Sitting of 11 March 1996

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

    Oil Pollution
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ban single-hulled oil tankers from British waters. [17992]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The Government have participated fully in amendments to international regulations, which will phase out the use of conventional single-hulled tankers over the next 30 years.
    Mrs. Campbell: Why does the Secretary of State not start work now, through the International Maritime Organisation, to change the requirements for 30-year changes to tanker design? We need the world's tanker fleet to become safe as soon as possible. Thirty years is surely unacceptable.
    Sir George Young: No country has banned the use of single-hulled tankers, but the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that we have started with increased inspection of older ships. One must bear in mind the fact that 93 per cent. of the fleet have single hulls, so obviously there are constraints on the speed with which one can move to alternative use.
    Mr. David Nicholson: In view of the enormous damage to wildlife and the immense cost that the recent Milford Haven upset has caused—I am thinking of the coasts of Cornwall and Devon as well as that of Wales—what urgent measures can my right hon. Friend pursue in the meantime, especially with regard to improving the training of tanker crews as there is some suggestion that badly trained crews have caused some of the mishaps?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, the marine accident investigation branch is conducting an inquiry into the accident at Milford Haven. It will consider issues such as those that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. It will be able to publish interim reports if lessons need to be learnt urgently, and one such special bulletin was published last week. The inquiry will cover the question of crew training.
    Mr. Allen: In respect of the single-hulled Sea Empress, will the Minister ensure that the MAIB inquiry considers not only the advice given to Ministers about the incident but the responsibility that those Ministers must bear for having accepted in its entirety advice that was wholly and wildly optimistic?
    The Minister failed to learn the lessons of the Braer disaster and the Brora disaster. Will he ensure that he learns the lessons of the Sea Empress disaster and that a tug is stationed in the western approaches at the earliest possible moment, and not in a year's time when the inquiry reports? Is there a tug in place in the western approaches today to prevent the possibility of a recurrence tonight of what happened to the Sea Empress?
    Sir George Young: On the first point, the MAIB is independent of the Department of Transport. It has published reports which have criticised the Department and I have no doubt that it will criticise the Department in the future if it finds grounds so to do.
    On the second point, lessons have been learnt from the Braer. There was a similar inquiry into that incident and then there was the Donaldson report, 86 recommendations of which have already been accepted.
    Finally, as regards tugs, we accepted Lord Donaldson's recommendations that priority should be given to the Minches and the Dover straits. Tugs were stationed in those places straight away.

    Civil Air Transport Regulation
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet European Transport Commissioner Kinnock to discuss the regulation of civil air transport in Europe. [17993]
    Sir George Young: I met Mr. Kinnock on 5 February and discussed a number of matters, including civil air transport. No further meetings are planned at present.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Given the evident inability of Commissioner Kinnock to regulate fair competition within the European Union, as evidenced by his accession to the Spanish Government's request to pump an extra £600 million or so into Iberia in addition to the large sum that they pumped in about five years ago, thus taking the figure well over £1 billion, will the Secretary of State go straight to Luxembourg and lodge an action with the European Court in view of the clear breach of article 92 of the treaty of Rome, which purports to ensure fair competition within the European Union?
    Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend that it was a disappointing decision which allowed Spain to subsidise Iberia to the tune of £566 million. It will distort competition and it is unfair to the United Kingdom airlines, which compete without subsidies. It is the second huge payment to Iberia in four years. We shall study the decision closely and consider carefully what options are available to us to take the matter further.

    Public Transport Use
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change in the level of use of public transport his Department forecasts for the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [17994]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The Government do not make forecasts of that sort.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that his answer is not helpful? Obviously, if there is to be an increase in the use of public transport, there needs to be major public investment. Does the Minister recognise the need to meet the requirements of the disabled who need to be able to get on and off public transport if they are to be able to use it? Investment is needed as soon as possible.
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is right: my answer was not very helpful. His supplementary question, however, was based on at least two fallacies. It is not inevitable that large improvements in public transport need to depend on public subsidies; the case that he mentioned is evidence of that. Low-floored buses, which allow the disabled to gain access on the same basis as other people, are also useful to mothers with buggies or children, people with lots of shopping and those who do not walk or get about particularly well. Operators are finding that those buses pay for themselves. Private sector operators are happy to make that sort of investment.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that buses are now reaching parts of my constituency of Chipping Barnet that it was never dreamt they could reach 10 years ago? Although I understand that 90 per cent. of passenger and freight traffic goes by road, does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that 75 per cent. of his Department's budget for London should be spent, as it is, on public transport services in our capital city?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right about the proportion of the Department's budget that is spent on public transport in the capital city. My hon. Friend is also right to state that buses provide the key to improving the public transport quality in an area such as the one that he represents. That is why my bus working group—which brings together operators, local authorities and officials from the Department—has been looking at ways to enhance the quality of bus services. In so doing, it has been able to achieve a remarkable degree of unanimity; there is agreement across the board that we need to make buses more attractive to more people so that they are used for more journeys.
    Ms Short: Will the Minister explain why the Government attempted to keep hidden their own forecasts of road congestion, which the Royal Automobile Club describes as a
    "nightmare vision of the future"?
    Will he confirm that the maps predict chronic congestion and gridlock on increasingly large sections of the road network in the near future? Does he agree that the only way forward for the country is increased use of public transport, which will not come about with our deregulated and declining bus services with passenger miles
    634
    decreasing and our fragmented rail services, which have resulted from privatisation and in which there has been underinvestment?
    Mr. Norris: I appreciate that not many hon. Members visit the Library, but I would hardly call placing a document in the Library keeping it secret. The plans on congestion are straightforward: they show the congestion that will arise if the growth in transport is entirely unaffected by any Government action and if no more roadworks are carried out. The question is one for the hon. Lady, whose party is in a dreadful mess over the road-building programme. As that forecast is the inevitable and logical consequence of doing nothing to our road system, when will she and her party come off the fence and make it clear that we need a generous and vigorous road programme and that the Labour party's talk of cancelling or abandoning the road programme is utter nonsense?

    London Underground Northern Line
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress in the supply of new trains for the Northern line. [17995]
    Mr. Norris: The first of the trains will be delivered during 1996, and will come into service at the beginning of 1997.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for his progress report on the £1 billion investment in the Northern line, which constitutes the largest single private finance initiative project. He said that the first train would come into service early in 1997; can he and I agree to celebrate a happy new year on that first train on 1 January 1997?
    Mr. Norris: Not necessarily on 1 January—I applaud my hon. Friend's enthusiasm, but I hope that he will not mind if I temper it slightly. I have every confidence that the new fleet of trains—delivered, as my hon. Friend pointed out, under the private finance initiative—will massively enhance the service offered to Northern line travellers; 50 per cent. of the current down time on the line is due to train faults, a problem that will be eliminated immediately by the introduction of this excellent new stock.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: How confident is the Minister that the new trains will have a track worthy of their newness, given that large sections of the Northern line are having to be closed so that necessary repairs can be carried out? The need for those repairs is a direct result of the Government's failure to invest adequately in London Transport over the past 16 years.
    Mr. Norris: I am very confident. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should wail about lack of investment, given that it invested only about a quarter of the amount that the Government are now investing. Now that we have launched a massive programme of investment to improve the Northern line, Labour Members have the sheer cheek to complain about the disruption that may be caused. Passengers see with their own eyes the improvements that are being made and they wholly reject the hon. Lady's thesis.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents travel on the Northern line from Edgware and Colindale stations? When the new trains start to run at the end of the year, will he ensure that their introduction is accompanied by improvements in infrastructure and electronic arrangements on the line as there have been many mistakes, failures and disappointments so far?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right: as well as introducing new trains, we need to give thought to signalling, power supply and track quality. We are already undertaking an extensive programme of refurbishment and improvement at stations so that we can improve the overall quality of the service offered to my hon. Friend's constituents. We are also looking for ways in which we can further harness private finance to make improvements at a rate that would not be possible if we relied solely on the taxpayer for funds. That is the key. We have the prospect of delivering £1 billion-worth of improvements to the Northern line, and the private sector can provide the vast majority of the money.

    West Coast Main Line
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on safety improvements on the west coast main line in 1995. [17996]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Railtrack's expenditure on renewal and maintenance of the west coast main line in 1994–95 totalled £129 million. Expenditure on safety cannot be identified separately. Expenditure by Railtrack and train operators provides a mixture of safety and other benefits.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given events at the weekend—especially the smash in Staffordshire—does the Minister not think it about time that safety expenditure was separately identified, so that hon. Members could scrutinise it?
    Is the Minister aware that there are frequent breakdowns on the Euston to Birmingham line? Last month there were delays of up to an hour and a half. Many passengers were stranded and had to get on the next train, where they found that there were no seats and became involved in rows with conductors about using first-class accommodation. Does the Minister consider that satisfactory?
    Mr. Watts: Nearly all expenditure on improving and maintaining infrastructure has some safety benefits. That is why it is not possible to make the false distinction suggested by the hon. Gentleman. As for the west coast main line generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that Railtrack has a large investment plan, the first stage of which will be the letting of a contract to develop a new signalling system later this month.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the scene which resulted from the horrendous accident in my constituency of Stafford at the weekend was absolutely deplorable, that it was a miracle that lives were not lost on a substantial scale and that the proposal for an internal inquiry is wholly inappropriate? Does he agree that there should be a full and complete public inquiry to deal with all aspects of the accident, including not only safety issues
    636
    but rail track, maintenance and planning considerations? Houses were immediately adjacent to a railway embankment and were therefore at very considerable risk.
    Mr. Watts: First, I should like to extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituents, particularly to the relatives of the postal worker who died in the crash. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that my right hon. Friend Secretary of State has asked the Health and Safety Commission to ask the Health and Safety Executive to carry out an independent investigation, to prepare a special report and for the report to be made public as soon as possible. In the meantime, Railtrack, the train operator and Her Majesty's railway inspectorate are carrying out technical investigations to see whether there are any immediate lessons to be learnt.
    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Minister recall the derailment outside Euston station on 14 December last year, which led to widespread disruption and delay to train services? Will he tell the House why, despite earlier warnings from contractors about dangerous conditions on the track, Railtrack failed to take any action to prevent that accident, bearing it in mind that such negligent inaction by British Rail would have led automatically to dismissal of the staff concerned?
    Mr. Watts: Railtrack already had plans for work on the track in the vicinity of Euston. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Health and Safety Executive issued an improvement notice—not a prohibition or closure notice—giving Railtrack a year to bring the track up to standard. There is no question that safety will be compromised.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will the Minister give the House further details of the new investment in signalling equipment? Is not that investment very important and long overdue, and how long will it take to come into effect?
    Mr. Watts: It is difficult to be precise about how long development of the new signalling system will take. The contract will be let later this month, which will add significantly to the line's capacity and provide inbuilt automatic train protection. In parallel with that development work, Railtrack will undertake a large investment programme in track and power supplies.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister knows that less than a fortnight ago the Health and Safety Executive issued a notice in relation to that particular area of the west coast main line, making it very clear that urgent and necessary work was required. It is a miracle that more Post Office workers did not lose their lives. Is it not clear from Railtrack's immediate response, which sought to give an instant diagnosis of the problem, that privatisation has fragmented companies and that, instead of improving safety for passengers, we have argument, disputation and real dangers to everyone using the system?
    Mr. Watts: With regard to fragmentation, the hon. Lady knows that there will be a single rail network in the ownership and operation of Railtrack. I think that she and other hon. Members would be unwise to speculate on the causes of the accident.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Railtrack did.
    Mr. Watts: The preliminary information from Railtrack's investigation team is that there is not yet any evidence of track defect, vandalism or signalling irregularity. The hon. Lady should be willing, as I am, to await the outcome of the independent investigation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Health and Safety Executive to carry out.
    Ms Short: I am sure that the Minister would not mean to mislead the House. Does he agree that the improvement notice issued by the Health and Safety Executive to Railtrack about the incident at Euston is unprecedented and that an order of that kind was never necessary to make British Rail comply with safety conditions? Will the Minister confirm that the recent health and safety report on Railtrack was very critical indeed? Is he not concerned that Railtrack is so incompetent that it cannot give safety certificates for £450 million-worth of rolling stock that has already been bought but which is lying idle? Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that it is disgraceful that Railtrack should seek to absolve itself of responsibility for the terrible accident at Stafford before there has been an inquiry? Given all of that, does the Minister agree that it would be absolutely wrong to allow Railtrack to be floated before its safety standards have been sorted out?
    Mr. Watts: No. The picture that the hon. Lady tries to paint is completely false. The HSE said that there is no decline in overall health and safety standards. Indeed, in terms of significant train accidents on the network, there was a fall of eight last year—to 110, with 32 fatalities, excluding trespassers and suicides, which is the lowest level ever. The true picture is quite different from that which the hon. Lady tries misleadingly to paint whenever she appears on television.

    Motorway Repairs
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken. [17997]
    Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend receives representations from a range of individuals and organisations about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.
    Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that motorway repairs are undertaken in the minimum possible time? Does he agree that hold-ups caused by motorway repairs are very costly to industry? Has he any proposals to speed things up?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right in that we can never be satisfied with the performance. The lane rental system has been introduced for virtually all major maintenance contracts and lane rental contracts are completed on average 30 per cent. faster than conventional contracts. As for the cost of delays, the use of lane rental has so far saved more than 5,000 days of disruption at an estimated saving of £120 million in road user costs since it was introduced in 1984.

    Oil Pollution
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress to clear up oil deposits. [17998]
    Sir George Young: I share the concern of people along the coast about the oil spilt when the tanker Sea Empress grounded at the entrance to Milford Haven. I am anxious that the beautiful and environmentally sensitive coastline should be quickly restored. Very good progress is being made with the clean-up. At sea, recovery of oil is effectively completed, and I expect that the work on the shoreline will be substantially completed by Easter.
    Mr. Banks: We must not allow the public spotlight to move away from what looks like being perhaps the worst ecological disaster since the Torrey Canyon—[Interruption.] I think that "Tory" Canyon was the right pronunciation. Someone needs to swing for the current disaster. It cannot be acceptable for everyone to say, "It was nobody's fault." We want someone's head on a plate—or at least I do. Will the Secretary of State assure us that sufficient resources are still being made available for the clean-up operations and that the compensation fund is not likely to be exhausted? Can he give us any up-to-date figure for the extent of sea bird mortality in the area and also the number of sea mammals to have suffered as a result of the Sea Empress disaster?
    Sir George Young: The Torrey Canyon disaster took place under a Labour Government, and the then Prime Minister ordered that the ship be bombed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have made considerable progress in dealing with such accidents since then.
    With regard to the recent accident, the hon. Gentleman will know that I have established no fewer than three inquiries to find out exactly what went wrong. The inquiries will be independent and their findings will be published. There has been no shortage of resources for the clean-up process. I pay tribute to all the people involved in that process, both at sea and on the beaches, many of whom worked long hours in darkness doing a messy and uncomfortable task. I understand that the funds available will be more than adequate to meet compensation claims.
    On the hon. Gentleman's last question, more than 2,500 dead birds have been recovered. More than 3,000 live birds have been recovered and are being cleaned up before release. A count of mammals conducted on Skomer Island 10 days ago showed about 80 oiled seals—three to five badly oiled, 40 moderately oiled and the rest lightly oiled.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that oil deposits are constantly being caused around our coastline—including the North Yorkshire coast, where the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has one of its best sanctuaries, at Bempton cliffs in my constituency—by tankers and other ships sluicing out oil into the North sea and other waters, and that there is evidence that the practice has been increasing in recent months? What plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that that disgusting practice is stopped?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, day in and day out, an unacceptable amount of damage is caused by ships cleaning out their tanks. I assure him that my Department devotes substantial resources to detecting, where possible, the offenders and prosecuting them. We shall soon be publishing a draft Bill implementing a number of the Donaldson recommendations which require legislation. Some of those will deal with port waste facilities.
    Mr. Ainger: Throughout Question Time today, the Secretary of State has referred to his inquiry as independent, but that is not the view taken in my constituency, in the rest of Wales and by many people throughout this country. Will he confirm that the terms of reference that he has given his so-called independent inquiry, to be undertaken by the marine accident investigation branch, makes no mention of the availability of salvage tugs, of the Donaldson inquiry recommendations, of the issue of single hulls versus double hulls, of the safety of port operations generally in and around Milford Haven, or of the need to examine current salvage law? As the MAIB inquiry is not comprehensive and its two-page interim report published only last Thursday contained five factual mistakes, does he now accept that much more information has emerged since his last statement to the House on this matter and that we need a full and independent inquiry, ideally under Lord Donaldson? As a major ecological disaster has taken place, will the Minister explain why we had an independent inquiry into the Braer and not into the Sea Empress?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The MAIB inquiry into the Braer accident was exactly the same as the one that we have established into this one. The Donaldson report was not an inquiry into the Braer accident, but a wide-ranging look at a range of issues dealing with marine pollution and safety at sea.
    I made it absolutely clear in my recent statement to the House that the inquiry will cover a number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in the first part of his question. For example, it will cover whether enough tugs were available. It will also cover whether it would have made any difference if the Sea Empress had been a double-hulled rather than a single-hulled vessel. He should not therefore imply that the MAIB is not independent or that it will not consider certain specific issues when I have made it absolutely clear to the House that it will. Nor should he undermine the MAIB's independent status as it publishes its reports without fear or favour and has criticised my Department in the past.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the penalties to deal with those who jettison oil upon the seas are sufficiently strong, and is such behaviour being policed enough?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to again draw attention to that matter. It is often quite difficult, having discovered the oil, to trace the vessel responsible for depositing it. Where possible, we shall track it down and take people to court. Substantial penalties are available against those who offend in this anti-social way.
    Mr. Llwyd: In his answers about Milford Haven, the Secretary of State has been most complacent. I might save him some time in the context of the forthcoming inquiry by telling him that the Coastguard Agency advised that a heavy-duty salvage tug was available in west Wales for two days in December and for one day in January. The disaster happened in February and, to the best of my knowledge, a tug was not available. Is not it about time that the Government, if they really do learn from reports, implemented their recommendations?
    Sir George Young: Of course if we establish inquiries we should take note of recommendations. I have announced that, of the 103 Donaldson recommendations, we have accepted 86. Since I made that announcement we have accepted a further five. Some of those that we are not taking forward immediately require international agreement and we have to reach that through the International Maritime Organisation. Others require legislation, and I shall soon publish a draft Bill that will take forward some recommendations that require legislation.

    Public Transport Works (Compensation)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the rules covering compensation following railway, underground and other public transport works. [17999]
    Mr. Norris: We have no plans to review part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, under which compensation is payable upon completion of public works.
    Mr. Hughes: That is the answer that I feared. May I try to persuade the Minister to look again at two issues which colleagues have raised in relation to the channel tunnel rail link? My concerns relate to the Jubilee line and its consequences. First, if a business is adversely affected and the property is taken or partly taken, could we guarantee that the owner is put back into no worse a position than he would have been in if the works had not taken place? Secondly, in relation to public legislation or public works—railways or an underground system—the rules state that if a building is physically touched, compensation is payable. However, if the building is not touched, although there may be a huge hole a yard from the front door so that for years no one can find the door, let alone use it, compensation is not payable. Will the Minister look at the illogicality of the division between a building being physically affected and the clear effect on work, profit and viability of all the other consequences of the works?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is being assiduous in prosecuting the interests of his constituents, particularly those in Borough High street, which I know, in relation to the Jubilee line extension. I hope that in all fairness he will understand when I say that I would prefer not to be drawn into negotiations on compensation claims that affect a number of his constituents. On his second point, he is aware that there are substantial provisions to allow for compensation and purchase of affected property where the property is not required for the scheme but is clearly blighted by it. New rules in relation to that were recently published by my Department following the Owen case.

    641
    I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has among his constituents some shopkeepers and property owners who are finding it difficult to establish a link between the loss that they suffer and the statutory compensation that is available. I stress that that will always be a difficult area. Limitless compensation for blight or perceived blight in relation to any public sector works would put most of them beyond the purse or reach of the taxpayer or of the Government.
    Dr. Twinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a link between planning delays and the lack of compensation or levels of compensation? If the Government relaxed their rules and looked at the French system of compensation, they might get much more public sympathy for public investment in infrastructure.
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend, whose constituency contains the north circular road, knows that the average time between a good idea and that idea being rolled out as a piece of tarmac is 13 and a half years, of which 11 and a half are spent in the planning and public inquiry process. I have heard it suggested that we should adopt more generous compensation methods to truncate those inquiries. I hope that he will appreciate that that is a potentially extremely expensive course of action. In general, our compensation scheme attempts to put people who are affected in the same position as they would have been had the scheme not taken place. That involves negotiation, and on occasions, leads to delay. My hon. Friend's alternative, seductive as it may be in its simplicity, would in practice be a very expensive option.
    Mr. William O'Brien: In view of the length of time that the rules of compensation have been in effect, does the Minister not think that it is time for a review, especially with regard to motorway and highway planning, for which the full information on pollution emissions is not being made available? If we are to have a proper and fair system of compensation, all information should be made available and the rules on compensation for blight should be updated through a review.
    Mr. Norris: Following recent action in the Court of Appeal, we issued new guidelines on compensation precisely to try to relate more sympathetically to the position of property owners, especially with regard to discretionary purchase. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this is a very difficult area. Inevitably, if one considers all the cases where there may be some blight, a line has to be drawn and some people who are affected by schemes fall outside it. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind, I would of course be very happy to look at them.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is it not totally unsatisfactory that claimants against Stansted airport in my constituency are having to wait about four years, if not longer, before a settlement figure is reached? Is it not totally indefensible that the British Airports Authority should take upwards of four months after a settlement has been agreed to pay compensation? Does my hon. Friend accept that we need to look at the matter?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend has been extremely assiduous on behalf of his constituents who have been affected by noise at Stansted. He has made his own point in his own way. I am sure that the BAA will want to reflect on what he has said.

    Trans-European Transport Networks
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet his European Union counterparts to discuss trans-European transport networks. [18000]
    Mr. Watts: My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping is deputising for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at a meeting of the Council of Ministers today, at which the transport networks will be discussed.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that reply. As part of his brief, is he putting forward proposals for a technical study on the electrification of the trans-European network railway line between London and south Wales that goes on to Ireland? If that is so, will further funding be made available for the electrification of that line?
    Mr. Watts: The railway line from London to south Wales is already a high-speed line. As part of our TEN bid for the coming year, we are bidding for funding for a feasibility study on the upgrading of the Great Western lines to the south-west.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take a trip round the motorways of France to see how empty they are simply because of high tolls? Does he agree that the most environmentally friendly method of moving traffic is along free motorways?
    Mr. Watts: The free movement of traffic on motorways is certainly convenient for road users and can greatly reduce the pollution caused by the same traffic moving slowly on congested and less suitable roads.

    Marine Pollution
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the ability of Government agencies to respond to marine pollution incidents. [18001]
    Sir George Young: The Coastguard Agency's marine pollution control unit is the Government's lead body for responding to pollution incidents. The MPCU is a long-established and internationally respected unit with specific responsibilities for operations to deal with pollution at sea from ships. The unit maintains the national contingency plan, which co-ordinates the response of the other central and local government bodies involved. It has stockpiles of equipment and is ready to initiate immediate response operations anywhere around the United Kingdom coast in the event of a spill.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that the accident to the Sea Empress caused 250 tonnes of oil to spill into the sea, but the salvage operation over the next week caused 70,000 tonnes of oil to be spilled? Will he respond to the letter that he recently received from the National

    643
    Trust, which listed 33 other organisations that are calling for an independent public inquiry into the accident? Will he listen to those demands, or have the Government something to hide?
    Sir George Young: The Government have nothing to hide, which is why we have set up an independent inquiry. Of course I shall respond to the National Trust. The hon. Gentleman referred to requests for a full public inquiry, but that would involve legal representation of parties and lengthy adversarial public hearings and it would be extremely time-consuming. My priority is to find out, as quickly as possible, what went wrong, to establish the cause of the accident and to learn any relevant lessons. That is best done by an expert, independent investigation following the usual procedures set up by Parliament.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Child Care Voucher Scheme
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the cost of the staff child care voucher scheme in the current financial year to date. [18022]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The expenditure on the child care voucher scheme since its inception on 1 April 1995 to date is £45,109.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he concede that while it must be of some assistance to people to use the voucher scheme to put their children in nurseries near to their homes, is not it time that the Commission examined the likely cost and feasibility of running a proper nursery in this building, so that the children of staff and Members can be looked after in a place of safety within the building—thus bringing us up to date with the 20th century before it has passed us by? Any other large institution would have workplace child care facilities, such as a nursery. This building has absolutely nothing.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission has examined that possibility and the House has debated it. I take it that since the last time that the hon. Gentleman asked me a question on that matter, he has not persuaded the Administration and Accommodation Committees, from which the Commission takes advice, that progress can be made on such a scheme.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not it the case that hon. Members may issue child care vouchers to their own staff, to be debited against their office cost allowance? Bearing in mind the enthusiasm of a number of hon. Members on this issue, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many do so?
    Mr. Beith: Hon. Members may do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but establishing how many do so would require a question of the Leader of the House.

