilities", published in June 1995, confirmed that the Government would continue a programme to help people sleeping rough in central London beyond March 1996, and would also consider

  9
  assisting the development of the rough sleepers initiative model in areas outside central London where rough sleeping could be demonstrated to be a major problem.

  In October 1995, the Government issued a consultation paper on future plans for the initiative. The paper invited views on a number of proposals for continuing the initiative in central London. It also asked local authorities outside central London to assess the extent of rough sleeping in their areas. 258 responses to the consultation document were received.

  Following analysis of those responses, I am publishing today a strategy paper, "Rough Sleepers Initiative, The Next Challenge", which sets out our plans for a third phase of the Initiative over the next three years. 1996–97 to 1998–99. The emphasis of the third phase will be on providing extra help for the hard core of people who have been sleeping rough for considerable periods of time, often because they suffer complex problems, such as mental ill health, alcohol or drug misuse, which require special care.

  My Department plans to make £73 million available over the next three years to fund the third phase of the rough sleepers initiative. In addition, we plan to make £25 million available over the same period in grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to voluntary sector agencies for the relief of homelessness.

  In central London, our plans for the third phase of the Initiative are to fund:

  the provision of at least 250 new homes providing permanent accommodation for people sleeping rough;

  up to 40 beds in permanent high care accommodation for the homeless mentally ill;

  up to 200 new beds in hostel accommodation;

  continued funding for some hostel and night shelter accommodation already funded under the initiative;

  ring-fencing of up to 80 beds in existing hostels, about 30 of which would be for clients with disruptive behaviour and 50 specifically for clients referred by outreach agencies;

  up to 30 beds in a new "wet" hostel for people sleeping rough who have drink problems;

  an annual programme of winter shelters for people at risk of sleeping rough during the coldest months of the year; and

  more effective outreach and resettlement work.

  Also, we plan to retain the clearing house system as a means of allocating permanent accommodation until at least March 1997; and to uphold the current criteria for access to permanent accommodation—people sleeping rough or with a clear history of sleeping rough.

  Responses to the consultation document did not provide clear, quantified evidence of a major problem with rough sleeping in any area beyond central London. Therefore, our plans for the rest of England will impact in two stages.

  First, we will extend the rough sleepers initiative to Bristol, the only area outside central London where a major rough sleeping problem has been demonstrated conclusively. Bristol city council is invited to form a consortium with voluntary sector organisations, the private sector, housing associations, the Housing Corporation, the police, health care providers and other relevant bodies. The consortium will be expected to agree a local strategy for targetting rough sleeping in Bristol, and to bid for Government resources.
  10
  Secondly, we will be proposing further evaluation of the extent of rough sleeping in 23 other areas where local authorities have identified a possible problem, before deciding whether there is a need to extend the initiative further. These areas are Basingstoke, Bath, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Brighton, Cambridge, Exeter, Gloucester, Leicester, Manchester, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Reading, Tunbridge Wells, York; and the London boroughs of Barnet, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond upon Thames, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.

  As part of the Government's strategy, the Department of Health is further developing the homeless mentally ill initiative to complement the extension of the RSI by making available £2 million per year form the mental illness specific grant—MISG. This nearly doubles the £2.2 million per year already spent from the MISG on this initiative, which has so far cost over £20 million. The additional resources will target both the care needs of those requiring long-term high care accommodation and will also enable specialist staff to provide support to those with mental heath problems in direct access hostels. This additional help to local authorities will enable the Government to build on the successes already achieved in central London and to develop services for homeless mentally ill people based on the lessons learned from the HMII in other centres.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that there is no necessity to sleep rough. What I am announcing today aims to achieve this.

  Copies of the strategy paper have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office. Copies of the responses may be viewed at the Department of the Environment's library.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11396]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Paid publicity expenditure by my Department—excluding agencies and non-departmental public bodies—is as follows:

  (a) 1979–80: [figures not available]

  (b) 1989–90: £31,500,000

  (c) 1991–92: £3,387,000

  (d) 1993–94: £12,108,000

  (e) 1994–95: £8,878,000

  (f) 1995–95:

  (i) To date: £4,902,700

  out of planned total expenditure for the year of £6,835,900.
  11
  Of this, expenditure on television, radio and newspaper advertising was as follows:

  1989–90: £19,810,000

  1991–92: £680,870

  1993–94: 5,149,000

  1994–95: £4,470,000

  1995–96:

  Expenditure to date £2,800,000

  The figure for 1989–90 incudes publicity costs associated with water privatisation. Figures for 1996—–97 are not yet available.

  Press relations are handled by members of the Government information service whose salaries are paid as part of the Department's annual running costs. Paid publicity is the most cost-effective way to raise public awareness and understanding of the Department's policies.

  Publicity expenditure by the Department's agencies is the responsibility of the respective chief executives. I have ask them to reply to the hon. Member direct as soon as possible. Expenditure by non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  Letter from R. D. Budden to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 8 February 1996.

  Sir Paul Beresford at The Department of the Environment asked Professor Rhind, the Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey, to let you have the information you requested about expenditure on advertising and press and public relations. Professor Rhind is currently away from the office on business and I am responding on his behalf.

  I regret that the figures for 1979–80 are not available but the remainder of the information is contained in the table below.

  £ thousand

  Advertising

  Press and public relations

  1989–90

  321.0

  825.5

  1991–92

  420.0

  828.3

  1993–94

  189.0

  890.4

  1994–95

  478.0

  940.3

  1995–961 2

  458.7

  858.4

  674.8

  1,030.0

  1996–97 (budget)

  748.0

  1,085.5

  1 To January 1996.

  2 Budget for year.

  The trend indicated by the table is reliable. However, in absolute terms, the figures are not always comparable, one year with another, owing to the constantly changing mix of activities which have been allocated to these accounting sub-heads, in turn reflecting the dynamic nature of the organisation.

  I hope this information satisfies your requirement.

  Letter from M.C. Buck to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 29 February 1996:

  The following is the information you require in relation to the QE2 Conference Centre:

  Year

  Advertising

  Press and Public Relations

  Total

  (A) 1979–80

  (Centre not in operation until 1986)

  Nil

  (B) 1989–90

  (figures not available)

  —

  (C) 1991–92

  £50,000

  £52,000

  £102,000

  (D) 1993–94

  £65,000

  £33,000

  £98,000

  (E) 1994–95

  £61,000

  £35,000

  £96,000

  (F) 1995–96

  £36,000

  £39,000

  £75,000

  I should be grateful if you would confirm receipt.
  12
  Letter from Roger Courtney to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 28 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply on behalf of the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to your recent Parliamentary Question about expenditure on publicity.

  The primary purpose of BRE's publicity expenditure is to promote the results from publicity funded research, to help secure maximum application. Thus our publicity expenditures include paying for articles to be drafted for publication in the trade press, participation in exhibitions, organisation of press events and publishing News of Construction Research. Expenditure in the years requested has been:

  (a) 1979–80: [figures not available]

  (b) 1989–90: [figures not available]

  (c) 1991–92: [figures not available]

  (d) 1993–4:£182.6k

  (e) 1994–95: £181.8k

  (f) 1995–96:

  (i) to date £185.4k

  (ii) estimated for whole year £202.0k

  (g) 1996–97: Budgets not yet set but likely to be similar to previous years

  No detailed breakdown between "advertising" and "press and public relations" is available but BRE does not promote its work through press advertising and therefore any advertising expenditure would be very small.

  These figures exclude recruitment advertising and publicity funded directly by the former Energy Efficiency Office in connection with their Best Practice Programme.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 12 February 1996:

  Further to the answer given by Sir Paul Beresford on 6 February 1996 in response to your Parliamentary Question about publicity costs, I am writing with details of the Agency's expenditure on the this front.

  The only costs incurred by the Planning inspectorate over the relevant period were £4,757 in 1995–96. These costs were incurred in connection with the launch of the Planning Inspectorate Journal No other publicity costs were incurred in any of the other periods mentioned, and none are planned for 1996–97.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the funding available for new rented housing association homes in 1996–97; if the expenditure levels in the 1993 autumn statement have been maintained for each local authority in Yorkshire and Humberside. [15485]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The 1996–97 funding allocations made by the Housing Corporation in Yorkshire and Humberside for the provision of new build rented housing by housing associations are as listed. The Housing Corporation's estimate of what the allocations may have been for 1996–97 if funding plans in the 1993 autumn statement had been maintained are also listed. These estimates can be only hypothetical since the actual allocations depend on a series of factors including the nature of the schemes submitted by housing associations, local housing needs, local authority involvement and value for money. In any one year, activity by housing associations in a particular authority area can vary according to the schemes proposed and approved.
  13

  Local Authority

  1996–97 Allocations (£million)

  Estimate of Allocations Based on 1993 Autumn Statement (£million)

  Barnsley

  1.00

  1.17

  Bradford

  6.94

  8.10

  Calderdale

  1.90

  2.22

  Craven

  0.22

  0.26

  Doncaster

  1.63

  1.90

  East Riding

  1.69

  1.97

  Hambleton

  0.44

  0.51

  Harrogate

  0.88

  1.03

  Kingston-on-Hull

  2.73

  3.19

  Kirklees

  3.49

  4.07

  Leeds

  5.96

  6.96

  North East Lincolnshire

  1.60

  1.87

  North Lincolnshire

  0.81

  0.95

  Richmondshire

  0.32

  0.37

  Rotherham

  0.71

  0.83

  Ryedale

  0.20

  0.23

  Scarborough

  0.86

  1.00

  Selby

  0.33

  0.39

  Sheffield

  4.32

  5.04

  Wakefield

  1.91

  2.23

  York

  0.89

  1.04

  Total

  38.83

  45.33

  In addition, the Housing Corporation also makes funding allocations for social lettings provided through the purchase and rehabilitation of properties; the corporation's new build programme for shared ownership; and the corporation's other home ownership initiatives which release existing social lettings for reletting to others in housing need. Local authorities may also support housing association developments with local authority housing association grant.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to review the current level of funding for research into Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement. [17514]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The DTI's support of research into Alzheimer's disease is funded through the research councils from the science budget. The councils determine research priorities and review funding as part of their annual business planning process.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used by the Medical Research Council to determine future research priorities; and if he will make a statement. [17513]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Medical Research Council has a broad remit across all areas of research relevant to maintaining and improving human health. The following broad criteria underpin its strategy for determining priorities; degree of scientific opportunity; such as the scope for high-quality, productive research; the needs of society, including opportunity for improving quality of life and for wealth creation; and the need to maintain a14
  reasonable balance of activity across key areas of MRC's remit, to co-ordinate with other funders and users and to promote interdisciplinarity and integration between basic and clinical research.

  Environmental Technology Companies
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of grant investment incentives awarded to British environmental industries in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [17598]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Camarthen (Mr. Williams) on 19 February 1996,Official Report, column 44. Grants made under schemes designed specifically to promote research and development in, or the takeup of, environment technologies totalled £2.6 million in the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to improve market access for British environmental technology companies; and if he will make a statement. [17595]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Joint DTI-DOE environmental markets unit, which is the lead sponsor division in Government for the environmental industry, is working with the industry to assist it in identifying the factors that affect the industry's competitiveness and in developing a long-term strategy for improved performance.

  Colliery Sales
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received on the sale of(a) Houghton main colliery and (b) Woolley colliery. [18432]

  Mr. Page
  I am not aware of any recent representations to my Department about these sites.

  British Coal (Property)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the British Coal property sites remaining in public ownership, and their acreage. [18431]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Mineworkers and Supervisors Pension Fund
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the trustees of the mineworkers and supervisors pension fund to assess their views before he has further negotiations with other parties interested in taking over the fund's management. [18664]

  Mr. Page
  Negotiations with parties interested in acquiring the management of the funds of the coal pension schemes are a matter for British Coal and the trustees. As guarantor, my consent is required under the schemes' rules to the appointment of a new fund manager.
  15
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government are seeking fresh bids for the management of the mineworkers and supervisors pension fund; and what is the estimated timetable. [18665]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for British coal and the trustees. I understand that discussions between British Coal and the trustees are continuing.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to public funds to date of efforts to sell the mineworkers and supervisors pension fund; and who will meet these costs. [18666]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for British Coal as the vendor of CINMan.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government will now make it a condition of the sale of the mineworkers and supervisors pension fund business that the buyer keep the existing CINMan team. [18667]

  Mr. Page
  It will be for the parties concerned to agree on the terms of any sale.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been his Department's involvement in the departure of the chief executive of CINMan; and who will fund his redundancy settlement. [18663]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has been kept informed of British Coal's plans for the re-organisation of CINMan. As guarantor of the coal pensions schemes, I have a common interest with the coal pensioners in ensuring the proper and effective management of the pension funds. The terms of the settlement are a matter for the parties concerned.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation he has had with the member of the European Commission responsible for regional development concerning the award of powers to member states to swap areas currently eligible for objective 2 status for new areas currently ineligible; and if he will make a statement. [18837]

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friends and I, and the UK permanent representative to the European Communities, have repeatedly and consistently expressed to Commissioner Wulf-Maties our view that the present list of areas eligible for grants under objective 2 of the EC structural funds should remain unchanged. We have not suggested any swapping of areas.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on each of the payments made from the Drawmops—decommissioning and waste management operational programmes—fund since its inception. [18064]

  Mr. Page
  The DTI has been funding United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority decommissioning and waste management work under the Drawmops programme since 1986—when the UKAEA was set up as a trading fund.
  16
  There is no separate Drawmops fund. The programme is paid for by an annual grant. Drawmops payments each year have been as follows:

  Year

  £ Million

  1986–87

  15.77

  1987–88

  28.92

  1988–89

  34.21

  1989–90

  42.61

  1990–91

  82.76

  1991–92

  104.62

  1992–93

  125.00

  1993–94

  120.80

  1994–95

  126.71

  .

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards conditional access systems for digital broadcasting. [16372]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government published proposals for the regulation of conditional access systems for digital television on 15 January 1996. The Government consider it necessary to set out a clear regulatory framework for the new markets in digital television. Our proposals also meet our obligations under the recent television standards directive.

  In contrast with current analogue broadcasts, all digital broadcasts—terrestrial, satellite and cable—will require access to the viewer's television via decoding receiver "set-top box". These receivers or boxes will also implement any conditional access service, which ensures that only viewers having a valid contract with a broadcaster or multiplexor can receive and view their programmes. As such these conditional access points will be a gateway between all viewers and all broadcasters for every delivery mechanism. Regulation is designed to prevent any abuse of this "gatekeeping" role and to discourage anti-competitive behaviour. It is also important that those who will be investing in the new markets have a clear understanding of the regulatory framework at the outset, so that they can invest with confidence in these long-term ventures.

  Our proposals are designed to stimulate early development of digital television in the UK. They are based on the existing framework for telecommunications licensing. Licences would be issued by the DTI and enforced by the Office of Telecommunications, in close co-operation with the Independent Television Commission. Copies of our proposals have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ariane 5 Programme
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the United Kingdom has joined the Ariane 5 programme; and when its first launch is due to take place. [19205]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am pleased to confirm that the UK has joined the Ariane 5 programme. The Government have committed £2.8 million to this project up to the year 2000. The European Space Agency plans to carry out the first launch of Ariane 5 on 15 May 1996 and its payload
  17
  will be the four-satellite ESA science mission, "Cluster". UK industry contributed significantly to Ariane 4, which captured 60 per cent. of the world market for launching commercial satellites. This new programme will enable UK companies to transfer their skills and to pursue competitive opportunities well into the next century.

  UK companies and UK science have helped to make Ariane 4 a success story by supplying specialist systems and components for the launcher and for ground control. Until now, the UK Government have chosen not to contribute to the next generation, Ariane 5, which was originally designed to launch the European spaceplane Hermes. However, welcoming the fact that Ariane 5 has since been more clearly matched to the worldwide needs of customers wanting to launch the next generation of communication and scientific satellites, we agreed last year to reconsider that earlier decision. As a full member of Ariane 5, we can support this important collaborative endeavour and ensure access to cost effective and highly reliable launch services. This is of particular importance to the UK as we are Europe's largest users of space-derived services. In addition, I have asked the British national space centre to consider exploitation of other flexible launch systems appropriate to small payloads for specific experiments.

  My announcement coincides with confirmation today by ESA and the French space agency, CNES, of the start of prepartions for the first launch of Ariane 5.

  I would like to congratulate those UK companies who are already suppliers to Arianespace and anticipate that my announcement today will lead to further opportunities for them and for other UK companies. This is a fine example of Government and industry working in partnership.

  Departmental Severance and Redundancy Scheme
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff from(a) the main Department and (b) each of its agencies have expressed an interest in his Department's current voluntary early severance and redundancy scheme. [17467]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]Several voluntary early retirement and severance schemes are currently in operation in that part of the Department that falls under gross running cost control. The total number of initial expressions of interest by staff in these schemes is approximately 1,600 but a significant proportion of these are likely to withdraw as the scheme progresses.

  I have asked the chief executives of the agencies within net running cost control—Companies House, the Patent Office and Radiocommunications Agency—to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Durham to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 2 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to explain the levels of interest in the current early retirement/severance schemes of Companies House.

  We received 16 expressions of interest in the current schemes which are shortly to be concluded.
  18
  Letter from J. C. Octon to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 2 March 1996:

  In the absence of the Comptroller General on official business I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question about voluntary early retirement and redundancy. The Patent Office is not taking part in the current Departmental schemes but has its own programmes for early retirement and voluntary severance. These have attracted 115 expressions of interest; 15 staff were released in 1995 and a further 81 will be leaving in the first 6 months of 1996. There have been no compulsory redundancies.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 2 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Written Parliamentary Question about the DTI's current voluntary early severance and redundancy scheme.

  The Agency has its own voluntary early retirement schemes. These concern (i) certain Senior and Higher Telecommunications Technical Officers and all seven staff who expressed interest will be retiring at the end of next month, and (ii) certain Personal Secretaries, none of whom expressed interest in early retirement.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Export Licences
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what applications for export licenses have been reviewed by his Department, and rejected on the grounds that the application indicated a possible nuclear end use for the export, under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1991 and Export of Goods (control) (Amendment No. 7) Order 1991. [18531]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are responsible for advising on the foreign policy implications of any proposed export of controlled goods referred to it by the Department of Trade and Industry. All applications are considered on a case-by-case basis. Final decision on the granting of export licences are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the proposals his Department has(a) made in the last five years and (b) proposes to make to the Council of Europe for changes in the text of articles of the European convention on human rights that specify protected rights. [17903]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made no proposals for any such changes within the last five years. Our present initiative relates to seeking improvements to the way in which the Strasbourg system works.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what derogations from the European convention on human rights have been advised to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe since 1970 as a result of(a) war and (b) public emergency; [17904]

  (2) which states have to date derogated from the European convention on human rights because of war or public emergency; and if he will show the date and cause of derogation. [17905]
  19
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Secretary General of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg acts as depository for notifications made under the convention. In the time available, we have not been able to obtain from him the information about derogations by other states party. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  In respect of the United Kingdom, the only derogations made since 1970 relate to certain powers of detention of persons suspected of terrorist acts connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Each derogation supersedes its predecessor by revising the references to reflect current legislation. The last such was on 23 March 1989.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been given to Her Majesty's embassy in Dublin in respect of advocacy of the union of Great Britain with Northern Ireland. [17906]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The embassy in Dublin is closely involved in explaining the Government's policies on Northern Ireland, including the Government's commitment to upholding the wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland.

  Princess of Wales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date HRH the Princess of Wales informed the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of her intention to make her most recent visit to Pakistan; [18879]

  (2) if his Department was consulted by HRH the Princess of Wale before her departure on her most recent visit to Pakistan. [18878]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Princess of Wales's household informed this Department on Thursday 15 February of her intention to make a private visit to Pakistan. We were not asked to express a view.

  Mr. Niaz Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the application by Mr. Niaz Ahamed (ref: IMM/C8853) to join his wife in the United Kingdom was referred to his Department for inquires to be made in the United Kingdom; on what date the request was received by his Department; when he expects to make a recommendation; and if he will make a statement. [18469]

  Mr. Hanley
  I will arrange for the migration and visa department correspondence unit to write to the hon. Member.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first consulted other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom. [16516]
  20
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: It is not the practice to give details of ministerial meetings.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to paragraphs D1.27 and D1.28 of the Scott report, if he will list those matters relating to the work of his Department since 1979 classified as matters about which successive Administrations have refused to answer. [17420]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, Column 592.

  South Africa
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding trade with South Africa and the reduction of trade barriers with that country. [16793]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Britain is in the lead in pressing for the liberalisation of trade between the EU and South Africa. South Africa responded positively to the EU's offer of June 1995 to negotiate a free trade area. We need to move forward on this urgently, with the goal of an agreement which will remove as many barriers to trade as possible.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with his European counterparts the extension of the Lome convention to South African trade. [16794]

  Mr. Davis
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Negotiations on South Africa's accession to the Lome convention are underway. These do not cover trade, which is being pursued separately: South Africa has responded positively to the EU's offer to negotiate a free trade area as part of a wider bilateral agreement on trade and co-operation.

  Hussein Kamel
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British representatives interviewed Hussein Kamel in Jordan and on what dates; and if the interview included questions on Mr. Kamel's involvement with Matrix Churchill. [17874]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: As I made clear in my letter of 2 October 1995 to the hon. Member, any such contacts would, by their nature, be confidential.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he will take as a result of the finding of the Scott inquiry that the letter written to the hon. Member referred to in paragraph D.4.43 concerning changes in the Government's policy on the supply of arms to Iraq was misleading. [16956]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.
  21
  The Government continue to take the view that the Howe guidelines were not changed. My right hon. Friend does not consider that further action is necessary.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes in respect of Scott's recommendation, K8.8, that the refusal to answer parliamentary questions on sales of arms or defence-related equipment to other countries should be re-examined. [17054]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade made clear in his speech in the House on 26 February, the Government will be considering the extent to which information about overseas defence sales can be publicly disclosed. A background note on "Ministerial Accountability and the Release of Information on Defence Related Exports" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he accepts the observation contained in the Scott report, section K3.3, that the DTI should not continue to be the export licensing authority in respect of goods whose export is primarily the policy concern of some other Department; and if he will make a statement. [17867]

  The Deputy Prime Minster
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sir Richard Scott recommends that consideration should be given as to whether the DTI should continue to be the export licence authority for the good concerned. The Government accept this and propose to publish a consultation paper on export control legislation and procedures. We will reach decisions on particular issues in the light of comments received, in response to the consultation paper.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants had direct sight of the Scott report as of 13 February. [15705]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  As of 13 February, only those required to assist the Government in preparing their response to the report, as agreed between the Government and the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he will take in response to the conclusion in section K4.1 of the Scott report that the role of Customs and Excise in policing and prosecuting export control offences is anomalous; and if he will make a statement. [17820]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade told the House in his speech during the debate on a motion for the adjournment of 26 February 1996, Official Report, column 597, the Government accept that there are benefits in Sir Richard Scott's recommendation that in future the role of the Attorney-General should include the exercise of increased supervision of Customs and Excise prosecutions in relation to export control matters. The Government are urgently developing proposals on the
  22
  precise nature and scope of the increased supervision, and the Attorney-General will be reporting to the House as soon as possible.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will enumerate and detail the shortcomings of Government in relation to the Scott report to which he referred during Prime Minister's Question Time on 22 February. [17670]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on Monday 26 February, Official Report, column 589.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to attend a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee; how many officials will attend with him; how many of these will be press officers; and what estimate he has made of the total cost involved. [18571]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend expects to attend shortly. Details of officials and costs are not yet known.

  Women's Issues
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the members of the Cabinet committee dealing with women's issues. [18251]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 18 July 1995, Official Report, columns 1005–12.

  Iraq (Exports)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will now make public details of the involvement of British companies in Iraq's(a) chemical, (b) nuclear and (c) biological and chemical warfare programmes as communicated to Her Majesty's Government by UNSCOM—the UN special commission on Iraq. [17322]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply. UNSCOM has communicated to us in confidence the names of a number of British companies which may have been involved in supplying items found at sites associated with Iraqi programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM does not make this information public, and it is important that we respect its confidence. UNSCOM considers that a high degree of confidentiality is essential to the successful performance of its work.

  Moreover, release of the names included in UNSCOM reports could unreasonably damage the reputation of British companies. It would be wrong to conclude without further analysis that companies whose names might appear in reports from UNSCOM have behaved

  23
  wrongfully. Should any evidence of wrongdoing emerge, it will be investigated and, if appropriate, will be a matter for the courts.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policies he presented to the Western European Union assembly in London on 23 February; and if he will place a copy of his speech in the Library. [18171]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Government's approach is set out in detail in a memorandum of 1 March 1995. Copies of this and of my right hon. Friend's speech to the WEU assembly have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates between 1987 and 1990 he met officials from the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and if he will make a statement. [17708]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  Advice about policy on export credit cover would normally be given to my right hon. Friends, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by Treasury officials. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to ascertain if, and on what dates, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may have met ECGD officials between 1987 and 1990. It would, however, have been unusual for Ministers to receive advice on export credit policy from officials other than those in their own Departments.

TRANSPORT

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that local organisations are able to reclaim from the polluter the cost of clean-up, after-care, research and monitoring; and if he will make a statement. [17660]

  Mr. Norris
  Compensation for cost incurred and economic loss suffered as a result of the oil pollution damage from the Sea Empress, including the costs of reasonable measures taken to prevent or minimise the damage, will be available from the shipowner's insurer and from the international oil pollution compensation fund, which is funded by levies on the oil industry. Temporary arrangements have been put in place to meet claims involving hardship.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the number of sea birds affected by oil originating from the Sea Empress. [18092]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.
  24
  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 4 March 1996.

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of sea birds affected by oil originating from the 'Sea Empress'.

  1216/95/96

  Reports received up to 28 February were that 3,806 sea birds has been affected by the SEA EMPRESS spill.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) sea birds and (b) other wildlife have been (i) killed and (ii) otherwise affected by oil originating from the Sea Empress. [18360]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 2 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of sea birds affected by oil originating from the 'Sea Empress'.

  Reports received up to 28 February were that:

  (i) 1,403 seabirds have died, but there are no reports of any wildlife deaths.

  (ii) 2,403 seabirds and 82 seals have been affected by the spill.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made to provide compensation to fishermen affected by the oil spill in Pembrokeshire. [18063]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: Compensation for cost incurred and economic loss suffered as a result of the oil pollution damage from the Sea Empress including the costs of reasonable measures taken to prevent or minimise the damage, will be available from the shipowner's insurer and from the international oil pollution compensation fund, which is funded by levies on the oil industry. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday, officials of relevant Government Departments have brokered an agreement which has enabled temporary arrangements to be put in place to meet claims involving hardship.

  Access to Trains (Disabled People)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision has been made by the Rail Regulator to allow for boarding and alighting from trains by disabled passengers. [17939]

  Mr. Watts
  As required by the Railways Act 1993, the Rail Regulator has produced a code of practice on meeting the needs of disabled passengers which covers recommendations for the design of rolling stock and stations. All train and station operators are required to submit for the regulator's approval, a disabled persons protection policy, based on this code of practice.

  Transport Policies and Programmes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reviews have taken place in the system of allocating funds to local authorities through the transport policies and programmes processing the last five years. [18165]
  25
  Mr. Norris
  The TPP system is constantly under review, in order to ensure that within the limits of public expenditure Government resources are targeted where they are most needed and where they give optimum value for money. The main changes that have taken place in the last five years are as follows:

  1991–92

  Resources transferred from the Department of the Environment's revenue support grant (RSG) system to my Department's transport supplementary grant (TSG) system for the assessment, strengthening, and structural maintenance of bridges.

  Funds were earmarked for the first time in the local transport settlement for road safety schemes.

  1992–93

  Further resources transferred from RSG for the structural maintenance of principal ("A") roads forming part of the primary route network.

  1993–94

  Further resources transferred to TSG for structural maintenance of other principal local roads.

  1994–95

  The package approach to funding local transport infrastructure was introduced.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what monitoring is undertaken by his Department of how those policies contained in the transport policies and programmes documents submitted to his Department by local highway authorities comply with the local authorities' appropriate development plans; [18163]

  (2) what monitoring is undertaken by his Department of how those transport policies contained in the transport policies and programme documents submitted to his Department by local highway authorities comply with PPG13. [18162]

  Mr. Norris
  The guidance we issue to local authorities makes it clear that the proposals they include in their transport policies and programme submissions are expected to be consistent with local structure and development plans, and with the guidance set out in PPG 13. Staff in my Department and in the Government offices for the regions look for evidence of this consistency when they are assessing local authorities' annual submissions.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the change in the level of pedestrian injuries which has resulted from the use of speed cameras. [18181]

  Mr. Norris
  National figures are not available. However, in the west London pilot area pedestrian casualties were reduced by 30 per cent.

  Drivers (Eyesight)
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a passenger service vehicle and required spectacles or contact lenses; [18285]
  26
  (2) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a passenger service vehicle and was blind in one eye; [18283]

  (3) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a heavy goods vehicle and required spectacles or contact lenses; [18284]

  (4) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a heavy goods vehicle and was blind in one eye. [18282]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on EU policy with regard to lorry drivers' eye tests without the use of spectacles. [18875]

  Mr. Norris
  Among the eyesight standards for drivers of lorries and buses set in the second EC directive on driving licences, which will come into force on 1 July 1996, is a requirement to meet an uncorrected acuity standard, that is, without glasses or contact lenses, of 0.05—equivalent to 3/60 on the Snellen scale. This differs from the regulations in force in the United Kingdom since 1983 only in being required of both eyes rather than one eye only.

  Rail Operating Licences
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the general authority to the Rail Regulator issued under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 prohibits him from granting licences to public sector operators other than subsidiaries of the British Railways Board; and if he will make a statement. [18486]

  Mr. Watts
  Both the Secretary of State and the regulator have statutory powers to grant licences under the Railways Act 1993. Decisions on the licensing of further public sector operators of passenger rail services can most appropriately be taken by the Secretary of State.

  Train Delays
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis compensation is paid to train operators for delays caused by engineering work not completed on schedule. [18485]

  Mr. Watts
  Train operators are paid compensation for overrunning engineering works through their track access performance regimes. These have been designed to ensure that, broadly, when action by Railtrack or its contractors causes disruption to services, passenger train operators should be able to recover from Railtrack liquidated damages reflecting a fair assessment of the economic losses which they have suffered.

  Railtrack
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to write off the debts of Railtrack; and what are the amounts of money to be written off. [18759]
  27
  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has a mix of different debts. The majority—around £1.2 billion—is owed to the national loans fund and cannot pass into the private sector with Railtrack. It will therefore need to be replaced with 28
  appropriate direct borrowings. Section 106 of the Railways Act 1993 contains the power for doing this. Final decisions on Railtrack's debt and capital structure will be taken in due course.
  29

TREASURY

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women have made (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three and (iv) four or more claims for unemployment-related benefits in the three year periods ending with each year from 1985 to 1995 in Great Britain; and what proportion each represents of those eligible to make such claims. [16251]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The table shows the numbers of men and women in Great Britain making one, two, three, or more than three claims for unemployment-related benefits in each three-year period since 1982. No information is available on the total number of people who might be eligible to make such claims but do not do so.

  Number of claimants (000's)

  Number of claims in three-year period

  Period

  1

  2

  3

  4+

  Total

  Men

  1993–1995

  2,596

  1,120

  468

  327

  4,512

  1992–1994

  2,787

  1,213

  498

  339

  4,838

  1991–1993

  2,926

  1,249

  512

  345

  5,033

  1990–1992

  2,829

  1,177

  480

  310

  4,796

  1989–1991

  2,450

  955

  367

  221

  3,994

  1988–1990

  2,117

  777

  293

  185

  3,371

  1987–1989

  2,162

  789

  298

  195

  3,444

  1986–1988

  2,365

  932

  381

  274

  3,953

  1985–1987

  1,666

  582

  235

  180

  2,663

  1984–1986

  2,669

  988

  413

  318

  4,388

  1983–1985

  2,592

  962

  403

  309

  4,268

  Women

  1993–1995

  1,506

  494

  170

  93

  2,263

  1992–1994

  1,585

  517

  182

  98

  2,383

  1991–1993

  1,649

  534

  187

  99

  2,468

  1990–1992

  1,604

  506

  168

  87

  2,365

  1989–1991

  1,420

  412

  128

  59

  2,019

  1988–1990

  1,356

  362

  104

  51

  1,873

  1987–1989

  1,460

  406

  128

  64

  2,058

  1986–1988

  1,660

  524

  179

  105

  2,466

  1985–1987

  1,000

  333

  126

  78

  1,537

  1984–1986

  1,721

  552

  200

  124

  2,596

  1983–1985

  1,679

  541

  196

  121

  2,537

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women have made (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (v) five or more claims for unemployment-related benefits in each standard region of (1) England, (2) Wales and (3) Scotland since April 1992; and what proportion each represents of those eligible to make such claims. [16252]

  Mrs. Knight
  The table shows the numbers of men and women in England, Wales and Scotland making one, two, three, four or more claims for unemployment-related benefits since April 1992. No information is available on the total number of people who might be eligible to make such claims but do not do so.
  30

  Number of claimants

  (thousands)

  Number previous claims since April 1992

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5+

  Total

  Men

  England

  2,459

  1,145

  533

  243

  211

  4,591

  Wales

  131

  68

  34

  16

  14

  263

  Scotland

  243

  127

  65

  34

  33

  503

  Great Britain

  2,834

  1,341

  632

  292

  258

  5,357

  Women

  England

  1,486

  532

  198

  78

  56

  2,350

  Wales

  81

  30

  11

  5

  4

  130

  Scotland

  163

  59

  25

  11

  9

  267

  Great Britain

  1,730

  621

  234

  94

  69

  2,747

  Redundancies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the redundancy rate per 1,000 employees for each broad occupational group using the data from the spring labour force survey from 1989 to 1995. [17796]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information is given for people made redundant in the three months prior to their labour force survey interview in the spring quarters between 1991 and 1995. Data for 1989 and 1990 are not available on a comparable basis. The figures reflect the occupation in which people were last employed, or, for those people in paid employment, the occupation that they were in at the time of the interview.

  Redundancy rates for 1,000 employees by occupation: Labour Force Survey, Great Britain

  Spring 1991

  Spring 1992

  Spring 1993

  Spring 1994

  Spring 1995

  Managers and administrators

  13.1

  12.2

  8.3

  9.8

  10.2

  Professional

  7.5

  6.3

  6.1

  4.5

  5.3

  Associate professional and technical

  13.2

  10.6

  8.5

  5.7

  8.1

  Clerical and secretarial

  14.3

  14.7

  9.9

  7.8

  10.6

  Craft and Related

  32.7

  27.9

  20.7

  18.2

  15.7

  Personal and protective Sales

  9.7

  6.9

  6.9

  5.8

  6.3

  Plant and machine operatives

  30.1

  22.8

  22.7

  16.1

  12.8

  Others

  19.5

  16.4

  14.6

  9.2

  10.4

  Leisure Industry (Seasonal Workers)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many seasonal workers are employed in the United Kingdom leisure and entertainment industry in the most recent year for which figures are available. [17789]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Seasonal employment by industry in Great Britain (thousands)1

  Standard industrial classification

  Q2 94

  Q3 94

  Q4 94

  Q1 95

  Q2 95

  Hotels and restaurants

  50

  33

  14

  22

  49

  Recreational, cultural and sporting activities

  31

  15

  3—

  10

  31

  31

  Seasonal employment by industry in Great Britain (thousands)1

  Standard industrial classification

  Q2 94

  Q3 94

  Q4 94

  Q1 95

  Q2 95

  Travel agencies, tour operators

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Total2

  83

  51

  20

  33

  83

  1 Unadjusted.

  2 Due to rounding may not equal sum of component industries.

  3 Denotes reliable estimate not available.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of unemployment(a) in the Greater London area and (b) in other regions in the United Kingdom. [17727]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Nomis gives information on claimant unemployment and the labour force survey quarterly bulletin gives information on ILO unemployment. Both are available from the House of Commons Library.

  Share Dividends
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of change in the average percentage dividends paid by industrial and commercial companies to their shareholders in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995. [17423]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on payments of dividends by industrial and commercial companies are published in the Central Statistical Office's "First Release—Quarterly National Accounts", and in the CSO publications, "UK Economic Accounts" and "Financial Statistics". These are available from the Library of the House. The latest seasonally adjusted data from 1994 and 1995 for industrial and commercial companies' dividends payments in pounds million, and dividends payments as a percentage of industrial and commercial companies gross trading profits, including stock appreciation, are as follows:

  Dividends payments (excluding payments to overseas parents)

  As a percentage of industrial and commercial companies' gross trading profits

  1994 Q1

  4,771

  20.7

  1994 Q2

  5,801

  23.2

  1994 Q3

  5,926

  22.9

  1994 Q4

  6,177

  22.6

  1995 Q1

  6,647

  25.0

  1995 Q2

  6,140

  22.1

  1995 Q3

  6,612

  24,3

  Data for 1995 Q4 will be published on 26 March 1996.

  Additionally, table 7.1G of the CSO publication "Financial Statistics" contains dividend yields.

  Devaluation
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of a32
  devaluation of the French franc equivalent to the devaluation of the pound sterling since 1992 on British trade with France. [17961]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  No estimate has been made of the impact of such a devaluation of the French franc on British trade with France.

  However, British trade with France depends on a wide range of factors, of which the exchange rate is only one, and it is difficult to disentangle the various influences. In any case, without knowing the circumstances surrounding a devaluation of the French franc, it would be impossible to estimate its likely effects.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of a devaluation of the German mark equivalent to the devaluation of the pound sterling since 1992 on British trade with Germany. [17960]

  Mrs. Knight
  No estimate has been made of the impact of such a devaluation of the German mark on British trade with Germany.

  However, British trade with Germany depends on a wide range of factors, of which the exchange rate is only one, and it is difficult to disentangle the various influences. In any case, without knowing the circumstances surrounding a devaluation of the German mark, it would be impossible to estimate its likely effects.

  Forte (Granada Takeover)
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the Exchequer resulting from the tax credit claimed by gross funds on the special dividend in the Granada takeover offer for Forte. [18346]

  Mr. Jack
  I am unable to comment on the tax affairs of particular taxpayers.

  Tax Reliefs
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons for the rules in respect of tax relief which apply to subscriptions to(a) the Royal College of Nursing and (b) Unison; and what plans he has to standardise the rules. [17890]

  Mr. Jack
  Tax relief may be given under section 201 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for subscriptions paid by employees to approved bodies. A body may be approved by the board of Inland Revenue if it meets the conditions laid down in the Act. The same conditions apply to all bodies. Whether a particular body meets the conditions is a matter between it and the Inland Revenue.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the average working hours per week of those in full-time employment in each of the last 15 years. [18506]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The table following gives the information available from the labour force survey.
  33

  Total average usual weekly hours worked by those in full-time employment (Great Britain, not seasonably adjusted)

  Hours worked

  Spring 1984

  44.8

  Spring 1985

  44.2

  Spring 1986

  44.5

  Spring 1987

  44.7

  Spring 1988

  44.9

  Spring 1989

  44.9

  Spring 1990

  44.9

  Spring 1991

  44.7

  Spring 1992

  44.5

  Spring 1993

  44.6

  Spring 1994

  44.8

  Spring 1995

  44.9

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he plans to make to the quotas for lending to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board. [19207]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The public works loan commissioners have issued a circular today notifying local authorities that there will be no change in the formula for calculating quotas for 1996–97.

  Copies of the circular have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each regulatory body for which he is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15743]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 20 February 1996]: The percentage of business people on the board of each regulatory body is as follows:

  Public Works Loan Board—58 per cent.

  Securities and Investment Board—66 per cent.

  VAT and duties tribunals—not known.

  Regulatory bodies have been defined for this purpose as those which either make, or apply, regulations. Business people have been taken to include all those working, or having previously worked, in the private sector, including those holding directorships, excluding non-executive directorships. The numbers of business people on the boards of the VAT and duties tribunals is not known, and the information could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he first consulted other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom.[16513]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: It is not the practice to give details of ministerial meetings.
  34

  Temporary Employment Contracts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to the number of people in the United Kingdom currently working under temporary employment contracts; how many have been supplied by employment agencies; and how many have been supplied by such agencies under contracts for service. [17352]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The latest available information from the labour force survey shows that in summer—June to August—1995, there were 1,739,000 temporary employees in the United Kingdom. Of these, 182,000 said that they were agency temping. No information is available about the number of temporary employees supplied by employment agencies under contracts of service.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish(a) the recommendations made by the Council of Ministers to the United Kingdom, arising from article 23 of the Single European Act, with reference to economic and monetary union and (b) the Government's response. [17479]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: Article 23 of the Single European Act, which inserted articles 130a to 130e on economic and social cohesion into the EEC treaty, does not provide for any recommendations relating to economic and monetary union.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 670, when he expects to be able to make a precise judgment on the impact of a single European currency on the United Kingdom economy. [1671]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: The United Kingdom will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time. A full assessment will be carried out nearer the time, before the decision is made.

  Manufacturing (Earnings)
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are average earnings in manufacturing industry. [17361]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: Underlying average earnings growth in the manufacturing sector was 4 per cent. in December 1995. This is the lowest rate since the series began in 1980.

  Transfers of Iraqi Funds
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what inquiries are being conducted into transfers of Iraqi funds from Geneva to London. [17857]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: None. We have no knowledge of any such transfers in breach of United Nations sanctions against

  35
  Iraq being made in the first instance, it would be for the Swiss authorities to investigate, as appropriate, any transfers suspected of involving a breach of sanctions.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18151]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]This information is not collected centrally. Staff are required only to inform their line manager in writing of any relevant private financial interest where this might give rise to a conflict of interest with their official dealings in their current post. These records are held by the relevant team leader while the individual is in that post. No central record is held.

  Tax Shortfall
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what shortfall he currently estimates in the level of tax collected by the Inland Revenue set against his Budget forecast. [18316]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]Outturn for the year to date is published in "Financial Statistics" monthly and provisional outturn will appear in the May 1996 edition. Final outturn for 1995–96 will be published in the board of Inland Revenue report late in the year.

  The forecast of Inland Revenue receipts for future years will be next updated in the summer economic forecast.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total expenditure by her Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16774]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department for Education and Employment was created in July 1995. The information given relates to those functions retained by this Department after that date.

  Expenditure information on schools is not held in the form requested.

  The department does not hold information in such detail for either further or higher education. This should be obtainable from the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council, which are responsible for the funding of further and higher institutions respectively.

  Expenditure in 1994–95 by the Employment Service was £1.8 million. Expenditure by the Isle of Wight training and enterprise council was £5 million.
  36

  Student Loans (Wales)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in Wales were granted student loans in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [17782]

  Mr. Forth
  In the academic year 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available, the number of loans taken out by students studying in Wales was 26,500. Corresponding figures for the academic years 1992–93 and 1993–94 were 15,900 and 20,500 respectively.

  Student Awards (Mid Glamorgan)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students of higher education received(a) mandatory awards and (b) discretionary awards from Mid Glamorgan county council in (i) 1995, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1991; and if she will make a statement. [17559]

  Mr. Forth
  In the academic year 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available, Mid Glamorgan local education authority made 6,620 new and continuing mandatory awards and 50 discretionary awards to higher education students. Corresponding figures for the academic year 1991–92 were 5,120 mandatory awards and 170 discretionary awards.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to assess specific skills shortages in information technology. [16407]

  Mr. Paice
  The annual skill needs in Britain survey, commissioned by the Department, collects information on the number of hard-to-fill vacancies across all occupations and on employers' views on the types of skills among their existing employees that need improving. The information technology industrial training organisation regularly carries out surveys of more specific skill shortages in information technology.

  Overseas Football Players
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on recent meetings between representatives of professional soccer authorities and members of his Department in respect of the granting of work permits to overseas soccer players wishing to play in the United Kingdom. [18175]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There has been a useful first meeting with representatives of the Football Association, Premier League, Football League and the Professional Footballers Association. Further meetings are to be held with the football bodies and it is hoped to complete the found of discussions shortly.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to meet authorities involved in professional soccer to discuss the issuing of work permits to overseas footballers seeking to play in Britain; and if she will make a statement. [18211]
  37
  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department is currently holding meetings with the representative bodies of professional football to discuss the criteria applying to the transfer between clubs of players holding work permits. I shall be announcing final decisions in outstanding cases shortly.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects a work permit to be issued to Mr. Marc Hottiger to allow him to play professional soccer in the United Kingdom. [18212]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Mr. Hottiger already holds a work permit to play professional football for Newcastle United. An application by Everton to employ Mr. Hottiger is under consideration and I hope to make a decision on this case shortly.

  Under-fives Education
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number and percentage of three and four-year-olds attending nursery and primary schools in(a) the Greater Manchester area and (b) in the borough of Rochdale in each of the last five years. [18259]

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

  Pupils under five years of age on 1 January in maintained nursery and primary schools in Greater Manchester metropolitan district (1) 1991–1995

  Position in January each year

  Greater Manchester

  Rochdale

  Year

  Pupils

  Pupils as a percentage of the population2

  Pupils

  Pupils as a percentage of the population2

  1991

  47,770

  67

  4,257

  61

  1992

  49,289

  68

  4,133

  64

  1993

  50,781

  69

  4,140

  66

  1994

  51,006

  68

  4,034

  64

  1995

  52,313

  69

  3,968

  65

  1 Includes the local education authority areas of Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan.

  2 Number of pupils under 5 years of age expressed as a percentage of the estimated population aged 3 and 4 at 31 December in the previous year.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures exist to ensure that the maximum hours of work for young people on youth training schemes are not exceeded. [18436]

  Mr. Paice
  The contract which the Department has with training and enterprise councils, who are responsible for administering Government training programmes, requires that the maximum weekly attendance for a non-employed trainee shall be 40 hours. TECs are required to ensure that there is a regular review of training arrangements with each individual trainee. There are no other restrictions on the maximum number of hours of work for young people on youth training schemes.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the maximum hours of work for young people on youth training schemes involving agricultural work. [18435]
  38
  Mr. Paice
  The contract that the Department has with training and enterprise councils, who are responsible for administering Government training programmes, requires that the maximum weekly attendance for a non-employed trainee shall be 40 hours, excluding one meal break per day. There are no other restrictions on the maximum number of hours of work for young people on youth training schemes.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the reserves held by each training and enterprise council in 1994–95. [18493]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 9 February 1996,Official Report, columns 381–82. This shows a list of training and enterprise councils and their accumulated reserves, as shown in their annual statutory audited accounts, at the end of the financial year 1994–95.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total expenditure by her Department in(a) Waveney, (b) Suffolk and (c) Norfolk in 1994–95; what it will be in 1995–96, broken down by category; and if she will make a statement. [17767]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department for Education and Employment was created in July 1995. The information relates to those functions retained by this Department after that date.

  Expenditure information on schools is not held centrally in the form requested.

  The Department does not hold information in such detail for either further or higher education. This should be obtainable from the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council, which are responsible for the funding of further and higher institutions respectively.

  Expenditure by the Employment Service

  £ million

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 provision

  Suffolk

  4.0

  3.6

  Norfolk including Waveney

  8.3

  9.4

  Expenditure by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs):-

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 provision

  Suffolk TEC

  12.9

  13.9

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  19.4

  19.8

  39

  After-school Places
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many after-school places were provided in England for each year since 1990. [18246]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The out-of-school child care initiative was introduced in April 1993. In the financial year 1993–94, 4,000 places were created, in 1994–95 22,000 places were created and in 1995–96, 27,000 places had been created by January 1996. The total created since the initiative began is 53,000.

  Experimental Nuclear Reactor (Imperial College)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions have been made for the decommissioning of the experimental nuclear reactor at Imperial college. [18067]

  Mr. Forth
  No provisions have been made for the decommissioning of this reactor. If Imperial college did decide to decommission a reactor which is central to its research activity, it would be for the college to make the necessary provisions.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list funding contributions(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of total funding from the European social fund to each training and enterprise council in England and Wales for the (i) youth training, (ii) youth credits, (iii) modern apprenticeships and (iv) training for work programmes. [18758]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances the Employment Service will be able to vary the signing on time of a claimant in receipt of jobseeker's allowance so that such a claimant is able to attend a part-time training or education course. [18756]

  Mr. Forth
  The Employment Service will normally make arrangements so that a person in receipt of jobseeker's allowance who is a part-time student can attend the local office at a time which does not conflict with the hours of the course. Jobseekers should nevertheless be willing and able to arrange the hours of courses of part-time study in order to take up full-time employment at times falling within their pattern of availability.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if existing claimants will be required to complete a jobsearch plan and jobseeker's agreement when jobseeker's allowance is introduced. [18748]

  Mr. Forth
  Existing unemployed claimants is already in receipt of unemployment benefit or income support when JSA is introduced in October 1996 will be treated 40
  as having made a jobseeker's agreement until, at the first suitable opportunity, an actual agreement is made or until their claim is terminated, whichever is the earlier.

  In drawing up the agreement with existing claimants, Employment Service staff will assess whether the information already provided by the client for their claim to unemployment benefit or income support is sufficient for completing an agreement. Where the information is not sufficient or where the adviser and jobseeeker are not able to agree an agreement—for example because of a dispute about a pattern of availability—ES staff will be advised to ask the jobseeker to complete a "Helping You Back to Work" form, previously referred to as the jobsearch plan.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) in what circumstances a claimant in receipt of jobseekers' allowance participating in a part-time education or training course will not be required to attend a compulsory restart, workwise worklink course or jobplan workshop; and what structures will be in place to enable such claimants to maintain their course place; [18750]

  (2) in what circumstances an unemployed person participating in a part-time education or training course will not be directed to attend a Government employment or training programme under the jobseeker's direction; and what facilities or arrangements will apply to those who are so directed to maintain part-time study. [18753]

  Mr. Forth
  The first priority of people claiming jobseeker's allowance must be to return to work. Jobseekers who are claiming JSA and studying part time will continue to be required to attend mandatory Employment Service programmes, which are designed to help them back to work. In addition, they may be given a jobseeker's direction to attend a Government employment or training programme with a view to assisting them to find employment or improving their prospects of being employed. It will be for an independent adjudication officer to decide whether such a direction was reasonable in the jobseeker's circumstances. No sanction will be imposed if a jobseeker shows good cause for refusing or failing to attend a mandatory programme or to carry out a jobseeker's direction.

  Where possible, the Employment Service will seek to make arrangements which are reasonable in view of the jobseeker's circumstances and study pattern. This may involve rescheduling a stage of the programme to accommodate their study commitments, or by trying to arrange attendance during college holidays. Courses of study are also becoming more flexible, and where necessary jobseekers will be expected to re-arrange the hours they study so that they can attend the programme.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances participation in a part-time education or training course will count as one of the job seeking steps necessary to satisfy the actively seeking work condition of the jobseeker's allowance. [18754]

  Mr. Forth
  The JSA regulations set out a non-exhaustive list of steps that it is reasonable for a
  41
  jobseeker to be expected to have to take actively to seek employment. Participation in a part-time education or training course is not included in that list. However, any time during which a person was participating as a part-time student in an employment-related course, as defined in the regulations, is included in the regulations in a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that shall be taken into account in determining whether a person has taken sufficient steps to meet the entitlement condition.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a claimant will be able to study part-time and claim jobseeker's allowance in circumstances where it is not possible for him to rearrange course times in order to take up employment at times falling within his pattern of availability and he undertakes to cease the course immediately suitable employment becomes available. [18757]

  Mr. Forth
  Jobseekers who claim jobseeker's allowance will be able to study part-time so long as they remain available for and actively seeking employment. They do not have to re-arrange their course but they should be prepared to leave their course to take a job if one becomes available.

  There will also be an additional concession for certain jobseekers—broadly those who have been unemployed for three months or more, where no aspect of their study will be taken into account when deciding whether they are available for work if they are willing and able to rearrange their course to take a job in the hours that they have agreed they will be available for work in their jobseeker's agreement. If it is not possible for jobseekers to rearrange their course then this concession will not apply and they will be subject to the same rules as other jobseekers who study part time.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the maximum number of hours that unemployed people in receipt of jobseeker's allowance will be able to spend on training and education courses exclusively funded by the European social fund. [18755]

  Mr. Forth
  People receiving jobseeker's allowance will be able to study part time so long as they remain available for and actively seeking employment.

  No courses are exclusively funded by the European social fund. It part funds courses jointly with a wide range of organisations. Under JSA, if a course is part funded by the Further Education Funding Councils for England and Wales and by the ESF it will be regarded as part time so long as it is of 16 or fewer guided learning hours a week. There will be similar arrangements for further education courses in Scotland.

  There will be no change to the rules for courses part funded by the ESF and any other organisation. As now, a decision will be made about whether the course is full or part time based on all the information available, including any provided by the course provider.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements will 42
  be introduced for reviews by Employment Service staff of jobseeker's agreements completed by postal claimants. [18749]

  Mr. Forth
  Most jobseekers will be required to attend a jobcentre to make a claim for a jobseeker's allowance and to sign a jobseeker's agreement. Thereafter they will be required to attend a jobcentre every fortnight to sign a declaration that they have been available for employment, have been actively seeking employment and that their circumstances have not changed. Some jobseekers, as now, will not be required to attend fortnightly but will be able to provide such a signed declaration by post. Postal signers will be seen by an Employment Service adviser every 13 weeks. At that time the employment adviser and jobseeker will review the jobseeker's circumstances and determine whether the jobseeker's agreement that is in effect should be varied.

  In certain circumstances some jobseekers will be able to make a claim for a jobseeker's allowance by post. They will be treated as having made a jobseeker's agreement until they have an interview with an employment adviser to draw up an agreement.

  Grant-maintained Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when grant-maintained schools were transferred from the public sector to the private sector in respect of their treatment over capital expenditure. [18834]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Grant-maintained schools have always been considered to be private sector institutions.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what undertakings she has given to grant-maintained school governors in respect of increasing the annual maintenance grant to cover the cost of any private sector loans secured by grant-maintained schools. [18835]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. Except in areas where the common funding formula is in operation, annual maintenance grant for grant-maintained schools will continue to be calculated with reference to the local management of schools scheme of the local education authority in which the school is situated. In CFF areas, AMG is derived from the standard spending assessment for education for the authority in which the schools are situated.

  Jobfinder's Grant
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications for a jobfinder's grant have been(a) approved and (b) not approved; and what were the gross weekly wages of those approved in gradations of £10 for (i) each standard region and (ii) Great Britain. [18746]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  43
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the Jobfinder's Grant.

  I attach a table (Table 1) showing how many Jobfinder's Grants have been applied for and have been awarded nationally and by Employment Service region since the programme was introduced on 18 April (22 May in Yorkshire and Humberside region, where a more flexible variant to the programme is being piloted) up to 2 February 1996, which is the latest date for which figures are available.

  I also attach a table (Table 2) showing the latest information about the gross weekly wage level of grant recipients.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 2: Jobfinder's Grant

  Wage

  London and South-east

  South-west

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North-west

  Scotland

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  National total

  £10–19

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  £20–29

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  £30–39

  4

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  3

  13

  £40–49

  7

  2

  5

  1

  5

  1

  2

  24

  8

  55

  £50–59

  9

  9

  12

  11

  20

  0

  10

  46

  22

  139

  £60–69

  25

  11

  13

  23

  31

  4

  11

  28

  22

  168

  £70–79

  25

  14

  7

  21

  27

  5

  28

  26

  31

  184

  £80–89

  33

  23

  21

  45

  43

  9

  50

  25

  40

  289

  £90–99

  54

  45

  29

  36

  71

  29

  44

  21

  54

  383

  £100–109

  105

  56

  49

  95

  95

  41

  76

  44

  133

  694

  £110–119

  90

  34

  38

  89

  80

  73

  64

  29

  95

  592

  £120–129

  196

  115

  109

  266

  262

  148

  119

  96

  274

  1,585

  £130–139

  192

  86

  62

  178

  196

  75

  113

  50

  186

  1,138

  £140–149

  277

  125

  121

  259

  243

  91

  82

  47

  292

  1,537

  £150–159

  90

  24

  21

  60

  41

  23

  14

  54

  85

  412

  £160–169

  1

  0

  1

  3

  2

  4

  1

  53

  2

  67

  £170–179

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  19

  0

  24

  £180–189

  2

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  23

  2

  31

  £190–199

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  7

  £200–209

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  36

  0

  39

  £210–219

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  10

  £220–229

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  8

  £230–239

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  6

  £240–249

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  7

  £250–259

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  5

  £260–269

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  £270–279

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  £280–289

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  £290–299

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  £300+

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  1,115

  549

  488

  1,091

  1,119

  505

  616

  668

  1,250

  7,401

  1. The source of this information is a database held by the company contracted to evaluate the Jobfinder's Grant, on the basis of 7,401 grant recipients inputted to the database up to the end of December 1995.

  2. In Yorkshire and Humberside variations on the national scheme are being piloted, allowing part-time jobs and jobs paying up to £250 a week to qualify for the award of a grant.

  School Premises Regulations
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of the last quinquennial review of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. [18831]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The regulations were reviewed as part of the normal work of the Department and it would not be possible to separate out the cost of the work involved.

  Travel to Interviews Scheme
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what have been(a) the
  44

  Table 1: Jobfinder's Grant

  Grants applied for1

  Grants awarded1

  London and South East

  2,593

  1,483

  South West

  1,199

  730

  Wales

  939

  585

  West Midlands

  2,325

  1,448

  North West

  2,238

  1,389

  Scotland

  1,344

  669

  Northern

  1,268

  837

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,515

  1,159

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,579

  1,491

  National total

  16,000

  9,791

  1 To 2 February.

  number of applications received, (b) the number approved, (c) the number not approved, (d) the average level of each award and (e) the total expenditure in each year of operation of the travel to interviews scheme; and what is the projected expenditure and number of awards in 1996–97 shown by (i) standard region and (ii) in total. [18747]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  45
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS).

  The information you requested is as follows:—

  Travel to Interview Scheme (numbers assisted and associated costs)

  Year

  Number of applications

  Number helped

  Number rejected

  Total cost £

  Average cost £

  1986–87

  28,938

  21,765

  7,173

  500,000

  22.97

  1987–88

  45,785

  34,136

  11,649

  946,000

  27.72

  1988–89

  41,116

  32,833

  8,823

  920,000

  28.02

  1989–90

  32,953

  25,736

  7,217

  682,000

  26.50

  1990–91

  29,178

  22,112

  7,066

  500,000

  22.61

  1991–92

  41,676

  31,004

  10,672

  934,000

  30.10

  1992–93

  59,073

  45,240

  13,833

  1,520,000

  32.85

  1993–94

  65,598

  50,373

  15,288

  1,790,000

  35.53

  1994–95

  66,716

  51,140

  15,576

  1,808,000

  35.35

  1995–96

  143,310

  133,580

  19,730

  11,315,000

  39.16

  1 Figures up to end December 1995—year end statistics unavailable until mid-April 1996.

  The following chart gives the anticipated figures and spend for the regions for 1996–97. Unlike some other programmes, TIS has to respond to demand. The provision and numbers we expect to help are, therefore, based on best estimates and may fluctuate according to demand and variations in transport costs.

  Region

  Allocation

  Number helped

  East Midlands

  173,907

  4,241

  London and South East

  261,630

  6,381

  North West

  207,765

  5,067

  Northern

  152,361

  3,716

  Scotland

  173,907

  4,241

  South West

  195,453

  4,767

  Wales

  107,730

  2,627

  West Midlands

  93,879

  2,289

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  172,368

  4,204

  Total

  1,539,000

  37,533

  I hope this is helpful.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which serving civil servants in her Department are currently directors of companies; and if she will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18135]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: I am not aware that there are any serving civil servants in the Department currently holding or receiving remuneration in respect of directorships for either developmental or ex-officio purposes. Details of privately held directorships are not held centrally by the Department.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the total number and (b) the total value of discretionary awards to (i) students aged 16 to 18 years, and (ii) students aged 19 years and over in the last year for which figures are available. [18751]
  46
  Mr. Forth
  The available information for the academic year 1993–94, the latest for which data are available, is given in the table:

  Discretionary Awards in England and Wales Academic Year 1993–94

  Number of awards (000s)

  Total expenditure (£ million)

  All discretionary awards of which:

  222.2

  184.1

  Further education students aged 16–18

  124.6

  51.9

  Further education students aged 19 and over

  82.3

  90.6

  Higher education

  15.4

  41.6

  Source:

  F503G

  Constituent parts may not add to totals due to roundings.

  Age of student at the beginning of the academic year.

  Age breakdown not available.

  Special Educational Needs Tribunal
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the present membership of the special educational needs tribunal panel, indicating(a) the experience and (b) the qualifications on which they were selected for appointment. [17332]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The special educational needs tribunal has 32 legally qualified chairmen and 89 lay members. Their names are listed in appendix 3 of the president's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appoints lay members of the SEN tribunal. Lay members are required to have knowledge and experience at a strategic or operational level of either local government or special educational needs. The chairmen of the tribunal are required to have a seven-year legal qualification and are appointed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17443]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office has one contract with EDS which began in 1994. It is currently valid for a period of 12 months. The annual value of the contract is below £50,000 per annum.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill will meet the recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott in paragraph K5.1. [17234]
  47
  Mr. Howard
  I am considering the implications of these recommendations for the Bill. I hope to be able to announce my conclusions in time for changes to be made to the Bill, if any changes appear to be necessary.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16602]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature of the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what salary plus bonus is being offered for the position of Director General of the Prison Service. [17703]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to him on 27 February,Official Report, column 417.

  Coroners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the standard method of compiling verbatim transcripts in coroners courts; and what is the fee to bereaved relatives for a full transcript. [18194]

  Mr. Sackville
  Coroners are required, under the Coroners' Rules 1984, to take notes of evidence at the inquest. In many instances a tape-recording of the proceedings is taken. The fee for a transcript depends on the length of the document and is determined in accordance with the fees set out in the Coroners' Records (Fees for Copies) Rules 1982, as amended.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home department (1) how many cases were referred back by coroners to the Crown Prosecution service or police for further investigation or consideration of a more serious charge in each of the last 10 years; [18189]

  (2) how many inquests into road deaths in the last year had to be adjourned because the driver responsible for the death did not attend; how many inquests went ahead without the driver and at how many inquests the drivers were allowed to remain silent; [18192]

  (3) how many inquests into road deaths have been held after summary charges have been made; [18184]

  (4) how many inquests into road deaths have been held with juries, under section 8(3) (d) of the Coroners Act 1988; [18183]

  (5) how many inquests into road deaths were held (a) after six months and (b) after one year from the date of death in each of the last 10 years; [18190]

  (6) what were the percentages of (a) accidental death, (b) unlawful killing and (c) open verdicts in respect of road deaths in each of the last 10 years. [18188]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests were reconvened after a48
  guilty plea in the crown court in the past 10 years; how many were not reconvened; and what were the reasons for not reconvening inquests. [18186]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information regarding the number of adjourned inquests which were resumed, or not resumed, is not held centrally. On conclusion of the relevant criminal proceedings, or beforehand, if notified by the Director of Public Prosecutions that it is open to him to do so, a coroner may resume an adjourned inquest when, in his opinion, there is sufficient cause to do so.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the consultative procedure in respect of which statistics relating to inquests should be published by his office; and how frequently the types of statistics published are reviewed. [18185]

  Mr. Sackville
  Any proposals for changes or additions would first be discussed with senior coroners. The collection of statistics is reviewed each year.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which documents bereaved families are entitled before an inquest to enable them or their legal representatives to ask pertinent questions relating to the death. [18193]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no general procedure in coroners' courts for documents to be released to interested persons in advance of the inquest.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training coroners receive in respect of developments in road safety. [18195]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Home Office provides regular training courses for coroners, dealing with a range of issues relevant to the discharge of their duties. From time to time these courses can be expected to include matters concerning road deaths.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recommendations for action by city or county councils have been issued by coroners in the last 10 years; and what steps have been taken to ensure these recommendations were carried out. [18191]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not held centrally. It is for the person or authority to whom the coroner reports the matter to consider what action should be taken.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints procedures applies in relation to coroners failing to act in accordance with procedures laid down in the Coroners Act 1988; and which Home Office department carries out inquiries into complaints. [18187]

  Mr. Sackville
  Coroner's decisions or their conduct of proceedings may be challenged in the High Court by means of a statutory procedure or judicial review. Complaints concerning a coroner's non-judicial conduct may be referred to the Home Office for inquiry into the matter on a non-statutory basis. If the investigation reveals a clear instance of grounds for dismissal, the matter will be referred to the Lord Chancellor's Department since my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor alone has the power to dismiss a coroner from office for inability or misbehaviour in the discharge of his duties.
  49

  Entry Permission
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when Mr. Namir I. D. A1-Nainir of 2 Stratford place, London, an Iraqi citizen(a) entered and (b) left the United Kingdom; what were the nature and terms of his entry permission; and if deportation proceedings were made against him; [17926]

  (2) when Dr. Fadel Kadhum of 2 Stratford place, London, (a) entered and (b) left the United Kingdom; what were the nature and terms of his entry permission; and if deportation proceedings were made against him. [17927]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  It is not normal Home Office policy to disclose information relating to individual foreign nationals to third parties, unless the individuals concerned or their representatives choose to make details public themselves. However, if the hon. Member wishes to write to me explaining his interest in these two persons I will give the matter further consideration.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales have a race relations committee. [18085]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about race relation committees in prisons.

  128 establishments in England and Wales have Race Relations Management Teams. Some of these teams each cover two establishments, and all establishments in England and Wales are covered by a Race Relations Team.