    Jopling Reforms
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the
    644
    House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the cost of implementing the Jopling reforms. [18023]
    Mr. Beith: There have been both direct costs and direct savings for the House's votes arising from the implementation of the Jopling reforms. There have been extra reporting and security costs because total sitting hours have actually increased, but with fewer sittings of the House continuing after 10.30 pm there have been savings in overtime, night allowances and late-night transport. The net effect so far has been an estimated reduction in costs of some £80,000.
    Mr. Greenway: Have the staff responded happily to the more social hours that they are now enjoying? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any more could be done to implement the Jopling reforms with a view to making life more acceptable to lady Members as well as gentlemen Members, in the way demanded in discussions outside the House?
    Mr. Beith: As an individual Member, I should like more of the Jopling reforms to be carried out. However, the Commission's job is to make provision for the decisions that the House has made. As far as I am aware, the staff continue to work well and effectively in support of the arrangements, although the Commission has not canvassed opinion on whether they prefer them to the previous arrangements.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that against the financial savings must be weighed the very real fact that the increase in hours is entirely in debates where votes cannot be taken? Back-Bench Members have actually lost an advantage that they had previously, namely, that votes could be taken on Fridays—which is not now possible on the Adjournment debates. Although there is undoubtedly some positive benefit from the reforms, it is important that the House does not lose sight of the reason why we are here, which—saving the right hon. Gentleman's grace—is not to save money for his Commission, but to do a job for our constituents.
    Mr. Beith: All those points were raised in the debates on the reforms. As far as I am aware, the reforms were not influenced by considerations of whether they would save money or not save money. The relatively complex balance I have just described indicates that it would be hard to argue for the reforms on that basis.

  TRANSPORT

    Marine Pollution
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the role of the salvors in the Sea Empress accident. [18002]
    Sir George Young: As I announced in my recent statement, the marine accident investigation branch will examine the detail of the salvage operation as well as the causes of the original accident.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can a system possibly be right in which the sole aim of the salvor is to save the ship?
    Sir George Young: The system would not be right if that were the way in which it was structured; it is not structured like that. The reward due to the salvor is based on the value of the ship and the cargo that is salved. However, the contract also provides for an additional reward if, by his efforts, the salvor prevents or minimises environmental damage. In that way, the contract encourages the salvor to minimise environmental damage.
    Dr. Spink: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not yet at all certain that the accident and the disaster would have been averted or lessened if the ship had been double-hulled? Can he confirm that the inquiry will address that question?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is by no means certain that if the ship had been double-hulled, the disaster might have been avoided. He will be interested to learn that during the inquiry, we will simulate the accident to see whether a double hull would have made any difference.
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the recommendations contained in "Safer Ships and Cleaner Seas" have been accepted by his Department; and how many of these are now in practice. [18003]
    Sir George Young: The Government accepted 86 of the 103 recommendations in the report when they published their response a year ago. They have since accepted a further five, and are considering another eight; only four have been rejected. Of the accepted recommendations, half have been implemented and action is being taken on all the others.
    Dr. Godman: Has the Secretary of State made a definite timetable for the implementation of the recommendations on marine environmental high-risk areas? If he has such a timetable, will he outline the measures that would be taken in such areas to minimise the risk of accidents? He will not be surprised to hear me say that I think that the first such area should be the Minches.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman asks about recommendation 59 of the Donaldson report that so-called MEHRAs—marine environmental high-risk areas—should be established. We first need to establish whether the existing voluntary arrangements for routing are working. Our survey suggests that they are, but we will consult on the results. We also need to discuss with the EC the proposals for environmentally sensitive areas because international agreement will be needed on the definition of such areas before they can be implemented.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: When can we expect to see appropriate tugs in all the appropriate places?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that we propose shortly to publish the so-called Belton report, which carried forward the Donaldson recommendations on the priorities for the location of tugs. We have implemented, as my hon. Friend knows, the priority recommendation that tugs should be situated at the Minches and at Dover. The Belton report will shed further light on the succeeding priorities.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the franchising of rail services. [18005]
    Mr. Watts: The franchising programme is making good progress. Fourteen of the 25 train operating companies, representing 61 per cent. of passenger revenue in the financial year 1994–95, have either been franchised or are in the process of being sold.
    Mr. Bayley: Do the Government still subscribe to the view that rail privatisation will bring increased competition? if so, do they regard it as a failure of policy that Wisconsin Transportation now owns all four freight companies? Is it true that the previous Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), went to the United States to encourage Wisconsin Transportation to bid for all four companies? What plans do the Government have to prevent private rail operators from taking over one another and creating massive private rail monopolies?
    Mr. Watts: Train freight companies are not franchised, which was the point of the hon. Gentleman's original question, but sold. With his wide knowledge of transport, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Railfreight has plenty of competitors, notably from the road haulage industry, and it was the verdict of the market that Railfreight would be stronger with the three companies in common ownership, because that view was reflected in all of the bids.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern in my constituency that the public service obligations required of bidders for the Chiltern franchise are not compatible with the proposed freight service sought by Central Railways Ltd.? Will he therefore issue clear guidance so that bidders for the Chiltern franchise and the customers who value the Chiltern passenger service know exactly where they stand?
    Mr. Watts: No subsequent proposal can pose any threat to the continuation of passenger services, which are protected and guaranteed for the first time by passenger service requirements.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Ministerial Accountability
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Lord President of the Council what procedural measures he proposes to increase the accountability of Ministers to the House. [18024]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The Government will contribute to the Public Service Committee's examination of ministerial accountability in

    647
    the light of the Scott report. Sir Richard made no specific recommendations about the procedural arrangements of the House, but I am always ready to consider suggestions on procedural matters from hon. Members or from the Procedure Committee.
    Mr. Bayley: In response to the Scott report, the Government claimed, ad nauseam, that Ministers had not knowingly misled Parliament, but the word "knowingly" was added to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" only in July last year. Was it simply added to provide an alibi for the Government in the knowledge that the Scott report was coming? Will the Leader of the House consider removing the word from "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" so that Ministers who transgress must do what Lord Carrington more honourably did after the outbreak of hostilities in the south Atlantic, and resign?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be attempting to rerun a substantial debate that we have already had. If the Public Service Committee wishes to raise such points, no doubt they will be considered, but I find it a bit difficult to see why something that is done unknowingly should incur the wrath that the hon. Gentleman would like to bestow on it.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend look again at Friday sittings? Non-sitting Fridays deny Back-Bench Members of Parliament a valuable opportunity to table a private notice question. They also deny Ministers what can be a valuable opportunity to make a ministerial statement at 11 am on a matter quite unforeseen and of great national importance.
    Mr. Newton: My general view is that the House collectively feels that the changes that were made following the Jopling report have been working rather well—including those that come up in a later question—and have given considerably increased opportunities to Back-Bench Members. I have no plans for a change at present.
    Mr. Spearing: Would not the accountability of Ministers be improved if the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—in a later question on the Order Paper—for a Question Time on European Union matters were adopted? Would it not also be entirely compatible with protocol 13 of the treaty of Maastricht? Would not the Government be in a stronger position in respect of their colleagues in the European Union if they adopted the proposal of my hon. Friend and reverted to the practice before 1979?
    Mr. Newton: The question whether there should be a dedicated Question Time on European matters has been looked at once or twice in the past and has not seemed to be a good idea. The Scrutiny Committee, which is currently conducting a further inquiry into the operation
    648
    of scrutiny arrangements, might wish to make such a suggestion, although I am not aware at present that it is looking at that.

    Adjournment Debates
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many subjects have been raised in Adjournment debates since the change in Sessional Orders became effective in January 1995. [18025]
    Mr. Newton: I assume that my hon. Friend is interested in private Members' Adjournment debates. There have been 190 daily and 188 Wednesday morning Adjournment debates since the change in Sessional Orders became effective. I should add for the sake of completeness that there have also been 41 Government debates on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Marshall: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the success of his reforms, which have confounded the sceptics, increased the amount of time available to private Members and enabled many more topics to be raised than were raised under the previous system?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may utter those kind words. I shall receive them with the pleasure that they deserve.

    EU Question Time
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for a specific Question Time for European Union matters. [18029]
    Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so, in case that was not clear from my earlier answer.
    Mr. Banks: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)? He said that the practice of allocating a specific time to Common Market questions was scrapped. I believe that that was in 1979, after the election. Why was it scrapped? Surely it is wrong that we should have to rely on the luck of the draw in order to raise European Union issues when clearly Europe is one of the most significant matters, if not the most significant matter that the House is currently discussing. Why cannot we have a change? Is it because the Conservative Government are too embarrassed about answering questions from their own Back Benchers on the European Union?
    Mr. Newton: I have some information about the history. I understand that the European Community slot was abolished in 1985, following pressure from some hon. Members and discussions through the usual channels. The matter was then looked at again in 1989, when my predecessor, the official Opposition and the Clerk of the House expressed scepticism about the reinstatement of such a slot.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from a Minister to make a statement? You will be aware that the Government's scheme to privatise the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency was defeated in another place on Friday by 124 votes to 64. You will also be aware that the Prime Minister said, with regard to the privatisation of the Post Office, "We are democrats. If there is no majority, we do not proceed." This House needs a statement from the Government on how they intend to proceed. Are they to abandon the scheme? Are they to report it to a Select Committee? Or are they to bring it to this House for a debate and vote?
Madam Speaker: As far as my authority is concerned, I can answer only the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I have not been told that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your guidance. It is an unhappy subject relating to the printing of the embossed notepaper of the House of Commons, which carries the portcullis. It has come to my attention that the proprietor of the firm which prints it—Wilprint of Cardiff—was sent down for corruption for four months just before Christmas and came out in January. The portcullis and all our proceedings have to be seen to be entirely above board and free of even the most indirect taint of corruption. Could you explain to me how I should draw the matter to the attention of the proper authorities so that we can ensure that the portcullis of the House and the notepaper on which we write carry the respect that we always thought they had?
Madam Speaker: I had hoped to call the hon. Gentleman to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Member answering for the House of Commons Commission today, but it was not appropriate. Now that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, which is new to me, I shall take it up with the Serjeant at Arms to see what can be done. The hon. Gentleman may also care to put a question to the House of Commons Commission so that we are all aware what the answer is.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If the people of Cardiff do not want the work, there are many fine printers in Harrow who do.
Madam Speaker: We have very good printers in West Bromwich, West, too.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Aggrieved Members are always in a
650
weak position to raise points of order, but I am fortified by the fact that I was lucky enough, by virtue of the low number of questions to the Commission, to be called today. From that position of strength, may I ask whether it is satisfactory that in 45 minutes we should have had only 10 questions on transport? When I first came here, 25 to 30 questions were got through.
Madam Speaker: I am absolutely delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He is a regular attender in the Chamber and must have heard me many times urging hon. Members to put short questions and Ministers to give brisk answers. We do not proceed through the Order Paper as briskly and effectively as I would like. I keep records every day of how far we proceed and every few months, I give them to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in the hope that they will urge Ministers and Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members to proceed more efficiently at Question Time. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, which enables me once again to urge all hon. Members and Ministers to deal more briskly with questions.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You referred to regular attendance. Do you think that the thin attendance in the Chamber outside of Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday and Thursday—there were fewer than 40 Back Benchers present for questions today—is linked with the fact that the media have stopped reporting the House? Is it not unfortunate that the heart of our parliamentary democracy is not being reported by the serious press?
Madam Speaker: Are we having a question-and-answer session? I have lots of views about why the serious press does not report the House as I think that it should, but this is not the appropriate time for me to express them. The time may come when I can do so and then I will do it very forcefully.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. How times change. I was reading in the Library the other day that on 29 February 1968,. Members started on a Thursday with overseas aid and got to Question 33. That was followed by the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who answered Eric Heffer twice—Questions 4 and 5. At that time, the press reported everything that went on in the House. I think that there is a law that says that the press reports in inverse proportion to the number of questions asked in the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker: I remember a time in the House when Members did not put supplementary questions. That dates me.

ESTIMATES DAY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1995–96
  Class XIII, Vote 4

    Department of Social Security
    [Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994–95 on the Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies (House of Commons Paper No. 382); the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 3148); and the Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm. 2813).]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £19,355,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    3.37 pm
    Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate, for which we thank the Liaison Committee and partly also the Department, whose supplementary estimate is such that it will allow hon. Members to speak on any aspect of its work and remain in order. I spent some time trying to think of an aspect of the Department's work that would be out of order, but I could not think of one. Perhaps other hon. Members will be more effective than me in that respect.
    In opening the debate, I shall concentrate on one topic to which we gave some prominence in our fifth report on the work of the Department and its agencies and which we debated in the House last week, debated in Committee and have another opportunity to debate today—fraud. I wish to take the debate on and suggest some changes in its nuances that I believe are important not only for the House but for the taxpayers—those who are in work and who contribute £15 every day from their pay towards underwriting the social security budget.
    First, I emphasise the importance of housing benefit fraud committed by landlords rather than that committed by claimants. Those who have heard me speak before know that I think fraud is wrong full stop, but as any Administration will have limited resources to combat fraud, it is sensible to deploy the resources in those areas where it is most prevalent. I fear that there may have been a difference in emphasis between the Select Committee on Social Security and the Secretary of State on that. When we questioned him on that aspect on Wednesday, we talked about evidence of landlord fraud and he said to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), "Not evidence—assertions".
    I was referring to the evidence that the London borough of Haringey has put together. It has carried out a survey of landlords who have more than 30 claims paid direct to
    652
    them every week. On the first 15 cases, the borough has carried out 1,300 visits so far—that is one borough, for a survey that is, so far, incomplete. That contrasts vividly with the Government's survey of housing benefit fraud, which they carried out throughout the country and which covered 4,500 claims. I am talking not about 4,500 investigations, but about 4,500 claimants, who were asked about their claims. If they could remember accurately what they had said when they first claimed benefit, no further investigations were undertaken.
    Although the Government publicised that as a fraud survey, it was slightly misleading to the House and to those outside to do so because they were testing people's memories. I have a bad memory and would probably have failed to answer the questions correctly. I would not be able to remember what I said when I originally made a claim, which might have spurred the Government into further action by suggesting that there was fraud. The Government undertook, not a fraud inquiry, but a test of memory.
    Let us consider the Haringey inquiry about which the Secretary of State was somewhat dismissive in the Select Committee. It was not carrying out a memory test. It has called at properties to question landlords and claimants where a landlord has more than 30 housing benefit claims paid directly to him in any one week. The council checked the national insurance number of each claimant and asked for further evidence from utility bills. It also checked in other boroughs whether double claims were being made and studied council tax payments.
    For this debate, I asked Haringey to give us information on the first 15 landlords on which it called. I emphasise that those were landlords who had more than 30 housing benefit claims paid directly to them each week. I asked Haringey what the fraud rate was. Obviously, I will not read out the names of the landlords concerned or their agents as that would be unfair. I will refer to them by number.
    The first landlord called on as part of the survey had 112 housing benefit claims paid direct to him each week—more than £13,000 was paid direct to that landlord in housing benefit—and 25 per cent. were shown by the Haringey anti-fraud inquiry to be fraudulent. The second landlord had 111 direct claims for housing benefit paid to him each week, totalling more than £13,000 of public money, and the fraud rate was 23 per cent. The third landlord had only 39 direct claims for housing benefit paid to him each week, totalling almost £3,000 a week of public money, and the fraud rate was 67 per cent.
    The fourth landlord had 46 direct payments made to him every week, totalling some £4,000, and 26 per cent. were found to be fraudulent. The fifth landlord had 111 claims directly paid to him or her every week, totalling some £11,000, and 16 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The sixth landlord had 121 direct payments made to him every week, totalling almost £8,000 from public funds, and 15 per cent. were shown to be fraudulently claimed. The seventh landlord had 141 claims paid directly to him or her every week, totalling almost £9,000 from public funds, and 11 per cent. were fraudulently claimed.
    The eighth landlord had 42 claims paid directly, totalling almost £8,000 a week, and 33 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The ninth landlord had 112 claims paid directly, totalling almost £11,000 a

    653
    week, and 59 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The 10th landlord had 69 claims paid directly each week, totalling more than £6,000 of public funds, and 29 per cent. were found to be fraudulent. The 11 th landlord had 58 claims paid directly to him or her a week, totalling more than £7,000, and 15 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent.
    The 12th landlord had 100 direct housing payments paid to him each week, totalling almost £17,000, and 10 per cent. were found to be fraudulent. The 13th landlord had 192 housing benefit claims paid directly to him a week, totalling £19,000, and 14 per cent. were shown to be fraudulent. The 14th landlord had 46 direct payments paid each week, totalling £4,000, and the fraud rate was 42 per cent. The 15th landlord had 62 direct claims paid each week, totalling more than £9,000 of public funds, and the fraud rate was more than 16 per cent.
    I have put those cases on the record, without naming the landlords or their agents, because I want to support the hon. Member for Harrow, West, who is also a member of the Select Committee on Social Security. When he raised this question with the Secretary of State for Social Security, he was slightly terse with him and said that it was not evidence but assertions. The survey was conducted in Haringey—which happens to be a Labour authority, but would be matched by Westminster. Westminster is equally effective against fraud and it is carrying out a survey of all landlords who have more than 30 claims in housing benefits paid directly to them each week.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): For the record, my remark about assertions did not relate to the Haringey survey—which sounds extremely interesting. My only remark about the survey was that it involved 15 landlords and, obviously, we will investigate it and study the findings. We have absolutely no vested interest in understating the level of fraud. We are simply here to detect fraud, and to prevent and to deter it in the future. As such, we are at one with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security.
    Mr. Field: I have no wish to score points, to be accused by hon. Friends who serve on the Committee of being vicious in the debate or even to be welcomed as crossing the Floor by my own side, as happened in our previous debate. I merely wish to place the evidence on record.
    The Secretary of State made a very important contribution to our Select Committee hearing. He said that anti-fraud officers see fraud everywhere—I wish that that were true of all anti-fraud officers, but let us take that statement as being true—and that the important implication of that is that those people should be in the driving seat when we design programmes to combat fraud. He said that they know more about the subject than us and even some officers in the Department, because they are up against it every day. I shall return to that.
    It is correct that I have cited only 15 of the 16 cases of which the Secretary of State has heard, and Haringey's survey will be a total survey of all those larger landlords in Haringey, but 1,300 visits have already been made in that borough. That contrasts with a national survey of only 4,500 inquiries by the Department.
    654
    I emphasised that in the Haringey survey, national insurance records, utility bills and council tax payment records have been checked and checks have been made with other boroughs, to verify whether claimants exist or are a creation of the landlord. That is a very different exercise from the memory test, which is what I suggest that the Secretary of State was undertaking when he inquired into housing benefit fraud.
    I do not oppose memory tests. I merely suggest—I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), will consider this argument when he replies, or at least convey it to the Department—that the type of inquiry that Haringey has conducted needs to be done throughout the country, so that we do not test claimants' memories but examine what landlords are doing.
    Some landlords draw very substantial sums from public funds. They are in a unique position, because they receive a large benefit now, which, even if it is not paid directly into their bank account, goes into their bank account. Every other benefit that the Secretary of State for Social Security pays on the taxpayer's behalf goes to claimants for them to spend. This is a direct transfer payment to a specific group, so it is a very special group. Therefore, a survey similar to the work that Haringey has done should be conducted for the entire country.
    Had Westminster, not Haringey, been mentioned in the Select Committee, I would have telephoned Westminster city council and asked for equivalent information to that which Haringey has given us. Both authorities are outstanding in London in combating fraud.
    Mr. Tim Smith: On the basis of the sample that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will he estimate housing benefit fraud throughout the country? Is that fraud perpetrated only by the landlord, or is there a conspiracy between landlord and tenant?
    Mr. Field: I am doubly grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention because it gives me the opportunity to make it clear that I am not suggesting that fraud is a one-way traffic, undertaken only by landlords. I am saying that it is important that the limited resources that at any one time the Treasury will allow the Department to have to counter fraud are deployed as effectively as possible and that, if we are interested in reducing the social security budget, especially the part boosted by fraud, our efforts should primarily go into areas where the gains will be quickest and biggest; and I am suggesting that the biggest gains would be from landlords. It is difficult for claimants to run a housing benefit fraud racket for any length of time. That is not to say that some of us do not have clever constituents who manage to do that, but it is difficult to do so without the landlord's help. Haringey is finding that many of the tenants whom it checks up on do not exist: they are fictitious tenants created by the landlord or previous tenants who have been recycled by the landlord.
    That issue takes me neatly on to my second point. I gained a mere inference from what the Secretary of State said during our discussions last Wednesday that concerned me. I questioned the extent of child benefit fraud.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of housing benefit, I wish to make a further point. He will recall that during the interview that we had with the Secretary of State last Wednesday, I asked a question about the public spending consequences of the deregulation of rents. Typically, a former council-owned property could be rented for £150 a week in London, whereas the council rent would be about £50 a week, both of which rents might well be paid with housing benefit. The Secretary of State seemed unconcerned by that and unwilling to examine the public spending consequences of rent deregulation. Would it not be appropriate for the Secretary of State seriously to consider that issue? The public purse seems to be creating a large number of millionaire landlords through a process of rent deregulation and the open-ended payment of benefit for whatever rent the landlords choose to set in areas of great poverty and high levels of housing benefit.
    Mr. Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making his point again in today's debate. I look forward to the Secretary of State rising at the Dispatch Box and shall be happy to give way to him. I also noticed that, when the Secretary of State was replying to my hon. Friend, he raised the important consideration of whether there could be any meaningful market rents in areas where the amount of rented housing stock was still so dependent on one landlord—the public sector. The public owner—the public landlord—could fix the market rate in the area and, by so doing, could determine the extent to which taxpayers would have to foot an increasingly large part of that bill.
    Both my hon. Friend's question and the Secretary of State's response to it were intriguing. We did not receive an answer to that question in the Select Committee and have not yet done so today—perhaps the Secretary of State will respond to that question later. If the monopoly landlord is allowed to set the market rent in his area, the Government, and therefore taxpayers, seem to be over a barrel because we taxpayers have to foot the bill.
    Mr. David Winnick: If what my hon. Friend has said is true—all the evidence sent to him shows that a number of landlords are doing their best to swindle money out of the public purse—what confidence can we have that landlords in the private sector will not swindle their tenants? Does that not demonstrate how right many of us are when we say that people should not be subjected to private landlords when they have no choice? When people cannot buy and cannot obtain local authority accommodation, they are forced to become tenants of landlords such as those whom my hon. Friend has described.
    Mr. Field: It is intolerable for our constituents to be in a market where they have no choice because there is only a limited supply of private rented accommodation. If the market was working well, the choice would be greater and the pressures of the market would be applied against the landlords. As my hon. Friend says, our constituents often face Hobson's choice and the more vulnerable they are, the more likely they are to be subjected to that form of aggression by landlords.
    656
    I suspect that many hon. Members read the survey in The Sunday Times of housing benefit millionaires—landlords who are in such profitable areas that they draw more than £1 million a year in housing benefit. The survey showed that the treatment of many tenants who existed was undesirable, while other tenants for whom claims had been made did not exist. When pressed to identify the accommodation to which certain claims related, landlords specified, for example, the space under a sink and part of a garage. We should have no illusions about landlords who, up to now, have been able to make easy pickings from the public purse.
    As the Select Committee has pointed out, if we are to deal with fraud, we should do so where the gains will be easiest. I do not suggest that fraud of other kinds does not take place—indeed, we may have time to discuss some aspects today—but, for the moment, I wish to concentrate on landlord fraud.
    Before that bevy of interventions, I was saying that more child benefit fraud may take place than the Department would like to think. I asked Haringey council whether it had carried out any surveys in relation to fictitious children. As the council is not responsible for the administration of such matters, it had conducted no surveys on child benefit fraud as such, but it checked whether landlords whom it was investigating had included children in their claims for housing benefit. Where children were included, it investigated whether they attended schools and had health records, and whether child benefit was being claimed.
    The results of that investigation were staggering. More than 50 per cent. of the children for whom one landlord was claiming housing benefit were found not to exist, and a substantial number of such children in general did not exist. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) is concerned about women from other European Community countries who come here in the late stages of pregnancy, register the birth of their children here, disappear back to their own countries and then claim child benefit for the next 18 years. That may happen more than the Secretary of State thinks, and it may involve people from outside the European Community as well. We should concentrate anti-fraud campaigns on where fraud is greatest.
    After listening to the Secretary of State's speech, I feared that the Department might be rather more interested in the photo-opportunities provided by the local spot checks of which he spoke than in any other aspect, and that the whole campaign might be merely a lead-up to the general election. It would be advantageous for one party to concentrate on claimants, and for the other to concentrate on landlords. I hope that we shall achieve a proper balance in future surveys, and will pay most attention to how we can retrieve the most money for taxpayers when wrongful claims are made.