  Prison Ombudsman
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been referred to the prison ombudsman since his appointment. [18083]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The prison ombudsman had received 2,327 letters of complaint by 27 February 1996, of which 620 were eligible for investigation by his office; the eligibility of a further 121 was being considered. Investigations into 463 complaints have now been completed and the complaint upheld on 201 occasions. In a further 42 cases the complaint was resolved or withdrawn during the course of the investigation.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure by his Department in(a) Waveney and (b) Suffolk in 1994–95; what it will be in 1995–96, broken down by category; and if he will make a statement. [17842]

  Mr. Howard
  The table lists Home Office expenditure in Suffolk in 1994–95 and 1995–96.
  50

  £000

  1994–95

  11995–96

  Police grants to county council and police authority

  29,915

  29,886

  Probation grants to county council

  3,040

  3,210

  Civil defence grants to county council and police authority

  230

  215

  Voluntary Services

  3

  1

  Crime Prevention Grants

  100

  —

  Section 11 (ethnic minorities) grants to county council

  266

  216

  Immigration Service

  460

  502

  Prison Service

  29,508

  28,609

  Total

  63,522

  62,639

  1 Estimated.

  Home Office grants to the county council and police authority are generally not earmarked for particular areas of the county. Of the totals above, only Prison Service expenditure of £8,193,000 (1994–95) and £8,130,000 (1995–96) can be identified as spent specifically in Waveney.

  Peter Samuel Cook
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations have been made by the Parole Board in respect of Peter Samuel Cook. [17919]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A discretionary lifer panel of the Parole Board considered Mr. Cook's case on 6 June 1995. The panel recommended that he should be transferred to a category D—open—prison. This recommendation has been accepted and Mr. Cook is now waiting to be transferred.

  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Peter Samuel Cook has received(a) treatment and (b) therapy while he has been in prison. [17921]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about Mr. Peter Samuel Cook.

  Throughout Mr. Cook's sentence the Prison Service has sought to ensure, as far as possible, that appropriate therapy and treatment has been made available to him.

  Rapists
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) treatments and

  51
  (b) therapies are made available to convicted rapists whilst they are in prison. [17920]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about treatments and therapies available to convicted rapists.

  Since 1992 the Prison Service has been running a cognitive behavioural treatment programme for sex offenders, which is open to both rapists and child abusers. The programme is run in 22 prisons which provide treatment for about 500 prisoners a year.

  Open Prison Transfers
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a risk assessment is carried out on all prisoners prior to their transfer to open prisons in respect of their contact with the local residential population. [17922]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director general from the office, to reply to your recent Question about risk assessment on all prisoners prior to their transfer to open prisons in respect of their contact with the local residential population.

  The arrangements for temporary release on licence, including the criteria for eligibility and risk assessment, are set out in Instruction to Governors 36/1995 copies of which are available in the Library.

  Life sentence prisoners must be recommended by the Parole Board and approved by Ministers before they are allocated to open prisons. A full risk assessment is undertaken before life sentence prisoners are approved for release on temporary licence from open prisons into the community.

  Prisoners serving determinate sentences who are eligible for release on temporary licence must also satisfy a mandatory risk assessment.

  Terrorist Incidents
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates terrorist incidents ascribed to the IRA have taken place on the British mainland for each year since 1980. [18744]

  Mr. Howard
  The information available relates to acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland as defined in section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Until 1989 only those incidents which caused death or injury were recorded.

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  2 December 1980

  Princess Louise Regiment Territorial Army Centre, Hammersmith Road, London W6

  Device exploded injuring five people

  52

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  10 October 1981

  Ebury Bridge Road, London SW1

  Device exploded killing two people and injuring 39

  17 October 1981

  London SE21

  One person injured in an explosion

  26 October 1981

  Wimpy Bar, Oxford Street, London W1

  One person killed in an explosion

  23 November 1981

  Royal Artillery HQ, Government House, Woolwich New Road, London SE18

  Device exploded injuring two people

  20 July 1982

  South Carriage Road, Hyde Park, London W1 Regents Park, London NW1

  Device exploded killing four people and injuring 28 Device exploded killing seven people and injuring 31

  10 December 1983

  Royal Artillery Barracks, Repository Road, London SE18

  Device exploded injuring three people

  17 December 1983

  Outside Harrods, Knightsbridge, London SW3

  Six people were killed and 91 injured in an explosion

  25 December 1983

  Orchard Street, London W1

  Device exploded injuring two people

  12 October 1984

  Grand Hotel, Brighton, Sussex

  Device exploded during the Conservative Party Conference killing five people and injuring 30 others

  15/16 August 1987

  Various

  Postal devices were sent to six senior civil servants. No injuries

  1 August 1988

  Inglis Barracks, London SW7

  Device exploded killing one person and injuring eight others

  20 February 1989

  Ternhill Barracks, Shropshire

  One person injured in an explosion

  22 September 1989

  Royal Marines School of Music, North Barracks, Deal, Kent

  Device exploded killing 11 and injuring 21 others

  15 November 1989

  Kensington

  Device discovered and defused. No injuries

  18 November 1989

  Married Quarters, Colchester

  Device attached to car exploded injuring two people

  16 January 1990

  Army HQ, SE District, Aldershot

  Postal device discovered and defused—No injuries

  20 February 1990

  Combined Services Recruitment Centre, Rutland Street, Leicester

  Device attached to a vehicle exploded nearby injuring two people

  25 February 1990

  Army Recruiting Office, New Road, Halifax

  Device exploded. No injuries

  14 May 1990

  Service Education Centre, Eltham, S London SE9

  Device exploded injuring five people

  16 May 1990

  Army Recruiting Centre, Wembley, Middlesex

  Device exploded killing one person and injuring four others

  1 June 1990

  Lichfield Railway Station, Staffordshire

  One person was killed and two others injured in a shooting incident

  53

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  9 June 1990

  Honourable Artillery HQ, City Road, London EC1

  19 people were injured in an explosion

  12 June 1990

  Hampshire

  Device discovered and defused. No injuries

  21 June 1990

  RAF Stanmore Park, Uxbridge

  Device exploded. No injuries

  25 June 1990

  Carlton Club, St. James, London SW1

  Bomb exploded injuring 20 people

  6 July 1990

  The Strand, London WC2

  Small device exploded in a litter bin. No injuries

  20 July 1990

  Stock Exchange, London EC1

  Device exploded— no injuries

  30 July 1990

  Pevensey

  Ian Gow MP was killed when a device exploded under his car

  6 August 1990

  London NW8

  Device discovered and defused at the former home of Lord Armstrong. No injuries

  13 August 1990

  Didcot

  Device discovered and defused at the home of Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley. No injuries

  10 September 1990

  Army and Navy Recruiting Office, Derby

  Bomb exploded—no injuries

  17 September 1990

  Army Information Centre, Finchley, London

  Army colour sergeant shot and injured as he sat in a car outside the office

  18 September 1990

  Staffordshire

  Air Chief Marshall Sir Peter Terry was shot and injured at his home. His wife suffered minor injuries

  27 September 1990

  Royal Overseas League, Park Place, London WC1

  Device discovered and defused. No injuries

  24 January 1991

  Territorial Army Firing Range, Cannock Chase, Staffordshire

  Small explosion and a shot was fired. No injuries

  7 February 1991

  Downing Street, London SW1

  Three mortar bombs fired. One minor injury

  18 February 1991

  Paddington Station, London W2 Victoria Station, London SW1

  Device exploded. No injuries Device exploded. One man killed and 38 people injured

  25 February 1991

  Napsbury Lane, St. Albans

  Device exploded on a railway line. No injuries

  3 April 1991

  Preston Railway Station, Preston, Lancashire

  A number of incendiary devices were found on a platform. No injuries

  5 April 1991

  Arndale Shopping Centre, Manchester

  A number of devices were discovered in shops, some of which caused fires. No injuries

  54

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  28 June 1991

  Beck Theatre, Hayes, Middlesex

  Device discovered and defused outside the theatre. No injuries

  30 June 1991

  Royal Navy and RAF Recruiting Office, Fishergate Centre, Preston

  Device discovered. Detonated in controlled explosion. No injuries

  5 August 1991

  Cambridge Public House, Charing Cross Road, London

  Fire caused by incendiary devices. No injuries

  29 August 1991

  London Underground Depot, Hammersmith W6

  Three incendiary devices discovered under a seat. No injuries

  31 August 1991

  Bargain Bookshop, Charing Cross Road, London WC2

  Incendiary device discovered. No injuries

  15 November 1991

  Old Barclays Bank, St. Peters Street, St. Albans, Hertfordshire

  Device exploded killing two members of the Provisional IRA. A member of the public was injured

  1 December 1991

  The Discount Furniture Store Habitat, The World of Leather, The Reject Shop, Tottenham Court Road

  A number of incendiary devices ignited causing damage to property but no injuries

  2 December 1991

  Littlewoods, Oxford Street, London W1

  Incendiary device ignited. No injuries

  7–8 December 1991

  Various locations in Blackpool

  A number of incendiary devices were discovered in locations around Blackpool. No injuries

  8 December 1991

  Arndale Centre, Manchester

  Seven incendiary devices ignited. No injuries

  14 December 1991

  Brent Cross Shopping Centre

  Four devices found in shops. No injuries

  15 December 1991

  Sainsbury Wing, National Gallery, London WC2

  An incendiary device partially ignited. No injuries

  16 December 1991

  Railway line near Clapham Junction

  Bomb exploded on the railway line. No injuries

  23 December 1991

  Ilford Underground Depot Neasden Underground Deport Train at Harrow on the Hill

  Incendiary device ignited. No injuries Incendiary devices ignited. No injuries Incendiary devices ignited. No injuries

  10 January 1992

  Whitehall Place, London SW1

  Small device exploded. No injuries

  17 January 1992

  Marquis of Granby Public House, Shaftesbury Avenue, London W1

  Two incendiary devices discovered. No injuries

  30 January 1992

  Elephant and Castle Underground Depot, London SE17

  Incendiary device found. No injuries

  3 February 1992

  Neasden Underground Depot

  Incendiary device found under seat. No injuries

  7 February 1992

  London Underground Sidings between Barking and Upney Stations

  Incendiary device ignited. No injuries

  55

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  11 February 1992

  Telephone box, Parliamentary Street, London SW1 (outside the Treasury)

  Small device discovered and made safe. No injuries

  28 February 1992

  London Bridge Railway Station, London SE1

  Device exploded injuring 29 people

  29 February 1992

  Crown Prosecution Service, London EC4

  Device exploded injuring two people

  1 March 1992

  White Hart Lane BR Station Tottenham, London N17

  Small device discovered and defused

  10 March 1992

  Near Wandsworth Common Railway Station, London SW18

  Small device exploded beside railway line. No injuries

  6 April 1992

  Bridle Lane, near Piccadilly Circus, London W1

  Device exploded outside a building housing various offices

  10 April 1992

  St. Mary Axe, City of London EC3

  Large improvised explosive device exploded killing three people and injuring 91. Many properties damaged

  11 April 1992

  Staples Corner, Junction of M1 and North Circular Road

  Large improvised explosive device exploded causing serious damage to roads and nearby buildings

  9–10 May 1992

  Metro Centre, Gateshead

  A number of incendiary devices ignited causing minimal damage

  7 June 1992

  Royal Festival Hall, London SE1

  Device exploded causing blast damage. No injuries

  8 June 1992

  A64 Leeds-York near Tadcaster, North Yorkshire

  Constable Goodman was shot and killed and a PC seriously injured by two gunmen

  10 June 1992

  Wilcox Place, Victoria Street

  Small device exploded in a litter bin near the Army and Navy Dept. Store. No injuries

  15 June 1992

  St. Albans Street, near Piccadilly Circus

  Device exploded in a cab, which had been hijacked. No injuries

  25 June 1992

  Coleman Street, City of London EC2

  Device exploded hidden in a brief case under a car. Limited damage. One police officer suffered shock

  30–31 July 1992

  Milton Keynes (Shops, Library)

  Two incendiary devices discovered— only minimal damage caused

  25 August 1992

  Shropshire Regimental Museum and two furniture shops, Shrewsbury

  A small device exploded at the museum and incendiary devices ignited in the shops. Some damage caused in the museum

  56

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  6 September 1992

  London Hilton Hotel, Park Lane, London W1

  Small device exploded in the gents' toilets in the foyer of the hotel. Little damage and no casualties

  17 September 1992

  Madame Tussaud's, Marylebone Road, London NW1

  Two incendiary devices caused a small fire

  The Planetarium, Marylebone Road, London NW1 Imperial War Museum, Lambeth Road, London SE1

  A small device exploded causing minor damage Two incendiary devices discovered and extinguished. Minor damage caused

  7 October 1992

  Junction of The Haymarket and Panton Street, Piccadilly SW1

  Small device exploded in a litter bin. Five people suffered minor injuries. Minimal damage

  Near Centre Point, Flitcroft Street, London WC2

  Small device exploded behind a BT junction box. Slight damage and no casualties

  8 October 1992

  Tooley Street, London SE1

  Device exploded under a car causing damage to two other cars. One person slightly injured

  Melcombe Street, London NW1

  Small device exploded under a car, causing little damage and no injuries

  9 October 1992

  Royal British Legion, Nursery Road, Southgate N14 Car Park, Arnos Grove Underground Station

  Small device exploded under a car in the car park. No injuries Small device exploded under a car. No injuries

  10 October 1992

  Paddington Green Police Station, Harrow Road, Paddington W2

  Device exploded in a phone box outside the police station. One person injured

  12 October 1992

  Sussex Arms Public House, Long Acre, Convent Garden

  A device exploded in the gents' toilets killing one person (who died the following day as a result of injuries) and injuring four others

  19 October 1992

  Novotel Hotel, Shortlands, Hammersmith W6

  Small device exploded under the wheel arch of a coach parked outside the Hotel. No casualties

  Oxenden Street, London SW1

  Device exploded under a car. Two people treated for shock

  21 October 1992

  Railway Line, Nr Silver Street Station Edmonton

  Device exploded on the track as a train was passing, causing little damage. Two people were treated for minor injuries

  57

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  21 October 1992 (Cont.)

  Princess Louise Territorial Army Centre, Hammersmith Road W6

  Device, believed to have been hung on railings, exploded. Three people suffered minor injuries

  Railway Line, Nr Harrow Road (junction with Furness Road) NW10

  Device exploded causing slight damage to the track, but no casualties.

  22 October 1992

  Sewage Pipe, Wick Lane E3

  Small device exploded causing damage to a sewage pipe. No casualties

  25 October 1992

  London SW1

  Device exploded in a doorway causing some damage to the building and to nearby cars. No casualties

  30 October 1992

  Whitehall, London SW1 (nr Downing Street)

  Small device exploded in a hijacked minicab outside Cabinet Office. No one was injured

  14 November 1992

  Stoke Newington Road, London N16

  Van discovered containing a very large improvised explosive device. One policeman was shot and injured confronting two men

  15 November 1992

  Canada Tower, Canary Wharf

  Large improvised explosive device is made safe after security guards challenged two men

  16 November 1992

  Collingwood Street, Bethnal Green E1

  Device in van made safe

  1 December 1992

  Stephens Street/Tottenham Court Road

  Large improvised explosive device in van made safe

  3 December 1992

  Deansgate and Cateaton Street, Manchester

  Two small devices exploded under bushes causing damage to properties and minor injury to 64 people

  9 December 1992

  Woodside Park Underground Station, London N12

  HME device partially detonated in a van in car park. No injuries

  10 December 1992

  Wood Green Shopping Centre, London N22

  Two devices exploded in litter bins outside shops. Eleven people were slightly injured

  16 December 1992

  John Lewis Department Store Oxford Street W1

  Small device exploded in the gents' toilets on the third floor. One person was treated for shock

  Cavendish Square W1

  Small device exploded in a litter bin. Three people were slightly injured

  22 December 1992

  Hampstead Tube Station

  Small device exploded on emergency staircase

  58

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  6 January 1993

  Reject Shop, Plaza Shopping Centre, London W1

  Incendiary device ignited causing minor damage

  Dillons' Bookshop, Northumberland Avenue WC2 C and A, Oxford Street Wl

  Very small device exploded causing little damage Incendiary device ignited. Very little damage

  Video Shop, 60 Oxford Street W1

  Incendiary device ignited. Minor damage

  7 January 1993

  Dillon's Bookshop, Northumberland Avenue W1

  Unignited incendiary device found

  14 January 1993

  Top Shop, Oxford Circus W1

  Unignited incendiary device found

  28 January 1993

  Harrods, Brompton Road SW1

  Small device exploded in a litter bin. Two people slightly injured and 30 ft of shop front damaged

  3 February 1993

  Train at Kent House Station, Kent

  Small device exploded on train stopped and evacuated following warnings. No casualties

  South Kensington Tube Station, London SW7

  Device exploded in underground passage-way following warning and evacuation. No casualties

  10 February 1993

  London SW1

  Small device exploded in doorway of block of flats. Minor damage. No injuries.

  26 February 1993

  Warrington, Cheshire

  Policeman shot and injured after stopping a van; a car hijacked; and three devices exploded (and unignited incendiary made safe) at gasworks causing extensive damage and no injuries.

  27 February 1993

  Camden High Street NW1

  Small device exploded in litter bin. 18 people injured—two seriously

  20 March 1993

  Bridge Street, Warrington, Cheshire

  Two small devices exploded in litter bins in shopping area. Two children killed and 54 people injured, four extremely seriously

  7 April 1993

  Argyle Square, London WC1

  Small device exploded in builders skip. Minor damage. No injuries

  23 April 1993

  Esso Oil Refinery, North Shields

  Small device exploded next to pipe carrying heavy oil. No injuries. Some damage

  59

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  24 April 1993

  Bishopsgate, London EC2

  Large improvised explosive device exploded killing one person and injuring 44 more. Extensive damage to properties

  Manor House Tube Station, London N22

  Small device exploded in hijacked minicab. No injuries

  Judd Street, St. Pancras, London WC1

  Small device exploded in hijacked minicab. No injuries

  9 May 1993

  Galleries Shopping Centre, Bristol

  Two incendiaries ignited, in the Reject Shop and Waterstone Bookshop. No injuries

  12 May 1993

  Reject Shop, Cornmarket, Oxford

  Incendiary device malfunctioned. No injuries

  9 June 1993

  Gas Installation, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear

  Small explosive device detonated causing fire and damage to gas storage tank. No injuries

  Esso Oil Refinery, North Shields

  Two small explosive devices detonated on pipes leading to storage tanks. Little damage, no injuries

  13 August 1993

  Locations in Bournemouth

  Six incendiary devices in retail outlets in Bournemouth. Some ignited causing damage. Two small devices on the pier. One exploded. No injuries

  28 August 1993

  Wormwood Street, London (City) EC2

  Small device discovered containing semtex. Disrupted by controlled explosion. No damage. No injuries

  16 September 1993

  Curzon Phoenix Cinema, Charing Cross Road WC2

  Two small incendiary devices found. Had malfunctioned, no damage, no injuries

  MGM Cinema, Shaftsbury Avenue WC2

  One small incendiary device found. Had malfunctioned, no damage, no injuries

  2 October 1993

  Finchley Road, London NW8

  Three devices exploded. Five people injured some localised damage. One device found and made safe

  4 October 1993

  Tottenham Lane, London N8

  Two devices exploded. No injuries. Some localised damage

  Archway Road, London N19

  Two devices exploded. No injuries. Some localised damage

  60

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  4 October 1993 (Cont.)

  Highgate High Street, London N6

  One device exploded. No injuries, some localised damage. A second device discovered and made safe

  8 October 1993

  Junction of Coles Green Road and Humber Road near the North Circular Road junction of Staples Corner NW2

  One device exploded. No injuries, some localised damage

  Outside the Black Lion Public House at 295 West End Lane NW6

  One device exploded. No injuries, some localised damage

  23 October 1993

  Wooton Underwood, Brill, Buckinghamshire

  Device exploded, damaging footbridge over railway

  24 October 1993

  Reading Station

  One device in toilets made safe. Another device later exploded by the tracks; no injuries and little damage

  24 October 1993

  Basingstoke Station

  One device in toilets made safe

  29 October 1993

  Edwardes Square W8

  Small device exploded beside a car. Extensive damage to car, no injuries

  14 December 1993

  Railway line near Woking station, Surrey

  Small device exploded on railway line. Slight damage to line. No injuries

  16 December 1993

  Railway line, near Brookwood and Farnborough stations, Surrey

  Two devices discovered. Disrupted by controlled explosion

  20 December 1993

  Sorting Office, London EC1

  Postal device discovered. Made safe. No damage. No injuries

  Travellers Tavern, Elizabeth Street, Victoria, London SW1

  6 devices discovered in a holdall. At least one ignited. No injuries, minor damage

  Mount Pleasant Sorting Office, London EC1 Northfields Tube Station, London W13

  Package ignited. No injuries, minor damage Small device ignited in a litter bin. No significant damage and no injuries

  27 January 1994

  C and A, Oxford Street W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage

  Mothercare, Oxford Street W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage

  Silverdale Travel Goods, Oxford Street W1

  Incendiary device ignited; some damage

  28 January 1994

  C and A, Oxford Street W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage

  Mothercare, Oxford Street W1

  Incendiary device made safe

  29 January 1994

  Nightingales, Oxford Street W1

  One incendiary device ignited and another made safe; little damage

  61

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  18 February 1994

  Record shop, 157 Charing Cross Road WC2

  Incendiary device discovered and made safe

  19 February 1994

  Record Shop, 157 Charing Cross Road WC2

  Very small high explosive device exploded; minor damage

  Top Shop, Oxford Circus W1

  Two incendiary devices ignited; little damage

  Hennes Oxford Circus W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage

  19 February 1994

  Newsagents, Great Cumberland Place W1

  Incendiary device ignited destroying shop

  Burtons, New Oxford Street WC1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage. A further device was discovered

  Burtons, Regent Street W1

  Incendiary device ignited and very small high explosive device detonated; little damage

  Liberty's, Regent Street W1

  Incendiary device ignited; little damage

  Mr. Byrite, Oxford Circus W1

  Incendiary device made safe

  22 February 1994

  Mr. Handy, Edgware Road W2

  Incendiary device made safe

  9 March 1994

  Heathrow Airport, London

  4 mortars launched from a car parked at the Excelsior Hotel, landing on or near the northern runway. None exploded and there was no damage

  11 March 1994

  Heathrow Airport, London

  4 mortars launched from waste ground, landing on an aircraft parking area near Terminal Four. None exploded and there was no damage

  13 March 1994

  Heathrow Airport, London

  5 mortars launched from waste ground, landing in the vicinity of Terminal Four. None exploded and there was no damage

  15 March 1994

  Railway line near Sevenoaks, Kent

  IED discovered. Believed to be left over from the series of attacks in December but had failed to detonate

  21 March 1994

  Railway line Orpington, Kent

  Timer of IED discovered. Believed to be left over from series of attacks in December but had failed to detonate

  6 June 1994

  Sevenoaks railway station, Kent

  Device made safe in controlled explosion

  10 June 1994

  Liberty's Oxford Street, London W1

  Two incendiary devices discovered and made safe

  11 June 1994

  Mr. Byrite's, Oxford Street, London W1

  Incendiary device ignited causing little damage. A further device had failed to detonate

  62

  Date

  Location

  Death/injuries

  13 June 1994

  Railway line, one mile from Stevenage station

  Device exploded on embankment by railway line. Little damage

  12 July 1994

  Heysham port, Lancashire

  Lorry found to contain approximately two tonnes of improvised explosive device

  21 July 1994

  Reading railway station

  Stolen suitcase found to contain two incendiary devices along with component parts for six high explosive devices

  13 August 1994

  Shopping centre, Bognor Regis

  Explosive device, left in a bicycle, detonated damaging 15 shops but causing no injuries

  Brighton pier, Sussex

  Explosive device found in bicycle. Made safe by controlled explosion

  22 August 1994

  Regent Street Wl

  High explosive device found in litter bin outside Laura Ashley shop. Device defused—no injuries and no damage

  9 February 1996

  South Quay, Canary Wharf, London

  Two people killed and some 40 injured in an explosion

  15 February 1996

  Junction of Charing Cross Road and Litchfield Street, London WC2

  High explosive device in telephone kiosk disrupted by controlled explosion

  18 February 1996

  Wellington Street, London WC2

  Improvised high explosive device detonated prematurely on a bus, killing the terrorist transporting the device and injuring eight other people

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if holders of Hong Kong special administrative region passports will require visas to visit the United Kingdom from July 1997. [19203]

  Mr. Howard
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is announcing in Hong Kong today, holders of Hong Kong special administrative region passports will not be required to obtain visas for short visits to Britain after 30 June 1997. We will, of course, keep this arrangement under review, as we do with the visa arrangements we apply in every other part of the world.

  Prisoners (Sanitation)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of 24-hour access to sanitation for prisoners. [19204]
  63
  Miss Widdecombe
  The deadline for providing all prisoners with 24-hour access to sanitation was 29 February. On 29 February over 99 per cent. of prisoners had 24-hour access to sanitation. If every cell without sanitation had been withdrawn from use on that date there would have been a loss of 267 places in the area between Leeds and Liverpool and this would have increased the likelihood of using police cells in that region. For this reason I approved the retention of some cells without sanitation until early April, when other accommodation opens.

  Since the sanitation programme was announced in 1991, over 19,000 places have been provided with sanitation. During this period the prison population has increased by approximately 30 per cent. I anticipate that all prisoners will have 24-hour access to sanitation by 12 April 1996. The delay has been caused primarily by the need to include necessary security improvements in the refurbishment programme.

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17683]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: Statistics about people produced by my Department are normally based on administrative systems which include information on sex. Statistical information about people can therefore usually be broken down by sex.

  East Birmingham Task Force
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the projects which received money from the east Birmingham task force between the years 1988 and 1993 and (b) how much money was given to each of the projects. [17895]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information has been placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  High-voltage Power Cables
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance notes on health care for people living near to high-voltage power cables; and if he will make a statement. [17133]

  Mr. Horam
  None. The National Radiological Protection Board has advised that there is no convincing evidence that electromagnetic fields present a hazard to public health at domestic levels of exposure. The board further advises that epidemiological studies related to possible risks of cancer do not provide a basis for setting exposure standards as there is no evidence of any adverse effects. The Department will continue to monitor the situation and maintain support for research in these areas, consulting the NRPB and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment as necessary.
  64
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent reports he has received regarding health risks posed by high-voltage power lines near busy roads. [17128]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects which caused the overspend in class A3 of the 1994–95 class XII, vote 3 appropriation accounts. [17801]

  Mr. Horam
  Additional refurbishment of departmental buildings became necessary leading to additional payments in respect of new works over £150,000 and furniture and fittings. The most significant projects in these categories were:

  refurbishment of toilets;

  installation of new lighting to comply with regulations on VDU use;

  conversion of redundant reprographic facility to offices;

  moving staff into the newly-occupied Hannibal house.

  Lariam
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 243, what (a) representations and (b) reports he has received alleging adverse side effects arising from the anti-malarial treatment lariam; and if he will make a statement. [18221]

  Mr. Horam
  Ministers have received a small amount of correspondence concerning the possible side-effects of lariam—mefloquine.

  From 1990, when lariam was launched in the United Kingdom, to 27 February 1996, the Medicines Control Agency has received 757 reports of 2,054 suspected adverse reactions for mefloquine. This is an increase of 152 reports—the majority of which are not serious—since the answer I gave on 24 January 1996. However, this number of reports is not unexpected in view of recent media attention concerning lariam which encouraged patients to report possible reactions. Receipt of a report of a reaction does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by lariam. The product information for doctors and patients provides information on the adverse effects of lariam.

  The Medicines Control Agency will continue to monitor lariam and review any new evidence that may emerge to ensure that the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 336, if he will make it his policy that health authorities communicate directly with all women over 65 years of age who have previously received breast screening to inform them of their rights to continued screening. [17969]

  Mr. Horam
  It is already policy that health authorities inform all women of 65 years of age who have previously received breast screening of their right to continued
  65
  screening. Screening units are reminded by the national health service screening programme to encourage women to continue to come for three-yearly screening, and this is emphasised in screening and well woman literature available in GP surgeries, clinics and screening centres.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if all mammography screening facilities in the United Kingdom have to obtain certification to a quality assurance standard; and what this standard is based on. [18329]

  Mr. Horam
  No. All mammographic screening facilities have to comply with the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 and 1988. This is facilitated by compliance with stringent quality assurance standards set by the national health service breast screening programme.

  Audit Letters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which bodies receive copies of the audit letter issued to NHS trusts by the Audit Commission. [17928]

  Mr. Horam
  Management letters from statutory auditors are addressed to the national health service trust concerned. They are copied to the appropriate regional health authority.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue instructions to NHS trusts to provide copies of audit letters issued to NHS trusts to(a) constituency hon. Members, (b) members of the public and (c) the local press who request them. [18037]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service trusts may make this information available on request, but these matters are primarily between the appointed auditor and the trust concerned.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require the auditors of NHS trusts to provide copies of their audit letters to(a) constituency hon. Members, (b) members of the public and (c) the local press who request them. [18038]

  Mr. Horam
  Statutory auditors of national health service trusts are appointed by the Audit Commission and it is not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to instruct them on these matters.

  Yorkshire Cancer Organisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, columns 290–91, on the Yorkshire Cancer Organisation, what proposals the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority or the NHS Executive have considered to relocate the Yorkshire Cancer Organisation away from Leeds. [18079]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Fraud
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of fraud occurred in each year since 1985 in NHS trusts and health authorities; and what was the total value of such fraud. [17946]
  66
  Mr. Horam
  The cost of fraud is not separately identified in the accounts or the losses and special payments returns submitted by NHS units in England.

  Oncology Centres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which oncology centres are refusing patients treatment on grounds of lack of money. [17942]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mental Health
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities covered by the survey of mental health provision indicating which categories of 1, 2a, 2b or 3 each falls into. [17937]

  Mr. Bowis
  We already have, in the "Review of the Purchasing of Mental Health Services by Health Authorities in England", issued on 20 February, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ionising Radiation
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the ionising radiation regulations apply to patients being exposed to radioactive sources for clinical treatment. [18328]

  Mr. Horam
  The Ionising Radiations (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988 apply to all persons undergoing exposure to radiation for medical purposes.

  Nursery Places
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places were provided in nurseries for children under three years of age in England for each year since 1990. [18248]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally on day nurseries relates to places for children aged under five and was published by the Department of Health in "Children's day care facilities at 31 March 1994, England, A/F 94/16".

  Information on pupils aged two at the beginning of the school year and attending nursery classes in maintained primary schools or maintained nursery schools was published by the Department for Education and Employment in "Statistical Bulletin 1/96: Pupils Under Five Years of Age in Schools in England—January 1995".

  Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of toxic shock syndrome from women's use of tampons have been reported to the Medical Officer of Health in each of the last five years. [18562]
  67
  Mr. Horam
  The following information has been collected by the central public health laboratory.

  Number of cases of menstrually-associated toxic shock syndrome in:

  1990: 15

  1991: 14

  1992: 11

  1993: 12

  1994: 8

  The figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Human Embryos
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos have been frozen in each year since the practice was first sanctioned by law. [18317]

  Mr. Horam
  As recorded in the records of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the numbers of embryos stored were as follows:

  1991: 4,920

  1992: 15,932

  1993: 19,717

  1994: 23,484

  Data for 1995 have not yet been validated.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many frozen human embryos have been experimented on and then destroyed since the practice was first sanctioned by law; [18318]

  (2) how many unfrozen human embryos have been experimented on and then destroyed since the practice was first sanctioned by law. [18319]

  Mr. Horam
  The total number of embryos created from 1991 to 1994 was 498,493. Of these, 27,493 embryos were donated for research; it is not, however, possible to give separate figures for frozen or unfrozen embryos.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases the parents of frozen embryos are currently untraceable; and what are the figures for parents of embryos frozen in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. [18320]

  Mr. Horam
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos) Regulations 1996 enables all centres licensed under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to contact couples with embryos in store under the five-year limit arrangements so that the possibility of extension can be considered. It is not possible at this stage to judge how many will not be traced.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of deep freezing on(a) the human embryo, (b) the likelihood of mutation in the embryo and (c) the chance of achieving a successful pregnancy using a frozen embryo. [18361]
  68
  Mr. Horam
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's working group on embryo freezing considered the scientific and ethical aspects of embryo freezing. It undertook a review of the literature on embryo freezing and established that the evidence suggests that there are no long-term genetic implications arising out of current cryopreservation methods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the current freezing protocols are harmful to humans.

  The working group also established that there is good scientific evidence from animal studies that viable embryos stored under proper conditions will not suffer harm from cryopreservation over very extended periods of time.

  Two studies on children born from frozen embryos in the UK have shown that the rate of congenital abnormalities is no greater than in the general population.

  In 1993 there were 3,002 treatment cycles using frozen embryos and there were 382 live births, giving a live birth rate of 12.7 per cent. compared with an unfrozen embryo live birth rate of 14.4 per cent.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos have not survived the freezing and defrosting process since the practice became legal. [18362]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available.

  Consultancy Service Index
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of inquiries to the Department of Health consultancy service index, (b) the number of individuals who have been notified that they are to be included on the index and (c) the number of individuals who have appealed against inclusion on the index for each year since 1986. [18833]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the responses to his consultation on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and supervised activities and holiday play schemes. [18832]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are considering the responses received to the consultation document. The Government will give their response in due course.

  Renal Services Review
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from kidney patients' associations concerning the publication of the national review of renal services. [18830]

  Mr. Horam
  Representations have been received from the National Kidney Federation concerning the publications of the national review of renal services and they will be meeting me to discuss this in April.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total number of people who died from(a) alcohol poisoning and (b) alcohol-related illnesses in each of the past five years. [18591]

  Mr. Bowis
  The numbers of people who died from alcohol poisoning' in England and Wales in the last five years are as follows:

  1990: 153

  1991: 152

  1992: 126

  1993: 136

  1994: 122

  1(Code 980, International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision).

  I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 19 December 1995 at column 1148.

  Barnet Hospital
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the role of the private finance initiative in the development of Barnet hospital. [18683]

  Mr. Horam
  The Wellhouse national health service trust, of which Barnet hospital is part, already has phase 1a of its development under construction and has had approval to the outline business case for phase 1b. It is now investigating the potential advantages to be gained by proceeding with this project under the private finance initiative. The trust is making good progress in its negotiations with potential private sector partners, and it intends to submit its full business case within the next few months.

  District Health Authority Managers
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total remuneration of each NHS district health authority's general manager for 1990. [18743]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence Cases
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has given to empowering the police to pursue a civil remedy in domestic violence cases on behalf of a victim of violence in the home. [16447]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question of whether the police should have the power to pursue a civil remedy for domestic violence on behalf of victims has been considered in connection with the Family Law Bill and the former Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. The Home Affairs Select Committee, in its 1993 report on domestic violence, and the House of Lords Special Bill Committee on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, did not support the police having this power because 70
  this would place unaccustomed responsibilities on them and would create confusion between the criminal and civil law. The Government agree with this view.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the May 1992 Law Commission report on "Domestic Violence and Occupation of the Family Home" relating to police powers in respect of family protection. [16448]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The recommendations of the Law Commission report on domestic violence and occupation of the family home have substantially been included in part III of the Family Law Bill. The Bill strengthens police powers to deal with situations of domestic violence. The Law Commission's recommendations that the police should have the power to pursue civil remedies on behalf of victims has not been included in the Bill because this would place unaccustomed responsibilities on them and would create confusion between criminal and civil law.

  Probate Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the conclusions of his Department's consultation process regarding the structure of the probate services. [16449]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No decisions have yet been made. Responses received during the consultation process are currently being considered.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent initiatives are being pursued to ensure the widest possible availability of legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [16450]

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the arrangements governing legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [16452]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to my oral answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) earlier today.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has recently received about the payment of legal aid to the apparently wealthy. [16451]

  Mr. Evans
  I have received a number of representations on this subject. As my hon. Friend knows, the Lord Chancellor last week announced a number of measures to tighten up the means assessment process.

  Divorce Law Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effect of his proposal to require a one-year wait for divorce upon marriages where there is a history of violence. [16453]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The circumstances of marriages with a history of violence were carefully considered in the preparation of the divorce reform proposals. I believe that
  71
  victims of violence are adequately protected by domestic violence legislation. Protection against domestic violence is not, and should not be, linked to the ability to get a divorce.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further plans he has to involve children of divorcing parents in his proposals for divorce law reform. [16446]

  Mr. Evans
  Our proposals will ensure that during the period for reflection and consideration parents will give close attention to the arrangements for children. Generally, our proposals are intended to reduce conflict between the parents, which will be to the advantage of children. Decisions relating to residence of and contact with children after divorce will continue to be dealt with under the Children Act 1989 and the welfare of children will continue to be paramount in these proceedings. We have no plans to increase the involvement of children in the legal process for divorce.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reform the law relating to divorce. [16813]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Family Law Bill, which implements the proposals on divorce and mediation set out in the White Paper, "Looking to the Future—Mediation and the Ground for Divorce", published in April 1995, was introduced in the House of Lords on 16 November 1995. It received its Second Reading on 30 November, completed its Committee Stage on 30 January 1996 and is currently on Report. The Bill also reintroduces family law and domestic violence proposals, amended from the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, which did not complete all its stages in the last session.

  Number of Lord Justices of Appeal appointed

  Number of High Court judges appointed

  Number of circuit judges appointed

  Total number in post and proportion of women

  Total

  Women

  Total

  Women

  Total

  Women

  Total

  Women

  1991

  0

  0

  5

  0

  49

  3

  568

  24 4.2 per cent.

  1992

  5

  0

  11

  2

  54

  4

  594

  29 4.9 per cent.

  1993

  5

  0

  22

  2

  48

  5

  622

  34 5.5 per cent.

  1994

  4

  0

  8

  1

  35

  2

  638

  36 5.6 per cent.

  1995

  9

  0

  12

  1

  41

  6

  645

  37 5.7 per cent.

  Prince and Princess of Wales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what occasions he has advised or acted as an interlocutor for(a) Her Majesty the Queen and (b) the Prince and Princess of Wales in relation to, or about their respective private property and or other rights consequent on the separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales. [18884]
  72

  Confiscation Orders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training or guidance he has arranged to provide for judges with regard to the making of confiscation orders in corruption cases at the time of sentencing or shortly thereafter. [16454]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for training judges, covers confiscation orders in its seminars for the Crown court judiciary. The board also recently published in its bulletin an article on the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, which included confiscation orders.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17442]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department currently holds no contracts with EDS.

  Women Judges
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many women were appointed as judges in the High Court, county court and the Court of Appeal for each year since 1990; and what proportion these women represent of the total number of judges. [18247]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The table shows the total number and the number and proportion of women appointed to the Court of Appeal, the High Court and as circuit judges in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. The end column lists the total number of judges in post, as a combined figures, as at 31 December for each year, and the number and proportion of women. The figures for 1990 are not readily available.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The matters raised by the hon. Member are confidential.

  Great Seals
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the
  73
  public holding arrangements for the great seals issued for the period between 1617 and 1831 concerning patents granted. [17156]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Public Record Office is best placed to provide an answer. I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, dated 4 March 1996:

  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the public holdings arrangements concerning patents granted.

  Copiers of letters patent issued over the great seal between 1617 and 1831 could be enrolled on the Chancery patent rolls. Under the Public Records Act 1958 these patent rolls are open for consultation by the public in the Public Record Office.

  Not all letters patent were thus enrolled and the system of enrolment broke down from 1648 to 1659, for which period few rolls survive.

  Original letters patent over the great seal were issued to the person to whom the grant was made. They thus passed into private hands, and were not subject to public holdings arrangements.

  Contact Orders
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 718–19, if he will now instruct the court service to begin to collate information of the number of cases where parents with care have been imprisoned following non-compliance with a contact order made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. [17774]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No. On any item of legislation there is a profusion of information which it may or may not be useful to collect. The collection of statistical information places considerable demands on the time and resources of the Court Service, and thus must focus on the areas of central importance. My answer of 23 February gives details of the statistics collected on contact orders and other section 8 orders.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 718–19, what plans his Department has to monitor (a) the workings of the Children Act 1989 and (b) legal cases arising from section 8 orders under the Children Act 1989. [17775]

  Mr. Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 February 1996,Official Report, column 323.

SCOTLAND

  Police Officer Numbers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors, other than population, determine police officer numbers per division in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland. [18054]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for individual chief constables to decide the factors which are used to determine police officer numbers in their divisions.
  74

  William James McKay
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the Crown Office in the case before Lord Hope in the Court of Criminal Appeal on 28 February. [18685]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The case concerned a note of appeal by the Lord Advocate in terms of section 228A(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. On 5 December 1995 William James McKay pled guilty in the High Court at Glasgow to four charges of possessing quantities of controlled drugs with intent to supply them to another and one charge of unlawfully possessing a controlled drug. Following upon a plea in mitigation to the effect that the accused was now drug free and counselling young drug addicts, the trial judge deferred sentence for six months for good behaviour. The trial judge stated that were he to sentence the accused on the basis of his record of previous convictions and the offences to which he pled guilty, the sentence that he would have been thinking of imposing would have been one of seven years.

  On 6 December 1995 the Lord Advocate became aware of the trial judge's decision to defer sentence in light of that plea in mitigation. On 11 December 1995, on the instructions of the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office wrote to the clerk of court asking to be provided with copies of all reports and documentation which were available to and placed before the trial judge. A written note, incorporating information provided by the trial advocate depute, was prepared by a Crown Office official for the Lord Advocate.

  Appeals under section 228A(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 require to be taken within 28 days. On 27 December 1995 the Lord Advocate decided to proceed with an appeal on the basis of the information available at the time. On the basis of that information it appeared to the Lord Advocate that, having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, the deferment of sentence by the trial judge had been inappropriate.

  On 29 December 1995 a note of appeal was lodged on behalf of the Lord Advocate. It contained grounds of appeal to the effect that the deferment of sentence was inappropriate having regard to the gravity of the offences of which the accused had been convicted, the value and quantities of the various drugs referred to in the indictment, the fact that the accused was found in possession of the drugs in Her Majesty's prison Barlinnie, on the day following the imposition of a sentence of 18 months imprisonment in respect of a previous contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the criminal record of the accused.

  The grounds of appeal did not invite the court to lay down minimum sentences in respect of contraventions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 committed in prisons. The trial judge's report about the case was sent to the Crown Office on 22 February 1996. It was accompanied by the documentation requested on 11 December 1995. When an appeal is taken under section 228A(a) of the 1975 Act, the Lord Advocate's position in respect of the appeal is reviewed after the trial judge's report becomes available. On receipt of the trial judge's report on the present case the papers were reviewed by Crown counsel. They were

  75
  then placed before the Lord Advocate. After studying the trial judge's report, the documentation which had been before the trial judge and a further report dated 16 February 1996 from the Glasgow community drugs project, the Lord Advocate decided not to proceed with the appeal which had been taken.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how employment levels in the Benefits Agency will be affected by the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance; [9792]

  (2) how many surplus staff there will be in the Benefits Agency as a result of the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance. [9791]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency will be taking over payment of the contributory element of what is currently unemployment benefit when jobseeker's allowance is introduced. There will be no jobs cut in the Benefits Agency as a result of the implementation of jobseeker's allowance nor will there be any surplus staff.

  Income Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claims ceased within four weeks of liable relatives action in each year since 1989. [14457]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table:

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  47,122

  1990–91

  60,056

  1991–92

  80,261

  1992–931

  16,142

  1993–94

  24,383

  1994–95

  12,937

  1995–962

  15,186

  1 Figures for 1992–93 onwards relate to spousal maintenance and sponsored immigrants only.

  2 To December 1995.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of how many claims involving liable relatives income support ceased within four weeks in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91. [15831]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the benefit savings attributable to the Child Support Agency if a multiplier of 21 weeks were used when considering the savings due to the withdrawal of income support claims. [15754]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is as follows:

  1993–94: £327 million

  1994–95: £348 million.

  These figures include savings where:
  76

  the level of child maintenance reduced the amount of income support in payment;

  the level of child maintenance removed the need for income support;

  the claim for income support was withdrawn following Child Support Agency involvement;

  and resultant housing benefit, council tax benefit, family credit and disability working allowance savings.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the liability of an individual served with a detachment of earnings order in the event of an employer not making prompt payments to the Child Support Agency; [17705]

  (2) who has responsibility for the collection of money when an employer has failed to comply with a detachment of earnings order. [17707]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Absent parents who have a liability to make payments of child support maintenance remain liable until the payment in question is made to the appropriate person irrespective of the way in which that payment is collected. However, employers have a duty to pass on, to the Secretary of State, moneys collected direct from an absent parent's earnings under a deduction from earnings order. Payments must be made by the 19th day of the month following the month in which the deduction is made. Failure to comply with the requirements of a deduction from earnings order is an offence punishable by a fine.

  Where, for any reason, a deduction from earnings order proves ineffective as a method of collecting payments of child support maintenance it is for the Secretary of State to consider what further action may be appropriate.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 568, relating to the financial memorandum of the Child Support Bill, how he intends to quantify long-term effects on expenditure resulting from the activities of the Child Support Agency; and how he will ensure that any savings are solely the result of the activities of the agency. [18169]

  Mr. Mitchell
  As part of the process of evaluation of child support policy, estimates will be made of the possible pattern of public expenditure if the scheme had not been introduced. These will attempt to isolate the behavioural changes arising from the child support scheme compared with, for example, those resulting from other changes made in the benefit system, and demographic changes. Such an evaluation is necessarily long term, because of the staggered take-on of the Child Support Agency's caseload, and because the full impact of the new departures system will not be apparent for several years.

  Isle of Wight (Expenditure)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure of his Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994–95 broken down by category. [16772]

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

  Industrial Injuries Scheme
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average annual amount paid to individual claimants of prescribed diseases under the industrial injuries scheme; and what is the average duration of claims for those diseases. [17219]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the format requested. Available figures relate to the number of assessments, not to claimants, and a person can be in receipt of more than one assessment. Based on prescribed disease assessments current at 2 April 1994, the average annual amount paid per industrial injuries disablement benefit assessment as a result of a prescribed disease was £1,669 at the 14 April 1993 rates. Of 43,184 assessments, current at 2 April 1994, 21,979 were for life awards and the average duration of the remainder was 46 months.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that the parliamentary constituency of Don Valley is covered by a single weather station in respect of cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement. [17373]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The choice of weather stations for local areas is decided after consultation with the Meteorological Office. These linkages are constantly kept under review, and the Government have made a number of adjustments in successive years to ensure that weather stations are as representative as possible of the conditions in the areas they cover. Current Meteorological Office advice is that Leeds and Waddington are appropriate weather stations for the area in which the Don Valley constituency lies.

  Where it can be shown that particular post code areas covering a large geographical area are not reasonably represented by the designated weather station or stations, the Department would consider, in consultation with the Meteorological Office, whether a change of weather station was appropriate. This would occur when the operation of the scheme is reviewed with the Meteorological Office after the end of March each year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of housing benefit paid to families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Argyll and Bute; what was the total for Scotland last year; and if he will make a statement. [17103]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving invalidity benefit in the Rhondda benefit district; what percentage this is of the total population of working age; and what are the average percentages for(a) Wales and (b) England and Wales. [17506]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is as follows:
  78
  There were 32,814 people in receipt of incapacity benefit at the short-term—higher—and long-term rates in the Mid Glamorgan district of the Benefits Agency at 31 January 1996.

  Notes:

  1. Incapacity benefit replaced sickness and invalidity benefit on 13 April 1995.

  2. Figure obtained from a 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in Benefit Agency offices.

  3. The Mid Glamorgan district includes the following branch offices: Porth, Pontypridd, Tonypandy, Aberdare and Bridgend.

  People in receipt of Invalidity Benefit on 2 April 1994 by country and percentage of working population

  Country

  People in receipt of invalidity benefit

  Percentage of the working population

  Wales

  181,000

  10

  England

  1,265,000

  4

  England and Wales

  1,446,000

  5

  1 The working population has been taken to be 16 to 64 for men and 16 to 59 for women.

  2 Invalidity benefit information based on a 1 per cent, sample of claimants, rounded to the nearest thousand at 2 April 1994.

  3 Estimated mid-year 1994 population figures supplied by OPCS publication, "Population Trends".

  Absent Parents
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average net income, after deductions for tax and national insurance, of those absent parents with full maintenance assessments who receive earned income. [17664]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The average net income of absent parents with earned income—including the self-employed—who have a full maintenance assessment is £194.52. The average child support liability for this group is £38.66, which is less than 20 per cent. of their average net income.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make changes to the discretionary social fund; and if he will make a statement. [18907]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are introducing some minor amendments to the Secretary of State's directions and guidance on the help available from the discretionary social fund, the need for which we have identified in the course of our routine monitoring of the social fund.

  Details of the amendments and a revised copy of the Secretary of State's directions and guidance to take effect from 1 April 1996 have been placed in the Library.

  Supply Estimates
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out for each year since 1990–91 in respect of the supply estimates for each sub-head of the votes accounted for by the Department of Social Security(a) the original estimate, the amount of increase or

  79
  decrease for which approval was sought in the (b) summer, (c) winter and (d) spring supplementary estimates and the (e) amount of any excess vote; and which sub-heads were subject to a cash limit. [16678]

  Mr. Burt
  The table sets out the original estimate provision, the changes secured in the summer, winter, and

  £000

  Vote Number

  Vote title

  Original/revised

  Summer

  Winter

  Spring

  Excess

  1990–91

  Class XIV, Vote 1

  Pension and disability benefits (non-contributory)

  3,641,000

  —

  1,881,000

  39,000

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 2

  Income support

  8,461,000

  —

  14,747

  213,000

  206,438

  Class XIV, Vote 3

  Family benefits

  5,314,000

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 4

  Social fund

  152,000

  —

  —

  11,400

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 5

  Housing benefit, community charge benefit and transitional payments

  3,536,041

  444,000

  —

  166,480

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 61

  Housing benefit administration and community charge benefit administration

  114,464

  —

  5,500

  —

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 71

  DSS Administration and miscellaneous services

  1,703,179

  3,080

  116

  59,013

  —

  1991–92

  Class XIV, Vote 1

  Gentral government administered social security benefits and other payments

  20,719,198

  210,000

  1,680,076

  804,496

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 2

  Housing benefit, community charge benefit, payments, into the NI fund and payments into the social fund IRO regulated expenditure

  4,581,930

  —

  236,531

  45,900

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 31

  Housing benefit administration and community charge benefit administration, payments into the social fund IRO discretionary expenditure and other grants

  292, 625

  —

  32,918

  —

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 41

  DSS administration and miscellaneous services

  1,838,770

  42,658

  19,789

  22,716

  —

  1992–93

  Class XIV, Vote 1

  Central Government administered social security benefits and other payments

  25,623,405

  145,000

  1,435,000

  448,745

  353,952

  Class XIV, Vote 2

  Housing benefit, community charge benefit, payments into the NI fund and payments into the social fund IRO regulated expenditure

  5,725,652

  —

  286,620

  215,128

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 31

  Housing benefit administration and community charge benefit administration, payments into the social fund IRO discretionary expenditure and other grants

  351,991

  13,981

  4,250

  —

  —

  Class XIV, Vote 41

  DSS administration and miscellaneous services

  2,270,076

  —

  1,922

  21,426

  —

  1993–94

  Class XIII, Vote 1

  Central government administered social security benefits and other payments

  30,332,625

  —

  —

  790,000

  141,339

  Class XIII, Vote 2

  Housing benefit, council tax benefit, payments into the NI fund and payments into the social fund IRO regulated expenditure

  14,141,567

  —

  886,600

  63,955

  —

  Class XIII, Vote 31

  Housing benefit administration and council tax benefit administration, payments into the social fund IRO discretionary expenditure and other grants

  402,647

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Class XIII, Vote 41

  DSS administration and miscellaneous services

  2,526,356

  810

  30,958

  1,870

  —

  1994–95

  Class XIII, Vote 1

  Central government administered social security benefits and other payments

  32,006,440

  —

  —

  395,365

  139,668

  80
  spring supplementary estimates, and the amounts of any excess votes, for each of the votes accounted for by the Department of Social Security and for each year since 1990–91. Details of grants, expenditure, and receipts in respect of individual subheads of the votes are contained within the published appropriation accounts for each vote which are available in the Library.
  81

  £000

  Vote Number

  Vote title

  Original/revised

  Summer

  Winter

  Spring

  Excess

  Class XIII, Vote 2

  Housing benefit, council tax benefit, payments into the NI Fund and payments into the social fund IRO regulated expenditure

  13,628,051

  —

  375,000

  152,238

  —

  Class XIII, Vote 31

  Housing benefit administration and council tax benefit administration, payments into the social fund IRO discretionary expenditure and other grants

  425,044

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Class XIII, Vote 41

  DSS administration and miscellaneous services

  2,724,356

  —

  45,825

  —

  —

  1 This Vote is subject to a cash limit, the figures quoted above represent the NET provision.

  Departmental Expenditure (Waveney)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure by his Department in Waveney in 1994–95; what it will be in 1995–96, broken down by category; and if he will make a statement. [17841]

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

  Lone Mothers
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone mothers were in receipt of family credit in each year since 1994. [18250]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There were 235,000 lone mothers receiving family credit in July 1994 and 266,000 in July 1995, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Source: Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry July 1994 and July 1995.

  Pension Rights (Divorce)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has commissioned on international comparisons of the treatment of pension rights on divorce; if he will set out the terms of reference of the project, the names of the researchers, the period of study and the estimated cost; what is the present status of the research; and when he expects to publish a report on the findings. [17591]

  Mr. Heald
  In September 1995, the Department commissioned Watson Wyatt, actuaries and consultants to carry out an International Comparison of the treatment of pension rights on divorce. Using local consultants in each country and drawing upon available literature, this work will provide comprehensive information on how pension rights are treated on divorce in nine countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the USA, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden. Work is currently in progress and the first draft report is expected in the Department at the end of March 1996. A final draft report should be available by the summer. Decisions on publication will be taken when the final draft is received. The cost of this research is £81,000.
  82

  Residential Care
  Mr. MacGregor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of excluding the family home from calculation of means for the purpose of determining liability to pay for nursing home and other residential long-term care.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  No detailed estimates have been made. To raise the upper capital limit used by local authorities when charging for residential care to the value of the average house would, we broadly estimate, cost some half a billion pounds. This is based on the current number of people who pay the total cost of such care; it takes no account of variation in usage which could result from such a change.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to implement the MacSharry proposals to modulate the common agricultural policy, with specific regard to(a) a taper on milk support and (b) restructuring of the hill livestock compensation allowance; and if he will make a statement. [18604]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Commission's proposals to modulate CAP payments were rejected by the Agriculture Council when it agreed to reform the CAP in May 1992.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the active ingredients used in the dispersant used on the oil spill at Milford Haven in February. [17979]

  Mr. Baldry
  The dispersants used on oil spilt from the Sea Empress at Milford Haven contained the following ingredients:

  Butyl glycol

  Dioctyl sodium sulphosucinate

  Ethoxylated fish

  Ethoxylated sorbitan tri-tallate

  Ethoxylated tall oil

  Iso octanol

  Odourless kerosene

  Paraffin solvent

  Polyethylene glycol fatty acid ester

  83

  Propylene glycol

  Sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate propylene glycol

  Sorbitan monooleate

  Sorbitan monooleate ethoxylate

  Tall oil

  Water.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  National Continence Day
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to support National Continence Day on 19 March; and what plans he has to improve the incontinence service in Northern Ireland in 1996–97. [17140]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services will be funding a freephone helpline and arranging publicity for National Continence Day. In addition, continence advisers will be manning stands at shopping and health centres throughout Northern Ireland. A report will also be issued making recommendations for developments in continence services in 1996–97 and beyond.

  Restraint and Confiscation Orders
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many restraint and confiscation orders have been obtained in each of the last three years; and for what amounts. [17148]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Restraint orders for the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and other crime are made under the Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990. Details for the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of confiscation orders

  Total value £

  Number of restraint orders

  1993

  nil

  nil

  2

  1994

  2

  5,083.89

  1

  1995

  39

  28,106.39

  3

  Values for a restraint order cannot be accurately given since these are made against a person to prohibit him from dealing with property rather than for a specific amount.

  Arts Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between the Northern Ireland Arts Council and the arts council in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) the Irish Republic; and what plans there are to enhance co-operation and promote more jointly funded projects. [17096]

  Mr. Ancram
  The chairmen and chief executives of the four Arts Councils in the United Kingdom meet from time to time to consider matters of common interest. Close co-operation has also evolved between the four 84
  councils in relation to their function as distributing bodies for the proceeds of the national lottery, with regular meetings at official level.

  The chief executives of the Arts Councils in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, in Scotland and in Wales meet annually to exchange information and ideas. Officers of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland are in frequent contact with officers of all four of the other Arts Councils about areas of mutual interest and individual projects which extend to more than one territory.

  The Arts Councils of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland have held annual joint meetings since the mid-1970s at which areas of co-operation are explored. In 1994, the two councils established a joint committee, with four representatives from each council, which meets twice a year to explore and develop a variety of further cross-border initiatives with particular emphasis on the involvement of youth. The two Arts Councils already jointly fund a number of all-Ireland activities and organisations, and have agreed to make joint appointments of staff as and when necessary. They currently jointly employ an arts co-operation officer to encourage north/south co-operation and co-ordinate touring arts events in both territories.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the chairman of the Northern Ireland Arts Council met the chairmen of the arts councils in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) the Irish Republic in 1995. [17097]

  Mr. Ancram
  The chairman of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland met his Scottish, English and Welsh counterparts on one occasion in 1995 while he had three meetings with the chairman of the Arts Council of the Republic of Ireland.

  In addition to the above, the vice-chairman of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland substituted for the chairman at one meeting with the chairmen of the Scottish, the English and the Welsh councils.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what projects were jointly funded between the Northern Ireland Arts Council and the arts council in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) the Irish Republic in 1995; and at what cost. [17098]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1995, the four UK Arts Councils and the Arts Council in the Republic of Ireland funded a five cities tour of poetry readings. The cost to the Arts Council of England was £22,000, with the other four councils contributing £1,000 each.

  Jointly funded projects between individual councils were as follows:

  (a) The Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Scottish Arts Council jointly commissioned from Piers Hellawell a musical composition for the Highland festival in June 1996 at a cost of £650 to each Council.

  (b) There were no projects jointly funded between the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Arts Council of England.

  (c) There were no projects jointly funded between the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Arts Council of Wales.

  (d) There were a large number of projects jointly funded between the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Arts Council in the Republic of Ireland. My officials are currently

  85
  gathering the information requested and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as it is available, and place the information in the Library of the House.

  Community Work Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the number of applicants against the available places on the community work programme at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [18078]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for the reply to be given.

  letter from Ian Walters to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 1 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about applicants for the pilot Community Work Programme.

  At 23 February 1996, the Partnerships established to manage the pilot Community Work Programme had received 708 applications for the 1,000 places targeted. At the same date 509 places were filled.

  I hope that you find this reply useful.

  Action for Community Employment Scheme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to replace the action for community employment scheme with the community work programme; and if he will make a statement. [18090]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for the reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 28 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about the pilot Community Work Programme and ACE.

  There are no plans to replace the Action for Community Employment programme with the Community Work Programme (CWP). The Training and Employment Agency will undertake during 1996/97 an evaluation of the CWP pilot as well as an in depth review of its policies and measures aimed at helping the long term unemployed back to work. It is not possible at this stage to say what changes, if any, to present programmes might result from these exercises.

  I hope that you find this reply useful.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed reduction in the funding of the action for community employment scheme on the achievement of the objectives of the policy appraisal and fair treatment initiative. [17676]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  86
  Letter from Ian Walters to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about the PAFT initiative and ACE.

  Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment guidelines were applied to decisions regarding the future funding of the Action for Community Employment programme. The affect of the reduction in funding should not have a differential impact on the overall balance of the programme to PAFT target groups.

  A report of the assessment which was made will be submitted for inclusion in the 1995 PAFT Annual Report due to be published later this year.

  I hope that you find this reply useful.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been allocated to the Northern Ireland ACE training scheme to protect the jobs of core workers; for how long such protection will be extended; and which Department provided the funds. [18682]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about the Action for Community Employment programme.

  In her announcement on 19 February 1996 Baroness Denton indicated that up to £2 million would be made available in 1996–97 to allow ACE schemes more time to manage the reduction of their activities. It is not possible at present to say exactly how much of this sum will be used to help schemes which are losing core workers to phase them out over the year. The Agency is continuing to consult the Northern Ireland Federation of ACE Schemes on the implementation of the assistance package.

  Until actual expenditure patterns become clearer during 1996–97 it will not be possible to say with certainty which Department has provided the funds. The Agency will seek to provide at least some of the funding from savings in other Agency programmes.

  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the funding of the action for community employment scheme came from the European structural funds in the last 12 months; how much of this money is to be allocated to the company development programme; and if he will make a statement. [17677]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 4 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about European Union funding for the Action for Community Employment Scheme.

  During the past 12 months, no European Union funding was awarded to the ACE scheme and therefore nothing was reallocated to the Company Development Programme from this source.

  I hope that you find this reply useful.

  Household Formation
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the rate of new household formation in each year since 1993; and what is the projected rate to the end of 1996. [18630]

  Mr. Moss
  Latest information available shows the following rates:

  Year

  Rate of new household formation

  July 1993–June 1994

  3.1 per cent. (17,530 new households)

  July 1994–June 1995

  2.5 per cent. (14,570 new households)

  July 1995–June 1996

  2.7 per cent. (15,870 new households)

  Homelessness
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by county the total numbers of(a) families, (b) single men, (c) single women and (d) men and women under the age of 18 years, who were registered as homeless during (i) 1994 and (ii) 1995. [18631]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised by the chief executive that figures can be provided only for those applicants who were accepted as homeless and awarded A1 priority status. The information is available only on a financial year basis and by Housing Executive region, not by county.

  The information is as follows:

  Housing executive region awarded A1 status

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Belfast

  Families

  550

  508

  Single Men 18–59

  144

  125

  Single Women 18–59

  110

  107

  Men and Women under 18

  55

  37

  South-east

  Families

  511

  478

  Single Men 18–59

  71

  91

  Single Women 18–59

  96

  95

  Men and Women under 18

  29

  50

  South

  Families

  345

  342

  Single Men 18–59

  52

  66

  Single Women 18–59

  79

  72

  Men and Women under 18

  28

  33

  North-east

  Families

  330

  325

  Single Men 18–59

  72

  69

  Single Women 18–59

  67

  67

  Men and Women under 18

  23

  19

  West

  Families

  679

  658

  Single Men 18–59

  114

  141

  Single Women 18–59

  140

  163

  Men and Women under 18

  55

  52

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the percentage change of the number of A1 applicants in each Housing Executive region between 1994 and 1995; [18680]
  88
  (2) if he will list by Housing Executive region the total numbers on housing waiting lists and the number of A 1 applicants. [18681]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised by its chief executive that the total numbers on the housing waiting list, the number of applicants granted A1 status and the percentage change in A1 status at 31 March 1994 and 1995, by Housing Executive region, were as follows:

  Northern Ireland housing executive region

  A1 Status

  Percentage change

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Belfast

  557

  648

  +16

  South-east

  325

  331

  +2

  South

  156

  146

  -6

  North-east

  214

  240

  +12

  West

  438

  557

  +27

  Housing associations Belfast Improved Houses/Oaklee1

  63

  81

  +28

  Total

  1,753

  2,003

  +14

  1 These housing associations are included as they take prospective tenants exclusively from the Housing Executive waiting list.

  Northern Ireland housing executive region: waiting list

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Belfast

  5,686

  6,268

  6,195

  South-east

  4,416

  4,367

  4,423

  South

  2,805

  2,652

  2,678

  North-east

  4,493

  4,103

  4,082

  West

  4,512

  4,782

  4,512

  Housing Associations Belfast Improved Houses/Oaklee1

  1,050

  1,183

  1,347

  Total

  22,962

  23,355

  23,237

  1 These housing associations are included as they take prospective tenants exclusively from the Housing Executive waiting list.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Arts (Public Funding)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of overall public funding provision for the arts. [16371]

  Mr. Sproat
  Funding for the arts in this country is at a higher level now than ever before. Through the four arts councils, the Government are giving £229 million this year. Local authorities across England, Scotland and Wales are providing revenue funding of around £237 million. Support last year from the business community reached a new peak at nearly £83 million. On top of this, the lottery has provided more than £277 million towards improving and increasing the availability and quality of the arts for everyone in the UK.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many charities which assist young people have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [16373]
  89
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Over 1,000 awards, to a value of £75 million, have been made to organisations directly concerned with young people, 114 of which, worth more than £16 million, have been made directly to schools.

  Helping the nation's young people is an investment in our future. That is why I have recently announced plans to widen the distribution of lottery proceeds—with a particular emphasis on youth. My proposals will give the lottery distributors the ability to provide revenue support for initiatives to help develop sporting and artistic excellence in our country's young people.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the conclusions of monitoring the distribution of national lottery funds in relation to charities. [16374]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Monitoring of the distribution of lottery proceeds is on going. To date 4,394 awards worth £556.2 million have been made to charities and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to overcome the difficulties for lottery funds applications in inner city areas arising from the need to identify partnership funding. [16376]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  I recently met the chairmen of the lottery distributing bodies and encouraged them, within the existing directions issued under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, to take a flexible approach on partnership funding requirements, particularly when considering applications from areas in need of regeneration and in remote rural areas. The Sports Council has recently announced that it would be setting a lower limit for applicants based in any of 70 areas throughout England of economic and sporting deprivation. The partnership requirement can also be met by contributions in kind, such as voluntary labour, or the donation of land or equipment.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To asks the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will provide a breakdown of ticket sales for the national lottery on the same regional basis as the breakdown of value of all awards published in the December 1995 report on the distribution of national lottery proceeds; and if she will include such a breakdown of ticket sales in future monthly lottery reports. [16972]

  Mr. Sproat
  The breakdown of national lottery ticket sales is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. The Director General of the National Lottery has licensed Camelot to run the national lottery and he regulates its operations. I have therefore asked the director general to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Sport (Televising)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received since the publication of her consultation document on the televising of sport. [16375]
  90
  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has received representations from members of the public, Members of Parliament and from organisations representing consumers, broadcasters, sports bodies and regulatory authorities.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent consultations she has had with representatives of the film industry. [16377]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I meet film industry representatives on a regular basis and had meetings last week with Sir David Puttnam and Sir Sydney Samuelson.

  National Stadium (Manchester)
  Sir Fergus Mongomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received about the siting of a new stadium in Manchester for the Commonwealth games in 2002. [16378]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have received a number of representations about Manchester's plans for the Commonwealth games stadium but have not been directly involved in the decision making process. However, my officials have been kept in touch with progress.

  Tourism Industry (Deregulation)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress she has made in reducing excessive regulation in the tourism industry. [16365]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Good progress has been made. Measures such as the reforms of liquor licensing law, Sunday trading law and food hygiene regulation have all benefited tourism. My Department worked closely with the Department of Transport on the recent relaxation of the rules governing white-on-brown road signs. This will help a wide range of tourism-related businesses.

  River Thames (Tourism)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for developing the tourist potential of the River Thames. [16370]

  Mr. Sproat
  In January my right hon. Friend launched the "Focus London" initiative to revitalise London's image as a tourist destination. Four million pounds of public money will be made available to be matched by the private sector. This will undoubtably boost tourism to the river area. We are working closely with the London tourist board and the Government office for London and private sector partners to ensure that we take full advantage of the excellent opportunities for sustainable tourism offered by the river.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of her Department since 1992, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation

  91
  and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17488]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: I have today placed in the House Libraries a list detailing all overseas visits made by all Ministers of my Department since 1992.

  Total overseas travel and subsistence costs for Ministers and accompanying private secretaries were £15,807.57 in 1993–94; £46,125.09 in 1994–95; and £23,800.89, so far in 1995–96. Figures for 1992–93 are not available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what consultations he has had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government's response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place. [16607]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

  Confiscation Unit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will review with the service heads the resources allocated to the confiscation unit; [17146]

  (2) if he will review with the Director of Public Prosecutions the resources allocated to the confiscation unit. [17143]

  The Attorney-General
  The central confiscation branch is part of the central casework area of the Crown Prosecution Service. Whilst the allocation of resources within the service is primarily a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions I regularly discuss with her the allocation of resources to the service as a whole.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Attorney-General how many full-time staff there are in the confiscation unit of the Crown Prosecution Service. [17141]

  The Attorney-General
  The central confiscation branch, which is part of the central casework area of the Crown Prosecution Service, has eight lawyers, two accountancy technicians, and eight caseworkers working full time. In addition, there are two lawyers and one accountancy technician working part time.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what monitoring is undertaken of the documents relating to PII claims; and if he will make a statement. [17792]

  The Attorney-General
  It is for the Minister or other responsible person advancing a PII claim to satisfy himself that the documents fall within the scope of the claim as formulated.
  92
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what is the definition his Department follows of public interest in relation to a PH certificate; and if he will make a statement; [17555]

  The Attorney-General
  The law on public interest immunity is judge-made. The courts have held that a PH claim may be advanced with respect to a document either on the basis of its contents or because it belongs to one of the established PII classes.

  As to the future, I have announced that the Government are considering carefully the recommendations in the Scott report in relation to PII and are seeking the views of interested parties. The Government intend that the House will have an opportunity to consider the circumstances in which PH should be claimed by Ministers and the criteria for those claims, Official Report, 26 February 1996, column 684.

  Prince and Princess of Wales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General on what occasions he has advised, or acted as an interlocutor, for(a) Her Majesty the Queen and (b) the Prince and Princess of Wales in relation to, or about their respective private property and/or other rights consequent on the separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales. [18885]

  The Attorney-General
  The matters raised by the hon. Member are confidential.

WALES

  Health Care Budget
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the total annual budget in Wales is designated for health care; and if he will make a statement. [17516]

  Mr. Richards
  Provision for the national health service in Wales currently represents about 33 per cent. of total expenditure within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  A470
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's future plans concerning the improvement of the A470 in Powys. [17528]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Plans for major improvements on the A470 in Powys in 1996–97 and future years will be included in the 1996 Welsh Office departmental report to be published later this month. In addition there are five schemes in the medium—under £3 million— programme for construction in the next three years. Further schemes are planned.

  Gwent Health Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he was(a) consulted or (b) informed beforehand about the decision to appoint Maggie Adman as director of finance of the Gwent Health Commission. [17545]
  93
  Mr. Richards
  An official from the Welsh Office was one of two independent assessors present during the interviews. The decision to appoint Mrs. Aikman was taken by Gwent health authority on the basis of appropriate information about each of the candidates.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the director of Invest in Britain to discuss trends in the number of inward investment company visits arranged by Invest in Britain which led to visits by these companies to Wales. [17228]

  Mr. Hague
  No. My Department and the Welsh Development Agency work closely with the bureau on this and other matters. I am keen to see as many company visits to Wales as possible.

  Sheep
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage and the number of lame sheep in the national flock. [17504]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have been funding the Royal Veterinary college to carry out a study into ovine lameness. The first part of the study, a survey of a random sample of sheep holdings, found a reported incidence of lameness of about 8 per cent. in 1993–94. This is now being followed up by on-farm investigations into the different causes of lameness with a view to developing improved methods of control.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance he has given the abattoir industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [17439]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Seven companies have accepted grant aid for assistance towards the abattoir industry in Wales under regional selective assistance and agricultural and marketing grants, with a total value of £2.3 million. These projects were forecast to create or safeguard 408 jobs and involve £10.5 million of private investment.

  Wales European Centre, Brussels
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance is being made available this year by his Department towards the maintenance of the Wales European Centre in Brussels. [17886]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Electricity Supply
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will examine the reasons for the interruption to electricity supplies in Wales during the recent severely cold weather; and if he will make a statement about the adequacy of the electricity supply network in Wales and of the quality of maintenance and frequency of replacement of parts of that network. [18363]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I met SWALEC's chief executive recently to discuss these matters. Action on the issues you raise is properly the responsibility of the company itself and the Director General of Electricity Supply.
  94

  Telecommunications Masts
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is pursuing in Wales to regulate the construction of telecommunications masts, electricity towers and wind generators in areas of outstanding natural beauty and on high ridges. [18364]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government are committed to the protection of the countryside generally and to high quality landscapes in particular, while providing for the growth of telecommunication systems and renewable energy sources. Policy guidance to local planning authorities on these matters is contained in planning policy guidance note 8 "Telecommunications" and note 22 "Renewable Energy". The regulation of overhead electricity lines is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Urban Design
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage higher standards of urban design in respect of new developments in towns and villages in Wales. [18365]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I want to see a high standard of design which contributes to the quality of people's lives and can help to revitalise our urban areas and attract business and investment to them. Responsibility for good design rests with designers and developers. What Government must do is to encourage and not prescribe. Planning policy guidance note 1 advises planning authorities that good design should be the aim of all involved in the development process.

  Domestic Services (Prices)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) by what percentage the price of gas for industrial and commercial customers has changed in Wales over the past five years, on a year-by-year basis; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes; [18462]

  (2) by what percentage the price of electricity for commercial and industrial customers has changed in Wales over the past five years, on a year-by-year basis; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes; [18464]

  (3) by what percentage the price of telecommunications for industrial and commercial customers has changed in Wales over the past five years, on a year-by-year basis; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes; [18460]

  (4) by what percentage the price of telecommunications for domestic customers has changed in Wales over the past five years, on a year-by-year basis; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes; [18461]

  (5) by what percentage the price of gas for domestic customers has changed in Wales over the past five years, on a year-by-year basis; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes; [18463]

  (6) by what percentage the price of electricity for domestic customers has changed in Wales over the past five years, on a year-by-year basis; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes. [18465]
  95
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available separately for Wales.

  Water Services
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) by what percentage the price of water and water services for domestic customers has changed in Wales over the past five years, on a year-by-year basis; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes. [18466]

  (2) by what percentage the price of water and water services for commercial and industrial customers has changed in Wales over the past five years, on a year-by-year basis; and what assessment he has made to the reasons for the changes. [18372]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The yearly average percentage increases in water and sewerage charges to household customers in Wales served by Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig are as follows:

  Financial year

  Annual percentage increase

  1991–92

  15.92

  1992–93

  8.11

  1993–94

  9.41

  1994–95

  9.45

  1995–96

  3.25

  Source:

  Office of Water Services.

  Meaningful average increase figures are not available for commercial and industrial customers as the average commercial customer and average commercial use can change significantly from year to year.

  Sample bills for non-household customers are provided in Ofwat's report on tariff structure and charges, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  M4 (Fencing Contract)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will make final settlement to Haycan Ltd. in respect of the fencing contract for the M4 Brynglas tunnels which was completed in May 1995. [18510]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter between Haycan Ltd. and the main contractor for the scheme.

  Housing Development (Gelliwion)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will examine the circumstances surrounding the decision by Taff Ely district council to proceed with a planning application to develop private housing on a greenfield site at Gelliwion, next to a listed site of special scientific interest, in Pontypridd. [18366]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has received requests to call in this planning application for his own determination. After careful consideration he has issued an article 14 direction. This prevents the local planning authority from granting planning permission, but does not prevent it continuing to process the application, or refusing planning permission. I will ensure that the hon. Member is informed of the final decision on call-in.
  96

  Town and Village Centres
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the measures proposed by the Welsh Office to revitalise town and village centres in Wales. [18368]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A wide range of existing Welsh Office measures, in conjunction with local authorities, development agencies and other bodies are being used to promote the regeneration of town and village centres in Wales. These measures include the strategic development scheme; urban investment grant; the programme for the valleys; the Wales tourist board's historic towns and resorts integrated development programme; the Land Authority for Wales; and the Welsh Development Agency's urban and rural development programmes.

  The forthcoming White Paper for rural Wales represents a comprehensive review of the Government's policies as they affect life in rural Wales. Reflecting the responses to the extensive White Paper consultation exercise which has been undertaken, it will address the need to support communities, to encourage economic diversification and enterprise and to protect and conserve the Welsh countryside.

  Landfill Tax
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the environmental impact in Wales of the proposed landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [18369]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The landfill tax will contribute towards reducing the impact of waste on the environment by encouraging businesses and consumers to produce less waste and to recover value from more of the waste that is produced.

  Housing Stock (Valleys)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the measures proposed by the Welsh Office to underpin financially the improvement of existing housing stock in the south Wales valleys. [18370]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Around £85 million is being made available in 1996–97 for capital improvements to the housing stock in the south Wales valleys.

  Energy Conservation
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures have been proposed by the Welsh Office to improve domestic energy conservation in Wales. [18371]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Domestic energy conservation can currently be improved under the renovation grant system and the home energy efficiency scheme. In 1997 Welsh councils will prepare energy conservation reports to meet the requirements of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.

  Antisocial Tenants
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to help local authorities in Wales deal with anti-social tenants. [18513]
  97
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Part V of the Housing Bill, which would apply to England and Wales, contains a number of such proposals including:

  (a) giving councils a discretionary power to introduce a scheme of one year introductory tenancies allowing for quicker and easier repossession where new tenants behave irresponsibly;

  (b) extending the grounds for possession to include nuisance or annoyance by anyone visiting or in the locality of a tenant's property;

  (c) introducing a new ground for possession relating to domestic violence;

  (d) allowing a power of arrest to be attached to injunctions where there is actual or threatened violence.

  Farmers Charter
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he published his farmers charter; and how many copies have been distributed to farmers. [18876]

  Mr. Hague
  "Helping Farmers in Wales", the charter standard for farmers in Wales, was published on 5 October 1995. Approximately 7,300 copies have been issued through the offices of the Country Landowners' Association, the Farmers' Union of Wales, the National Farmers' Union and my Agriculture Department.

  Health Promotion Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the guidelines to health authorities on the repatriation to them of funds hitherto allocated to the Health Promotion Authority for Wales; if such guidance will cover the impact of rental payments by the HPAW for its headquarters buildings on its(a) operating costs and (b) total costs in bidding for health promotion work from health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [18838]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department issued a circular letter (DGM(96)(12) on 30 January 1996, giving guidance to health authorities on the future arrangements for health promotion in Wales and the role of Health Promotion Wales. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Health Promotion Wales will be expected to meet all of its costs through the contracts it secures with health authorities, the Welsh Office and other organisations.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list capital projects in excess of £0.5 million gross cost under consideration by Welsh training and enterprise councils in which some expenditure may be committed in the final quarter of the 1995–96 financial year. [18592]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no projects with a gross capital cost in excess of £0.5 million being considered by Welsh training and enterprise councils which will entail capital expenditure commitments during the last quarter of the current financial year.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the EU Commissioner 98
  responsible for regional development and his departmental officials concerning a review of objective 2 status in industrial south Wales. [18593]

  Mr. Hague
  I met Commissioner Wulf Mathia on 4 October 1995 when I discussed continued objective 2 status for industrial south Wales and the Government have made clear to the Commissioner that we see no case for changing the current UK objective map.

  My officials, together with the partnerships, are already developing the new single programming document for industrial south Wales.

  Emergency Medical Admissions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 498, on emergency admissions and elective surgery, if he will place in the Library a copy of the emergency admissions action plan. [18623]

  Mr. Hague
  A copy of the outline action plan agreed by senior NHS representatives has been placed in the Library of the house. The action plan continues to be developed and I expect to receive a further report later this month.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, (1) pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 497, if he will give the available figures since 31 March 1995 for the levels of unspent balances of general practitioner fundholders (a) broken down by family health service authority and (b) for Wales to the latest available date; [18626]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 27 February, Official Report, column 498, if he will list the figures indicating balances as at 31 December 1995; and what assessment he has made of how these figures related to business plans provided to his Department before the start of the financial year. [18629]

  Mr. Hague
  GP fundholder health plans are not submitted to the Department. It is for FHSAs in Wales to assess the plans against national and local priorities for improving health and health services.

  Information on fundholder balances is shown in the annual accounts of family health services authorities. The Department does not collect this information during the financial year.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 496, what assessment he has made of the impact of containing the total outturn expenditure figure on the Cardiff bay barrage project on completion of (a) the environmental island in the lake, (b) the announced number of water mixers, (c) the sea angling pier, (d) the combined rain and foul sewer outfalls to a standard of not more than three spills per summer, (e) three boat locks, and (f) the reduction of the lake water depth to 1.5 m; and if he will make a statement. [18627]
  99
  Mr. Hague
  An assessment of these costs is an operational matter for the Cardiff Bay development corporation. I have asked the chief executive of the corporation to respond and will place a copy of that response in the Library of the House.

  Hospital Trusts (Job Plans)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Welsh NHS hospitals trusts have completed and agreed job plans for all their consultants. [18839]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally. It is up to local management to ensure that consultants 100
  have an agreed job plan setting out their fixed commitments and other responsibilities.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 496, which two non-executive directors of the South East Wales Ambulance trust have their terms of office expiring on 30 April. [18679]

  Mr. Hague
  The two non-executive directors whose terms of appointment expire on 30 April 1996 are Mr. Ian Gray and Mr. Brian John Webb. Information on all current public appointments is contained in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

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

Prescriptions: Men over Sixty
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the annual cost to public funds of implementing the decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the entitlement of men aged 60 to drugs and other items.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we estimate that the cost of giving free prescriptions to men between the ages of 60 and 65 is about £40 million a year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does it not amend considerably the Answer that she gave to an earlier Question when she suggested that the cost was only £2 million? Secondly, does my noble friend agree that for £40 million of expenditure to be incurred without parliamentary assent in either House is an alarming precedent?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend asked an identical Question on 15th January this year. My reply was:
"My Lords, we estimate that the cost of giving free prescriptions to men between the ages of 60 and 65 is about £40 million a year".—[Official Report, 15/1/96; col. 357.]
With regard to the second part of my noble friend's question, it is not a matter of the European Court deciding that we should tax our citizens in order to find
2
this money. The European Court decided that the principle of equality between men and women in matters of social security applies in the age of exemption from prescription charges.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the confusion over whether the sum is £2 million a year or £40 million a year arises from the fact that the judgment about prescription charges was made by the European Court of Justice, which is the court which decides matters relating to the European Union, and not the European Court of Human Rights as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? However, does the noble Baroness agree that the noble Lord is absolutely right to complain that that foreign court can impose charges on Parliament for which the Government then have to raise taxation? Would it not be in the interests of this country to amend Section 2 of the European Communities Act to give us back control over all taxation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying that it was the European Court of Justice which made the ruling and not the European Court of Human Rights. In this case the European Court of Justice left the United Kingdom free to decide how to implement the principle it had established. We decided to equalise the age of exemption at 60 for both men and women. That was our decision. We took that decision to protect the rights of those women currently receiving free prescriptions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the Minister's remark that we decided that the age should be 60 for everyone, whereas I gather that we could have made women wait until 65, and it was only a question of equality, does she agree that it is time we reviewed the blanket entitlement to free prescriptions at either age? There are many people over 60 who could well afford to pay for their prescriptions. The figure of more than 80 per cent. of people receiving free prescriptions seems very high.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a revíew was carried out in 1993 into the very areas that my noble

3
friend mentioned. At that time it was decided to stick with the present policy and, after the European Court of Justice decision, that the exemption should apply at 60.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many men and women in this country will greatly welcome the judgment of the European Court of Justice that men and women are equally entitled to social security benefits—in this case free prescriptions—at the same age without discrimination? Does she agree that they will welcome the Government's decision not to equalise upwards by requiring everyone to wait until 65 but allowing simple justice at the age of 60 for both sexes?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, many men will rejoice and welcome the European Court's ruling. Many women will be delighted that the exemption was equalised at 60.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government have accepted that men over 60 can claim back prescription charges for three months? How will it be possible to prove whether those prescriptions have been paid for and used in the previous period?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we use the prescription claims processing unit. Indeed, it has already authorised payments totalling £2.6 million to 83,000 men.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the question as to whether expenditure of this sort should be incurred without the assent of either House of Parliament?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that I made it plain to my noble friend and to your Lordships that it was our decision to incur this additional cost.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, following on from the question by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, do the Government have any intention of further reviewing the distribution of free prescriptions? It seems to me to be eminently sensible that people who can afford to pay for their prescriptions should do so, but that those who cannot need not do so.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not have any intentions at this moment to undertake another formal review.

Malawi: Murder Trial Acquittals
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
Whether overseas aid from the United Kingdom was used to fund prosecution costs in the recent trial in Malawi of six defendants who were acquitted of the accusation of murder.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, neither overseas aid nor other public funds from the United Kingdom were used to fund prosecution or defence costs in the trial.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may transmit my noble friend's apologies to the House for not being here; she broke her leg over the weekend. I should like now to put a supplementary question.
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that strong verbal attacks which seem to be politically motivated have been addressed to the judge who acquitted the defendants in that case? The Government are lodging an appeal against the judgment. That will cost several thousands of pounds by way of expenditure from a country which is already extremely poor. Will the Minister take those factors into account when considering what legal reforms should be advised to Malawi and the kind of aid that is given to that country?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join us in wishing my noble friend a very speedy recovery from her injuries.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as regards my noble friend's supplementary question, the whole issue of a trial within Malawi is a matter for the Malawi judicial authorities. We believe that events should be allowed to run their course. Whatever happens there, it is an independent country and it must take the decisions.
However, my noble friend is absolutely right in saying that Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world. That is why we have been helping it to reform its systems—not only its legal sector but its economic reform, health and eduction sectors, its renewable natural resources, and good government. So far as concerns the legal sector, we have a task force on legal reforms under the chairmanship of a Malawi judge, whose report was finalised last month. It is being considered both by the Government of Malawi and our own Government. I hope that this will lead to new help for the Malawian legal sector as well as all the other matters that I have mentioned.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we join in the general expressions of sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and send our very best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she appreciates that yesterday was Martyrs Day in Malawi, when dissidents, such as Mkwapatira Mhango the journalist, who were murdered by agents of the former regime are commemorated? Does she agree that, despite the fact that the defendants in this trial were lucky enough to be acquitted, we should join with the people of Malawi in giving thanks for their deliverance from 30 years of one-party dictatorship?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was aware that yesterday was Martyrs Day in Malawi, but

5
I realise that the noble Lord's question is what one might call a little loaded. However, we were very pleased to support the elections which took place in Malawi. We believe that they were free and fair. While there are bound to be criticisms in the settling down of a new government, I have to say to the House that there has been an improvement in human rights since those elections. There is now freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and genuine political dialogue in Parliament. Those are good things.
As regards individuals, I do not think that that aspect comes into this Question.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may express my commiseration to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and send wishes for a speedy recovery.
Is the noble Baroness aware that she has the full support of these Benches in giving assistance to developing countries to achieve good governance? Does she not agree that a state prosecution service, properly constituted and conforming to internationally agreed principles, forms part of good governance? Although the Minister says that there was no actual assistance given in this trial, the assistance that Britain gives to Malawi to upgrade and bring up to international standards its legal service is a thoroughly good thing?
Would she not also congratulate the current Malawi Government on at least initially agreeing to the verdict which went against them, thus accepting the rule of law, even though they are now considering appealing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the importance of a sound state prosecution service. That was why just over a year ago we approved £100,000 for the Malawian legal sector to improve the skills of court interpreters, to make sure that there were law books in its High Court library, and to give training to lawyers and High Court judges.
As regards the noble Lord's comment about the Government of Malawi accepting the legal outcome of the Mwanza trial, of course that is right. The government are seeking to improve all their systems, but they have a great deal of work to do. They therefore not only need our help but deserve our support. We constantly make the government aware of their need to practise good government in all its aspects in Malawi. It is not good enough merely to have freedom of speech, of the press and political dialogue; they must also be a transparent accountable government to all their people.
Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Minister made it clear to the Government of Malawi and other recipients of British aid that the Minister's situation is made much easier in winning the case for aid where human rights and independence of the judiciary are expected?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.

Asylum Seekers: Help to Local Authorities
2.50 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to make an announcement about the nature and extent of the help promised to local authorities with their responsibilities to asylum seekers arising under the Children Act 1989.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Department of Health jointly with the Department of the Environment have had discussions with representatives from the local authority associations regarding the implications for local authorities resulting from the changes in social security benefits for asylum seekers.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She is no doubt aware that we have been given categorical assurances on the subject, but it deals with an emergency that came into effect a month ago tomorrow. While honour in government assurances is taken for granted, punctuality is also to be desired.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl. The grant that will be forthcoming for local authorities will be paid in arrears, so that their costs will be covered.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the children of asylum seekers will lose their entitlement to free school meals which are predicated on income support? What do the Government intend to do to ensure that such children receive the necessary free school meals in the interests of their health?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the position will be as before. If asylum seekers or their children qualify for benefits, those benefits will still be supplied. Up to 80 per cent. of the unavoidable additional expenditure will be paid to local authorities. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I am not sure whether she appreciates the distinction between asylum seekers who are appealing after their case has been reviewed and those who have not appealed. Where such people are appealing, I understand that the benefits will not be forthcoming as they have been in the past but that, nevertheless, under the Children Act there is a duty on the Social Services Department to ensure that the children are looked after.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Government's own independent committee, spoke about the withdrawal of benefits to asylum seekers in the following terms:
"Health professionals have warned that, given the vulnerability of many asylum seekers due to already precarious health, some will die"?

7
Is not the Minister worried that, given the delay in announcing the new provisions, problems will particularly affect the children? Unless the benefit is at a high level and permanent, the problems may come to fruition.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, officials are discussing the details with colleagues from the Department of the Environment and local authority associations. That fully meets the most pressing concerns put to the Government by the Social Security Advisory Committee and local authorities.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not true that local authorities have been supplying the services? That is why they have been asking the Government for extra help. It is not that people have not been looked after. The burden has fallen unevenly on different boroughs in different areas, particularly in London, and in different years. Therefore, local authorities are pleased with what is happening in asylum funding.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I believe that my noble friend is right. The local authority associations are continuing discussions with the Government and are now well aware that 80 per cent. of their unavoidable additional expenditure above a certain threshold will be met, as will the housing benefit subsidy forgone.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, has the Minister received any estimates from local authority organisations as to the financial level of help that will be required as a result of the policy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that we are awaiting that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that she said that, under the Children Act, it is open to local authorities to ignore the criteria for the provision of free school meals in any case where they consider it to be in the interests of children?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that I can better the answer that I gave to the noble Baroness. If the family would have been eligible, I understand that, subject to the time period of the appeal, the ruling is the same.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that her replies so far could be described as more sympathetic than specific? Can she tell us when the next meeting with local authority negotiators is scheduled?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is up to them to decide when they wish to speak to the department. After all, it is they who are collecting the information to present to the department.

Police Bill [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMIllEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 106 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Police Areas]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 46, line 46, at end insert ("and the non-metropolitan districts of Leicester and Rutland").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. All the amendments to this consolidation Bill appearing on the Marshalled List in my name arise from the making of the Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996 which was approved by your Lordships' House a few days ago, on 28th February.
The order makes provision for the reorganisation of local government in Leicestershire. One consequence of the changes made by the order is that the names of the local government areas which make up the Leicestershire Police Area will change from 1st April 1997, although the geographical extent of the police area will remain the same. Article 5 of the 1996 order amends Schedule 1A to the Police Act 1964 which sets out the descriptions of the police areas. The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to make equivalent provision in relation to Schedule 1 to the Bill which is derived from Schedule 1A to the 1964 Act.
As I indicated, the changes in the names of the local government areas making up the Leicestershire Police Area will not take place until 1st April 1997.
Amendment No. 2 makes the appropriate transitional provision to ensure that until that date the Leicestershire Police Area is described by reference to the existing local government area. Amendment No. 3 revokes Article 5 of the 1996 order which is no longer required in the light of the repeal of the Police Act 1964 by the Bill. When the Bill was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, the committee was made aware of the possible need to bring forward the amendments. The amendments have since been approved by the chairman of the joint committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for whose assistance I am most grateful. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitional provisions, savings etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 68, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) for the entry in that column opposite the name of the Leicestershire police area there were substituted—
The county of Leicestershire",").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already explained this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals and revocations]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 72, line 43, at end insert—

("S.I. 1996/00

The Leicestershire Article 5.")(City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996.

Article 5.")

The noble and learned Lord said: I have already explained this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Industrial Tribunals Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this or the next Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee on either of them. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall beg to move in each case that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Rights Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 [Period for reflection and consideration]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert ("the fourteenth day after").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 71.
I have tabled these amendments in order to address the concerns expressed in Committee with regard to the commencement date of the period of reflection and consideration, where it is necessary for notice of the statement of marital breakdown to be served on the other party to a marriage. My noble friend Lord Coleraine moved an amendment in Committee to provide that where the statement of marital breakdown is made by only one party, the period of reflection and consideration should not commence until the statement has been served on the other party. There must, however, be absolute certainty as to the date of the period's commencement, as the divorce or separation process depends upon the passing of a prescribed period of time in order to establish irretrievable breakdown. There is no certain way of recording the date on which notice of the statement has been received by the other party, and in fact that party could go on denying receipt indefinitely. Not only therefore would there be uncertainty in this method, but it could give rise to deliberate obstruction on the part of the other party.
The date on which a statement is received by the court is a recorded fact and it is for this reason that the commencement of the period should depend upon this date. However, I have decided to extend the commencement date to 14 days from the date on which the statement is received by the court to allow for service of the statement on the other party. Rules which the Lord Chancellor is empowered to make under Clause 10 can then provide for the statement to be served on the other party within 14 days from the time it is received by the court.
Amendment No. 32 then takes the matter further by providing that where a statement of marital breakdown has been made by one party and rules require the court to serve a copy of the statement on the other party, the court may, on the application of that other party, extend the period for reflection and consideration where failure to comply with the rules of service has caused inordinate delay in the service of the statement.
Amendment No. 71 is necessary in order to enable rules made by the Lord Chancellor to provide for service of the statement and the circumstances in which such service can be dispensed with or substituted. It is obviously necessary for the purposes of the provisions contained in Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 that rules

11
clearly set out the requirements as to service. It is more helpful for this to be done along with other rules relating directly to the statement and which are made under Clause 10, rather than generally in rules of court.
I think that these amendments adequately address the concerns expressed in Committee. They allow for additional time to be granted to parties where there has been inordinate delay, but place the responsibility for proving why there is good cause for extending the period on the party who alleges delay in service of the statement. This should protect against delaying tactics and deliberate obstruction on the part of the other party. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am glad to hear from my noble and learned friend that the period for reflection and consideration will start 14 days after the court receives the statement. I quite understand that there are very good reasons why the amendment that I proposed in Committee could not be accepted in substance. I only hope that my noble and learned friend can assure the House that no difficulties will arise in a number of possible situations that can be envisaged. One is the absence on holiday abroad of the spouse who is being served with a statement. The other is possibly the spouse who served the statement interfering and seeing that the other spouse does not receive the statement. I am sure that rules of court cover these matters, but they are of concern.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The purpose of the power to extend given to the court is to cope with any difficulties of the sort to which he referred. It is a fairly general power to deal with matters of that kind and I expect it to be able to be capable of dealing with the sort of circumstances that he mentioned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert ("except where subsection (8) applies.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Irvine, I am moving these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 43 are in my noble friend's name. Amendment No. 43 is the substantive one which inserts a new subsection at page 4, line 21 which would read:
"The court shall have the power to abridge the period for reflection and consideration if (but only if) the requirements of section 2(1) are satisfied and the court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the parties or of any relevant children to dissolve the marriage before such period has elapsed".
My Amendment No. 35 has the same purpose, which is, in very special cases, for the court to abridge the period for reflection and consideration.
The point is that it would be a great pity if the vast improvement which the Bill makes—a mandatory year for reflection and consideration—were made excessively restrictive by robbing the judges of any discretion to do justice in the rare cases where a divorce
12
should be granted before the expiry of the 12-month period. Just as there are special cases where a year may be too short, so also the law should be flexible enough to allow for special cases where one year is too long.
I repeat the telling example given by my noble friend Lord Irvine in Committee on 23rd January:
"A man who was separated from his wife more than 10 years ago was diagnosed in February of last year as dying from cancer. He and his wife had not divorced; neither of them had seen any need to do so. He was living with his new partner. She became pregnant. He wanted, so far as he could, to provide for her and their child after his death. His lawful wife was entirely supportive. She too was living with a new partner.
The lawful husband had substantial pension policies. Within a few months he was able to obtain a divorce from his wife with her full agreement and of course the co-operation of the courts. The divorce was finalised in June of that year; he died in September. His new wife now has the benefit of a widow's pension under his occupational scheme, to the great benefit of not only herself, but also of their child. Happily, the child was born last summer".— [Official Report, 23/1/96; col. 961.]
I think that is a really telling example. No doubt it could be said that the couple should have divorced earlier, and in a sense therefore they were the authors of their own misfortune. I suppose that is true, but they did not. It would be extraordinarily harsh to say that they have only themselves to blame. I believe that no court should be prevented from doing justice in such an exceptional situation.
Presumably, the noble and learned Lord will argue, as he did in Committee, that a year for reflection and consideration is the minimum period necessary to demonstrate that the marriage has irreparably broken down. I accept that in the generality of cases. The question is whether that is necessary in every case. I suggest that the example I gave illustrates that it is not necessary.
Noble Lords will observe how narrow is the exception proposed under Amendment No. 43. The court has to be satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the parties or any relevant children to dissolve the marriage before the year has elapsed. The word "necessary" signifies the highest conceivable threshold that would have to be surmounted before the subsection could be invoked. Necessary means that which is indispensable; that which cannot be done without. It is in sharp contradistinction to the word "reasonable", which would signify much broader discretion in the courts.
The noble and learned Lord also argued in Committee that there should be no circumstances in which the one-year period should be shortened—I quote him—
"because it is necessary to send out a clear signal that marriage is an important relationship and that a year is required before it can be dissolved once one or both of the parties has initiated the necessary procedure".
I do not believe that the clear signal is diminished by so narrow an exception as proposed by the amendment.
I observed from my reading of the discussions at Committee stage that the noble and learned Lord did not respond directly to the example given in Committee by my noble friend Lord Irvine. I invite him to do so. Does not he agree that justice obviously requires that a divorce be granted in less than a year in that case, and that the Bill should not be so rigid as to deny it?
As I said, Amendment No. 35 has the same aim but the application would be made by,
"a person authorised by order of the Lord Chancellor".
That I hope will make the amendment more acceptable to him. Originally, the idea was that the application would be made by local authority social services; but, arguably, it might be more appropriate to empower court welfare officers or perhaps a guardian ad litem.
The point of having an authorised person rather than enabling the parties to make such an application is that we understand that the noble and learned Lord is determined not to permit a breach of the compulsory year because his main argument against the current fault-based divorce and his main defence of the Bill's reforms are that the new legislation prevents a "quickie" divorce. If he allows the parties to apply for the year to be abridged, he loses that line of defence.
The amendment is, therefore, framed to allow for the extreme circumstance, when neutral third parties are concerned that children are suffering because of the delay in obtaining a divorce. For example, social services might become involved because of concerns raised by the child's school or doctor. Alternatively, the court welfare officer might become aware of the situation because of Children Act private hearings during the year.
What kind of cases would be likely to trigger such an application? First, it must be accepted that the cases would not be about children needing to be protected from one of the parents. Children Act Section 8 contact orders (access), residence orders (custody) and prohibited steps or specific issue orders (about schooling or religion) can all be obtained during or before the compulsory year of reflection. Similarly, occupation orders under the Bill can be obtained during the year in cases of domestic violence.
So the kind of cases where a social worker or court welfare officer might want to apply for the final divorce to be speeded up would be relatively rare and would be about issues not directly about the child's upbringing or protection. For example, a speedy divorce might be needed for reasons of terminal illness, as in the case mentioned earlier by my noble friend; or where there were questions of nationality or immigration which would crucially affect the children—for example, where the children have British nationality but the mother does not and will be deported if she does not remarry, or where a new partner has a job opportunity in Britain but cannot enter without the citizenship obtained through remarriage. Some states will not allow cohabiting couples to enter and that can cause particular problems where an individual wishes to enter one of those states to fulfil an employment contract, and so on, and the couple wish to go abroad with the children of the family, as a family. A speedy divorce may be needed where the children are in poverty, which is affecting their welfare because the financial arrangements cannot be finalised until after the divorce; or where the children are suffering extreme psychological and emotional distress from the delay in finalising the proceedings—for example, if one of their parents has committed a grave offence, perhaps killed one of their siblings, but is still
14
lawfully married to the other parent and is damaging the family through delaying tactics in the divorce proceedings; or in order to clarify the child's paternity, for example, where the new partner is in fact the child's father.
This amendment was not discussed at Committee stage. It has the support of a very wide range of organisations. Although sympathetic to the noble and learned Lord's determination to hold firm, everyone believes that there must be some machinery to allow the 12-month period to be shortened, albeit with great difficulty and in very exceptional circumstances, if the welfare of children is threatened. As my noble friend said in Committee, why may the year be lengthened under Clause 9 but, if these amendments are to be opposed, never abridged in special and unusual cases? There should be flexibility both ways. Judges should be trusted to identify those unusual and special cases in which one year is either too long or too short. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support the amendments and in particular Amendment No. 43, to which I put my name. This is a "free vote" Bill but I trust that I shall not infringe that principle if I observe that Procrustes was not a great liberal. I understand very well the pressures that the noble and learned Lord is under to keep down any exemptions to the one-year period. Nevertheless, in terms of realism and common humanity, we must allow that there are limits to the extent to which one single legal principle may fit every individual case.
These amendments are only concerned with exceptional cases. They are concerned with cases where significant physical or mental harm is likely to result to the parents or to the children from a delay in the divorce. They cover a number of possible situations—for example, cases of mental health. I personally have known cases in which it was essential to the mental health of one of the parties that the marriage should be dissolved; that the parties should feel free of it and be able within their own minds to start again. In the cases that I have known, happily, recovery was in the end complete.
That is not the only case. There are cases in which it is vitally in the interests of the children for the marriage to be dissolved and they should know that they will not need to deal with the person again. The case in my mind was referred to the local women's refuge. I apologise to the House for mentioning the details but we must deal with reality. The father was in the habit of buggering the children with a carefully sharpened pencil. In a case like that, divorce within less than a year was very much in the interests of the children, the mother and everybody else, including social services, which would otherwise have had to pick up the pieces.
That is the kind of case that I have in mind when I speak of Procrustes. We do not want to be precluded from showing mercy in such a case for the sake of a formula or an abstract principle, however good that principle may be. There are also straightforward cases

15
of domestic violence. One can very easily underrate the determination and indeed the cunning of a man of property who approaches his wife in that spirit after divorce.
I appreciate that the recent tragic events in Birmingham and Bristol are sub judice. Nevertheless, I hope I may say that I have received representations in relation to these particular amendments from a close neighbour of the dead woman in that case. I believe that the relevance is clear enough.
There is also a case which was reported in the Independent on 1st February concerning a woman who refused to allow a contact order with her children and is facing the threat of gaol. The man had raped her and threatened her with guns. He appeared to have no willingness to cease to do so. In those circumstances she believed that contact was not in the interests of the children. I am inclined to take her point.
As long as there are dealings through lawyers it is perfectly easy to discover addresses. I have known cases of men of this type impersonating police officers in order to get information. As I said, determination cannot be underrated. Not everybody involved in this type of case, especially if they are accidentally involved, appreciates the risks involved. The risk of unauthorised disclosure of an address is considerable, when every such unauthorised disclosure may risk a life. These risks are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. So I believe that there are cases where it is conducive to the safety, and possibly even the life, of some of the parties that it should be possible to conclude a divorce quickly and to put the whole issue behind us. I am happy to support these amendments.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put forward cogent reasons why there must be exceptional cases where exemption must be granted. I am a little concerned that Amendments Nos. 35 and 43 are not parallel.
Amendment No. 35 mentions an,
"application by a person authorised by order of the Lord Chancellor",
which means that the cases are clearly limited. Amendment No. 43 states:
"it is necessary in the interests of the parties or of any relevant children".
Amendment No. 35 refers only to the,
"best interests of any child of the marriage".
Therefore, if my noble and learned friend is going to consider having this specific principle of exemption in very dire cases, it should be under the authority of somebody nominated by the Lord Chancellor himself or herself. It should also cover both the parties as well as any children of the marriage.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I support the point that my noble friend Lady Elles has made. It will not surprise the House to recognise that I am very concerned about shortening the period of a year, which I would prefer to see extended. I can just see that there may be very limited cases where that might be necessary.
16
I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady David, whose sincerity in all this I greatly respect. I felt that the longer she spoke the more cases she adduced that might be covered by this amendment. Therefore, one has to recognise that once one widens the number of cases which can be shortened, one is going to get into a similar position to that which occurred under the 1969 Act when everything was speeded up by the special procedure a few years later. Once again, I believe that we have to be very careful about the signal we are sending out.
The same applies to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I believe he said at the beginning of his remarks that he wanted the amendment to cover "significant physical and mental harm", which was undefined. That was a very sweeping statement. There may be very exceptional cases—the noble Earl quoted one—which I can just see. I shall be very unhappy if this measure is widened and we find that the year is being shortened—it could easily be shortened—by an increasing number of, as yet, undefined specific cases.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend is disposed to look kindly on this amendment, which I rather doubt, I hope that, following the remarks of my noble friend Lady Young, he will look at it only under the most straitened circumstances. It could easily be the beginning of the opening of the floodgate which removes the one-year minimum which is an essential feature of the Bill.
As the amendment addresses the question of changing the minimum time, I hope that in replying to the debate the noble Baroness will explain why she is considering changing it in one direction only. There must be cases where an extension is appropriate, as, for instance, when one of the parties is on a foreign posting and the spouse cannot accompany. In that case, no prospect of reconciliation will exist until the spouse returns to this country, which might be, let us say, in nine months' time.
As regards the compellingly unpleasant case quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I would have thought—I am not a lawyer and I realise that I may be mistaken—that the protection required may be that of a court order and not necessarily the acceleration of the separation of the parties by divorce proceedings. That said, I believe that we should go very carefully indeed before we reduce what many of us regard as an already irreducible minimum.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said on this occasion. Like her, I listened with growing alarm to the number of cases adduced by those putting forward these amendments, particularly when one bears in mind the report from the family mediators. I believe that in about one-third of the cases that come for mediation, some element of violence is discerned within the marriage. If that is the kind of proportion that we are talking about, it seems to me that we are opening a very wide door indeed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principle on which this Bill rests is that the irretrievable breakdown

17
of a marriage shall be arrived at in the situation where the relationship has broken down and has remained so for at least a year, notwithstanding any efforts that the parties could put forward to heal the relationship. That appears to me to be a general principle. Therefore I am extremely slow to make any exception to it at all, because the kinds of hardships which have been mentioned in the examples given by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl are examples which can be dealt with, at least for the most part, by the protection which is available under the provisions dealing with domestic violence. As regards the case to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred, I would certainly think that that was possible.
The noble Earl said that as long as lawyers are in contact there is always the chance of a leak about the address of the other party. I expect that is true, but there are other sources of leaks as well as lawyers' offices. It does not appear to me that that is a good reason for allowing a divorce to take place more quickly. It seems to me that the dissolution of the marriage is distinct from the protection of parties and children during the marriage. The purpose of Part III is to ensure that there are effective means of protection of parties and children from violence during the marriage.
The case which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, mentioned previously, and which the noble Baroness mentioned today, is a very special circumstance. However, that occurred under the existing law. The fact is that, if the law is changed, in the future people will have to take account of what that new law is. There is an adage which suggests that bad law can arise from too much consideration of particularly hard cases. We need a principle in this matter which emphasises the importance of the year as the test of whether a ground for divorce exists. I cannot see that the mere existence of circumstances such as have been mentioned in any way shows that that was not so. Of course, I agree that, where there is cruelty and the like, the prospects for reconciliation are not good. On the other hand, even in that situation there are the elements of protection to which I have referred. For my part, therefore, I am not at all anxious to make any exceptions in this area. That is one reason why I think that it is equally difficult to extend the period. One wants a definite period which is clear, about which everyone knows, and in respect of which there are no exceptions. That is the way in which I invite your Lordships to deal with the matter.
This appears to me to be an important matter of principle in the Bill and I suggest that your Lordships deal with it in that way. I had assumed that the principle of the Bill was so strong that a free vote would not be required on this matter, which is more incidental than other matters relating to the grounds for divorce.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, although I am extremely grateful for what he said about court orders, does he understand that there are some cases in which the woman's life can be made safe only by concealment of her whereabouts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes, I do. That is an important factor in proper safety. However, I cannot
18
link that inevitably with the question of an order of divorce. It seems to me that adequate steps to protect the location of the woman can be taken quite apart from an order for the dissolution of the marriage. To me, they seem distinguishable and distinct.
Baroness David: My Lords, this has been a useful discussion and I am grateful to all who have taken part in it. I appreciate, of course, that my noble friend's amendment and mine are slightly different. Points have been made about that. Obviously, that needs to be discussed, but I have been impressed that there has been a certain amount of support for the fact that there could be the exceptional case which needs exceptional treatment. I am glad to have the powerful support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Elles and Lady Young, agreed that there could possibly be special cases. I am heartened by that.
I realise that the amendments have probably been drawn too wide and need to be tightened up. I must admit that the noble and learned Lord's response was rather as I had expected, but I am surprised that he does not see that there could be some special case which needs a special provision. I should like to take the two amendments away and to discuss them with my noble friend in the light of the discussions that we have had today. I think that it is pretty well inevitable that we shall come forward with one amendment at the next stage of the Bill, but for today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("(3A) Where—

(a) the statement has been made by one party,

(b) rules made under section 10 require the court to serve a copy of the statement on the other party, and

(c) failure to comply with the rules causes inordinate delay in service,

the court may, on the application of that other party, extend the period for reflection and consideration.
(3B) An extension under subsection (3A) may be for any period not exceeding the time between—

(a) the beginning of the period for reflection and consideration; and

(b) the time when service is effected.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, as amendments to Amendment No. 32, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 32 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of any marriage where there is a child of the marriage under the age of 16, the period for reflection and consideration shall be 18 months unless upon application to the court

19
by either party or by a person representing the child or children the court decides that the period shall be one year because—

(a) both parties agree to the period of one year; or

(b) it is in the best interest of the child or children that the period should be one year.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was debated very late on Thursday when many of your Lordships were not able to be in your places. It is an important amendment which needs to be fully discussed. It proposes an extension of the 12-month period for reflection to 18 months in cases where there are children under 16 in the family and where only one parent has lodged a statement of breakdown. It also contains a provision for the court to reduce that period to 12 months, but not less, where to do so would be in the best interests of the child.
The amendment would give more time for more couples to achieve reconciliation. That means that fewer children would suffer the trauma of permanent breakdown and divorce. I believe that the amendment deserves to be fully debated and, if necessary, voted upon at Third Reading. Therefore, I do not propose to move it today.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("( ) Subsection (6) applies if, at any time during the period for reflection and consideration, the parties give joint notice to the court that they are attempting a reconciliation but require additional time.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which is intended to clarify the position where people attempt reconciliation during a period of reflection and consideration. It arises from our consideration of this part of the Bill in Committee. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38, which is an amendment to this amendment, but I assume from what my noble and learned friend has already said that he will not seek to move it.
Clause 6(6) provides for the period of reflection and consideration to be suspended where a couple jointly give notice that they require time to attempt reconciliation. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, expressed concern in Committee about the situation of couples wishing to attempt reconciliation but who do not want to stop the running of the one-year period. The noble Lord thought that, because there was no specific mention of reconciliation without notification to the court, parties might think that it was not an option open to them and that consequently attempts at reconciliation would be discouraged. That is the last thing that I want to do.
I indicated in Committee that I would consider whether that provision could be further clarified. The amendment that I have proposed is directed at emphasising that the time that the parties ask for in giving notice to the court of an attempt at reconciliation is additional to the one-year period for reflection and consideration. The parties can attempt reconciliation at any time during the period without affecting the running of the period for reflection and consideration but, if they want more time, they can suspend the running of the
20
period by jointly giving notice. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent couples from privately attempting reconciliation or to prejudice them if they do so.
I have already spoken about similar amendments relating to reconciliation and I do not think that I need to elaborate on them at this stage, except to say that, as far as I am concerned, the whole purpose of that period is to encourage the possibility of reconciliation. Therefore, this amendment is intended to clarify the drafting doubt which was raised on the last occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is still the position, even with Amendment No. 37, that the only way in which the clock can be stopped is by way of a formal notice to the court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes, that is the intention. It should be absolutely plain when the period on the clock comes to an end.
[Amendment No. 38, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 37 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 13, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 15 and insert ("The period for reflection and consideration—

(a) stops running on the day on which the notice is received by the court; but

(b) resumes running on").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 39 with the earlier amendments. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 40, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 39 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 19 and insert—
("(7) If the period for reflection and consideration is interrupted under subsection (6) by a continuous period of more than 18 months,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 42, as an amendment to Amendment No. 41, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 41 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 43A:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF REFLECTION
(".—( ) If an application for a divorce order has been made by one of the parties to a marriage, the court may, on the application of the other party, order that the period of reflection is to be extended for a specified time, or until a specified event has occurred.
(2) Such an order (an "order extending the period of reflection") may be made only if the court is satisfied that it would be equitable and just, in all the circumstances, for the period of reflection to be extended.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move any of the amendments in this group. I hope that progress may be made in bringing forward a refined version of Amendment No. 60A at Third Reading as the most suitable way to deal with the important matter of religious divorces that is covered by this group of amendments.
[Amendment No. 43A not moved.]
Clause 7 [Attendance at information sessions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 51:
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("attending information sessions") and insert ("information meetings").
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("The party or parties") and insert ("A party").
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("session") and insert ("meeting").
Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of a statement made by both parties, the parties may attend separate meetings or the same meeting.").
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("session") and insert ("meeting").
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("session") and insert ("meeting").
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("regulations made by the Lord Chancellor") and insert ("prescribed provisions").
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("those") and insert ("the party or parties").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 44 to 51 are consequential upon the change from the words "information session" to which I referred earlier. With the leave of your Lordships, I move Amendments Nos. 44 to 51 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 52 and 53:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Those attending information sessions shall be offered a counselling session with an approved marriage counsellor.").
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section, an approved marriage counsellor is a person currently accredited as such by an organisation approved by the Lord Chancellor to provide marriage counselling, or a person currently accredited by a body approved by the Lord Chancellor, who has undertaken specialist training in couple counselling and marital interaction.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I do not intend to move the amendments standing in my name. Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 58 and 59 have already been debated. I am grateful to receive the assurance of the noble and learned Lord in that earlier debate. He said that he wished to consider whether, in relation to the information session, it was possible to make provision for greater detail in primary legislation without endangering the necessary flexibility. I understand the difficulties that have been expressed by the noble and learned Lord but, as I am sure he knows, there is widespread concern on the part of the range of marriage support agencies that there be some mention of those bodies and marriage counselling at the information session.
In relation to the other two amendments which deal with approved marriage counsellors, I entirely understand the concerns that have been expressed by the
22
noble and learned Lord. However, the question arises as to how to stop unauthorised and untrained marriage counsellors offering themselves at marriage information sessions. I very much hope that it will be possible for the noble and learned Lord to enter into discussion on an amendment of which he may approve.
[Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 57:
Page 4, line 39, leave out ("The regulations") and insert ("Regulations made under this section").
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("sessions") and insert ("meetings").
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("and").
Page 4, line 42, at end insert ("; and
(c) for the giving of information to parties (otherwise than at information meetings) in cases in which the requirement to attend such meetings does not apply.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 54 to 57 arise out of the earlier amendments. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—

SPECIAL CHILDREN'S OFFICER
(".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations for a special children's officer attached to the family court care centres and divorce hearing centres.
(2) The regulations shall make provision for the special children's officer to make appropriate arrangements on behalf of children whose parents—

(a) have made a statement of marital breakdown under this Act; or

(b) have taken or are taking proceedings under Part II of the Children Act 1989.

(3) Arrangements mentioned under subsection (2) shall include the provision of information, advice or assistance, including applying to the court for the separate representation of the child.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was moved on the last occasion that we sat. Therefore, I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Clause 8 [Arrangements for the future]
[Amendments Nos. 60A to 62 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Where a divorce order is granted on the basis that the provisions of subsection (2) or Schedule 1 are satisfied and it is subsequently shown that those provisions were not in fact satisfied this shall not operate to invalidate the divorce order concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Archer of Sandwell I should like to move Amendment No. 63 as an amendment to Clause 8. The amendment inserts at the end of the clause subsection (6), which reads:

23
"Where a divorce order is granted on the basis that the provisions of subsection (2) or Schedule 1 are satisfied and it is subsequently shown that those provisions were not in fact satisfied this shall not operate to invalidate the divorce order concerned".
This is a probing amendment which I believe raises a new point. It is unclear from the Bill what the effect on a divorce order will be if someone falsely declares that arrangements have been made for the future, or falsely states that he or she comes within the exceptions provided for in Schedule 1. The amendment is designed to clarify whether the Government intend that false declarations will make any subsequent divorce bogus or will have no effect upon a subsequent divorce order. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to enlighten us on the point. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a fundamental procedural requirement of the Bill that evidence of arrangements must be produced to the court in order to satisfy the requirements of Clause 8, unless one of the exemptions in Schedule 1 applies. If a divorce order is made and it is subsequently found that the requirements of Clause 8 have not been met, that is to say, evidence of arrangements has not been put before the court, that order should be void.
I have carefully considered this amendment. Although I believe that if faced with a case where Clause 8 has not been complied with it is likely that a court will declare an order void, nevertheless I believe that this should be made clear on the face of the Bill. I will bring forward a Government amendment to reflect the intention that a divorce or separation order that is obtained without the provisions of Clause 8 and Schedule 1 having been complied with shall be void, but no person shall be entitled to challenge the validity of the order on the ground that the information contained in the declarations mentioned in Clause 8(2)(c) and (d) is incorrect. The courts would still be able to pronounce an order void or voidable in other circumstances according to general principles, for example complete lack of service. I hope that I have explained what I have it in mind to do in answer to Amendment No. 63. We may be able to deal with that by Third Reading.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I feel that putting down the amendment has been worthwhile. I look forward to an amendment from the noble and learned Lord, hopefully at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 64:
Leave out Clause 8.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be that the last response will carry some weight also in relation to Amendment No. 64. However, I believe that I should move this amendment in order to find out the response of the noble and learned Lord. Clause 8 provides, in conjunction with Schedule 1, that arrangements for the future must be made during the period for consideration and reflection, subject to limited exceptions. This clause
24
represents a change from the Law Commission's original proposals and should be removed for the following reasons. First, it will place a considerable bargaining chip in the hands of a recalcitrant or spiteful spouse. He or she will be able to insist that certain arrangements are made as the price of granting the other party a divorce.
Secondly, a number of problems exist with the exceptions to the rules as currently drafted as they are unclear and incomplete. The net effect is that uncertainty will be increased. That is likely to lead to increased litigation. Examples of possible difficulties are that the provisions in Clause 8(2)(c) and (d), which relate to the financial arrangements, as supplemented by Schedule 1, may lead to fraud. Thirdly, these proposals are untested. The proposed provisions are not duplicated in other common law jurisdictions where a system of no fault exists. In Australia, for instance, arrangements for finance and children are dealt with entirely separate from the divorce itself. I should say that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 117 which is consequential upon the removal of Clause 8. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the provisions of Clause 8 and the schedule are essential to what is in contemplation here. It is vital that before a divorce is granted the parties should face up to the responsibilities that have arisen in their marriage in such a way as to make all the necessary provisions for the future. That does not happen at the moment. So far as I know, it has not been provided for in other jurisdictions at present, as the noble Baroness said. I cannot think of a more practical way of facing up to the responsibilities of marriage than this way.
To have the divorce first and to leave over these matters is to leave over the essential dealing with the responsibilities of the marriage, which are fundamental. For example, it is clear that if someone is going to undertake new relationships and new responsibilities, it is important that, so far as possible, before that is done that person should know the nature of the commitments they have arising out of the earlier marriage.
It is sometimes said against me by those who are not minded to accept the approach of the Bill that I am seeking in some way to depart from forcing people so far as possible to face up to their responsibilities before a marriage is dissolved. This is the provision that does that. It is an important and practical one.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, referred on the last occasion to Professor Cretney. Professor Cretney has indicated to me that he regards this as an important improvement and modification to what the Law Commission proposed. It is sometimes said that all of these proposals are the Law Commission's proposals. Of course they are not. In this respect there is a most important departure from them. It is necessary to have this. It will require a different approach to divorce from that which is available under the present system.
I am of course always willing to consider whether improvements to the drafting of these provisions can be made, but on the principle of the provisions, as challenged in Amendments Nos. 64 and 67, I hope that

25
your Lordships will feel that the provisions are vital and an important and desirable part of the proposals contained in the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can clarify a point raised by the noble Baroness about what happens if a party wilfully refuses to agree to any financial arrangement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that point is dealt with in the schedule of exceptions. The court is pretty astute and can deal with such a situation. Schedule 1 deals with it. That is why I said that drafting matters are different, but in cases where that has happened and the court thinks that that is what is happening, the court has power to deal with the matter. There is always a difficulty about such problems. The only way to deal with them is to leave them to the court to handle in the light of all the circumstances that obtain.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his full and positive response which was not entirely unexpected. I see the importance that he attaches to the clause. I noted also that he said that he is always willing to consider drafting improvements. I think I should discuss this with my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. It was his amendment that I moved. In the light of his reading of the noble and learned Lord's reply he might want to suggest drafting improvements and bring the matter back at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Hardship: orders preventing divorce]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 5, line 35, leave out ("grave") and insert ("substantial").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70. As your Lordships will appreciate, in Committee there was a full and valuable debate about the provisions and workings of the hardship bar on divorce. I intimated in Committee that I wished to consider in more detail the points made and I have now tabled these amendments to address some of the concerns which were raised.
One of the main concerns which was expressed in Committee centred around the rarity with which the hardship bar is invoked. The view was expressed, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the bar was currently something of a "dead letter", and amendments were tabled to test whether the language of the clause could be amended to make its application less rigid.
Your Lordships will recall that the bar provisions at the moment apply to five-year separation divorces only, which form a small proportion of the total number, the vast bulk presently being based on fault grounds with no bar applicable to them. The Bill extends the bar provisions to all divorces. I share the concerns that the hardship bar should be a meaningful provision. I have
26
therefore decided to amend the clause in the direction suggested in Committee by replacing the word "grave" in relation to the hardship experienced on dissolution of the marriage with the word "substantial", which is a less strict test.
In terms of the relevance of the hardship bar, I have mentioned that it is intended to apply to all divorces. Your Lordships will be aware that it is not just financial hardship that is in question but other hardships as well. People have sometimes not understood that fully. It is a bar that applies to substantial financial or other hardship.
The other amendments which I propose to make relate to children. This again arises out of the Committee stage. The welfare of children in divorce was referred to in Committee in the context of the hardship bar, in particular by my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Elles and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Although they mentioned it in particular, I am sure that they are concerns which we all share. In the light of those considerations and the remark of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when the question of children was being discussed, I have decided to propose these amendments to extend the provisions of the bar on divorce to encompass the children of the family as well as the parties to the marriage. In that context, I would emphasise that in all cases in order for the hardship to be applied the court must be satisfied that the actual dissolution of the marriage will cause substantial financial or other hardship to a child or children.
I should also emphasise that an application for an order preventing divorce can be applied for only by a party to the marriage, even if this application is asserting that the dissolution will result in hardship to children. In my view, it would place an intolerable burden on children to provide that they themselves might be involved in making such an application, as we discussed earlier. They could easily be put under pressure by one or other parent to apply for such an order—indeed, by other well-meaning persons—without any regard to the enormous responsibility that that would place on such a child. We cannot have a situation in which we pitch child against parent in a battle about whether the marriage should be legally dissolved.
Amendments Nos. 67 and 70 are intended simply to emphasise that where there are children in the family their interests must be taken into account when the court is considering all the circumstances of the case in order to determine whether it is wrong to dissolve the marriage. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the amendments that he has tabled to Clause 9. They are in response to points raised in Committee and I am glad to see them. I am sure that he was completely misinterpreted in his comments relating to Amendments Nos. 67 and 70 concerning children and that there was never a suggestion that children should appear in court. I support the noble and learned Lord in what he said.
However, I should be grateful if he would clarify a major issue of principle. He said that one of the criticisms in respect of what was originally Clause 10,

27
but is now Clause 9, was that the hardship bar had never been used or, as I understand it, had been used on only one occasion. I also understood him to say that it applied only to five-year separations and that under the Bill it would apply to all divorces. I do not understand how the same principle can be seen to work in respect of all divorces when it failed to work in respect of five-year divorces. I understand that the issue was not a question of time but the interpretation of the law.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned Dr. Cretney from whom I have received a letter on this matter. As there is a legal point which I am not sure I fully understand I hope that the noble and learned Lord will explain it to me and that he will forgive me if I quote from the letter. Dr. Cretney refers to the fact that the hardship bar is designed to help in grave financial or other hardship and I take the point that that has been amended. He states:
"These words appear in the existing law; but are rarely invoked—largely because the courts have consistently held that hardship must result from divorce (i.e. the ending of the legal status of marriage) rather than from the breakdown of the relationship and the circumstances which led to it. There is no reported case in which a defence based on hardship other than financial hardship has been successful".
Dr. Cretney goes on to state:
"The 1969 concordat between the Law Commission and the Archbishop of Canterbury's group (which led to the enactment of the present divorce law)" —
that is, the 1969 law—
"envisaged that the court would be required to refuse divorce if satisfied that, having regard to the conduct and interests of the parties and the interests of the children, it would be wrong to end the marriage; but the terms of the legislation are much narrower. The court has no power under the existing law to refuse a divorce merely because the applicant has been guilty of outrageous behaviour; and it will have no such power under the Bill currently before the House of Lords".
I see that there is a distinction between hardship which must result from divorce and hardship resulting from the breakdown of the relationship. However, as someone who is not a lawyer that seems a narrow point of law. If that is the point of law on which it has not been possible to operate the hardship bar—and it is a most serious point—I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could explain the difficulty and assure me and the House that Clause 9 will not suffer from the defects from which a similar clause suffered in the preceding Bill.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as I am sure is every Member of your Lordships' House and the organisations concerned with the welfare of children, for the introduction of the amendments, which serve an important purpose in improving the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when the 1969 Act was before your Lordships strong objections were voiced to the requirement that in order to halt a divorce after five years' separation a wife against whom nothing substantial could be alleged had to show grave hardship before she was cast off to her detriment. That anxiety was voiced by Lord Hodson, the foremost matrimonial
28
judge of the time, and by Lady Summers who was ever vigilant of the interests of married women. They asked: why should it be grave hardship? Indeed, they asked: why should she be required to show any hardship, but in any case why grave hardship?
As my noble and learned friend has explained, that bar in the 1969 Act, which was consolidated in 1973, was relevant only to divorce after five years' separation; the divorce by repudiation. The issue became much more serious when one found that the requirement to show grave hardship appeared in this Bill; in other words, where there could be repudiation of a spouse against whom nothing substantial could be alleged after one year's notice. Those voices, those considerations and those concerns were raised in Committee and my noble and learned friend has gone a long way towards meeting them.
I have only one question about the substitution of the word "substantial" for the word "grave". That is on the ground that the law does not generally take any account of insubstantial consideration. It is always expressed in a Latin tag, which I shall not repeat because I know that lawyers' pronunciation of Latin is highly offensive to your Lordships. The fact remains that the law does not regard taking any account of insubstantial consideration. It seems to me that the court might be alerted, therefore, that something more is required by the use of the word "substantial". Why cannot one simply leave it out and provide for only hardship? That argument relates to Amendments Nos. 65 and 68.
As regards Amendments Nos. 66, 67, 69 and 70, it remains only to express appreciation for the way in which my noble and learned friend has met our views.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, if I may continue for a moment with what I was going to say earlier, I understand what my noble and learned friend has said about the interests of the children, but I would like to ask him a couple of questions.
When we were discussing Amendment No. 9 which brought in criteria from the Children Act, it was mentioned that this might have been considered within the terms of Clause 9. Whether that aspect is covered by the interests of the children I am not sure. What criteria are the court to use when assessing the interests of the child? Will Section 1 of the Children Act automatically apply? As I understand it, the Children Act works only where there are disputes between the parents or where, as set out in Section 1:
"a court determines any question with respect to … the upbringing of a child; … or the administration of a child's property or the application of any income arising from it".
Would the interests of the child, therefore, under Clause 9 be confined to those aspects or would there be a general view taken of the interests of the child? If so, what criteria would be used? Could my Amendment No. 9, discussed in Committee, be taken into consideration?
Obviously my noble and learned friend cannot give me an answer straightaway but I would be grateful if he would consider this. At the moment there is no definition of what the interests of the child are.