    I have managed to cover quite a few of the topics with which I wanted to deal, but my contribution would not be complete if I did not refer to national insurance numbers. Up to now, the emphasis in debates in the Chamber and in Committee has been on whether the right number of national insurance numbers are being issued. I do not for one moment disagree with the need to make the system secure, but I should like to suggest to the Government a rather different tack on how to accomplish it. My comments are based on events that occurred last Friday: the first happened in my surgery, and the second

    657
    is from the experience of an anti-fraud officer in London. Neither event relates to whether there are 3 million or 10 million extra numbers floating around the system, but each emphasises how easy it is for national insurance numbers to be used by people other than those to whom they were allocated in the first place.
    The anti-fraud officer, while looking for other information on a computer file, found a person's surname with two addresses listed for it, and the two addresses showed two national insurance numbers for the same name. The date of birth was the same for each of the names. The anti-fraud officer came across that information by accident, which suggests—leaving aside the issue of how many spare numbers are floating around the system—that the Government have yet to perform a data-matching exercise on the information that they have. If they had performed such an exercise, that piece of information would have been spat out and made available immediately.
    The other example concerns a person who came to my surgery on Friday. He was not my constituent, but the constituent of my right hon. Friend—I rightly call him that—the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt). The constituent had been in employment all his life. He had one short period of self-employment because he lost his job, although he is now again working for an employer. He phoned the Contributions Agency in Newcastle because he wanted to pay, I believe, his class V contributions, which are made by self-employed people. He was asked to hold while his file was pulled up. He was then told, "You don't owe any money; you're in prison." He said, "I'm not in prison. I want to pay. I've been self-employed."
    The man clearly did not realise the significance of the information he was giving me. It suggested that his national insurance number had been used—for how long we do not know—by someone else who had then been imprisoned. His national insurance contribution had been credited while the other person was in prison so that, when he called wishing to make his contributions to the fund for the period in which he was self-employed, he found that his contribution was complete.
    A number of people, particularly anti-fraud officers, have suggested that "piggybacking" is much more substantial than we think. The Government, therefore, have a dual task. The first task will be to achieve a secure national system, which will take longer and will be very difficult because of the state of the numbers game, if I can call it that. In such a system, social security numbers should relate only to real people, and numbers that are spare because people die or stop making contributions should be held securely.
    The stage beyond that is to decide how we make sure that people do not misuse the system, even if we could secure the safety of the current system of numbers. I previously suggested to the Secretary of State that, just as we are now going to receive notification of our pension contributions each year—what we have paid and what the charges are if we have a personal pension—should not we also be thinking about issuing a national insurance statement each year, showing what we have paid and what benefits we have received?
    658
    If we had such a statement, every incident of piggybacking would be reported to the genuine national insurance number holder, and the constituent whom I met on Friday would have received a statement informing him that he was registered as being in prison. It would have been clear that his number had been misused. We hope that his number is not still being used by the person in prison, but we do not know whether the prisoner's family is putting the number to good use.
    A simple check would ensure that everyone knew whether his number was being used safely. If statements were issued randomly—not at the end of the financial year—someone involved in piggybacking would not necessarily know when a number's true holder was receiving his statement. We should therefore increase the chances of those misusing other people's numbers being caught.
    The purpose of my contribution to today's debate—I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for calling me—is to try to change once again the emphasis of the Government's campaign against fraud. I am pleased that the Government have pushed the issue up the agenda and would like to think that the Select Committee has played a small part in concentrating the Department's mind on the importance of the problem. I hope that today's debate might also play a small part in changing the emphasis of the Government's follow-up to the initiative that they announced to the House last week.
    4.11 pm
    Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, and all the members of the Committee on their work. In many ways, the Select Committee on Social Security is a model Select Committee. It oversees the Department of Social Security's work thoroughly and conscientiously. I have read the Committee's fifth report, entitled "The Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies", and believe that it is an excellent report.
    I was interested in what the hon. Member for Birkenhead had to say about housing benefit fraud. If one grosses up the percentages that he mentioned—the examples of fraud that he cited varied from 15 per cent. to 67 per cent.—it would appear that the average fraud is around 30 per cent. If the level of housing benefit fraud is anywhere near that figure, there are substantial gains to be made from devoting resources to dealing with that aspect of fraud.
    I agree that it is right to devote a finite amount of resources to aspects of social security likely to produce the greatest rewards. Clearly, we should consider landlords claiming large sums every week. The hon. Gentleman cited the case of one landlord who was receiving £19,000 a week in housing benefit, or £1 million a year. That is a substantial sum of taxpayers' money, by any measure. Such cases should be investigated as a matter of urgency. The House debated benefit fraud last week, and there is no doubt that the extra resources that the Department is rightly devoting to it have yielded substantial results. I believe that extra resources would produce further successes.
    I was also interested in the hon. Gentleman's idea for an annual statement of contributions for everyone who contributes to the national insurance fund. Last year we

    659
    improved considerably the rights of members of private occupational pension schemes. As we are talking about millions of people, a substantial cost would be attached to such a statement, but there must be a case for providing regular information to national insurance contributors. An annual statement could usefully include someone's total contributions in a year, the total benefits that people had drawn in that time if they had had the misfortune to be unemployed or sick, and their prospective benefits, about which people start to worry as they approach retirement. They want to be sure that they have the maximum credits and that they will be able to draw a full pension. They want to know what their entitlement to the state earnings-related pension scheme will be. A statement on total prospective benefits would also be useful. People would welcome it.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead is right that the total cost of the statement might easily be offset by the gains that would be made through exposing fraud. Obviously, that is impossible to measure, but the amount saved could easily cover the statement's cost. It could be a profitable exercise for taxpayers.
    I was struck by one item of information revealed by the Select Committee when it investigated the Child Support Agency, as it has on a number of occasions. I think that I am right in saying that, after the first letter was sent to mothers or fathers on income support and they were asked to respond within eight weeks, many of them went off benefit immediately. That was one of the largest gains from the exercise. There has been much debate about the CSA's costs and benefits, but that substantial benefit to the taxpayer was a by-product of the system. It suggests that, if we communicate with beneficiaries regularly and ask them one or two awkward questions, they may quickly disappear off the map.
    Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but the question of fraud is even more serious than he suggests. The enormous sums that taxpayers have got back as a result of that first envelope going out are merely the tip of the iceberg, because that does not cover people who are slightly more streetwise and know that the agency's administration is not as we would wish it to be and that, if they merely ignore the letter, the agency probably will not follow it up. I know that the agency would not want to use this language, but it has given an amnesty to parents who, in effect, put two fingers up to taxpayers by not replying to its letters. Those people are slightly more streetwise and know that the agency will never be able to get round to them.
    In the first, I think, 18 months, £360 million-worth of books were returned—a substantial sum—but that is a small sum compared with what could be gained if we could only get the agency working effectively, if the amnesty for parents who are refusing to answer questions were withdrawn and if the agency could tackle those people effectively. The gains to taxpayers would be massive.
    The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) is here. She piles in questions, the answers to which all put question marks over how well the agency works. The one sector where we never thought the agency would be a
    660
    success, where it has turned out to be a major success, but where it could be an even bigger success, is in countering fraud.
    Mr. Smith: That suggests that, if additional resources were available to the agency and it was able to follow up some of the people who did not reply to its letters, further huge gains could be made. Some people do not receive letters in the first place. Admittedly, they are nothing to do with the CSA, but the implication must be that, if they were written to from time to time, they too might not claim. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, it is hard, by definition, to measure fraud, but the taxpayer would probably gain greatly if more resources were devoted to it.
    In its fifth report, the Committee looked at the operation of the executive agencies of the Department of Social Security. The DSS is unusual in that almost all its work is carried out through agencies, which means that almost all the money that it spends is spent through agencies. It is a useful case study, and the Department covers the largest agency, the Benefits Agency. I was interested in a comment on that issue by Sir Michael Partridge, who retired recently from the post of permanent secretary at the DSS.
    It has always seemed to me that one of the principal advantages of establishing the executive agency system was that for the first time there would be a clear distinction within the civil service between policy advice and policy execution. In that context, what Sir Michael Partridge told the Committee was interesting. He said:
    "In the past I used to sit there with these enormous piles of paper … This was a tremendous waste of time. I now have virtually no paper. So my role has changed much more to thinking about the future, getting my staff to run the Department in a proper way and to be much more accountable to me, much more quickly, and to Ministers, for their performance. I feel I have much more handle on what is happening in the Department and what is going wrong, than I did from trying to spend hours and hours looking at minutiae."
    Of course, the permanent secretary in any Department, most of whose service delivery is carried out through the agencies, is able to concentrate on policy advice to Ministers, because other people—the chief executives of the agencies, who are also accounting officers—can be held to account by the House and are regularly summoned by Select Committees. That has been a great success, because it has started to change the culture of the civil service.
    At one time, those who wanted to get on in the civil service had to be good at advising Ministers—the key was policy advice—and although most of the Department's money was spent on services, delivering them took second place. That has changed a great deal.
    In paragraph 75, the Committee reported:
    "A kind of transfer league is developing in Chief Executives."
    That is good, because some people are coming in from outside. An example is Michael Bichard who, I think, was chief executive of Gloucester city council. He is now the permanent secretary in the Department and he got there by first becoming chief executive of the Benefits Agency. At present, there is as much emphasis on policy execution and on being good at making sure that the Government's customers get a good service as there used to be on policy advice. That is a great improvement, and the DSS has led the field in that respect.
    Mr. Corbyn: Has the hon. Gentleman ever thought of the irony of a market developing in highly paid chief executives of these agencies, who force market testing down the throats of low-paid employees in their Departments, make large numbers redundant and try to worsen their working conditions? Apparently, incentives are required for chief executives, but sticks are needed for low-paid people, many of whom have given a lifetime of service to the civil service. They feel outraged and alienated because of the way in which they have been treated.
    Mr. Smith: Those people do not need to be upset because chief executives are well paid. If good people are wanted, one must pay a reasonable price and compare it with the price paid in the private sector. I agree that a better performance will not be had from an employee by reducing his remuneration or worsening his working conditions. Better performance can be had by adopting the opposite approach—by offering incentives, measuring performance and improving job satisfaction. That is the right way to do it, and to that extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    The agencies have been a success. For example, a three-year evaluation in the Contributions Agency
    "concluded that in each year efficiency savings had been exceeded and the milestone targets had been achieved and that 'Agency status has therefore clearly resulted in improved performance. accountability and value for money"'.
    That refers to the Contributions Agency, but I would say the same about the Benefits Agency.
    The concept of customer service did not operate in the administration of social security benefits in local offices, say, 10 years ago, before the Benefits Agency was established. My local office in High Wycombe, which provides a service to my constituents, has been transformed over that time. A huge effort is made to help and advise people, some of whom are the most vulnerable in our society. It tries to provide a decent service. The system is complex and there is a range of benefits, but the service has improved.
    Some people might say that the improvement is only superficial, but I do not agree. The area that people visit has greatly improved. At one time, people who visited the front office were treated almost as if they were not human beings. They were made to wait for very long periods in appalling conditions.
    The whole set-up has become much more customer friendly. That is because—this relates to my point about job satisfaction—there is much more staff training at the Benefits Agency, which is good for staff and customers. As a consequence of staff training, customers are receiving a much better service.
    Mr. Frank Field: Although most of us have seen the transformation of our local offices under the agency agreement—provided that we do not represent a London constituency and have found that offices have moved out of the area—does the hon. Gentleman think that the improvement will be such that in the next year or two, the Comptroller and Auditor General will be able to sign the agency's accounts, given that he has refused them an unqualified audit since income support was introduced?
    Mr. Smith: It is a most unsatisfactory matter. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I can certainly say that the Committee is not complacent about
    662
    it in the slightest. The necessity for the Comptroller and Auditor General to qualify the audit of any Government Department or executive agency is a matter for concern. It suggests that the agency's record keeping is still unsatisfactory and that there is still room for improvement, which I believe is the case.
    Although I was focusing particularly on the way in which the agency deals with its customers, I acknowledge the need for improvement. When the National Audit Office carried out a sample check on the payment of income support, it found an unacceptably high error rate. That suggests that, although there has been much staff training, there is a need for more. There must be better quality outputs. That is what it is all about—measuring output and getting better performance, which at the moment is not good enough. Errors impact both ways—some beneficiaries lose out and some gain. The error rate of the Inland Revenue is not nearly as high as that of the Benefits Agency. The Benefits Agency has scope for further improvement and will have to work over the next few months and years to improve its performance.
    One point in the report that interested me was the very important concept of a one-stop shop. When claimants go to a local benefits office, it is normally possible for them to see one officer, who is able to deal with the whole range of benefits. The Committee makes the point that very often such officers will have to deal not only with social security. In fact, that would be rather unusual. Somebody on income support would almost certainly be claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit, and even be dealing with the Inland Revenue—certainly if he had become unemployed in the previous 12 months. He would therefore have to deal with another Government agency.
    The idea of trying to bring all those claims together at one advice point is obviously very ambitious. We are talking principally about co-operation between local benefits offices and local councils. Two different council departments would be involved—one dealing with housing benefit and one with council tax benefit. That is something which the Committee should pursue with the Government, to see what further progress can be made.
    We all know, from dealing with individual constituents, that there is a bewildering maze of different benefits. To have reached the point where someone can see just one officer in a benefits office is obviously a tremendous step forward. If we could take that further, so that someone could talk to just one person about the whole range of benefits, possibly including even his income tax position, that would be a tremendous step towards helping people with a very complicated matter. Indeed, some of the benefit forms are even more complicated than income tax returns. Of course, no one gives a high priority to completing an income tax return; nor do people enthuse over doing so. The Inland Revenue says that it may be easier when we have self-assessment, but I doubt it. Claiming social security benefits is a difficult process and we should do everything we can to support people in doing so.
    4.30 pm
    Ms Liz Lynne: This is almost a re-run of our debate in the Chamber last week on benefit fraud. Before dealing with some of the issues in the Social Security Select Committee report, I want to refer to the total amount of social security expenditure. It is fashionable for the media and hon. Members to say that

    663
    social security is unaffordable. I do not doubt that spending on social security is high. Indeed, the Government estimate that it will be £90 billion for the year 1995–96, which will cost every working person £15 a day. What I want to ask all hon. Members is whether there is a cheaper alternative. Quite honestly, I do not believe that there is.
    Any alternative must pass two tests—first, is it cheaper for the Department of Social Security and the Government as a whole, and secondly, is it cheaper for the people of this country? If it does not pass those tests, we shall be passing the buck, because the bill to the family will rise, even though the taxpayer might find things easier. At the end of the week, month or year, the person concerned will have to pay more.
    There is a frequently expressed fear about a demographic time bomb, with the country being overrun by senior citizens in a couple of decades. In reality, the growth has already started. A DSS publication says that in 1990, 15 per cent. of the population were over 65. It predicted a slight fall to 14 per cent. in the year 2000 and then a rise to 16 per cent. in 2020. Of course, we must take account of the importance of the number of retired people in society compared with the number of people who are actually working, but even on those figures, the position will not be as bad as some of the predictions suggest. For example, the proportion of pensioners to people of working age in 1990 was 23 per cent. It is predicted that the figure will rise to 26 per cent. in 2020. That is better than the figures for 12 other European Union countries, where the proportion was 21 per cent. in 1990, rising to 29 per cent. in 2020. In other words, the figure for the EU will rise by 8 per cent. compared with a UK rise of 3 per cent.
    Although I do not doubt that there are grounds for concern, I do not believe that there are grounds for alarm. Some people in the media are sounding the alarm bells, but before we start slashing spending on social security and disentitling many more people, we must look at the consequences. We must consider whether private provision is any cheaper. It certainly is not cheaper for sickness, for disability or for unemployment. The basic principle of insurance is spreading the risk; no system can spread the risk more widely than the national insurance system.
    We must also examine the costs of any cuts in social security benefit to the Government and to the nation. Cuts in housing benefit and income support, for example, may save the Department of Social Security money, but what are the costs to other Departments? There may be costs to the Home Office from increasing crime, and the taxpayers' bill may go up because of homelessness. We should consider the number of homeless people with tuberculosis—200 times more than the national average. If homeless people fall ill, the cost to the national health service is greater. All Departments, especially the Department of Social Security, must look at the knock-on effects on other Departments and at the overall bill for the Government.
    I now come to the Select Committee report. If there is a back-to-work strategy for unemployed and lone parents, they must be given advice about their financial position and entitlements. I welcome that, but I believe that we must also help people back into work. The payment of
    664
    child care costs is a wise investment for the future. Apart from that, we need far bolder measures, and I do not believe that that point is being addressed.
    The Select Committee recommended that, on a trial basis, calls to the War Pensions Agency helpline should be charged at the local rate, and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept that. I know that they have said that they will look at the suggestion and that they will consider the cost to the Department of Social Security, but I wish that they would just accept it. The recent reforms of war pensions are not going smoothly—we all know that. War pensioners and war widows need the helpline service, and they need their calls to be charged at the local rate. It is well known that I have never been a great supporter of the Child Support Agency and that I would like it to be scrapped. However, if the CSA can provide that service—anyone who telephones the CSA is charged at the local rate—I do not see why the War Pensions Agency cannot do the same.
    I shall not go into detail about benefit fraud and the take-up of benefits, because we had a discussion about that last week. I welcome the Select Committee's recommendations. But anti-fraud activities have to go hand in hand with promoting the take-up of benefits, especially pensions. Some pensioners do not take up their entitlement to income support, which means that they miss the cold weather payments as well. Some 305 pensioners had hypothermia listed on their death certificate in 1994. How many of those pensioners did not get the income support and the cold weather payments to which they were entitled? The situation could get even worse if we do not promote the take-up of income support by pensioners who are supposed to get it.
    Ten days ago, it was reported in The Guardian that there would be short-term savings by the Department of Social Security. It was suggested that the Department would remove services that encouraged people to obtain the £2 billion of unclaimed benefits and that there would be cuts in the telephone advice lines. It was also suggested that the Department would end the extension of benefit office opening hours and that it would stop the benefit buses—the buses that go to outlying areas, so that people's queries can be answered in their locality. Will the Minister confirm or deny that those cuts will really take place? If he confirms that they will take place, will he explain the reasoning behind the decision?
    Social security spending must be closely monitored. We must fight waste, whether from fraud or from overpayment. As I have said many times, £546 million was overpaid in income support last year, mainly through official error. That must also be addressed when we talk about waste.
    I welcome what the Government are doing on benefit fraud, but when it comes to the growth of expenditure on social security, we must keep things in proportion. Social security spending, as I said earlier, is high, but there is probably no cheaper alternative for families' bills at the end of the week or month. It is certainly not right simply to pass the buck to other Departments, charities or the population as a whole.
    4.40 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is nice to have an early opportunity to enter the debate, even though it is earlier than I, in my naivety, had expected.

    665
    We are discussing not only the recent work of the Select Committee but supplementary estimates. Indeed, we are formally asked to approve an extra £19 million to the cash limit for the running costs of the Department of Social Security. Often, the House takes scrutiny of public spending too lightly. but it should be no light matter that we are asked to approve a further £19 million. As, according to my arithmetic, much of the money is for the running costs of the Child Support Agency, I shall focus later on the work of the CSA. I hope that the Minister will be encouraged to update us on its work and present a progress report, because we need progress on the implementation of child support.
    I am a recently retired member of the Social Security Committee. It is appropriate that its esteemed Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), opened the debate. It was a privilege to serve on it under his chairmanship for one parliamentary Session. I welcome the opportunity that I had to work with him and, indeed, Conservative colleagues. I had the honour of contributing in a small way to the report that we are discussing today.
    We should put the supplementary estimate in the context of the increase in public expenditure on social security. In 1989–90, we spent some £50 billion on social security. That figure is now £90 billion in cash terms, which is a considerable increase. It is easily the largest of our public expenditure programmes. Indeed, it represents a staggering one third of total public expenditure.
    Mr. Frank Field: Before my hon. Friend leaves this point, I hope that he will find time to talk about the change in the nature of poverty. Whereas we talked of it primarily in economic terms and causes, we now—as I think my hon. Friend is hinting at—talk of it as being much more socially based.
    Mr. Wicks: Indeed. The Chairman of my former Committee anticipates some of my remarks and hits on a very important point about family insecurity. I shall say something about that, but we should dwell on the sheer size of the social security budget, which now represents one third of total public spending. Although it would be rash, I suspect, to argue the possibility of bringing that total down, I feel instinctively that it is consuming too large a proportion of public spending and, given the other demands on the welfare state and the Government, we should look critically at it.
    I ask the House to distinguish between the term social security—not in the sense of rather dry terminology for a set of benefits—and state benefits. I put it to the House that what makes social security, in the proper usage of that term, is not just state benefits. Many other factors contribute to social security. Indeed, many of the other factors are often more important than the contribution to security that comes from state benefits. I also argue that, on state benefits. we need to be vigorous and rigorous about defining objectives and to look critically at the public expenditure total to see to what extent some public spending relates directly to the objectives and to true social security, and to what extent public spending is perhaps more a symptom of social insecurity and of the fact that other parts of society, the economy and public policy are not working as well as they should. I shall give one example.
    666
    I do not think that any of the great figures who have set out social security objectives have ever said that it is an objective of social security policy to enable men in their 50s or early 60s to draw benefits—whether invalidity benefits or income support—as a stop-gap measure between an early period of unemployment or redundancy and when they are able to draw their state retirement pension, yet the data on economic inactivity, or what is essentially unemployment, show that a large proportion of men who are not so old are economically inactive. They are out of the labour market.
    I sometimes think that the House has a strange custom of discussing the retirement age, not least in relation to European directives towards gender equality and whether to equalise at 65, 60 or 63. We have had that debate. It is all based on an assumption that men retire at 65. Some do. Some of us may hope to retire later.
    Mr. David Congdon: The hon. Gentleman is being optimistic.
    Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman—my pair—is worried about my employment security. I can tell him that I am rather more confident about it at the moment than he has any right to be about his.
    Men aged 55 to 59 can hardly be considered old. One would expect some 90 per cent. of them to be in employment, but the reality is that one in three is out of work. In the slightly older group—those aged 60 to 64, who are in the period just before retirement—just over four out of 10 are in work. The amount of economic inactivity among middle-aged to older men is massive. That was never meant to be. William Beveridge, Labour Governments and Conservative Governments never said that we should support that group, through social security, income support or invalidity benefits of one kind or another to be on benefit and not in work, but it has come to be.
    I was following the remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherham—
    Mr. Field: Rochdale.
    Mr. Wicks: It was certainly somewhere beginning with an R. I apologise to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and the good people of—
    Mr. Keith Bradley: Rotherham.
    Ms Lynne: Rochdale.
    Mr. Wicks: My ungallant Friend said Rotherham, but, being more gallant, I meant Rochdale. The hon. Lady argued that we should be able to afford that sum of money. I am inclined to agree with her at one level, but only if we are convinced that we are spending it properly. I am not convinced that we are doing so at present. Let us have a debate about social security objectives and ensure that public money is spent appropriately on them.
    Mr. Field: Before my hon. Friend develops that theme, may I take him back one step? He rightly emphasises that many people now feel insecure and that social security payments support that insecurity. Is it not also true that a

    667
    large number of men are inactive in the age group to which he refers because they have been able to draw down their occupational pension early, so we now get the success of the company pension scheme impacting on the social security budget?
    In my area—some distance from Croydon, but not that far from Rochdale—two former public utilities are merging and there will be large-scale lay-offs. We are also affected by the Mobil-BP merger, which will result in lay-offs. Does my hon. Friend think that we ought to consider whether it is necessary to issue social security impact statements when firms propose merging and, to use the euphemistic expression, downsizing their labour forces? Much of the cost of the two mergers in my area will be borne by taxpayers in general, who will have to pick up the social security costs of people who would otherwise be in work but will become unemployed, and soon unemployable, as a result of those changes.
    Mr. Wicks: That is an interesting observation and recommendation, to which we shall certainly want to give more thought. If it seems to be a good idea, given that the Department of Social Security plans so radically to cut its running costs and, presumably, its labour force, perhaps it should make the first social security impact statement. The Minister might want to announce that later if he intends to proceed along those lines.
    Given the importance of spending our social security money effectively, the theme of fraud, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead introduced, is obviously important. I shall not add to his remarks, but we agree with the emphasis he put on the need to combat fraud. We welcome the recent increased determination of the Government, but we would want to go rather further. It would be worth calculating at some stage how much money has been squandered these past 16 years because the Government have made only lame attempts to combat fraud. It must become a key social security objective to ensure the promotion of the honest social security pound; to ensure that every pound of taxpayers' money is spent as honestly as possible.
    In my advice surgery in Croydon, North-West, when I sometimes have to explain to people who are hard pressed that they will not receive more benefit, despite their old age or disability, it makes me furious to think that we are being defrauded of hundreds of thousands, millions or perhaps billions of pounds that could be used for people in genuine need. It is a very human matter.
    We need to distinguish between the public policies that would make for social security and the role within them of state benefits. My theme is that the two are rather different. They are not necessarily the same. We need to use the phrase "social security" in the proper sense in the English language. What makes for social security in that wider sense? I suppose that most fundamental is the economy and employment, and enabling more of our citizens to find a secure place in the job market. That is obvious. It was well understood by William Beveridge, but we need a renewed determination to enable more of our citizens to get into employment.
    Therefore, Opposition Members were in despair when we heard the proposals of the Deputy Prime Minister to deregulate the employment market for those in small businesses. If there was one thing that we did not need at this precise time, it was a suggestion that a Deputy
    668
    Prime Minister could be seriously contemplating making more of our citizens economically insecure and therefore insecure about their social life, their housing and the rest of it. This is precisely the time when enhancing and developing security should be one of the major and first responsibilities of government.
    If economic security and employment security are important, we need to work hard at changing our social security system. I remember very well one particular constituent who came to my advice surgery in Thornton Heath about a housing problem. We talked more generally about her situation. She was on income support. She was drawing housing benefit. In some respects, she was totally dependent on the state. She was a prime example of the state of dependency that has been created these past 15 or so years, a state that we have to change in the coming five years.
    When I asked my constituent how she saw her future, her eyes started to shine and she said, "I want a job." I asked her what she wanted to do. She wanted to be a traffic warden. Not only did she have determination, but she was brave, given the circumstances of Croydon traffic, and had an ambition which should have been fostered. I asked whether she ever talked of her ambition when she went to the DSS office and talked to various officials. She said that no one had ever asked her if she wanted a job. No one had ever sat down with her to talk about her ambition and how it might be realised.
    Under the current social security regime, a lone mother is entitled to draw income support until her youngest child is 16. We have to start to change the culture. I am talking not about compulsion but about sensitivity. I am talking about a social security office where, in liaison with an employment office, someone would sit down with that young woman and say, "This is great news. You have a good ambition. We are going to help you. We are going to talk about your training and building any confidence that you might need,"—although this young woman did not need confidence; she had plenty of it—"We are going to talk about child care implications and the jobs that are available. We will certainly fix you up with the traffic warden people, but we will talk to other people. We can take some months on this." Was that happening? No, it was not.
    The future social security system has to be in the business of helping young women such as my constituent who have no ambition to remain dependent or to draw social security for ever, but have an ambition to be independent. How we move from dependency to independence is the key theme of social security policy in the late 1990s.
    I have talked about employment security. Let me also talk about family security and insecurity—the theme that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead tempted me to discuss and one that I want to discuss. Family security is as important as economic security in enabling us to live our lives in a satisfactory way, not only in terms of cash, although that it important, but more generally. Family breakdown and related family change are now a major cause of poverty, disadvantage and new forms of inequality that are opening up in our society. If we need evidence of that, it comes in part from the Select Committee report on low income statistics that was published in February 1995. The report includes a table that shows that family breakdown and the rise of the

    669
    lone-parent family is probably a more important cause of poverty and disadvantage than are the traditional causes of unemployment and low wages.
    Data for 1992 show that 3.6 million—almost 3.7 million—children in Great Britain are dependent on income support or in families that have net resources below the income support level because of low wages. That is a shocking indicator of child poverty in a supposedly affluent society. Of those children, 1.8 million are in lone-parent families. Unemployment contributes a huge 1 million children, but the number of children in lone-parent families is much greater. William Beveridge would not have recognised that phenomenon. In 1942, when he and Parliament examined the causes of social insecurity that needed to be tackled by social insurance and the national assistance scheme, that factor was not uppermost in their minds. We need to work hard at addressing that considerable problem.
    I want to consider how the power and pace of family change contribute to social insecurity and new forms of child poverty. First, more children are born out of wedlock. I make no moral judgments on that—it is not the subject of the debate—but the statistics relate to our theme of child poverty and social insecurity. Back in 1960, only 5 per cent. of children were born out of wedlock. Today, the proportion is a massive 32 per cent. Nearly one in three children are born outside marriage. Half of them are born to cohabiting couples; the other half to single unmarried mothers. We know that 85 per cent. of single unmarried mothers draw income support. It is a demographic trend of direct relevance to the estimates and public spending.
    While cohabitation comes in all shapes and sizes and can include some of the most well-to-do and affluent couples, there is a general association between cohabitation and disadvantage. Although demographers are not clear about it, my reading of the research suggests that cohabiting parents are more likely to suffer a breakdown of their relationship than are married couple parents. That is a contributory factor to insecurity. I have mentioned the change since 1960, but over the past decade alone, the number of children born outside marriage has almost doubled. That is a rapid change with major consequences for our debates on social security and social insecurity.
    There is also the question of divorce, which is exercising our minds and those of modern Governments more and more. It is no coincidence that the House will soon receive a Bill on divorce law reform from the other place. The key question is how to obtain a modern divorce law that puts children first. Pension splitting and the social security implications of divorce are related themes. The Child Support Agency is another consequence of divorce and has become a powerful theme. The bad news is that it will become even more important in the future.
    I recently asked a parliamentary question to update some data with which I had been familiar when I worked at the Family Policy Studies Centre. I asked Government statisticians, who are the best in the country for such forecasting, what percentage of marriages are likely to end in divorce. The answer was 41 per cent.—more than four out of 10. That forecast is not wild, but a sober estimate by sensible demographers and scientists. The issues surrounding that, which relate to child maintenance, are
    670
    crucial to our social security. I shall come to them later. If we do not get that right, we are in deep trouble in respect of insecurities among families and of state spending on benefits.
    Every year, there are 160,000 children under 16 in Great Britain whose parents divorce. It is interesting that the children involved are becoming younger. Divorces occur more quickly than they did 10 or 15 years ago. The figures for 1993 for England and Wales show that there were 55,000 children under five who had mums and dads who divorced—25 per cent. more than in 1983. Not only are many children affected by the phenomenon but they are wearing an even younger face than they used to. More children spend some or all of their childhoods in one-parent families.
    The picture is further complicated by remarriage and, to use a slightly ugly expression, repartnering. The Minister winces because he is a sensitive man. I use the word because cohabitation is more common after the break-up of first marriages than as a substitute for first marriages. We have to invent a term for that. One in three marriages this weekend will involve someone marrying for the second time.
    The phenomenon of the step-family, which is well known in literature and fairy tales, is becoming more important. It is estimated that 1 million or more children under 16 live in step-families. Of them, 770,000—the majority—are stepchildren but 280,000 are children of new relationships. Any attempt by society through state and government to consider the social policy implications of those trends, not least in relation to child maintenance, deals with complex territory. The complexity of the child support formula needs to be addressed. There is a legitimate debate about whether it should be yet more complex—more sensitive to particular circumstances—or whether we should have a simpler formula and rougher justice. I believe that the Select Committee will consider that issue in this Session.
    The complexity is caused by the family circumstances and human relationships becoming more complex. Politicians, the Government and Parliament have been slow to address those issues because they feel uncomfortable about tackling some of the most difficult, complex and sensitive matters in society. The politician treads into the blood and thunder of human relationships and their breakdown at his or her peril. Even the best imaginable system, which I am bound to say we do not have at the moment, will run into difficulties because of that. That is relevant because the Government are asking us to approve supplementary estimates that include another £16 million for the running of the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman has given us an interesting description of recent social trends and many of the aspects that he describes are deeply worrying. Is he suggesting that the social security system has been the cause of those trends? I wonder what he thinks we should do about them, if anything. How should the social security system respond to them? He said that we are spending too much on social security, so what changes do we need to make?
    Mr. Wicks: I shall deal with the Child Support Agency and how we can create more effectiveness and fairness later. In direct response to the hon. Gentleman's

    671
    thoughtful question, however, I do not believe that our social security arrangements contribute to family breakdown, although I recognise that there is an interesting debate to be had on that point.
    At the moment, we seem to spend an awful lot of energy, time, legislation and public money on the consequences of family breakdown. The House of Commons Library gave me some figures, which show that the public costs of divorce are about £4 billion every year. Most of that is made up of social security—income support and so forth—but some is legal aid and the impact on the health service. How much money are we spending trying to save marriages and support family relationships? We spend money on Relate and other marriage guidance services.
    I want a shift of emphasis towards trying to support and help relationships in trouble, rather than spending all our energy and public resources on breakdown when it occurs. As a long-standing advocate of a family policy strategy, I would certainly say that we have not got the balance right.
    I am arguing that the social revolution of family change that we are in the midst of has not been without victims. It has not been a bloodless revolution—there are very few such revolutions. Victims come in all shapes and sizes and, of course, include many men, not least those who find that they are unable to continue a relationship with their children.
    In financial terms, the main victims have always been, and remain, the women and children. It has been a case of women and children last in that aspect of family politics. We see that in the poverty statistics and in the fact that, in the main—of course, there are exceptions—it is women and children who have to depend on the state and on income support. One million one-parent families are drawing income support.
    Whatever our criticism of the operation of the CSA—being a passionate believer in the principle of parental responsibility, I am among the foremost critics of the workings of that agency in practice—we must remember that the old system simply did not work. Anyone who advocates turning back the clock to a court-based system has to confront the data and the evidence that show that it was a failure. It delivered maintenance to only about one third of children.
    Ms Lynne: I agree that the old system of the liable relatives unit, in particular, was a failure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in terms of cost, there is not much to choose between the CSA and the old system? Some figures that I have obtained even suggest that the old liable relatives unit was far most cost-effective in saving the taxpayer money. Although I would not want a return to that unit—I would like a unified family court system, in which every case was assessed individually—I want us to get away from the formula system.
    Mr. Wicks: I understand the hon. Lady's argument, but I do not support it. We cannot return to that sort of court system, although I know that the hon. Lady denies it. We need to think hard about ways of bringing greater sensitivity and justice into the system. I shall deal with that briefly later, if there is time.
    672
    It is a pity that we do not know more about the workings of the old maintenance system. I do not think that it was researched thoroughly and I have never seen a proper report on it. Our public debates on its pros and cons would be advanced if we had more information.
    I have already hinted at the argument that, given the complexity of human and family relationships, developing an effective child support or maintenance policy was always going to be difficult. Although those of us who had the opportunity to study the Australian and New Zealand systems of child support recently were impressed by aspects of those systems—certainly by the Australian system—even in those societies the systems have been immensely controversial and the subject of the majority of contributions to parliamentarians' postbags, as in this country.
    I do not think that I say this merely with the benefit of hindsight—the case was argued at the time—but the Child Support Agency should have been introduced in a far more sensitive way. Ideally—in the politics of Thatcherism it was never going to happen—the emphasis should have been placed on child support as social policy, not on the mean-minded morality that it quickly became when it was introduced by the former Prime Minister, then Mrs. Thatcher. After all, it is called child support; it should have been genuine child support. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the matter because, in a sense, we have missed an historic opportunity for a proper public debate about child support and the obligations of parents to their children.
    I can think of two questions that should have been central to that debate—there are probably others. First, how, in the great majority of cases, do we enable both parents to share in the care and maintenance of their children in turbulent family times? There will always be exceptions when men are violent and so forth.
    I have reviewed briefly some of the demographics, but my argument is that, sadly, turbulent family times will not go away in the next 10 years. If—this may now be true—only about 50 per cent. of children will spend all their childhood in what we once would have called the traditional family and are born to parents who are married to one another and stay married until the children become adult, these issues do not merely concern a minority of our people and our children, but are central. Despite divorce and the phenomenon of children being born outside wedlock, how do we enable both parents to share in the care and maintenance of their children? That is a central question. Hon. Members will notice that I said care and maintenance. It is about not merely money and cash, but parental responsibility in a wider sense.
    Secondly, how do we avoid the trends becoming forces for child poverty and disadvantage? Instead of having that sensible debate, we had Thatcherite mean-mindedness posing as morality. It was led by the then Prime Minister. I well remember her speech to the National Children's Home. That speech and her emphasis on parental responsibility, which she tackled in her own particular way, was as much a surprise to Social Security Ministers as to the rest of us. They did not see the policy coming—they saw it as a hand grenade rolling towards them, with the pin half pulled out. The Treasury then seized the opportunity—it saw the policy as a major way of raising revenue—and thwarted the Department of Social Security when, I suspect, it was arguing that there should be a disregard, as we call it in technical language, to enable

    673
    mothers on income support at least to get some child support so that their net incomes and the welfare of their children could be enhanced.
    The combination of the then Prime Minister's policy and the Treasury seizing the opportunity led to the bad start to child maintenance from which we have not recovered thus far, and from which it will be difficult to recover. I refer to the quite extraordinary catastrophe that the Child Support Agency quickly became. It takes months to make assessments, it has a huge error rate and it is insensitive to those who are trying to communicate with it. I do not have the opportunity today to discuss the Child Support Agency in great detail, but it is appropriate—not least because £16 million of the supplementary estimate that we are being asked to approve today is for running the Child Support Agency—to ask some questions of the Under-Secretary of State.
    Will the Minister give hon. Members an up-to-date report on, and the accuracy of, the time taken to undertake the assessments and enforcement within the agency? I believe that such an update would be most helpful. Will the Minister also tell hon. Members how much child support is now being collected and the projections for the coming financial year? In addition, how much of that money will go to the Exchequer and how much of it will go to the parent with care—normally, but not always, the mother?
    Does the Minister have anything to say about improving, or developing the human face of, the Child Support Agency, given its reputation for insensitivity? Are there ways in which the people dealing with the agency—whether they are the mothers, usually the parents with care, or the fathers, the so-called absent parents—can be made to feel that someone at the end of the telephone line understands their case and can discuss it with them in a human way?
    Many hon. Members are interested in and impressed by the so-called CAST system being pioneered at the Hastings centre. Some months ago, I had the opportunity to visit the centre and I talked to the staff about the system. It is an attempt to deal with people in the round. It would be useful to know how it is progressing. Does the Minister have any plans to expand the system across the country?
    Traditionally, complaints about the workings of the Child Support Agency have come from men—the so-called absent parents. I have received many letters about the way in which many men, quite understandably, feel resentful about being called "absent parents". We are still grappling with the terminology on this issue. Given that being a parent is not just about paying maintenance, but is about providing care to children—as so many fathers do in difficult family circumstances—we need better terminology. The term "absent parent" is an insult.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will my father—will my hon. Friend give way? The Select Committee on Social Security has suggested that we use the word "father".
    Mr. Wicks: I am glad that my hon. Friend confirmed that I am not his father—if I were, I would struggle to pay maintenance on him. As nine out of 10 parents with
    674
    care are mothers—and, therefore, nine out of 10 absent parents are fathers—we could often use the term "father". However, we must allow for the reverse situation.
    Ms Lynne: I suggest that the term "liable parent" could be used instead of the terms "absent parent" or "father". Some liable parents—only a few—are mothers.
    Mr. Wicks: I take that important point.
    Many of the fathers who write to me or to other hon. Members about grievances to do with child support are often doing their best to pay the child maintenance. However, they find that, when there_ is a change in their circumstances—for example, a postman may have a higher rate of pay over Christmas but then wants to tell the Child Support Agency that his wages have decreased—it is enormously difficult to communicate with the agency. For example, they can never find one person at the end of the telephone line who will take their point, put it into the system and report back to them in a decent way to say that their assessment has been varied.
    We all have the right to expect that kind of obvious sensitivity when we are dealing with a bank or with a building society—I am not saying that we always get it from those institutions—and we want to bring it into the workings of the Child Support Agency. Many men feel aggrieved—and justifiably so—and we need to allow for that in any reforms of the agency.
    Many mothers—the parents with care—also have grievances about the way in which the Child Support Agency has not delivered. I shall quote a letter—with care as I want to protect the identity of the woman—from a mother who has recently come to see me at the House of Commons about her situation. She is a young mother with a son, and she was on income support at one stage and contacted the Child Support Agency. She has since found a full-time job in London at a reasonable, but not generous, level of pay. She lives in the home counties. For the past two or three years she has been trying to get the Child Support Agency to find the father of her child so that he will contribute some maintenance. In many ways, she illustrates the kind of benefit-to-work strategy of which we are all in favour. She has a tough life. Her letter states:
    "As a working mother, my day starts at 7.40 am when I leave for work; I don't get home until 7.30, when I collect my son from the childminder's. I then return home and have to do all the household chores. This is not a situation I deliberately created—I was forced to leave my son's father because he is a very violent man and I feared for our safety. I even had to have a non-molestation order served against him."
    She has told me that she has not received any maintenance payments from the man since she left him. She also told me that this man has four other children, by two other relationships, and that he pays maintenance towards none of the children—a fact that he openly laughs about.
    I shall not go into too much detail about the mother and her situation, except to say that, for two or three years, she has been trying to get the Child Support Agency to act. She told me in our meeting that she thought that the Child Support Agency was there to help her and her son, and that she cannot understand why it has not delivered. I was appalled when I looked at some of the correspondence on this issue between the Child Support Agency and another hon. Member. That woman knew where the man was, knew that he was in employment and

    675
    believed that he earned about £400 a week. She gave the Child Support Agency the man's address and the agency wrote to the address. The man or his new girlfriend scribbled on the back of the envelope, "Not known at this address" and the Child Support Agency told the woman, "I am sorry; he is not known at that address." If that is the sophistication of the Child Support Agency, we are in deep trouble.
    The woman rang up the Child Support Agency one day to say, "I can tell you that he is in employment, because I have heard that he is." The agency staff said, "We shall try to trace the employer," but later told her, "I am sorry; we cannot trace the employer." The woman said, "Hold on a moment, I shall call you back." She made a few telephone calls and found out where the man was working—on a highway, doing construction work. She told the Child Support Agency all about it, but still there was no action.
    That story lasted several years. Eventually, the Child Support Agency managed to track down the man and produced an interim maintenance assessment, but made a procedural mistake and had to withdraw it. Two or three years later, the man has paid no maintenance towards that little boy or any of his four other children.
    When the woman first approached the agency, she was told by the man from the agency on the telephone, "It will be difficult; he is self-employed. If I were you, I wouldn't bother." The Child Support Act 1991, passed by Parliament with much support on both sides of the House, is not delivering to that woman and her child.
    Generalisations are unfair; I know that the agency has tracked down some such men, but suspicion remains that the agency regards as a soft touch men in secure employment in a major private company or in the public sector—teachers, police officers and so on—and pursues them to obtain more money from them, but that many men in difficult cases continue to get away with it. Some fathers are laughing at Parliament, at the agency and at the mothers and their children, saying, "I won't pay anything. I would rather go to prison than pay anything. They will never catch me," and continue to get away with it. That is not what Parliament intended. It has brought the Child Support Agency into grave disrepute because people do not regard it as effective social policy or effective child support.
    As part of Labour's general review of social security, we have been reconsidering the operation of the child support system. We reaffirm easily and clearly our principled support for the important principle of parental responsibility, but we are angry and worried that that decent principle—indeed, a guiding principle in the turbulent family times in which we find ourselves—is brought into disrepute by the continuing thoroughly bad practice of the Child Support Agency.
    We reaffirm our commitment to the principle of introducing a disregard so that mothers who are on income support, every penny of whose child maintenance is currently taken away from their income support, obtain some net income and net benefit from it. We are not in a position to say when the disregard might be introduced or the amount because, obviously, that depends on total commitments and other spending priorities, but we reaffirm that important principle. If the public and some fathers—some of the so-called "absent parents"—could be sure that a certain fraction of their child maintenance
    676
    went directly into the pockets of mothers and benefited their own children, we would start to turn the position around and bring what is at the moment a mean-minded piece of policy into the true province of social policy. That is the challenge.
    In considering in more detail the workings of the Child Support Agency, Opposition Members have two major objectives—fairness and efficiency.
    A disregard would be an important step forward in fairness. People would regard that as fair to the taxpayer, because the taxpayer would continue to benefit from most of the extra revenue coming in. We have no quarrel with that; the taxpayer has a major interest. The taxpayer is not an anonymous person but often a mother or father, struggling to bring up children and resenting having to contribute too much to other people's children. We acknowledge that the taxpayer has a legitimate interest, but we need to strike a fairer balance between the interests of taxpayers and the interests of mothers and their children. We shall strike that balance.
    We need to review the operations of the Child Support Agency to seek a way to introduce a greater sense of independence and fairness into the system. At the moment, people feel that they are dealing with a monolithic agency—a grey, bureaucratic agency—that can never deal with them in the round. It would be a step in the right direction to find a way to allow people who feel a sense of grievance that they are not being treated properly or whose family position is so complex that they do not believe that the formula can deal with them properly, an independent review or adjudication. We are investigating that in detail.
    Greater efficiency is needed. It is nonsensical that it takes months to process assessments and that, in the case that I described of the young mother struggling to do her best for her child, the system is so ineffective that, despite being given all the clues, all the details and all the addresses by that woman, the agency cannot yet find that man and make him pay maintenance. We need greater effectiveness.
    Yes, we support the principle of parental responsibility—I could not have made that clearer—but we need to consider the workings of the agency, so that we shall be able to say one day that it is as effective as possible and fairer than it ever has been.
    The major challenge for the House in turbulent family times is to ensure that parental responsibility works, because all our children deserve to be brought up, wherever possible, by both their parents. We need care and responsibility. Saving the decent principle of parental responsibility from bad practice is a key challenge for future social policy.
    5.36 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): This afternoon, we have listened to four very interesting speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and by Opposition Members. This has been a shortish debate, which may reflect the fact that, in the past three weeks, we have had three major debates on social security. Opposition Members—and indeed Conservative Members—may he suffering from social security fatigue.
    Coming relatively fresh to estimates debates, I am struck by how much has changed in the way in which these matters are discussed in the three years since my

    677
    right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delivered his Mais lecture. A copy of the lecture is indispensable to any discussion of social security in much the same way as the thoughts and writings of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who opened today's debate, whose speeches are also indispensable to any junior Minister trying to work his way through the maze of social security.
    Three years ago, politicians tended to boast about the increase in welfare spending. I remember that a leading Labour academic wrote a paper called "The Future of Welfare: A Guide to the Debate", in which he advocated that an extra 5 per cent. of gross domestic product on social security spending would do the trick.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made kind remarks about Government statisticians, which I shall pass on, and said that he wanted to consider appropriate objectives for social security. Conservative Members have little doubt what the appropriate objectives are. In recent years there has been a reduction in the underlying growth in social security, not only because it is a burden to the taxpayer, but because of the growth in the dependency culture, which is wrong. Many of those changes were enshrined in last year's heavy social security legislative programme. We are now enabling the country to meet genuine need without outstripping the country's ability to pay.
    I fear that we remain in considerable doubt about the Labour party's views; it is not at all clear where it is heading. All will be revealed on 8 May when the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West and his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench announce the result of their six-month review—they have been instructed by their leader to think the unthinkable. We are all waiting with bated breath to hear what emerges from that important process.
    If we consider the international comparisons overseas, we see just how far ahead of the field the Government are on the issue of social security. In Germany, there is widespread discussion of the problem of non-wage labour costs and the burdens that they impose on an economy that is struggling to reach the Maastricht criteria. Unemployment in Germany is higher than at any time since the last war, and reached 4.3 million in February.
    The position in France is no less severe. France is also suffering high social costs, as we know from the vivid media reports of the recent unrest in Paris and other big cities. In the face of widespread strikes by public sector workers in November, Jacques Barrot, the Social Affairs Minster, said: "There is no alternative" to welfare reform. The strikers were protesting against the social security reforms announced by the Prime Minister.
    In a television interview in October, President Chirac called on France to follow the
    "courageous example of the UK"
    in reducing public expenditure. He spoke of the urgent need to reduce the public deficit, especially that of the social security budget. He said that France had lived beyond its means for too long. But in the face of continued strikes and protests, the French Government have had to backtrack on some of their planned reforms: they have given way over public sector pensions and postponed the proposed taxation of family benefits.
    678
    I gave those international comparisons as they show not only the extent to which the Labour party is still wallowing about and trying to work out where to go, but how far ahead of the international game the British Government are in tackling those difficult problems.
    Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend is right: there is no doubt that the United Kingdom Government are far ahead of the game in dealing with the burgeoning cost of social security spending. Does he agree that it is striking that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said that he wanted to cut the total amount of social security spending—he said that it was too high at one third of the total—but every time that the Secretary of State makes relatively minor reductions in spending, the Labour party opposes them?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right, which is why he must make a note in his diary for 8 May, the date on which the Opposition will advise the House of their programmes and plans after their six-month review. I see from what my hon. Friend said that he is looking forward to that day as much as I am.
    Mr. Wicks: The Government—faced with rocketing social security spending because of the economic recession and a lack of decent social policy—have made benefit claimants suffer by cutting and withdrawing their benefits. But the proper strategy, which new Labour will adopt, is to get people off benefit; there are simply too many people on income support. We shall have a proper benefit-to-work strategy that will get people off benefit. The difference between the Conservatives and the Labour party is that, under the last Labour Government, there were not so many people on income support or supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will have to do better than that if he is to convince the House on 8 May that his party has a serious social security strategy, and I look forward to what he has to say on that day.
    In his important contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield talked about the work of the agencies and the success that they have achieved. He mentioned the fact that the work of the Department and its agencies is tagged, in an attachment to the Select Committee's report, on today's Order Paper. The report confirms the agencies' success and the improvements that they have brought about.
    The agencies' benefits include improved clarification of roles and responsibilities in framework documents, and greater public accountability through the publication of business plans and annual reports and accounts. Responsibility for decision making is devolved to the lowest suitable level closest to the point of delivery, allowing real improvements in customer service and efficiency to be made.
    The improvements derived from agency status can also easily be seen by the agencies' customers in the service that they now receive. Better customer service has been achieved because the agencies have allowed improvements in management through greater coherence in control and planning, and through service-level agreements that protect the services that customers can expect to receive. As agencies focus on specific areas of

    679
    business, it has also been possible to consider ways of achieving further efficiencies, and each agency is required to identify and deliver a challenging efficiency programme each year.
    The agencies are a success—that is easily demonstrated by a range of published figures. But there is still room for further improvements in efficiency, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the Department's change programme. Under that programme. a key step in our long-term review of social security, we are taking a fundamental look at what we deliver and how we deliver it over the next three years.
    The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) asked me to comment on a leak in The Guardian. I do not normally comment on leaks of material, but the article refers to an early document relating to the Department's running costs review. and no decisions have been taken on the subjects mentioned.
    The elimination of fraud—which was comprehensively covered in last week's debate and by the hon. Member for Birkenhead today—is not an afterthought. Reducing administrative costs will not be done at the expense of safeguarding benefit money. Our objective is to deliver the right money to the right people at the right time, whereas fraud involves money going to the wrong person. The extra funds secured for the security programme are ring-fenced for use on specific security and control activity, and cannot be diverted. We are committed to reducing the level of fraud by 70 per cent. over the security strategy period and the target will be unaffected by proposals in the change programme.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West spoke about the dangers and disasters of family breakdown. He spoke about security, particularly job security. I am sure that he would want to pay credit to the Government's in-work programme and their family credit programme, which make an important contribution at one level to the points that he raised. But at another level the hon. Gentleman spoke of the vital necessity of the Child Support Agency. I want to address a number of points that he raised on that subject.
    I have today laid regulations before the House that pave the way for the trial of an important change in the way that child support liability is calculated. The new provisions will introduce an element of discretion that will allow the Child Support Agency to take account of certain special expenses and other commitments that the standard assessment formula is unable to accommodate.
    The new provisions will deal with a number of specific issues. At present, the calculation of liability is governed by the assessment formula. That formula is necessarily detailed as it attempts to deal with the wide variety of circumstances that may be present in any particular case. However, despite the formula's detailed nature, it is impossible for such a system to meet every eventuality.
    The new provisions will introduce the flexibility required to allow greater recognition of special expenses and other commitments that are not covered by the formula. It will also enable the agency to crack down on absent parents, principally fathers, who seek to reduce their child support liabilities by diverting income elsewhere.
    It will be possible for a parent to apply for a departure direction under three broad categories: where there is a special expense; where there has been a property or capital
    680
    transfer—a so-called clean-break case; or in other specified circumstances. We shall pilot the measure in the south-east of England, where it will be based on the Hastings Child Support Agency centre. Subject to evaluation and the pilot scheme's success, I hope to introduce it throughout the nation in December of this year.
    These changes to the policy go hand in hand with a determined drive to improve the efficiency of the Child Support Agency—the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West spoke of the importance of doing so. The signs of recovery are now there for all to see and the agency's performance is improving in all areas of its work. While improvements may not have been dramatic, they have been steady and continuous. That is not to say that I am satisfied with the present state of affairs; there is certainly no room for complacency. We are constantly looking for ways in which to improve administration and streamline procedures in order to boost performance. Indeed, I expect to lay further regulations before the House in June. They will introduce more administrative improvements—for example, simplifying the way in which housing costs are calculated, and streamlining the procedures relating to reduced benefit directions. As many hon. Members will know, the calculation of housing costs has been lengthy, administratively complex and prone to inaccuracy; some simple changes should lead to worthwhile improvement.
    Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend may say that I have only just entered the Chamber. Thanks to the wonders of information technology, however, I have been watching both him and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)—who made a thoughtful speech—on the box in my office.
    Will the housing costs to which my hon. Friend referred include mortgage costs? We hear endless stories of one partner claiming that the mortgage is now higher, while the other—the former spouse—retorts that the aim in taking out such a large mortgage is merely to twist him or her, and diddle the children.
    Mr. Mitchell: The point made by my hon. Friend—with which I am very familiar, as he has brought two of his constituents to discuss it with me—is dealt with in the departures that I mentioned a moment ago, which we are piloting from today.
    Achieving major improvements in a large organisation that is performing a complicated task in difficult circumstances is not easy; but, although I realise that improvements will take time, no one should doubt my determination to ensure that the CSA achieves the standards that its customers have the right to expect. We are setting challenging targets for further progress, and I am determined to ensure that they are met.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West asked about a number of those challenges. First, he asked about accuracy. That has improved significantly. Accuracy within 1p—that is the way in which we measure it—was set a 75 per cent. target this year; in the last month, 77 per cent. was achieved. A target of 85 per cent. will be set for next year. As the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead will realise, that is a significant improvement in comparison with accuracy in regard to income support.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West also asked about collections. The agency hopes to reach its target for the current financial year of £300 million collected and