29
Secondly, could we have some slight explanation of what my noble and learned friend considers would cover hardship? There will probably be quite a lot of variation in what a court or a judge might decide would include hardship. Would it include where a child had to be removed from the home in which he or she was living and the mother and the child had to apply for a council flat after having lived in a rather luxurious house? Would that change of style and general quality of life be considered as hardship? Would that be a ground for preventing a divorce being granted; or does my noble and learned friend intend to leave a great deal of latitude to the court in defining both the interests of the child and the hardship? At the moment, although there are very good intentions, I wonder how in fact it will work out.
Lord Phillimore: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord indicate how he proposes that hardship to a child of a family be established to the satisfaction of any court? The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the fact that it is undesirable—and I am sure we all agree—that a child should attend court and give evidence. But even the intervention of a third party such as a welfare officer could cause considerable distress to a child. Children are quick to perceive that they may be being asked to decide matters. That occurs, of course, in residence and contact matters where a welfare officer intervenes. I suggest that that is to be avoided, and I would welcome some indication as to how this will be avoided.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I would welcome a little clarification from the noble and learned Lord about Clause 9(2)(b):
""that it would be wrong, in all the circumstances (including the conduct of the parties), for the marriage to be dissolved".
In our earlier discussions we said that this was the area of the Bill in which the concept of fault might come back into the arrangements for divorce. It is a little curious to discuss this entirely under the heading of hardship. There are two issues here—hardship and justice—and Subsection (2)(b) is basically about justice. Is it envisaged that a court might decide that arrangements made under Clause 8 of the Bill, although agreed by the parties, seem manifestly unfair in the light of the conduct of the parties, and that one could build into the Bill at this point some safeguard against the manipulation of one of the parties by the other?
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, let me take these matters in order. My noble friend Lady Young asked about the reason for the previous bar not working. Of course, it did work to some extent and it was used in a few cases—for example, when there was a loss of a pension which was considered a grave financial hardship. It was also used in practice as affecting the course of negotiations. Some would call it a bargaining factor. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee spoke of the existence of a bar as something that could influence
30
parties even though they had not got to the stage of invoking the bar in connection with the settlement arrangements between the parties.
This is a convenient point to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. The question of conduct is relevant to the settlement of financial matters between the parties under the rules which presently exist and which, so far as this is concerned, I am not proposing to change; namely, that where there is conduct which it would be inequitable to leave out of account, that should be taken into account in considering the nature of the financial arrangements between the parties following a divorce. So that is fully taken account of in the present arrangements, in my submission.
My next point, in amplification and answer to my noble friend Lady Young, is this: the court has no power to prevent parties separating. If people decide to live apart there is nothing the court can do about it, and therefore hardship arising from that is not something that the court can be expected to control. The hardship that the court can deal with is hardship resulting from something that is within the court's power; namely, the power to make an order dissolving the marriage. I have sought to make that as ample as it can be. The word "hardship" is a very general word which would cover a variety of circumstances; and I have put in the word "substantial" for the reason that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale gave—that this is a Bill which I expect, when it becomes an Act, to be read by ordinary people, and we have tried to couch it in ordinary language.
My noble and learned friend was kind enough to say at an earlier stage that the Bill was well drafted. This is one of the objectives—that it should be capable of being read and easily understood by those who are not familiar with the law. It may well be that an intelligent lay person may not be aware of the rule to which my noble and learned friend referred, and therefore I felt it right to put in the word "substantial" to indicate to a lay person that he or she would have to be able to identify something on which the court could find as occasioning hardship.
The reason that this is a more ample provision than the previous one is that the word "grave" indicates a higher standard of hardship. I propose to reduce it to as low a standard as it can go to consistent with the point of principle that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Phillimore asked about the involvement of children. The hardship that this provision refers to is objective hardship of some kind. It is not just what the children feel about it but is something in the nature of objective hardship. There is a case in the books which illustrates in one particular example how this might arise. There was a case of a child in the books, but that child was older than would be classified as a child under this Bill. However, I take the example of a child who had a particular disability. The family home in which he lived was adapted in order that that disability could be catered for. When the husband and wife split up, they could not afford to keep

31
that home. As very often happens, the total available to the family was less than was available for the house. Therefore, they had to sell the house as a consequence of the break-up of the marriage. It would take some time to adapt another house for the purposes of the child's disability.
That is an example of an objective type of hardship to a child of the marriage occasioned by the granting of a divorce at a particular time. Therefore, under this amendment, the divorce may well be postponed until new arrangements have been made, if it is possible at all to make them.
Of course, it is important that all the hardship which that provision deals with must be hardship occasioned by the order which the court may or may not make. Sadly, no one—courts nor anyone else—can remove the hardship which is caused by the breakdown of a marriage.
Those are the main matters which were raised. I believe strongly that the proper approach to this matter is the objective approach in relation to the hardship criterion. The hardship criterion is a necessary condition for this clause to be involved. Once that criterion is satisfied, the court takes account of all the factors mentioned in the later subsection.
I take account of what my noble friend Lady Elles says and I think that it would be advisable to leave this matter very much in the hands of the courts—and it is very difficult for us to envisage all circumstances—as to what they consider to be the interests of the child affected. As my noble friend said, the Children Act is designed specifically to deal with matters affecting children; for example, where they should stay, with whom they should have contact, to which schools they should go, and so on. The Children Act is an elaborate and satisfactory framework for dealing with that.
In this regard, I believe that the word "interests" is a good word to describe that to which the court should have regard in relation to children. I feel fairly strongly that it would be inadvisable for us to try to define it further. It leaves the matter open to the courts to do justice in the particular circumstances which may come before them. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will feel that this is a good step forward and that it would be wise to leave the matter as open as possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may mention the fact that he has drawn attention to a very important drafting principle which we too often neglect. He has said, and rightly said, that this matter should be stated in terms of the principle to be applied by the courts. The alternative is to spell out in detail all the kinds of hypothetical circumstances which lengthen and ruin much of our legislation.
Baroness Young: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he will clarify still further the very important point about how the clause would be interpreted so that we can be quite sure that it would operate.
32
If I recall it correctly, he said that it had been used in a number of cases in the past and, if a couple had decided to separate, the court could not make a judgment on that because that is something which is freely entered into. However, I have reread Dr. Cretney's letter and that is not the point which he is making. I do not wish to take up the time of the House but I would find it extremely helpful if my noble and learned friend could write to me on this matter. I am extremely concerned. I believe that this amendment is a great improvement to the Bill but I wish to make quite sure that it will be operative when the Bill becomes law.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, assuming that the Bill becomes law with this amendment in it, as I certainly hope it will, it will become operative in the sense that the courts will have to apply it if the jurisdiction of the court is invoked in any particular case.
As I understood the letter from Dr. Cretney which my noble friend read, he makes the point that the hardship must be related to the order dissolving the marriage. That is a factor which limits the application of its jurisdiction. But that is an inevitable limitation on the jurisdiction. I have lowered the standard of hardship required from "grave" to "substantial", which, in the circumstances, is as low as it can go. It is then left to the courts to decide whether there is hardship in any particular case and whether or not an order should be made in the light of the circumstances referred to in the later part of the clause.
I believe that that is all that I can say in dealing with the letter from Dr. Cretney and that I have dealt with the point he makes, which I understand entirely.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton, who is such an authority on the matter of statutory construction, for the comfort of his support. I agree that it is wise not to attempt to have too much detailed definition of such phrases. Apart from cluttering the statute book, it may well prevent the courts from doing justice in a particular case where otherwise they may be able to do so.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, on several occasions he has made cross-references to the Children Act 1989. It may be helpful to those who must administer the Act to have those cross references to that Act in this Bill. That Act is extremely clear in relation to some of the points that have been raised this afternoon.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is extremely important that it is recognised generally that the Children Act is a comprehensive framework which deals with matters concerning the upbringing of children. That applies where the parents are divorced or whatever is the situation. To my mind, it is extremely important that that is preserved.
Of course, there is a link with the Children Act in the provisions of the modified Clause 41 with which we shall deal later. Earlier today, I was looking with my colleagues who are helping me at the possibility of

33
having a much earlier reference to the Children Act in this Bill. This Bill is not intended to deal exhaustively with the interests of children. On the contrary, I wish to point to the fact that the Children Act is a very useful and practical framework which deals with that. I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion and I shall try to pursue it. I cannot say for certain that I shall be successful, but I hope that I shall be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 66 and 67:
Page 5, line 36, after ("party") insert ("or to a child of the family").
Page 5, line 38, after ("parties") insert ("and the interests of any child of the family").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendment No. 65. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67A not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 70:
Page 5, line 42, leave out ("grave") and insert ("substantial").
Page 5, line 43, at end insert ("or to a child of the family").
Page 6, line 2, after ("parties") insert ("and the interests of any child of the family").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendment No. 65. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70A not moved.]
Clause 10 [Lord Chancellor's rules]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) requiring a copy of a statement made by one party to be served by the court on the other party;
( ) as to circumstances in which such service may be dispensed with or may be effected otherwise than by delivery to the party;").
Page 6, leave out lines 35 and 36.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 6, line 37, after ("any") insert ("marriage").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 76 and 78 which are tabled in my name. They relate to Clause 10(2) which deals with rules that may be made by the Lord Chancellor requiring a legal representative to discuss certain matters with,
"a party to a marriage",
34
or to make various pieces of information available to that party.
Paragraph (c) of the clause refers to:
"whether he has given that party names and addresses of persons qualified to help…to effect a reconciliation".
My question is quite a simple one: namely, what kind of people are qualified to effect a reconciliation? Of course, along with other noble Lords, I very much hope that we can reconcile as many people as possible. But those who are actually qualified to help bring about a reconciliation—that is, if a reconciliation is at all possible—are marriage counsellors. I can certainly see the need for people to be given the names and addresses of qualified marriage counsellors and also of qualified mediators. I shall be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what he has in mind when he refers to people who might be "qualified to help" in such a reconciliation. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 76.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 78 refer to Clause 10(2).At present, paragraph (a)(iii) refers to,
"the availability to the parties of any counselling facilities".
Amendment No. 73 proposes the insertion of the word "marriage" before "counselling". Similarly, Amendment No. 78 which refers to paragraph (c)(iii) also requires the insertion of the word "marriage" before "counselling".
There is an important matter of principle involved. It is, quite simply, whether people should be told about the availability of counsellors in general, or whether they should be told about the availability of people who are trained and qualified to offer marriage counselling. I yield to no one in my respect for, and realisation of, the need for counsellors of all kinds; but this Bill deals with divorce and trained and qualified marriage counsellors, as well as trained and qualified mediators, have a special role to play.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a very substantial address recently to Relate in which he expressed his difficulty in accepting the amendments. For example, he put forward the possible case where the friend of a husband dies and the husband goes through a very deep depression as a result of his bereavement. That might drastically affect the marriage and may lead to a lack of communication, and so on. In such a situation, what a person really needs is a bereavement counsellor rather than a marriage counsellor. However, perhaps I may quote from the letter that Dr. Jack Dominian wrote to the noble and learned Lord. Dr. Dominian is a psychiatrist and the country's leading specialist on marriage and on how marriages can be kept together, enriched and saved. He thought that the example of the noble and learned Lord was especially good. In the letter he says:
"One of the classic triggering factors in marital breakdown is bereavement and so this example is highly relevant. You suggest that bereavement counselling may be what this man needs, 'by being able to tackle the source of a depression, the ability to communicate can be restored to the couple'. I would say that the chances of reconciling such a couple would be far higher if they saw a marriage counsellor than a bereavement councillor. A trained marriage counsellor should be able to tackle the husband's depression and his

35
wife's response to it; in such situations, while the individual spouse has a specific problem the marriage clearly needs some attention too. The bereavement counsellor would be focusing on the individual's needs alone and not those of the couple.
For me this is the central concern when a marriage is in trouble—what is the most appropriate help for the marriage? A marriage counsellor focuses on the marital relationship and attempts to find the minimum needs of both partners, to make them conscious, to remove obstacles to their realisation and to help the couple to fulfil those needs. A counsellor will focus on the individual's needs which of course to some extent are compromised in a marital partnership. Some individual counselling may actually reduce the opportunities for reconciliation".
There is a very specific need for marriage counsellors at that point. I believe that we will take away from the distinctive contribution which marriage counsellors can make if they are, so to speak, simply subsumed within the general category of counsellors. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to reconsider that point. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I have one comment to make. The British Association for Counselling has an accreditation programme for counsellors covering different areas. Perhaps we should discuss the matter with the association.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to follow the point made by the right reverend Prelate. He referred to "trained and qualified mediators". I should like to know exactly who those people will be. We had a meeting in this place with the Law Society during which we asked that same question. We were told about a college of mediators. When we asked who had set up the college, where it was and what were the necessary qualifications, the answers we received were all extremely vague. We were told that there were about 700 people involved in the work at present; indeed, it seems to be a great growth industry. However, no one really knew what qualifications were required. I wonder whether any part of the Bill sets out what a mediator is, in particular a "trained and qualified mediator".
Baroness David: My Lords, I had intended to say a few words, but I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is about to cover what I would have said.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should point out to the House that Amendment No. 96A deals with the whole question of accreditation as regards training, as will Amendment No. 94 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should say, first, that I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for having paid some attention to my address to Relate. It is always a thrill when something one has said is read by someone who was not there, especially if that person quotes accurately. I am also grateful to Dr. Jack Dominian for his contribution in which he, as it were, puts me right on the matter. I would certainly wish to try to give effect to his suggestion.
I wish to try to ensure that marriage counsellors are available, but I believe that there should not be too much restriction in that respect. Indeed, the variety of services
36
is something that I would not wish to restrict at present. I hope that the Bill will regulate the law for a considerable time to come. I cannot envisage—and I doubt whether your Lordships can—every possible development and innovation that there may be in improving services. Dr. Jack Dominian is a leading exponent of the need to innovate and develop services to help.
I certainly wish to take account of those considerations in developing the current draft of the rules. One way to do so is, I believe, to include a statement in the nature of the information that must be available that would at least be exemplary of what might be available. Of course, that might not include all that is available, but the information would at least reflect those considerations. I believe that I will probably be able to do that without too much difficulty.
One of the purposes behind Amendments Nos. 72, 74, 77 and 79 is to respond to the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate in Committee. The amendments reorder the provisions of Clause 10(2) to give greater priority to the references to "counselling" within the clause. I believe that I can make it possible to accommodate the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate and also those expressed by Dr. Dominian in this letter by reordering the wording without damaging what I want to keep; namely, considerable flexibility.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes wishes to know about mediators. There are a number of trained mediators who have come together to bring forward the standards of the profession and it may be that we will have a better opportunity of discussing that under one of the later amendments which my noble friend Lady Faithfull has proposed. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes would have learned from the Law Society that there are a number of trained mediators who are members of the Law Society and I am sure that at the meeting she attended she would have been assured of just what high quality they are. I have no doubt that others will seek to emulate them, perhaps from a slightly different professional base. In the light of the assurance that I have given to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford I hope he will feel that he need not press his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 6, line 38, at end insert ("or
( ) the opportunities for the parties to take part in mediation;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which, as I have explained, is an attempt to reorder the provisions of Clause 10(2) to give greater priority to the references to counselling within that clause and is brought forward in response to the right reverend Prelate's concern. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 75:
Page 6, line 38, at end insert ("or
( ) the need for the parties to have regard to the welfare of any children of the family and to have regard to the ascertainable views of such children (considered in the light of their age and understanding when making arrangements for their future;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment last Thursday and the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to say that he would take it away and would probably bring back an amendment himself at Third Reading to deal with the point. Therefore, I am not moving this amendment.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 6, leave out line 43.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. It is one of the amendments brought forward to meet the right reverend Prelate's concerns. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert ("or
( ) in connection with mediation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in the same connection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor may make rules requiring a person who is or has been a marriage guidance counsellor assisting one or both of the parties to the marriage with respect to which a statement has been made, or is proposed to be made, to certify at such time or times as may be specified—

(a) whether he has discussed with the party or parties—

(i) the possibility of reconciliation;

(ii) the opportunities for the parties to take part in mediation; and

(iii) the opportunities for the parties to receive legal advice and representation;

(b) which, if any, of those matters he and the party or parties have discussed; and

(c) whether he has given the party or parties the names and addresses of persons qualified to help—

(i) in connection with mediation; or

(ii) by providing legal advice and representation.

( ) The Lord Chancellor may make rules requiring a person who is or has been a mediator assisting one or both of the parties to the marriage with respect to which a statement has been made, or is proposed to be made, to certify at such time or times as may be specified—

(a) whether he has discussed with the party or parties—

(i) the possibility of reconciliation;

(ii) the availability to the parties of any counselling facilities; and

38

(iii) the opportunities for the parties to receive legal advice and representation;

(b) which, if any, of those matters he and the party or parties have discussed; and

(c) whether he has given the party or parties the names and addresses of persons qualified to help—

(i) to effect a reconciliation;

(ii) by counselling; or

(iii) by providing legal advice and representation.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. This is a long amendment, but it can be a very short explanation. It will extend the Lord Chancellor's power to make regulations specifying the type of requirements, as appears in subsection (2) of Clause 10. It places a requirement upon solicitors concerning information to be given to clients, so that the requirements will also apply to marriage guidance counsellors and mediators. It is important that all service providers should be under similar obligations to provide their clients with information. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very appreciative of the principle behind Amendment No. 80 which seeks to apply both to marriage guidance counsellors and mediators the Lord Chancellor's power to make rules in relation to information which legal representatives may be required to give to the court.
I am not sure that this is a wise provision for marriage counsellors. I believe that it suggests that marriage counsellors might stray more into the area of information on divorce, separation, and so called divorce counselling, than I believe the House might wish to see on the face of the Bill which has, as one of its stated general principles, the wish to support the institution of marriage. Your Lordships may have heard the suggestion that some organisations which are concerned principally with marriage guidance counselling fall all too easily into the idea of divorce counselling. I am not saying for one single moment that these allegations are justified, but I certainly would not wish to do anything to encourage them.
I believe that when somebody goes for guidance and help in relation to their marriage, on the whole it is not right for the initiative of suggesting divorce to be taken by the marriage guidance counsellor. It is quite right that marriage counsellors should discuss the possibility of reconciliation with the parties. I do not, however, see that their role involves discussing the possibility of legal representation or mediation with couples. If marriage counselling is not successful and one or both of the parties decides to proceed with divorce, they will be able to get information on all the services available to help them at the information meeting.
I am also concerned especially that the low take up of marriage support services could suggest that couples may be put off counselling if they feel that their counsellor is somehow involved in reporting their discussions to the court. I know that is not the principle behind this amendment, but it is one of the

39
risks that one must take into account in making such a provision. This might make marriage support services seem more like agents of the divorce court rather than organisations whose focus will be on looking at how the marriage can be sustained.
In relation to mediation, it is of course important that mediators, too, have in place arrangements to ensure that important matters such as reconciliation are kept under review during the course of mediation. It is to this end that I have tabled Amendment No. 99A, which is intended to ensure that mediators are in a position to practise in accordance with the principles of the Bill. Your Lordships see that that provides that the Legal Aid Board may not contract with mediators unless they have arrangements in place to ensure that reconciliation is kept under review throughout mediation and that parents are encouraged to consider the welfare, wishes and feelings of the children. I believe that is a good way to indicate the sort of principles we expect mediators to follow.
I should like to consider whether it might be appropriate to add a further provision to Amendment No. 99A to provide that mediators should have in place arrangements designed to ensure that parties are informed about the availability of independent legal advice. I am minded to bring forward an amendment to that effect at Third Reading. That is, mediators should be able to tell the parties that if they want independent legal advice on any matter, then, of course, they can consider that.
On reflection, it does not seem right that mediators are to be required to ensure that arrangements are in place with regard to matters such as reconciliation, children and the availability of legal advice whereas legal representatives merely need to self-certify whether or not they have discussed reconciliation and mediation with parties. I am minded, therefore, to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading which would strengthen the provisions in Clause 10 by requiring legal representatives to inform not only about marriage counselling and mediation but also about the need for parents to consider the welfare, wishes and feelings of their children when they are deciding arrangements for the future. I referred to that earlier.
I would not seek to place any such requirements on counsellors. The primary objective of counsellors is to help people with marriage difficulties. They are not involved in advising on legal process or negotiating financial settlements, nor in disputes relating to children, and should not be required to certify that they have discussed these matters. Both lawyers and mediators, on the other hand, must have regard to the primary principles of this Bill, one of which is that the parties to a marriage which may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practical steps to save it. I therefore have no hesitation in making amendments which will more strictly enforce the role of lawyers and mediators in that respect.
In the light of that explanation and that I accept the principle of the amendment, insofar as I have described it as acceptable, I hope the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for that very full and indeed interesting answer from the noble and learned Lord. I quite understand that he is taking a different attitude to marriage guidance counsellors and to mediators as far as the amendment is concerned. I am very grateful that he intends to bring forward amendments, possibly at Third Reading. That is a substantial concession from the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Directions with respect to mediation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("the parties") and insert ("each party").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 81 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 82 to 84, and to Amendment No. 85 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The amendments are intended to clarify the provisions with regard to meetings. I have tabled the amendments to make it clear that where parties are directed to attend meetings with a mediator for an explanation of mediation under Clause 11 they can attend those meetings separately, either at their own request or at the direction of the court. Concern was expressed at Committee stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on the possibility of intimidation where parties are required to attend together. I agree that that is something we should take all practical steps to avoid.
In addition, Amendment No. 82 makes it clear that each party should be given the opportunity to express his or her own view as to whether he or she wishes to pursue mediation at or after that meeting.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, also sought to make amendments to this part of the Bill, which makes special provision where there has been domestic violence. However, I am wary of imposing too many conditions in these matters. Mediation is not always inappropriate in cases of domestic violence; for example, where the violence occurred a long time in the past. In any case, people can be intimidated by their partners in many more ways than simply by physical violence. I therefore think it more valuable to make these broad amendments which allow parties to attend meetings separately in all cases if they wish to do so or the court considers it appropriate, and allow them to express their individual views as to whether or not they wish to proceed with mediation, having heard about and, better still one hopes, having understood what mediation is about.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, sought to address this matter. From a communication that I have received from him, I think he was reasonably content with the way that I have addressed it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
Page 7, line II, leave out ("the parties with an opportunity") and insert ("an opportunity for each party").

41
Page 7, line 17, at end insert —
("( ) The parties are to be required to attend the same meeting unless —

(a) one of them asks, or both of them ask, for separate meetings; or

(b) the court considers separate meetings to be more appropriate.").

Page 7, line 20, after ("meeting") insert ("or meetings").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendments, and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Adjournments]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert ("provided that no adjournment may be ordered by the court with a view to inducing a party who has declined to participate in mediation to do so").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 86 to Clause 12 (1)(b), which provides for the court's power to adjourn for the purpose of enabling disputes to be resolved amicably.
There is a mistake in the Marshalled List. It states incorrectly that the amendment is at page 7, line 40. It is not: it is at page 7, line 30, at the end of Clause 12(1)(b), where the amendment proposes to add the words as moved.
The unquestioned general principle, which the Government assert time and time again, is that participation in mediation must be voluntary and not compulsory. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there are no restrictions—direct or indirect—on the generality of the proposition that mediation must be voluntary.
We know that the parties are to be informed about mediation facilities. They are also to be given an opportunity to avail themselves of those facilities. However, let us suppose that a party declines because, if a woman, she is intimidated by her husband, she fears that she will be unable to give a good account of herself, unrepresented, in front of the mediator, and perhaps not be able to speak up for herself as she would wish, both for herself and for the children. Let us suppose that she would prefer to be legally represented in court.
As I mentioned in Committee, the distinguished family lawyer, Ruth Deech, who is also the Principal of St. Anne's College, Oxford, has called attention to the dangers that mediation may hold for women. There are many who agree with her. The proposition that mediation, however hard the mediator tries, is always even-handed between the parties does not win universal acceptance from those who know about mediation in practice.
I come to the amendment. I understand only too well that, in the ordinary way, a court can adjourn any proceedings if it believes that that will facilitate a private agreement between the parties. Courts do say in practice to parties that there may not be much sense in going on with the battle and suggest that the parties go off to see if they can settle the matter between themselves. That often happens. However, I am
42
assuming a state of affairs in which there has been a prior refusal to participate in mediation—a position which a party is entitled to adopt if mediation is truly voluntary. It is critical that a court should never be entitled to adjourn court proceedings with a view to inducing a party whom the court thinks should be mediating to participate in mediation when that party has already decided not to do so. The point of the amendment is that it should be made plain that no court pressure of any kind may be brought on individuals to induce them to participate in mediation after they have decided not to do so.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord said:
"if the court feels that the parties, notwithstanding our efforts to inform them, do not really appreciate or have understood the efforts that have been made or realise how mediation could help them in the circumstances of their particular case, the court should invite them to attend a meeting at which that would be clearly explained to them—[Official Report, 23/1/96; col. 1023.]
I may have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, but to me that sounds uncomfortably as if he were approving of the court granting adjournments to pressure people into mediation when they have taken a principled decision not to take part in mediation—a process which we are constantly assured is voluntary. The principle of voluntariness is undermined if the court is empowered to adjourn court proceedings for the purpose of enabling a dispute to be resolved through mediation when mediation has been refused by one party. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is not the right time to go into detail about the research on mediation. However, the general findings with regard to mediation are that men and women both describe the process as fair, and women have reported a sense of empowerment and feel that their interests are articulated and treated with respect during the mediation process.
I agree entirely that mediation should be voluntary. That is the basis on which I have put all this forward. Coercive mediation such as, for example, some of the programmes one sees in the United States, may result in women feeling under pressure to reach unsatisfactory settlements. Much of the criticism of mediation that has been voiced from some quarters is based on mandatory, settlement-orientated programmes, in the United States, which are quite different from those which are in operation here.
I do not accept that the amendment is necessary. I feel sure that the court would not seek to impose mediation on people who did not want it. I think it inappropriate that we should, in a sense, limit the powers of the court in a way that I do not think anyone suggests the court would be likely to act. A court "inducing" someone to do something strikes me as perhaps not as appreciative of the fairness and impartiality of the court as some other form of words might be. I believe that our judges who deal with these matters are very sensitive to the attitudes of parties.
Therefore, while I entirely subscribe to the view that if mediation is to be successful it must be entirely voluntary, I do not agree that it is necessary that we put

43
the amendment into the Bill. So far as I know, there is no suggestion whatever in the Bill that the court may adjourn for any purpose analogous to this.
I wish to correct something. It has been drawn to my attention that, a few moments ago when speaking to an earlier amendment, I referred to Amendment No. 99A as my amendment. The propriety in that amendment belongs to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The Marshalled List has changed slightly since what I said was put together. I should have referred to Amendment No. 99B. Delighted as I am to refer to the noble Lord's amendment, on this occasion I had in mind to refer to my own.
I hope that, in the light of the explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, may feel it appropriate not to press his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I confess that I am somewhat disappointed. I believe that it is important that mediation be voluntary. The sole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that it is. If "inducing" is a hard word to use of a court seeking to persuade an individual into a course of action which the court thinks more appropriate, I should be happy to soften the provision by using "encouraging" rather than "inducing" if that removes the offence.
However, I take it that the noble and learned Lord does not accept the amendment, and I certainly do not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 86A:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
DIVISON OF PENSION ASSETS
(".—(1) Section 25B of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (benefits under a pension scheme on divorce, etc.) is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), there is inserted ", and
(c) in particular, where the court determines to make such an order, whether the order should provide for the assets in respect of which the rights of the party with pension rights have accrued ("the pension assets") to be divided between the party with pension rights and the other party in such a way as to reduce the pension rights of the party with pension rights and to create pension rights for the other party;";
(b) in subsection (4), after "pension rights", there is inserted "or if the court makes an order that the pension assets should be divided"; and
(c) at the end of subsection (4), there is inserted "save that, in the case of an unfunded pension scheme, no order may be made which would allow assets to be removed from the scheme earlier than would otherwise have been the case".
(2) Section 10 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (sharing of value of matrimonial property), is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (5) at the end of paragraph (b), there is inserted ", and
(c) in the assets in respect of which either party has accrued rights to benefits under a pension scheme"; and.
44
(b) after subsection (5) there is inserted—
"(5A) In the case of an unfunded pension scheme, the court may not make an order which would allow assets to be removed from the scheme earlier than would otherwise have been the case.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 86A is consequential upon Amendment No. 10, which the House has debated and accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, share and share alike is an ideal which is fostered at the beginning of a marriage, through a marriage, and with children. However, because of the very presence of the children—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my intervention. I defer to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is speaking to the amendment? He must do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if noble Lords will forgive me, the amendment has already been spoken to in the debate on Amendment No. 10. Therefore I assumed that the consent of the House was in that sense a formal consent.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. She is perfectly correct. The noble Lord will now have heard what she said. He cannot continue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 had been withdrawn front the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 88:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

DUTIES OF COURT WELFARE OFFICER
(" .Where any proceedings under this Part are before the court and there are children of the marriage, it shall be an obligation on the Court Welfare Officer in compiling any reports in relation to the residence of the children or contact with the children to use his best endeavours to interview the children in the presence of each of the parents and, where this is not done, in coming to any decision based upon such a report the court shall adjust the weight that it shall give to that report accordingly.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 88 provides for the duties of the court welfare officer in regard to reporting the feelings and interests of the child. Having had considerable debate about children being asked to give their views, particularly in front of the parents, in this amendment, I should be happy for the principle of the duty of the court welfare officer to be considered, but not necessarily to provide that he interviews the children in the presence of each of the parents.
Amendment No. 25, introduced extremely ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, provides that the interests of the children are represented by the Official Solicitor in certain cases. Amendment No. 62, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as regards the person who should be allocated the task of speaking on behalf of the children in the court, suggests a children's officer, a guardian ad litem or a welfare officer.
I have never been quite satisfied or clear as to who my noble and learned friend considered the appropriate person to speak to the court at the appropriate time on behalf of the children. As I understand it, under the present divorce law it is for the court welfare officer to write a report on behalf of the children to represent their views, feelings and interests to the court. I also understand that because of the pace at which things move through the courts—many undefended divorces do not come before the court; the process is in writing—the interests of the children, if I may so say, are shoved under the carpet and not fully considered.
I put forward the amendment in order to find out from my noble and learned friend, or from those who practise in the divorce courts, how the interests of the child are represented to the court before divorce is granted. What is considered? What weight is given to the report of the welfare officer? Is that officer the right person to undertake that duty at the different stages at which the question of representation has been raised?
Amendment No. 137 is grouped with Amendment No. 88. I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend will speak to that himself. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to him for having put the provisions of my Amendment No. 87 into the amended Section 41 of the 1973 Act.
Lord Moran: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I, too, would like clarification as to what the noble and learned Lord considers most appropriate for the representation of the children's interests in court.
Like the noble Baroness, perhaps I may again express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for Amendment No. 137 as regards reintroducing the factor of fault in the part of the Bill where the noble and learned Lord considers it belongs.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am quite sure that it is good that the noble and learned. Lord will tell us about the conduct of the welfare officer as regards the welfare of the children. However, unless I have misunderstood the wording of the amendment, I am a little worried. It seems as though the welfare officer would be prevented by this wording from seeing the child on his or her own. I should have thought that it was fundamental that the welfare officer should see the child on his own. I entirely agree that, if the welfare officer is to prepare a proper report, it would be advisable for the welfare officer to see the child in the presence of each of the parents separately. I am quite aware of that fact. But I would hate the idea that the welfare officer is told, "You are expected to interview in the presence of a parent but not to interview the child on his own".
Baroness Elles: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may explain the position to the noble Lord. In introducing the amendment, I suggested that I should delete the words:
"in the presence of each of the parents",
or of the parents together. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as I ventured to suggest last week, I do not believe that we have
46
achieved a consensus on two separate questions: how the children's views should be ascertained, and how the children's interests should be represented. I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness that the welfare officer has an important part to play. He is a probation officer seconded from the probation service for specialist duties: family mediation and conciliation, particularly as regards the children. I do not believe that he is the proper person to represent the children's interests when they are required to be presented to the court, although he may well be the best person to represent the children's views.
I suggested last week that the Official Solicitor was the proper person to represent the interests of the children. I was convinced by my noble and learned friend that the Official Solicitor would not he an appropriate person to carry out that task in all circumstances and in respect of every child whose interests came before the court. However, he has a supervisory role, particularly to instruct counsel in the odd cases where the interests of the child should be represented by counsel.
I suggest that, since the Bill must go to another place, my noble and learned friend may canvass opinion more widely on the basis of the several views that have been expressed in your Lordships' House as to how the two separate functions are best performed and in what degree and what number in each case.
Lord Meston: My Lords, as I understand Amendment No. 88, it presupposes that there is before the court the question of either the residence of the children or contact with them. That would normally arise under the Children Act rather than under the provisions of the Bill. In any event, it is dangerous to think of the court welfare officer as somehow expected to represent the interests of the child in any formal sense. There are cases in which a child is represented in a formal sense either by the Official Solicitor—although resources of the Official Solicitor's office would not allow that to happen in many cases—or by a guardian ad litem from the panel of guardians ad litem.
In such situations, the court welfare officer does not formally represent the child but performs the functions of the eyes and ears of the court, to report back to the court the various material considerations under Section 1 of the Children Act. I can see that there may be cases in which a welfare officer's assistance would be valuable under the provisions of the hardship bar, as it has now been amended this afternoon.
As to the provisions of the rest of the amendment, I bear in mind the qualification as to the noble Baroness's wording, but it is normally good practice for a welfare officer in an appropriate case to speak to the child or children in the presence of each parent, if that is possible. It is normal practice that if, for some reason, the welfare officer has been unable to speak to the child in the presence of one or other parent or has somehow failed to do so, the court would give that defect weight in reaching its decision. Equally, it must be within the discretion of a welfare officer whether he or she should interview the child in the presence of a parent or alone, or whether the child should be interviewed in the

47
presence of siblings or a combination of those possibilities. Therefore, with respect to the noble Baroness, I question the circumstances in which she sees the amendment as being useful. Perhaps it is simply designed to add emphasis to existing good practice.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wish to ask a question for information in relation to this amendment and some earlier ones which have referred to the real need for someone to befriend and support the child. My recollection is that Section 17 of the Children Act provides for local authorities to consider the problem of children in need in their area and to make provision for them. I should have thought that children whose parents are undergoing divorce would fall into the category of children in need and that the local authority should make provision for befriending and supporting them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are two sets of provisions which we must bear in mind. The first provisions are from the Children Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just referred. As he rightly said, the Act contains provisions for a local authority to consider what should be done in relation to children in need. The second set of provisions, those in this Bill, are concerned primarily with divorce. There is a link between them which is elaborated in Section 41 which I seek to amend later.
In the normal case, it would be a complete waste of resources for a court to inquire into the detail of arrangements which are entirely satisfactory, made by parents about their children, where sadly their own relationship has broken down. One of the prime purposes of the Bill is to do our best to avoid any unnecessary trauma to the children in that respect. However, there will be some cases where the intervention of the court is desirable. The powers that the court has to intervene will depend on the Children Act arrangements and what should be done under that Act. We need to link the two and I have provided for that in my later amendment.
We have had discussions with children's organisations about how that can be done most effectively. We need to have information before the court about the children which will highlight the situation in which further concern is properly taken in the matters by the court. That depends on the detail of the statements required from the parties about the children. That is what I propose. I believe that that is the most effective and practical way to bring the proposals forward. It should be done by reference to rules rather than putting it on the face of the Bill. I should not be at all surprised if experience were to show that what one did first could subsequently be further improved with judicial experience of the way in which matters work.
In regard to this amendment, on the last occasion I read out the standards of practice for welfare officers as contained in the national standards. I believe they deal adequately with the problem raised in this amendment.
48
With this amendment are grouped Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 in my name, and Amendment No. 144 in the name of my noble friend Lady Elles. Perhaps I might just explain how Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 are supposed to play a part. They were inspired by the amendment tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lady Elles and supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I recollect his suggestion that it was highly probable that these sentiments would in any event guide the court in its consideration of these matters, but no harm would be done—and indeed some good might be done—by putting them on the face of the Bill. I paraphrase rather inelegantly the words spoken much more eloquently by my noble and learned friend.
In my view it is wise to try to take this idea forward. I considered that the amendment proposed by my noble friend identified those areas which are most likely to indicate to a court that the circumstances of a case are such as to require it to take further action. These are: how the parents have conducted themselves in bringing up the child—for example, if the child has been very well brought up and looked after in every possible way by both parents, that must be a pretty good indication that the interest in the children is likely to continue; the principle that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, it will be in a child's best interest to have regular and reasonable contact with both parents—that will be shown on the statement about what the arrangements are; if it is seen, for example, that the arrangements are that the father will have no further contact with a child, that would raise the court's interest and cause it to look into the matter further; and the risk a child may be at, either because of where a parent with residence has chosen to live or because of the person with whom that parent has chosen to live. The amendment identifies very clearly circumstances which might give rise to concern.
I suggest therefore that the most appropriate time for the court to consider these matters is when it has before it the proposed arrangements for the child's future. That will not interfere with the responsibility of parents to decide the arrangements for their children, and arrangements reached by agreement are less likely to break down than arrangements that are imposed. All noble Lords who have the experience of trying to impose arrangements on unwilling parents will have a good idea of how difficult it is to enforce such arrangements. Agreement is by far the best way forward where it is possible.
By including these factors on the face of the statute, the court will have in its mind what are the issues which, prima facie, might suggest that the circumstances are such that the arrangements should be further examined. If necessary, it will then be able to ask for welfare reports and any other information that is considered necessary in assisting the court to decide whether or not an order under the Children Act is required. That would be a supplement to what is in the statements before the court.
I now turn to Amendment No. 144, grouped with this one. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, may well be the right answer: In due course I shall move Amendments Nos. 134 to 137.

49
I have sought to explain them in a little detail at this stage because they are grouped with this amendment, and also because this gives the background to a proper relationship between the divorce provisions of this Bill and the provisions in the Children Act which are designed to secure the welfare of the children in all possible circumstances in so far as the state can do so.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his remarks, and particularly for his introduction to Amendment No. 137. There has been concern on the part of quite a lot of Members of this House as to the direct legal connection between the Children Act and this Bill; and how the interests of the child in particular will be protected by the provisions of the Children Act in relation to divorce proceedings. I am very grateful for that.
I quite understand that there will be problems over Amendment No. 88. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend heard the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale in relation to considering in the next period who are the best people to look after the interests of the child, to speak on behalf of the child or to be available to look after the interests of the child at any particular point during the course of the proceedings. We are already grateful for the amendment to Clause 9. I think we can say happily that the position of the child in relation to the position of the parties—i.e. the parents—in this Bill has been very much strengthened by the provisions introduced by my noble and learned friend. For that I am grateful. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 88.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Time when proceedings for divorce or separation begin]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert ("and not withdrawn").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91.
These amendments deal with the time at which marital proceedings come to an end. The Bill as currently drafted provides that such proceedings come to an end on the withdrawal of an application which has been made under Clause 2. However, it is possible for there to be both an application for a separation order and an application for a divorce order before the court at the same time. The amendment provides that in this case marital proceedings will end only if all applications that have been made under Clause 2 are withdrawn. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 90 and 91:
Page 9, line 19, at end insert ("and not withdrawn").
Page 9, line 30, after ("application") insert ("or all applications").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17 [Intestacy: effect of separation]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 92:
Leave out Clause 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with intestacy when there is a separation order. It was moved in Committee, when it was also supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I am very glad that he has put his name to the amendment again at this stage.
The law discriminates in favour of marriage in the devolution of property on death. In English law that is only on intestacy. If a testator or testatrix dies without making a will (if the deceased has died without making a will) then the surviving spouse has substantial property advantages over outsiders.
The law of Scotland, as I understand it, discriminates in favour of marriage, also in the law on testacy. I tried to table an amendment to assimilate our law more to the law of Scotland, but it was held by the Public Bill Office to fall outside the ambit of the Bill. So we have to deal only with the English law, which discriminates in favour of marriage where a deceased has died without making a will.
Where there is a divorce, there is no surviving spouse who is relevant, although there may be a new one. But where there is a separation order, the marriage subsists and (except for the intervention of Clause 17, which reproduces the law as it existed, was laid down in 1965 and re-enacted) where there is an intestacy, Clause 17 provides that the surviving spouse shall not enjoy any benefit. The property is to devolve as if she had died.
At the very outset of the Committee stage of the Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor assured noble Lords that there was provision for a separation order, among other circumstances to accommodate a spouse who objected on conscientious grounds to divorce. However, that clause penalises a spouse who on conscientious grounds prefers a separation order to a divorce order. It states that she will not enjoy the benefit that normally accrues to a surviving spouse.
The amendment seeks to eliminate that provision because it takes away one of the advantages which perfectly properly accrue to a spouse who has a conscientious objection to divorce or who may even quite legitimately have an idea on the property advantages. When the matter was raised in Committee, it seemed that my noble and learned friend was reasonably susceptible to the arguments that had been put forward. However, I have since had a letter from him, as has also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in which he shows himself adamant.
The amendment is very much a matter of the impression that the Bill gives to the public. It is always open to a spouse who is the subject of a separation order to make a will cutting out the other spouse who has

51
obtained the order, or indeed the spouse who would benefit if this clause were eliminated may still get benefit under the inheritance, family provision legislation, although there to some extent it is discretionary. But it is a matter partly of the impression that the Bill will give to the public. It is discriminatory in favour of divorce and against separation, where there is always a chance of reconstituting the marriage. It is discriminatory against the separation order. This is one of the most blatant examples.
I said that I had a letter from my noble and learned friend. None of us has had any doubt .of my noble and learned friend's genuine adherence to the concept of marriage as a lifelong institution: a lifelong relationship divinely instituted. But I confess that I cannot feel the same confidence as to everyone whose hand has been in the Bill. By their fruits shall ye know them and one bad apple can contaminate a whole barrel. In the light of that, I read what my noble and learned friend wrote:
"Separation does not have the finality of divorce".
So far, so good!
"It does, nevertheless, seem that spouses who are judicially separated are generally unlikely to wish the other spouse to benefit from the will".
That is an utter misconception. There is no question of a will at all. We are dealing with intestacy and not testacy. The letter continues:
It therefore appears to be inappropriate to remove Clause 17, when to do so could result in an estranged spouse benefiting from the estate against a testator's wishes".
That merely reiterates the error. There is no question of a testator at all. This is a matter of intestacy. It is just a matter of saying that the normal law of intestacy shall prevail and that there shall not be discrimination against somebody who has chosen to have a separation order rather than a divorce order. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raised this important matter at Committee stage. He suggested that this provision, which in fact originated in the legislation of 1965, was somehow the product of the "Swinging Sixties", although it is perhaps not the most obvious manifestation of that particular decade of which most of us would have thought.
I suspect that the rationale for the provision that is now to be re-enacted in Clause 17, unless your Lordships agree to the amendment, was that it is supposed that by the time the death has occurred, the estranged spouse has taken advantage of the financial powers of the court in the existing legislation and under the Bill to have claimed and received whatever his or her entitlement might be to a suitable financial settlement. In those circumstances, presumably it is taken into consideration that, in awarding him or her the entitlement, he or she will no longer benefit on the intestacy of the estranged spouse.
The other factor which the court can take into consideration is that a spouse in that situation—one is now talking about a wife—by virtue of electing separation rather than divorce, will probably have
52
preserved her entitlement to a widow's pension. Furthermore, if that creates some hardship, despite the provision already awarded by the court under its existing powers, as the noble and learned Lord said, following the death, the spouse concerned has the benefit of the inheritance provision for family and dependants legislation.
I question whether it is appropriate to equate a long estranged legally separated spouse, who may well have received her entitlement under the matrimonial, property and financial legislation, with a wife who is party to a truly subsisting marriage. Having thought about it, I can see the rationale for Clause 17. I suspect that it was the rationale for the original legislation in 1965.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the case for this amendment was presented in a most interesting way. In replying, I ask my noble and learned friend to clarify a point for me. As I understand the law, if one has made a will and then marries, the will is no longer valid after the marriage. If one has a will and divorce takes place, does that affect an existing will which might have been made a long time ago? If I knew the answer to that I would be better able to consider this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may address myself in the first instance to this amendment. It is just worth pointing out at the start that the basic provision does not originate in the 1960s, but in the 1850s, as Section 25 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. There must be a fairly obvious point to made about that.
The original provision was intended to protect the property of separated women from their husbands. Section 25, which was consolidated into Section 194 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, and therefore into Section 20(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, provided, on the one hand, for a married woman, after judicial separation, to be treated as not a married woman in respect of all after-acquired property; and for her after-acquired property, and any property which at the date of the decree of separation she had an interest in reversion or remainder, to pass on her intestacy as if her husband had predeceased her.
On the other hand, separated women, noble Lords will be glad to know, retained the right of inheritance on the husband's intestacy. So that was a somewhat one-sided provision designed to protect the property of separated women, while not giving the same protection to separated men. By 1969 the main justification for the provision had gone and the provision was criticised by the Law Commission in its Working Paper No. 9 and its report No. 29, as being half-hearted, arbitrary in its operation and a source of difficulty in administering estates.
The commission recommended that the provision should be extended so that it covered all property of the intestate, and so that it applied to property of both spouses. That was implemented by Clause 30 of the draft Bill annexed to Law Commission report No. 29, which became Section 40(1) of the Matrimonial

53
Proceedings and Property Act 1970. So the point is that this matter was very thoroughly considered when it was reformed in the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970.
The situation, so far as I am concerned, is that this particular provision is one which has been in the law. It is in this Bill only because, for reasons of convenience, we have repealed a number of provisions to which this measure corresponds. It was thought better, in the interests of clarity, to re-enact this measure. But if the Bill is sending out the message that there is a problem, it would not be very difficult to reinstate the existing law and alter the appeal schedule. It would be a little less convenient, but it would not make very much difference.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale referred to my letter to him and quoted from it. I do not know anything about "bad apples", but I take responsibility for all that is done. The letter is signed by me and therefore I am not speaking for anybody but myself. The point I was trying to make, rather inelegantly, was that, on the whole, experience seems to be that when parties become separated the husband, for example, does not intend or wish for his separated wife, if the separation has lasted until death, to benefit from his estate.
One can achieve that, I suppose, in a number of ways. One can make the intestacy provision go one way and then there will be a whole lot of wills going the other; or one can make the intestacy provision go the other way, in which case one does not require so many wills. I can see that it is in the interests of some that there should be a lot of wills. The point I was trying to make in the letter was that, as far as experience goes, it does not look as though there are many wills trying to alter the effect of the current law on this matter. I have not expressed it anything like as well in the letter. If I had to write the letter again I am sure that I would be able to improve on it. Your Lordships will appreciate that I have written one or two letters during the Committee stage of this Bill.
However, the most important thing I said in the letter was that I had had an opportunity of consulting, since Committee stage, with my Ancillary Relief Advisory Group, which is headed by Lord Justice Thorpe. It consists of representatives of the judiciary, the Family Law Bar Association, the Law Society, the Solicitors Family Law Association and two academic lawyers. Their view was that we should stick with the existing law. It is for that reason that I decided that the existing law should be left in. But if, as I said, there is a problem about the message of the Bill because it happens to be re-enacting existing law, I believe that I can deal with that by an amendment which takes this measure out all together and keeps the existing law in its present form.
I believe that what we have is probably more convenient for practitioners, but that of course is not certain. It has nothing at all to do with the legal effect of divorce on wills, which is a separate matter altogether, and where the only problem is separation. The law has been like this to some extent from as long ago as the 1850s although, as I have explained, it was modified considerably in 1970.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I need not deal at any length with the letter which has been referred to. My noble and learned friend has not disputed that it shows complete confusion between testacy and intestacy, which invalidates the whole objection to this amendment.
My noble and learned friend was inclined to quarrel with my statement that this provision goes back to 1965 although that was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. He said that it goes back to the middle of the last century. That is at best only half-valid.
There was a provision to which he referred and which arose out of the union of two very raffish figures; I am sorry to say that one of them was a predecessor of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, Lord Lyndhurst. I am very surprised that my noble and learned friend should take him in any way as a model. The other was Mrs. Caroline Norton, whose husband brought an action for adultery (criminal conversation) naming Lord Melbourne, the Home Secretary—or he may have been Prime Minister by that time—as her lover. That is the origin of what happened in the middle of the last century. It was partly a precursor of the Married Women's Property Act, which was designed to protect the property of married women who were living separately from their husbands under a separation order, as it is now called. That is only half of what is now proposed, which was fully expounded in 1965.
One comes back to this: although lipservice is paid to the right of anybody on conscientious objection to prefer a separation order to a divorce order, although that is conceded, the normal law of intestacy which would benefit only such a person making such a choice is altered to that person's disadvantage.
I said at the beginning that this is mainly a question of impression rather than of substance because the separated spouse can always make a will and the person who might benefit from intestacy has some rights under family provision legislation. As a question of appearance, this once again shows how divorce-minded the Bill is and how at every turn it is in favour of divorce as against separation (where there is still some hope for the marriage because there is no right to remarry). However, in view of the fact that this is largely a matter of presentation and not of substance, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Funding for marriage support services]:
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("may") and Insert ("shall").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 93, I am seeking to insert the word "shall" instead of "may" in the first line of Clause 18. The amendment seeks, as far as any legislation can, to make grants mandatory rather than discretionary. I shall not speak of the value of marriage support services because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is firmly committed to them, as are a good number of other noble Lords. I hesitate also to put forward a case

55
of financial hardship because so many charitable bodies today are doing that, but it is important to place certain financial facts and figures on the record in view of the key role which marriage support services will be asked to play.
Over the past 10 years, the contribution of central government funding to each hour of counselling undertaken by Relate, for example, has dropped from 24 per cent. to ,under 10 per cent. of the unit cost. That means that currently Relate has to find £10 for every hour of counselling delivered to supplement the funding obtained from clients and government. The sum which Relate has to raise amounted to £4 million last year and is becoming increasingly difficult to find. Exactly the same story could be told in relation to the Jewish Marriage Council, the Tavistock Institute of Marital Studies, One Plus One, and Marriage Care, the Catholic agency.
We are all conscious of the huge cost of divorce to the country as a whole. At present the Government spend something like £3 billion on picking up the pieces of broken marriages, but less than 0.1 per cent. of that sum is invested in marriage support services. A simple way of putting that is to say that for every £3,000 spent on divorce, less than £3 is spent on supporting marriage. However, as I have said, the marriage support services will be asked to play an increasingly important role in that area in terms of marriage preparation, marriage research and marital counselling, all of which we believe in. It is important that they are funded adequately. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replies to the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, perhaps I may ask about the general funds which are given to such organisations. What proportion of the money that is given actually ends up helping married couples, either in terms of counselling or subsequently?
It is often said—some of the material that I have read from such organisations indicates this—that those organisations counsel quite a number of other people, such as unmarried couples, homosexual couples and lesbian couples. As I have said before, if public money is going into something, it should go to those parts of an organisation which the Bill is designed to support and which I think that all Members of your Lordships' House wish to support. I hope that I shall be given an answer to that question because I have received letters which indicate that there would not be such a long wait for marriage guidance counselling if such organisations concentrated their efforts exclusively on marriage guidance counselling and not on other activities.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I should like to speak on behalf of those who have in principle supported the Bill from the start as being a Bill which has support for marriage and the family at its centre. That is why so many of us have supported the Bill through thick and thin.
56
It is important that the services which support and bolster marriage should be funded because, if we fail on that, I believe that the last state will be worse than the first. We shall be left with a Bill which seeks to support marriage and the family but which is not able to do so. It sometimes happens that splendid legislation passes both your Lordships' House and the other place, but in the end there are not the funds to implement that which has been proposed.
If I may attempt to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, it is possible for there to be pro-rata funding. That happens in a minor way in my own diocese. When I have to ask for the help of, say, marriage guidance counsellors, I can pay for that which they do without necessarily having to subscribe vaguely to their whole enterprise. So, we could deal with that problem.
The cost of divorce to this country is massive, but by comparison what we spend on services to assist marriage is minimal. I hope that we can be as good as our word and have the courage of our convictions. It is good that this Bill has been brought forward by the Government because it shows that they are concerned about the state of the nation. I hope that they will back it with the necessary funds.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that there is a consensus that there shall be marriage support services and that they shall be financed with the assistance of public funds. I suggest that there is also a consensus in favour of the proposition advanced by my noble friend Lady Young that that money should be directed to the purposes of the Bill specifically and not elsewhere.
I rise only to ask my noble and learned friend—I regret that I have not given him notice of this—whether he has thought further about the point that I raised in Committee when I drew attention to the need for some form of preparation during education for the responsibilities of marriage now that it comes so early in life. Indeed, parenthood often comes before the end of a school career.
I suggested that Clause 18(1)(c) should embrace research into the effects of education on marital breakdown. My noble friend did not say that that activity would fall within the definition of this subsection, nor did he go so far as to say that the money would be spent in that way. I hope that he will be able to reassure me on the definition, either now or later in writing. Amendment No. 94 appears to be grouped with Amendment No. 93. One wonders whether the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, will speak to that or whether it will be debated separately.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. We are grateful for the noble and learned Lord who introduced the clause. It was introduced specifically to help with the problem of marriage counselling. But I feel that the word "may" does not truly represent the feeling of the House and that what is required is "shall". Although it will still be qualified by the words "with the approval of the

57
Treasury", it shows that the House is extremely anxious that that should happen. I very much hope that the amendment will be accepted and that the clause introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will to that extent be strengthened.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 93. However, I would have liked to speak also to Amendment No. 94. I see that Amendment No. 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, is grouped with Amendment No. 93, but he has not moved it.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I thought that it might be appropriate to take Amendment No. 94 separately. However, I have been persuaded that it should be grouped with Amendment No. 93, because essentially it is a probing amendment. It does not cover the same ground as Clause 18. I do not believe that mediation is included under support services, nor does the particular issue that I wish to raise come under Part II of the measure which deals with the financing of the mediation services.
The point of the amendment is the immediate concern about interim finance if the mediation services are to expand and provide effective central control of standards. When the Act has been running for some time and money comes in through legal aid there may be some other arrangements, as opposed to direct funding, to enable the mediation services to be financed through legal aid. But the particular problem is immediate. We are well aware that mediation is crucial to this Bill, but the fact is that without more resources the present mediation services may not be able to cope with the demands which will be made upon them. They are very small. The central organisation is very small. There is a danger that all kinds of enthusiastic would-be mediators will rush forward to fill the vacuum, unless the central administration of the various mediation bodies can be strengthened.
It is all the more important because the noble and learned Lord has made clear that he does not himself wish to monitor and supervise the standards of the mediation services. Therefore, it is essential to have strong central bodies to ensure that this is done and are sufficiently widespread in the nation as a whole so that they will be the obvious people to turn to, not just those who set up a badge as a mediator, which it is perfectly possible for anybody to do at the moment.
The expansion, consolidation and piloting of the experiments, which the noble and learned Lord has said he wishes to undertake over a period of about two years following the passage of the Bill, will take place at a time when presumably money will not be coming in via the legal aid channel. One looks for a guarantee of interim payments to allow the mediation services to do what must be done if the Bill is to be effective.
It may assist your Lordships if I say a word about how National Family Mediation is financed. I declare an interest because I am one of the patrons of that body. There are 60 local services to which approximately 650 trained mediators are attached. All of these local services are separate charities, and most are
58
self-sustaining. They are funded from a variety of sources. They get some money from legal aid; some comes from the probation services; some charge client fees; some receive support from local authorities; and they also seek charitable funds. These are held together in National Family Mediation by the central services which consist of three paid employees to cover the whole nation. Those central services are concerned with such matters as: general policy, professional standards, the education of mediators, public relations, monitoring local services, appropriate literature and keeping in touch with mediation bodies on an international basis. All of that is done by three full-time members on a budget of less than a quarter of a million pounds. There is no core funding from the Government for that service. Unless there is core funding this tiny organisation will simply collapse.
There are pressures to bring together the three main mediation services in the country to form a so-called college of mediators which will provide training and assure standards. That cannot be done as long as the mediation services are dependent upon finance from trusts, charities and, as to a small amount, affiliation fees. For a variety of reasons (which I need not go into) trust money is drying up, not least in anticipation that if the Government put through this legislation they will pay something for it.
I fully recognise the problems faced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in trying to secure finance from the Treasury. I deeply sympathise with him. But there is a question of credibility here. The sums required are extremely modest but are crucial to the successful implementation of the procedures. Therefore, although I do not press the amendment, I very much hope that he can give an assurance that, first, he understands the problems and, secondly, that help will be forthcoming.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, as a patron of National Family Mediation—which we know is the larger of the two organisations that look after mediation at the moment—is the noble Lord telling us that unless substantially more funding is available it will not be possible to get mediation off the ground and properly piloted during the two-year period presently anticipated by my noble and learned friend?
Lord Habgood: My Lords, what I am saying is that the operation of the Bill is put at risk unless there is substantial funding, because at the moment mediation services deal with about 15 per cent. —I am quoting off the top of my head—of divorce cases. If that is going to expand to what we hope for under the Bill, it must entail an expansion of central services. One is talking about a whole different scale of operation which will need the funding if it is not to collapse under its own weight.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to return to Amendment No. 93 which presses that there "shall" he funds available for conciliation. That is a matter which has been of great concern to all of us interested in the Bill throughout these discussions. I should of course declare an interest in that I have a longstanding connection with the Tavistock Institute for Marital Studies.

59
Without conciliation, the purposes behind the Bill cannot be achieved. Conciliation is not cheap for the individuals concerned. It is carried out usually on a one-to-one basis. It is time-consuming, and it has to be done by properly trained, skilled people who cannot come cheaply. Unless there is a requirement in the Bill that money should be available for conciliation, the purposes of the Bill will be undermined.
Mediation in the sense that the term is used in the Bill is extremely important. It is part of the Bill. We understand that there will be money for mediation in this sense, but mediation without the availability of conciliation, which will not cost money to the people who need conciliation, will not achieve the Bill's purposes. I press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to recognise that this is at the very heart of what he is trying to do if he is trying to save marriages. On a purely financial basis, we have all heard this evening—we knew before—how much divorce costs. Conciliation, properly done, saves us money. That, if for no other reason, should commend the amendment to the Government.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. One of the problems is that the mediation service—I say this as a fellow patron—has grown and is being used far more than previously. The staff have not only to deal with all the extra cases; they have to raise the money. People who would be good mediators are at the moment having to raise money in the local offices. One of the difficulties is that the mediation service is becoming well known and well used, and therefore needs the money to run the service.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am worried by both amendments. I oppose Amendment No. 93 because I believe that it is better to retain the word "may" rather than to use "shall". Although in principle I am very much in favour of marriage counselling, I should like to know how anyone judges its success to determine whether the money is being well spent. We have no idea whether many of these counselling services benefit people and in what sort of numbers.
We do not know what standards are expected of marriage counselling. In the health service we are all obliged to fit in with the Patient's Charter and achieve certain results. Will people be expected to achieve certain results with mediation and marriage counselling? I shall be interested to know.
When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, I was worried, as I was when I attended the Law Society meeting when mediation was talked about. He confirmed what I said earlier this afternoon, that it is a huge growth industry. Anyone can set himself up—he confirmed this—as a mediator. After I left the Law Society meeting I spoke to several people who had no jobs whom I thought might well qualify as mediators. I said, "There you are, there's an opening for you. Look into that. Find out how you get into this College of Mediators, because it will be something for the future. It might be a job for you".
60
There must be some standards. The Law Society told us that it has no fixed standards and that anyone can set up as a mediator. The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, has just said that. If these proposals are to be effective, there will have to be proper standards. He said—this has been confirmed by my noble and learned friend—that he will not supervise. It sounded as if no one will supervise. That worries me. We will be building up a huge counselling and mediation industry. We must be sure that it will be run in the right way and to the advantage of people and in support of marriage.
My noble friend Lady Young raised a good point. She said that many of the resources are not being spent on marriage. That is another relevant point. All voluntary organisations are having trouble surviving in terms of funding. At one point we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, that the mediators were self-sustaining—that was the phrase he used—whereas a few minutes later we heard that they needed all this extra money. There was even a suggestion that legal aid would pay for the mediators. My experience of most things that receive legal aid is that they grow faster than anything that does not receive legal aid. Again, I have reservations.
My greatest concern is to ensure that these people are suitably qualified. I should like to know what standards of qualification are being set up. I should also like an assurance that money given to them will be money well spent.
6.15 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord replies, I hope that he will clarify a position which I thought was definite. In earlier definitions in the Bill, "mediation" has meant looking after the break-up of the marriage, counselling the two parties who are to divorce and making arrangements for the sad distribution of assets and for the future of the children.
I, too, attended the Law Society meeting in the Moses Room where it was categorically said that most of the mediators will be lawyers or solicitors who know what they are doing. It was almost a closed-shop debate. I see my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes nodding her head. It was said that only lawyers and solicitors could be mediators and that they would all be rewarded through legal aid.
The right reverend Prelate used the word "mediator" to cover that and in relation to marriage support agencies. As I understand it there are two things: one is mediators dealing with divorces, which is very sad, who are paid for out of legal aid; and then there is this new proposal of marriage support agencies, about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has spoken, which we are introducing in the Bill. We hope that they will be rewarded by the Treasury through Votes to the Lord Chancellor who will control them with his watchful eye.
I urge that these services are supported strongly and funded properly. The kernel of the Bill is that these agencies will be able to prevent marriages ever reaching divorce. They will succour the needy who are worrying

61
about their marriages. The Lord Chancellor will see that those agencies give money to heal the marriages which are going wrong.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that the Bill will just not work unless there is adequate provision for mediation and for the reconciliation services. While I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that there is a need to control the quality of the services available, I support the idea underlying the amendments but question whether they go far enough. I am not so worried about the word "may" as about the words "with the approval of the Treasury". Can the noble and learned Lord convince the House that the Treasury is likely to support mediation and conciliation services to the tune that is required if the Bill is to work? If not, should we not be introducing an amendment to "lay upon the Lord Chancellor the duty of ensuring the provision of adequate services for reconciliation and mediation"? Is it not the case that in Australia the obligation is laid upon government to provide adequate services for mediation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, two distinct matters are raised in Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 and it is important to distinguish between them. First, the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford changes "may" into "shall". I understand what is behind the proposal but it is obvious that it would not do very well to have "shall" in that position immediately preceding the phrase,
"with the approval of the Treasury, make grants in connection with",
followed by a list of projects. Obviously, "shall" in that situation is worth while only if it is enforceable and no enforceability is easily associated with a clause such as that.
However, we must not lose the perspective to the operation. It is the first time that there has appeared in any statute the authority to give grants for these particular services. I hope that your Lordships will feel that it is a step forward to get such a recognition into a Bill. Obviously, it is not done without a degree of persuasion of others because many people have ideas about how they would like to spend such money and they are in competition with us.
The second point that I wish to make bears exactly on the matter raised by my noble friend Lady Young. The grants referred to under Clause 18 are in connection with the provision of marriage support services, which I would take to mean services being in support of marriage and not in connection with other types of relationships such as those she mentioned.
Secondly, I believe that research into the causes of marital breakdown is extremely important. It includes the issue to which my noble friend Lord Elton referred. If one of the causes of marital breakdown is that people get married young without adequate preparation for marriage, which is a defect which could be replaced or repaired, that would he covered by the proposal. I am not saying which project we would wish to support. As I have explained, we have already studied fully the types
62
of service which are presently available. We have arranged for a seminar for people in that area to take place on 3rd April, when we will consider how the matter should be taken forward. Research into ways of preventing marital breakdown is closely related to the second project. Having found the causes the question is, what cures can be applied?
I explained during the course of the Bill that many people associate large costs with marriage breakdown. I have no doubt whatever that there are such large costs. Therefore, it is obvious that, if one can demonstrate that £1 spent in this area prevents large costs in other areas, the case for securing Treasury approval would be strong because the Treasury is no more anxious than any of your Lordships to pay out taxpayers' money consequential on marital breakdown if that can be prevented.
Therefore, one of the matters which must be attended to in any funding of projects under this clause is the arrangement made by those seeking the funding to demonstrate the effectiveness of their work. Some who have already been funded have given some demonstrations of the extent to which their work is effective. I believe that something of that kind is essential in this type of progress. Therefore, I strongly take the view that adequate support for these headings is required. The level of support which from year to year these services will receive will depend crucially on the extent to which they can demonstrate success in the objectives to which I have referred.
I have noticed that one of the objections sometimes made to the Bill is that it will produce a great army of people hitherto out of work who will suddenly find employment in this area. Your Lordships may take it that I have no intention whatever of moving down that road. I believe that such work is skilled work and that it is capable of being tested in a way that is not easy as regards much other work. My noble friend Lady Gardner referred to the health service. Your Lordships know that it is not always easy to be absolutely clear about the effectiveness of a particular treatment. Indeed, to some degree medical negligence litigation is concerned with that very problem.
I believe that this particular type of work in aggregate is capable of being tested quite profoundly. Therefore, I say to the right reverend Prelate that, first, an amendment of this kind would not be textually suitable and, secondly, that it is important that any arrangements made in this area involve a test of their success. I strongly support that type of service and I believe that it has much to offer. As the right reverend Prelate said, the importance of this Bill is that it emphasises how central to our nation are the institution of marriage and support for that institution.
Your Lordships may take it that on the basis that I have explained I shall certainly give my commitment to do everything possible to produce as good a service as one can. However, that must depend on the service demonstrating its success in avoiding the development of marriage breakdown. Standards and so forth will be reflected in the degree to which the services are successful. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel that that is appropriate in this connection.