    681
    arranged—a steep increase on last year's figure—and will set a target of between £380 million and £400 million for next year. Substantial progress has already been made, and I expect more to be made next year.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the public face of the CSA. Far more emphasis has been placed on the training of staff, to ensure that they respond to a number of criticisms made by clients. In particular, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the CAST system. Following a change in CSA policy, clients who used to negotiate with people who specialised in only one function will be able to deal with a "table" of people who are fully conversant with all aspects of their case.
    The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the system that is now up and running in Hastings. Over the next year, it will spread to all six child support assessment centres. He also spoke of the importance of seeing a friendly face. The fact that assessments are now increasingly dealt with in the field rather than at one of the six centres will help tremendously in achieving that.
    These changes, along with the continuing improvements in the administration of the scheme, will speed the process of public acceptance of the principles behind the Child Support Act 1991. The changes introduced by the regulations are part of the process of civilising the scheme that we began last year. We have already ensured that maintenance should not exceed 30 per cent. of an absent parent's income, and the new arrangements will give us the flexibility that we need to provide further help for parents on whom the formula bears hardest.
    A point was made about the description "absent parent" or "parent with care": I await a letter promised to me by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who wishes to advance specific ideas of behalf of the Select Committee. We shall give serious consideration to what she says.
    In a most interesting speech, the hon. Member for Birkenhead took us to task for the extent to which we have borne down on fraud. I am sorry if I am misquoting him; I think that he wanted to ensure that our work in countering fraudulent activity was up to the mark. We pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is almost alone among Opposition Members in taking a serious interest in the subject, and we shall take careful note of what he said.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned landlord fraud. Let me point out that about a third of rents are reduced—in respect of the eligibility rent level—as a result of examination. We are opposed to all fraud. I suspect that landlord fraud is impossible without a real or imagined claimant, but we take the hon. Gentleman's points seriously, and will examine them all in detail.
    I believe that today's debate and, indeed, our last two major debates on social security show that the Government are succeeding in containing the growth of social security spending, while ensuring that we have a system that helps those who need it. Long-term control has not, however, been achieved at the expense of the most needy. We shall maintain the value of benefits this year by uprating in line with inflation, at a cost of more than £2.5 billion.
    682
    A number of the changes that have been announced will enable people to become more self-reliant—easing the transition from benefit dependency to independence, allowing those people to return to work and encouraging them to stay there. Reforms are making people think about providing for their own future, and encouraging them to join insurance schemes to cater for contingencies such as unemployment, illness and retirement. At the same time, the state will always provide a safety net for those who cannot afford to help themselves.
    Social security spending has been declining as a proportion of gross domestic product, a downward trend that is set to continue. We are the envy of our European neighbours in that regard. Controlling growth is important for both the taxpayer and the economy, and, as a result of the reforms, a reduction of £8 billion in expenditure is expected by the end of the century—the equivalent of around 3p on the basic rate of income tax.
    It is clear that the whole debate on social security has changed. It is the Government who are defining that debate, and setting the agenda for the future. We wait patiently to hear something coherent and sensible from the Opposition, but so far we have waited in vain.
    5.56 pm
    Mr. Frank Field: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
    Although our debate has been marred by the Trappist vows embraced by—largely—Conservative Members, it has featured some undoubted pleasures. I do not think that this is the first time that the Minister has spoken at the Dispatch Box, but it is the first time that I have faced him, and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that his confidence was matched by his enthusiasm: his ministerial career will clearly be limited by the date of the general election rather than by the extent of his ability.
    It was a particular pleasure to listen to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). I come from a shipbuilding town, where we still talk about launches. My hon. Friend's shadow ministerial career was launched today, and no one who heard his speech will be in any doubt about how fine that liner is.
    I want to comment on three aspects of the debate. In an important speech, the Conservative non-Trappist, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), spoke of one of the gains from agency status—the higher status that it will give individual workers. I hope that that is something to which the Treasury Bench will pay attention.
    When I first visited the Child Support Agency building in Birkenhead, I was informed by staff—not the management—that more than half of the new clerical assistants were graduates and that their pay was £6,900 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West spoke about supporting the family. I imagine that it is difficult to support a family successfully if one of the breadwinners, or the only breadwinner, is earning £6,900 a year. We need to think about family wages. Status is not something just to be talked about: it must be reflected in the workplace and in wages. I hope that the agency will bear that in mind.

    683
    The Minister showed his skill in talking up the Government's record in cutting down the social security budget. If one did not pay too much attention to what the Government said, one might almost think that they were successful in this respect. If we took ourselves back to 1979 and asked an unsuspecting public whether a Government who were spending what is now being spent on social security, and who had a record of increases such as that which we have witnessed since 1979, were Labour or Tory, they would say that the Government must be Labour because only Labour would spend so much money on social security. This is not the time to argue about how the money has been spent and how it has been skewed towards means testing; I simply want to leave the Minister with one message to take back to the Secretary of State.
    We constantly hear from the Treasury Bench about the Government's success in controlling the social security budget. That is nonsense. The Secretary of State for Social Security is a tough Minister, but if we examine every one of the four years of his stewardship of the Department, we find that the Treasury increased the amount that it thought it was going to allow for social security expenditure and that the Secretary of State bust the total. The following year, the Secretary of State again bust the increased level. It has happened in all of the years that he has been Secretary of State for Social Security—the increased budget that was negotiated has been burst by at least £1 billion.
    The Secretary of State is controlling the social security budget and bringing it below the increased growth rate of the economy—only if we believe his words, not if we examine his record. If his record this year is like his record for each of the past four years, the social security budget will rise faster than the underlying growth rate of the economy.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Would the hon. Gentleman mind if I put that in my election address?
    Mr. Field: I should be happy for the hon. Gentleman to do so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West talked about the need for us to bring the debate up to date. That is similar to the debate raised by Eleanor Rathbone, in the House and elsewhere, on the distribution of income. During the rise of new Liberalism, prior to new Labourism, she said that the emphasis in the debate on the condition of the people was on which social class got what share of the national income. The debate was primarily about which men in which jobs attracted what sort of wages. She said that it was as important, if not more important, to examine the distribution of income between families with children and families without children. The depth charge that she threw into the debate still has to be dealt with.
    My hon. Friend picked up on a similar aspect of the debate when he gently reprimanded us for talking about poverty in old-fashioned terms and saying that poverty is primarily determined by economic forces. We approach the subject by asking, "Are we old and therefore out of the labour market? Are we sick or unemployed and therefore out of the labour market?" My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that, if poverty is measured by eligibility for income support, more children are poor because they live in households with only one parent than are poor because both parents are unemployed or because one parent is unemployed.
    684
    In Birkenhead on Saturday there was a "Church action on poverty" hearing. We were invited to listen to people who are poor. The first presentations illustrated exactly what my hon. Friend said about poverty and family break-up, and one of my friends at the meeting—a Liberal councillor—wondered whether we were talking about something new. Everyone became defensive because we were hearing that family break-up was a cause of poverty.
    As the debate unfolded in the afternoon, a number of people got to their feet and said that they felt that they were under attack and that we were somehow blaming them for being poor. The debate that my hon. Friend has started today must be approached with enormous sensitivity because we are saying something new which might be misinterpreted but also because people can be hurt by what we say. The responsibility for some of the trends mentioned by my hon. Friend rests with the House, in that the way in which we have spoken has made it easier for people to assume positions that they would not previously have assumed.
    In speaking about means testing, I have mentioned people working the system rather than working to get off benefit. I have primarily tried to blame the House for that, not my constituents whose limited opportunities may lead them to work the system.
    The same applies to family break-ups. If we pilot through the House divorce reforms that allow people to break the marriage contract after a period only half the length of an average hire purchase agreement, we are sending a powerful message—we think that a HP agreement is more important than a marriage contract. That is not to say that people will not work hard at their marriages; marriages may still fail at the end of the day. I am not pointing the finger, but if we defend HP agreements more strongly than we defend the marriage contract, we are sending a dynamic message to the country. If citizens then respond in a certain way to what we are saying, we should be the last people to reprehend them. We should examine the impact of our actions on the world outside.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West said that we have to get away from blaming poverty on economic causes and must consider more personal reasons such as family break-up, but I hope that we do not fall into the syndrome of blaming victims from the past. We should conduct the debate sensitively along the lines that he followed and look to the future rather than trying to get out of our responsibility for the circumstances that we are now, unhappily, debating.
    Despite the Trappist monks who populate the Treasury Bench, this has been an important debate. There have been two good firsts—I was able to hear the Minister speak for the first time and to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West begin his shadow, but soon—no doubt—ministerial, career. We also heard some important suggestions from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, which I hope the Ministers will note carefully and act on later today when they get back to their desks.
    Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

    Business of the House
    6.9 pm
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
    That, at this day's sitting—
    (1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Welsh Business not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; and
    (2) Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply with the insertion in line 41, after the words 'At Ten o'clock', of the words 'or immediately after the previous business has been disposed of, whichever is the later'.
    The motion is intended simply to provide for the tidy organisation of our business tonight and for a substantial opportunity to debate the Standing Orders relating to Wales—more substantial, dare I say, than the time devoted to the debate on the Scottish Grand Committee, but it may be unwise to make that point.
    Paragraph (2) of the business motion deals with voting on the estimates, which is intended to take place at the end of tonight's proceedings. I commend the motion to the House.
    6.10 pm
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I welcome the fact that the Government have decided that a debate on the Standing Orders to change the Welsh Grand Committee's workings should continue until 10 o'clock this evening. Had the attitude of certain other Conservative Members been different, such a long debate might not have been necessary and the Leader of the House's comparison with the changes that we made to the Scottish Grand Committee would have been more valid. May I give hon. Members a little background to what has happened on this occasion? It might help the Leader of the House understand why we are in the position where we may debate the Standing Orders for four hours.
    The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Wales will be aware that Labour Members have long been pressing for changes to the Standing Orders on the Welsh Grand Committee. They have made it clear that the required changes should be meaningful and should properly improve the way in which the Welsh Grand Committee works. They have argued that any such changes should be implemented after discussion and by agreement among all the people involved in the Committee.
    I am sure that such an approach would commend itself to the Leader of the House because, whenever he has proposed changes, he has proceeded by way of consultation. Some 18 months ago, after considerable discussion with the Opposition parties, with my predecessor and me and with hon. Members from the minority parties, he recommended changes to proceedings in the House of Commons based on the Jopling Committee's recommendations. Although we want to go further in some matters, the changes have been made on the basis of consensus, discussion and consultation.
    It is important for the Leader of the House to recognise that his approach of introducing change after consultation has not been the Secretary of State's approach on this occasion. Therefore, responsibility for the problems that
    686
    the House faces in having a longer debate on these Standing Orders than on those on the Scottish Grand Committee lies clearly at the door of the Secretary of State. It is not the Leader of the House's fault that we are in this position.
    The problem of negotiating changes to the Welsh Grand Committee need not have resulted in a stalemate between the Secretary of State and Welsh Members. Labour and other members of the Committee have attempted to discuss in good faith changes that would be most appropriate. I do not know whether the Secretary of State understands how strong feeling is among Labour Members. Many overtures have been made to him and to his predecessor. Had any of those offers been taken up, there could have been a more constructive discussion on how the Welsh Grand Committee discussed affairs relevant to Wales.
    The approaches that have been made to Ministers go back almost a year—certainly to April 1995. The Secretary of State was not in his position then, but discussions were proposed to his predecessor. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) suggested to a Government Whip that changes would be appropriate and that more constructive use could be made of the time available to the Welsh Grand Committee. It took some time for the Welsh Office Minister to reply to my hon. Friend. In July, the Minister said that it was up to the Committee to determine when and where it met and that such things were arranged through the usual channels.
    My hon. Friends tried to use the usual channels to arrive at some consensus. Their approaches to Ministers were rejected on all occasions—so much so that, by November last year, when the Secretary of State had been in office for four or five months, my Welsh colleagues decided that it would be appropriate to make their own proposals on the workings of the Welsh Grand Committee.
    Shortly afterwards, the Secretary of State came up with some ideas and made a statement on the Welsh Grand Committee, suggesting improvements and changes in its business. Even after that statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central again tried to enter into negotiations to ensure that there was agreement on what changes were necessary to the Standing Orders and that best use was made of the time.
    My hon. Friends have suggested that progress could have been made had those proposed changes been discussed in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Members of all parties who are most affected by them. I would have thought that that was a reasonable proposition. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State has been adamant that that procedure is not appropriate.
    I understand from my hon. Friends that the Secretary of State still has not said why that was not possible. Had we had such a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee and, in particular, had Ministers listened to the constructive suggestions that would have been made by my hon. Friends, we could have had a far shorter debate this evening. We could have had a motion that was the subject of agreement and discussion and that was amended when proper ideas and suggestions were proposed.

    687
    The Leader of the House's approach on all these occasions—of trying to work with the people who will be affected by change—has not been followed by the Secretary of State for Wales. If he believed that his suggestions were valid and would work, it would have been reasonable to agree to Welsh Members' request to discuss them in the Welsh Grand Committee. Had that happened, we might not have needed such a lengthy debate this evening. The reason why the House's time is being taken up on these matters is that the Secretary of State has been obstinate and has decided to make decisions rather than enter into genuine consultation.
    6.18 pm
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I want not only to support the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) but to add some of my own. The procedure for tabling the motion, the details of which we will discuss later, is unsatisfactory.
    For those of us who were able only on Friday to submit amendments, the workings of the Table Office again turned out to be unsatisfactory because, for reasons that I do not understand but perhaps you can look into, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it refused to accept amendments that had been tabled and signed by hon. Members because they were not present in person. I understand that that is the drill to which we work on oral questions, but early-day motions and amendments to them and amendments to legislation are put down in writing. To have them refused on this occasion means that it is impossible for us to have on the Order Paper the amendments that we wanted to debate. That is because the motion appeared late on Thursday, amendments had to be tabled by Friday and the Table Office was unwilling to act.
    I should like to lodge a protest on behalf of my staff about the way in which people on my staff were treated by the Table Office when they tried to negotiate on the matter. The attitude was far from satisfactory and the lack of courtesy was matched only by the lack of courtesy in not giving us proper notification of what was to come to the House.
    This should be an important debate, but the opportunity for it to be constructive rather than a polarised party debate has been thrown out by the Secretary of State because, within half an hour of meeting the Welsh parliamentary party, the group containing all Welsh Members, he announced to the press that he intended to carry on regardless with the motion. He did not follow the representations that were properly and reasonably discussed by Members at the all-party meeting with the Secretary of State in the Norman Shaw building. The meeting seemed promising because it showed the way forward. It showed that we could discuss issues and move to a constructive way of handling such matters.
    We spent an hour discussing the matter in detail and making constructive proposals about the orders, but the door was quickly shut on the overwhelming majority view of Welsh Members. That has inevitably led to polarisation and the issue will be fought line by line in the House. I regret not only that our amendments cannot be debated but that more have not been selected, because there is room to debate many of the amendments on the Order Paper. Presumably, the House does not have time for that.
    If the Welsh Grand Committee is to be meaningful, Welsh Members from all parties will have to support the changes; but the Government's attitude has shown that
    688
    that is highly unlikely and that we will enter a period of entrenched warfare over the Committee rather than proceed on a basis of co-operation between parties. Weak as it is, that is the way in which the Committee should discuss Welsh matters. I am unhappy with the business motion and I hope that the House will divide on it.
    6.22 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Although I confess that I cannot and do not intend to cultivate anger on this issue, it is regrettable that the debate, which of course it is procedurally right should take place on these matters, is not taking place after a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. Much trouble would have been avoided if the Welsh Grand Committee had had the opportunity to discuss the amendments and make recommendations, even if only on an advisory basis. That might have resulted in less contention.
    The issue that will concern many hon. Members is whether there will be any significant improvement in the government of Wales as a consequence of the business motion. I do not think that there will be. However, I think that there will be some, albeit limited, improvements in the way in which the Welsh Grand Committee will operate.
    I ask the Government, even at this late hour, to consider whether it would be wise to postpone the debate on Welsh business and allow the Welsh Grand Committee, in clear support of the opinions expressed to the Secretary of State at the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party, to have its say so that we may have a seemly rather than an unseemly debate in the House.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Peter Hain: There would have been no need for the debate to take this form had the Secretary of State effectively continued in the spirit of the Welsh parliamentary party and submitted the whole issue to the Welsh Grand Committee. If that had been done, all Welsh Members would have been able to get to grips with the detail and express their views. Having used the Welsh Grand Committee as an effective sounding board, the Secretary of State could then have formulated his proposals on a basis of consensus.
    The Government have contrived to have a debate that could run for nearly four hours. Does that mean that they have virtually run out of business for the remainder of the Session and need to fill it with a debate under entirely unsatisfactory circumstances and against a background of deep opposition by virtually all Welsh Members, who feel that the Government are railroading these proposals through without proper consent?
    Instead of allowing Welsh Members to discuss the matter properly, the Government simply want a long drawn-out skirmish in the House rather than having to table other business, because they do not have much other business. The Secretary of State had an opportunity to arrive at a consensus, initially through the Welsh parliamentary party and then through the Welsh Grand Committee. That would have concertinaed the process and would have led to a much shorter, crisper debate and could, perhaps, have resolved any outstanding issues. Instead, as will become evident when the matters are discussed, the Secretary of State has unilaterally proceeded against the wishes of the vast majority of

    689
    Welsh Opposition Members—if not all—who comprise by far the greatest number of Welsh Members. He is proceeding against our wishes in a way that challenges the democratic relationship between the House and the people of Wales.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: As my hon. Friend says, the Secretary of State is proceeding against our wishes. Perversely, when the Secretary of State met the members of the parliamentary group, he showed that he had much sympathy with the vast majority of our proposals. Is it not even more surprising that he should choose to ignore that opportunity to reach a consensus and instead proceed in a dictatorial fashion?
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and it will be interesting to hear the Secretary of State's answer, or that of the Leader of the House if he intends to reply. The Secretary of State approached that meeting in a conciliatory and informal fashion and listened to all the views expressed at it. There was understanding and a fair consensus, and we thought that on that basis we could get the new arrangements up and running; but the Secretary of State has almost entirely ignored the spirit of the meeting and, using his majority in the Chamber, he seeks to impose these arrangements on us.
    If the Secretary of State had chosen the Welsh Grand Committee route, not only would it have shortened the proceedings—that would be an advantage to everyone except perhaps the Government business managers, because it would have made a hole in their day—but it would have allowed us to establish arrangements for the Welsh Grand Committee that would have stood the test of time because they would have been based on consensus.
    The suspicion must be that the Secretary of State is imposing these arrangements on us because he wants to dodge not just the will of the Welsh Grand Committee and Welsh Members but the will of the people of Wales. Welsh people do not want a half-baked, jazzed-up Welsh Grand Committee: they want a Welsh Assembly. They want to have the ability to express their views through an elected assembly so that their voices can be heard in a way that the Government have consistently denied them for the past 17 years. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), shakes his head, but he more than any other Conservative Member consistently flouts the wishes of the Welsh people in his behaviour as a Minister and in the way in which he conducts himself in the Chamber in proceeding with the business for which he is responsible.
    The Government's action will leave a sour taste in the mouths not only of Welsh Members, other than the one or two Welsh Conservative Back Benchers who are not even in the Chamber—where are they?—but of the people of Wales as a whole. Once again, the Government, who take no interest in their wishes, are flouting those wishes and riding roughshod over them by imposing arrangements that do not have the support of Welsh Members of Parliament.
    6.28 pm
    Dr. John Marek: I should like to follow and take up the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). We should ask ourselves whether
    690
    the proposed changes—if and when we debate them—will improve the standard of decision making in the Principality. I believe that they will not. More paper will be used, more words will be printed and more words will be spoken, but the proposed changes will not make one iota of difference to the quality of decisions. The final arbiter of that will remain the English Tory party in the House of Commons.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Neath was right. Just six Government Members are present, of whom just one represents a Welsh constituency. The Conservative party has other Welsh Members—
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Not for much longer.
    Dr. Marek: Where are the Conservative party's other five Welsh Members, even if, as my hon. Friend says, it will probably not have them for much longer? Are even they against the Government's proposed changes? Are they treating the debate with disdain by being absent? What is the explanation for their absence? At the moment, the matter is completely beyond me. Of course Conservative Members know that there is a desire in the Principality for more decisions to be taken there instead of foreign politics and foreign decisions being inflicted on us by people who have no interest whatever in the Principality.
    I met the Secretary of State and he knew nothing much about Wales. He has at least taken an interest in it, but only of course during the past six or nine months. That is no substitute for living in the place and knowing it. If one knows a place, one is likely to make better decisions as a result.
    Will the changes allow any decisions to be made by the Welsh Grand Committee that it would not have been able to make before? The answer is, of course, no. We know that the Welsh Grand Committee cannot make any decisions.
    Mr. Wigley: It is a talking shop.
    Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Committee is a talking shop, and if the Secretary of State's proposals go through, it will still be a talking shop. The changes will not make any difference.
    Although I would like to catch your eye in the main debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make it clear that I am profoundly disappointed in this short debate on the business motion. I am not surprised by it, however, because the Tory party does not represent the people of Wales and does not have much regard for them. The motion is merely some cosmetic tissue through which the Government hope they will hoodwink people.
    I am sure that not only the Labour party but the Liberal Democrats and the Welsh nationalists will ensure that any such deception is uncovered quickly and that the people of Wales will vote for the party that will return decision making—certainly on local matters, if not on others—to where it rightfully belongs at the next election. There should be subsidiarity down as far as possible—in this case, to the people of Wales, the Principality, the regions and local authorities.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Leader of the House should explain, especially to the Opposition, what happened after the Welsh parliamentary party meeting. The Welsh parliamentary party is a very curious animal. It is defunct for years at a time. It very rarely meets, but is suddenly activated—we activate it. I have been tracing the history of its meetings.
    The Welsh parliamentary party met in the mid-1930s when there was an economic crisis, to try to gain some degree of consensus and present a united voice on the economic plight in south Wales to Whitehall and Westminster. It came up with some very interesting and unanimous suggestions. It again met during the war, in 1944, to recommend to the War Cabinet the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales to promote the reconstruction of post-war Wales. It also met once or twice in the 1950s and 1960s to bring to the attention of Ministers the consensual approach to various political activities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who has just walked into the Chamber, is a living embodiment of consensual politics.
    Sir Wyn Roberts rose—
    Mr. Rowlands: I should like to continue making my point.
    The Welsh parliamentary party has therefore just occasionally played a functional role in presenting a case to Ministers. At its recent meeting, a virtually unanimous opinion emerged that we should debate matters first in the Welsh Grand Committee. Given that consensus and the curious function that the parliamentary party plays every once in a while in Welsh-Westminster politics, it is extraordinary that its view should have been not just disregarded but, given the Secretary of State's statement to the media, disregarded within half an hour.
    Although we will soon have a chance to debate the orders, I should tell the Secretary of State that we all remember his original statement. I certainly got the impression from it that he was generally open-minded about the shape, character and nature of the revamped Welsh Grand Committee. He invited consultation, and that was the whole tenor of the statement. When some of us wrote to him suggesting variations—I will not raise my suggestion because I have tabled an amendment on it—we received appalling answers. It was quite clear from the two-line replies that the Government had no intention of taking on board interesting variations on the original theme. Indeed, the motions on the Order Paper are exactly the ones that the Government first thought of.
    It makes matters worse when one considers that Whitehall and the Government agreed to do something about the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. There has not been any real consultation on the proposals. There is not a shred of evidence that any meaningful point made by any Back Bencher—in an individual, not a partisan, fashion—has been incorporated in the measures.
    The Leader of the House must realise the extent of the resentment felt and why the business timetable motion must be opposed. He should tell us what happened after the Welsh parliamentary party meeting and why no meaningful alterations have been made to the orders as a result of hon. Members' representations.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I was also at the Welsh parliamentary party meeting, and at its conclusion I thought that the Secretary of State had taken on board some of the points that were made. He left the room saying that the meeting had been helpful, useful and businesslike. That was the kind of language that he used. Within half an hour he had obviously gone back on everything that he had said, including, "I shall consider further the points that you have made to me."
    For all his faults—and they are legion—the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), would have at least said straight away whether he was with or against us. The Secretary of State handled the meeting with rather unclever deceit. We are not children; we know what is going on in politics, and we are rather taken aback at his attitude. The people of Wales will not be treated like children.
    All of a sudden there is an indecent haste to try to do something about the Welsh Grand Committee, which has taken the same form for a long time. Many of us have argued about its form over the years. Apparently, nothing was to happen to it. Then, suddenly, experiments in Scotland were put in train.
    There has been a mobile press conference in Scotland, attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and others. I hope that the Secretary of State does not think that by rushing the motion through with almost indecent haste and not even allowing a modicum of proper, reasoned discussion—such discussion was evident at the Welsh parliamentary party meeting—he can steamroller us into a similar format to Scotland. That will not do. I understand why the Government want it. They are not very welcome in Wales at present and there is no other way of getting the Prime Minister and other Ministers into various parts of Wales without this particular platform.
    I must make it clear to the Secretary of State that we are serious about the purposes of the Welsh Grand Committee. We are here to represent the people of Wales; he is not. He made plain his disdain for the people of Wales in the manner that he insulted those representing them.
    There are two fundamental points that should be included in the Standing Orders, but I shall confine myself to one of them—the question of dealing with specifically Welsh legislation. Over the past couple of years, on at least two occasions I have had the bitter experience of being in Standing Committee with hon. Members from the other side of the border who have voted down our amendments. I have respect for each and every one of them, but they knew nothing about the argument; they simply signed their correspondence and voted against every amendment. I had the bitter experience of losing one amendment on the casting vote of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I found it rather galling that the people of Wales should be deprived of the right to Welsh jury trials by the vote of a Member representing a Cheshire constituency. It is not good enough.
    Today, we have an appropriate vehicle to amend the Standing Orders and bring them up to current standards. The Government's proposals will do nothing other than exacerbate an already bad position.
    6.41 pm
    Mr. David Hanson: I worry greatly about the motion. I genuinely want to know from the Leader of the House why there is such undue haste to discuss the matter. I have several reasons for wanting to know that. First—and this is not meant to be a party political point—the Conservative party in Wales starts from a position of fundamental weakness; it has just six Members of Parliament. The last time my local authority went to the polls, only three Conservatives were elected. The Conservative party does not have the support of the people of Wales for the policies that it is carrying out in Wales.
    We can argue until the cows come home about the benefits of the United Kingdom Parliament and the position of English Members of Parliament voting on Welsh issues and vice versa. The point is that the Conservative party in Wales does not have the moral authority to impose its policies on the people of Wales. Whenever it has gone to the polls, it has been beaten—in general elections, Euro-elections and local elections. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government, when they consider the development of the Welsh Grand Committee, to take with them those who represent Welsh constituencies. I say that not because of some ethereal, far-distant notion, but because we represent the people of Wales. We have been sent to this House to argue the case for the people of Wales and we have a majority in doing so. Whatever the Government think, at the end of the day they do not have a majority of Welsh votes or seats at local, national or European level. Therefore, our majority and moral authority are important and appropriate consultation is important.
    It would have been appropriate for the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss these issues prior to their coming before the House. Any amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and others will be voted on and defeated, possibly by the votes of Members of Parliament representing seats in England and Scotland. It is important that there is consultation if we are to have a Welsh Grand Committee that is meaningful, that challenges the Executive, that can discuss and reflect Welsh opinion and that actually has an important role, irrespective of our wish in the long term for an Assembly or, in some cases, a Parliament.
    I am worried because the Government do not seem able even to let the Welsh Grand Committee discuss its own future and establishment—so what use will it be in discussing the big issues that affect our constituents, such as value added tax, local government spending, democracy, quangos, trusts and housing, education and national health service policies? If the Government will not even let it decide how it is set up and how it arranges its discussions, what is the point of hon. Members going to the Committee to argue matters? We shall know that ultimately the Government are not interested in what the Committee says and does.
    It is important that the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State reconsider the motion and whether to proceed with it. The Government should take Opposition Members with them on the motion. That is important for democracy and for moral authority. It is also important for ensuring that the Welsh Grand Committee works and is effective. The trust will be broken if the Government force through the motion tonight without further discussion.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Ron Davies: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have gathered from the flavour of this brief debate the strength of feeling on the Opposition Benches.
    I welcome the speech of the Leader of the House, which I thought was conciliatory. As I am sure my hon. Friends will have noted, his approach contrasts sharply with that of the Secretary of State for Wales.
    It is clear that all the parties are unhappy with the way in which the business motion has been brought before the House. Even at this late stage, I ask either the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House to say whether the Government are prepared to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to consider the Standing Orders that will govern its own proceedings. That is hardly a revolutionary request. All we are asking is that the Committee be allowed to consider the Standing Orders that will apply to its own proceedings. Will either of the right hon. Gentlemen respond to that point now?
    Mr. Newton: I had intended to respond when the hon. Gentleman had concluded his remarks. Indeed, I have one or two other things to say. In view of what I believe to be the desirability of the changes and the fairly lengthy period during which there was a good deal of consultation, I think that it is right to expect the House to proceed with this business tonight and put the changes in place. While I accept that hon. Members want to go further, the changes are an improvement in the Welsh Grand Committee and will offer opportunities and advantages to the people of Wales and those who represent them.
    Mr. Davies: In effect, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he will not allow the Welsh Grand Committee to consider its own Standing Orders. I hope that he will reflect on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), that there are 38 Welsh Members of Parliament, 32 of whom want the opportunity to discuss the Standing Orders in the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is refusing to allow us to do that.
    Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in allowing me to intervene again briefly. One important point that is relevant to this line of argument is that these are not the Standing Orders of the Welsh Grand Committee; they are the Standing Orders of the House governing the arrangements for the Welsh Grand Committee. That is why the matter must necessarily be decided by the House and why it is appropriate that it should be debated by the House.
    Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the error made by the Secretary of State when I wrote to him on the matter some time ago. I fully understand, as do all my hon. Friends, that the Government are not prepared to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to resolve these matters. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, these are Standing Orders of the House. What we want is the opportunity to debate them in the Welsh Grand Committee. Obviously, at the end of the day they have to be approved by the House, but why on earth are the Government so set in their determination to prevent us from even discussing those matters in the Welsh Grand Committee? That is the question that I put to the Secretary of State and to the Leader of the House, but I have not yet had a satisfactory answer.