63
As regards Amendment No. 94, I have already made a grant towards developing standards for the mediation profession. However, as regards legal aid, I am expecting that mediation will prove to be a useful and more appropriate alternative to legal aid in many of the disputes that will be covered in the subject matter of this Bill. That too requires skill and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes may rest assured that there is no question of my authorising the payment out of legal aid money to anyone who is not appropriately qualified to act as a mediator. I believe that during the course of the remarks I heard it said that the Law Society was saying that there would be a good number of lawyer mediators. I believe that it is a good profession for lawyers to follow. It has a most distinguished ancestry.
There are also people other than lawyers who may have these skills. Again, it is right that they should be developed. This process is capable of being tested because mediated agreements will be the result in these situations, and the question will be how effective they are and how well they last. So all of this is capable of being tested in a very realistic way.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said that the mediation services would like more money if they can get it. I have not come across many services that are not in that position. On the other hand, these matters are being developed. They have been supported and—subject to the sort of help I have already given in respect of developing the standards to be expected in mediation when this Bill comes into effect—it is right that we should leave matters on that basis. The ultimate funding of mediation, under this Bill, will arise through the legal aid fund, by arrangements properly made under the terms of the legal aid statute as amended by the later provisions of this Bill.
I hope I have answered your Lordships' questions, particularly the point raised by my noble friend Lady Young. It is quite clear that the power in this Bill to make grants is expressly defined as relating to the support of marriage and marital breakdown and the causes and cures of that.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. I know that we are all grateful that Clause 18 is there at all. We recognise that it is a considerable achievement.
As to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am quite clear that the main focus of all the agencies whose names I quoted earlier—education or research or marriage counsellors—is marriage in one form or another. Of course, those agencies will probably have slightly different philosophies because, as I mentioned before, they include the Jewish Marriage Council, the Tavistock Institute for Marital Studies, One Plus One and the Catholic agency, Marriage Care. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the focus of the Bill is clearly on marriage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, quite properly raised questions about standards and results. I have been pressing for only properly approved
64
organisations to be mentioned in the Bill, and if there is a roster of properly approved organisations that will be one way of monitoring standards and results. I am sure these organisations, being reputable organisations, would not fear in any way a proper critique of their achievements or lack of them. They are professional bodies and open to scrutiny.
I do not have a full set of figures but there are two points which relate to the questions raised. A recent Relate study shows that 25 per cent. of couples who were living apart at the start of counselling were living together six months after the completion of counselling. Secondly, 10 per cent. of couples who thought that their marriages had ended said that as a result of attending counselling with Marriage Care they had discovered the energy to start again. Those figures are by no means definitive, but I am sure their work would be open to any scrutiny. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
(".—(1) The "special procedure" (whereby petitions for divorce based on section 1(2)(a), (b) or (c) of the 1973 Act have accelerated and informal consideration) is hereby abolished.
(2) No decree of divorce shall be pronounced in respect of any petition based on section 1(2)(a), (b) or (c) of the 1973 Act until a period of twelve months for reconciliation, reflection and consideration has elapsed since the date on which the court received the petition.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this, I venture to say, is an important amendment. It gets rid of the roundly denounced, universally denounced, so-called quickie divorce.
Subsection (1) of the new clause gets rid of it procedurally, and subsection (2) of the substance. I am speaking also to Amendment No. 116, which is the effective implementation.
The necessity for this new clause rose late on the last day in Committee, in fact after eleven o'clock. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, told me when this legislation would be brought into effect, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said he thought it would be two years after Royal Assent. I do not quarrel with that. It is eminently sensible to make sure that the administrative substructure is in place first. We have the care that was taken over the Children Act on the one hand, which has been a success, and, on the other hand, the disaster that followed the Child Support Act. The necessity, therefore, is to make sure that the quickie divorce disappears as rapidly as possible and does not have to wait two years until my noble and learned friend is ready to bring the rest of the measure into effect.
I do not need to expatiate on the disadvantages of the so-called quickie divorce. They were in the forefront of the propaganda in favour of this Bill, which was heavily promoted by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, gave a description of how it worked procedurally, and it certainly reflected no

65
credit on the law. It was a patent step towards what has always been the ultimate aim of the extreme permissive divorce reformers; namely, the simple registration of a divorce—as simple as the registration of a marriage, or even simpler.
One has to go back, as subsection (2) shows, to the 1969 Act, although I have cited it in its re-enactment in 1973. As your Lordships now well know, the Divorce Reform Act pretended to be based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage but in fact depended on the so-called five facts which, together, were the exclusive grounds of breakdown that could be alleged, and any one of them was a conclusive ground.
The first, as your Lordships know well, and is referred to in Section 2, is on the ground of adultery. But it was divorce in a new form. It was divorce stripped of anything which might impede it; for example, an agreement to produce the evidence of a divorce or even plotting that a divorce should take place—even one party plotting that the other should commit adultery because connivance and collusion disappeared.
The second ground was unreasonable behaviour. The third ground was desertion for two years, reduced from three years. The third introduced into our law for the first time divorce by consent after two years' separation. Both Church and state stood against divorce by consent over the centuries because the Church said that it is inconsistent with the vows that have been made, not just privately but in the face of the congregation. The state said that the institution of marriage was more than the concern of the spouses themselves; it was a fundamental institution of society.
The last ground was unilateral separation after five years. In fact, that was the only ground that was before the Royal Commission because irretrievable breakdown was very much an afterthought. But the ground of unilateral repudiation was rejected by Archbishop Fisher giving evidence on behalf of the Church of England to the Royal Commission on marriage and divorce. Notwithstanding that, that measure was handed over by the Lord Chancellor's Department and negotiated by the Law Commission with a Private Member. It was supported by the Bishop of Exeter in your Lordships' House who volunteered to act as a Teller.
As early as February 1970, before that measure had ever come into force, it was pointed out in a lecture to the Institute of Legal Executives at the annual Riddell lecture that the earlier provision could be used for divorce by consent. The promoters of the Bill in both Houses had assured Parliament that although the measure introduced divorce by consent, it was only after two years separation. But it was pointed out that adultery, without the bars of collusion or connivance, could be used to achieve an immediate divorce.
Nevertheless, the Law Commission and the Lord Chancellor's Department proceeded to consolidate the 1969 Act into the 1973 Act where we now have it. But they did not stop there because they brought in subsequently the procedural provision of the quickie divorce. One could immediately obtain a divorce by consent with a put-up case of adultery. That could then
66
be rushed through the courts informally, rapidly and disgracefully, in the way that was described by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
That is the position that we have—a thoroughly discreditable provision of the law which is relied on as the principal ground for this measure. It is abrogation strongly relied upon. Talking to Members of your Lordships' House, I have found that even those who are deeply disturbed about the thrust of the Bill before us say that at present one can obtain a divorce in an average of six months and at least this Bill stipulates a 12-month lapse. Therefore, is it not plain after that which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, ascertained, that there is urgent need not to wait for two years and possibly more but to get rid of that disgraceful provision immediately? That deals with that subsection.
Amendment No. 116 amends the Bill to the effect that the provisions can be brought into force, and stipulates that this particular provision shall come into force on the passing of the Act. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and I strongly support it. It seems to me to be very important that we should remove the special procedure at the earliest possible moment. I too listened to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, at an earlier stage when he described this procedure. What he said was quite new to me and I did not realise that such a high proportion of today's divorces go through simply by post. They arrive at the court and are dealt with, so to speak, on the nod with minimum consideration. That seems to me to be profoundly unsatisfactory and I am quite sure that we should try to remove that procedure, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has suggested, at the earliest possible moment and not wait for two years.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because I believe that it is necessary to provide some form of interim law to cover the period of at least two years before this Bill is brought into effect.
I should like to add that it seems to me that one should go further than is proposed by the noble and learned Lord's amendment because the effects of a quickie divorce are as much ill thought out in the ground that must be proved as in the speed at which the divorce can be achieved. I am talking about the behaviour ground.
It is well known and referred to at paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper that it is almost impossible to defend the behaviour ground in a divorce. The White Paper states:
"The details pleaded in divorce petitions in support of, for example, the fact of intolerable behaviour, do not need to be corroborated and are irrebutable. Such allegations are therefore easy to make and easy to establish".
Experience shows that they are almost impossible to defend.
In our debate on Thursday last on the debate on Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, which would have

67
re-introduced fault into the divorce law, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford described the case of a friend of his who had written to him to explain what had happened in his divorce. The letter read:
"The solicitor advised her,"
that is the wife,
"that she could get a quick divorce if she went for unreasonable behaviour. This did not include adultery or violence. It did include her view of my failings vastly exaggerated by the solicitor for the purpose of proving that the marriage had irretrievably broken down".
The letter went on to say:
"The 'faults' did not seem legally serious enough for divorce".
The right reverend Prelate observed correctly:
"The present law is very flawed, as we have heard from that moving testimony".—[Official Report, 29/2/96; col. 1652.]
Had I been able to speak in that debate, I would have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the amendment moved by my noble friend was drafted in terms to improve the fault ground of behaviour. Under Section 1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, what has to be shown is,
"that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent."
On a true construction of those words, I understand that "petitioner" means the particular petitioner in the case under consideration and not the ordinary,
"reasonable spouse considered as petitioner."
Therefore, the test of behaviour is subjective, not objective. It means that, in determining whether a particular petitioner can or cannot reasonably be expected to live with a particular respondent, the court has to take into account the character and personality, disposition and behaviour of the petitioner as well as the behaviour of the respondent as alleged.
The amendment to which my noble friend spoke last week, Amendment No. 12, would have changed the grounds so that it would have to be proved that,
"the respondent has behaved in such a way that a reasonable spouse, considered as petitioner, could not be expected to live with the respondent".
If that had been appreciated, I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford would have realised that it will not be so easy in the future to get away with a behaviour ground merely by saying, for example, "My husband was very messy in the bathroom, he would leave his pyjamas on the floor. I, being the person that I am, found it intolerable to live with him". In fact, an objective ground for divorce would have been introduced. That was one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, addressed when he dealt with and commented upon the points raised by the right reverend Prelate.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, wishes to produce an amendment which would really get rid of all the bad effects of the quickie divorce, I believe that he ought also to look at the behaviour grounds in the 1973 Act, and incorporate the
68
words proposed by my noble friend Lady Young, or other words. That way he would ensure the introduction of an objective definition of the behaviour ground.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest in that no one present in the Chamber would be more pleased than myself—with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore—if the so-called "special procedure" were abolished. Its introduction was a fairly serious financial blow to the junior Bar and was undoubtedly intended to effect a considerable saving to the legal aid fund. Indeed, I am quite sure that it had that effect.
At the time, I remember we all grumbled that one still needed a hearing in open court to wind-up a company but not to wind-up a marriage. Before the introduction of the special procedure, the petitioner had to go to court with his or her lawyers and give oral evidence to a judge of the breakdown of the marriage and evidence of the supporting facts which were relied upon. The procedure introduced in the 1970s converted that into a largely paper exercise.
However, I question the phraseology in the amendment. In particular, I question whether the "special procedure" can now be described as an "accelerated" procedure. The special procedure involves a number of stages. The petitioner has to apply for the petition to be considered by the court and swear an affidavit, or make an affirmation in support. The district judge has to certify that he is satisfied that the petitioner has made good his or her case and is entitled to a decree. He then has to fix a date for the announcement of that decree.
I seriously question whether that practice is any quicker than the machinery which existed before the introduction of the special procedure, whereby the petitioner simply applied for a hearing date and the petition, if undefended, was set down in a list of cases for hearing by the court on a particular day. If the process was any slower before the introduction of the special procedure, it can only have made a difference of weeks and certainly not of months. Therefore, I invite noble Lords to consider whether they are in fact, by way of the amendment, doing away with the so-called "quickie divorce".
I also question the use of the word "informal". It is certainly true that under the special procedure, the petitioner does not have to give evidence in open court, but he or she still has to swear an affidavit or make an affirmation in support of the matters set out in the petition. That is treated sufficiently seriously in that, if a false affidavit is sworn and discovered, the Queen's Proctor can intervene in the normal way.
With respect, I should point out that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, made a separate point about defended divorces. We are in fact talking about the special procedure, which applies only to undefended divorces. However, the noble Lord is perfectly right to say that it is not altogether easy under the present regime to defend a divorce, especially if behaviour is alleged. But the Legal Aid Board takes the view that it is common ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. There are certainly considerable procedural pressures

69
within the machinery of the court to persuade people to compromise divorce suits so that they do not take up substantial time in the courts with arguments over allegations of behaviour which, if necessary, can be watered down. The question of defending divorces is not the same as the issue regarding the special procedure. I wonder whether the abolition of that procedure would really make any impact on the speed with which an undefended divorce could be obtained.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the principle set out in the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out that there may be technical difficulties in so far as we are talking about undefended divorces. He also wondered whether the amendment would have the desired effect which lies behind the noble and learned Lord's proposals.
As I understand it, those proposals entirely support what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been saying right through the proceedings on the Bill; namely, that one of the main purposes of the legislation is to abolish quickie divorces. He could not see why someone who was at fault should be able to get a quick divorce and be able to remarry, whereas in other cases, if one had to wait for consent for two years or five years, the innocent party may be prevented from remarrying. I understand that to be one of the principles involved.
The other principle stressed by my noble and learned friend this afternoon is in sticking firmly to his view that, under the Bill, the minimum time from the date of the statement should be a year. That will give couples time for reconciliation, reflection and consideration. Regardless of the actual wording of the amendment, it is quite clear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has the objective of introducing a system whereby the quickie divorce is stopped and no divorce granted until after one year from the time when the petition is presented to the court.
I suggest that the principle underlying Amendment No. 95 and the implementing amendment, Amendment No. 116, should be looked at again and, possibly, retabled on Third Reading. I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree that the principle is one that he can support. That redrafting should also take into account one problem not addressed by the current amendment; namely, the question of those divorces which are, so to speak, on track at present.
I think it would be very difficult to introduce with this Bill at Royal Assent that this particular amendment or principle should be adopted straight away but then only start the new system as from the date of the Act coming into force which would not be made retrospective.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, since I have signed the amendment I would like briefly to support what has already been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and others. I believe that the case that has been put is entirely logical and one which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor
70
will accept. The only thing that strikes me is that all the way through this Bill we have been talking about the necessity to end quickie divorces. It seems to me that we need not have had this Bill at all. All we need to have done was to repeal the 1973 Act and we would have achieved what the noble and learned Lord wanted to achieve and what everybody else apparently wants to achieve.
7 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I want to support everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has said on this. This is entirely in line with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes: that is, to get rid of the so-called quickie divorce and to keep, as my noble friend Lady Elles said, the month. As I understand it, the special procedure fixes the time between the decree nisi and the decree absolute at six weeks at least, which by any measure is a very short time. The original statute suggested six months. What we would be doing by this would be having a year. This is a very important principle. If we believe in it we should stand by it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principle of the quickie divorce is that you get divorced more quickly if you allege fault than if you do not. That is my understanding of the principle behind it and that is enshrined in the present law. This amendment is not intended to take effect to change that while the matter is in transition. I am certainly very much in favour of doing away with that principle because I think that it is inimical to any kind of signal that fault is something of which Parliament disapproves and to which a stigma is attached.
This amendment does not attempt to do that. What it seeks to do is to produce on the existing law some part of what we are proposing: the one-year period of reflection and consideration. As I understand it, this transition will allow—indeed, require—allegations of fault to be made in the petition. The amendment refers, as your Lordships have it, to grounds I (2)(a), (b) or (c) of the 1973 Act; that is to say, grounds which require the allegations there referred to to be made. If I thought that that was a reasonable way forward I would certainly have considered that for the main provisions, but the point is that that destroys the idea of reconciliation. If you have to start off your petition by making allegations of fault you destroy the whole basis—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: No, my Lords. What it does is to accept what my noble and learned friend proposes, namely, that for the next two years there will be a petition based on adultery or on unreasonable behaviour. It does no more than accept what he proposes.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it does a good deal more than that because it seeks to impress upon that a period of reconciliation, reflection and consideration. What is more inimical to reconciliation and reflection with the purpose of restoring the marriage than to require that the process starts with allegations of fault? I would have thought, with great respect to your

71
Lordships, that this would be introducing the concept of the period for reflection and consideration in the worst possible atmosphere where it has very little chance of success.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, saying that the period for reflection and conciliation is going to come into effect from the beginning of the Bill, from when the Bill receives Royal Assent, or shortly afterwards, because it seems to me that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is saying is that this amendment is to take place before the provisions of the Bill come into effect, which would introduce this period of reflection and consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend has read the amendment and, as far as I can understand, the amendment in subsection (2) of it does just that. It says,
"No decree of divorce shall be pronounced in respect of any petition based on section 1(2)(a), (b) or (c) of the 1973 Act until a period of twelve months for reconciliation, reflection and consideration has elapsed since the date on which the court received the petition".
Can your Lordships imagine a better way to destroy the idea of reconciliation than to start off by making allegations of fault on the basis of adultery that has destroyed the marriage or conduct that has destroyed the marriage? It is impossible to put these two together and have a workable system.
I would love to go down this road; I would love to stop quickie divorces tomorrow, but the problem is that you have to substitute something better. You have to substitute something which has a chance of working. What I want to substitute is a period for reconciliation, reflection and consideration, and the best way to destroy that is to require the people to make these allegations to begin with. If we do go down this road your Lordships will be seriously damaging the period of reconciliation, reflection and consideration before it gets a proper chance to operate. I am anxious to introduce this new machinery as quickly as possible.
In answer to my noble friend, Lord Coleraine, I said that we need to do it deliberately because I want it to work, but the last thing I want to do is to introduce it against a background which is calculated to destroy it before it starts. I am as keen as anybody to stop these types of divorce but I do not believe you can do it by this means in a way that is likely to be effective.
The second point I want to make is this. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has pointed out, all you would be doing is elaborating a procedure which has very little effect. I explained to your Lordships the other day, the previous day on Report, that in my early days it was all fault-based and the idea, for anyone who actually experienced it, that that helped and made marriage more successful and helped to produce reconciliation is just nonsense.
Much as I would like to support getting rid of these divorces quickly, the only way to do it is by introducing a constructive, properly thought out new system asthis Bill seeks to introduce. I believe it will do that if your
72
Lordships pass this Bill in something like its present form. However, I believe that the system in the amendment will not do so.
If your Lordships look at subsections (1) and (2) of the amendment, what is the point of subsection (1) unless you wish to give, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, more legal aid money to lawyers? If your Lordships wish that as an aim in itself then you will pass this amendment. But if, on the other hand, you wish me to use the money to help set up something better, then you will refuse this amendment. I cannot see for the life of me what the benefit is of subsection (1) of this amendment. I can see some sense in subsection (2) but for the insuperable problem to which I have drawn attention, namely, that you do not have much of a chance of reconciliation if you have to start off by alleging that the marriage has broken down by one of the named features. I hope that your Lordships who share my view that the sooner we get rid of the present system the better will not support this amendment on the grounds that it does so.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who supported the amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who put it as a point of principle, which it is. So your Lordships are free to vote on the amendment as conscience directs.
My noble and learned friend said over and over again that the amendment requires the person seeking a divorce to allege a fault. It does no such thing. It requires nobody to do anything. It proceeds on the basis that for the next two years that is how divorces will be obtained. I do not accept for a moment that because a fault has been alleged in a petition there is no opportunity, no suitable need, for consideration, reflection and, if possible, reconciliation. There are many petitions where the parties can be helped in that way by being delayed for a year and being given assistance with counsellors.
The quickie divorce is such a disgrace to the law and such an affront to the institution of marriage that I must ask your Lordships to support me in the Division Lobby.
7.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 95) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Howell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cross, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V

Elles, B.

Moran, L. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Northbourne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Grantley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Perth, E.

73

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Stallard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Addison, V.

Jeger, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Birdwood, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blaker, L.

Lindsay, E.

Boardman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Burnham, L.

Lucas, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnock, L.

McConnell, L.

Carter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Colwyn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mersey, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Meston, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Donoughue, L.

Northesk, E.

Dornand of Easington, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dubs, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dundonald, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elton, L.

Peyton of YeoviL, L.

Faithfull, B.

Phillimore, L.

Falkland, V.

Rawlings, B.

Flather, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Russell, E

Glenarthur, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Goschen, V.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Grey, E.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Habgood, L.

Stedman, B.

Haddington, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooson, L.

Wilcox, B.

Howe, E.

Wise, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to say that I was quite wrong, and I have already apologised in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, in preventing him from speaking when it was his right to do so. It is, of course, open to any noble Lord to speak to any amendment at the point when the Question is put.
I beg to move that consideration of the Report stage of the Bill be adjourned until twenty-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Management Functions in relation to certain Community Homes) Order 1996
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Contracting Out (Management Functions in relation to certain Community Homes) Order 1996, laid before the House on 16th January, be approved.
Your Lordships will recollect that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 included powers of demonopolisation of the provision of secure accommodation in residential children's homes. That measure was brought forward after full consultation with local government and the voluntary and private sectors. The power was implemented in May last year. Also included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act was a power to enable local authorities to contract out the management of existing secure accommodation in community homes and, with the consent of managers, in controlled community homes.
That power will be implemented shortly. The statutory instrument before us today relates to an order-making power included in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and will enable local authorities to contract out the management of open (non-secure) accommodation in community homes. We have consulted on this measure with interested parties, including local government organisations.
All the powers that I have mentioned are interrelated. They support the Government's policy towards the child care system, which is to encourage a wide and diverse range of providers as in other aspects of social services. We believe that local authorities should be able to bring the philosophy and experience of the voluntary sector or the particular skills of the private sector to bear on the management of children's homes. Local authorities should also be able to choose from a range of options in their search for the most efficient and effective ways of providing accommodation for "looked after" children.
Residential care remains an important element in the options open to local authorities in placing looked after children. It represents a positive choice, not a last resort, and the quality of care should be of the highest order. This measure offers local authorities greater flexibility in making arrangements for such care.
I should like to reassure your Lordships that local authorities will continue to be responsible for decisions about the placement of children in their care and they will continue to have proper regard for the rights and welfare of young people.
I should also like to make it clear that, as soon as a legislative opportunity presents itself, the Government will bring in a power to enable local authorities to contract out open accommodation in controlled community homes. The lack of such provisions presents an anomaly which, because of parliamentary time constraints, we were unable to rectify when the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 passed through this House.

75
This matter has already received consideration in the Standing Committee of the other place, where it was not opposed. Indeed, it was described by the Opposition as largely "uncontentious".
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for her very clear explanation of the order. I did not entirely understand one point. Paragraph 2(2) leaves out of the order the contracting out—or the privatisation—of secure homes. When the Minister replies, perhaps she will amplify the last point that she made about the new order which the Government intend to bring in. She referred to,
"open accommodation in controlled community homes".
I presume that those are not homes which are secure homes. Perhaps she will clarify that point, because those are specifically left out of this order for reasons that I fully understand. If she will explain that, I shall be grateful.
From these Benches we are pleased to support the order. I have a few questions on clarification. What are the cost implications, if any, for the local authorities? Are they related to costs or efficiency? How will emergency referrals be handled? Will the contracts let be based on the number of places provided with some spare capacity allowed, or will the contracts be let on some other basis? I imagine that there are occasions when those homes are used for temporary accommodation while children are awaiting fostering. Presumably there will have to be some leeway in the contract to allow either for temporary use or for emergency referrals.
Will the Minister also tell the House what arrangements will be made for the education of the children where the management is contracted out? Will the contract have specific educational provisions or are those to be the responsibility of the relevant education authority? If there is an overlap between the two, how will it be handled?
Finally, and most crucially, what are the inspection and supervision arrangements for these contracts? Who will be finally responsible for ensuring that the requirements are met which we all accept? We have had some unfortunate episodes in children's homes in recent years. I am sure that the Minister is satisfied, but we should like it on the record that contracting out will not lead to a greater risk of such unfortunate incidents.
The children in these homes have come from disturbed and disadvantaged backgrounds. We should not add to the burdens on them. I am sure that that is not the intention of the order. If the Minister will explain those points, and, in particular, the open and controlled environment, I shall be grateful.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his thoughtful contribution, and the questions that he posed. I shall do my best to deal with those anxieties. I shall leave his first concern until the end.
76
The first question that the noble Lord asked me was how local authorities will meet the cost of placing children. There should not be any costs. The revenue costs of running children's homes already fall on the local authorities, which may charge other authorities placing children. Central government also pays local authorities in respect of certain types of placement. That will continue. However, if there are cost implications regarding the management, those will be offset by savings in not having directly to manage the homes.
The noble Lord was concerned about emergency referrals and spare capacity. If the judgment of the local authority is such that some spare capacity is needed, there is no difference between allowing for spare capacity in local authority-run homes and those subject to contracted out management. They may all be part of the contract and one would expect it to be covered by the contracting out services within the home.
One would expect the education and question of where the authorities place the children to be arranged through the contracts. We are certainly not trying to change the regime in any way.
The noble Lord is right to bring attention to the importance of inspection. I am pleased to tell him that inspection arrangements for children's residential care are being considered as part of the 1995 review, which deals with all inspection and regulation arrangements. But in the meantime, as the purchasers, local authorities will wish to satisfy themselves about the level and quality of care service which is provided. The contract, in effect, will be a powerful tool that the local authority can exercise.
Section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act does not allow secure homes to be contracted out but the Government intend to enable contracting out of secure and controlled community homes when the legislative time allows. As I understand it, the controlled homes are a historical anomaly; they were the old approved homes. They are not covered by the secure homes legislation to which I referred at the beginning of my speech.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that the measure before the House today will allow local authorities greater flexibility in the delivery of an important service. Residential care remains a significant element in looking after those children who, for one reason or another, are in the public care. For, while the number of young people placed in residential care has reduced in recent years, those who are placed are often the most difficult and disturbed. We owe a duty to them to ensure that high quality services are available and that those services represent value for the taxpayers' money. The contracting out order achieves this by ensuring that all the safeguards currently in place will remain, added to which the wealth of experience of the voluntary and private sector can be brought to bear on this area of provision. I hope that I have managed to reassure the noble Lord on the matters that concerned him. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes past eight.

77
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 to 8.20 p.m.]

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 19 [Interpretation of Part I etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 10, leave out line 8.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the decision of the Committee that Clause 6 of the Bill introduced into the House should not stand part. The essential part of Clause 6 has now been incorporated into Clause 4 in such a manner as no longer requires the definition in Clause 19. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 10, line 13, at end insert—
(" "mediation" means family mediation conducted by a person accredited as a mediator in family mediation to an organisation which is concerned with such mediation and which is approved for the purposes of this Part by the Lord Chancellor.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I seek to speak on the National Family Mediation Service. There has been so much misunderstanding concerning both the service and those who work in it that I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I give a full explanation, including a definition of the family mediation service.
Family mediation is a process in which an impartial third person—the mediator—assists couples considering separation or divorce to make arrangements to communicate better, to reduce conflict between them and to reach their own agreed decisions. The issues to be decided may concern separation; the divorce; children; finance; and property. The mediator has no stake in any dispute, is not identified with any of the competing interests and has no power to impose a settlement on the participants, who retain authority to make their own decisions. Couples enter mediation voluntarily to work together on the practical consequences of family breakdown and to reach proposals for settlement which may then be endorsed by their legal representatives—that is important—and the court, wherever appropriate. Mediation offers an alternative to negotiation by solicitors and to adjudication through the courts, but is not a substitute for legal advice.
There are three routes to the mediation service: one, as a result of an information session; two, referral from a solicitor; and three, a direction from the court.
Those working in the mediation service are carefully chosen and, if accepted, are trained. Having trained, they work; and for the first few months their work is supervised. Many mediators are professionals: probation
78
officers, solicitors, and in some cases doctors; and there are lay people who are interested in the work and suited to it.
It is with sadness and regret that I hear some people talk about mediators as "the do-gooders". I remind such people that, for instance, members of the Magistrates' Association are not necessarily professionals; they are not necessarily trained in the first instance, and all are volunteers, drawing only their expenses. I suggest that mediators fall into the same band.
Mediators receive training. A college for mediation has been set up under the guidance of Dame Margaret Booth, a former judge. The role of the college is to make recommendations as to the content of the courses, their standard, and a high structure of accreditation. Other professions have a college: there is the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and many others. As with other colleges, this amendment seeks approval for a body which aims to raise standards, produce a programme of training and provide accreditation.
I fully appreciate and well understand the noble and learned Lord's desire not to regulate professions such as mediation. I shall, however, be interested to learn what it is that persuades him that granting approval—quite a different matter—to a body concerned with mediation for the purposes of Part I would require him to act as a regulator for that body. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he does not consider it right that the mediation service is approved—not regulated, approved—as is the case with other professions. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is my noble friend also speaking to Amendment No. 98AA?
Baroness Faithfull: No.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, notwithstanding that very short answer, I think my noble friend's remarks in respect of Amendment No. 96A probably cover Amendment No. 98AA as well.
Mediation primarily arises in this matter from the provisions of Part II in relation to legal aid. There are concerns about protecting a client against the risk of incompetent mediators. It is clearly important that at a stressful time of life, during the breakdown of a marriage, couples consult professionals who can be trusted to perform a good job.
However, I do not see this as an area in which the Government should be subjecting the mediation profession to unnecessary regulation. I am not persuaded that the consumer is at significant risk. National Family Mediation and the Family Mediators Association have in place procedures to ensure adequate selection, training, supervision and accreditation of family mediators and powers to remove individuals or mediation services from the registers if they do not reach minimum standards.
In addition, I understand that a United Kingdom college of family mediators has been formed which has agreed common standards and will have the same power to remove from the registers services that do not reach those standards. The United Kingdom college is

79
planning to work out consistent standards with the Law Society in respect of family solicitors offering mediation. The Law Society intends to regulate solicitor mediators. That indicates quality of standards in an area that the profession is taking seriously and is dealing with adequately without the need for government intervention. After all, those bodies are all in existence as voluntary organisations at present. It must also be remembered that standards in mediation in this country have been built up over the past 15 years, and neither mediation nor high standards are new.
In relation to legal aid I have tabled Amendment No. 99B, which provides that mediators must have in place,
"arrangements designed to ensure … that the possibility of reconciliation is kept under review throughout mediation; and … that the parties are encouraged to consider the welfare, wishes and feelings of the children".
It also provides that the Lord Chancellor may direct the Legal Aid Board to include in the contract such other provisions relating to the provision of mediation for the purposes of legal aid as he may require. The Legal Aid Board will require mediation services with which it contracts to meet the terms of a mediation franchise specification. That specification is to be developed during the pilot study. But one option is to require that mediators and their supervisors are accredited by a relevant professional body. The board will audit compliance with the specification and non-compliance in key areas will result in suspension or termination of the contract.
These arrangements would appear to me to meet the concerns indicated by the amendment in relation to accreditation. I should not consider the Legal Aid Board entitled to contract with any service that did not comply with those standards. I do not believe that anyone could object to the information meetings giving information to those attending about the possible risks of attending mediation with a service that has not been accredited and approved for state funding purposes. It would be perfectly possible, for example, at the information meeting to declare which are the state accredited systems. Anyone who went to anyone else would do so at his own expense and accept the consequences.
I envisage the standards set by the Legal Aid Board becoming a kite mark for quality across the profession. That would give the client the information necessary for him or her to make an appropriate judgment regarding which mediation services to use without the Government needing directly to approve the mediation services as well.
In those circumstances, I feel that it would be unwise to develop a system which goes beyond that. The approval will flow from the fact that the Legal Aid Board is entitled to contract for state funded services with the particular type of services envisaged. I regard that as giving a very reliable indication to clients as to whom they might use reasonably safely for that purpose.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. The same principles also apply to the later amendment to which I referred.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I have a low IQ but I am not sure that I understood that explanation. Am I to understand that the Legal Aid Board would approve of and give approval to the mediation services?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the point is that I would be able to specify with whom the Legal Aid Board could enter into contracts. Those contracts would specify the standards of service to be provided, including the professional standards to which I referred. That is the most effective way to secure such regulation as is necessary in that area. My noble friend would be the first to agree that over-regulation in mediation—the Lord Chancellor knows best—would not be a very wise policy for me to adopt (apart altogether from my inherent humility). I think that that method of accreditation, which is not more than saying that this is who the state would use, is right in principle and sufficient.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I understand that it would not be proper for the Lord Chancellor to undertake that. I only wanted a body to be accredited, not to include training or having anything to do with individuals. After all, the National Health Service is paid for by the Government. The Royal College of Nursing is a body on its own but it is acknowledged by the Department of Health. I thought that possibly it would be the same in this case.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness that that is what I had in mind. The bodies which will receive public funding would have that stamp of approval. That would be a fairly secure indication to anyone looking for mediation services that those would be the services to which to go.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I should like to consider the matter further and perhaps bring it back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 97:
Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) Where a marriage or relationship has broken down or is in danger of breaking down and a contact order (as defined in section 8 of the Children Act 1989) in respect of a child of the family has been granted by the court to one party to the marriage or relationship and has not been complied with, the Legal Aid Board may grant representation under Part IV of the Legal Aid Act 1988 to that party to assist him in seeking enforcement of the order.
(2) Where a party to whom subsection (1) applies is not eligible for legal aid, the court may appoint a court welfare officer to assist in seeking enforcement of the order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the position of men or women—not only men—who do not conform to the access arrangements laid down by the court. I recognise that this is a very difficult area. The situation refers in the main to men.
In this country at the moment, as in the past, it is mostly women who are given the custody of children. But sad to say, some women find it very difficult to allow their children to visit their father. They make excuses, which, on the face of it, appear to be valid—excuses such as the child is ill, or the child has a sports day, etc. As time goes by, the children begin to lose contact with their father.
That is not the wish of the children. I regret that it is the wish of some mothers, though not all. If the father is given custody, which is not very often, a similar situation might arise. At the moment, if people do not comply with the contact arrangements there seems to be no way to enforce them. Therefore, the first part of the amendment seeks to ensure that if a man does not have access to his children he can obtain legal aid and go to court to ask for enforcement of the access arrangements. However, many men are just above the legal aid level but cannot afford to go to court. Therefore, the recommendation is that they could go to the court welfare officer.
I realise the weakness of my amendment. What does the court do? What are the sanctions? I have not made any reference to sanctions. I should prefer first to hear the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not want to protract the proceedings this evening but I should like to utter a few words of welcome to the second part of the amendment, simply because it is a gesture toward that rather large section of the population which is too rich to receive legal aid and too poor to afford the law. It is nice to see something being done for them.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may add one or two comments. The noble Baroness said that it is the general practice of the courts to award custody of the children to the mother. My experience is now many years away and I should welcome hearing what my noble and learned friend has to say about that. But in my time, the practice was rather different. If there were very young children, almost always the custody was given to the mother. But by the time that a boy was seven or eight Years old, it was generally considered that he needed a father's influence and that was reflected in the custody or access order.
Secondly, the reference by the noble Baroness to access calls to mind a point that has been frequently canvassed in the course of the Bill; namely, whether it is the divorce which does the damage to the child or whether it is the preceding acrimony or even the separation. That question has been repeatedly canvassed. We may have lost sight of two matters which perhaps make the divorce the decisive element. There are remarkably few men in this country who can afford more than one wife. So one of the results of divorce is that one, or generally both families, go down to income support level. That poverty has its effect, as well as any emotional disturbance, on the child.
The noble Baroness referred to the difficulty of enforcing access and contact. That is a very real difficulty. That is the second stage which makes me feel that divorce can be decisive. My noble and learned
82
friend referred to it in Committee as the indoctrination of a child. So often, after a divorce, quite naturally one finds a surrogate parent substituted for the natural one. That is again a source of great strain as it almost invariably involves, sometimes unconsciously, indoctrination of a child.
Now that we have come almost to the end of our deliberations, is it not quite plain that the only way we can save children from the trauma of divorce is by putting children first, not merely with our lips but in our legislative acts, and say that there shall be no divorce when there is a child of the family under 16 years of age?
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I also support the noble Baroness. Contact is absolutely essential to the father; contact and custody to the mother is the norm. I am not going to repeat what the noble and learned Lord has just said but, very sadly, it is absolute fact. One of the most damaging things to a child is indoctrination. It is one of the hardest things to eradicate and one of the most difficult to get into a form of equanimity when it comes to both parents. I totally agree with what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the norm nowadays is governed by the Children Act which includes the presumption that there is no order, either for residence or contact, unless an order is specifically necessary. The question of enforcing contact involves the court in what can often be a delicate and difficult task requiring, from the point of view of the judge, a combination of tact and firmness which is not always easy to achieve.
Certainly, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is absolutely right in suggesting that fathers—and typically it is fathers who wish to enforce contact, either by achieving an order or by enforcing an existing one—should have proper representation. But I am by no means sure that legal aid is somehow excluded in cases in which an application has merit and the applicant has passed the appropriate means test. Therefore, I question the necessity for the first part of this amendment unless there is evidence that somehow legal aid is being withheld in appropriate cases.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, civil legal aid is already available for proceedings in the county court and High Court, not only in relation to applying to the court for a contact order, but also for a further application should the order not be complied with. In the magistrates' court assistance by way of representation is available. In appropriate circumstances emergency legal aid is also available. So the first part of this amendment is already fully covered.
Under Section 7(1) of the Children Act the court may ask for a court welfare report regardless of whether or not legal aid has been granted to the parties. The court also has the power under Section 16 of the Children Act to make a family assistance order. That requires a court welfare officer or local authority officer to be made available,

83
"to advise, assist and (where appropriate) befriend any person named in the order".
Those named in the order may include,
"any parent or guardian of the child; any person with whom the child is living or in whose favour a contact order is in force with respect to the child, [or] the child himself".
There are thus already arrangements in place to ensure the kind of aid and assistance which my noble friend would regard as desirable.
It would be wrong to try to impose a new and separate system on the one presently in existence. But I would like to say one thing about the background to this matter. As has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale—I believe it was taken up also by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh—one of the great difficulties is indoctrination. In the experience I have, that usually takes place at the earlier stage when the parties are getting into conflict. One of my most fundamental objectives in making it unnecessary to make allegations against the other party to the marriage where that is not necessary is just precisely to limit that because there is nothing more harmful to the relationship between a parent and child than to have that parent denigrated by allegations which the child comes to know about.
Therefore, I believe that it is part of the background to all of this to try to relieve the situation of the kind of material which leads to indoctrination because once one has it, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, said, it is mighty difficult to eradicate. Once it is there it is very difficult to remove.
It is very difficult for the court to know what to do in that situation. I am sure that my noble and learned friend has faced this as a judge, as I have, where the mother has all sorts of reasons why the father should not see the child. It is very difficult to get behind them. It is mighty difficult for the court to really have effective means of enforcing the measure without harming the child. I believe that the kind of arrangements which are in place are the best that are available. I say to my noble friend that one of the important things is to some extent to try to attack the root of the problem. I do not claim that all the problems will be solved. I believe that what is proposed, and the atmosphere sought after in this Bill, at least goes some way towards meeting the problem.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Perhaps I may make two points. First, I am most grateful to him for having laid down and made public from your Lordships' House that there is a system which can be adhered to for the time being. I have to say, unkindly, that there are some—perhaps court welfare officers—who have not helped the men when they have been in trouble. Secondly, while I agree that there is indoctrination, there is the other side of the coin. I have come across children who have run away from home because the mother will not let them see the father. That has caused great problems. Therefore, there is another side to the matter which has to be tackled. Perhaps that may be done on a social work basis rather than through the law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
84
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Legal aid for mediation in family matters]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 11, line 16, after ("to") insert ("reconciliation or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to do two things. It provides funding for reconciliation on the same basis as it is provided for mediation. It provides that where a person's financial circumstances qualify him or her for legal aid, they will automatically qualify that person for legal aid for reconciliation also. I stress "a person's financial circumstances" because I am not referring to organisations. Funding for such organisations has already been well covered today. I have great admiration and respect for those Members of your Lordships' House who have declared themselves to be closely involved with such organisations, particularly in relation to mediation, and I am happy to declare my interest: I am not connected to any organisation at all. I am more concerned now with individuals than with organisations.
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who touched on what is a real fear among many people. I refer to the growth of the mediation industry. There is a fear that mediation will take over and that we shall see a huge organisation, with state funds and God knows what else, such as colleges offering diplomas for mediators. It has already been said that people are queuing up to get on to mediation courses. However, that is not what the whole thing is about.
I thought that we had laid to rest the argument about mediation versus reconciliation—at least, I had hoped that we had done so. However, many noble Lords appear to use the phrases indiscriminately, making a mistake that the Law Society did not make in its briefing on the facts of mediation, which clearly states:
"The purpose of mediation is not reconciliation. Instead, it is intended to help divorcing couples reach decisions for themselves about future arrangements for the home, the children, finances etc. Mediation can help resolve disputes about these issues.
Mediators have a clearly defined role. The mediator's job is to help couples reach agreed solutions. They assist negotiations as a neutral third party. They do not:
Provide marriage guidance counselling.
Offer legal advice.
Comment on whether an agreed solution is fair to both parties and properly protects their interests.
Advise the parties independently".
For me, that is an essential definition of a "mediator".
However, I am arguing that before a mediator becomes involved in future arrangements for the unfortunate marriage, there have to be attempts to reconcile the couple. I believe that reconciliation is the stage before mediation. I have suggested that nothing should happen in terms of mediation until at least six months have expired for reconciliation. I still hold to that point of view. The amendment is designed to promote that possibility of reconciliation right up to the

85
time of divorce and to provide for reconciliation to be funded from legal aid funds in just the same way as it is funded for those who qualify for mediation.
I believe that it was the Lord Chancellor who reminded us about the first amendment which was designed to save marriages. We should do all that we can to save marriages. I have taken the view right from the beginning of our deliberations on this Bill that, without reconciliation, we have hardly any chance of saving any marriages. If we are sincere about saving marriages, we must be sincere about reconciliation. Reconciliation must be the first step. I believe that some form of reconciliation might have helped to save the marriage breakdowns that we read about every day.
We have voiced our concern about the effect of divorce on children. There is enough evidence to prove that the children of divorced parents are significantly more likely to under-achieve at school, to be unemployed, to turn to crime and to repeat the whole cycle by becoming divorced themselves. There have been many studies into, and reports on, that. There is also robust evidence to show that experiencing divorce as a child can have adverse effects on one's health, behaviour and economic circumstances 30 years later. We have heard evidence to that effect in this debate.
We also know that divorced men and women have significantly worse health problems than those who are married. Evidence on that is contained in a book called Marital Breakdown and the Health of the Nation (second edition) 1995. Furthermore, 50 per cent. of divorced men regret being divorced. I understand that between 20,000 and 30,000 people every year petition for divorce but turn back from going through with it. We need to get as many couples as we can to try reconciliation.
The Lord Chancellor's own MORI poll was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who reported that it showed that 60 per cent. of people support the present two-year separation period where both parties consent. Indeed, those who supported the period for reflection and consideration favoured a period of 20 months. There is a feeling outside—among the fellows on the Clapham omnibus—that there should be more time for consideration. Divorce should not be rushed into. It should not be something that is hurried, with only 12 months' notice being given and "bang bang" and that is the end of it—divorce with no holds barred.
I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who said that there is no proof that money could be saved as a result of this process. However, the state spends over £3 billion every year on the consequences of divorce and we know that reconciliation is possible because we know that every year there are between 20,000 and 30,000 fewer divorces than there are petitions. We know that a substantial proportion of couples turn back from divorce. That saves money. Every time a couple turn back from divorce and are reconciled we save money
86
on social security and other benefits. Therefore, it is not absolutely factual to say that no money could be saved by adopting our proposals—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know to which of my numerous speeches the noble Lord is referring, but I have no recollection of saying what he has just recounted.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, if I am wrong, I hope that I shall be forgiven. I had thought that that was what the noble and learned Lord said earlier although I did not take down his words verbatim. I believe that the noble and learned Lord challenged us by saying that there is no proof that money could be saved. We shall have to look this up in Hansard tomorrow. If I am wrong, I certainly apologise, but I have a clear recollection of the noble and learned Lord referring in some way to the saving of money in relation to marriages.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me. What I said—we are all subject to Hansard and to the vagaries of my memory—was that I thought that if it could be shown that particular services prevented marital breakdown and saved the consequent costs, it would be much easier to get the necessary funding for those services. That is the theory of what I advanced.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept the correction because I certainly recall the first part of the statement which the noble and learned Lord has just repeated. However, that makes no difference to what I am saying, which is that it has been shown that if marriages can be saved, money can be saved. That is the point to which I am replying. I think that we can readily agree on that.
Amendment No. 97A, and those grouped with it, would have the effect of doing what we set out to do at the beginning of the Bill, which is to save marriages, by taking the obvious first step of trying to get the couples to think again. We should give them at least six months to think about whether divorce is the right thing or whether they could be reconciled and become one of the thousands of couples who have already decided that they prefer to stay married. Divorcing couples should remember the many more who regret having gone through the divorce process and who would happily go back to their marriages. I believe that that is all that I need to say because most of these points have already been made. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in these amendments. If one thread has run through all the proceedings of this Bill it is the importance of reconciliation. I believe I am right in recalling that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, made this very point at the start of the Committee proceedings.
These amendments promote two things: the possibility of reconciliation right up to the time of divorce and for reconciliation to be funded out of legal aid. They provide for the funding of reconciliation on the same basis as for mediation. If a person's

87
circumstances qualify them for legal aid for mediation they will automatically qualify for legal aid for reconciliation. They make it quite clear that reconciliation is voluntary, and both parties and the counsellor must consent before legal aid funding can be used. I believe that the purpose is quite clear.
I like these amendments because they are specific to the individuals involved. They deal with those matters to which individual people are entitled. Earlier in our proceedings today I supported the general funding of marriage organisations, but I consistently made the point that in my view funding should be only for marriage and not for all of the ancillary work that these organisations conducted. Although I welcome general funding, there can be no guarantee that the public money that is given will find its way to the people who really require it for reconciliation. We have recently passed the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about supporting services, research into marriage breakdown and general funding for marriage organisations. But none of these gives a guarantee to individuals that they will be assisted in the process of reconciliation. At the end of the day, that is what it is about.
These amendments may not be properly drafted; they may be too general. I would entirely understand, as I am sure would the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, if they had to be taken back and looked at again. But I believe that everybody would be tremendously reassured to know that reconciliation, to which all of us attach importance, including the noble and learned Lord himself, was made much more specific to the couples who required it and some funding came out of the money which went generally to organisations and was specifically directed to the people whom all of us would like to help.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have been pleased to put my name to these amendments and I very much support them. I should like to emphasise the points that have been made by my noble friend. Reconciliation is not only about saving marriage, although that must be the prime concern. It can also be about saving the taxpayer's money. Therefore, it is worth taking these amendments and the whole question of reconciliation very seriously. One merely has to give an instance of what has to be done when a marriage breaks down. Whereas one family has been housed in a single house, as soon as a breakdown occurs another house is required. Very often that is supported by public funds. Additional costs will arise. The cost to the taxpayer of marriage breakdown can be very high. It is worth while spending time and money on reconciliation services.
I also agree with my noble friend that those involved in reconciliation do not necessarily need long college training. Reconciliation requires understanding, common sense, experience and, above all, a sense of humanity. I am sure that when my noble friend puts forward these amendments he is talking about proper reconciliation. That is why I support the amendments. Not only will we save money on social services and what have you. If we can save marriages from divorce
88
we will save a lot on lawyers' fees. I understand that the cost of a five-hour counselling session is £47. Solicitors charge the Legal Aid Fund £160 per hour for their services in divorces. I would have thought that that alone underlined the need for these amendments. Therefore, I ask noble Lords for their support.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, it would be unfortunate if the impression got about that there were two rival organisations, one concerned with reconciliation and one with mediation. What we are concerned with are people we are trying to help in desperately difficult situations, with appropriate techniques for various stages of the process. It seems to me that mediation as it is referred to here comes after the stage when couples have decided that reconciliation is no longer possible and they have to go forward to a divorce. Even so, within the process of mediation the way to reconciliation is not closed. I hope that I shall help the House by reading a short passage from what National Family Mediation says about this subject:
"It is the current practice of family mediators to establish with the couple at the outset of mediation whether they each believe that the marriage has broken down. If there is any indication that they are not agreed, or that they are not certain, then the mediator will explore this and refer them if they are willing for marriage counselling.
Throughout the mediation process the possibility of reconciliation is kept under review by the mediator and if any uncertainty emerges about whether the marriage is over or not, he or she will explore this with the couple". There is no real conflict here; we do not need the amendments.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene, because the more we discuss this, the more difficult I find it to understand. The noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made clear the role of the mediator, as opposed to that of the person who is, so to speak, responsible for reconciliation. I understood when we discussed this in Committee that the mediator has a role to play which is set up specifically in the Bill as originally presented by my noble and learned friend. It is to deal with financial matters, property and children—making arrangements for the application for divorce. Those arrangements have to be made before an applicant can go to the court to ask for a divorce.
What I do not understand, and I should be most grateful if my noble and learned friend would explain it, is what is the reconciliator's role? Is it the same person as the mediator or is it someone else? I had understood it to be someone else, and that the reconciliator, for instance, would have started, as I hoped if my amendment had been accepted, between the information meeting and the statement being made, so that there would be a chance to fit in the reconciliator at that early stage to avoid going to the next stage of the process. I should be most grateful if I could have a clarification of this matter, and specifically on the mediator's role. Who will pay the mediator? Who will be responsible for initiating the process of reconciliation and providing the help needed to save the marriage?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may start by trying to answer the question that has just been asked by my noble friend Lady Elles. The matters in dispute

89
between parties who are going forward to divorce will normally include property and children, if they have children, and the arrangements connected with those matters. If the arrangements about property and children can be agreed, there is no need for court intervention. That is one of the principles of the Children Act so far as concerns the children. The court needs to be told about that matter for the divorce process, as your Lordships know, but there is no need for court intervention if that can be agreed. On the other hand, if it cannot be agreed, the court can settle the matter on a decision as between the parties.
The process of mediation is a process by which, instead of having adversarial litigation, there is a mediator, who is independent of the parties, as the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull said earlier, who helps them to come to an agreement, and who draws their attention to advice that may be available to them, the nature of the problem, and so on.
I read into the proceedings on the previous occasion a statement from the mediation bodies as to how they address matters of fault and conduct as between the parties, because in order to go forward we need to look at that. That is what mediation is. It is a process which, in default of success, will issue in a legal process. Therefore it is appropriate that legal aid in the ordinary form might be available or extended to cover mediation.
Reconciliation is different. First, reconciliation is a result; it is not a process. If people have been at variance—they cannot get on—and there is a discussion with someone who helps, it may be that they are reconciled. If that happens, the marriage is repaired and the costs that would follow on marriage breakdown are saved. Your Lordships will not find anything I have said inconsistent with that.
Marriage breakdown in this country is costly. I have said, and I say again, that, in so far as services that are provided are proved to be effective in preventing marital breakdown that otherwise would occur, thus saving the financial consequences of marital breakdown, there must be a strong Treasury motive, apart from anything else, in putting the money into the process that leads to reconciliation rather than towards the other costs which follow from marital breakdown. That is my position and always has been.
The next point is that reconciliation is of course, as I say, a result, and it is a result which we would greatly like to achieve, but in looking at this one has to look at the process. What is the mechanism by which it may be assisted? If anything is clear to me as a result of a study of this problem, it is that, where a marriage enters on problems, the sooner it receives help the more likely it is that help will be effective. The more the marriage has got into trouble, the more it is on the rocks, the more difficult it is to get it refloated. Therefore, the earlier something is done the better. That is why I believe it is wrong to attach the provision to a legal process and to think of reconciliation, conciliation or advice services as associated primarily with the ultimate stage of a divorce process. In my submission, the correct way to fund the service is the way I am proposing in the Bill; namely, by grants to those who provide the service.
90
Of course, there may be a question of how often one can receive such help. In the ordinary course, before one can obtain legal aid one must undertake a test to show that one has some kind of case. Such a test would be difficult to apply to this provision. I understand that we need a recognised marriage counselling service to which people can go when it might be helpful to them. That is the structure that I propose in the Bill; namely, grant aid as regards those services. I have indicated that the level of grant aid is likely to be very much affected by the ability to establish that the aid given by this means is effective in preventing marital breakdown. I submit that the right method to be used in funding help for couples seeking reconciliation is that which I have proposed; namely, by grants to those who can provide an effective service.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford mentioned some figures which Relate has given to test its abilities in this connection. That would be a proper footing on which to give grants. That is the best and most effective way of getting money to people in the form of service which may be of utility to them. My noble friend Lady Young asked whether it would be certain that the money would go to those services. That is precisely why I have defined the services very closely in the grant aid provisions in Clause 18.
I believe that this is the best way of securing the kind of service which the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, wish. I hope that your Lordships will support this method of funding, which is not related solely to the end of the process but is likely to provide funding for services at a time when they are more likely to be effective in the structure of the Bill. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate and for the noble and learned Lord's positive response. I am still a little doubtful about the matter and I wish to study the noble and learned Lord's reply. The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, appears to have misunderstood a point. I said that if the waiting period were extended to 18 months the legal aid funding for reconciliation would be available during the whole period. Noble Lords should think about that suggestion before condemning it totally out of hand.
I am disappointed that on the face of the Bill there is not the same recognition of reconciliation as there is of mediation. I would have thought that we could have been a little more positive about reconciliation for people who qualify for legal aid. I am not so much concerned with the organisations and the grants as I am about the ordinary people involved. If they qualify for legal aid for mediation they should qualify for legal aid for reconciliation. That is the difficulty, and I wish to take time to read the noble and learned Lord's reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 97B:
Page 11, line 26, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("the Family Law Act 1996").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, to which I referred earlier, corrects a drafting error. I ought to have referred in that part of the Bill to the Family Law Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 97C to 98AA not moved.]
Clause 22 [Provision and availability of mediation]:
[Amendments Nos. 98B to 98E not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 12, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert ("and the parties suitable to the dispute having regard to all the circumstances of the case.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, to avoid repetition and for the convenience of the House I speak also to Amendment No. 107.
Amendment No. 99 is simply a matter of clarification; to make clear that mediation should only be used where mediator and both parties think it is appropriate.
The noble and learned Lord gave us some assurance about this in Committee—that mediation should not be used where it appears to the parties to be inappropriate—but, of course, we do not know which party. It is possible that one party may think mediation is appropriate, another party may think it is not appropriate. We need some mechanism to resolve such cases.
More generally, we have in the clause a presumption in favour of mediation from which there will be exceptions, contained in regulations which we have not yet seen. The noble and learned Lord conceded that if the parties at the outset do not want mediation then there will not be a presumption in favour of it. But the question which still concerns me is whether there may be other cases, not foreseen at the time of the drafting of the regulations, when mediation may nevertheless not be appropriate and it would be suitable to allow parties who have refused or withdrawn from mediation to have access to legal aid. If the answer is no, then we have the risk of a rather bureaucratic system and perhaps the risk of imposing a code of values.
Assume, for example—and I hope your Lordships will not say this is impossible—a divorce involving two Jehovah's Witnesses. I know they are not supposed to divorce, but not everybody in the world confines themselves to doing what they are supposed to do. Their code of values may not be exactly identical to those employed by the mediators. They may find themselves in a situation where they could perfectly well have reached an agreement by themselves, perhaps with the aid of a couple of solicitors, but having a series of values held by the mediators imposed upon them which they find that they cannot accept. To say that a party in such a situation cannot have access to legal aid is likely to produce a certain amount of injustice.
There is a risk here—which does not apply to my hypothetical Jehovah's Witnesses but might apply to others—of people going round the fences instead of over
92
them. A couple of days ago a newspaper reported a most remarkable story of a horse race in which objections were lodged, as a result of which the horse which finished tenth was declared the winner because all the others had been round a fence instead of over it. If we make divorce too difficult there is a risk that people will simply go round the fences; they will separate and form irregular unions with other parties because the bureaucratic procedure of divorce is too uncongenial to them. So, unless we allow some safety valve for ordinary human feelings, we may be in worse trouble than when we started. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 106 and will make a few observations on Amendment No. 106A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, although he has not yet addressed that amendment.
Clause 24 adds this provision to the Legal Aid Act:
"For the purposes of determining whether to grant representation for the purpose of any proceedings, recourse to mediation is to be considered, to the extent that the proceedings relate to family matters, as more appropriate than taking proceedings except—

(a) in relation to prescribed descriptions of proceedings; or

(b) in prescribed circumstances".

I emphasise the words "is to be considered" as more appropriate than "taking proceedings".
The effect of the provision is to place upon the Legal Aid Board in the generality of divorce cases a duty to refuse legal aid representation in favour of mediation. The clause means that the Legal Aid Board must, not may, refuse legal aid representation in family proceedings on the ground that mediation is to be considered as more appropriate than taking proceedings.
In practice, Clause 24 bites on cases where parties under the existing rules would be eligible for legal aid for representation in proceedings relating to family matters—for example, disputes about periodical payments, division of family assets or, perhaps even more important, children. But the Legal Aid Board is required to say, "We know that you do not agree to mediation. We know that mediation is supposed to be voluntary and the Government have always said that. But nevertheless, under the statute, we are required to regard mediation as more appropriate, whatever you may think, so there will be no legal aid for court representation but we will represent you in mediation". That is the reality.
If that is the position which the Legal Aid Board must adopt at the same time as it continues to assert that mediation is voluntary, I have no doubt that most people would think that that assertion of voluntariness is a hollow sham.
The purpose of Amendment No. 106 is to qualify the direction to the Legal Aid Board which is contained in Clause 24 by a provision that mediation is not to be considered as more appropriate than taking proceedings where either party to the proceedings does not agree, under Clause 12, to take part in any mediation. Unless that amendment is agreed to, mediation will not be truly voluntary because the Legal Aid Board will have to say

93
to applicants asking for legal representation in proceedings relating to family matters, "Sorry, but we have to regard mediation as more appropriate".
At the time that I heard it, I regarded as helpful the response from the noble and learned Lord to this amendment when I moved it in Committee on Thursday, 25th January. The noble and learned Lord's replies are to be found at cols. 1213 to 1216 of Hansard. I observed on two occasions, without any contradiction from the noble and learned Lord, that I understood him to have given,
"an assurance that he will state, as one of the prescribed circumstances constituting an exception in the regulations, where a party does not wish from the outset to participate in mediation".— [Official Report, 25/1/96; col. 1216.]
However, having read carefully the debate on that amendment in Committee, I am now less clear than I was at the time that the noble and learned Lord was giving as explicit an assurance as I thought that he was giving. Therefore, it will assist me in deciding the position that we should adopt, even at this late hour this evening and certainly on Third Reading, if the noble and learned Lord will be kind enough to confirm precisely the assurance that he was giving in relation to the content of the regulations on this subject.
However, as a matter of principle, I believe that it is not right to leave such a central point in relation to voluntariness of mediation to regulations which are to come in the great hereafter. The critical point, affecting as it does access to legal aid for court representation where mediation said to be voluntary has been declined, must be on the face of the Bill.
For the convenience of the House, in the interests of brevity and because the noble and learned Lord has not yet moved his Amendment No. 106A, I desire to make a few observations. I do not regard that amendment as beginning to meet the point which either the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or myself have made and are seeking to make. First, on a point of detail, I rather think—although the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that his amendment is inaccurately expressed on the Marshalled List. I believe that the amendment should read:
"Page 14, line 12",
and not "line 13". It should then continue to say,
"leave out from ('except') to end of line 14".
The provision would then read:
"For the purposes of determining whether to grant representation for the purpose of any proceedings, recourse to mediation is to be considered, to the extent that the proceedings relate to family matters, as more appropriate than taking proceedings except—"
and then we would include the words of the amendment—
"where a mediator has certified for the purposes of section 13B(3) above that mediation does not appear to be suitable; or
"in such other circumstances as may be prescribed".
A mediator may well think that mediation is suitable and would therefore obviously decline to certify that mediation does not appear to him to be suitable. It seems to me that that does not begin to meet the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and myself; namely,
94
that a party may not want to participate in mediation in reliance on the off-repeated assurance that mediation is voluntary.
In that circumstance, the purpose of my amendment (Amendment No. 106) is that the Legal Aid Board should not be required to regard mediation as more appropriate and, therefore, refuse to provide legal aid for representation where a party chooses not to participate in mediation which that party has been assured is voluntary.
It is no comfort to be told, as Amendment No. 106 implies, that the mediator thinks that mediation is suitable—I suppose I could say cynically, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"—if a party does not agree and if the Legal Aid Board says "No" to representation on the basis that, under Clause 24, mediation is to be regarded as more appropriate than taking proceedings. That is why, in my submission, Amendment No. 106 is the provision that is required. It makes clear that mediation will not be regarded as more appropriate by the hoard when a party declines to take part in mediation.
I hope that I have made my position on the matter plain. I hope also that, if the noble and learned Lord has an assurance to give in relation to the anticipated content of regulations on the subject, he will say precisely what he has in mind. For my own part, I have to say that I take the view that this is something which is so important and so central to the assurance that mediation is a voluntary process that it should be dealt with on the face of the Bill.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall deal first with the situation regarding Amendment No. 99 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Under the current provisions of the Bill, a person shall not be granted mediation unless it appears to the mediator that mediation is,
"suitable to the dispute … the parties and all the circumstances".
The amendment would provide that mediation should not be granted unless it appears suitable to both the mediator and the parties. The decision would therefore become one to be taken jointly by the mediator and the parties according to the suitability of the case. There would no longer be a requirement to take into account the suitability of the parties themselves for mediation.
The Government believe that it is mediators themselves who will be in the best position to assess suitability of persons and cases for mediation. Of course it is very important that this is done very much in consultation with the relevant party or parties and taking into account their attitude, willingness and other circumstances. Parties may not fully understand the mediation process and will thus be unable to give a fully informed view of suitability in all the circumstances of their case.
As the clause currently stands, mediators will be required to take into account the suitability of the parties for mediation as well as the appropriateness of the case itself. The Legal Aid Board will be concerned to ensure that proper quality assurance criteria are in place to ensure that mediators fulfill this role responsibly. This

95
clause will, however, prevent mediators from granting mediation, and so state funding, where a case or person is not suitable for such assistance. If certification as to suitability for mediation is by both mediator and parties, this may give rise to disputes between parties as to their suitability and, without some sort of objective assessment by a third party, may also lead a strong party to coerce a weak one into concurring against the weaker party's best interest with a decision either to mediate or to refuse to mediate. In other words, should that sort of situation arise, the protection of the weaker party is in the mediator. I should add that, as this clause links in closely with Clause 24, it is a mediator who will have to certify suitability and so the responsibility must be entirely that of the mediator, as the grant of state funding for representation may be dependent in part on such certification.
That is not to say that the client will have no part to play in that decision-making process. When assessing the suitability of parties for mediation, the mediator cannot ignore the views of the client. However, consulting with and listening to the client are not the same thing as the client self-certifying suitability. In my submission, Amendment No. 99 is not an appropriate amendment for that reason.
I turn now to Amendment No. 106 of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to which he has spoken, and my own amendment, No. 106A. These amendments are both concerned with Clause 24. Amendment No. 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, would have the effect of disapplying the presumption in favour of mediation if either party does not agree to take part in mediation. My Amendment No. 106A has at its heart the same wish as this amendment—to make sure that mediation will not be compulsory for those on legal aid. However, my amendment differs from this one in that it requires that parties applying for legal aid who are not involved in a dispute which comes under one of the proceedings to be prescribed in Clause 24 shall have to attend an assessment interview with a mediator in order better to understand mediation and its benefits.
I should say that my Amendment No. 106A is in the Marshalled List in the place where I intended it to be because I wished to keep in place the power to prescribe some types of proceedings in respect of which mediation might not be suitable at all. During the debate in Committee, some concern was expressed that the presumption would lead to people being forced into compulsory mediation. I hope that my amendment, which is designed to make clear the connection between the rebuttal of presumption in favour of mediation in Clause 24 and a mediator's assessment of suitability for mediation under Section 13B(3) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 introduced by Clause 22, will assure those who have expressed this concern that that will not be the case.
Let me try to explain how I see this operating in practice, because I think it is extremely important that in this area any refusal is an informed refusal. I do not want people just to say, "I do not like the sound of mediation". We want them to understand precisely what
96
is involved because I think there is a public interest, apart altogether from questions about money and so on, in trying, if we can manage it, to get the process that generates least heat in this area. It may help to set out how I intend that the presumption should operate.
In short, it is assumed that a party requiring legal representation might first approach a solicitor. The solicitor would establish whether the case fell into one of the prescribed categories of proceedings which automatically rebutted the presumption. As I indicated earlier, such cases might be public law Children Act cases or applications for protection measures against domestic violence. Those are two examples which occurred to me as falling into the regulations under head (a). If the case fell into a prescribed category the solicitor could then make an application to the Legal Aid Board for a certificate for representation. If the case did not fall into a prescribed category the presumption could only be rebutted in prescribed circumstances.
The amendment makes clear that one of those circumstances will be that a mediator has certified that the parties were unsuitable and/or the case was inappropriate. The solicitor would therefore need to refer the client to a mediator for an assessment of suitability for mediation. An important criterion of any such assessment will be the attitude of the parties. Any unwillingness to mediate which is persisted in despite assurances and explanations given by a mediator indicates that mediation will not succeed, and so a party or parties who are unwilling are likely to be deemed unsuitable for mediation. There would, in any event, be little point in forcing such persons into mediation.
On the other hand, it seems from experience that in practice it is not uncommon for parties to say no to mediation if asked in very general terms, particularly by a solicitor and particularly one in whom the client has confidence. However, once parties have met with a mediator and had the opportunity to discuss what is involved and its benefits, they often change their minds and become willing at least to try one or two sessions, assuming their partner is also willing. If, despite such a meeting, parties remain unconvinced, they will have been made fully aware of mediation and at least will be making an informed decision not to attempt mediation. It is important that parties are put in a position of fully understanding mediation and how it might help them. Therefore, the object of a suitability assessment is to enable clients, in consultation with a mediator, to make an informed decision about what is the right course of action for them and not to force them into mediation.
That is why I have put my amendment in this way. There is also the point that I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, would affect matters only at the outset. It is at least possible that in the course of mediation a disagreement might arise which would lead to circumstances in which it might be appropriate for representation to be substituted. I hope that that would not happen often, but it could happen.
That is my approach to these matters. It is my submission that the relationship between Clause 22 and the mediator's approach to it and Clause 24 is of such a character that an informed decision not to mediate

97
would mean that the presumption would not apply. I have kept the flexibility of powers to designate circumstances in which the Clause 24 presumption would not apply. That is an answer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is impossible to say now that we know everything. Circumstances could arise that we are not aware of at this stage, and the regulation-making power is the best way of handling that kind of problem.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps I may ask him a question with regard to mediation in relation to Amendment No. 106A, which states:
"Where a mediator has certified for the purposes of section I 3B(3)…that mediation does not appear to be suitable".
What right would a party have or what procedure is available to appeal against the mediator's decision? It could be that one of the parties wanted mediation and would regret that such a decision should be taken by a mediator.
My noble and learned friend will be aware that anybody who has had to deal with divorce cases knows of many instances where the woman, particularly after going through the process for six months, becomes quite neurotic and is almost impossible to deal with, either through mediation or a legal representative. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, rightly points out, we are dealing with people rather than with law. One could have a mediator saying, "I cannot deal with this person" for whatever reasons—neurotic or psychological. What right would that party have to appeal against such a decision by a mediator? I shall be grateful if my noble and learned friend will advise me.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is difficult to deal with every possible situation. This is a matter of co-operation. The mediator in question would be intended as the person who would undertake the mediation. Obviously the relationship has to be one in which the three parties can work together. If the mediator says, "I am sorry, I cannot do anything for you"—I assume that he would not mention the factors that my noble friend referred to—the party might then say, "In that case I shall just go for representation". But if not, it would always be possible to try a different mediator. In order to have mediation, one must have a mediator who is willing to undertake it. That is where ultimately the court is the last resort because the court cannot refuse to undertake decision making even where parties are not particularly reasonable.
The answer is that one would have to try another mediator to see whether he or she would be willing to step in where his colleague had feared to tread.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether it might be helpful if I were to quote from the mediators' code of
98
practice. Much of the discussion that we have had has been theoretical. This is what mediators are advised to do:
"Participation in mediation is always voluntary and any participant or mediator is free to withdraw at any time. If a mediator believes that any participant is unable or unwilling to participate fully and freely in the process, the mediator may suspend or terminate the mediation and may suggest that the participants obtain such other professional services as may be appropriate.
"Mediation aims to assist participants to work out the arrangements which they consider appropriate to their own particular circumstances. In mediation decision-making always rests with the participants".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in so far as that is addressed to me as a question at this stage, I accept it entirely as being a correct account of how mediators will proceed.
I think that it is rather theoretical to suggest that mediation can proceed without the parties agreeing to continue with it.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he clarify this point on Amendment No. 106A? I refer specifically to the words,
"where a mediator has certified for the purposes of section 13B(3) above that mediation does not appear to be suitable".
Does the noble and learned Lord advise us that if one party on consideration intimated the decision that he or she did not wish either to participate or to continue to participate in mediation then the mediator would be under a duty to certify that mediation did not appear to be suitable?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes, that is my understanding. I believe that hat is a more flexible provision than one which determined the issue only at the beginning. This would open the way for a mediator, having had perhaps two meetings and having got on to a subject which the party was not prepared to discuss, or something of that kind, to state that the certification was possible.
I take the view that that is what the amendment means and that it has the effect of producing an informed decision rather than a decision which might be taken in the absence of proper information about what is involved.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord has been able finally to sit down. Nevertheless, I believe that those were three extremely helpful interventions which have got us quite a long way forward.
I was most grateful to the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Habgood—and I hope I am right and that is his correct style—for his stress on the mediator's code that mediation must be voluntary. What has worried the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and myself is that in some cases mediation may be more voluntary than in others. For someone of considerable means being without legal aid, which they probably would not get anyway, is not particularly distressing. But if someone who can only employ a solicitor with the help of legal

99
aid does not get it then the degree of voluntariness in going to mediation may be much smaller than in some other cases. That is the situation that concerns us.
It is just possible, before the next stage of the Bill, that if we could put together what the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, said, what the noble and learned Lord said about the position of the mediator being in effect required to certify mediation as not suitable if the parties do not want it and the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, we might be in a position to get a new form of words that would satisfy all parties. If not, then Amendment No. 106 would be the proper answer to the situation.
I am still worried about it. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, predicted, I am not in the least happy with Amendment No. 106A. The House knows that I am somewhat allergic to the phrase:
"in such … circumstances as may be prescribed".
I take the noble and learned Lord's point that it allows for dealing with future circumstances. But the point is that the procedure only allows us to deal with categories. Here we are dealing with individuals. In cases where mediation is unsuitable, it may be unsuitable for reasons which have nothing to do with any category whatever. The intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, was much to that point. So I cannot be entirely happy about that idea. I do not believe that that amendment is the way forward.
The noble and learned Lord was confident that the mediators themselves are ultimately always the best judges of whether mediation is suitable. There is a distinct Platonist streak in the thought of the noble and learned Lord. We have here guardians taking decisions for the rest of us through the benefit of their wisdom. They do not always feel comfortable. I am reminded of the occasion—apocryphal no doubt—when the infant future Kaiser was being smacked by his nurse. The nurse said: "Believe me, this hurts me as much as it hurts you". "Oh", said the Kaiser, "and in the same place?" Assumptions taken by wise and benevolent superiors may be taken with the greatest care and benevolence in the world, but they may still not fit the person. In the end, especially in family law, it is the person for whom we are legislating. If the procedure is not acceptable to the person, they will go round the fences and circumnavigate the whole procedure.
Amendment No. 99 is not the answer to the problem. I beg leave to withdraw it without prejudice to what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, may see fit to do with Amendment No. 106.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99A not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 99B:
Page 12, line 21, leave out from ("Chancellor") to end of line 22 and insert—
("(6) Where the Board enters into a contract for the provision of mediation under this Part, the provision made by the contract as to the conduct of the mediation must include—

(a) provision requiring the mediator to have arrangements designed to ensure—

100

(i) that the possibility of reconciliation is kept under review throughout mediation; and

(ii) that the parties are encouraged to consider the welfare, wishes and feelings of the children; and

(b) such other provision as the Lord Chancellor may direct the Board to include.

(7) Directions under this section may apply generally to contracts, or to contracts of any description, entered into by the Board, but shall not be made with respect to any particular contract.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the debate at the Committee stage of the Bill, I indicated that I felt that there might be some merit in having a code of practice dealing with mediation in order to ensure that public funds are directed towards those mediators who are providing a good quality service in the areas which we feel are most important. I have been considering such an amendment since the Committee stage. After discussion with the mediation profession and the Legal Aid Board, I have come to the conclusion that what is required is the amendment which I have put forward.
It is difficult for the Government statutorily to promulgate and support a code of practice without falling into the trap of regulating the profession itself, and that too rigorously. That is particularly so in relation to mediation, which needs freedom to develop and innovate in order to provide the best quality service as quickly as possible as the years go on. That said, it is clearly important that public funds are not spent on providers who do not provide a good quality service.
The Government are concerned to ensure that mediators are in a position to provide assistance in accordance with the aims of this Bill, in particular to keep the possibility of reconciliation under review, and to remind parents to consider at all times the welfare, wishes and feelings of their children. It is my view that in order to ensure that where public money is at issue in the provision of mediation, those ideals should be assured. I therefore tabled this amendment to provide that the Legal Aid Board may not contract for mediation unless it has in place arrangements to ensure that reconciliation and the welfare of children are given appropriate consideration during mediation.
These matters are currently dealt with in the code of practice issued by National Family Mediation. Other important matters are also covered. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, who gave a very clear statement about the details of that code when the House last deliberated on the Bill. The Legal Aid Board will of course not be restricted by this amendment as to what other provisions it can, and cannot, include in its contract. I should expect the contracts issued by the board to include provision relating to many other arrangements envisaged by the code of practice, together with more general provisions concerned with provision and delivery of mediation services, such as price, quality assurance, criteria and output.
I remind the House that the Lord Chancellor has power to direct the board as to particular provisions which the Lord Chancellor requires to be included in contracts. That allows the Lord Chancellor flexibility to make further directions as to the content of contracts if

101
that becomes appropriate. But the significance of these amendments is that he would have to require that those were dealt with in any contract into which the board might enter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Payment for mediation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("mediator") and insert ("Board").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this relates to an amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, which would provide that contributions in respect of mediation would be referred to the Legal Aid Board rather than to the mediator. I considered this matter and concluded, having discussed it with those involved, that we should give effect to the wish of the noble and learned Lord. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 and 105 are directed to that end. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, since there is nobody there to say it, I rise to thank the noble and learned Lord for having incorporated this provision in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 101 and 102:
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("mediation, charges or fees") and insert ("costs of providing the mediation, a contribution").
Page 12, line 32, at end insert—
("(3A) If the total contribution made by a person in respect of any mediation exceeds the Board's liability on his account, the excess shall be repaid to him.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 12, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment I also speak to Amendment No. 104. These concern the statutory charge. That is like a charge on a house in the case of a mortgage. It is a machinery to ensure that there is something for paying legal aid. The object of these amendments is to introduce the same procedure as is used in standard matrimonial cases at present.
If the statutory charge is not imposed, there is some anxiety that it may lead to pressure to use mediation, which may put unjustifiable pressure on those who are subject to it. There is a difficulty if legal aid cannot see any way of recovering its costs. In effect, it provides the procedure that we have at present. If there is any reason why we should not apply this provision, I shall listen with a great deal of care. In the meantime, I beg to move.
10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the provision is currently drafted, it gives discretion as to whether or not such regulation shall be made. I believe that it is better that there should be a discretionary power relating to the
102
application of the statutory charge for mediation. As the noble Earl and other noble Lords know, there is a good deal of mechanism required in the imposition of the statutory charge. One wants to be sure that it would all be appropriate in respect of the sums involved. Application of the statutory charge is extremely complicated. The Government and the Legal Aid Board will wish to monitor how mediation works in practice before deciding how best to implement the statutory charge in respect of mediation costs.
I speak against Amendment No. 104 at present but not against the intention behind it. I have always intended that when the statutory charge is applied through regulations to mediation in family matters there should be some replication of the statutory disregard which applies in matrimonial matters for advice, assistance and representation. I do not think it appropriate to place that on the face of the Bill as does the noble Earl's amendment. The figure of £2,500 has been in place for some time. At some point it may become appropriate to change it and I do not for one moment imagine that the noble Earl would wish to prevent that, particularly if it were changed upwards. Additionally, I have already indicated the problems which I foresee in introducing the statutory charge in respect of mediation costs. I should like to see the results of the pilot study into mediation before deciding exactly how the statutory charge should apply in that context and before any decision is taken as to the level of disregard.
I have been advised that, through an oversight, the current draft of the Bill does not give the Lord Chancellor the necessary regulation-making power to apply the disregard to the statutory charge in respect of mediation. I therefore intend to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to rectify that situation. I am obliged to the noble Earl. It was by directing our attention closely to that matter that he brought the point to my notice.
Some flexibility is required. Your Lordships may feel fairly satisfied that if it is feasible there will be some pressure to do it in the machinery of government. To impose an obligation to have that charge in respect of mediation would, I think, be unwise at this stage. One must have regard to many circumstances in deciding whether or not it should be done, and, if so, exactly how it should be done in relation to mediation.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the care and thought that he has devoted to this issue. The occasion almost matches the time during the passage of the Child Support Act when the noble and learned Lord accepted, late at night, an amendment that I had not even moved.
I understand entirely his concern about piloting and why he is concerned about discretion to allow things to develop. I had hoped for a few more indications of how that discretion was likely to be used. I believe that we may now legitimately expect that at Third Reading.

103
I take the noble and learned Lord's point about uprating. It is a point well taken. But one of the very few cases in which I accept the legitimacy and propriety of the Henry VIII clause is for uprating. In fact, it was what King Henry VIII himself introduced it for. So, in my amendment that is a drafting defect which needs correcting. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will do it. I shall be very interested to see what comes forward at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 13, line 10, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (3A) and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 100. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 105A to 105D not moved.]
Clause 24 [Mediation and civil legal aid]:
[Amendment No. 105E not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 106:
Page 14, line 12, after ("matters,") insert ("except where either party to the proceedings does not agree to take part in mediation,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not move this amendment, on the basis that this is a subject which we shall revisit on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 14, line 13, leave out from ("proceedings;") to end of line 14 and insert—
("( ) where a mediator has certified for the purposes of section 13B(3) above that mediation does not appear to be suitable; or
( ) in such other circumstances as may be prescribed." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 99. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Occupation orders where applicant has estate or interest etc. or has matrimonial home rights]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 18, line 23, after ("parties;") insert—
("( ) the conduct of the parties;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have now moved into Part III of the Bill. This particular amendment concerns occupation orders, which, I believe, were formerly called ouster orders. In the debate that we had last Thursday my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor acknowledged that conduct is relevant. He said,
104
I recognise … that there are situations in which the conduct of married people has relevance. This is particularly so in relation to the consequences of breakdown. The two principle areas where these matters are relevant are in relation to the distribution of property and the arrangements for children".—[Official Report, 29/2/96; co1.1663.]
This amendment is related to conduct because Clauses 28, 30 and 31 omit any reference to conduct in the list of matters which the court should take into account. In this respect, they amount to a reform of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983, where conduct was a factor and where some degree of blameworthy behaviour had to be shown before a man or a woman could be excluded from his or her own home.
In connection with this clause we must bear in mind that Clause 40 empowers the court to make an occupation order ex parte wherever it is "just and convenient" to do so. Thus, under the Bill, a man may be turned out of his house with no advance warning, with no opportunity to defend himself and for no cause associated with his own behaviour. That is not only turning the clock back to where it stood before the landmark decision of your Lordships' House in Richards v. Richards 1984. It is going further even than the courts were prepared to go in those days by offering ouster orders on an ex parte basis.
Amendment No. 108 in fact re-establishes contact in the list of matters to be taken into account under Clause 28(6). In fact, it does no more than restate existing law to curb arbitrary and capricious behaviour by some custodial spouses who are prepared, for example, to use the children in a war over occupation. It is the, "I don't want him under my roof any more" syndrome.
Amendment No. 109 addresses an important issue which is related to the one that I have just stated. Under Clause 28(7), the court "shall", not "may", make the order excluding Party B where it appears that Party A, or any relevant child, "is likely to suffer significant harm" if the order is not made, subject only to the balancing considerations in Clause 28(7)(a) and (b).
What is "significant harm"? The term is not defined save that Clause 57 defines "harm" as,
"ill-treatment or the impairment of health",
or, in the case of a child, "health or development".
No one wishes to see a prolongation of physical ill-treatment or mental cruelty. But it is all too easy to obtain a doctor's certificate saying, "This patient of mine is in a depressed condition and will improve only if his or her partner leaves the matrimonial home". Understandably, doctors pay no attention to the interests of the other occupants of the household because really they are attending to their particular patient.
I believe that subsection (7) is in fact unnecessary. All matters relevant to the court's decision are comprised in subsection (6), which, with minor exceptions, and subject to the addition of paragraph (d) on conduct, mirror the existing law.
There is no pressure for change from members of the public on this matter, but I believe that there is a real risk of running ahead of public opinion if Clause 28 as it stands becomes law. To exclude someone from his or

105
her home for other than strong reasons is a gross violation of civil liberties. The two amendments raise a very important issue and I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider them carefully. I am not proposing anything other than that the law should be as it stands at present, but the law seems to be being altered by the Bill. Indeed, the Bill is weakening it, because it does not include the conduct of the parties. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I venture to second this amendment although I shall not repeat the reasons that have been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Having been retabled, Part III is completely wide open to amendment. On Second Reading and again in Committee, I ventured to deprecate any attempt to rewrite it or even to do anything far short of that. On the other hand, I also ventured to approve the slight adjustments that my noble and learned friend had made in the Bill as it emerged from the Jellicoe Committee last Session. I deprecated attempts at wide amendment partly because that might adversely affect the Jellicoe procedure and partly because that Bill had been closely examined by the Jellicoe Committee.
However, in my submission, this amendment is justified—indeed, it is called for. In invoking conduct, it brings this provision into line with Clause 9, where conduct is especially mentioned as relevant in the case of orders precluding divorce. Conduct is also statutorily relevant when one comes to such matters as financial provision orders or property orders. Including conduct here brings this provision into line with those others.
There is also a technical reason which I hope your Lordships will allow me to put forward. It is a technical rule of statutory construction which is called the ejusdem generis rule. It is a rule of common sense. It says that, where there is a general provision and particular instances associated with it, the general provision will be construed in the light of the particulars. If there were an Act of Parliament dealing with, for example, the transport of animals and it referred to, "cows, sheep and other animals", the phrase "other animals" is wide enough to include menagerie animals, but the court, applying common sense, would say that Parliament could not have intended that and that "other animals" must be construed in the light of the cows and the sheep and might, for example, include domesticated goats. That is the question here. One sees the words "shall have regard to all the circumstances". If it stopped there it would certainly be broad enough to include conduct. However, it goes on to particularise (a), (b) and (c). Those matters would not necessarily be cognate with conduct. If one wanted conduct to be considered in all the circumstances, having particularised three one must add the fourth. Therefore, I support the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I repeat my support of the noble Baroness in both amendments. I do not mind reiterating the Richards case, because what the judge has to say about that is worth noting. He felt that,
106
having granted Mrs. Richards' application, he had to make what he described as a thoroughly unjust order. The judge expressed disgust by saying:
"Justice no longer seemed to play any part in this branch of the law".
We are discussing the same branch. The matter would have remained there had not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, introduced the need for a degree of blameworthy behaviour when the decision was appealed. I am grateful to Dr. Stephen Cretney of All Souls College Oxford for bringing this matter to my attention. I know that he has advised others in this House.
Part III of the Bill removes the requirement for the court to have regard to the conduct of the parties before making an order. Instead, it adds an entirely new balance of harm test which will dictate when an order should or should not be made. There is no mention of justice or reasonableness in the proposed balance of harm criterion. One wonders if there is any valid reason for leaving it out. After all, justice and reasonableness are now given prominence in Schedule 2. Your Lordships will note that from Amendments Nos. 120A and 126D.
The courts have made it clear that an ouster order is a draconian measure. That seems to me to be plain commonsense. Do we not need more than a mere balance of harm test? Do we not need to have some misbehaviour before we require a court to eject a party? We should be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his Amendment No. 112F which goes some way to meet this point. One wonders whether it may go a little further. If it is asserted that a child is being considered, the mere presence of the respondent may be enough to have him ejected. The definition of "harm" in the case of a child extends to the impairment of development, which is very different from domestic violence.
The noble Baroness has already mentioned medical opinions. In practice, it would not be difficult to secure a medical opinion that the presence of one party in a home damaged the health of a child. At the very least, the harm test should go. If conduct is restored, the harm test adds nothing and can be removed. Part III, and particularly these clauses, is not chiefly about domestic violence. In my reading of this part of the Bill I am unable to find the word "violence". It may be there and I should be grateful if someone would point it out to me. In any event, I support the noble Baroness.
Lord Meston: My Lords, this important question was considered extensively during the Jellicoe Committee stage of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, as it was, now substantially restated in this part of the Bill. The arguments were finely balanced, but my recollection is that in the end the decision was to remove express reference to conduct and to prefer to focus on the effects of conduct or misconduct, hence the reference to "health, safety or well-being" in subsection (6)(c).
The thinking was that under the existing system—I can confirm this to some extent from personal experience in practice—references to conduct in the

107
Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 tend to encourage sometimes exaggerated allegations of misconduct, typically by the applicant to persuade the court to grant an ouster order. The intention, as I have already said, of the Committee in agreeing the formulation which is reproduced in the Bill was that rather than look at conduct itself, it was more appropriate and realistic to focus upon the effect of misconduct.
I have no doubt that, as under the existing law, ouster orders will continue to be regarded as drastic orders of last resort. It will undoubtedly continue to be the position that ex parte ouster orders will be extremely rare.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 108 seeks to include conduct as one of the specific criteria the courts must consider when deciding whether to make an order regulating the occupation of the home under Clause 28(3). Under Clause 28(6) the court is instructed to have regard to all the circumstances. It will thus be able to take conduct into account whenever it considers it right to do so.
There are also three specific factors to which the court is to have regard. These are the relative housing needs and resources of each of the parties, their financial resources and the effect of any decision by the court to make an order or not on the health, safety and well-being of the parties or any relevant children.
The reason for that focus is to concentrate the mind of the court on the effect that any order it may make will have on the parties, and the effect it will have if they continue to live in the current situation. That does not mean that conduct is not relevant. It often will be. Clause 28 recognises that.
In addition to the three factors that I have mentioned, where it appears to the court that the applicant for the occupation order, or any relevant child, is likely to suffer any significant harm if an order containing one or more of the provisions in Clause 28(3) is not made, the court has to apply the balance of harm test.
When the test is satisfied the court has a duty to make an order under Clause 28(3). Amendment No. 112F, which I have tabled and to which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, referred, changes the definition of "harm", taking account also of the amendment which was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, so that harm to the applicant must be attributable to the conduct of the respondent, (although not necessarily deliberately) so conduct in those cases is clearly important and taken into account. However, for the reasons I have given, that does not fit well into the subsection proposed by my noble friend Lady Young.
The effect of Amendment No. 109, which I assume my noble friend intended us to have regard to at this time also, would be to remove the balance of harm test where the applicant, whatever the marital status or relationship to the respondent, was entitled to occupy the property. The balance of harm test requires the court to consider whether there will be significant harm to an applicant or child if no order is made. If the court
108
concludes that there will be such significant harm then it considers what significant harm there may be to the respondent or the child if the order is made.
The court is then required to balance the two and if the harm to the applicant or child is greater than the harm to the respondent or child the court must make the order. The purpose of this test is clearly to focus the court on the effects both of its actions and on the domestic situation of the parties. By removing the test the court's emphasis would be on different areas, and without the addition of the balance of harm test Clause 28(6) could operate to give undue weight to the economically weaker party, which would be the opposite of what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, have in mind.
Additionally, the test or questions of a similar nature are part of each of the clauses dealing with occupation orders. This amendment removes the test only from that clause which deals with an applicant who is entitled to occupy the home by virtue of having some property interest in it. It would therefore create the anomaly that a court would sometimes be under a duty to make an occupation order for a former spouse who had no interest in the property, but would have no such duty to make an order for a former spouse or spouse who had such an interest. Taken together, the two amendments would have the effect of requiring the court to consider conduct before any order was made under Clause 28, but not under any of the other clauses dealing with occupation orders. That would be a clear anomaly.
For the substantial reasons that I have outlined, I suggest that the amendments are not appropriate in the circumstances of this case and, if given effect to, would create considerable anomaly. The matter was examined carefully in the committee chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. The report of its proceedings is available. Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 have the effect which I have sought to describe.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in moving the amendments I have taken the advice of Mr. Peter Duckworth. I recognise that they are not complete as they stand. Indeed, were they to be accepted consequential amendments would have to be made to Clauses 30 and 31. Therefore, I recognise the point made by my noble and learned friend.
Perhaps I may say that he spoke with such rapidity when he read his brief on this point that at times I found it slightly difficult to follow all the intricacies of the argument. However, I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that when the matter was considered by the Jellicoe Committee the arguments were finely balanced.
References were made to conduct and my noble and learned friend has recognised that that is included in this part of the Bill. However, he has not explained, to my satisfaction at any rate, why the present situation is not working and why he has overturned the provisions of the Matrimonial Homes Act in writing this part of the Bill. That was not clear and he did not explain the aim of this part of the Bill.

109
I shall read carefully what has been said. I am not entirely satisfied by the answer that I have received. I believe that if we do not get this matter right there could be real injustices created. I shall withdraw the amendment, although I shall probably return to it on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 31 [One cohabitant or former cohabitant with no existing right to occupy]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 22, leave out line 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 110, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 111 and 112.
These three amendments are designed to restore the full force of the previous Bill before concessions were made to appease what I have previously described as an uninformed minority in the other place, a minority that was in fact 20 years out of date.
The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, gave protection both to spouses and to unmarried partners against domestic violence. That protection was underpinned by a power in the court to make an ouster order against the violent party.
Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 are designed to restore the Bill to its original form, with which the noble and learned Lord previously agreed in one important respect—that is, to restore the balance of harm test in all cases. Under Clause 28(7), the test for making an ouster order in favour of the partner with the right of occupation against the partner without any such right—for example, against a partner with no legal interest in the property—is to make the order if the order will protect the applicant or a child from significant harm, but not to make that order if as great or greater harm will be caused to the other party or a child from the making of the order. That is what is called the balance of harm test. What is required is for the court to make a detailed appraisal of the consequences of making or abstaining from making an order.
Neither the Law Commission nor your Lordships' House in its previous deliberations suggested that there was anything wrong with the balance of harm test in both classes of case. Our previous Jellicoe Committee was chaired, with great success, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, whom I am pleased to see in his place even at this late hour. I hope that he will stand up for the decisions of his Committee on that occasion. Neither the Law Commission nor your Lordships' House before suggested that there was anything wrong with the balance of harm test or that it should not be equally applicable in cases where the victims of violence had no strict legal right to occupy the property.
The new provisions distinguish between orders made in favour of those with an entitlement to occupy and orders made in favour of those with no such entitlement. So the balance of harm test, if satisfied, must result in
110
orders in favour of those with rights in the property. But, even if the balance of harm test is satisfied in favour of those without any legal rights in the property, the matter is purely within the discretion of the court.
Under the proposals of the Law Commission, if the court is of the view that the balance of harm test is satisfied—that is, that more harm would be caused to that applicant or any child than would be caused by not making the order—the court must make an order in favour of the non-entitled applicant.
The fact is that the test for non-entitled applicants is being deliberately changed to their disadvantage. The courts will be bound to give effect to the different test in their cases and to hold that they have a discretion to withhold protection from non-entitled partners even though the balance of harm test is satisfied in their cases.
That severely weakens protection for the abused because it consigns to a second-class protection those already vulnerable because they lack property rights. It cannot be said—and I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to say if he disagrees—that the two different tests will make no difference in practice. If that is what is to be said, why make the difference? The purpose of these amendments is to give equality of court protection to all victims of domestic violence; and that must be right in principle.
Amendment No. 112 deals with a related but distinct subject. It is aimed at restoring the previous provisions in the Bill in the form in which they left your Lordships' House which hereto have been altered as a sop to a minority of objectors. But the way in which they have been altered here opens up a dangerous gap in the protection which the court may confer on victims of domestic violence.
The previous provisions gave the flexibility of renewing protection for as long as was necessary. Of course, the court would need to be satisfied that the continuance of the ouster order was necessary to protect the victim and any children. Typically, the court might make an ouster order for, perhaps, three months. The reasoning would be that in a domestic crisis the parties need time to reflect on and to take steps to deal with their situation. But if for good reason the three months did not prove to be sufficient, under the old provisions—the provisions which first appealed to the noble and learned Lord—the court had the flexibility to continue its protection for as long as was needed.
Ouster orders in favour of non-owners may now be for six months only with the possibility of one further extension of six months but no further extension whatever the circumstances. I recognise that it may be that in many cases twelve months will, in practice, be adequate. But in the circumstances of such cases in a very sensitive jurisdiction, where the facts of every case vary so infinitely, it is unhelpful to tie the court's hands to arbitrary time limits. The judges should be trusted.
I have little doubt that some cases will arise in which acute difficulty will be found in rehousing the abused party or where the couples may be elderly, ill or even terminally ill. If alternative accommodation does not become available to the abused party within 12 months,

111
under the Bill in its present form the courts are literally powerless to prevent that individual being turned out in the street. That must be wrong in principle.
I daresay that there may be sops to the uninformed which may not matter much in practice. Although he did not express himself in that language on Second Reading, that was the general sense of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said on that occasion. But I must submit, with respect, that this is one sop too far. It is repugnant to justice. Those who are in favour of the changes to the previous provisions—the previous provisions in which the noble and learned Lord believed—really have a duty to explain how their object can conceivably be arrived at by insisting on this gap in the courts' protective powers. How can the removal of the discretion to provide protection over an unlimited period of time conceivably strengthen the family or family life?
I suggest that this gap leaves the abused and the uniquely vulnerable at risk of homelessness. I have some difficulty in accepting that the noble and learned Lord really believes that the alterations to the provisions in the previous Bill, now incorporated into this Bill, are genuine improvements. If he thought that the new provisions which he has brought forward are right, why did he not bring them forward in the first place? I have difficulty in accepting the proposition that he is truly persuaded by the arguments of the uninformed minority to which he has acceded. Therefore, I commend these amendments with a greater sense of confidence. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I support the amendments. I begin by emphasising that the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill of the last Session, upon which this part of the Family Law Bill is based, was not directed towards saving the institution of marriage; it was directed towards regulating matters after the marriage had broken down and after a family home has ceased to be a family home. It was directed towards the avoidance of violence between a couple who had set up home together and then split up. Above all, it was directed towards the protection of any child living in the family home. The purposes of Part III of this Bill are precisely the same.
One way of regulating matters introduced by the earlier Bill, and repeated in this Bill, is the making of an occupation order, or ouster order as it is so often called; that is to say, a temporary order regulating the occupation of the family home after the breakup of the relationship between the parties. For those purposes there is no logical reason for differentiating between an unmarried couple who set up home together and a married couple who set up home together. The earlier Bill, therefore, rightly equated an unmarried couple with a married couple for the purposes of that Bill.
That was surely correct. If a couple are living together and the relationship comes to an end, exactly the same problems will arise whether the family home has been set up after a marriage in church, a marriage in a registry office or no marriage at all. Any children that the couple may have will need exactly the same protection in the
112
one case as in the other. Therefore, it seems to me that the court ought to have jurisdiction to make the same orders on the same basis whatever the origin of the family home.
Under the Bill that we are now considering there is to be a built-in bias against an unmarried couple who set up home together which did not exist under the earlier legislation. The question before your Lordships is: is it right to introduce that bias? To spell out the bias in broad terms, an occupation order is to have a maximum life of 12 months in the case of an unmarried applicant who does not have property rights in the family home. No such ceiling exists in the case of a married applicant. Further, what I will call the "balance of hardship" is to be weighed differently if the family home was based on a marriage than if it was based on cohabitation without marriage. That does not seem to me to be logical because this part of the Bill is not concerned with marriage or divorce; it is concerned with a family home and the children who live in it. Therefore, I ask myself why different rules should apply to the jurisdiction of the court according to whether the family home was based on a marriage or on cohabitation.
In approaching this part of the Bill and the amendments proposed to be made to it, five factors have weighed with me. First, the distinction between a family home set up by a married couple and a family home set up by an unmarried couple is not one which was recommended by the Special Public Bill Committee which examined the predecessor of this part of the Bill over many days and in great depth. Secondly, it is not a distinction which your Lordships sought to introduce into the earlier Bill which was passed by your Lordships. Thirdly, it is not a distinction which applies to non-molestation orders under the later clauses of the Bill, Fourthly, it is not a distinction which is supported by the Law Society. The Law Society has written to me to say that it supports the provisions of the earlier Bill in preference to Part III of this Bill. Fifthly, it is not a distinction supported by the Family Law Committee of Justice. That committee is chaired by Dame Margaret Booth. Before her retirement, Dame Margaret had immense experience in this field. She was a judge of the Family Division of the High Court for 15 years, from 1979 to 1994.
As a result of those considerations, I have no doubt that I ought to support this group of amendments, which are designed to restore the provisions of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill of the last Session.
I am bound to speak on this matter objectively. I must therefore address one further question which concerns me and on which I may differ from the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. How important are these amendments to the general scheme of the Bill? I am not convinced that in practice it will make a great deal of difference whether the amendments are accepted or rejected. Twelve months—which, as your Lordships have been told, is the maximum currency of an occupation order in the case of a non-property owning cohabitant—should be adequate for sorting out the situation. As regards the balance of hardship, as I said at Second Reading, I feel sure that a judge will always seek to promulgate an

113
order that is fair and just and suited to all the circumstances of the case without adopting too legalistic an approach.
In the result, although I certainly support the amendments, I do not think that it will be catastrophic if your Lordships reject the amendments. Above all, I want to see Part III of the Bill placed on the statute book as soon as possible, either with or without the amendments that are proposed.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, have said, and I do not propose to repeat it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, as very much a lay member of the committee so skilfully chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, I should like warmly to support the amendments. Surely when dealing with cases of domestic violence what matters is the level of protection that you give to those involved, not whether they have been married or cohabiting. As my noble and learned friend said, the children of all parties need equal protection. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, decides to divide the House, I shall go through the Lobby after him, because I feel that the committee got it right.
I should like also to associate myself strongly with the sentiments of my noble and learned friend, Lord Brightman. I have the utmost respect for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I see that it is very important to get the Bill through.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman summarised the situation in a way that, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I cannot improve on. However, I should point out, as I did in Committee, that the amendment appears to refer to subsection (4) rather than subsection (5). Perhaps that is a correction that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, would wish to make at some stage, if by any chance this amendment were to survive.
The noble Lord took to me to task, in a rather gentle way, for having come forward with a Bill which is not exactly the same as the one that left this House in the previous Session. But, fortunately for the country, I am not a dictator and I require to get Bills through Parliament. Strong views were expressed in the other place about aspects of this matter, views of which, as a responsible Minister, I have to take some account.
My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman said that there was a bias against the unmarried—I paraphrase, of course—which there ought not to be. There is a distinction between the married and the unmarried in respect of rights in the matrimonial home, in that the married person has a right in the matrimonial home whereas the unmarried person does not. That distinction is in this Bill, just as it was in the law before.
It is not for me to articulate the worries of my friends in another place about this Bill. However, I think that they were concerned that the Bill might give the impression that we were seeking in all respects relevant
114
to the measure to equate the unmarried with the married. The Bill does not do that, and never has. But I was obliged to address those concerns. The Bill has always recognised a clear distinction between the unmarried and the married in that the married have rights in the matrimonial home which the unmarried do not.
This series of amendments deals with the unentitled cohabitant—that is, one who has no property right in the home in question. Looking at the matter in the light of the examples in case law, it seemed to me that the distinction between the two classes could be reasonably reflected in the way that I have done by giving effect in this way to the amendment which these amendments are designed to retract, without damaging the real protection that the Bill affords.
I suggest that providing for a maximum period is consistent with the fact that the unmarried do not have rights in the matrimonial home in this specific situation. I think it also right that the courts should have a discretion in the matter which they do not have in the case where the person in question has a right in the matrimonial home. After all, you would expect rights to have some effect.
I am not saying that the courts should be told precisely what to do by reason of the absence of right. What I am saying is that, where there is an absence of rights, the court should have complete discretion. I have no doubt that the court will do justice taking account of all the circumstances. In my submission, it is right to take some account of the distinction which exists between the married and the unmarried. I have sought to do so in a way which I am glad to think is considered by my noble and learned friend, who knows this Bill well, as one which will not have a very significant effect in practice in diminution of protection.
On any view, orders under this jurisdiction are draconian in character, and, where the person has no right whatsoever apart from the order in the matrimonial home, it seems right that there should be a limit on the extent to which the court can take such a serious step as to remove someone who would otherwise be entitled to occupy the home for the benefit of someone who had no such entitlement.
I therefore believe that it is appropriate, having regard to the progress of the provisions through Parliament, that such orders should be finite and subject to the restrictions which the amendments are designed to remove. Discretion in relation to the balance of harm test appears to me to be appropriate. A reasonable limit on the orders that may be made where there is no other entitlement seems to me also to be appropriate. I therefore do not feel able to accept the amendments.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, it is a truism that no one is entitled to be a dictator in a democracy. I can think of no one less qualified by character and attitude of mind for that position than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. However, the irony is that it is the uninformed minority whom the noble and learned Lord has permitted to be the dictators in the matter. I shall return to the amendments on Third Reading with some confidence on the basis that the noble and learned Lord truly—if I may put it this way—continues to agree with

115
himself the first time round rather than agreeing with himself the second time round. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Additional considerations if parties are cohabitants or former cohabitants]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 112A:
Leave out Clause 36.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it would not be right for me to challenge anything in Part III of the Bill without first paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the amount of care, thought, effort and sheer intelligence that he has devoted to what is now Part III of the Bill, both in this Session and in the last. Anything I say is not meant to cast the least doubt on the proposition that he has done a good job of work.
I also wish to say how much we owe to the Special Public Bills Committee, under the Jellicoe procedure, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I have looked at the minutes of the committee and it gave a far more exhaustive consideration to the Bill than any we have managed in the Whole House. I believe the procedure to be a good one. As regards these Benches, this is a free vote Bill. As I understand it, this is an issue of conscience and I hope that the point is taken all round.
In the debate on the humble Address, the noble and learned Lord said that the changes were a matter of achieving consensus. I understand the need to achieve consensus. The question is whether the changes have achieved it. They have conciliated some people, at the price of causing—to use language in the euphemistic way appropriate to this Chamber—extreme distaste to a large number of other people. If I am asked whether the changes have achieved consensus, the words which come to mind and which I shall not repeat are those of Eliza Doolittle.
I am not aware of a single person of my acquaintance who does not regard the changes, especially Clause 36 which I now address, with extreme distaste, to put it no higher. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to get a flavour of the way many outside this Chamber feel about the changes, he might look at the discussion on the Rory Bremner show after the Bill was abandoned in the last Session. I should not like to be on the receiving end of such comments.
The clause to which our attention is directed here is Clause 36 which instructs the court, in deciding whether to make an occupation order,
"to have regard to the fact that the parties have not given each other the commitment involved in marriage".
That clause is on a fork with which we in this Chamber are perhaps familiar: either it is useless or it is pernicious. The question is: does the clause actually diminish the physical safety of people in cohabiting couples who have been subjected to assault? If it does, it is pernicious. It lowers the duty to preserve the Queen's peace below a series of abstract principles
116
which, in any country that puts the Queen's peace first, have to come second. But if the clause does not have immense practical effect, what is the point of putting it there?
At present, 20 per cent. of live births are to cohabiting couples. Assuming that they have roughly average fertility, that means that approximately 20 per cent. of couples are cohabiting. That is one in every five couples we might meet at a party. So, if we start holding forth to five couples about the evil of cohabiting, it is very likely that one of those couples will be among the people we are denouncing. Those are the sort of circumstances in which it is wise to mind one's manners. Speaking in this way of large bodies of one's fellow citizens is neither good politics nor good form.
You can, now, if you are filling in an entry for Who's Who, appear in the volume along with your partner instead of your spouse. Invitations to presidential receptions in the British Academy—which is not an entirely unreflectable body—say that you may bring your spouse or your partner. It is in fact a recognised status. Those who hold that status, and those who, like me, have many close relatives and friends in that position, are liable to take offence at any suggestion that they should be treated as second-class citizens.
Why should they be so treated? One could argue a perfectly logical case on grounds of the religious sanctity of marriage. One must respect the view of those who think that only marriage in the sight of God is legitimate. I make no argument with that. But the Bill has already abandoned that ground by extending its protection to those who, like myself, are married in the sight of the state but not in the sight of God. So I do not see how this distinction can possibly rest on that view of the sanctity of marriage.
The next possible ground is that which was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, at Second Reading: the ground that marriage is a public status and cohabiting is not. That would be a sound ground in principle on which to make this distinction. But I believe it to be unsound in fact.
Since the National Assistance Act 1948, the law has increasingly come to recognise cohabiting as a status. The jobseekers' regulations that we passed last month referred, without any apparent second thought, to "a married or unmarried couple". I was most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for conceding in Committee that the view that cohabiting is a public status in law is a valid one. That recognition, made against his own inclination, is an outstanding example of the courtesy and integrity which make the noble and learned Lord one of the most valued Members of this House. I am deeply grateful to him for it.
Cohabitants are clearly identifiable. So, if they in fact hold public status—and I will listen to what the noble and learned Lord says about that—that is not a reason for discriminating against them.
The reason given in the Bill is that they have not given each other the commitment involved in marriage. That, also, I believe to be false in fact. What I take to be the commitment involved in marriage is that sheer gritty determination which makes you, when things go

117
wrong, buckle down and decide that you are going to make it work, come hell or high water. Among those people I know well who set out to cohabit some 30 years ago, perhaps believing that they were bringing in a new order, that commitment has been as present and as absent as among the married couples that I know. In fact, there has been no difference. That is one of the things that amuse me most about the whole debate. They simply behave like any married couples that I know.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, argued that the law may, in certain circumstances, discriminate between the married and the cohabiting. That I grant, but there must be certain conditions precedent. First, the discrimination must be relevant to the purpose of the enactment; and secondly, the discrimination must not override something of greater importance. I believe that this clause fails both those tests. The preservation of physical safety is, I believe, more important than plain sentiment. I do not see why the test of cohabiting is relevant to the purpose of this Bill, which is physical safety.
moment ago, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tried to rest a distinction on the ground of rights in the home. But that point, however sound it may be in general, is not here material. We are dealing with couples, whether married or cohabiting, where the spouse does not have a secure right to occupation in the home. One couple married is treated differently from another couple cohabiting, who in all other legal particulars are identical. That gives offence to 20 per cent. of couples for no good reason that I can see. Either it is a folly or it is a gratuitous offence. Either way, I do not see what useful purpose this clause serves. I beg to move.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to refer to my comments in the Second Reading debate. I speak in this matter as one of the unenlightened minority. Despite his very winning speech, I feel that there is an important distinction between marriage and cohabitation. Perhaps I did not express that extremely well when I referred to marriage as a public status. I should have said that it is a public and legal status.
Surely, the simple difference between marriage and cohabitation lies simply there; that one is a legal status and the other is not. One knows who is married; and being married carries certain rights and responsibilities. One may know who is cohabiting—I certainly grant that there are many for whom in practice cohabitation works out in the same way as marriage—but a cohabitee can equally well be somebody who has simply shacked up with somebody else for the past six months.
Unless one can draw some distinction between the permanent commitment and the kind of casual association which is sometimes what cohabitation is, then one is on a very slippery slope indeed. It seems to me that the place at which that distinction is drawn is where a relationship is legally recognised, and that is what marriage is about.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. I feel that the noble
118
Earl should possibly consider that he may have been slightly misleading the House when he spoke of 20 per cent. Noble Lords know very well that there are people who, to coin a phrase, shack up. Let us be honest. If cohabitants produce children—let us say that one cohabitant is called Smith and the other is called Jones—are the children to be called "alias Smith and Jones"?
As regards the other point that the noble Earl mentioned, about invitations to parties as man and wife or a man and partner, that does not necessarily mean to say that the partner happens to be equivalent to the wife. I believe that the statistics that were brought up are totally misleading.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in considering the question of what to do in relation to the powers referred to in Clause 31 of the Bill, which, as your Lordships know, is the clause which deals with a co-habitant or former co-habitant with no existing rights to occupy, it provides, and did provide when it left this House on the last occasion, that among the things which the court were to consider, in all the circumstances of the case, were the nature of the parties' relationship. I should have thought that it was quite obvious that parties who have co-habited for an extremely short time would be in rather a different position in an order under this kind of provision, from those who had been living together for, say, 20 or 30 years.
There are a number of aspects of the parties' relationship which are relevant. I would have thought, faced with this problem, that it was perfectly reasonable to bring out the fact that, among the differences in relationships, was this particular difference. In my submission to your Lordships, this is a difference that is perfectly defensible; namely, that the parties have not given each other the commitment involved in marriage. That does not mean to say that they may not have given each other some other kind of commitment, but whatever it is, however like the one in marriage, it is not actually the commitment involved in marriage. They may even decide to stick it out through thick and thin and to have the grit and determination to go on all their lives. But they have not done so in the commitment involved in marriage. That is the way I see it.
They do not take vows in public which lead to legal obligations on both of them. Even following divorce, in the married situation the parties may have financial obligations to one another. By contrast, co-habitation can involve many different degrees of commitment, and so much so that I would go so far as to say that the only thing which is certain is that it is not the same as marriage. That is why I have focused particularly on that fact. This difference is all that Clause 36 is drawing to the attention of the court.
I fully accept that a co-habitant has the same right to be protected from violence as a married person. I do not accept that Clause 36 in any way prevents that. It is right that the court should take account of all the circumstances, including whether or not the parties are married, when deciding whether an occupation order is appropriate and what its terms should be. That is not making any distinction of a class type, whether second-class or first-class or anything, but making a

119
distinction which in fact exists; namely the distinction between a co-habitant and a married person. What effect that will have on the court's consideration in any particular case is a matter for the court, just as I said earlier, in relation to Clause 31, when the court has to consider the nature of the parties' relationship. The precise effect of that, in the particular circumstances, is left to the court.
This clause was put in in answer to concerns expressed to me by colleagues in another place. It is legitimate to meet their concerns in this way which in no way damages the structure of the Bill and draws out in effect a particular aspect of a relationship which, in any event, will be implied. Certainly there is nothing to suggest that we are doing other than acknowledging an existing and realistic state of affairs, leaving the court without any further direction to take such account of it as it thinks proper in all the circumstances.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, of course there is a distinction between those who have given to each other the commitment involved in marriage and those who merely cohabit, but can the noble and learned Lord give a practical illustration of how that distinction is a relevant distinction for the purpose of the exercise by the court of its power to make an occupation order?
11.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes. The married couple have financial obligations to one another which the unmarried do not have, and that might well be relevant. For example, if a cohabitant is thrown out of the matrimonial home, that cohabitant may have no redress whatever against the owner of the home, whereas a former spouse who is thrown out may well have a financial entitlement to, for example, a periodical allowance or something of that kind. In such circumstances, the relevance of the relationship may well be important.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it may surprise the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, that I agree with practically everything that he said. I think we all agree that we cannot extend protection except to people who have a public and legal status. If we do anything beyond that, we are doing something which is in danger of being void for its uncertainty. It is my understanding—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, supported this point in Committee—that cohabitation is now a public and legal status. It was never my intention in moving this amendment to defend those who have shacked up together for a short time. That is far too vague to be proper to bring within the law.
The status of cohabitation is so well recognised in social security law (where it is part of the foundation of the basic principles of the law on the subject) that I think that it is clear enough. There are tests by which it can be recognised; such as where there are shared households and shared finances. When the noble and learned Lord said that a former cohabitant will not have any financial entitlement in the property, he is in fact mistaken. A good many cases are known to me
120
personally of where a cohabitating couple have had a shared mortgage. If that is not a financial entitlement, I do not know what is. In such cases, we are dealing with something which is not void for uncertainty. Had I believed otherwise I would not have moved the amendment.
I say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that the test I used in arriving at my 20 per cent. figure is the test used by Social Trends of a birth registered by both parents. I think that that is a sufficiently precise step to be taken seriously, and that the editors of Social Trends are right to rely on it.
I listened with great care to the reply of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I simply do not understand why the difference which he rightly perceives is relevant to the force of this Bill. He talks about not making the commitment involved in marriage, but it seems that you could equally well say that I have not made the commitment involved in marriage because I did not do it in church. I respect that view, but it seems to me that for practical purposes I belong as to a married couple—and my cohabiting friends see it just the same way as I do. Those two cases are a lot more in parallel than most people have readily admitted.
The noble and learned Lord said that the cohabiting couple had the same right to protection and that he did not think that Clause 36 prevented that; but the noble and learned Lord is on a fork here: either occupation orders are part of protection or they are not. If they are, the cohabitor clearly comes off worse; if they are not, what are they doing in the Bill? I simply do not understand why this distinction is relevant to a Bill which is concerned with physical safety. I would willingly withdraw the amendment. However, one cannot move that a clause do not stand part at Third Reading. This is the last chance that I have to ask for the opinion of the House. Regretfully, I must do so.
11.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.112A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 30.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Brightman, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lawrence, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Meston, L

Hamwee, B.

Monkswell, L.

Russell, E [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Annaly, L.

Elles, B.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Faithfull, B.

Chesham, L.[Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Habgood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lindsay, E

Courtown, E.

Long, V.

121

Lucas, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Lyell, L.

Phillimore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.

Mountevans, L.

Trumpington, B.

Northbourne, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.28 p.m.
Clause 40 [Ex parte orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 112B:
Page 27, leave out line 15 and insert ("(3) If the court makes an initial order, it must").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to take Amendments Nos. 112C, 112D, 113A and 130A.
My purpose in tabling Amendments Nos. 112B and 112C is to remove a possible anomaly regarding ex parte orders which has been drawn to my attention. In certain circumstances where the need for an order is very urgent it is possible for the court to make an order even when the respondent is not present. When that is done it will be usual for a full hearing, of which all the parties have had notice, to be held shortly afterwards.
If that initial hearing was considered to have made the first occupation order, the six-month time limit on first orders would be taken up by the first order. In addition, if that initial hearing was considered to have made the first order and the full hearing the second order, then applicants under Clauses 31 and 33 could have been limited to occupation orders for a maximum of just over six months instead of just over a year. That was never my intention. By treating the ex parte order and any order made at a subsequent full hearing as one order, it will ensure that the orders taken together will last for a maximum of six months in cases where Clauses 31 and 33 apply and it will be possible for the court to grant one more order also for a maximum of six months at a later date. In this way, applicants will be treated the same whether or not their first application is made ex parte.
Amendments Nos. 112D, 113A and 130A are intended to ensure that individuals can take advantage of the protection offered against domestic violence, even if they live in an unusual home and one which would not come within the legal definition of land. I am thinking in particular about such things as caravans and house-boats but there may be other homes which should also be included. Therefore, I have also included the broad term "structure".
Amendment No. 130A applies this new definition to the Children Act sections introduced by Schedule 6 which allow the abusing adult to be excluded from the home rather than the abused child where an emergency protection or interim care order is made. There are some clauses which use the term "dwelling house" which properly applies to land. For example, Clause 27 deals
122
with matrimonial home rights becoming a charge on the property. In these clauses I have not changed the definition of dwelling house. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 112C:
Page 27, line 17, leave out from ("a") to end of line 18 and insert ("full hearing.
(4) If, at a full hearing, the court makes an occupation order ("the full order"), then—

(a) for the purposes of calculating the maximum period for which the full order may be made to have effect, the relevant section is to apply as if the period for which the full order will have effect began on the date on which the initial order first had effect; and

(b) the provisions of section 31(10) or 33(6) as to the extension of orders are to apply as if the full order and the initial order were a single order.

(5) In this section—
"full hearing" means a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court;
"initial order" means an occupation order made by virtue of subsection (1); and
"relevant section" means section 28(10), 30(10), 31(10), 32(5) or 33(6).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Interpretation of Part III]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 112D:
Page 35, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert—
(""dwelling-house" includes (subject to subsection (3A))—

(a) any building or part of a building which is occupied as a dwelling,

(b) any caravan, house-boat or structure which is occupied as a dwelling,

and any yard, garden, garage or outhouse belonging to it and occupied with it;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in this amendment the noble and learned Lord gives the definition of a dwelling house. There appears to be a new concept in law about what constitutes a house. I am thinking, for instance, of the protesters at the Newbury bypass who seem to have made themselves a house in a tree. As a matter of interest, might that be included in the definition, or am I quite wrong? We need to clarify this point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that the tree itself would be a structure. Of course, one has seen elaborate structures that may be based on trees but I do not think that living in a tree would qualify. It is a caravan, house-boat or structure—my noble and learned friend earlier spoke about the just and generous principle and that would apply here—
"which is occupied as a dwelling".
My noble friend can rest assured that the Newbury trees are not likely to be covered by this definition.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 112E:
Page 35, line 20, leave out ("a person") and insert ("an applicant").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112F and Amendment No. 113 which is tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The amendments deal with two different but related issues to do with the definition of harm. Amendment No. 113ZA changes the definition of ill treatment so that it expressly includes forms of ill treatment other than physical ill treatment for both adults and children. Sexual abuse is limited to children.
Your Lordships may remember that the matter was discussed a little in Committee. We had brought in from the Children Act the definition of "harm" in relation to children which includes sexual abuse and other non-physical harm. The noble Lord asked me whether non-physical would apply to the adults too. There was a difficulty, therefore. Sexual abuse is limited to children and I do not intend to change that. The term is widely understood in terms of children and can include any form of sexual contact. I do not think it would be appropriately applied in the case of an adult.
The only difference between Amendment No. 113ZA and Amendment No. 113 is that Amendment No. 113 would extend the definition of harm for adults to include sexual abuse. As I said, I do not believe that that is necessary or appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 112E and 112F change the definition of harm in respect of an adult applicant. They provide that the harm in question will have to be the result of the conduct of the respondent, although the respondent need not be acting in a way deliberately intended to harm the applicant. "Harm" is used in the balance of harm test and in the question relating to the balance of harm. I believe that, in balancing the harm to the respondent if an order is made against the harm to the applicant if no order is made, it is reasonable that the respondent should be the cause of the harm to the applicant. "Harm" is also used by the court when considering the need to make an ex parte order or attach a power of arrest to an ex parte order. Again, I believe that it is reasonable to link the harm to the actions of the respondents since it is they who will potentially be disadvantaged if the initial order is made in their absence or if they become subject to the power of arrest in such circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 112F:
Page 35, line 21, at end insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent, (b)
in relation to a respondent who has reached the a ge of eighteen years, means ill-treatment or the impairment of health,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 113ZA and 113A:
Page 35, line 26, leave out from ("ill-treatment"") to end of line 27 and insert ("includes forms of ill-treatment which are not physical and, in relation to a child, includes sexual abuse;").
124
Page 36, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) For the purposes of sections 26, 27, 48 and 49 and such other provisions of this Part (if any) as may be prescribed, this Part is to have effect as if paragraph (b) of the definition of "dwelling-house" were omitted.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords I spoke to these amendments with earlier amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58 [Rules, regulations and orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 36, line 35, leave out from ("instrument") to ("60(3)") in line 36 and insert ("containing an order, rules or regulations made under this Act, other than an order made under section 4(5) or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115. Clause 4(5) allows the Lord Chancellor to vary the length of the period between the end of the period of reflection and consideration and the time limit for making an application for a divorce or separation order. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 to Clause 58 to provide that any order made for this purpose should be made under the affirmative resolution procedure. This matter was raised in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I indicated in Committee that I should be happy to table an amendment to alter the parliamentary procedure for making an order under Clause 4(5) and I am pleased now to be in a position to do so. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 36, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) No order shall be made under section 4(5) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 116A:
Page 37, line 7, after ("Act") insert (", other than section (Division of pension assets)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham when on Thursday, 29th February she successfully moved Amendment No. 10 and spoke, within the grouping, to that amendment, Amendment No. 86A and Amendment No. 116A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Arrangements for the Future]:
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Financial Provision]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 40, line 41, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 22B of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I speak to Amendment No. 118, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lady Young and myself, and also to some of the amendments in a group which seems to amount to nearly fifty amendments. The amendments I shall speak to are Nos. 119, 120, 126 and 129. I understand that my noble and learned friend will be speaking to Amendments Nos. 120A and 126D, which deal with the same subject in this sub-group.
We have now reached Schedule 2, which deals with property matters on divorce, and the broad intention of these amendments is to alter the Bill in order to promote reconciliation and to give mediation and property settlements by agreement a chance to work out.
Under the Bill, once a statement has been made, a party may apply for and obtain a financial order. In the case of a property adjustment order, the order will be effective only on the granting of the divorce in due course, except in special circumstances.
As your Lordships will know, because we have referred to it before, under the existing law those financial orders are made only on decree nisi and come into effect on decree absolute. It is obviously entirely consistent with the thrust of the Bill and my noble and learned friend's intention, which I share entirely, that arrangements for the future should be completed before the divorce is granted. In this Bill, the question of financial arrangements should not be settled as late as they are under present law.
On the other hand, the effect of allowing the party to go to court immediately and obtain an order, whether that order comes into effect immediately or whether it is deferred until the divorce is granted, is really to create irretrievable breakdown in all but name. Once somebody has gone to court in that way at the very beginning of the period for reflection and consideration, thereafter there is really no practical chance of saving the marriage.
It is quite clear that one cannot preclude applications to the court for the entire period for reflection and consideration. Again, that would make it impossible for the future arrangements to be concluded in time. Therefore, these amendments try to strike a happy medium and provide that you cannot go to court until six months of the period has expired. The effect of that will be that, during that period, the parties involved in the divorce will have the opportunity of mediation and mediation will be given the opportunity to get off to a good head start over court applications; or the parties may attempt reconciliation; or they may go to their lawyers and try to reach agreement without going to court. That is bound to be beneficial to the ultimate divorce or to the reconciliation, if that takes place.
Amendment No. 118 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 120. In short, it provides that no financial provision, other than interim periodical payments, shall be incorporated in an order during the first six months of the period. Amendment No. 126 provides similarly for property adjustments orders: they are not to be made during the first six months of the period.
Amendment No. 119 deals with lump sum orders. Amendment No. 120 provides that they are not to be made during the first six months but Amendment No. 119 provides that during the second six months an order for the payment of the lump sum is not to take effect until the divorce order is made, except in special circumstances. The amendment goes on to outline those special circumstances, including the case where the parties have agreed early on as to the terms of the proposed order. At this hour, I do not propose to go into any more detail about that amendment. I should explain that in relation to property adjustment orders, the Bill provides that they will not come into effect until the divorce is granted, except in special circumstances. The special circumstances defined in the Bill are defined in fairly broad terms. Amendment No. 129 seeks to expand and make clearer what those special circumstances are to be. I believe that the total effect of the amendments would be to make the provisions for financial provision in the Bill much more reasonable as between the parties and much more likely to promote a good divorce. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are quite a number of amendments in the group. It may help at this late hour if I were to try to state my position in relation to them, giving such explanation as I think appropriate. Noble Lords who have tabled later amendments in the group would then at least know what I have in mind. However, whether or not your Lordships will be enlightened by what I say may be open to question.
I undertook in Committee to seek the advice of my Ancillary Relief Advisory Group (which is a group made up of experts, including members of the judiciary and practising barristers and solicitors, together with two leading academics) on the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh to Schedule 2 to the Bill. I have now taken the group's advice and considered it carefully. As a result, I have tabled amendments to Schedules 2, 8, 9 and 10 to the Bill. I propose to speak to groups of the amendments which deal with particular aspects of financial provision. I shall, therefore, also deal with the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Coleraine, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. At the same time, I shall speak to the Government amendments on the particular subjects.
Amendments Nos. 118, 119, 120, 120A, 126, 126D, 129, 133G and 133L all relate to the time when property adjustment orders and financial provision orders should take effect. Amendments Nos. 120A and 126D give effect to the intention that there should now be a general rule that financial provision and property adjustment

127
orders should not take effect until on or after the making of the divorce order or separation order. The exception is that those orders can take effect before the making of the divorce or separation order where the court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it would be just and reasonable to do so.
Amendment No. 133G ensures that, so far as the taking of the orders is concerned, where the court is varying the orders under Section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 it may only vary the time when the order is to take effect to a time earlier than the making of the divorce order or separation order where it would be just and reasonable in all the circumstances to do so. The amendments adopt the principles behind the amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and Amendment No. 119 tabled in the names of my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Coleraine.
On that one issue, however, I have not followed the views of my Ancillary Relief Advisory Group. The group's view was that those orders should always be made and be capable of taking effect before the divorce order or separation order was made. In particular, the group had in mind circumstances where the husband and wife are living in the same house with the children; there are insufficient funds to enable one spouse to seek alternative accommodation and the application for financial provision is contested. The couple are unlikely to agree a sale in those circumstances, yet the family could be living in a hostile environment for over six months until the divorce order or separation order is granted. The group considered that the availability of occupation orders in those circumstances would not provide assistance. The couple could feel forced to make allegations against one another so that occupation of the house could be regulated, or, alternatively, violence could actually result because of the tension in the home. The view taken was that there would be little to gain from having two sets of litigation proceeding at one time.
I considered the group's views carefully but decided that the rules should not generally permit orders to take effect before divorce. The making of the order itself should sufficiently focus parties' attention on the often grave financial consequences of divorce and the impact of divorce on their lives and those of their children to make them reflect further on whether divorce is really the right path for them to follow. Parties will not, therefore, generally sever financial links between them until divorce. Divorce settlements which take effect before the divorce order or separation order will not be the norm.
To accommodate the various circumstances where there may be a genuine need for an order to take effect earlier than the making of the divorce order or separation order such as those outlined by members of the advisory group, I have made the exception to the rule, which is that orders can take effect before that time where the court considers that it is just and reasonable that they should do so.
128
Amendment No. 119 in the name of my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Coleraine states that financial provision orders can take effect in special circumstances. The special circumstances are listed for financial provision orders and, in Amendment No. 129, for property adjustment orders, and include where one or both parties urgently need to be rehoused. I hope that my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Coleraine will agree that the basic rule underlying those amendments and my own is the same. I have no longer referred to "special circumstances", which was the term previously used in relation to property adjustment orders, as my advisory group said that that term could be readily applied to most circumstances following divorce and it was therefore inappropriate to use the term "special". The term I have used is more likely to be effective in controlling the use of that power.
I have also received comments from certain members of the group on the specific circumstances referred to in my noble friends' amendments. I wondered whether they should be examples of circumstances when it would be just and reasonable for the order to take effect earlier than the divorce order or separation order. The views which I have received were against specifying those circumstances in the Bill. That is favourable towards trying to keep the orders' effect to the later stage. If one specifies circumstances then the court is likely to use those circumstances to make the order earlier, whereas if they are not specified the court's discretion is wider and, therefore, in the cases mentioned, the power will not necessarily be used to make the orders earlier. I suggest that the principle behind my noble friends' amendments would be better served by not specifying the particular circumstances. Fettering the court's discretion in that way is also out of line with the other discretionary powers in the 1973 Act. I accept the members' advice and urge your Lordships not to go down the road of specifying particular circumstances.
One of the circumstances specified in my noble friends' amendment is where both parties are agreed on the terms of the proposed order. I have given effect to that in Amendment No. 133L, which permits couples to obtain a consent order which takes effect before the divorce order or separation order where the exception to the general rule applies. I intend that rules should prescribe the type of information which the courts will require before making such an order. I do not wish generally to require court hearings when parties are agreed as that could lead to bitterness and hostility and incur costs. However, we need to ensure that the parties' agreement is properly recorded before the court proceeds on the basis that the order is agreed to.
I also asked my advisory group's views relating to my noble friend's amendments, Amendments Nos. 120 and 126, which prevent property adjustment orders and financial provision orders being made in the first six months of the period of reflection and consideration. Those members' views I received were that the new rule relating to the time when orders could be made and take effect was sufficient. It should ensure that couples do not rush into settlements. Where couples have agreed the financial settlement, they may well wish the court to

129
approve the agreement as soon as possible to ensure that neither of them can renege from the agreement, which could lead to costly litigation. There are also other circumstances where one or more of the parties may want a court order within six months where, for example, one party is seriously ill or where a wasting asset needs to he sold. Other examples include the other circumstances outlined in Amendment No. 119. I therefore invite your Lordships not to agree that particular amendment of my noble friend.
I have also considered my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 118, which makes the new Section 22A(1) dealing with financial provision orders subject to the new Section 22B which contains restrictions on when these orders should be made. The amendment is unnecessary as the new Section 22A(11) already makes the new Section 22A(1) subject to these restrictions. I am sorry that this is a little dense, but I hope, nevertheless, that it is as sufficiently clear as the subject matter allows.
I now pass to interim lump sums, and Amendments Nos. 118C, 118D, 133A, 133B, and 138A. I have taken on board the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and Amendment No. 118D tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and by Amendment No. 118 have given the court a statutory power to make interim lump sum payments until the application for a financial provision order can be heard. I believe that this was widely sought and I think that it is a considerable improvement. My Ancillary Relief Advisory Group's view was that the court's current inherent jurisdiction to grant interim lump sums was very limited and inadequate. There seems absolutely no reason to have great discussions about that if the circumstances of the case seem to require an interim lump sum. Amendments Nos. 133A, 133B and 138A are made as a result of conferring the power. They make necessary consequential amendments to the other provisions of the 1973 Act and among other things ensure that these lump sums can be paid by instalments. In addition, the criteria in the new Section 25(5) of the 1973 Act in Schedule 8 is extended so that it applies to interim lump sums and interim periodical payments.
I now refer to the deletion of new Section 22A(5) and (6) of the 1973 Act. Amendments Nos. 118E and 118F delete the new Section 22A(5) and (6) of the 1973 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, drew my attention to the amendments when he tabled drafting amendments to them during the Committee stage. My Ancillary Relief Advisory Group considered that these provisions, which replace Section 23(3(a) and (b) of the 1973 Act, no longer added anything to the powers of the court to grant lump sum orders and that they should be deleted.
I now come to the question of interest on lump sums payable by instalments and deferred lump sums; Amendments Nos. 118G to 118L and 125A to 125F. Amendments Nos. 118G to 118L and 125A to 125F solve a technical problem with the wording of Section 23(6) of the 1973 Act, which is replaced by the new Section 22A(10) and (11) of Schedule 2. They ensure that the court can make an order for interest to be paid on lump sums payable by instalments or deferred lump
130
sums from the date of the order to the date when it is due to be paid at any time on or after the making of the order. Equivalent amendments are made for the provisions relating to nullity. It is currently not possible to make such an order for interest after the making of the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, tabled in Committee an amendment linking the rate of interest payable to the bank base rate. My Ancillary Relief Advisory Group considered this proposal but advised against it on the grounds that it was important that the court had complete discretion as to what rate of interest should be payable. The referral of the payment of a lump sum was of benefit to the payer and there were circumstances where the bank base rate may be wholly inappropriate as the court may consider a penal rate of interest is required or, alternatively, in other circumstances that a very low rate would be appropriate.
I turn now to the powers of the court on considering an application to vary a periodical payments order. Amendments Nos. 133H to 133K and 146A and 146B adopt, with technical adjustments, the amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. They give the court power, when dealing with an application for variation or discharge of periodical payments order, to make a property adjustment or lump sum order where it considers this appropriate in order to enable it to bring about a "clean break" by discharging or limiting the term of the periodical payments order. The amendments implement, with some minor modifications, the recommendation of the Law Commission in its report The Ground for Divorce and deals with the problems created by a lack of such a power which were highlighted in S v. S (1986), 1 Family Law Reports at page 71. My Ancillary Relief Advisory Group was in favour of the power.
The group was not, however, in favour of the other amendment to Section 31 of the 1973 Act tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, at the Committee stage. It extended the power of the court to vary, discharge, suspend or revive a property adjustment order settling property, varying a settlement or extinguishing or reducing an interest in a marriage settlement. Some members of the group were reluctant to see any extension of the power to vary property adjustment orders in the interests of certainty.
The collective view of the group was that the question of when property adjustment orders should be varied was very difficult. The complexities surrounding it meant that this was one matter which could only be considered in the context of a major review of the substantive law relating to financial provision on divorce. In the meantime, where a question arose as to the variation of a settlement, use would have to be made, where appropriate, of the power to order a sale of the property under Section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the limited powers of the court to set aside orders, for example in Barder v. Caluori (1988), Appeal Cases,. page 20.
I turn to the question of conduct which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. His Amendment No. 129AB proposes that the court should