    695
    The business motion restricts our opportunity to have a proper examination of the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. Will the Leader of the House tell us why he is so anxious to restrict debate and to prevent us from even discussing the Standing Orders in the Welsh Grand Committee? Will he answer that specific question? Why cannot we even discuss the proposed changes in the Welsh Grand Committee?
    Mr. Newton: Rather than allowing the debate to become a question-and-answer session, it would be more appropriate for me to make further remarks in my winding-up speech in a moment or two.
    Mr. Davies: This is a question-and-question session, not a question-and-answer session. We are putting questions to the Leader of the House and we are not getting answers. If he is not prepared to give us an answer or to say, even at this late stage, that the Government will relent and will allow the Welsh Grand Committee to consider those matters, why on earth does he not at least give us a reason? What is so wrong about us being able to debate those matters? We have not had a satisfactory answer on that point.
    We are angry about the business motion for this reason. Although the debate on the Standing Orders would have been allowed to run its full course in the Welsh Grand Committee, on the Floor of the House, it will be restricted by the business motion.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Leader of the House gave one answer to explain why he did not wish the debate to take place in the Welsh Grand Committee? He said that he thought that it would delay proceedings and that he wanted to move on. Is not the truth that if the Secretary of State had acceded to the wishes of the parliamentary group, so that we could have debated the matter in the Welsh Grand Committee, it would have been dealt with by now and the changes in the Standing Orders would already have been delivered? It is not we but the Government who are delaying the procedures.
    Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend understands the usual channels in a way to which I could not possibly aspire. However, I recall a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff in 1993, when we urged the Government to accept the changes.
    I contrast the procedures that we are being invited to follow, by means of the business motion, with the procedures that were followed when the Welsh Grand Committee was established. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke earlier, is an historian of great note. He drew my attention to the proceedings of the Select Committee on Procedure, which met in July 1958, when the Welsh Grand Committee was established. Our debate later will concern amendments to those Standing Orders. I refer to three brief points of note.
    First, the Committee received evidence from Mr. Ness Edwards, who recommended the establishment of a Welsh Grand Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Hon. Members ask who he was. He was a former Member of Parliament for Caerphilly; he was my predecessor but two. He was a man of great distinction and I think that it
    696
    is necessary that I, as one of his successors, should try to take forward the advantages that he brought to us as Welsh citizens. It was his submission to the Procedure Committee that established the Welsh Grand Committee as we know it now.
    Secondly, it is interesting to look at the Committee's proceedings. The Welsh Grand Committee was established by means of a detailed cross-party examination of the submissions. The business motion tonight will prevent Welsh Members and the Procedure Committee from undertaking that detailed, cross-party examination of the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee, although that is just the sort of examination that is necessary to create a consensus. If the Leader of the House has a moment or two to spare from his onerous tasks, he will do well to read the proceedings of the Procedure Committee in 1958.
    Thirdly, the Welsh Grand Committee was established before the office of Secretary of State for Wales. Since 1964, under Conservative and Labour Governments, there has been enormous administrative devolution and the Welsh Office has grown beyond all recognition. Surely, if there was a case in 1958 for a properly structured Welsh Grand Committee, there is an even stronger case in 1996 for a proper Welsh Grand Committee to examine matters relating to Wales and to monitor the procedures of the Welsh Office.
    We oppose the business motion because, despite the assertion made by the Leader of the House, the change to the Standing Orders has not been the subject of proper consultation. I do not know what the Leader of the House means by consultation, but I know what I mean. I believe that consultation means that people, in good faith, make proposals for change, that those proposals are discussed and that when it is possible, on the basis of that discussion, agreement is reached. We have not had such consultation.
    I do not know what the Leader of the House has been told by the Secretary of State for Wales. I can assure him that 32 Welsh Members have had no meaningful consultation on the proposed changes. I hope that the Leader of the House now fully understands that there is no agreement on the matter between Welsh Members and the Secretary of State. The wishes of the majority of Welsh Members have been ignored so far. If the business motion is accepted, they will be prevented from expressing their views later this evening.
    Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to the Welsh parliamentary party. We met on 20 February, and I hope that the Leader of the House can offer an explanation for what occurred. By all accounts, it was a very cordial meeting, apart from the fact that the Government Whip was excluded from the proceedings because he had not sought an invitation. It was a matter of great embarrassment to him, but it gave great merriment to the rest of us. The meeting then proceeded in a cordial and good-natured way. At the end, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) pointed out, the Secretary of State left the room saying, "Yes, I shall consider the matter. I hope that if any of you have further submissions to make, you will make them and I shall give the matter further consideration."
    Within an hour, I was telephoned by a BBC journalist, who said that the Secretary of State had given an interview in which he had announced that the proposed

    697
    changes to the Standing Orders would not be considered by the Welsh Grand Committee, but would be taken on the Floor of the House. I ask the Leader of the House a direct question. Does he think that that is the way in which the matter should be conducted between the Government and the Opposition? Does he think that that is a fit, appropriate and courteous way for a Secretary of State to conduct himself, especially when he does not represent a Welsh constituency and can muster, at best, only six Members out of 38?
    I wrote to the Secretary of State on the following day, 21 February, to express my concern, to ask him to reconsider his decision and to ask him to allow the matter to go to the Welsh Grand Committee. I still have not had a reply from the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House think that that is an appropriate way for one of his Cabinet colleagues to conduct business? I certainly do not.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Secretary of State had taken on board all the points that were made at the meeting of the parliamentary party and if he had said, "I have met all the points, so there is no need to go through the Welsh Grand Committee; I am willing to change the proposals to take those points on board," he would have made a comprehensible defence? To close the door, to refuse to back the changes that were asked for at the meeting and to support the business motion is, to all intents and purposes, to tell us that it was a total waste of time to have the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party.
    Mr. Davies: Very much so. It is my personal regret that the Secretary of State did not have the courage or the courtesy to tell us that to our faces at the meeting in Norman Shaw. He must have been set in his mind then, so why on earth did he not have the courtesy or the courage to tell us that that was the case rather than sneaking out and giving a BBC interview half an hour later?
    I also oppose the business motion because it institutionalises conflict. I hope that the Leader of the House now understands that if we had been able to deal with the matter in the way that we wished, we could have reached agreement. There is a need to reform the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee; everyone understands that. As a result of the business motion, there will be unnecessary confrontation with the Opposition. The procedures of the House are rigid and formal. We shall not be able to have the flexibility—the give and take—that we could have had in the Welsh Grand Committee. The business motion denies us that opportunity. Undoubtedly, the motion that will be put to the House at 10 o'clock will not command the broad support of Welsh Members. Indeed, it is a missed opportunity to reform the Welsh Grand Committee.
    Those arguments underscore the fundamental divide between Welsh Members who represent Welsh constituencies and the Secretary of State. There is no doubt that Opposition Members have a genuine desire to improve democracy in Wales. but the business motion prevents us from doing so. There is a genuine desire to have better and more accountable government in Wales. The business motion will prevent us from having that
    698
    debate. There is a genuine desire to have more efficient government, less corrupt government and a Government who reflect the wishes of the people. The business motion will prevent us from developing that argument. There are four hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who represent Welsh constituencies, but it is quite clear that they do not share our aspirations.
    As an Opposition, we have always been constructive in this matter. To my knowledge, as far back as 8 March 1993, when the Welsh Grand Committee met in Cardiff to discuss the governance of Wales, the Opposition suggested to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), how we could restructure the Welsh Grand Committee. We were then debating the reorganisation of local government. We asked the Government why on earth, if they wished to proceed with it, they did not put the matter before the Welsh Grand Committee. Their response some months later was to deny Welsh Members of Parliament by repealing Standing Order No. 86—which is what the motion before us does—and to prevent Welsh Members from sitting on the Committee, which, above all else, was discussing local government in Wales.
    Instead of putting Welsh Members on the Committee, the Government included luminaries such as the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who came to something of a sticky end, for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg)—a fine record he has in Westminster—and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), who had no Welsh interests apart from a property that he owned in Powys.
    The debate is not about devolution, which is not on the agenda tonight. The Government know our position on that, which is clear and unequivocal. The debate is about reforming the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee. We want workable, meaningful changes. We want it to be given proper powers, not only to debate and to question the Government—when we do that, the Government can run away from the arguments, as they have done tonight—but to decide matters. If there is a difference between the Government and the Opposition on the handling of the Welsh Grand Committee, it is down to that.
    The Government currently hold all the cards. They decide all the matters and want to keep the cards in their hands. They make the arrangements for the Welsh Grand Committee. They control its agenda and always have the last word in it. They refuse it the power to decide any matters. The business motion will curtail debate to about two hours, but that is not enough time to explore those matters, particularly on the Floor of the House. The motion will deprive Welsh Members of Parliament of any opportunity to seek a consensus on how the procedures of the Committee could be improved. Thanks to the motion, there will be artificial votes. Those of us who sit on the Welsh Grand Committee, who represent Welsh constituencies and have a vested interest in ensuring that we get it right tonight, will be outvoted by Conservative Members, who will be whipped at 10 o'clock to deny us our rights.
    For those reasons, we oppose the business motion and shall seek to divide the House.
    7.3 pm
    Mr. Newton: I thought that the debate started rather promisingly, when the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—I thank her for this—spent a great deal of

    699
    time saying what a reasonable man I was. However, it has gone steadily downhill from there, but I shall try to remain reasonable in my brief winding-up speech.
    I do not accept, however grateful I am for the remarks about me, the contrast that has been drawn with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It is certainly not a breach of confidence—I do not think that anybody would mind me saying this—to say that being, as I am, quite keen to see this particular improvement, as I see it, in the procedures of the House advanced as soon as possible, I had a sketch plan of business a week before Christmas. I offered my right hon. Friend the opportunity to proceed with the changes that he had outlined—which, generally, appeared to have been welcomed—to the Standing Orders that govern the Welsh Grand Committee. He declined, saying that he did not want the opportunity to debate the business at that time, precisely because he wished to go through a process of discussion and consultation with other Welsh Members of Parliament.
    I understand that my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 14 December, explaining exactly what changes he proposed to introduce, offering a meeting to discuss them and asking their agreement. Thereafter, there was a considerable exchange of correspondence, and, as has been acknowledged, something rare happened: there was a meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party—a gathering of all hon. Members who represent constituencies in Wales—which my right hon. Friend attended. I accept that there appears to have been some misunderstanding in the wake of that meeting. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend had always made it clear that changes to the Standing Orders of the House were matters for debate on the Floor of the House. That appears to be the main point of disagreement.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Whatever faults we might have as Welsh Members of Parliament, I can assure the Leader of the House that we never let the Secretary of State leave any of our meetings under any misapprehension of our true feelings. May I clarify one point and ensure that Hansard records what happened? It is quite correct that the Secretary of State wrote to me and other hon. Members on 14 December, but the Leader of the House has just suggested that, in that letter, the Secretary of State offered a meeting. That is not correct.
    If the Leader of the House consults the Secretary of State and looks at the correspondence, he will find that the Secretary of State did not write to me, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who represents Plaid Cymru, and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who represents the Liberal Democrats, until 31 January. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his point, because that is very important.
    Mr. Newton: I understand—I gather that it is my right hon. Friend's recollection—that my right hon. Friend offered a meeting at that stage, but if there has been any misunderstanding about that, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to clear it up when he speaks in the debate, which I hope that we shall get on to before much longer.
    Mr. Llwyd: On the question of misunderstanding, the Leader of the House is at a disadvantage, because he was not at that meeting. I was, and I think that we all have a similar recollection. We all understand that, for any effective change to be introduced, there has to be a change in the Standing Orders of the House. We need not be experts in "Erskine May" to work that one out. The point is that the Secretary of State left the meeting with the firm impression that he was considering actively all the points that had been raised, none of which now appears on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Newton: We are, are we not, in effect talking about two different things. There seem to be differences of perception about the meeting, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, I did not have the advantage—if that is the correct word—of attending. My right hon. Friend's understanding, if I may speak for him further, is that he had consistently made clear his expectation that the matter would be debated on the Floor of the House.
    Clearly, there are also a number of other disagreements about what should be in the Standing Orders, on which, of course, my right hon. Friend has reflected, but that is a somewhat different matter. Of course it is the case, as it was in relation to the changes in the Standing Orders for the Scottish Grand Committee, that some hon. Members would wish to go further than my right hon. Friend proposed or make more extensive changes to the Standing Orders, but it has certainly been my understanding, and, I think, that of my right hon. Friend, that there was general support for changes that at least go as far as the ones that have been proposed.
    Mr. Alun Michael: With respect, the Leader of the House quibbles on the wrong point. Everyone understands that the Standing Orders are a matter for the decision of the House, but the suggestion was that there should be proper discussion and consultation by the Secretary of State in the Welsh Grand Committee before proposals were brought to the Floor of the House. It is a sign of the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), Labour Members and other Opposition Members that we were prepared to meet the Secretary of State in the Welsh parliamentary party and to suggest a proper and sensible debate, and did not reject his right to make suggestions in the first place.
    Mr. Newton: Given that we have been accused of resisting debate or attempting to muzzle Members of Parliament representing Wales, I must make the point that all members of the Welsh Grand Committee, by definition, are Members of the House. There is nothing to prevent any Member who wishes to do so from seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the debate that I hope will take place. We have provided in the business motion, although some of the time for debate has now been consumed by the debate on that motion, significantly more time than would normally be provided for debate on such matters, precisely in order to enable Welsh Members to have a proper debate.
    I believe that we should accept the business motion and get on with that debate.
    Question put:—
    The House divided:Ayes 162,Noes 61.

    Division No. 70]

    [7.10 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Amess, David

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Harris, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hawksley, Warren

    Body, Sir Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Booth, Hartley

    Hendry, Charles

    Boswell, Tim

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hicks, Robert

    Bowis, John

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Horam, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Burns, Simon

    Jack, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Butterfill, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Clappison, James

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Coe, Sebastian

    Key, Robert

    Congdon, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Conway, Derek

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Couchman, James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Cran, James

    Legg, Barry

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

    Lidington, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Dicks, Terry

    Lord, Michael

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Luff, Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Dover, Den

    MacKay, Andrew

    Duncan-Smith, lain

    Maclean, FH Hon David

    Dunn, Bob

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Dykes, Hugh

    Malone, Gerald

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Evennett, David

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Faber, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Fabricant, Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Norris, Steve

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Forman, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Page, Richard

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Paice, James

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    French, Douglas

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Richards, Rod

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Riddick, Graham

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Robathan, Andrew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    702

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Trend, Michael

    Sackville, Tom

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walden, George

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Waller, Gary

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Ward, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Watts, John

    Spring, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sproat, lain

    Whittingdale, John

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wilkinson, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Willetts, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilshire, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sykes, John

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Thomason, Roy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Michael Bates.

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hutton, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Ingram, Adam

    Battle, John

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Benton, Joe

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Bradley, Keith

    McWilliam, John

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

    Mahon, Alice

    Burden, Richard

    Marek, Dr John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Michael, Alun

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Corston, Jean

    Pike, Peter L

    Cousins, Jim

    Pope, Greg

    Cummings, John

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Dafis, Cynog

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Soley, Clive

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Dewar, Donald

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Dixon, Don

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Dowd, Jim

    Timms, Stephen

    Fisher, Mark

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Flynn, Paul

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Fyfe, Maria

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Hall, Mike

    Hanson, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Peter Hain.

    Hoyle, Doug

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That, at this day's sitting—
    (1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Welsh Business not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; and
    (2) Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply with the insertion in line 41, after the words 'At Ten o'clock', of the words 'or immediately after the previous business has been disposed of, whichever is the later'.

    Welsh Business
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before I call the Minister to move the motion on Welsh business, I should say that debate will take place jointly on the motion and on the various amendments selected by Madam Speaker. The amendments will be moved formally at 10 pm.
    7.22 pm
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That—

    (1) Standing Order No. 98 (Welsh Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders A to G below shall have effect;

    (2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, after "business))", by inserting "or a motion in the Welsh Grand Committee under Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business))";

    (3) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 3, after "business))", by inserting "Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))"; and

    (4) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.

    A. Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)

    (1) There shall be a standing committee called the Welsh Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with not more than five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.

    (2) The business of the committee shall include—

    (a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));

    (b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates));

    (c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order D (Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements));

    (d) Bills referred to it in accordance with Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (Bills));

    (e) such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)); and

    (f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).

    (3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

    B. Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)

    (1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

    (2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee.

    (3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.

    704

    (4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.

    (5) Notices of questions under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:

    Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

    C. Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)

    (1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Welsh Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

    (2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Wales.

    (3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.

    (4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.

    (5)(a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.

    (b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.

    (c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.

    (6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:

    Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

    D. Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements)

    (1) The chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Wales, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.

    (2) Ministerial statements may be made—

    (a) at the commencement of a sitting; or

    (b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or

    (c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

    (3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.

    (4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

    E. Welsh Grand Committee (Bills)

    (1) A motion, of which at least 10 days' notice has been given, may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a public Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and

    705
    if, on the question being put, not fewer than 20 Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it:

    Provided that no such notice shall be given until the Bill has been printed and delivered to the Vote Office.

    (2) The committee shall report to the House either that it recommends that the Bill ought to be read a second time or that it recommends that the Bill ought not to be read a second time, and in the latter case it shall have power to state its reasons for so recommending.

    (3) Upon a motion being made for the second reading of a Bill reported from the committee, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

    F. Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)

    (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

    (2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the matter or matters referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said matter or matters.

    G. Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)

    (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Welsh Grand Committee—

    (a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Wales, the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;

    (b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past 10 o'clock, or at half-past 10 o'clock and between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock;

    (c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above; and

    (d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;

    (e) to consider specified Bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (Bills)) on certain of the days so specified; and

    (f) to consider specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales) on certain of the days so specified;

    and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

    Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Wales, nor from considering at a sitting in Wales business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.

    (2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Welsh Grand Committee.

    (3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).

    (4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.

    706

    (5) After the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

    The motion gives effect to the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced on 30 November for extending and enhancing the role of the Welsh Grand Committee. The Committee will be able to deal with a wider range of business, not only here in Westminster but at a range of locations in the Principality and as a result will play a more prominent role in the parliamentary consideration of Welsh affairs.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley rose—
    Mr. Newton: I see that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is once again determined to let me get no more than one sentence out at a time.
    Mr. Wigley: The Leader of the House will recall that I did not intervene in his last speech.
    Mr. Newton indicated assent.
    Mr. Wigley: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. He told the House that the orders put into effect the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Wales before Christmas. Given that he is putting into effect exactly what was announced without taking account of any of the changes that have been discussed since, what was the point of the play that he made earlier of the discussion period? What is the point of pretending that any of the Opposition's points have been taken on board when he is merely putting into practice exactly what was intended three or four months ago?
    Mr. Newton: I am reluctant to be drawn into re-running the previous debate, though I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was one of the few who did not seek to intervene even in my relatively brief winding-up speech. The sensible course would be to proceed with the debate and no doubt, either in relation to the amendments or in his speech, the hon. Gentleman—who has fixed views on the matter and wants the Welsh Grand Committee to be not a Committee of the Westminster Parliament but a quite different arrangement—will be able to put his views to the House.
    The new Standing Order A re-enacts the existing provisions relating to the composition of the Welsh Grand Committee, lists the full range of business with which the Committee will be able to deal and provides for Ministers who represent constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom to attend meetings and take part in debates. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already told the House—and I assume that this will be welcome in Wales, as it certainly should be—both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have indicated that they propose to attend the Committee under that provision.