131
take into account any conduct of the parties and the cause of the breakdown of the marriage. At present, one of the factors to which the court is to have regard when deciding whether, and if so how, to exercise its powers in relation to financial provision on divorce is the conduct of each of the parties if that conduct is such that in the opinion of the court it would be inequitable to disregard it.
Amendment No. 129AB is similar to the amendment which was tabled at Committee stage and on which I have sought my Ancillary Relief Advisory Group's advice. The group considered that the current provision worked well—it was reviewed in 1984, which led to the current provision—and there was no call for change. I accept that advice. Ancillary relief proceedings are not the appropriate means of identifying in detail the cause of marital breakdown. I am satisfied that it is right that conduct should be taken into account to the extent that is necessary to reach a proper distribution of the property between the parties and that the present test on which that is done is the appropriate one.
Costs, delay and litigation would be increased by extending the role of conduct. That test has been adopted as a result of very mature consideration of the matter over the years by the courts. I am not inclined to increase the role of anything that would cause unnecessary conflict when I believe that, where a substantial issue is raised by conduct, the courts can take account of it properly under the present arrangements.
Two other main amendments were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, during the Committee stage of the Bill which my advisory group advised me against accepting: first, the proposal that periodical payments and secured periodical payments should automatically end when a party in whose favour the order is made starts to cohabit with another party as if married. This rule currently applies only on remarriage. The group was against extending the rule in the way in which the noble Lord suggested for two reasons. First, a cohabitee has no legal duty to maintain another cohabitee, in contrast with the position regarding spouses. Secondly, there are evidential difficulties in determining whether the payee is cohabiting as if married.
Secondly, the group was not in favour of the noble Lord's amendments to the provisions relating to variation on reconciliation. In particular, it was against removing protection to third parties who would be prejudiced if the order which had been made was varied or discharged.
There are then drafting amendments and amendments inserted for clarification: Amendments Nos. 118A, 118B, 126A, 126B and 126C. They are intended to ensure that the scope of financial provision orders should not be circumscribed by the making of an order in earlier proceedings and that the making of a property adjustment order in earlier proceedings should not prevent a further order being made in later proceedings subject to the restriction in the new Section 23A(2) of the 1973 Act.
132
Amendments Nos. 122A and 129A clarify that applications have to be made for financial provision and property adjustment orders on nullity and bring the provisions into line with those on divorce in this respect.
Amendments Nos. 133E, 133F and 148A relate to the variation of property adjustment orders on or after the making of a separation order. They amend Section 31(2)(e) of the 1973 Act so that the powers to vary property adjustment orders made before or after the making of a separation order varying or settling property apply only where there is an application for a divorce order.
The new Section 31A of the 1973 Act in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 which provides for variation on reconciliation could then be used where the separation order is rescinded. This had been my intention but the previous amendment to the provision did not put this properly into effect.
During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said he did not appreciate why the amendments to the 1973 Act were inserted by way of substitution. The reason, I understand, is that Parliamentary Counsel at the Law Commission who drafted the original Bill took this approach because of the complexities of the amendments necessary to take account of the change to the time at which the various orders could be made in relation to separation and divorce but not nullity. The separation and divorce provisions had to be "pulled" out of the existing relevant sections of the Matrimonial Causes Act and amended but the nullity provisions left as they are. Counsel took the view that to amend each section and subsection as it stood by distinguishing between the timing of orders during the separation and divorce process and those following nullity would have made the amended sections incomprehensible. (And if Parliamentary Counsel says they are incomprehensible, I am prepared to say that they are!) That is why the provisions relating to separation and divorce were separated out and redrafted.
Parliamentary Counsel's advice is that it is unlikely that the position will have changed in the developments that have taken place since then, but he has agreed to look again at the matter over the next few weeks as the Bill proceeds on its course in the light of the latest amendments to Schedule 2.
The Bill does not amend the law of nullity. For this reason, Schedule 2 to the Bill makes only minor modifications to the law relating to financial provision on nullity. I am accordingly unable to accept Amendments Nos. 122B and 122C by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to confer a statutory power on the court to make interim lump sum orders on nullity. Other amendments in the 1973 Act have also not been applied to nullity for the same reason. I will, however, take the need for a statutory power to make interim orders on nullity fully into account when I am reviewing the whole of the substantive law relating to financial provision on divorce and nullity in the future.
I hope that in the light of this explanation my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Coleraine will be able to withdraw the amendments to which I referred, and that Amendments Nos. 118D, 122B and 122C will not need

133
to be moved. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will feel that his Amendment No. 129AB need not be pursued in the circumstances.
I am sorry to take so long. On the other hand, I have been able as a result to give a reasonably comprehensive view of what all the later amendments in my name are about. I hope that noble Lords will feel that this is of some assistance.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am bound to say to my noble and learned friend that I found it quite difficult to follow all the detail that we were given. Clearly, I shall have to read it. The amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Coleraine are, we believe, extremely important. I am not absolutely clear. I regret that that is entirely my own fault; however, it is quite late and the argument was rather complicated.
Perhaps I might extract two points on which I should like particular clarification. The first refers to our Amendments Nos. 120 and 126. I should like to know whether or not the court should have jurisdiction to make an order for financial provision or property adjustment other than interim maintenance at any time in the first six months.
This is, after all, a very important issue. As I understand it, if the court has the power to do that, it as it were indicates that the divorce is to take place at a time when I thought one of the principal points of this Bill was that the time of the operation at the beginning of the year would be a time for reflection, consideration and all of that. It is hardly likely to take place if the court is settling all the differences over property, which gives a finality to the situation which did not exist before.
It is probably entirely due to my failure to understand what my noble and learned friend said, but I should like to know whether his amendments put in a different way his very real point as to whether or not one can start the property settlements, as it were, virtually on day one. If that is the case, it negates a great deal of the whole idea of reconciliation, reflection, consideration and so forth.
The second point which I do not quite understand—again, it is probably entirely my own fault—concerns the question of whether a financial order other than an interim order should come into effect before the divorce or separation order on the just and reasonable test, which is the one to which my noble and learned friend referred, or only on the proof of special circumstances, which has been quite narrowly defined and included in Amendments Nos. 119 and 129 spoken to by my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
The point of my concern is that the just and reasonable test is not very tight. It implies that 12 months is not an absolute waiting period under the Bill but one which may be abrogated in certain circumstances. It is partnered with an earlier amendment. I should like to know how the courts would regard the just and reasonable test. For instance, would it be a fact that at the beginning they would confine it so that it has a limited effect? Over the passage of time would pressure from litigants and advocates be brought into effect to weaken the standard, so that it becomes a
134
rule rather than the exception for orders to come into effect before the expiry of the 12 months? Then the 12-month period would become an empty formality with mounting proposals for abolition. That may be a very gloomy prospect for the future, but it seems to me central to all the provisions of the Bill that the 12-month period should stand as it is for a period of reflection and consideration.
I do not want to waste the time of the House at this late hour, but these are very important issues and I am not at all clear, from what my noble and learned friend said, whether his amendments, which cover very much the same ground about which we are all talking, satisfy my anxieties and those expressed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine on these matters.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I could answer those two specific matters. I think I referred to them but I missed many other matters and I can bring them out now.
No order in this category will have effect before the divorce or separation takes place, unless it is just and reasonable in the opinion of the court that it should do so. The advice that I have been given by the Advisory Group on Ancillary Relief, constituted as I said, is that the phrase "special circumstances" will not be anything much in way of a protection. Almost any circumstances are special to the particular case and therefore that will not be much of a protection.
Noble Lords will have noticed that my noble friend Lord Coleraine, in Amendment No. 119, also states that:
"'special circumstances' may include the fact (if it be the case)",
and so on; and those are listed.
The advice that I received was that listing those would in fact promote the possibility that the court would have to give effect to an order before the divorce or separation order took effect if one of those circumstances applied, whereas the court might think that it was not in the interests of being just and reasonable that it should do so. The advice I have is that the amendment which I tabled would be more effective in achieving the purpose that my noble friend has in mind of keeping the general rule in favour of the orders taking effect only on divorce or separation rather than any alternative version which has so far been produced.
Perhaps I may say that, looking at that example, it can be seen how it would happen. The amendment says that:
"'special circumstances' may include the fact (if it be the case) that … both parties are agreed on the terms of the proposed order".
If that is a special circumstance, the court might find it very difficult to refuse to have the order made effective before the divorce or separation, if it had been agreed, whereas if the court can make it have this early effect only if it is just and reasonable to do so, even if the parties are agreed, it might not think that it was wise to do so in all the circumstances.
As regards the first six months, my proposal does not give effect to that. One of my most important points is that consideration of what will be the future terms on which the parties' property will be held can be a most important factor in deciding them to go back and try to make a go of the marriage. Therefore, while to have a

135
sort of frozen period at the beginning has some attraction, I do not believe that that is in the ultimate interest of reconciliation in some cases. The truth is that some parties, when they get to this stage, are so much at loggerheads that there is really no prospect of them talking about anything which has to do with their present situation, but they might have to talk about the future and, in doing that, they might well come to talk again about their present relationship.
That is the effect of the amendments that I propose. The six months would not be sacrosanct. It would not be possible to have orders, apart from the interim orders, taking effect before the divorce or separation order was pronounced, except where it was just and reasonable to do so.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly thank the noble and learned Lord for the very full and speedy way in which both he and the advisory group have responded to these amendments, and particularly to the amendments which, motivated by the Family Law Bar Association, I moved at Committee stage. I believe that I scored two out of three, which is not bad. As regards the amendments of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I am not sure why it is that nullity proceedings are somehow discriminated against in connection with interim lump sum orders. I do not seek to explore that point at this late hour.
The only other matter I wish to comment on and welcome is the noble and learned Lord's indication about interest payments on lump sums. It seems appropriate to preserve the discretion of the court to set a rate. The disadvantage of linking interest to bank rate, for example, is that one might find oneself in the position whereby it was cheaper for the paying party to withhold payment of the lump sum than to borrow the necessary money at the usually friendly rate charged by banks, which is several percentage points above bank rate.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord for his summary and also for the letter he sent me today with advice from his advisory group. I shall certainly look at that with my legal advisers too before Third Reading. Before I sit down, I should like to accept the apology of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I believe that she was probably encouraged to make that slight error by the extraordinary reaction of another party in the House. I hope that that particular party will be noble enough to deliver the same form of apology.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I can probably speak for the whole House in saying how grateful we are that my noble and learned friend did take the trouble to put these matters to his advisory group and explain its advice to us in dense but, I believe, very important prose. There is a lot that he said that needs to be carefully considered.
As regards the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Young and myself, I feel sure that we shall want to consider carefully whether "reasonable and just"
136
is a better way of expressing the matter than "in all the circumstances" or whatever the existing phrase is. Certainly, what my noble and learned friend said seemed to be correct.
On the question of proceedings in the first six months of the period, I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble and learned friend's idea that that is a frozen period. It is a period in which the parties can attempt reconciliation or mediation or attempt to reach agreement in some other way secure in the knowledge that if they do not reach agreement, if the mediation seems to be failing and if either party wishes to go to court, he or she may do so at the end of the period and get a court-ordered provision made. My noble friend Lady Young and I will want to reconsider this matter with a view to returning to it on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 118.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 118A to 118C:
Page 41, line 19, after ("make") insert (", in favour of the same Party,").
Page 41, line 20, leave out ("in favour of the same party") and insert ("in relation to any marital proceedings, whether in the course of the proceedings or by reference to a divorce order or separation order made in the proceedings.").
Page 41, line 24, after ("order,") insert ("an interim order for the payment of a lump sum").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118D not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 118E to 118L:
Page 41, leave out lines 26 to 35.
Page 41, line 42, leave out ("subsections (5) to") and insert ("subsection").
Page 41, line 49, after ("section") insert ("("the main order")").
Page 42, line 3, leave out ("order that") and insert (", on or at any time after making the main order, make an order ("the order for interest") for").
Page 42, line 4, leave out ("are").
Page 42, line 5, after ("order") insert ("for interest)").
Page 42, line 6, after second ("the") insert ("main").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 120A to 122A:
Page 42, line 11, at beginning insert—
("( ) No financial provision order, other than an interim order, may be made under section 22A above so as to take effect before the making of a divorce order or separation order in relation to the marriage, unless the court is satisfied that that would be just and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.").
Page 42, line 13, leave out from ("time") to ("the") in line 14 and insert ("while").
Page 42, line 15, at end insert ("is interrupted under subsection (6) of that section.").
Page 42, line 35, after ("may") insert (", on an application made under this section,").

137
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 122B and 122C not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 125F:
Page 43, line 37, leave out from ("by") to ("above") in line 38 and insert ("subsection (3)").
Page 43, line 41, leave out ("paragraph may") and insert ("subsection").
Page 43, leave out lines 44 to 46 and insert ("shall").
Page 44, line 5, after ("section") insert ("("the main order")").
Page 44, line 12, leave out ("order that") and insert (", on or at any time after making the main order, make an order ("the order for interest") for").
Page 44, line 12, leave out ("is").
Page 44, line 12, leave out ("are").
Page 44, line 13, after ("order") insert ("for interest").
Page 44, line 14, after second ("the") insert ("main").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 126A to 128:
Page 44, line 23, after ("makes") insert (", in favour of the same party to the marriage,").
Page 44, line 23, leave out ("in favour of the same party to the marriage") and insert ("in relation to any marital proceedings, whether in the course of the proceedings or by reference to a divorce order or separation order made in the proceedings,").
Page 44, line 24, leave out ("of those orders") and insert ("order"). Page 44, leave out lines 34 to 42 and insert—
("(1) No property adjustment order may be made under section 23A above so as to take effect before the making of a divorce order or separation order in relation to the marriage unless the court is satisfied that that would be just and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.").
Page 44, line 44, leave out from ("time") to ("the") in line 45 and insert ("while").
Page 44, line 46, at end insert ("is interrupted under subsection (6) of that section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 45, line 17, after ("may") insert (", on an application made under this section,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that I have spoken to this amendment in connection with the others. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 129AA:
Page 45, line 33, at end insert—
(". For section 25, substitute—
"Division of matrimonial property.
(1) The principles which the court shall apply in deciding what, if any, order to make under any of sections 22A to 24 above, are that—

(a) the net value of matrimonial property should be shared fairly between the parties to the marriage;

138

(b) fair account should be taken of any economic advantage derived by either party from contributions by the other, and of any economic disadvantage suffered by either party in the interests of the other party or of the family;

(c) any economic burden of caring, after the marriage breakdown, for a child of the marriage under the age of 16 years should be shared fairly between the parties;

(d) a party who has been dependent to a substantial degree on the financial support of the other party should be awarded such financial provision as is reasonable to enable him to adjust over a period of time to the loss of that support after the marriage is dissolved or annulled;

(e) a party who seems likely to suffer serious financial hardship as a result of the marriage breakdown should be awarded such financial provision as is reasonable to relieve him of hardship over a reasonable period.

(2) In subsection (1)(b) above—
"economic advantage" means advantage gained whether before or during the marriage and includes gains in capital, in income and in earning capacity, and `economic disadvantage' shall be construed accordingly;
"contributions" means contributions made whether before or during the marriage and includes indirect and non-financial contributions and in particular any such contribution made by looking after the family home or caring for the family.
(3) In applying the principles set out in subsection (1)(a) above, the net value of the matrimonial property shall be taken to be shared fairly between the parties to the marriage when it is shared equally or in such other proportions as are justified by special circumstances.
(4) The net value of the matrimonial property shall be the value of the property at the time the court deals with the matter in exercise of its powers under this Part save that any appreciation or depreciation in value since the parties' separation which is primarily attributable to the acts of the party may be disregarded.
(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, in this Part 'matrimonial property' means all the property belonging to the parties or either of them which was acquired by them (otherwise than by way of gift or inheritance from a third party)—

(a) during the marriage: or

(b) before the marriage for use by them as a family home or as furniture and effects for such home.

(6) The proportion of any rights or interests of either party under a life policy or pension scheme or similar arrangement referable to the period beginning with the marriage and ending with the date of the parties' final separation shall be taken to form part of the matrimonial property subject to any discounts which the court thinks fit to apply (for example, in the case of an unfunded pension scheme, for the chance of receiving less than the quoted benefits).
(7) In subsection (3) above "special circumstances", without prejudice to the generality of the words, may include—

(a) the terms of any agreement between the parties on the ownership or division of any of the matrimonial property or maintenance;

(b) the source of funds or assets used to acquire any of the matrimonial property where those funds or assets were not derived from the income or efforts of the parties during the marriage;

(c) any destruction, dissipation or alienation of property by either party;

(d) the nature of the matrimonial property, the use made of it (including use for business purposes or as matrimonial home) and the extent to which it is reasonable to expect it to be realised or divided or used as security;

(e) the actual or prospective liability for any expenses of valuation or transfer of property in connection with the proceedings.".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment introduces a completely different issue from those with which my noble and learned friend and my noble friend Lord Coleraine have been dealing and I think that it is far too late to embark on big situations, so I do not intend to move the amendment. I shall return to it on Third Reading.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, it might be useful for us to have some discussion of these matters. The time is not particularly long but there may be an opportunity for some discussion between now and Third Reading which might be of assistance.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for that. I shall be more than happy to talk to him as, I am sure, will my noble friends. As he will know far better than I, this proposal is taken from Scottish legislation and I believe that it works well in Scotland. In seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, I thank my noble and learned friend for offering a talk on the matter.
Lord Meston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she is obviously right that this is an important amendment. It raises important topics which rightly should not be discussed at this hour. However, if the result of any discussions between now and Third Reading is that further amendments could be brought forward, I wonder whether that could be done as soon as possible before Third Reading because I know that practitioners are particularly concerned about this amendment and how it, or any variant of it, might work in practice. I hope that if there are to be discussions the outcome is known to all concerned as soon as possible.
[Amendment No. 129AA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 129AB not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 129B:
Page 45, line 37, leave out ("where an order is made under section 22A above,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Stay of Proceedings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 47, line 32, leave out ("to be treated as").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects an error in the definition of divorce proceedings in Schedule 3 to the Bill which deals with a stay of proceedings. The definition provides that divorce proceedings or marital proceedings are to be treated as divorce proceedings by virtue of this Bill. The Bill states that marital proceedings are divorce proceedings in certain circumstances and are not merely to be treated as such, and the definition in Schedule 3 therefore needs to be amended to reflect this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Amendments of Children Act 1989]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 57, line 51, at end insert—
("4A. In section 105(1) of the Children Act 1989 (interpretation), after the definition of "domestic premises", insert—
"dwelling-house" includes—

(a) any building or part of a building which is occupied as a dwelling;

(b) any caravan, house-boat or structure which is occupied as a dwelling;

and any yard, garden, garage or outhouse belonging to it and occupied with it;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this with Amendment No. 112B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 62, line 34, after ("under") insert ("Part I of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in connection with this amendment I speak also to a number of later amendments. The effect of these amendments is to make some small drafting corrections to Schedule 8 in the light of our consideration following Committee stage. Amendment No. 131 is pure drafting. Perhaps I should speak to Amendment No. 132 separately.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 63, line 18, leave out ("months") and insert ("weeks").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments reduce the length of the statutory period between a decree nisi and decree absolute in nullity proceedings, and proceedings for presumption of death and dissolution of marriage from six months to six weeks. This brings the legislation into line with current practice as the period has actually been fixed at six weeks since 1972. The power of the High Court to reduce the period by order remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, requested on the last occasion. I had rather inclined to take it away, but it is now left as the noble Lord requested. Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 are both designed to deal with this.
On Question,amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 143:
Page 63, line 50, leave out ("months") and insert ("weeks").
Page 64, line 26, after ("order") insert ("or an interim order for the payment of a lump sum").
Page 64, line 42, at end insert ("or an interim order for the payment of a lump sum)"").
Page 65, line 31, leave out ("and").
Page 65, line 33, at end insert ("and
( ) an application for a divorce order or a petition for a decree of nullity of marriage is outstanding or has been granted in relation to the marriage,".").

141
Page 66, line 9, leave out ("sections 23A or 24 of a type of order") and insert ("section 23A of a kind").
Page 66, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4)—

(a) for the words from "for a settlement" to "24(1)(c) or (d)", substitute "referred to in subsection (2)(e)"; and

(b) for paragraphs (a)and(b) substitute "on an application for a divorce order in relation to the marriage";").

Page 66, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) No variation—

(a) of a financial provision order made under section 22A above, other than an interim order, or

(b) of a property adjustment order made under section 23A above,

shall be made so as to take effect before the making of a divorce order or separation order in relation to the marriage, unless the court is satisfied that that would be just and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.".").
Page 66, line 13, after ("beginning,") insert (""Subject to subsections (7A) to (7F) below and").
Page 66, line 14, after ("(2)(d)") insert (",(dd)").
Page 66, line 19, at end insert ("and
( ) after "sufficient" insert "(in the light of any proposed exercise by the court, where the marriage has been dissolved, of its powers under subsection (7B) below)".
( ) After subsection (7), insert—
("(7A) Subsection (7B) below applies where, after the dissolution of a marriage, the court—

(a) discharges a periodical payments order or secured periodical payments order made in favour of a party to the marriage, or

(b) varies such an order so that payments under the order are required to be made or secured only for such further period as is determined by the court.

(7B) The court has power, in addition to any power it has apart from this subsection, to make supplemental provision consisting of any of—

(a) an order for the payment of a lump sum in favour of a party to the marriage;

(b) one or more property adjustment orders in favour of a party to the marriage;

(c) a direction that the party in whose favour the original order discharged or varied was made is not entitled to make any further application for—

(i) a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order, or

(ii) an extension of the period to which the original order is limited by any variation made by the court.

(7C) An order for the payment of a lump sum made under subsection (7B) above may—

(a) provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order; and

(b) require the payment of the instalments to be secured to the satisfaction of the court.

(7D) Subsections (9) and (10) of section 22A above apply where the court makes an order for the payment of a lump sum under subsection (7B) above as they apply where it makes such an order under section 22A above.
(7E) If under subsection (7B) above the court makes more than one property adjustment order in favour of the same party to the marriage, each of those orders must fall within a different paragraph of section 21(2) above.
142
(7F) Sections 24A and 30 above apply where the court makes a property adjustment order under subsection (7B) above as they apply where it makes such an order under section 23A above.").
Page 66, leave out lines 30 to 33.
Page 66, line 35, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert ("subsections (6) and (7)").
Page 67, line 1, leave out ("In").
Page 67, line 2, leave out from ("children)") to ("subsection") in line 3 and insert ("is amended as follows.
(2) In").
Page 67, line 4, leave out from second ("order"") to ("subsection") in line 5 and insert—
("(3) In").
Page 67, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) In considering whether the circumstances are as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the court shall have particular regard, on the evidence before it, to—

(a) the conduct of the parties in relation to the upbringing of the child;

(b) the general principle that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the welfare of the child will be best served by his having regular contact with those who have parental responsibility for him; and

(c) any risk to the child attributable to—

(i) where the person with whom the child will reside is living or proposes to live; or

(ii) any person with whom that person is living or with whom he proposes to live.").

Page 67, line 20, leave out (""education"") and insert (""maintenance assessment"").
Page 67, line 27, at end insert ("; and
(ii) in the case of a financial provision order or order for the payment of a lump sum, as including (except where the context otherwise requires) references to an interim order for the payment of a lump sum under section 22A above."").
Page 67, line 32, leave out ("the").
Page 69, line 17, leave out ("' of the orders"") and insert (""any" where it first occurs").
Page 69, line 17, after ("substitute") insert (""one or more").
Page 69, line 18, leave out ("Matrimonial Causes Act 1973") and insert ("1973 Act").
Page 69, line 30, leave out ("Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973") and insert ("1973 Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 133 with Amendment No. 132. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 133 to 133K with Amendment No. 118. Amendment No. 133M was spoken to with Amendment No. 118. Amendment Nos. 134 to 137 have been spoken to with Amendment No. 88. Amendments Nos. 138 and 138A have already been spoken to with Amendments Nos. 131 and 118. Amendments Nos. 139 to 143 have been spoken to with Amendment No. 131. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 132 to 143 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 143A:
Page 72, line 3, at end insert—
("The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1)
In section 282 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 there is inserted at the end of paragraph (b) "provided that the

143
separation shall not be regarded as likely to be permanent during the period of reflection and consideration provided by section 6 of the Family Law Act 1996.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I cannot be as swift as the noble and learned Lord but I shall be as swift as I can. At present a husband and wife can take advantage of the exemption for capital gains tax purposes only during the fiscal year in which they separate. That is the result of the definition in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 which in turn refers to Section 282 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. That section provides:
"A married woman shall be treated for income tax purposes"—
as I said, that is transferred to capital gains tax purposes—
"as living with her husband unless they are separated under an order of a court…or by deed or separation or"—
and this is the relevant provision—
"they are in fact separated in such circumstances that the separation is likely to be permanent".
Given the Bill's objectives, it has been drawn to my attention that there may be a problem in that the period for reflection and consideration will not work in conjunction with tax considerations in the way in which the Bill is aimed.
If the parties are living separately but reflecting and considering, it would be sad if tax considerations forced them to make over-hasty arrangements for tax saving purposes or to make transfers of property at a time when they should be reflecting upon whether the marriage has broken down.
I understand that this is very much a matter of Inland Revenue practice rather than legislation. I move the amendment to provide that the period of separation shall not be regarded as likely to be permanent during the period of reflection and consideration as a probing amendment in the hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to assist on the general point. I have realised that somewhere between my attempts to get my brain around the issue, providing a draft and it appearing on the Marshalled List it appears to have extended to income tax as well as capital gains tax. That was not what I intended. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment seeks to extend the married couples' allowance to couples who have separated during the period of reflection and consideration. The married couple's allowance is a tax allowance which goes to married couples who are living together. Broadly, in order to qualify for the allowance for a particular tax year a husband must be "living with his wife" (defined in Section 282 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act). Couples who are separated by court order, or who are separated,
"in such circumstances that the separation is likely to be permanent"—
a question of fact—do not qualify. Once a couple fail the "living together" test, the allowance continues until the end of that tax year but then ceases. If they are subsequently reconciled and live together again, they can make a fresh claim.
144
I can see that if the couple have not separated during the period of reflection and consideration they will in all probability be entitled to the allowance. But it would not be right to make it automatically so, because we might have a couple who had been living apart for three or four years and who then decided to start divorce proceedings. It would not be right then artificially to say that they should receive the MCA as if they were living together.
The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that married couples who are in a period of "reflection and consideration" would continue to be entitled to the allowance, even if they fail the "living together" test. So physically separated couples (where one partner had left the matrimonial home) would be able to claim the allowance during that time.
One can see that there could be complexities about this as a general rule. The Bill seems to me to be an inappropriate place in which to change the tax allowance. If it were merely a matter of revenue practice, one might make something of it. To treat couples who have actually separated as if they were living together is contrary to the policy of encouraging couples to focus upon the financial consequences of divorce before they take the step of becoming divorced.
I do not believe that this is an appropriate amendment. Perhaps in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness will consider whether she wishes to persevere with it. I shall be willing to draw the matter to the attention of the revenue authorities for their further consideration because I am sure that they would wish to promote the policy of the Bill so far as they can. Obviously, I cannot guarantee success if that is what the noble Baroness, in consideration of the matter, would like me to do. Perhaps in the light of my explanation she will give me a note to say what she proposes in this connection in the future.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that explanation is extremely helpful. I understand that the Revenue interprets the section differently with regard to different taxes. I shall provide the noble and learned Lord with a note and I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 73, line 6, after ("6(2)(a)") insert ("and (3)(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Modifications, Saving and Transitional]:
[Amendment No. 146 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 146A and 146B:
Page 78, line 2, leave out ("4") and insert ("3A").
Page 78, line 12, at end insert—
("3A.—(1) Section 31 of the 1973 Act has effect as amended by this Act in relation to any order under Part II of the 1973 Act made after the coming into force of the amendments.

145
(2) Subsections (7) to (7F) of that section also have effect as amended by this Act in relation to any order made before the coming into force of the amendments.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 147 to 149:
Page 79, line 42, at end insert—

("1968 c. 63.

The Domestic and Appellate Proceedings

Section 2(1)(b).")

(Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968.
Page 80, line 14, column 3, at end insert ("in the first place where those words occur").
Page 81, line 7, at end insert—

1982 c. 53.

The Administration of Justice Act 1982.

Section 16.

Page 80, line 23, column 3, leave out ("and subsection (4)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before one o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Monday, 4th March 1996.
The Committee met in the Moses Room at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. But the House has agreed there shall be no Divisions in this Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
On Question, Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Constitution, functions and membership of Deer Commission for Scotland]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("welfare,").
The noble Lord said: I shall start by declaring the two interests which I declared at Second Reading and in the Select Committee in Edinburgh in that I own a deer forest and that I sit on the Stalking Committee of the British Field Sports Society. Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 19 and 85, to which I shall also speak. Amendment No. 1 would require the new deer commission to further the welfare of deer, as well as their conservation, control and sustainable management, which are already mentioned in Clause 1 as being statutory functions of the new commission. So it would add the deer's welfare to the commission's responsibilities.
I shall not weary the Committee with a repetition of my Second Reading speech, but nearly all of the 50 or so amendments to which I and some other noble Lords have put our names have been tabled with the welfare of deer in mind. I mention this because there is the outside chance that there may be some people outside this House, and perhaps even one or two Members of the Committee, who might make the mistake of thinking that some of our amendments have been tabled more with the welfare of deer forest owners in mind than that of the deer, or indeed of the natural heritage.
To put this fear into perspective let me say at once, as I indicated at Second Reading, that there are certainly a number of deer forests which have not shot enough deer in the past, and some which are not doing so today. This Bill comes at a time when that situation has been improving rapidly in recent years, thanks largely to the setting up of our deer management groups guided by the Association of Deer Management Groups which now speaks for over 90 per cent. of the Highland land mass, and thanks also to the new collaboration which exists between the groups and the Red Deer Commission. That collaboration is underlined and supported by the new harmony which has broken out with Scottish Natural Heritage—it is a harmony which owes not a little to the amendments passed in this House in 1991 when SNH was set up.
I would just remind any Members of the Committee who might think that some of our amendments are slanted too much in favour of land owners that that was precisely the charge made against our amendments in 1991, and yet those amendments are now generally regarded as having proved beneficial to the natural heritage, the land owner, and the wider interests alike. I trust that they may serve as something of a track record for the work which lies ahead of us on this Bill.
I regret that our new Select Committee procedure in Scotland did not include making perhaps the briefest of reports about those matters on which the committee was in broad agreement. That would have been helpful to this stage, and to subsequent stages, of the Bill. Be that as it may, if there was one matter about which there was such broad agreement, I should have thought it would be that the new commission should have the duty of looking after the welfare of deer. As I recall it, all our witnesses agreed with that. Indeed, even my noble friend the Minister said that the Government:
"see the welfare of deer as being unavoidably central to their control, their conservation and their sustainable management."
I am sure that we all agree with that, but it leads many of us to go on and say that the word "welfare" should therefore be on the face of the Bill.
In Amendment No. 85 I have attempted a definition of the word "welfare" in that context, and I should like to quote it for the record:
""welfare" includes the concept that deer are living within the capacity of their normal range,"
at the time of year in question,
"which should support them in a healthy condition and that management to achieve this requires the removal, by taking or killing, of old and unhealthy animals or for the purposes of reducing the herd to a number which does not exceed the capacity of their normal range, by means which do not cause unnecessary suffering."
When the amendment suggests that deer should be living
"within the capacity of their normal range",
that implies that they should not be so numerous as to be damaging the natural heritage interest. The definition may not be ideal—I suspect it is not—and no doubt it can be changed, but I trust that your Lordships can see that it is put forward in good faith.
I have to confess that I was a little worried when my noble friend the Minister implied that it is not necessary to have the word "welfare" itself on the face of the Bill,

CWH 3
but that it is somehow presumed to be included in the words, "conservation" or "control" or "sustainable management". It is not. Each one of those expressions could disguise considerable unnecessary cruelty to our wild deer, and that is what this amendment is aimed at preventing.
Finally, there are a few dark—if rather silly—rumours being put about by those who do not wish to see the word "welfare" on the face of the Bill. On the one hand, those of us who represent the sporting interest in deer are being told that having "welfare" on the face of the Bill might come to mean that we could not shoot them. We are told that that may be especially true when contraceptive schemes have reached a stage of perfection, which is well over the distant horizon at the moment. On the other hand, it is being suggested that the welfare of deer is incompatible with the drastic reduction in numbers which is sought in certain quarters.
Both those suggestions seem irrelevant to me, especially when set against what is to me an imperative with this Bill; that is, that whatever carrying capacity may eventually be decided for our deer range, our largest wild mammal should not be subjected to unnecessary suffering when its numbers are reduced. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I wish to support the amendment moved by my noble friend, but before I do so perhaps I can make two points. The first is to declare an interest. I am the tenant of a deer forest in Scotland on the Isle of Jura. The second point I should like to make is that I spent many hours reading the evidence of the Scottish Select Committee, which showed what a good job the committee did. However, one point about the committee rather alarmed me; that is, that it consisted only of Scottish Peers.
It may be said that that is a thoroughly sensible thing to do, but it rather concerns me. It seems to me that we are rather different from another place. We are not like the Commons in that we do not represent any area or constituency. Our writ of summons does not say that we come from a certain county that we must necessarily represent. We represent the whole of this country and therefore, in spite of the fact that, as a so-called English Peer, I am a member of the Scottish Peers' Association, because I was not a Scottish Peer as such, I was excluded from being on that Select Committee. There were probably other very good reasons for excluding me, but I hope it was not because I am English.
The point I should like to make is that we must not fall into the trap of having only Scottish Peers on Scottish Bills, any more than we should have only Welsh Peers on Welsh Bills or indeed English Peers on English Bills. It would be a great pity if all Scottish Peers were excluded from sitting on English Select Committees. Having made that plea to those who are in charge of those matters, perhaps I can come back to the amendment before us.
I believe that the word "welfare" is very important. It sums up everything on which those of us who care about deer in Scotland want to concentrate; that is, the welfare
CWH 4
of deer. When the SNH was set up by an Act a few years ago, it made it entirely clear that its remit was to look after the heritage—the flora, the fauna and such things. We should be clear that the deer commission is there to look after the welfare of deer. It follows that the welfare of deer includes their management and everything that falls under that heading. It is a good word on which to hang all that we care about whether it is shooting, conservation or marauding. Welfare must be paramount in our minds. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I very much support the amendment. The term "conservation" which appears in the Bill in subsection (1)(a) occurs also, of course, in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. However, it does not go far enough in trying to indicate how deer are to be protected as well as dealt with in ways that the Bill describes in the light of the changes introduced by that Act. It seems to me that a real weakness exists here. The welfare of deer, however the term is used, is extremely important. I had thought that the husbandry of deer would be appropriate, but that is difficult to imagine with what is not a domestic animal. I support very much the tenor of the amendment. It would give a great deal of confidence to all concerned if somehow the concept of welfare could be brought into the Bill.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I start by declaring an interest. I am the owner of an estate in Scotland and I believe that there are 12 roe deer on it. I have not seen them but my forester tells me they are there. I support the inclusion of the word "welfare" on the face of the Bill.
I come back to the challenge over whether this is an issue for Scots Peers or anyone else. I was very heartened by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, at col. 828 on Second Reading when he said:
"I am sure that noble Lords understand that the specific nature of deer issues affecting us in Scotland differ sometimes considerably from those elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that therefore a specific Scottish approach to deer is required".
I liked that very much, and I am very pleased to read it.
In Scotland, we are a fairly dour bunch on occasion, not saying too much when we do not need to do so. However, I believe that the addition of a meaningful word such as "welfare" would be very useful and would clarify the issue for all time. I hope that the Minister will agree not to leave it implicit.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should declare an interest. A family trust owns a deer forest, but I do not have a beneficial interest in the trust. The real point is that although it has been suggested that sustainable management includes welfare some of us are not entirely convinced.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It is difficult to oppose the idea proposed by the amendment if one is concerned about the welfare of deer. But there is a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, put me in a dilemma when he talked about the capacity of the environment. Who decides what the capacity of the environment is? The shooters may have quite a different

CWH 5
idea from those who are rearing deer for slaughter for venison. It is a very difficult issue. The other point concerned the question of whether husbandry is perhaps a better word, but, again, you enter into a difficulty. The whole question of deer capacity and why certain deer are encouraged for their big antlers or for good venison meat is a closed circle. This is a very difficult one.
On the other hand, I understand that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill either has had or is about to have Royal Assent and since we are concerned to some extent with the whole question of animal welfare—at least I hope we are—it would be very difficult not to accept the amendment, although we have a great deal more work to do in deciding what capacity a deer forest or a deer area can hold. I do believe it means different things to different people. However, by and large I will give my support to the inclusion of welfare.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I would very much like to support this amendment and while doing it, I would like to point out that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that it should not only be Scottish Peers who take part in this Bill. He said he was not a Scottish Peer! I am neither Scottish, Welsh nor English because I was not born in this country, so I am a British Peer, and I would like to take part on that basis.
At Second Reading I spent some time on the importance of introducing the word "welfare" and although I am a British Life Peer I do have an estate in Scotland and I do have a deer forest. It is at the heart of every person who is involved in Scotland to have a feeling for the welfare of the deer on their land. I would therefore very much like to support the amendment.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may briefly advise the noble Baroness since she was kind enough to mention that she is a British Peer—indeed so are we all. The point I was making was that it was not this Committee, because this is a Committee of the Whole House, but the Scottish Select Committee which sat in Scotland.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I was not part of that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): Very little separates us here. Everything that those who have spoken want, I also want. The difference between us, which I hope is a very small one, is how we go about achieving that and how we do so without risking other consequences. I would just say to my noble friend Lord Astor that the membership of the committee was agreed by the House on a Motion from the Committee of Selection. The best thing I can do is to pass on to that committee what my noble friend has said so that it can bear in mind the points made. In fact, I entirely agree with him. The whole strength of the House is in the fact that we have a very wide range of wisdom and expertise. My noble friend's expertise in Scottish deer is well known. I will make sure that the message gets through.
The original proposals from the Red Deer Commission contained the suggestion that its general functions should be widened to include "welfare" as well as "sustainable management". However, in drawing
CWH 6
up the Bill we had it clearly in mind that, though the Red Deer Commission takes an interest in aspects of deer welfare, we do not wish to impose a primary duty on the commission to further the welfare of deer, which are, after all, wild animals. That might in certain circumstances conflict with legitimate pursuits concerned with the control of deer numbers, such as the sporting interest in deer.
In fact, welfare is acknowledged in certain provisions in the 1959 Act; for instance, in the close season and anti-poaching provisions and restrictions on the methods of killing deer, including the commission's published code on night shooting. Welfare is also an integral part of sustainable management. The concept that deer should live in balance with their habitats needs to be pursued as much for the long-term welfare of the deer themselves as for environmental considerations. Under the Act as it stands, therefore, the commission takes account of the welfare of the deer in exercising its specific functions.
I return to the assertion that I made both at Second Reading and in Edinburgh that welfare is implicit both within the 1959 Act and the Bill, and that the welfare considerations in the Bill have been strengthened in comparison with the 1959 Act. For instance, we are taking action on night shooting, which strengthens the welfare provisions which attach to deer in that respect.
I also disagree with my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that sustainable management, and indeed conservation, must include an element of welfare. There is no way that cruel practices could fall within the definition of sustainable management or of conservation.
The question of whether welfare should appear on the face of the Bill in a more general way was raised at various stages. As a result, I asked my officials to look at that question again to see if it is possible to incorporate the term in a general way in the Bill. However, I am advised, principally on legal grounds, not to include the term in that way, given that the Act already makes sufficient provision, wherever appropriate, for deer welfare.
The legislation is based on the proposition that deer, as wild animals, may live where and as they please, except where they are in conflict with other legitimate land uses. Where action has to be taken against deer, the legislation ensures that such action will be humane. The welfare content of the legislation is therefore already implicit and appropriate for the purpose for which the legislation was intended.
There are quite powerful legal arguments against the inclusion of the term: first, both Parliament and the courts would expect that changes to the wording of the Act signal a material change to the way things are done. It should not therefore be done for purely presentational reasons. Secondly, the inclusion of deer welfare as a general function of the commission under the revised Section 1(1) of the 1959 Act, as set out in Amendment No. 1, could be interpreted as imposing a primary duty of care on the commission to promote the welfare of deer. That may all too easily conflict with the legitimate

CWH 7
pursuit of control of deer numbers for whatever reason and, as I said, it could also conflict with sporting practices.
Thirdly, if welfare were introduced into the commission's balancing duty (under the proposed Section 1(1A)), it could signal an intended shift in the balance between "human interests" and those of the deer. Finally, we have to be sure that the term "welfare" could not be interpreted so as to prevent the commission properly carrying out its statutory functions in relation to control of deer which are threatening the land use and other interests which the legislation aims to protect.
While I sympathise with the wishes of those who asked that deer welfare be included on the face of the Bill, and I will give the matter further consideration, I must at the moment caution against such an approach because of the warnings I received from parliamentary draftsmen and other legal experts. I believe that there may well be other methods of control that, within a period of eight to 10 years, could become realistic and practical. I have been looking recently into the different methods of control which should become possible for grey squirrels, for instance, and for grey seals. In both those areas of work, it is felt that contraceptive control may be only eight years away. It may not be unrealistic, therefore, to assume that alternative approaches to rifle shooting will be available for controlling deer within 10 years. If welfare is in any way interpreted as the avoidance of pain, there might be an insistence that rifle shooting is replaced by other methods of control.
I should like to add one brief comment on the definition of welfare suggested by the noble Lord in Clause 85, where he suggests that it would involve the taking or killing of old or unhealthy animals. I am well aware that on many stalking estates a high priority is also placed on taking animals which may be young and healthy but which may be called "switches" as I know them—they have single spiked antlers which can cause considerable damage during the rut. Any attempt to define welfare could lead to problems at a later stage. I am also aware that some environmental and animal conservation groups are not convinced that, if you are properly managing any number of animals, you should necessarily only take the old and the unhealthy. It may be necessary to take a wide spectrum across a certain colony of animals for very sound conservation reasons.
I am determined that welfare is essential to the Bill. I am determined that the way in which we handle Clause 1 and the duties imposed in terms of conservation, control and sustainable management and the way we handle other areas of the Bill such as night shooting have welfare at their heart. I am determined that we deliver what all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment want. At the moment, while officials continue to look at the request that we try to put welfare as a general provision on to the face of the Bill, I counsel caution. There are too many dangers if we draft welfare incorrectly. It is a high risk strategy. Much is to be gained by ensuring that the detail of the Bill implies or denotes welfare, but we can lose a great deal if we get the general definition wrong.
CWH 8
One of the primary definitions of welfare which may come to the fore in later years could be the right to life. That could have unfortunate consequences on traditional methods of deer control. The central point, however, is that I want the Bill to achieve everything that those who support the amendment want the Bill to achieve, but my concern is how we achieve it on the face of the Bill. I do not want the Bill to become bad legislation through bad drafting.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, every one of whom has supported the amendment with the unfortunate exception of my noble friend the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about the definition of the carrying capacity of a deer range as regards the national heritage or whatever other management objective there might be. He asked who decides—and that is a very good question. The intention of the Bill is that it should be predominantly the new deer commission which would decide that, no doubt taking advice from Scottish Natural Heritage and in collaboration with the deer forest or the deer management group concerned. It is absolutely clear that the new commission will be the lead body. It may be that in a certain part of Scotland there will be a requirement to regenerate a lot of trees and everyone will agree with that and it will happen, and in another part of Scotland it may be different. I agree that I cannot answer the question and I agree that the amendment is not perfectly worded. That goes some way towards answering the noble Lord's question.
When we come to the comments of my noble friend the Minister—and I am grateful for the ray of pallid light that he threw out that he might be able to look at this matter again—I cannot accept that "welfare" is necessarily part of sustainable management or "conservation". I would have to point out that the definition of those two expressions is not to be found in Clause 9 of the Bill. Perhaps it would be helpful if we could make sure that the expression "conservation" were to be found in Clause 9 and that it included the concept of welfare. I feel that the word "conservation" is likely to lend itself to welfare more than "sustainable management", which may mean an awful lot of different things to different people. Whatever else one can say about the red deer in the Highlands of Scotland at the moment, they are certainly sustainable—perhaps too sustainable.
My noble friend says that welfare aspects have been strengthened in the Bill. We will come to some of those later. I am grateful to notice that the Government have tabled an amendment insisting that there will at least be a close season for female deer. My noble friend says that the commission will take account of this matter. If that is so, why should it not be on the face of the Bill? My noble friend also says that the legislation ensures—or will ensure; I am not quite sure what he said—that heavy culling, were it to be necessary, would be humane.
I have to point out to my noble friend, as we discussed in Edinburgh, that even the guidelines of the Red Deer Commission allow for animals to be shot at considerable distance, sometimes moving, and there is

CWH 9
quite a paragraph in there about polishing off orphaned calves. This is not a scenario that encourages one to think that we are necessarily looking at the humane killing of wild animals, so I have to put a straight question to my noble friend. Even including the sporting interest in deer, can he envisage deer management including the use of helicopters to drive wild deer into corrals, of whatever size, for effective slaughter? If he can then I personally object to it, and I would not find that a practice which goes with the welfare of deer.
As to contraception—this eventually leading to shooting being banned—that seems to me such a long way off that if it does happen I have no doubt that shooting may be banned anyway. We need not look so far into the future with this Bill that we have to go down paths of that kind.
My noble friend then went on to mention herd management, saying that the amendment talks of the removing of old and unhealthy animals. I am happy to say that it also says,
"for the purposes of reducing the herd to a number which does not exceed the capacity of their normal range".
I would agree with my noble friend when he mentions a "switch", a switch being a stag which has no points on its horns. If you have a number of switches it is a sure sign that there are too many deer for the carrying capacity in question.
For the purposes of reducing the deer herd, which we all accept, I cannot see why this word should not be on the face of the Bill. The contraceptive argument is a red herring and I suspect that if welfare does come to mean the right to life and shooting is banned, it will do very much more harm to the deer than the good which it may be intended to do.
4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Before my noble friend, if he is going to do so, withdraws the amendment, I wonder if I may press my noble friend Lord Lindsay a little further. He seemed to indicate that, while he accepted the concept, there were serious difficulties about the legal position. He also said that the Deer Commission for Scotland will take account of it anyway, and that it could conflict with the control of deer numbers. He also indicated that he would try to find a form of words which would somehow match the concerns which have been expressed. Can he elaborate a little more and give some indication—because presumably it has been thought about—of what terms it might be possible to develop?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend replies, will he also address the question I put to him? Does he envisage that the Bill as drafted would allow the use of helicopters to drive wild deer into corrals for effective slaughter? I know we come to it in later amendments regarding vehicles but we ought to start talking about this issue under the heading of welfare.
The Earl of Lindsay: Regarding the point raised by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, I can say that I have instructed officials to find a form of words which reflects the wishes of many Members at Second
CWH 10
Reading, the evidence taken at the Select Committee and what is said in the Committee today. When we were preparing for today, there was no form of words which parliamentary draftsmen felt were safe to put forward. But the instruction to his officials from the Minister, who wants to achieve what everyone here wants to achieve, is that we should try to find that form of words. However, I must warn Members of the Committee that the form of words may carry some degree of risk. I hope that brings some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked about helicopters. Helicopters could be used only with the specific authorisation of the deer commission and in compliance with the code of practice which will be drawn up by the deer commission. Welfare will be a central plank of that code of practice. So welfare could not be excluded or ignored in the use of helicopters.
I would just add for the enlightenment of the Committee that the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 already provides a higher degree of protection for the welfare of deer than the new Wild Mammals (Protection) Act, which has just come into law. I am drawing a comparison here between the 1959 Act and the latest 1996 Act. When the new Bill hopefully passes into legislation, with its increased welfare elements, it will draw yet further ahead of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act in terms of the welfare it affords wild deer.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, which will bear some examination over the next week or so. I am not sure I was listening as closely as I should have been to what the Lord Chairman said at the start of the proceedings. I believe it is in order for me to withdraw the amendment unless I am confident that there is unanimity in its favour. I do not think I can rely on that unanimity at the moment from my noble friend the Minister. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("to") to end of line 23 and insert ("have regard to").
The noble Lord said: This is grouped with Amendment No.3 to which I shall also speak. The purpose of Amendment No.2 is simply to ask my noble friend the Minister to give us some explanation as to the meaning of the expression:
"to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances"
when it is the duty of the commission to consider the three categories of interest which come within this clause: the size and density of the deer population and its impact on the natural heritage; the needs of agriculture and forestry; and the interests of owners and occupiers of land.
I have been advised that legally the expression
"to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances"

CWH 11
is just about as weak as you can get and I tabled the amendment, which is of a probing nature, to suggest that instead of those words, the words "have regard to" might have more force on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No.3 suggests reversing the batting order of the three interests. I notice that under the Bill as drafted, the new boy of the Bill—if I may put it that way—namely:
"the size and density of the deer population and its impact on the natural heritage"
has been elevated to the No. 1 slot. The needs of agriculture and forestry remain in the middle and
"the interests of owners and occupiers of land"
go down to the bottom. I wanted to ask my noble friend if there was any legal significance in that. I feel that the needs of agriculture and forestry should come first, as they have done for many years now; then the interests of owners and occupiers of land, who have to make this thing work, if it is to work without all the ghastly threats that hide in the background of this Bill, and I should have thought that the new interest could come at the end. But they are both probing amendments to elicit some comment from my noble friend.
The Earl of Lindsay: These proposed amendments have no significant effect on the working of the legislation and the second amendment is purely presentational. The ordering of the items has no significance in legal terms in respect of their importance.
Substituting "have regard to" in Amendment No. 2 for the current form of words is a slightly stronger version, but it does not bind the commission to do more than consider the fact as mentioned. The terminology in the Bill more accurately reflects the fact that not all factors will be relevant in every case.
Viscount Astor: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I could ask my noble friend the Minister a question.
I believe that in framing legislation we are trying in this Committee, which is a revising chamber, to make legislation as simple as possible, and to use as few words as possible in a Bill, so that there is less to argue about.
One of the difficulties with the Bill as it stands is that we have this rather bizarre wording:
"take such account as may be appropriate"
I put it to my noble friend that this is really what one might call departmental drafting gone haywire. It is using a complicated set of words when a simple one would do. I beg my noble friend, if he could, to look at it again and see if a simple form of words would have a much better effect so that we can all understand it.
Lord Forbes: May I make a general observation which applies to many of the amendments to Clause 1. I believe it is essential that the commission should have flexibility to carry out its task.
When speaking for the Government on the Deer (Scotland) Bill on 18 November 1958 I said that,
CWH 12
"it is essential that we should not attempt to lay down detailed rules or formulae. Rather, it is surely best to confer general powers on a body so constituted as to command the confidence of all the interests concerned".—[Official Report, 18/11/58; col. 562.]
That is equally important today as it was 38 years ago.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Forbes for his experience and wisdom on these matters, and we shall, of course, examine the point made by my noble friend Lord Astor. We always seek to keep legislation as minimally worded as possible. There is some merit in having the phrase
"to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of",
rather than "have regard to", because it may be impossible to have regard to the needs of forestry, to take one of the items, where there are no trees anywhere within the area being focused on. The phraseology that we have reflects the fact that not all factors will be relevant in every case. Quite simply, there is very little legal significance to the two formulae being studied.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation which puts my mind at rest. There is no significance in the order of the three interests covered by the clause. I say to my noble friend, Lord Forbes, that one can leave things as wide as one likes. However, the composition of the commission which will be carrying out the powers will have to be examined with much greater attention. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("not exceeding") and insert ("being not less than nine nor more than").
The noble Lady said: At Second Reading and in the hearings before the Scottish Select Committee, a number of persons commented that there should be a minimum number of members of the commission so that it is able to represent effectively the range of interests in deer. Indeed, in answer to a question, the chairman of the Red Deer Commission indicated that at present he did not think that less than 12 members would be appropriate. This amendment is designed to ensure that future commissions have sufficient members to represent the key interests in deer and their management as stipulated in the proposed new subsection (3A) of the 1959 Act.
While it is desirable that future Secretaries of State should have flexibility to appoint a commission of fewer than 12 members if the situation warrants it, it does not seem sensible to allow the appointment of a small commission which could have the effect of unduly restricting representation of key interests. Setting a minimum size of nine for the commission will allow both flexibility of numbers and at the same time the key affected parties can be confident that their interests will be properly served on the commission.
The kind of situation which might arise is that there could be somebody whom the deer commission keenly wanted but who would not be free to join the

CWH 13
commission for another year. In such circumstances it would not have to fill his place—it could keep it open. The figure of nine, if chosen, will enable the Secretary of State if he so chooses, to select three from the deer management category as proposed in the parallel government amendment, and sufficient representation from the other categories. In practice, he may well decide that a larger number is needed, but we need a guarantee that, at the very least, nine members will be appointed. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I believe this amendment is associated with Amendment No. 5, to which my name has been attached. I would just mention the matter of a quorum. It seems that the Bill, as drafted, does not require a quorum, which might mean that the chairman of the commission could sit alone and dispose of the very considerable powers that it is proposed that we grant the commission. Something along the lines of Amendment No.5 might be useful to ensure that there would not be fewer than nine members of the commission of whom six shall form a quorum, or of whom not fewer than five might form a quorum, which is what the situation may be at present. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's views on this.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful both to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and to my noble friend Lord Pearson for these two amendments. I agree entirely with everything that the noble Lady said in moving Amendment No. 4 and would wish to accept that amendment without repeating the reason that she put forward. She said everything that we feel about this improvement.
With regard to Amendment No. 5, the quorum, the 1959 Act already provides that the commission should have a quorum of five or such larger number as the commission may from time to time determine and I now see no reason to change that. Consequently I am planning to delete the proposal to give the commission discretion over its quorum in Schedule 1. The response to my noble friend, Lord Pearson, is that we will consider the way he has drafted this suggestion and address the issue at Report stage.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: All I can do is thank the noble Earl very much for accepting my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("as") and insert ("the majority of whom shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of deer management and including persons whom").
The noble Lord said: We come now to the composition of the commission. Some of us are interested in ensuring that a larger proportion of the commission than is suggested on the face of the Bill has both knowledge and experience of deer management.
It would be helpful if the groupings list were to be altered and Amendment No. 11 in the name of my noble
CWH 14
friend the Minister were taken with this amendment. In Amendment No. 11 the Government helpfully suggest that,
"at least one third [of the new commission] shall be persons having knowledge or experience of deer management".
The difference between the two amendments is that our Amendment No. 6 suggests that,
"the majority [of the Commission] shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of deer management and including persons whom",
and so forth.
My noble friend's amendment goes some way to meeting our concern that those with a sporting and economic interest in the management of deer must be adequately represented in any future commission. After all, it is those people in the main who will have to make the Act work. The Bill is really about the management of deer, and it seems to me that the membership of the commission is inadequate as it stands. Even with my noble friend's suggested amendment, I fear that the clause as presently framed remains ambiguous. It is possible that as few as one of the members of the commission could represent the sporting interests in relation to deer, and if that were so I consider that it might not be enough.
This may be an unlikely scenario, but to illustrate that from current circumstances as we read the Bill, it is not inconceivable that the four persons representing deer management—under my noble friend's amendment that would be one third of the commission—could include one representing the sporting interest, with the remaining three being drawn from bodies with an interest in the management of red deer which is secondary to other objectives; for instance, natural heritage or forestry objectives. The National Trust for Scotland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or Forest Enterprise may meet that description at present, all three having an interest in a relatively low deer population consistent with other prime objectives, but not sufficient for a viable sporting enterprise. That type of representation of deer management could be in addition to pure natural heritage and forestry representations under categories (iv) and (iii) as represented on the face of the Bill respectively.
It is therefore to clarify that important matter that we suggest the wording tabled by myself and other noble Lords, and I shall be grateful to hear how my noble friend the Minister's mind is moving on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Forbes: I agree that Amendment No. 11, as a composition of the commission, is an improvement. I must point out that in dealing with deer and their effect on our natural heritage, the most important consideration is to obtain the correct balance. To achieve that the Secretary of State must have sufficient discretion and flexibility to find the best people—people of considerable ability and wisdom—to become members of the commission. The commission need not be composed of experts, can always call on scientific or technical advice from specialist bodies as and when it wants to. In furthering the conservation and control of deer, which was the aim of the 1959 Act, the

CWH 15
commission is bound to have, from time to time, difficulty in maintaining the right balance when carrying out its duties as laid down in Clause 1(lA)(a) bottom of page 1. Great wisdom and sound judgment by members of the commission will be vital if the objectives of the Bill are to be achieved. I hope my noble friend the Minister can give an assurance that consideration will always be given to the need to appoint people of the highest qualities and greatest wisdom to the commission as the overriding consideration.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for raising this important issue, and I must express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Forbes, who, in both his interventions to date, has stressed the importance of having the best accumulation of wisdom and the best width of experience on the deer commission however it should be composed.
I start by speaking to Amendment No. 11, which sets out what the Government have in mind. This amendment is designed to ensure that the composition of future commissions contains a significant proportion of members with knowledge or experience of deer management. Clause 1 of the Bill, as originally drafted, required the Secretary of State to appoint such numbers of members as he considers appropriate to represent the interests of persons or organisations concerned with each of the following key interests in deer; namely, deer management; agriculture (including crofting); forestry and woodland management and the natural heritage. It is essential that all of these interests have appropriate levels of representation on the commission.
I have listened carefully to suggestions that a significant level of representation of knowledge or experience of deer management is necessary on the commission to enable it to do its job properly, since the exercise of its functions, I admit, will continue to rely to a significant degree on the relationship of trust and respect it will maintain with those who manage deer on their land. At the same time, it is essential that the commission is a balanced body whose composition and mode of operation reflects all of the key interests in deer.
The various issues raised by deer in land management generally in Scotland and the conflicts that can arise because of them require the commission to have a range of knowledge and expertise in issues outwith the field of deer management alone. I consequently propose that a specific minimum proportion of persons with knowledge or experience of deer management be set, at the level of one third, which I regard as the appropriate level to ensure significant representation of deer managers, while maintaining an effective balance with other interests. We have just passed the amendment dealing with the minimum number of commissioners being nine, therefore if the Commission was as small as nine, that would mean there would be three drawn from those with direct experience and knowledge of deer management. If the commission just went up one to 10, then of course at least one third becomes four, so that is how the mathematics would work out.
CWH 16
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Amendment No. 6, would have the effect of stipulating that a majority of commissioners should have knowledge or experience of deer management. It is quite true that members of the commission need to have between them knowledge and experience of all issues relating to deer. It is true also that a significant proportion of the members need to have knowledge or experience of deer management per se, since much of its work will relate to deer management at ground level and to deer management groups.
It is, however, essential that the commission has balanced representation of all the relevant interests which are likely to arise in the pursuit of deer management, since the effectiveness of its operation as a commission will depend upon the relationship which it develops with all bodies with an interest in deer and in deer ranges. It is for that reason that Clause 1 stipulates the key areas of expertise that the commission will need among its ranks to do its job properly. I sympathise with the suspicions of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and therefore the line which he has taken with this amendment. But I stress that the one-third minimum proportion of deer managers, or those with experience in that field, is a significant proportion. It is especially significant given the extraordinarily wide range of interests which deer management now provokes, from farming, forestry and crofting to all the different parts of the natural environment. If the balance of interests on the deer commission is reduced or in any way skewed so that it is less of a level balance across the different interests, the commission would be in danger of losing some of its credibility and legitimacy in the wider community in Scotland.
It is terribly important that the commission commands status and respect among all those who are likely to have an interest in the way in which deer are managed, and is not simply seen as the supporter of one specific interest group. The fear is that if the deer commission was to lose credibility and respect, the ability with which it could promote voluntary action involving different parties would be more difficult, and therefore the likelihood of the Clause 5 compulsory control schemes being invoked would become more likely. It is thus very important that the deer commission commands that wide respect across the community.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say that, having spent a lot of my life on quangos and commissions of this sort, if such a body is carefully balanced and that balanced commission can come to a conclusion and then discuss it and sell it throughout Scotland, it is far more likely to command respect. If it is carefully balanced the discussion is much more constructive.
Let us suppose that the commission consists of the minimum number of nine, which is implied by the acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, five of whom are landowners and four simply representing the other interests. If that number were all

CWH 17
present or if somebody was missing from the four, it would not make for an easy or balanced discussion. Good sense comes out of a body which is balanced in the sort of way which my noble friend is suggesting. One should not be fearful, if one were a deer manager or a landowner with interest in deer, that the interest would go by default because the number of land owners or deer managers was slightly smaller. It is quite an important point and the kind of number which is being suggested is a good one.
Lord Glenarthur: I very much understand the points that my noble friend Lord Lindsay is making about flexibility and the credibility of the commission. It is important that it is not too constrained and that, at the same time, those areas which should be covered are covered adequately by the interest groups which are represented. To that extent, although I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I also share the views expressed by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. My noble friend Lord Lindsay has put down Amendment No. 11 which I find appealing. It goes a long way towards the case which my noble friend Lord Pearson has made but without over-egging it and removing some of that flexibility which might otherwise accrue or be available to the commission. I support that amendment, but not the other one.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I thank my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lady Carnegy for their interventions. I say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy that Amendment No. 6, which I am proposing, does not indicate a majority of land owners but it indicates a majority of people who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of deer management.
I absolutely accept the point made by my noble friend the Minister that the commission must command the widest possible respect. But I submit that there is no more important category of people whose respect it must command than those who actually manage the deer. I would say to my noble friend the Minister that under the 1959 Act as it stands the commission, which has roughly the same number of people on it, has to have two nominees of such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the sporting interests in deer. I would therefore ask my noble friend the Minister when he comes to reply whether my analysis of the amendment that he has tabled—Amendment No. 11—is correct, that it would allow there to be only one representative of the sporting interests in deer in future, and whether he feels it will be sufficient to command the respect of the people who will have to carry out this Act.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful for the useful contributions that have been made by noble friends Lady Carnegy, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Pearson. I can reassure my noble friend that we have seen a very sensible way to meet the body of this concern, but perhaps not going quite to the degree he would like us to have gone to. We think that a solid and balancing proportion of those representing experience and knowledge of deer management should be there. I am advised by those who know deer management much
CWH 18
better than I that there are more issues which involved deer management now than just sporting interests. The marketing of venison is an increasing interest and priority for deer management groups because that is part of the viability of the sporting tradition—the ability to sell the product and cover some of the costs in that way. We would expect the minimum of one-third on the new commission who represent primarily deer management and knowledge and experience of that skill to have sufficient knowledge of the sporting side of deer to articulate that issue well, but at the same time we would expect the other side of deer management also to be available to that minimum one-third.
Let me also point out to my noble friend that wherever you sit on that commission, whatever label it is that has justified your appointment in terms of the knowledge and experience that you bring to that commission, there is still the balancing duty imposed upon you in the commission's deliberations. Not only must the commission demonstrate that it has reached a reasonable decision on an issue, but it must also take into account the balancing duty which, for instance, would include the interests of owners and occupiers of land. Therefore, inherent in one of the balancing duties there is a very strong sporting interest as an undercurrent.
I hope that Amendment No. 11 provides the reassurance without upsetting the balance of the commission. Many of us agree that the balance is vital for the credibility and that the credibility is vital for the voluntary principle and if we start rocking the balance we will lose a lot of the very good work that has been achieved to date. In the 1959 Act, of the 12 members, two were able to represent the sporting interest; eight represented agriculture and forestry of one sort or another and two represented environmental matters. Despite what nowadays seems a very unbalanced commission, it has achieved an extraordinarily good track record of balanced decision-making. I hope that the new proposal that we have lodged today as an amendment certainly produces a more visible balance than the 1959 Act seems to enable. Therefore, given how successfully the 1959 constitution has operated, I hope that the Committee accept Amendment No. 11 and that we will have very fine prospects from the new constitution.
Viscount Astor: Before my noble friend sits down, would he not accept, and I am sure he would, that one of the reasons why the Red Deer Commission has operated so well in the past is that it has been a broad church and it has represented the interests of all those involved? All of us who have had dealings with the Red Deer Commission know what a good job it has done. One of the reasons it has done such a good job is that there has been, and I quote from the Act:
"two from nominees… to represent the sporting interest in deer;"
but there has also been
"three from nominees… to represent the interests of farmers and croftersֵ"
and,
"two from nominees … to represent the interests of hill sheep farmers."