    707
    Standing Order B seeks to add to the opportunities for Welsh Members to question Welsh Office Ministers by providing for an additional Welsh Office Question Time lasting for half an hour at certain meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee. I am never quite sure whether comparisons with Scotland go down well, but that procedure has undoubtedly proved a great success in the Scottish Grand Committee since its introduction a year ago.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The right hon. Gentleman makes a comparison between Wales and Scotland. The previous debate was about how we should make decisions about the Welsh Grand Committee, but when are we going to decide about the Committee changes themselves? Why, after 17 years, have the Government suddenly seen the light and decided to make changes to both the Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees? What has spurred on the Government's interest in changing procedures? What has changed the Government's mind?
    Mr. Newton: Nothing has changed the Government's mind. It is part of our constant search to improve the way in which Parliament does business. When we changed the procedures of the House more generally, in the fashion to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred—my right hon. Friend the Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was present then—and discussed and implemented large parts of the Jopling proposals, no one asked why we did not do it 15 years ago. Equally, I do not recall anyone arguing that in relation to Scottish Standing Orders, the Scottish Grand Committee, the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee or the improvements that we have been making to the way in which legislation is considered. We are simply seeking to improve the way in which the United Kingdom Parliament responds to the changing perceptions and circumstances of the way in which the House and its Committees do their business.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: One immediate improvement that the right hon. Gentleman might like to put in train is to allow Welsh to be spoken in the Welsh Grand Committee. A couple of years ago, we had lengthy deliberations on the Welsh Language Act 1993, which culminated in the Government saying that Welsh had equal validity with English. The Government are denying the people of Wales the chance of making the revamped Committee of some relevance to large parts of Wales. That is an insult to the people of Wales.
    Mr. Newton: The amendment of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) relates to that. I shall talk about the matter in a moment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to advance his points during the debate.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: Given his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has been going round Wales saying that the proposals are an alternative to a Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who, as I have suggested, will seek to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has
    708

    muttered from a sedentary position that he does not accept that proposition. I am sure that ways will be found to put that point to him directly during the debate.
    Standing Order C allows Welsh Members to initiate "short debates" in which speeches will be limited to five minutes or less on topics related to Wales. A Minister will reply to each "short debate", which will allow more detailed consideration of a specific question. It should be possible to cover at least two topics in the time available.
    Standing Order D will allow a Minister from the Welsh Office or another Government Department to make a statement about a matter relating to Wales at the beginning of a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. Again, I should emphasise that, as is the case with Scotland, whether a statement should be made to the Welsh Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House is necessarily a matter of judgment in each case, but there would be significant advantages not least for Welsh Members in, for example, moving the annual statement on public expenditure in Wales into the Welsh Grand Committee. It would give Welsh Members a better opportunity to question the Secretary of State, as well as relieving one part of the pressure of business on the Floor at what tends to be a congested time in the Session. It is now the practice for the Scottish public expenditure statement to be made to the Scottish Grand Committee each December and that arrangement has worked to the advantage of Scottish Members and the House as a whole.
    I can pass quickly over Standing Orders E and F, since they do no more than restate those provisions of the existing Standing Orders that govern the Welsh Grand Committee's consideration of Bills and matters relating exclusively to Wales.
    Standing Order G has three principal purposes. First, it enables the Welsh Grand Committee to hold meetings in Cardiff or anywhere else in Wales. The Government recognise that such meetings need to be held in premises that meet the requirements of the Committee in every respect and I can give an assurance that we will not ask the House to approve a meeting in any venue that has not been thoroughly evaluated by the House authorities and found to be suitable.
    Mr. Ron Davies: To return to the question of the Welsh language, the Leader of the House will know that many of the venues that are being suggested have translation equipment. It would be perfectly natural for him to agree that an experiment could be undertaken, so that when the Welsh Grand Committee met in chambers where translation equipment was available, Welsh could be used. If the amendments are defective, which we would understand, are the Government prepared to accept the principle of Welsh being used in the Welsh Grand Committee?
    Mr. Newton: May I return to that? I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will comment on it, but it would probably be more helpful to the House if I completed my brief description of the Standing Orders before doing so.
    The second purpose of Standing Order G is to provide for a calendar specifying the dates, times and places of meetings of the Committee, together with the business to he taken at each meeting. If the House agrees to the motion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

    709
    Wales hopes to table a motion in the near future setting out a proposed timetable of meetings for the rest of this Session.
    Thirdly, that part of the Standing Order gives a further opportunity for Welsh Members to raise matters on behalf of their constituents by providing for a half-hour Adjournment debate to be held at the conclusion of the business set down for each sitting of the Committee, as happens at the end of each sitting of the House. In addition, the motion makes some purely consequential amendments to two existing Standing Orders.
    Finally, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr Davies) pressed me on the possible use of the Welsh language in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee—the hon. Member for Caernarfon also pressed me on that on behalf of the Welsh nationalists. A number of representations were undoubtedly made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on that point—my right hon. Friend has made that clear to me—in the course of what turned out to be the somewhat contentious consultations that preceded the bringing forward of this motion.
    As the hon. Member for Caernarfon knows, even though he gave us some trouble over it—not for the first time, and probably not for the last—the Government have given the Welsh language consistent support for many years. It was this Government who took through Parliament the Welsh Language Act 1993, which establishes the principle that, in the conduct of public business in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality. So, I can say straightforwardly that I certainly do not dismiss the point that was raised. However, it is a matter for the House and not the Government to decide. We have to recognise that it raises a significant question of principle since, apart from a few Norman-French survivals used principally for announcing the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament in the other place and one or two other purposes, English is and has been for centuries the sole language of the United Kingdom Parliament—[Interruption.] This is a serious point and I hope that hon. Members will let me continue.
    Clearly, there are implications not only for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, but for its proceedings here in Westminster, for the Scottish Grand Committee and, indeed, for the Chamber of the House of Commons. A number of practical issues would also need to be tackled. The hon. Member for Caerphilly commented on one—the availability of translation facilities—and others include whether Committee papers, Order Papers, Hansard and the like should be produced in both languages.
    It seems to me that everyone should agree that allowing the use of Welsh at Grand Committee meetings in Wales would be a major change in parliamentary practice. It would not be sensible for the House to contemplate taking a decision on such an important and potentially significant matter unless every issue that it raises has been properly investigated. The Government believe, therefore, that the appropriate course would be to ask the Procedure Committee to consider the matter and report to the House in due course. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues
    710
    are well equipped to do so and I hope that they will be prepared to look into that question for us and give the House the benefit of their considered advice.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Newton: Perhaps I had better give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on the Opposition Front Bench first. Then I will submit to all the other interventions.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Leader of the House has made an important statement. I am glad that he acknowledges the seriousness of the matters that we have put to him—in contrast to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who was very scornful in his comments. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is prepared to allow the Select Committee on Procedure to consider the matter. Since there is some urgency—given the Government's motion—about getting the Welsh Grand Committee to meet in Wales, will he agree one further concession? Would he expect the Procedure Committee to report before the Welsh Grand Committee next meets in Wales in a chamber with translation equipment? That is taking the argument a stage further. The right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable concession on the part of the Government. If he were prepared to go that one step further, he would find—for once—enormous support for the announcement that he has made.
    Mr. Newton: Conciliatory as I always try to be—I am certainly seeking to be tonight—I am not sure that I can take that further step, or certainly not off the cuff.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Newton: I am in danger of being made to sound more tetchy than I wish to be if I am hardly allowed to get a sentence out.
    I cannot go as far as that. Perhaps it would be unwise even to encourage such thoughts for two reasons. First, I want to get the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to the suggestion of moving at that pace. Secondly, I suspect that that issue should properly be dealt with on a more considered time scale than the hon. Gentleman suggests, unless the first meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales is to be unduly delayed.
    In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, I am aware that the Procedure Committee is in the middle of a substantial inquiry into the way in which the House deals with secondary legislation, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance tonight and I doubt that I will be able to do so at a later stage. We will certainly not encourage delay in the examination of the matter, however.
    Mr. Wigley: Does not that last comment show that the Leader of the House is just kicking the matter into touch? If the Select Committee on Procedure is involved in long-running business that will take time and then has to consider the ins and outs of the question, it will be months—certainly the summer recess—before we get any further and, no doubt, some time in the autumn before a proposal is made.

    711
    On the right hon. Gentleman's earlier comments—I tried to intervene earlier—there is a precedent, so he need not make all that fuss about procedures. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, chaired by Leo Abse, addressed this issue when it inquired into the establishment of the Welsh language fourth television channel. The Committee met in Caernarfon—at the weekend, I spoke to the people who prepared the simultaneous translation equipment for that meeting—and there was a translation of the proceedings, as necessary, for the official record.
    Has the Leader of the House done his research on this matter? The principle is there and it has been accepted. The concept was accepted for a Select Committee, so why on earth is it not going to be used for the Grand Committee? Is this just a deliberate attempt by the Government to go contrary to the indications of the Welsh Language Act 1993, which says that public business can be undertaken in either language in Wales—and I intend to undertake it in Welsh?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair to me. For once, I feel better treated by the Opposition Front Bench, which has at least acknowledged that what I have suggested is a conciliatory gesture. I am not attempting to kick this issue into the long grass, nor am I resting on mechanical points, such as whether the facilities are available. I am making the serious point that this issue has potentially large implications that should be properly examined. It is the kind of point which hon. Members would normally expect the Procedure Committee to examine properly before such changes are made.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House look at the amendment that has been selected—which seems to be the most modest of the amendments tabled about the language? It asks that when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in Wales, and only in Wales, both languages can be used where translation equipment is available. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has said, there is a precedent for this and there are no difficulties for the House in accepting the amendment.
    If the Committee meets in Westminster or elsewhere, great practical obstacles and difficulties will be in the way. There is a precedent for what is before the House tonight and it is a modest request. If it is not accepted, the House will be guilty of saying to the people of Wales what it has been saying for centuries: that the Welsh language is not worthy of consideration; that it is a second-rate language that should not be heard in the House. The Government, in the Welsh Language Act 1993, said that they wanted to elevate the language to—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant so far, but hon. Members are making small speeches instead of interventions. Interventions should be brief and to the point.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis rose—
    Mr. Newton: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman before I reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). In the spirit of your comment, Mr. Deputy
    712
    Speaker, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that if the attitude of the Government were the attitude that he has just attributed to them, they would not have passed the Welsh Language Act in the first place and I would not have made the suggestion about the Procedure Committee tonight.
    Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Leader of the House realise that the suspicion is so great because it took so long for the Conservative party to come round to the idea of the Welsh Language Act 1993, on which there was unity everywhere else in Wales? Does he not realise that the translation facilities are quite simple? Is it not an irony that we have had a meeting of the all-party British-German parliamentary group at South Glamorgan county hall and debated issues quite competently and easily in both languages, but we apparently cannot agree to have a debate in Welsh and in English when the facilities are available for translation?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot add much to that point. I have made it clear that I am resting not on what I might call the mechanical difficulties, but on what I take to be the genuine and potentially large issues that must be addressed in the way in which I have suggested.
    Mr. Dafis rose—
    Mr. Newton: Given the background to this debate, everyone facing me wishes to make a speech. Therefore, I must make some progress in my speech so that they have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
    Mr. Dafis: Only in England would one expect such a big deal to be made about a simple matter: bilingual provision. I shall explain to the Leader of the House how commonplace it is in Wales for this sort of thing to happen and how easy it is to provide instantaneous translation equipment. I differentiate myself by the point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). It is not where there is provision for translation that this should be made possible—provision for translation should always be made available whenever the Committee meets in Wales. It is perfectly easily done and it is something that is familiar to us.
    I ask the Leader of the House a question about the referral of the matter to the Procedure Committee: why was it not possible for the Secretary of State to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee as soon as it was suggested that this might be part of the provisions?
    Mr. Newton: I do not know exactly when the suggestion was made. However, I know that the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party—this curious animal that I have learned of for the first time in the lead-up to these discussions—took place on 20 February and today is 11 March. Within less than three weeks of that meeting, at which that suggestion would have been made, I have come to the House with the Standing Orders and with what the Opposition Front Bench has described as conciliatory remarks on the consideration of this issue. I very much welcome what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has said about the availability of facilities, which I suspect is due largely to the fact that we have passed the Welsh Language Act 1993.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I assure my right hon. Friend that he is absolutely right in saying that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee, because certain points must be considered further. For example, if a speech is made in Welsh, should it be recorded officially in Welsh, or should the translation be the recorded version, in accordance with the usual procedures of the House? Overall, I am sure that the electorate in Wales will welcome my right hon. Friend's decision that his mind is not closed on this issue and that he is seeking further advice in this regard.
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I referred—albeit briefly; perhaps I ought to have made more of it—to how Order Papers and Hansard reports of the proceedings would be dealt with. That is a good illustration of the sorts of question that need to be addressed and thought through before we make changes of the kind that are being urged on me tonight.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys môn)rose—
    Mr. Newton: Is there some sort of Welsh nationalist policy that all hon. Members have to intervene before I complete my speech?
    Mr. Jones: The Leader of the House has referred to the conciliatory measure. Will he tell us whether he has taken a view on the desirability of the use of Welsh in proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee? In other words, is he coming to this issue from the positive aspect that he would like to see the opportunity for Welsh to be used, but he wants the Procedure Committee to confirm whether it is feasible?
    Mr. Newton: I have made a somewhat different point from simply considering the feasibility of the use of Welsh. I think that it would be appropriate, with an issue of this kind, for the Procedure Committee to consider the feasibility of the issue and some of the points that have been raised by hon. Members, and also the possible long-term and wider implications of going down this path. That is not unreasonable. Indeed, it is normal—as Labour Members have emphasised—to try to proceed as far as possible with this kind of change through the work of an all-party committee, such as the Procedure Committee, and seek to establish the widest possible consensus, even though complete consensus cannot always be achieved, as is obvious from tonight's debate.
    Mr. Llwyd: Not on this side.
    Mr. Newton: The suggestion has been made constructively and in good faith. The proposals contained in this motion preserve all the existing powers of the Welsh Grand Committee and give it a significant range of additional functions—they do not detract in any way from the rights of Welsh Members to raise issues on the Floor of the House, in Welsh questions, in Adjournment debates and the like. However, they provide new opportunities that will improve the way in which Parliament deals with Welsh business and bring Parliament closer to the people of Wales. I therefore commend the proposals to the House.
    7.49 pm
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Opposition Members welcome the concession made by the Leader of the House. I do not know whether it was done off the cuff or with aforethought but, whichever way it was, we welcome the decision to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee because it is the first concession of which we have seen any sign in our dealings on modernising the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee. I shall return to that point later.
    Mr. Newton: I am in danger of, as it were, breaching my own comments by intervening so soon, but I feel justified in doing so in the context of the evening as a whole to say that, as must have been obvious, my remarks were not made off the cuff. They were made after discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who very much shared my view that that point should be examined, and represented, in that sense, part of his response to the consultation.
    Mr. Morgan: I accept everything that the Leader of the House has said, but ask for further clarification, especially in the light of his last remark. Will he, as Leader of the House, refer the matter to the Procedure Committee, or will the Secretary of State do so?
    Mr. Newton: I am not aware of a specific mechanism, but I plan to draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
    Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for those points of clarification.
    A decision has obviously been made to take all five groups of amendments together in the debate, so that any hon. Member who speaks may choose whether to discuss the spirit of the amendments or speak to one amendment; we will make different choices about that. It is a leek soup and mutton stew of a debate, mixed together, which may make for some untidiness but means that we can finish by 10 pm without much difficulty.
    Mr. Flynn: I apologise for intervening. I welcome the Government's concession. Would it be useful for us to agree that none of the other recommendations on the Standing Orders will be implemented until the Procedure Committee has reported on the status of the Welsh language?
    Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for that suggestion, on which my hon. Friend may have the opportunity to expand, especially as one amendment stands in his name only.
    The spirit of the debate will determine whether the new proposals work—whether they are regarded as acceptable on both sides of the House and throughout Wales. If the House and the people of Wales see the proposals for amending and improving the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee rammed down the throats of the Opposition Members who represent a very large majority of Welsh constituencies, it does not bode well for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee. That is why we ask for various other safeguards in the amendments that we have tabled.

    715
    There has been a little bit of give on the Welsh language issue. If there is no further give tonight, it will show that there will be no give in future—that the Government do not propose to take the Welsh Grand Committee any more seriously than previously and that the Committee will remain an impotent talking shop, unable to represent the views of the people of Wales on what legislative action is taken by the Government as it impacts on the people of Wales.
    The fears that have been expressed were mentioned in the previous debate. It is feared that the Government intend to use the Welsh Grand Committee as a mobile press conference or mobile party political broadcast. Similar criticisms have been made of the Scottish Grand Committee. That is why we have asked for certain safeguards.
    Let me run through some of the amendments in the way that the Leader of the House ran through the different Standing Orders.
    Amendment (ff) deals with the size of the quorum. We were curious about why the proposals of the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House do not mention a special quorum for the Welsh Grand Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee has been given a special quorum of 10, making it different from usual Standing Committees. European Standing Committees have a special quorum of three. The Welsh Grand Committee is much more akin to the Scottish Grand Committee and European Standing Committees than to usual Standing Committees, which have a quorum of 17 or one third, whichever is less. If one applied that to the Welsh Grand Committee, it would give us 14 now, or 15 after the next general election because of the two additional seats.
    The Welsh Grand Committee is not like a conventional Standing Committee, dealing with legislation, but is a general scrutiny Committee, much more like the Scottish Grand Committee or the European Standing Committees, so we propose a quorum of seven. That is also a useful safeguard against the danger that the Government, and especially the Whips' machine in the Government, would seek to exploit the Welsh Grand Committee. Obviously, any meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee requires a much larger head count on the Opposition side than on the Government side. The consequences of the enormous electoral success that Labour has had in Wales and the catastrophic failure that the Conservative party has had in Wales are that the Conservatives, to reach a quorum of 15, do not have to have many bodies away from Westminster on those days when the Committee meets in Wales, whereas the Opposition would expect to have many bodies away from Westminster.
    We therefore consider that a quorum of seven, similar pro rata to the Scottish Grand Committee's quorum of 10, would be far more reasonable, more suitable for both sides and a safeguard against exploitation by the Government Whips Office during tight votes, which might hope that many Welsh Labour Members would be stuck in a snowdrift halfway up Snowdon and unable to return to London.
    Dr. John Marek: Surely the argument for a low quorum is that the Grand Committee will take no decisions and have no powers; it will be only a talking
    716
    shop, so attendance is likely to be low. To enable the Committee to continue in session, it must be right to have a low rather than a high quorum.
    Mr. Morgan: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend made the point exactly as I would have done, taking the words out of my mouth.
    The Boston tea party was based on the principle of no taxation without representation; our amendment is based on the principle of no representation without legislation. The Government must bear that in mind. If the Welsh Grand Committee is a scrutiny Committee and does not have the ability to block or amend Government legislation, it is unreasonable for it to be treated in a similar way to a Standing Committee. That is why we chose the figure of seven.
    The Leader of the House made no attempt to explain why the Scottish Grand Committee has a quorum of 10 and the Welsh Grand Committee has the conventional quorum, as though it were a Standing Committee considering legislation after Second Reading. That cannot be right; it is an omission.
    We believe that the proposal came from the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not want to criticise the Leader of the House, but as the Secretary of State for Wales did not introduce the debate, he will have the last word at the end of the debate and, as a result, apart from asking him to allow us to intervene, we have no opportunity to ask him why he did not insert provision for a quorum, unlike the Scottish Grand Committee or the European Standing Committees.
    The Welsh Grand Committee is not a very grand Committee. It does not deal with legislation; it is much less important than Standing Committees. When it meets in London, it does not set the Thames on fire; when it meets in Cardiff, it does not set the Taff on fire. It probably should have been named the Welsh bonsai committee rather than the Welsh Grand Committee, for the good that it is seen to do. It enables the people of Wales and Members of Parliament representing the people of Wales to ventilate grievances but not to do anything about them. That is why we have made that proposal concerning the quorum—one cannot expect maxi-attendance with mini-importance. Therefore we believe that the quorum is unnecessarily high.
    Amendment (a), standing in the name of Labour Front Benchers, reduces the number of "offcomers", to use a Cornish term—Members of Parliament who do not represent Welsh constituencies—in the membership of the Welsh Grand Committee. Unlike in the Scottish Grand Committee, there is provision and, I believe, always has been, for hon. Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies to serve on the Welsh Grand Committee. The number for the Scottish Grand Committee is zero and for the Welsh Grand Committee, five. We understand why.
    The Committee would become almost unworkable, under a Conservative Government, if it were impossible to include Members of Parliament not representing Welsh constituencies. Obviously, the Secretary of State is not from Wales, and it is frequently the case—indeed, has always been the case in the past few years—that the parliamentary private secretary and the Government Whip are not from Wales, but the Government also want to be able to pack the Committee with an additional two people.

    717
    We are not sure whether five is the right number; we recognise that the figure of five has been used before, but we think that three would be enough to conduct Government business. The Welsh Grand Committee has been structured in a way that is already more generous than the Scottish Grand Committee to what might be called country members—is it necessary to have five of them? A Secretary of State, a parliamentary private secretary and a Government Whip should be enough. If that is not enough, why is there no provision in the Scottish Grand Committee for any Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies? That is a legitimate point for discussion and justification, although we shall not hear the Secretary of State's comments on it until the end of the debate.
    I shall let my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) speak on the group of amendments that he tabled. We have noticed that the departmental report of the Secretary of State for Wales has not been made available to Members as early as it used to be—there has been a slippage in its production. Two years ago, the report was available in time for the annual one-day debate on Welsh affairs. The Welsh Office departmental report was usually published in late February so that it could be discussed in the annual debate on Welsh affairs. We could then discuss what the Secretary of State was proposing to spend the money on in the forthcoming financial year.
    Last year, publication of the report slipped slightly; this year, it is to be produced very late this month so that the financial year will virtually have commenced by the time that the departmental report is produced. As a result of that slippage, the points that I am sure will emerge during the discussion on that group of amendments are important. The Opposition believe that the Secretary of State has allowed publication of the departmental report to slip so that it cannot be discussed in our annual debate. The Welsh Grand Committee can play a valuable role. It is also important to try to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales—when he replies to the amendments—to undertake to publish the Welsh Office departmental report before St. David's day each year so that its provisions can be discussed in the annual Welsh debate.
    The last group of amendments which we have tabled, and which has been chosen for debate, involves the legislative function of the Welsh Grand Committee, and is perhaps the most important group. We want to know whether the Government genuinely desire to treat the Welsh Grand Committee as a mature Committee for the discussion of legislation or whether they simply want to confine it to being a talking shop.
    If a Bill is sent to the Welsh Grand Committee because it relates exclusively to Wales and the Committee believes that the Bill should not pass on to the statute book, what happens? What would the Government's attitude be if there were a special poll tax measure in Wales, as there was in Scotland a year before the measure was introduced in England and Wales, and if—as would be almost inevitable—the Welsh Grand Committee were to decide that it did not like the Bill, did not think that the people of Wales would accept it, and so turned it down? What would happen to the Bill at that stage under the new Standing Orders? That is the acid test of whether the Welsh Grand Committee is meant to be taken seriously
    718
    or whether it is viewed as a travelling circus for the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify Labour's policy on the taxation powers of a Welsh Assembly? Surely, any decision on the poll tax would be a tax decision and, as I understand it—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot speak about the Welsh Assembly because it is not the topic before us tonight.
    Mr. Morgan: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to buy me a pint in the bar later, when I can answer his question, much as I should like to do so now. I entirely accept your verdict, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    I can see why the former Minister of State was prompted out of his torpor to make that intervention. We have raised the question whether the Welsh Grand Committee would be able, not to block the legislation, but—having discussed it and turned it down—to prompt a debate on the Floor of the House. We believe that if the Welsh Grand Committee is to be taken seriously, it must be given the ability to recommend that a Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The House would have the right to overturn that decision after further, proper debate—taking account of the views expressed in the Welsh Grand Committee.
    If the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Wales do not intend the Welsh Grand Committee to be taken seriously, the new Standing Orders, as amended, should remain. Under those Standing Orders, the members of the Welsh Grand Committee ventilate their feelings, blow off steam in Cardiff, in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllanti siliogo-gogoch, Monmouth, Machynlleth, Pontrhydygroes, Pontrhydfendigaid or Llanaelhaearn or wherever. I am sure that, when the Secretary of State winds up the debate, he will wish to run through that Automobile Association map of Wales, as I am sure that he has been well coached in such matters for the purposes of the debate. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), is leaving the Chamber to obtain some coaching for the Secretary of State on how to pronounce Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwilllantisiliogo-gogoch.
    When the Welsh Grand Committee has let off steam, what is the House supposed to do about the measure when it returns to the House? Under the present arrangements, the Secretary of State can simply say, "You have had the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee." The Government believe that there is a choice; a two or three-hour debate can be held in the Welsh Grand Committee, but the measure must then be passed on the nod when it comes to the Floor of the House and there can be no further debate, or the debate can be held on the Floor of the House, in which case there will be no debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. There cannot be a debate in the Committee and on the Floor of the House.
    The purpose of the amendment is to raise the fundamental issue of whether the Welsh Grand Committee is meant to give the Government guidance on