CWH 19
Therefore the Act very clearly said where these representations could come from.
I think the 1959 Act got it right and it has worked very well. The problem I have with the Minister's amendment is that it says that one-third of the persons shall have
"knowledge and experience of deer management,"
but what is knowledge and experience? We can all have either a very limited knowledge and a lot of experience, or limited experience and a lot of knowledge. That is open to interpretation and is a very difficult way to take this forward. We will have huge arguments on who represents who. Are you representing one organisation or another? The great advantage of the 1959 Act is that it brought into the Red Deer Commission all those people who represented the organisations that mattered so that when they considered problems with deer, whether it be from the crofters' or farmers' point of view, or the forestry point of view, everybody was able to represent their own interest as well as taking a general view about everything.
I put it to my noble friend that his amendment weakens this very strong aspect of the working of the Red Deer Commission. I plead with him to look at the matter again between now and the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Buchan: I support the Minister on Amendment No. 11. It seems to me that the discussion is becoming almost metaphysical in its detail. I believe that the success of the Red Deer Commission over the years owes a great deal to the gentleman with the long, complicated name, Gordon-Duff-Pennington. The exact number of people who represent this, that or the other probably does not matter a great deal. I support the Minister's amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: I should like to add to the welcome contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, by saying that the new constitution of the deer commission picks up the strengths of the 1959 system but sheds some of the weaknesses and constraints to which that system led. For instance, in identifying agriculture (including crofting) we fully intend that appointments should be made from people who have knowledge or experience of hill farming. It is clearly central to achieving a successful deer commission. We therefore have the four categories identified from which appointments will be made. We hope to specify that at least one-third will come from those who have primary knowledge or experience of deer management. We are certain that the strengths, so abundant to date under the fine chairmanship of Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, will continue. But the constraints which have arisen will be removed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to all who have spoken. My noble friend the Minister has not confirmed my analysis, which I put to him as a question, that under Amendment No. 11 it would be possible to have only one representative of the sporting interest in deer whereas before there were at least two. Of course, I agree with all noble Lords that the balance of the
CWH 20
commission and the respect with which it is viewed will be absolutely crucial to its future activity. But I should have to point out that we are coming to Amendment No. 76 which is the Government's definition of the words "deer management" and I believe that in that amendment, which we come to next but one, the definition of "deer management" includes the management of deer for sporting purposes.
Therefore, as far as I can see, the new commission could only have one representative of that category and I am afraid that I do not think that is enough. I agree with everything that has been said about the balance needing to be right and the respect in which the new commission needs to be held. I do not believe we have it right if we only have one of those.
The Earl of Lindsay: Before my noble friend sits down, I make one more point to the Committee and that is that the vast majority of deer managers in Scotland are involved in the sporting side of deer management. We have amended the definition of "deer management" in the Bill so that it quite specifically includes the sporting element of deer management. Therefore, we are fully confident that the three or four members of the deer commission that must represent knowledge and experience of deer management will substantially articulate the needs of the sporting aspects of deer management. At the same time, if, for instance, deer marketing becomes increasingly important—and we have good reason to believe that it will be—we also would hope that the deer management category on the commission will be fully conversant on that side of deer management as well. We therefore do not necessarily want to exclude or include specific aspects of the deer management experience.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Under Amendment No. 6, we would not have to. We would only have to have more than half the commission:
"who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of deer management".
That indeed could, I have no doubt, include the marketing of venison and so on. I do not think I should take up the time of the Committee any further at this stage. I shall read with interest what my noble friend has said. I thought there was a moment where he appeared to be giving a little more encouragement than it is possible to read into the amendment as drafted. I will come back to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("to (3C)") and insert ("and (3B)").
The noble Lady said: In moving Amendment No. 7, with the leave of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 12, 13 and 14. In this group the important amendments are Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 14 are consequential.
These amendments are designed to ensure that the Secretary of State does consult relevant persons or organisations, and considers suggestions made to him before appointments are made to the commission. While it may make sense to move away from the current strict stipulations in Section 1 of the 1959 Act, it does nevertheless seem unfortunate that the current wording could allow appointments to be made without relevant interests having the opportunity to make suggestions to the Secretary of State. Making consultation obligatory rather than discretionary will help to ensure that the best candidates are drawn to the Secretary of State's attention before he makes his decisions. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for confirming something that we were taking for granted and, for the avoidance of doubt, we will accept this amendment. In this day and age all appointments to public bodies attract interest and they should be defensible. But, more important than anything, those who are appointed should have the necessary skills and the necessary respect to do the jobs to which they have been appointed. Therefore, we very happily accept this amendment on the basis that it will involve research on proper names to be available to the Secretary of State before he makes his appointments. I am grateful to the noble Lady. Indeed, we will therefore be supporting the other amendments in this group.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("subsection (3C)") and insert ("subsection (3B)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("deer management") and insert ("the sporting interest in deer").
The noble Lord said: This is a continuation of the earlier debate which we had on Amendment Nos. 6 and 11. Bearing in mind where I left the matter with my noble friend the Minister as to the number of those representing the sporting interests in deer which the Secretary of State would have a duty to appoint to the new commission, we come now to those whom he may appoint who have knowledge or experience of the following matters. The Bill as drafted states:

"(i) deer management;

(ii) agriculture (including crofting)

(iii) forestry and woodland management; and

(iv) the natural heritage".

The point of Amendment No. 9 is to substitute for the words "deer management" the words "the sporting interest in deer". The arguments I made before are pretty well exactly the same as I would apply now. If my noble
CWH 22
friend were able to accept this amendment it might just level up the balance of what we discussed before in the direction in which I feel it should go. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I very much support the thinking behind this amendment. Section 1(4)(c)of the 1959 Act very starkly laid out that among those appointed to the commission should be:
"two from nominees of such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the sporting interest in deer".
The main differences here appear not only to be that the words "the sporting interest in deer" are omitted from the Bill that we are now considering, but also that the Bill does not refer in any way to the organisations which might have produced those people who would have been able to represent "the sporting interest in deer". With the substantial history within Scotland and the islands of the relevance and the importance of "the sporting interest" to the whole concept of deer conservation, this is a very substantial change indeed.
In speaking to the earlier amendment my noble friend Lord Lindsay said that he could not conceive of those being involved with deer management being other than those who had a substantial interest in or knowledge of a sporting interest in deer—or words to that effect. That was the burden of his remarks. In that case I am not quite clear how the situation cannot be turned about. In subsection (1), as has been suggested here, we should leave out "deer management" and insert "the sporting interest in deer". Those concerned will then presumably be just as much expert on deer management that way round as they would be under the way that my noble friend suggested.
I do not think this is just semantics. It is an important point. To have such a major change made from what was contained in the 1959 Act—it was certainly not looked at in the 1982 Act with which I was so closely involved—does require greater explanation, although I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Lindsay is yet to cover his Amendment No. 11 in detail, and the qualifying explanatory clause which follows under Clause 9.
Viscount Astor: I support what my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said and would like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question. On an earlier amendment he seemed to imply that the interest of deer management included something which was beyond just sporting interest—for example, the marketing of venison. I put it to my noble friend that they are the same; they cannot be exclusive. One manages a herd of deer in order to maximise the revenue and, currently, with venison prices as they are, half the value of a stag is its sporting value for someone to come and shoot it, and half its value is its venison.
Those interests have to be the same. We must not think that somehow there is a different agenda if we use the word "sport" than there is when running a herd commercially. After all, that is what we are doing in the Western Isles, for example on the Isle of Jura, where there are 5,000 deer outnumbering the population by 25 to one. Deer management provides the main employment for the island, even more than the local

CWH 23
distillery which employs many people. All the estates are run for commercial reasons, along commercial lines, maximising all the incomes. I hope that it will not be thought that there can be a separation in any way of those two important points.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I understand that Amendment No. 10 has been linked with this amendment. Is that correct?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Amendment No. 10 has been grouped with Amendments Nos 9 and 11, but I am not sure that it should be. I would have thought it should be taken separately.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Should not Amendment No. 76 be grouped with Amendment No. 9?
The Earl of Lindsay: This may be a good moment to speak to Amendment No. 76. The introduction of the category "deer management" reflects the importance that this concept has gained in recent years since the first deer management groups were formed in the early 1970s and should help to ensure that future commissions contain persons with an active knowledge or experience of the way deer management practices are developing in Scotland as a whole. There can be no doubt that, for many purposes, in almost all respects—and I will come to the comments of my noble friend shortly—deer management and the sporting interests in deer are inextricable. That is why the definition in Clause 9, which we are amending through Amendment No. 76, makes that point beyond all doubt.
I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Astor that we cannot partition out the different parts of the whole cycle, from vermin control in the spring through to the taking and the marketing of the beast, and how one funds such an operation and markets the product. It is all one continuous cycle. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur suggested that, because of the inextricable link, whether one called it sporting interest or deer management, each would encompass the other. My modest and humble suggestion is that deer management has a generic feel to it, and it quite specifically includes all parts of the cycle involving deer management; whereas the sporting interest in deer is conceivably a little more ambiguous and could be taken by some to exclude some parts of the cycle.
So I hope that the Committee can agree to Amendment No. 76, when we come to it, but I hope that I have reassured my noble friend Lord Pearson and my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Astor, because we are aware that the vast majority of deer managers, and those involved with deer management, are very familiar or are actually involved in the sporting aspect of deer management. Just to underline what my noble friend Lord Astor said, you cannot be involved in deer management at one end and not somehow have experience of the sporting interest. Therefore we believe that our amendment will ensure that that point is taken on board.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Once again, I shall have to read what my noble friend the Minister has said, but I am afraid that deer management now is very much wider than the sporting interest in deer, and indeed the whole industry to which my noble friend Lord Astor referred. Deer management would include counting their droppings in a dense forest to see how many deer there might be. It might be the management of a forest for birds.
I could go on and give many examples where people could be chosen from the category of deer management without having any interest in, and indeed possibly being antagonistic to, the deer forests and the interest which supplies most of the employment and benefit in this area. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Lindsay has covered Amendment No. 76, but I merely point out that it is a definition of deer management, which includes the sporting interest in deer. The best thing that can be done at the moment is for me to beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9 because I spoke to Amendment No. 11 before, did I not?—or am I getting in a muddle now? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("(v) local government").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will be not as well discussed or received as perhaps some of the other amendments. This is an amendment on which, frankly, I want to find out the Minister's views on the whole question of the appointments. The amendment would include a representative of local government on the commission. Although at first sight it may not be thought essential that the deer commission should include anyone from the world of local government, there is an expertise in local government and, on reflection, I believe there is a strong case for one councillor, or councillors, to be put on this commission. They are democratically elected people and I believe the protection of the environment in general, and natural heritage in particular, is a task which has been carried out for a very long time by local government. Therefore, I believe it would be right and proper if at least one of the commission was drawn from the local authority sector at elected member level to represent those interests.
The second and perhaps more compelling reason for wanting an elected representative from local government to be on the commission is that these days we have an ever-increasing number of quangos. Councils and councillors are elected and therefore they have some democratic credibility. To include persons from such bodies would at least ensure that the views of ordinary persons in the street could be considered during the deliberations of the commission.
At the very least, people who are elected are answerable to some group of the electors. I know that I am listening here to people who really know a great

CWH 25
deal about their subject, but one of the points we have to accept—I have known about it for a long time and appreciate it even more now—is that deer forests and the whole question of deer are not small matters. A deer forest is not like a farm. It may cover hundreds and hundreds of acres, taking in public roads, public highways and public streams, and therefore local people should have someone they can complain to who is accountable to them. They may have a very nice landlord or they may have a very difficult landlord. In the short 10 years I have been in this House I have met both types of landlord. Some are very malleable and others are not. Indeed, if a child stepped across the verge of some of the landlords I have known, they would be very annoyed.
There must be a representative who people can go to and feel they have a right to go to, not cap in hand, not begging and saying, "We want to know why the deer keeping running across our roads", or whatever. One would get co-operation from a councillor in these circumstances. He would accept that the people who are deer managers or the owners know a great deal more about the actual subject of deer itself but not perhaps enough about the point at which the public and the deer interests meet. It is very difficult.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, spoke about the balance of quangos. There is no balance in quangos. We know how the quangos are made up. We have had years and years of them. We know that they are picked to get the results that the Minister wishes to get, with probably whichever group is in power. I feel that the Minister would make himself much more popular and perhaps make the whole question of the new deer commission much more acceptable if there were some evidence that there were people who were representative and meant something in the community—not because of their birth and not because of their wealth.
I am presently reading an interesting book about who owns Scotland. It sets out the situation we have now where if someone makes an awful lot of money in South African gold, he can buy a country estate and then become a very important man in the community. He may not have had any interest before. But a local councillor must have a base in the area. He must be there all the time in one form or another. I beg the Minister to give this a little more thought.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I am bound to say that I do not find it nearly so easy to accept the suggestion as perhaps he hoped I might from where I sit and from my own experience of this matter. The fact is that those who under the 1959 Act should be appointed to the commission follow a very set pattern of interest specific to the subject matter which is likely to be encompassed.
While I can understand that it may be appropriate to widen the group a little to include, for example, someone who represents a local authority and has an interest, therefore, in the roads or some other issue, it is a point which could be so stretched as to involve many other interests that it would go much wider than any
CWH 26
concept that has hitherto been considered in relation to the Red Deer Commission or the Deer Commission for Scotland under its new name.
The other point the noble Lord made was that somehow—I think I quote him correctly—elected people are answerable in some respect. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the Red Deer Commission is indeed answerable. If he looks at Section 3(2) of the 1959 Act he will see that the commission makes an annual report to the Secretary of State. It exercises its functions under the Act and lays a copy of the report before each House of Parliament. The point about answerability is already well covered by the Red Deer Commission under its existing responsibilities.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It is certainly true that wild deer range over local authority areas. They affect local people and form part of the local economy. I believe it is very important that the commissioners should have a knowledge of the context in which the future Deer Commission for Scotland will operate.
In some respects I would possibly prefer the phrase "public administration" to "local government" because that probably is a wider definition ensuring that people understand the context in which they will work.
My next point is aimed at the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment. I am sorry to return to this but I feel I must. The point of the Select Committee going to Scotland to take evidence was to demonstrate the relevance of the Westminster Parliament to the people of Scotland and to try to counter the feelings of disaffection. The point I wish to make is that the Select Committee gained credibility in Scotland because it was predominantly made up of Scottish domiciled Members of the House.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have one difficulty with this amendment. If you have on the commission one councillor, say perhaps from Invernesshire, then Aberdeenshire, Banffshire, Argyleshire, Perthshire or Angus will say "Why Invernesshire? Why not us?". Unless you have a commission consisting entirely of local councillors, I can foresee nothing but trouble.
As to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on the composition of the Select Committee in Edinburgh, I must say to him that I do not think the people of Scotland took a blind bit of notice. I never saw more than two people in the public gallery the whole time we were sitting and mostly there was nobody there.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for raising what I thought would be a short and simple amendment which could be dealt with in a couple of minutes, although he indulged in some histrionics as regards the other matter. He claims that anything that smacks of a Quango is unacceptable, but he has completely lost sight of the new rules and procedures and codes of practice which are now abided by in the appointment of members to non-departmental public bodies. If the noble Lord says he dislikes

CWH 27
Quangos and political appointments, why on earth is he proposing a constitutional future for Scotland when nearly one half of the Scottish parliament would be political appointees? They would be party placements. Why he should be so angry about the way in which the new deer commission might be appointed, and yet is happy to have Scotland governed on a day-to-day basis by a body that is largely composed of political appointments, I cannot understand.
The implication of his remarks is that there was some degree of unacceptability about the deer commission at the moment, and I would take issue with that. I believe the deer commission under its current constitution has earned very high respect from many people. It has had a very good record and is widely admired for that, and we fully intend that it should continue thus.
The noble Lord, though, points up the importance of acceptability generally, and behind much of our Clause 1 amendments to the 1959 Act is the hope that the commission, through its composition, can appeal to a broad church of people and can command respect across many different interests. This is part of the logic behind the amendments that we are making. Indeed, it is not impossible that a councillor or community representative, or indeed as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, suggested, a public servant of some sort might well be a candidate for appointment to the commission. That is not an unlikely scenario.
More important, perhaps, is that the deer commission has already made great strides towards working with the local community in the areas where deer management is an issue, and I suspect that as the years go by its efforts to work with local people will be redoubled—they certainly will not be lessened.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur correctly pointed out that there is accountability already written into the 1959 Act, and indeed if the Secretary of State is responsible for any inefficiency or performance that the deer commission achieves which is questionable or controversial, it is something which the Secretary of State must answer for. If for some reason someone wants to take issue with the deer commission, but he is unable to feed the strength of his feelings through deer management groups or through commissioners, he can get directly to the Secretary of State through MPs and ask him to account for the performance of the deer commission.
I have one further point, which is the point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. She in a way touched on the red deer counties and areas of Scotland; but the new deer commission will stretch from Berwickshire to Stornoway and from Wigtown way up to Thurso. It will deal with all species of deer in Scotland. The problem is not only as bad as it is painted, but I believe it to be very much worse if one is attempting to address issues which pertain to roe deer in the Borders. I hope the noble Lord is partly reassured by the fact that the deer commission will be picking up a tremendous reputation from the Red Deer Commission for consultation and
CWH 28
communication with local people and that what it has done to date is merely a springboard for the yet greater lines of communication that it will build in the future.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in replying to me. I wish to raise a number of points. The annual report is a way of people making representations. We know that annual reports come in here regularly, but unless some outisde body is particularly interested or has the time to debate it, it is not a very effective way of communicating with the Secretary of State or any Minister. The Minister will be well aware of that from his own field.
Does the spread of representation—or the spread of the area from Berwick to the Orkneys—mean that there will be any regional selection of the members of the Red Deer Commission or of the subcommittees of the Red Deer Commission? I believe that a councilor—or if CoSLA itself had a representative on the commission—that person would be approachable by anyone in Scotland; whereas, if the Minister is right, the members will be fairly thinly spread and people will not know who to contact in different parts of the country.
An approach to a Member of Parliament falls into the same category as annual reports. It has to be something pretty important, or there will be a day's debate once every two or three years upon an annual report from one quango or another. I did not really expect to get a great deal from the Minister, but I did feel that I should raise the matter. I am not decrying the existing Red Deer Commission. I know it has done a great job and the gentleman who is very involved with it has been extremely helpful to us. (I suggested that he be given a knighthood; he has a very long name which I cannot remember).
I hope that, based on that experience, we can move forward. It gives us another chance to have a break in the existing system and to put at least one local government representative on the commission. I believe that CoSLA would be the perfect body.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord is absolutely right that the deer commission must keep in close contact with local government when local government issues arise. That is important on the planning side, as well as on the road side, and possibly also environmental health.
When one thinks of how local government will be comprised after 1st April with so many councils, one sees how difficult it will be to have a representative on the commission appointed by the Secretary of State who can speak for local government. The commission will not have representatives appointed. If it were the kind of body which consisted of representatives, one might suggest that one of the representatives could be from local government.
I see that in their submission the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities suggested that a member should be drawn from the local authority sector—perhaps it had in mind a planning officer or councillor. It does not sit very easily with the way the thing is

CWH 29
structured. I wonder if my noble friend the Minister could make very sure if this matter is raised again—or perhaps now—that there really is a requirement to consult with local government when local government issues arise, because it will be important and the commission must not get carried away and think that it does not have to pay any attention to planning or whatever it is. I am sure the present Red Deer Commission does that very well. I am not familiar exactly with the way it works, but I do not believe that this should he completely neglected as an issue, although I do not believe this particular approach, in view of the new structure of local government and the way in which the deer commission is going to be appointed, is the right approach.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: All I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is that we did not want this new type of local government. We believe this new type of local government is a disaster and would have been much better left as it was. Perhaps there are ways of improving it, but not as drastically as this. However, I have raised the question with the Minister and I would be only too happy to let him finish.
The Earl of Lindsay: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, very quickly I will reassure my noble friend Lady Carnegy that there is already extensive dialogue between local government, local authorities and the deer commission on any matter that appears before the deer commission. This obviously has a local authority angle to it, so there is precedent there which will continue to be operated.
The second point relates to the regions. I would just remind the Committee that two years ago the Red Deer Commission set up an office in Stirling to establish an administration which was quite clearly more Scotland-wide than it had been up to that point, and it foreshadowed the fact that the Bill now applies to all species of deer in Scotland. We hope that, for instance, those in the Borders can feel that the deer commission is an accessible body through its office in Stirling, rather than having to go way further north to see the commission in its own offices. So we are conscious of the issues which the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Having heard the Minister and the other comments from members of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("; and, of the persons so appointed, at least one third shall be persons having knowledge or experience of deer management.").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this when I spoke to Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Does the noble Lord wish to dissent?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am afraid I do, because I am not sure that the issue of the matters covered in Amendment No. 6 have yet been resolved and, if we
CWH 30
accept Amendment No. 11, then we have no way of returning to Amendment No. 6 in future. The grouping was in fact confusing on this but I did actually speak to Amendment No. 11 with Amendment No. 6, and I do not think I could agree to Amendment No. 11.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that Amendment No. 6 was withdrawn. The groupings are, of course, a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: As I understand it, if anyone dissents we do not have Divisions here. That is what was stated for Amendment No. 1 and I understand that those are the rules of the Moses Room. I beg the Committee's pardon, I have never done this before.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that to be the case, but before I finally put the question perhaps the Minister wishes to say something? I understand that to be the procedure, but I am sure that if the noble Lord wished to divide the Committee a procedure could be found, but I am in the hands of the Committee.
The Earl of Lindsay: As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Pearson in withdrawing Amendment No. 6 is able to return to Amendment No. 6 at Report stage. Therefore, if he is content with my Amendment No. 11 that does not preclude his return to Amendment No. 6 at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I apologise for being confused. I have no objection to Amendment No. 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall—
( )").
Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("; and
( ) consider any such suggestions.").
Page 2, leave out lines 28 to 31.
The noble Lady said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("(3D) New appointments under the terms of this section shall be made at the time of its enactment.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for the right of removal of appointments under the old Act and for new appointments to be made from the start of the new commission's life. The present-day Bill does not create a new commission; it merely changes the name and some of the powers and duties of the old commission. Therefore, appointments recently made, that is in January 1996 for a three-year term of office, will continue in office for the whole term unless by means of this amendment the Secretary of State is required to replace them with appointments according to the new formula.
One of the most significant passages of the Bill is the proposal to change the formula of appointments in order to re-adjust the composition of the commission, and promote public confidence in this body as properly representative of the wide range of interests involved and impacted by deer.
It would be quite wrong to hobble the new commission for the first two years of its service by retaining a composition which Parliament will have agreed is inappropriate for the task. It is possible that the Minister will merely reply that a delay in new appointments is appropriate in order to secure a smooth transition. That argument should be rejected on the basis that the Bill has taken many years to prepare. It is now widely regarded as long-overdue and all of its provisions should, I believe, be enacted as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit of this. If we are to have a new start, we should have a new start. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I understand the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment and indeed am not unsympathetic to it. But many of the new appointments that were made towards the end of last year were made in the light of the new duties that are being increasingly thrust upon the commission. We also have a level of confidence in its chairman, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, and his colleagues, which reassures us anyway that the new challenges which the Bill is flagging up are ones which the new commission will be able to meet. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I understand exactly the logic that has prompted him to move it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I hope I did not give any slight to the present chairman of the commission and I am not criticising him in any way at all. Will the Minister insist that all the present members serve out their time before new people are appointed, or will there be an interim period after notice has been given and the new appointments made following that? If the Minister can answer me, I shall be quite happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: The most honest answer I can give is that I shall look carefully at the issues the noble Lord has raised. We can either correspond with each other on this point before Report stage or return to it at Report stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In that case, with the assurance of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Appointment of panels]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 42, after ("fit") insert (", including persons with knowledge and experience of the interests mentioned in section (3A)(a) of this Act,").
The noble Lord said: It comes to me as something of a disappointment that the noble Lord did not wish to move Amendment No. 16 because it is rather similar to Amendment No. 17 which stands in my name. We are dealing here with the appointment of panels which the new commission will be making. The effect of Amendment No. 17 is to make sure that the commission considers,
"persons with knowledge and experience of the interests mentioned in section (3A)(a) of this Act".
In other words,
"(i) deer management"—
or the sporting interest in deer, as the case may be,
"(ii) agriculture (including crofting)
(iii) forestry and woodland management; and
(iv) the natural heritage".
I and those noble Lords who have joined me on this amendment feel it is important that the commission considers at least those categories of interest for inclusion on the new panels. That is why I personally would have supported Amendment No. 16 which would place a duty upon the commission to consider these categories of people, whereas at the moment it is left open as to whether or not it should do so. It seems to me that these panels will not be very effective if they do not have sitting on them the interests mentioned. Therefore I would have hoped that this was an amendment which my noble friend the Minister might be able to accept. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I, too, am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, did not move his Amendment No. 16, because the wording absolutely mirrors the wording in my Amendment No. 12.
The Earl of Lindsay: The amendments as described by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, explored the area which the amendment not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would also have explored; namely, the method of appointment of local panels and the extent to which knowledge or experience of the key issues relevant to deer, following the prescription in Clause 1 to the commission itself, should be applied as a prescription to the local panels as well.
In practice, although currently there are no local panels in existence, should there be the need for one or more, the commission would seek to ensure that they worked effectively with all local interests in deer. To that extent, I am not convinced that the amendments are necessary.
I should also point out that there may be local issues which are priorities and which dominate, but which do not fall within the four categories set out for appointment to the commission itself in Clause 1.
I also remind the Committee that these panels are advisory panels only; they will not have executive functions delegated to them. Finally, the local panels cannot be set up without approval from the Secretary of

CWH 33
State. Therefore, there is that check in the process which will ensure that reasonable and proper procedures are used in the appointment of the panel.
I do not want rigidly to set my face against these two amendments. I understand exactly the thinking of the noble Lords who have put these two amendments forward. I should, however, point out to the Committee that we are reasonably confident that should there be a need for a local panel it would work effectively with local people. While we do not think these amendments are necessary, I shall be happy to discuss this point again at the Report stage and will give the matter some more thought myself.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend, but when he comes to consider this matter between now and the Report stage, could I ask him also to give some consideration to the status of these panels with regard to Section 6 of the original Act—the section dealing with marauding deer.
I have been sent by my noble friend the Minister the notes on proposed government amendments which say that there is to be a policy amendment to repeal the delegation of powers over marauding deer. I am not quite sure how it is proposed that that should be done and I notice that in Section 2(3) of the original Act,
"The Commission may delegate to a panel appointed under"
that section, which I imagine is the same sort of panel as we are now considering,
"the functions of the Commission under section six of this Act",
that is, marauding deer,
"so far as relating to the locality of that panel, and the panel in the exercise of the functions so delegated to them shall comply with any directions given by the Commission".
I am afraid I am confused as to whether it is intended to withdraw these powers from the panel. It may be that what is happening is part of the clarification of Clause 4 to which we shall come shortly. If the panels were to be left with these powers, or anything like them, I submit that the interests mentioned in Amendment No. 17 become very important indeed.
The Earl of Lindsay: I shall try to enlighten my noble friend. Government Amendment No. 89 does indeed repeal the ability for Section 6 powers to be delegated to local panels. Thirty or more years ago we saw it as necessary that local panels, in an era of fairly slow communication, should be able to act fairly quickly in an emergency. Today the deer commission, at headquarters level, through modern communications, can choreograph and manage a situation that requires prompt response. We believe therefore that any local panel that might be set up should not have Section 6 powers delegated to it and should be an advisory panel only.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I am sure we all look forward to Amendment No. 89 with confidence. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Particular powers of the Commission]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 7, after ("with") insert ("the owners and occupiers of the land in question and with").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient if I also speak to Amendment No. 20 which has been grouped with Amendment No. 18. We now turn to the particular powers of the commission—powers to issue guidance or advice, and to conduct, or collaborate in, research, inquiries and investigations in various forms, or in any experiment, trial or demonstration.
I have no difficulty with the concept of particular powers. They were present in the 1959 Act. I am concerned, however, that the owners and occupiers of the land in question somehow do not need to be part of the collaborative process. What is proposed to take place under the powers would be planned. It would not be required urgently and a great deal of thought would have gone into it beforehand. So there does not seem to be any need or urgency requiring that the owner or occupier of the land should not be brought into the process. The commission shall,
"have power to conduct or to collaborate with any person or organisation which is conducting".
But the Bill does not make clear whether that "any person" could include the owner or occupier of the land in question. It merely seems to indicate that the person conducting the research or experiment could be either an individual or an organisation. That point requires clarification. In any case, there is a question of principle involved. But obviously if this sort of work is going to be done it must take place almost certainly close to, or even on, land in which deer are to be found, and it is going to be owned by somebody, so it seems logical that they should be brought into it beyond peradventure.
Amendment No. 20 is very much on the same theme. If it is agreed that some work should be done in collaboration with organisations and individuals, as set out in paragraphs (i) and (ii),
"relating to the conservation, control or sustainable management of deer",
and that work is to be done in a way which furthers the interests of the commission, then it seems almost unreasonable to suggest that the work on property owned by individuals should not carry with it the agreement of the owners and occupiers of the land in question. So the two in a sense run together. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lindsay is clear about the point I am making.
The last element in Amendment No. 20 refers to veterinary supervision. This is in a sense a probing amendment. It seems to me that if experiments, trials or demonstrations are conducted which may be to the furtherance of the interests of deer in the broadest possible sense—my noble friend Lord Pearson touched earlier, as did others, on the question of the use of helicopters or vehicles, or the moving of deer from one place to another which could be damaging to the wellbeing of deer—they should be extremely carefully monitored by veterinary supervision. I have no reason to believe that the Red Deer Commission would not bear

CWH 35
this very closely in mind but it seems to me to be essential that veterinary supervision is somehow brought into play in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like briefly to support this amendment. If one reads through Clause 3 as drafted and takes what might be the heart of the matter, it seems to me inconceivable that the commission could attempt to do these things without the co-operation of the owner of the land in question. I quote as follows:
"The Commission shall have power … to conduct any experiment, trial or demonstration … relating to the … control of deer, or to any other aspect of the Commission's functions".
Who is to say that a demonstration relating to the control of deer could not involve shooting quite large numbers of them? I do not believe that should happen without at least the stalker in question, or, as the amendment says, the owner, being consulted and supported. If it were to happen like that, I would not want to be the person conducting that experiment on the ground.
The Earl of Lindsay: I hope I can reassure both my noble friends on this point. Both of them said in so many words that it was inconceivable that the powers of research or experiment available to the commission could be carried out in breach of normal private property rights. Indeed, that is the case—it is inconceivable. The powers in Clause 3 do not override in any way private rights, nor do they provide any special rights of entry. Therefore I cannot conceive circumstances where the commission's powers of research or experiment could be carried out without the necessary agreements and supervisions which are implied or sought in these amendments.
I am confident that the commission can be trusted to carry out that important function in a reasonable way and in co-operation with those who might be affected by any project. But even if, for some reason, it were to choose a course which could be construed as being less reasonable, I reiterate the important point that the powers of Clause 3 do not override in any way private rights, nor do they provide any special rights of entry.
On the veterinary point raised by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur at the end of Amendment No. 20, I hope to reassure him that any experimentational research done by the deer commission would be under the general law on experimentation, and that includes veterinary supervision. In addition to that, the Red Deer Commission, as it is at the moment, has developed an extremely constructive and useful relationship with the Lasswade Veterinary Centre which conducts research on deer welfare and deer health on behalf of the Red Deer Commission.
I am conscious that Amendment No. 19 was grouped in with Amendment No. 1 because it was spoken to in the discussion we had around Amendment No. 1. It may be useful if I just reassure the Committee that deer welfare is a priority in research and experimental matters. It is quite clearly an important issue with the Committee in regard to Clause 3 and therefore I am telling the Committee that we will consider the
CWH 36
argument for specific inclusion of the word "welfare" in Clause 3 and will come back to the Committee at Report stage with our decision.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend for agreeing to include the word "welfare", at least in the experimental and demonstrative parts of the future commission's activity. It is not perhaps for me to ask my noble friend the question, but if it is obvious that the commission will indeed respect the normal rights of property and so on, can my noble friend give any reason why these amendments should not be accepted on the face of the Bill?
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: It is because they simply duplicate safeguards which are already in effect, in that what Clause 3 enables the commission to do does not override any private rights or special rights of entry that are already sufficiently protected and taken into account by other general legislation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wonder whether my noble friend is right to take the official's advice absolutely straight like that? We all accept that rights of entry exist and will be observed, but when we are talking about this commission we have already talked about how it should have the confidence of the broad public in Scotland. It is important that small crofters, as well as large occupiers and farmers, should feel that the commission will not march onto their land or conduct experiments. We are not just talking about land owners here—we are talking about all sorts of owners and occupiers. I can see no reason why there should not somewhere be a slight duplication of this—just a mention somewhere. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could look at this point. I know that he has been warned against this by those behind him, but this is very much an official point of view. We have to think about how people will see this Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have much sympathy with what my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said. My noble friend said that it is inconceivable that anyone would try to override existing rights—private rights, rights of entry or whatever—in order to try to conduct what is suggested in this clause. He also said that the Red Deer Commission can be trusted. I have no doubt whatever about that. However, if that is the case, and there is still concern about it, what is the difficulty in actually adding to the Bill the words that I have suggested in Amendment No. 18, that the commission should have the power to conduct or collaborate with,
"the owners and occupiers of the land in question and with",
any person or organisation? It is self-evident that it will not do any damage or make it more awkward for the commission to have to go through that particular hoop, particularly in the light of the fact that there is no time constraint on this.
I hope my noble friend can reassure me. It may be that he will have to quote chapter and verse on this and perhaps he will be able to draw on the experience of past

CWH 37
instances since 1959 of particular powers being used in this way and how they have been brought into effect, or say what indeed are the over-riding private rights, rights of entry and so on, which are referred to. I hope he will be able to respond positively to that.
As to the question of veterinary supervision, I am certainly very interested to hear him say that the general laws on experimentation will apply. One of the reasons why I am sensitised to this particular area is that I piloted the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill through the House in 1986. Experiment, so far as animals are concerned, often generates vast interest and concern, and rightly so. I hope that my noble friend will explain a little more about the general law on experimentation in this particular field because those words seem remarkably loose.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend rises, I should remind him that very similar wording to this was included in the original Bill for Scottish Natural Heritage, except that for any experiment, trial or demonstration, we were asked to give the new Scottish Natural Heritage complete powers for development projects and schemes. I should remind my noble friend that the Government heavily lost an amendment on that. Unless he can do a little better in giving the Committee some reason why these very simple words should not be on the face of the Bill, this is one to which we may wish to return with a vengeance at the Report stage.
The Earl of Lindsay: I have seen my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch return to other things with a vengeance so I am suitably warned. I want to quote legislation which goes way beyond the legislation in front of us. The best thing is if I write to those noble Lords who have spoken on this issue and I hope that it is in sufficient time so that we can discuss that letter prior to Report stage.
Lord Glenarthur: With that assurance, I am very grateful to my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 13, after ("the") insert ("welfare,").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend the Minister indicated that he would accept the amendment. We shall return to it at Report stage.
The Earl of Lindsay: I said that we would like to consider the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert ("subject to the agreement of the owner and occupier of the land in question and, where appropriate, subject to veterinary supervision").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 18 on the understanding that my noble friend would be able also to explain more about the general law on experimentation perhaps by way of letter, so that the Committee understands precisely what he means by it. I am happy with that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Marauding deer]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 16, at beginning insert—
("( ) Section 6 of the principal Act (power of Commission to authorise killing of deer causing damage) shall be amended in accordance with this section.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 21, I intend also to speak to a number of other minor amendments. Those are all drafting amendments which emerged from the consolidation process. I will happily give explanations of any specific amendments if they are sought, but otherwise I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This appears to me to alter the introduction to Clause 4, which goes under the rubric of "Marauding deer" and is the clause which causes some of us the most worries about the Bill. Section 6 of the principal Act is of course the clause in that Act which deals with marauding deer, and I must confess that I am in a little hit of a muddle, jogging forwards and backwards with the various Acts. It may be that the wording of the Bill in front of us is the one which will take precedence. If, however, Amendment No. 21 is accepted at face value, it would alter the original Act from using the words:
"power of Commission to deal with marauding deer",
to become:
"(power of Commission to authorise killing of deer causing damage).
I must confess, therefore, that I am confused as to exactly what the amendment does. If my noble friend can assure me that it is merely a minor drafting amendment and paves the way for the new wording which is before us in the new Clause 4, then of course I am happy to accept it.
Lord Glenarthur: I very much endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Pearson. It would be helpful, because of the complexity of all of this, if my noble friend could briefly run through in rather more detail what it is that these particular amendments do.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Particularly Amendment No. 21.
The Earl of Lindsay: The catch-all, which I will give you once again, and then go on to some of the detail, is that there is no material change to the decision nor indeed the policy of any of these amendments. In fact, if it were not for the consolidation, we would not even be taking it before the Committee.

CWH 39
On the point made my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the opening to Clause 4 does not affect the operation of Clause 4, or indeed Section 6 of the 1959 Act. This is simply a drafting change. The actual triggering of the marauding deer power is done not in these first lines but where the prerequisites are set out in order that the Section 6 authorisation can then be issued by the commission.
There are other clarifying amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not wish to take the time of the Committee, but I believe I have the correct version of the 1959 Act as revised in July 1982. Section 6 is described as the power of the commission to deal with marauding deer. It seems to me that this amendment proposes to change that into the power of the commission to authorise the killing of deer causing damage and that is very different. Marauding is something upon which we shall need to concentrate in some detail.
I shall not intervene again. I just want to make it absolutely clear that my noble friend and his advisors know what I am on about. If I am confused and wrong, I am quite prepared to withdraw the objection.
The Earl of Lindsay: One of the issues I should refer to is the difficulty that the word "marauding" has caused in legal terms. In fact Amendment No. 82, if I remember correctly, sought to remove that term from part of the Act. The side notes have no legal effect. I do not want to prejudge discussion on Clause 4 because I realise there are many significant issues which we want to look at within Clause 4.
Amendment No. 21 changes the introduction, because Amendment No. 35 inserts a new subsection into Section 6, and the previous version amended only subsection (1). As I said, it is a technical drafting amendment that we would not be entering into were it not for the drafting exercise and the demands made on us by the Consolidation Bill which we hope shortly to have in the pipeline.
I allude to just one other amendment which deals with terminology and the fact that the term "farm animals" is better replaced by the term "livestock" because of legal definitions that arise from the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. It is also desirable to clarify in the context of control agreements and control schemes that the animals against which action may be taken refers only to deer. We are simply clarifying some drafting amendments in this group of amendments.
Lord Glenarthur: I only have one very brief comment to make and that is that, having raised a particular concern at Second Reading, that Clause 4(1)(a) refers to "on any land, deer are causing" etc., I am most grateful to my noble friend for finding ways to leave out that term. He has not explained precisely why he has decided to leave it out. I can only assume that
CWH 40
the representations that were made at Second Reading have been well understood by him and that he has taken them on board. I am very grateful for that.
The Earl of Lindsay: I shall probably speak to that point very briefly when I deal with Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 which come up later.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 16, leave out from ("(1)") to ("there") in line 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("on any land").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 23 I shall also cover Amendments Nos. 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 89, 100 and 101.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I beg your Lordships' pardon, but Amendment No. 25 is one of my amendments.
The Earl of Lindsay: My noble friend is correct. I shall reintroduce this by saying that I will be speaking to Amendments Nos. 23, 30, 34, 89 and 100. I apologise to the Committee for misleading it.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 do indeed arise from points raised by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur at Second Reading. I am grateful to him for raising those points. I hope my response is adequate to meet the concerns that he raised.
As regards Amendment No. 30, I made it clear on Second Reading that the revised power to deal with marauding deer under Section 6 of the 1959 Act, which are proposed in Clause 4 of the Bill, would be used only in emergency situations when there was a need to take urgent action to deal with deer damage. I repeated this clear intention when I appeared before the Scottish Select Committee. Nevertheless, a number of individuals and organisations have expressed the concern that the terms of the clause as drafted could, in certain circumstances, be used where there was not an emergency. In order to clarify this point I am therefore moving Amendment No. 30 which requires the commission to be satisfied that none of its other powers is adequate to deal with the situation at hand before proceeding with action under this section.
For the most part I expect the commission to proceed through agreement with deer managers using its range of advisory and authorisation powers to meet its objectives. In circumstances where there are particular, often long standing, problems, I see the commission using the flexibility offered under new Clause 5 to reach control agreements to promote effective action. Only when early action needs to he taken and no other means of bringing the situation under control are apparent will the powers under revised Section 6 be appropriate. In the last resort, emergency powers such as these are needed to ensure that deer, which belong to no one, can be effectively controlled if they are causing serious damage to public or private interests or danger to public safety which needs to be stopped. In reaching decisions

CWH 41
on Amendment No. 30 and the proposals we are putting forward, the commission must have regard to its balancing duty to ensure that the interests of owners and occupiers are taken into account before decisions are made.
The revised Section 6 will retain the existing provisions that apply to the commission to request action by the person with the right to shoot deer before taking action itself and to give such notice as may be reasonable in the circumstances before action is taken on the ground. The important point is that the circumstances should be exceptional and that emergencies should be genuine; in other words, that no other power is available to the commission to respond to a particular set of exceptional circumstances. We hope our amendment makes that clear.
I shall speak to Amendments 89 and 100. When the Red Deer Commission was established in 1959 it made sense to envisage the marauding deer powers under Section 6 being delegated in certain circumstances to local panels. Local agricultural executive committees had played a role in authorising action against marauding deer before that time and it was thought that the local panels might play a similar role. In practice the commission has been able to perform the function effectively thanks to improved communications, as I explained to the Committee, and effective work locally through deer management groups. We do not any longer feel that this delegated power needs to be thrust upon local panels.
Now that the powers in Section 6 are to be extended to cover emergency threats to the natural heritage and to public safety and are expressly made appropriate only when other powers are adequate it makes sense to restrict the use of this power to the commission alone. Local panels could well play an important part as advisers to the commission, and indeed to local managers in the future.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, but even with the government amendment it seems that Clause 4 can still be used against deer on their normal territory; that is, when they are not marauding and not coming from other land. We shall return to this area in greater detail soon, but I remind my noble friend that in the committee in Edinburgh he said that the definition of marauding was quite important. Clause 4 cannot be triggered if the deer that are inflicting the damage are resident or established on the site. They must be marauding deer moving from another site to cause that damage.
I am not sure that the Bill, even with Amendment No. 23, fulfils the intention expressed by my noble friend in Edinburgh. We shall come to more detail on Clause 4 and the meaning of "marauding". I am not sure that we have adequately dealt with it yet.
The Earl of Lindsay: Perhaps it will help if I focus briefly on Amendment No. 23. The purpose of these linked amendments is to make it clear that authorisation to control marauding deer under Section 6 of the 1959 Act can only proceed in the specific circumstances of each individual case. They also have the effect of
CWH 42
ensuring that action can be taken on whatever type of land on which deer are causing trouble where emergency action needs to be taken.
Given the nature of the new grounds for action introduced by Clause 4, it is important that the commission has the powers to take action wherever this is warranted by the circumstances of each case. It is, however, equally important that the authorisations to control marauding deer only proceed in the specific circumstances of each individual case and are bound to it so that they cannot run on beyond the circumstances of a specific case. I hope my noble friend Lord Pearson will welcome that clarification and improvement contained in Amendment No. 23 which stems from concerns expressed to us at Second Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 20, after ("land") insert ("marauding").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the specific amendments on Clause 4 regarding the expression "marauding". I, and other Members of the Committee, are very keen to pin down exactly what the word "marauding" means. Amendment No. 24 replaces the words "on any land", which have just been removed by my noble friend, with the word "marauding". Amendment No. 79, in Clause 9 of the Bill—the schedules to the Bill—attempts to give a definition of what a marauding deer is, as follows:
"'marauding deer' means deer which have left their normal range",
for the time of year in question. I would add,
"and have caused or are likely to cause damage to agricultural production or woodland, and where remedial action is required without delay and where the procedures under section 5 above would not prevent further immediate damage".
I am sure that, once again, that definition is not perfect legally, but I am far from persuaded that a definition of marauding cannot be found. A marauding deer, against which the very considerable and immediate powers of this clause can be used, must be one which is marauding. That does not mean to say that it is on its normal territory, going about its normal business—grazing the heather and so on. There must be an element of surprise that the deer arrived where it was not expected to arrive. It must have come from somewhere and go back somewhere.
In the original Act, and indeed in this Bill, the suggestion arises that those who will have to deal with marauding deer will have to follow them and kill them. That means, presumably, that they run away from where they are marauding and go back to where they came from. I am not going to the stake or indeed to the corral on the definition of the word "marauding", but I believe these amendments are important and we must make some attempt to define this area before we move onto other areas of Clause 4. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I would like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Pearson on this not least because I really believe that there is a serious issue of clarity here, particularly following my noble friend Lord Lindsay's remarks in connection with Clause 23. It seems to me

CHW 43
to be absolutely crucial that this definition of precisely what marauding entails is made totally clear. At the moment, I am by far from convinced that I even understand what will be the outcome of the amendments in their totality suggested by my noble friend. Therefore, I hope that he will go some way further to satisfy my concerns.
The Earl of Lindsay: The effects of Amendments Nos. 24and 79 have been substantially explained by my noble friends Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Glenarthur. I would repeat the definition that we have used of "marauding" both in Notes on Clauses and indeed by myself in earlier evidence: marauding deer are deer which are not being effectively controlled and which are on land on which they are not normally established. The need for clarity, if the term is used strategically or substantially in the Bill, called for by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur is one with which I agree, and it is the need for clarity which makes us cautious about the sort of definitions which are being suggested by my noble friend Lord Pearson.
On the difficulty about creating a legal definition of marauding deer, it is impossible to be certain about what constitutes the normal range on which deer are established, and therefore to have a clear legal prescription of where deer should and should not be. Because of my sympathy with the motives behind this amendment—it is not dissimilar to the welfare issue—I have spoken to the parliamentary draftsman. He points out that normal range to deer managers may be one thing, but that the normal range of a particular species of deer to woodland owners, crofters or farmers may be another thing, and it may be possible, if one was contesting the label "range", to produce biologists or other experts who come up with yet another definition of what should be the normal range of a wild animal. I have no quarrel with what the two noble Lords are trying to achieve in principle. My concern is that the term "normal range" is something which my experts, officials and parliamentary draftsman say is potentially terrifying because of the number of different ways in which it can be interpreted for the various different species of deer that we have in Scotland.
On the basis of the difficulty over the actual definition, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendments, but it is something that we have spent a good deal of time looking into.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend but I am not convinced that we have spent enough time looking into it. Before withdrawing the amendment, I wonder whether we may have his assurance that we can discuss this in some depth before we move to the next stage. All the powers which centre around Clause 4 come from this difficulty of the immediacy of Clause 4 and exactly how they are going to be used. If we cannot solve the problem by reaching an agreement on the meaning of the word "marauding",
CWH 44
then there must be another way that we can define where we all want to be with this clause. Perhaps I may put that to my noble friend as a request.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am happy to discuss this with my noble friend before the next stage. I would also point out to him exactly where we are coming from. We are happy, away from the face of the Bill, to define "marauding deer" as those which arc not being effectively controlled and are not normally resident in the area where they exist. There may be grounds for optimism for my noble friend that somehow we can agree on what is at the heart of this. It is a matter of whether we can put a safe definition of "marauding" into the Bill and know that it is secure from counter-definitions from others.
Perhaps I may also remind the Committee that the impact of the definition and how it is interpreted are vital. This is why the amendment which I am about to move specifies that all other options and powers available to the deer commission must be unavailable or inappropriate before it can turn to the marauding power. This will help by de facto defining the circumstances in which marauding deer will be classified as such, because if through discussion with the people who have a right to shoot deer wherever they are or if through control agreements or control schemes or through the deer management groups you can solve the problem that those deer are creating, then you do not have marauding deer. You only have marauding deer and can tackle them where no other power is available to the commission. I am happy to discuss this point with my noble friend prior to the next stage.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I take particular encouragement from his agreement that a marauding deer cannot be one that is normally resident where it is supposed to be marauding! With that small satisfaction, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 21, after first ("to") insert ("enclosed").
The noble Lady said: I beg leave to speak also to Amendment No. 69. If "woodland" is not enclosed by some fence or barrier designed to keep deer out, surely they cannot be considered to be "marauding" if they get into it! As the definition of "woodland" stands at present, which I shall return to in a later amendment, and in the absence of any definition of "marauding", which we have just spoken about, "woodland" can, as I see it, mean any land on which there are just a handful of trees in possibly a square kilometre of land. The normal range of red deer is frequently over just such land.
As I understand it from the submissions of various witnesses to the Select Committee, if one plants trees, or tries to regenerate them without deer fencing, one would need to reduce the deer population to between three and five deer or less per square kilometre (400 hectares). At that level, the letting of stalking for sport

CWH 45
as a commercial activity, as we know it, would be impossible with consequent loss of income from rent and venison sales and loss of capital value.
The RSPB suggested in its submission that that would not be the case but, under questioning, it admitted that its stalkers were the owners of—I think it was the solum. In the red book it says the "soul", and it certainly cannot be the "sole". I think it means the solum. The RSPB's stalkers only stalked about 15 days a season, which is very little; took one beast per outing; only paid any expenses involved, and also admitted that it did not have to make the estate pay, thanks to outside funding.
I have a nightmare vision. If woodland does not have to be enclosed, SNH can come along waving a European Communities habitats directive from Brussels, and declare a large part of what is at present a sporting estate to be a special area of conservation, where the native forest is to be regenerated without the use of politically incorrect deer fencing. Then, when the deer eat or threaten to eat the seedlings on what has hitherto been their normal feeding ground, it can demand that the commission has them massacred. What is more, to add insult to injury, it keeps the carcasses. That would be pretty hard on the wretched owner, who is left with the wages to pay, no income and an unsaleable estate. That might suit some future government of an independent Scotland bent on nationalisation of all sporting estates, because compulsory purchase would then not cost them very much. But do the Government really want to put powers into this Bill which, as I see it, could be used in that way? I do not say that they would, but it is possible that they could. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lady for explaining Amendment No. 25 to us and indeed for speaking to Amendment No. 69.
The existing provision at Section 6 of the 1959 Act does not specify that the woodland should be enclosed. One can easily anticipate a situation where a particular woodland or forest is not enclosed because deer were not a problem at that time. Later, deer leave their established range, or their range under pressure moves, and enter that woodland and could potentially cause serious damage. To specify that only enclosed woodlands merit protection would be to suggest that any woodland within possible striking range of deer populations, either now or at some stage in the future, should be expected to be fenced or else risk damage, regardless of whether or not deer are a problem at present. That would be an unreasonable burden to place on the proprietors of woodlands.
It has been suggested that the commission might authorise out of season shooting to protect the natural heritage or unenclosed woodland in a manner which does not take into account neighbouring land interests. As we have already discussed, the effect of the new balancing duty introduced by Clause 1 is to ensure that such matters are taken into account when relevant as the commission exercises its powers. Consequently, the commission will not be able to issue authorisations without taking into account any impact they might have on neighbouring interests or indeed in general on the interests of owners and occupiers.
CWH 46
In any case, those with experience of the way the commission exercise its functions will know that the commission's role in respect of deer management groups has been very much to stress the voluntary principle in solving potential problems and to encourage co-operation between neighbouring owners. The sustainable management of deer throughout Scotland in the manner envisaged by the Bill will be possible only if the commission can demonstrate that it is carrying out its overall responsibilities in a balanced and reasonable manner.
Amendment No. 69 is designed to restrict out of season authorisations to enclosed woodland also. New Section 33A(5) of the Bill specifically aims to allow the commission to authorise shooting to prevent damage to unenclosed woodland. The important point behind this is that unenclosed woodland—especially if it is near or within the normal range of deer—is less likely to trigger Section 6—as amended by Clause 4 of the Bill—powers. The powers will be very strictly defined and with my Amendment No. 30 will be even more closely defined. The damage must be serious; the damage must also be continuing damage. It cannot be damage that has happened or is about to happen. The other powers and procedures available to the commission must be inadequate. They must have been either tried and failed or be inappropriate to the circumstances of the case. The most likely scenario with unenclosed woodland is that one has a build up of a problem which is then subject to the control agreement that at worst could be a control order. But there is a much smaller likelihood of marauding powers being triggered for the unenclosed woodland in a way which I believe the noble Lady so fears.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that long reply. I should like to read what he has said and consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, leave out lines 23 and 24.
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("land") to ("; or") in line 19.
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 71 with which it is grouped are designed to tease out from my noble friend the Minister the exact circumstances in which the somewhat draconian new powers of the Bill might be used to defend the natural heritage interest.
Amendment No. 84, with which those two amendments are grouped, seeks to exclude the use of helicopters for that purpose and the use of helicopters to drive deer into corrals for slaughter.
Amendment No. 26 therefore removes the words "whether directly or indirectly" deer are causing damage "to the natural heritage generally" in Clause 4, and more or less the same words from Clause 7 of the Bill, which authorises the commission to carry out certain acts. Those acts include the use of any vehicle

CWH 47
"to drive deer in order to take or kill them for the purposes of deer management".
That clause then goes on specifically to say that "deer management" does not include sporting activity, so presumably it does include the large-scale slaughters to which I have referred.
Lying at the back of these amendments is the strong suspicion that these violent clauses are not really needed to protect the natural heritage at all. If deer are on what I have called their normal range, or my noble friend the Minister has described as where they are normally resident, then any damage they may be doing to the natural heritage is something which builds up over a period of years and can be dealt with by Clause 5 of the Bill, to which there are few objections.
What I am asking my noble friend to do, for the record, is to explain why the natural heritage interest is required within the emergency powers of Clause 4 to deal with marauding deer, especially when he is trying to persuade me that no-one can say what a marauding deer really is. Secondly, can he explain why the ability to drive deer—and in this case, under Clause 7, on their normal range—with helicopters into corrals to kill them for the purposes—as the Bill so euphemistically puts it—of "deer management" is included, but yet the Bill goes on specifically to exclude any sporting activity? I imagine my noble friend will confirm that that means fairly substantial culling, if "massacre" is too emotive a word, in the Bill as drafted.
Those are my worries about the natural heritage interest being included in these clauses, and my worry as to the use to which the intention to use helicopters to drive them will clearly be put if the Bill goes ahead as drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My noble friend will be aware that during the passage of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill there was a very great deal of concern raised that the powers that that Bill introduced, coupled with anything that might emerge on deer could have very much the effect that my noble friend Lord Pearson has described. These really are matters which go to the heart of the concerns of a great many people about the way that the powers that are being introduced in the Bill could be used. I accept that in the totality of the commission's powers, including the responsibilities of individuals, there is a sense of gradation of what can be done to try to meet the concerns which at any time could arise. However, it seems to me that what is being authorised by the Bill could go much further, and in a way which is as yet improperly defined—my noble friend has given the example of the incomplete definition of precisely what marauding deer are in this respect—than any of us really feels at all comfortable with.
There is a duty embodied in the Bill to further the conservation. Yet it seems that, in the points we are considering now, that conservation looks a little weak when it does not sit easily with the idea that, for a particular circumstance to preserve the natural heritage in the ways that are described, somewhat draconian powers can be taken. I hope that my noble friend will
CWH 48
take this very seriously indeed. I have grave concerns about it and will return to the question of helicopters in due course. I shall certainly have a few things to say then. At the moment, however, I am less than assured from all I have heard so far that we have this right.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend sits down, I am not sure that we do return to helicopters. This is our chance to deal with helicopters by excluding them from the vehicles which the commission may use to drive deer for deer management purposes, which are strictly unsporting.
Lord Glenarthur: I was hoping to come to it during the definition phase—under Clause 9—which was the point I was making. I certainly do agree with my noble friend that the idea of using helicopters in this respect is highly undesirable. I also wonder—I know that my noble friend the Minister has not yet covered it in any remarks he has made—whether some consultation would no doubt be taking place to establish whether or not this is a practice which could be endorsed by those who are more immediately concerned with helicopters in this way. I suppose I ought to declare an interest as chairman of the British Helicopter Advisory Board, which is the trade association for all the helicopter operators. I have to say that I have no advice from it on the subject but I wonder whether my noble friend has sought any advice as to the use of aircraft generally. Having said that, that does not detract from the fact that I deplore the possibility that they could be used in this way.
The Earl of Lindsay: The amendment and related amendments introduced by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch cover quite a lot of very important ground. Part of his concern is perhaps whether the natural heritage itself should be sufficient reason for the deer commission to exercise its stronger powers. We have looked at this very carefully before bringing it forward in the Bill and indeed we would not have brought it to this stage without sufficient consensus and without the recommendations of the Red Deer Commission itself.
Across society, there is a general understanding now that environmental matters are of increasing importance and are likely to become even more important as the years go by. They need to be handled in a sustainable manner which does not disregard the needs and interests of other land users and other interests; for instance, owners and occupiers. At the same time, the importance of the natural heritage and environment is now seen as being as important as any other factor and therefore justifying the focus of the deer commission when it is exercising either Clause 4 or Clause 5 powers.
There could be emergencies which, if I think hard enough, I could envisage where one might want to invoke a Section 6 power for reasons of natural heritage. It could be that there is an enclosed woodland which houses some feature of the natural heritage which is an important and significant feature, and it could be flora or fauna. Into that woodland at a later date deer manage to arrive and invade that area as marauding deer in exceptional circumstances. They therefore destroy the

CWH 49
survival or prospects of whatever it is that was so important in the first place. They literally cause it serious damage. I have stressed in the past, and I stress it again, that unless serious damage can be substantiated, that that is the description of events, then there is no way that Section 6 powers can be invoked for the natural heritage.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Perhaps he would allow me to point out that he has just made precisely the same mistake that the Chief Executive of Scottish Natural Heritage made at our committee proceedings in Edinburgh. If my noble friend will direct himself to Clause 4, he will see that we have not objected to Clause 4 being used against marauding deer, whatever they may turn out to be, when they are causing serious damage to woodland. Clause 9 of the Bill as drafted says:
"'woodland' means land on which trees are grown, whether or not commercially, and includes any such trees and any vegetation planted or growing naturally among such trees on that land".
I take the point that the noble Earl makes. There are amendments tabled to decide whether the woodland should be enclosed or unenclosed; whether the trees should have been planted; whether they should be mature woodlands or groups of mature trees and all the rest of it. The definition of "woodland" appears to be much too widely drafted to some of us and would, in fact, enable much more land than is intended to be covered by the Bill. But we are coming back to that.
Clause 4 as drafted allows marauding deer to be dealt with when they are,
"causing serious damage to woodland, to agricultural production (including any crops or foodstuffs)".
It then goes on to talk about injury to what no doubt would become livestock and so forth, even when they are a danger to the public. My objection to this clause is the inclusion of the expression that those deer should be dealt with when they are causing damage,
"whether directly or indirectly, to the natural heritage generally".
That is the point to which I ask my noble friend to address himself.
The Earl of Lindsay: I stress the word "serious" as an adjective to the word "damage". For decades, if not for centuries, deer in Scotland have caused a level of damage just to ensure their own survival, but Clause 4 talks specifically about serious damage to woodland. That is of greater importance in terms of severity than merely talking about damage. It may not be woodland we are talking about. I am sure the noble Lord accepts that it could he open moor or other types of vegetation of natural heritage significance. Where a significant aspect or feature of the natural heritage is concerned, the ability to act quickly in cases of serious damage is of vital importance, but if it is merely damage and not serious damage, then quite properly Section 6 should not be available to the commission. There is a very important distinction here. I hope the Committee accepts that we must have this ability to act in emergency situations where the natural heritage is under threat, not simply because there is a continuing level of damage which is not categorised as serious but because there is a serious threat and the damage itself would be serious.
CWH 50
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, spoke to two other amendments. If I understood my noble friend correctly, he seeks to remove natural heritage as a ground for authorising out of season shooting under the proposed Section 33A(5), as proposed by Clause 7. For the same reason that I would defend the ability to authorise a Clause 6 power to protect the natural heritage against serious damage, I would also defend the ability of the commission to authorise out of season shooting to defend the natural heritage against serious damage.
My noble friend Lord Pearson also spoke to Amendment No. 84. I would point out that the definition was taken from the English Deer Act 1991, and it was the intention of the Bill to allow the use of vehicles to move deer subject to permission, authorisation and a code of practice. We have thought the matter through very carefully and will continue to look at the whole subject from all angles. There is sufficient concern, and it is a sufficiently provocative subject, that we should not resort to a closed mind. We will continue to keep an open mind.
However, our fundamental belief, which has come to us through advice from the Red Deer Commission, is that if legislation is only available to a government to revise the powers of the deer commission every two to three decades it is important to take a reasonably long-term view as to what powers and provisions may be needed in the medium term. It has been anticipated by the commission itself in discussions with us that deer on difficult terrain could be subject to very fast rising numbers and that the only way to remove that deer could be the use of some vehicle, be it airborne or a land vehicle. That would be the only sensible way to manage the deer over that ground.
We have made it quite clear that there is to be no sporting dimension to such movement of beasts. It may be that, both for welfare reasons, if there are too many deer on that particular range, or indeed for natural heritage reasons, deer might have to be managed like that. The deer commission would have to consider and authorise each case specifically, and the code of practice which is still to be worked up into its final form would be imposed upon any such exercise. I can reassure the Committee that the use of helicopters in deer management in Scotland will be discussed again in Committee, and again on Report. I can further assure the Committee that I will continue to discuss it with officials between Committee and Report stages. We are keeping an active mind on this.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend Lord Pearson replies, on the question of deleting natural heritage in this context, if you asked people in Scotland generally whether they would agree that the deer commission should not have power in an emergency to do something quickly about serious damage to some aspect of the heritage by deer, they would ask what was the point of having a deer commission. I really do think that. I am not talking about helicopters at this moment. I can understand that my noble friend may have fears

CWH 51
about the effect of the Bill on the ground—have to look at that—but that must stay somewhere in this clause.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to my noble friend and to my noble friend the Minister.
To my noble friend Lady Carnegy I would say that we accept that the deer commission requires emergency powers to deal with marauding deer. The question posed by Amendment No. 26 is whether the natural heritage can be the subject of such emergency action. The natural heritage lasts over a very long period of time and it may be that deer are moving into an area and threatening a rare species of plant, or some montagne environment. But if we allow marauding deer to be dealt with in a woodland—even vaguely within the definition of woodland—and everything that goes on in a woodland within this Bill and all the other categories for which marauding deer can be dealt with—then you are only left with the open hills for the use to which the natural heritage interests might be put. It is that which I am trying to protect.
I have to say to my noble friend that I take no comfort from his statement that the damage has to be serious. I imagine that the difference between damage and serious damage must be somewhat in the eye of the beholder. The beholder, on this occasion, will be the commission. If my noble friend can tell me what the difference between damage to the natural heritage on the open hill, not in the woodland, and serious damage to the natural heritage is likely to be, then we might all begin to understand what this clause could be about. Until that can be done, I view it with the very gravest suspicion.
Finally, I am encouraged that my noble friend is prepared to have another look at helicopters, because helicopters are not any good at driving deer in dense plantations; the deer simply turn round and go back. You cannot drive deer out of the modern forestry plantation with a helicopter. I have tried it and it cannot be done. Through the amendment we are trying to deal with the use of helicopters on the open hill under the excuse of the natural heritage to drive deer to their painful destruction. I regret to say that my noble friend has not comforted me on this yet and I hope we can continue to discuss it. If I have that assurance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 29:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("farm animals") and insert ("livestock").
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("those animals") and insert ("any such livestock").
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 27 when moving Amendment No. 21 and I also spoke to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 31, at end insert ("; and
CWH 52
( ) that none of their other powers is adequate to deal with the situation,").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 30 when we moved Amendment No. 23. This is the crucial amendment that defines when the Section 6 powers can be used as regards marauding deer, and it defines the fact that it must be a real emergency. However, I spoke to this earlier and therefore I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 31
Page 3, line 31, at end insert—
("(c) that it is impractical for reasons of public safety or otherwise to kill the deer on the land where such damage, injury, danger or potential danger is caused,").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to page 3 line 31 of the Bill, which suggests that it might be impractical to move deer away from the area where they are causing damage, and, if that is so, they should be dealt with where they are. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable little amendment and I wonder whether my noble friend can view it favourably.
Lord Glenarthur: I rise briefly to support my noble friend. It does not seem to me to be a particularly difficult concept to bring to bear and for that reason, because of its simplicity, I very much hope that my noble friend will look at its virtues.
The Earl of Lindsay: I can promise that I will take this away and look forward to considering it in more detail. The spirit behind it is not something with which we will quarrel in that we would hope that, in the hierarchy of action that is applied to any situation where deer damage is thought to be occurring, the deer should be managed where the damage is occurring in the first instance and only in the second instance from where the deer are coming to inflict that damage. Indeed, the deer commission has therefore to contact those people with the right to shoot deer where they are more normally resident. I stress that what the noble Lord is trying to achieve through this amendment is something to which we are not unsympathetic and at which we shall look.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lady said: I know that this is the same wording as Section 6(1) of the 1959 Act but I wonder why "shall" was chosen instead of "may" in the first place back in 1959. I should have thought that "may" would have been more appropriate. Perhaps it was to make sure that the Deer Commission did not bury its head in the sand and do nothing. Can the noble Earl clarify the position?
The Earl of Lindsay: There is a good reason for "shall". If those with legitimate land use interests are being subject to serious damage by deer predation—I

CWH 53
stress that deer are wild animals belonging to no one—they do enjoy a right of protection against that serious damage. There should be discretion within the commission in the process leading up to such a decision as to the most appropriate action to take in respect of a problem which is becoming more aggravated. The commission should exercise a discretion in terms of the voluntary agreements open to it and the control orders open to it and, finally, if all else fails and it is an emergency situation, then the marauding power in Section 6 of the 1959 Act is available. There should be discretion up to that point, but once serious damage is being inflicted on other legitimate land use interests, then this power should be activated.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I thank the noble Earl for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the Committee be adjourned until Wednesday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday next.
Committee adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.

  Foreign Affairs Council, 26th and 27th February
  Foreign Affairs Council, 26th and 27th February
  EU Financial Perspective
  EU Financial Perspective
  Swiss Banks: Acceptance of Funds
  Swiss Banks: Acceptance of Funds
  Scotland: Grants for Environmental Work
  Scotland: Grants for Environmental Work
  Armed Services: House Purchase Assistance Scheme
  Armed Services: House Purchase Assistance Scheme
  Privatised Rail Companies: Compulsory Purchase Powers
  Privatised Rail Companies: Compulsory Purchase Powers
  Public Interest Immunity Claims
  Public Interest Immunity Claims
  Public Interest Immunity: Counsel's Opinions
  Public Interest Immunity: Counsel's Opinions
  Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passport Holders: Visas
  Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passport Holders: Visas
  Prisoners: 24-Hour Access to Sanitation
  Prisoners: 24-Hour Access to Sanitation
  Immigrants and Refugees: Family Reunion Policy
  Immigrants and Refugees: Family Reunion Policy
  Immigrants: Family Credit
  Immigrants: Family Credit
  Sports Events: Broadcasting Rights
  Sports Events: Broadcasting Rights
  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Rough Sleepers Initiative