    719
    how the people of Wales feel about a piece of legislation. Having been given that guidance, the Government should think again, amend the Bill or drop it. The Government will still have the final say; they will be able to decide whether they want to ram through the poll tax or the Welsh Language Bill because they have a majority in the House. But will the Government take any notice of the Welsh Grand Committee's proceedings? That is the important question. That is why we say that if the Welsh Grand Committee decides that a Bill should not be given a Second Reading, that should encourage, not eliminate, further debate on the Floor of the House to take account of the views expressed in the Committee.
    I am hoping that, by the time the Secretary of State winds up the debate, he will realise that, when the Leader of the House made his mini-concession, it was accepted as a significant movement. The Government were saying, "We will not give you what you want, but we will refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure." The Opposition gave that concession a tremendous welcome; it did not give us immediate satisfaction, but we welcomed it. We are willing to work to improve the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee by consensus if there is a bit of give and take. We are not willing to have our noses rubbed in the ground just because the Government have a majority of the votes in the House. We do not expect the Government to give us everything that we want, but we expect some give.
    Despite the one small concession that we have received from the Leader of the House—which I accept was given after due consideration behind the scenes and in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Wales—we have been worried that the proceedings in preparation for the changes to the Welsh Grand Committee have not been characterised by give and take by the Government. Today's concession was the first evidence we have had of the Government's ability or willingness to consider what the Conservative party needs to do to avoid a wipe-out in Wales as the general election approaches. That is a serious possibility and the Government are beginning to realise that they will have to make the occasional concession—when they do, we respond well. I hope that the Government have learnt that lesson and will realise that, over the next two hours of debate, if they give further concessions, those will be welcomed by the Opposition as evidence that the Government are beginning to realise that they must not try to ram their legislation, views and changes down the throats of the people of Wales, who are overwhelmingly represented by parties opposed to the Conservative Government in Westminster.
    We are not asking for the moon in relation to the Welsh language; if we have a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Machynlleth, Aberystwyth or Caernarfon, we are not expecting the Secretary of State to dress up in long, green bardic robes and utter his speech in 15th-century Welsh poetry. We are merely asking for a simultaneous translation of his English.
    We like to think that, in the spirit of the little chink of light that the Leader of the House has given us tonight, the great cry of "A oes heddwch?"—"Is there peace?"—that goes up before the final crowning of the bard in the eistedfodd, which I am sure he watches regularly, can be changed. We hope that it can be changed to "A oes consensws?"—I am sure that I do not need to translate that for him—or "A oes chwaranteg?", which means "Is there fair play?" A little fair play will produce a lot of
    720
    consensus. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has learnt a lesson from the reaction to the tiny concession that we were given tonight, and I hope that there will be more concessions when the Secretary of State winds up the debate.
    8.9 pm
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I apologise for not being present at the unscheduled debate that took place earlier today. I was in Cardiff, on parliamentary business with the Welsh Affairs Committee, and returned only just in time to hear some of what was being said. I think that I caught the flavour of the debate, however. There was an air of make-believe in some of the arguments that I heard.
    I welcome the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in respect of the Welsh language, which is to be treated on a basis of equality with English in Wales. I feel that it would be appropriate for speeches in Welsh to be heard in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales—although, as I suggested to my right hon. Friend, I agree with him that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that finer points are involved, which merit further consideration.
    I wholeheartedly endorse my right hon. Friend's proposals to enlarge the scope of the Welsh Grand Committee, and to increase opportunities for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues to give an account of themselves—and for Welsh Members of all parties to hold them to account, as we are empowered to do by this United Kingdom Parliament. It is important to note, however, that, while there is to be a significant extension of the Committee's role, there is no fundamental change in its constitutional status. Its overall function remains to check on the Executive by questioning Ministers and criticising constructively or destructively, as necessity dictates.
    The Committee's proceedings will, of course, be reported to the House wherever they take place, and its presence should be welcomed in different parts of Wales. I am bound to add that whether it will be welcomed is another matter; the Committee may well act as a honeypot for publicity seekers of all kinds.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question that I asked the Leader of the House earlier? Why does he suppose that, after 17 years, the Government have proposed these changes to the Welsh Grand Committee? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not advance such proposals during his long and distinguished service in the Welsh Office?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: On the basis of that argument, no one would do anything. As my right hon. Friend has said, one can always be accused of not having thought of something before. Throughout the years, however, we have thought in terms of improving the Committee's performance, and I know that the Government have been very conscious of some of the criticisms that have been made of it. In any event, my right hon. Friend's proposed changes will extend its scope.
    Opposition Members give the impression that they wish that the Committee—when they have a majority, of course—had real power to do their will. That is what is behind all this, and the debate that took place earlier this afternoon. Alternatively, they wish that the Committee

    721
    had the power to force the Government to do their will. Such a division of executive power would, however, mean a fundamental change in the country's unitary constitution, and would result in conflict between the Welsh Grand Committee and the House of Commons when there was a Conservative majority. I believe that that desire for change and for power inspires Opposition Members.
    The same serious defect can be seen in the devolution scheme encapsulated in the Wales Act 1978, which was subsequently rejected by the people of Wales in a referendum, and the same deep fault lies in Labour's current plans for an executive assembly. There is also the prospect of conflict with local authorities, many of whose powers would be absorbed by a Labour party assembly. [Laughter.] I am speaking to, and justifying, my right hon. Friend's proposals. I am not speaking to the amendments. There is every reason why I should be allowed to support the proposals, and to tell the House what I think is wrong with the motivation behind the amendments.
    The Opposition regard criticisms such as mine of their proposals for the Welsh Grand Committee and an assembly as constitutional niceties—as problems that will go away in time. I believe that they will be exacerbated over time. The Labour party puts its trust in the maintenance of its power, not only here but in a Welsh Grand Committee or assembly. I warn Labour Members that their plans contain the seeds of their own destruction. [Interruption.] They will not satisfy hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, and their supporters in the country, any more than the Scottish National party can be satisfied in Scotland. Opposition Members are triumphant in Wales now, but I warn them that their proposals contain the seeds of their destruction.
    I said that I would be brief, and I shall be. Let me simply say that I consider my right hon. Friend's proposals to be consistent with the unitary principle on which the United Kingdom's constitution is based.
    Mr. Nick Ainger: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that the amendments contain the seeds of destruction for the Labour party in Wales. In that case, why on earth does he not support them?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: It may well happen after my time. It is a fair warning to the Labour party. Yes, the Labour party has a strong, monopolistic position in Wales, but it must be very careful about how it uses its position. It is already refusing to share any power with the minority parties. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) talked about the meeting of the all-Wales party, but he and I know that that was preceded by a meeting of the Labour party caucus and that everything was decided in advance. The Labour party must not abuse its strength in Wales.
    Mr. Ron Davies: We should get the whole story on the record. The right hon. Gentleman was present at that meeting, and he voted with the majority, so he was certainly party to that decision.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I did not vote with the majority; I was one of two who objected. May I also make the point that I made proposals to my right hon. Friend the
    722
    Secretary of State at that meeting—for example, that the Welsh Grand Committee might discuss some of the consultative documents that the Welsh Office issues. I did not expect him to change the Standing Orders in any way, but I am sure that he cherished the thought that I gave him because I saw him make a note of it, and I am sure that it will be valued for the future.
    The proposals should be welcomed in Wales as similar proposals have been welcomed in Scotland. I am sure that they will contribute to the better government of Wales and show the electorate that the Government are sensitive to their needs, even though they cannot always be met.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: In his curious and convoluted way, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) made a bit of an admission. The Leader of the House has also been surprisingly coy about the situation. The fact is that these proposals are meant to be the Government's defence, when the time comes, against a Welsh Assembly. I do not understand why they are so coy and so unwilling to admit it.
    Quite a bit of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Conwy represented the beginning of the argument that we shall hear in coming months that the proposals are the alternative, in the Government's eyes, to the Welsh Assembly. Because of that, perhaps I have cast a much more critical eye over the proposals than have some of the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I am critical of the context in which they have been presented, because they are meant to act as a substitute or an alternative for the devolution proposals that the Labour party will put before the electorate.
    Any student of the creation of institutions in Wales in the past 60 years will recognise the operation of the same ploy. A common characteristic of almost every debate on Welsh institutional change that has occurred in the past 60 years is that the establishment—usually a mixture of Whitehall officials and Ministers—offers substitutes for the demands made by the Welsh people and by Welsh representatives.
    I shall give the right hon. Gentleman two very brief historic examples of that. In 1944—believe it or not—towards the end of the war, the Welsh parliamentary party, which was chaired by a Conservative Member, submitted to Ministers and to Prime Minister Churchill a proposal that there should be a Secretary of State for Wales and a Welsh Office to promote the reconstruction and regeneration of Welsh political, social and economic life after the war. The reaction of the Government and the establishment to the proposal was interesting and a classic of its kind. They felt that they had to give something towards meeting the demand, which was unanimously made by all hon. Members in the Welsh parliamentary party, and that they had to assuage public opinion by finding an alternative.
    Until the past week or two, after reading the War Cabinet minutes on its discussion of it, I did not realise that one of the most fascinating and intriguing proposed alternatives was that, on her 18th birthday, the then heir to the throne, Princess Elizabeth, should have conferred on her the title of Princess of Wales. That was the sop to Welsh opinion.
    I did not want to raise that point too strenuously because of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—[Laughter.] It is obvious that, in 1996, as

    723
    opposed to 1944, the Secretary of State or the Government could not propose that option because it would be much more contentious than it was in 1944. I cite that case only to demonstrate that a repeated characteristic of debates on Welsh institution making is that the establishment of the day reacts by offering an alternative or substitutes for the demands of the overwhelming majority.
    In 1944, there was a demand for a Secretary of State for Wales and for the establishment of a Welsh Office. That demand was made through an all-party group, so I am not trying to make any points in a partisan spirit. Although the Labour party committed itself to the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales and the creation of a Welsh Office in the 1945 election, the Government of the day did not implement the proposal but again came up with an alternative that was less than what was demanded. That was when the idea of a council of Wales was born.
    The characteristic offering of other options was repeated at various times in the 1950s during the debate on the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales. Prime Minister Macmillan suggested that Henry Brooke, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, should be given the title Secretary of State for Wales, but backed off when Butler and others in the Cabinet opposed it.
    These proposals are a classic illustration of the phenomenon that has occurred over the past 50 or 60 years of debates on Welsh institution making, in that a substitute has to be provided to meet the demand made on the day. In this case, the substitute for a Welsh Assembly is a revamped Welsh Grand Committee. I do not like these proposals because I see them in that context—as a paler version of a Welsh Assembly, to be contained within the context of Westminster parliamentary life.
    Let us examine the proposals. They try to recreate in the Committee what we currently do on the Floor of the House. Other hon. Members may support that, but I am not in favour of replacing Question Time on the Floor of the House with a paler version of it in the Welsh Grand Committee. I do not see the point of duplicating a procedure that is available to us in the House. I can appreciate the case for minor statements occasionally to be made in Committee, but I should like all significant and major statements on expenditure to be made in our presence on the Floor of the House. We should not accept these proposals on a Welsh Grand Committee because they offer us a pale version of a Welsh Assembly, set in the context of the Westminster parliamentary model.
    For those reasons, I take a more cynical view of the proposals. I suspect the motive behind the proposals, the context in which they have been presented and the fact that they may have been offered as an alternative to the idea of a Welsh Assembly. Why have we not dealt with the problems and defects of this place? Anyone who was in the Chamber during the debate on Welsh local government finance could surely see the case for devolution. There were announcements about a billion pounds and more, and every Welsh local authority was facing council tax increases of 25 per cent., yet only a handful—three or four—hon. Members had the opportunity to make speeches to explain the impact that those proposals would have on their constituents and local communities.
    724
    If anyone needed a demonstration of why we should have a Welsh Assembly or why the Welsh Grand Committee should re-examine the way in which it scrutinises the issues of major Welsh public finance and public expenditure, it was provided by that debate and those arrangements. In a couple of hours, we debated something that will have a profound effect on every authority, community and individual in our constituencies. It was an illustration of the House's inadequacies and deficiencies in dealing with matters of great importance to our constituents. If we are looking for additional ways to revamp the Welsh Grand Committee, the first would be to consider the detailed way in which that Committee could scrutinise major elements of expenditure and estimates.
    I am an old-fashioned parliamentarian. This place was born to debate estimates and Supply. Wars fought in the 18th century were successful because people were prepared to raise taxation. They accepted that there was a legitimate way to account for it through parliamentary procedure. In the 30 years that I have been a Member of Parliament—30 years at the end of this month—I have seen that principle eroded in various ways, partly because of Europe and partly because of a lack of interest or lack of will to do the job here, within the procedures of the House. There was, therefore, a case for revamping the Welsh Grand Committee to scrutinise in more detail the development of public expenditure plans for Wales.
    I do not criticise the present Select Committee, which does a fantastic job. It takes longer-term views than I am suggesting and looks into matters in the broad and the round. It has not scrutinised Welsh public expenditure and finance to the extent that one might have expected but, in fairness to it, it sought a different platform, as did so many Select Committees.
    The Welsh Grand Committee should fill a gap in our scrutiny of Welsh public expenditure rather than duplicate much of what we do on the Floor of the House at Question Time. That is the reason for my having a shot at making at least one suggestion as to how we might ensure that that happens. In a non-partisan spirit, I submitted a proposal to the Secretary of State immediately after his statement. I received an appalling one-sentence reply, saying that he would not take my suggestion into account, that he was not really interested and that he was going ahead with his proposal. There was no consultation, and my sensible suggestion was not given serious consideration.
    That is all the more astonishing because my proposal would have brought to the Welsh Grand Committee a procedure that we already operate. I was not inventing anything; my proposal is, word for word, the basis on which European Standing Committees A and B operate.
    The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is a member of a European Standing Committee and I am an occasional visitor. They are among the most interesting Committees. The procedure that they have adopted makes Ministers work for their corn. Detailed documents are put before the Committee and, for an hour, hon. Members can pose any question relating to them. Ministers are made to get up and down. They do not like it—it must be most uncomfortable. I am glad that it did not form part of ministerial experience in my time and that I did not have to go through it, because it is wearing.

    725
    Ministers have to do their homework in a way that is not required in a general Welsh Grand Committee debate. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has clearly been through it and will testify to its interest, value and, indeed, the discipline that goes with it. I am suggesting that we adopt the same procedure for at least two sittings of the Welsh Grand Committee.
    I suggested that the documents put before the Welsh Grand Committee—the equivalent of the European documents, or directives, put before European Standing Committees A and B—should be specific sections of the departmental expenditure reports, which should be subject to the same scrutiny as material put to those interesting new inventions, European Standing Committees A and B.
    Mr. Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend—I whip the European Standing Committees for the Labour party. It is a characteristic of those Committees that Ministers are unable to wriggle off the hook easily because hon. Members can come back at them and tease out the reality behind the answers that they receive. There are few similar opportunities available on the Floor.
    Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has a detailed knowledge of the working of those Committees. I am sure that a combination of ministerial and departmental ingenuity maintains the Government line, but it is much harder to do so in those Committees than under any other procedures available to us on the Floor of the House or in other Standing Committees.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Would not there be a problem for the Conservative party if what my hon. Friend suggests were to happen, in that there is such a lack of choice of Conservatives who could be Ministers? It must be a gruelling test—the Conservatives have already had four successive Secretaries of State from England and the Under-Secretary of State comes from England, too.
    Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We cannot build our procedures around the inadequacies of the present ministerial lot.
    I read in a minute from 1957–58 that the objection to creating a Welsh Office was that, as one official said, there were not enough good or clever Conservative Members to fill the posts available. That was one of the practical objections in the 1950s even to the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales.
    I hope that I have not spoken in a partisan spirit, but the European Standing Committee procedure is a useful way in which to scrutinise expenditure. It would complement other procedures and, unlike the proposed Standing Orders, it would not duplicate what we can already do on the Floor of the House.
    Amendment (aa) refers to departmental expenditure reports because the current Secretary of State's predecessor, when submitting the previous report to the House, boasted in the foreword about the size of public expenditure in Wales. That was interesting coming from
    726
    the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is a curious mix in all sorts of ways. He said in the foreword:
    "Public expenditure provision for programmes within my responsibility will be £6,644 million … equal to some £6,000 for every household in Wales."
    If that is the real level of expenditure per household, it should be subject to greater scrutiny than existing procedure allows.
    I hope that my suggestion will be reviewed in the spirit in which it was made and that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members will agree that we should consider a different kind of Welsh Grand Committee rather than accept a pale substitute for the only real meaningful alternative—a Welsh Assembly.
    8.37 pm
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on a strong and well-researched speech. We all look forward to reading the lecture that he has given at Bangor and which includes some of the same material. It was, historically speaking, a persuasive analysis of the situation. When we see the Conservatives dangling half a cake, we should be aware that there is a need for a substantial cake but that we are to get only some of the crumbs.
    The question today is why we should have a Welsh Grand Committee at all. The answer is that the Welsh Grand Committee exists because Wales is a nation. The Welsh Grand Committee is given no powers in case Wales starts behaving like a nation and takes decisions for itself rather than having the ability to debate ad infinitum but, at the end of the day, is not able to take any meaningful decisions for the people of Wales.
    There are two deficits in Wales. The first is a democratic deficit and the second is a deficit of accountability. The proposals that we are discussing do not, in any shape or form, deal with the fundamental democratic deficit. It might have been possible to try to go down that road by giving the Welsh Grand Committee additional powers. Some of tonight's speeches have touched on some of those powers, but clearly the Government are not prepared to tackle the democratic deficit in any shape or form. There are 38 Members of Parliament in Wales and the governing party, even having won a general election, has only six seats. If it loses a general election, goodness knows how many seats it will have.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: None at all.
    Mr. Wigley: Perhaps none at all, as the hon. Gentleman says. The number of Conservative Members shows the Welsh electorate's rejection of the Government, who for the past 17 years have governed our country on a platform that has no support from the people of Wales, pursuing policies that are often diametrically opposed to their economic and social good. The structures of Westminster do not allow the people of Wales even to take a single decision on matters of concern to them.
    That was shown two or three years ago in a most lamentable manner when a couple of Bills exclusively to deal with Wales were introduced. I accept that the Welsh Language Act 1993 was a modest step forward, but it

    727
    was debated in a Committee that was packed with Tory Members representing English constituencies, who did not have the background to debate the subject or, knowledge of the subject and who did not have to live with the legislation's consequences. They were able, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out, to make progress on the language agenda that was agreed by all Opposition parties. Legislation was imposed on us that was acceptable to the Conservative minority and not to the non-Conservative majority of the people of Wales.
    That became more evident when Parliament debated the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. From the turn of the century, the Standing Orders of this place have allowed all Welsh Members to sit on Committees that consider Bills which exclusively deal with Wales. That was overridden by the Government to ensure that Welsh Members did not have a majority say when it came to the brass tacks and legislative decisions were to be taken. With these proposals, we make no modicum of movement forward in dealing with that democratic deficit. From now to kingdom come, we will have to accept laws and decisions imposed on us by a Conservative majority. That will apply for as long as a Conservative party receives a majority in England, but it never has and never will win a majority in Wales.
    There is a modest movement forward on the accountability deficit. The Government are trying, I suppose, to allow the Executive to be a little more answerable to Welsh Members, but Welsh question Time—one of the tools available to Welsh Members to question the Executive—has already been undermined by the Government Whips getting English Conservative Members to hog the Order Paper on the one Monday a month when we have 35 or 40 minutes to ask questions on Welsh affairs. The agenda is set by the first question that is called and we must ask supplementary questions in the wake of that agenda laid down by Conservative Members. That is why we will have a little movement on answering questions in the Welsh Grand Committee—questions that we will have no time to ask on the Floor of the House.
    I share some of the reservations of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that some of these issues will be shovelled upstairs, where the press will often not be present and where we will not have the powers of scrutiny or the attention that is necessary. That is why, in terms not only of the democratic deficit but of the accountability deficit, we should debate these matters in an elected Parliament in Cardiff that can make its own laws and not be a talking shop, which the Welsh Grand Committee has been and will continue to be if we accept these modest proposals.
    I want to take up four or five specific points with regard to the powers that the Welsh Grand Committee should have. The first is to do with the type of motions that its members are allowed to debate. It is a farce that the Committee must consider "take note" motions, for example, on education in Wales. When at the end of that debate we vote against the Government, does it mean that we have not taken note of the issue of education in Wales?
    Opposition Members cannot table any substantive motion that can call the Government or the Welsh Office to account. All we can table is a "take note" motion and take part in a meaningless vote at the end. The Standing
    728
    Orders should allow us to debate substantive motions that can be tabled not just by Conservative Members, but by any hon. Member.
    Mr. Rogers: My experience in this place gradually leads me almost to the same view as the hon. Gentleman in relation to the Welsh Grand Committee. He mentioned education. The comprehensive system in England or in certain inner-city areas has deteriorated, but in Wales it has made a substantial contribution to raising education standards. Although there may be small particular problems, generally in Wales it is of the highest standard, yet we must have policies imposed by English Members.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a very long intervention.
    Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I agree entirely. The Welsh education tradition has been valued and developed over decades to respond to the experience of ordinary people in Wales. They have viewed education as a key to improving their lives in material terms and in terms of opportunities and enjoyment of the best things of life.
    Over the past 100 years, we had to establish that to pull ourselves up by our shoestrings. At the end of the previous century, during the Liberal party's heyday, and in this century, when Labour has been the strength in Wales, education's importance has been a common thread running through radical politics in Wales. Sadly, that does not exist in England, although I do not make a strong point about that difference. We place more emphasis on education. We need to be able to fine-tune our policies—not just talk about things—and to take decisions in line with our values, which we are not allowed to do in the only forum that we have: the Welsh Grand Committee.
    Mr. Rogers: I do not know why the Government Whip is laughing.
    Mr. Wigley: The Government Whip would laugh because Conservative Members know that they will get their way. Government Whips will marshal Conservative Members in the Lobby. Whatever we decide in the Welsh Grand Committee or in the Welsh Select Committee, the Tory majority from England will decide what happens in Wales. That is the reality of the mechanism of non-democracy in our country.
    In the 1970s, we had opportunities to discuss and debate legislation in the Welsh Grand Committee. If I remember correctly, legislation on the Development Board for Rural Wales was debated there. If we are democrats, there is no reason why we should not debate legislation at Second Reading or Committee stages in the Welsh Grand Committee, but we are not allowed to do so in case we start taking decisions in the interests of the people of Wales and in line with their wishes. We can talk about things, but we are not allowed to decide anything. The governor general knows better than that.
    Mr. Rogers: The viceroy.
    Mr. Wigley: As the hon. Gentleman says, the viceroy. An hon. Member from outside Wales knows better than we do and he has the troops behind him. It is the majority of Tory Members from England who decide what is good for Wales, not the people of Wales.
    The use of the Welsh language in Welsh Grand Committee meetings in Wales has been mentioned. I was glad that that has at least reached the agenda—as shown by the Leader of the House—and that it will be discussed further, but, as that matter has clearly been under consideration for a time, I would have expected it to move further down the agenda by now.
    I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is present. He steered the 1993 Act through Parliament. I make it clear to the Leader of the House—I would do so if he were here—and to the Secretary of State for Wales that I intend to speak Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee when it meets in Wales. I will do so in line with the law of the land that has been passed by the Government. That law allows public business in Wales to be debated in Welsh. If whoever is chairing the Committee deems that I am not allowed to do that, he or she will be in breach of that law. The Government should sort that one out before the Committee meets in Wales. I declare that it is my earnest intention to speak in Welsh when the Committee next meets in Wales. I rely on the law of the land to protect me and I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Conwy will be the first to ensure that support is given to that view.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney proposed using the device that has been developed in European Standing Committees A and B. That would be worth while and we discussed it for a short time at the Welsh parliamentary fleeting that some of us attended. I hope that important statements by the Secretary of State that he cannot make now because there is no time can be analysed in an hour of questions and answers and an hour and a half of debate.
    I was a member of European Standing Committee B for four years. but I am no longer a member. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), was in that Committee when I tried to put questions to him and he knows that it can be a rigorous process. No doubt Ministers will try to wriggle, but they get fewer chances to do that when we come back four or five times on the same theme. One can nail them down and then make a speech.
    The quorum in the Welsh Grand Committee should be determined in line with the number of Welsh Members—seven or whatever the figure should be. The last thing that I would accept is a quorum that is dictated by hon. Members from outside Wales, which is the practice in other Committees. When subjects are called for debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, there should be not only notional dialogue in the usual channels but an acceptance that the majority of Welsh Members should call the subjects for debate: they should not be subjects that are merely for the convenience of the Government. We should re-establish the ability of all parties to have subjects aired.
    The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is excellent and has carried out much good work under the outstanding chairmanship of the hon. Member for Gower
    730
    (Mr. Wardell). But its reports lie forgotten on dusty shelves although many of the good proposals in them should be taken on board.
    Mr. Rowlands: I received a written answer from the Leader of the House on 4 December. I had asked how many reports had been received from the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and how many had been debated in the House. I was told that there had been 36 such reports and that none had been debated on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Wigley: That shows the breakdown of the intentions that were put to the House in 1979 by the now Lord St. John of Fawsley. There was supposed to be a progression from the Select Committee investigation to debate in the House and decisions were to be taken. That system has broken down because the House does not have the time or the will to address such matters. That may be acceptable in the context of other Select Committees, although I doubt it, but it is certainly not acceptable to Welsh Members.
    Let us use the mechanism of the Welsh Grand Committee to make proper decisions and to make sure that the Executive is accountable in some way to the people of Wales. The proposals to tinker with the Welsh Grand Committee do not answer the fundamental problems that are caused by the lack of democracy in our country. The Committee could have been made at least a little stronger if the Secretary of State had taken on board the constructive proposals by Welsh Members in our meeting with him. It is a disgrace that he is not willing to do that.
    8.52 pm
    Mr. Paul Flynn: The status of the Welsh language in the House is the same as that of riotous behaviour. If we speak in Welsh in the House, as many hon. Members have done, we are called to order, and if we persist we are thrown out of the House. Many of us have considered that course and it is inevitable that it will be taken if the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) sticks by his threat. Many of us have great sympathy for that course.
    The Standing Order that covers the matter is incredible. It says that speeches must be made in English but that quotations in a foreign tongue may be allowed occasionally although a translation should be provided. Where is Welsh in there? Welsh is not English but it is certainly not a foreign tongue. This is the only Parliament of Wales but the ancient language of Wales is not heard here. That is an ancient injustice that we can put right now. People have tried. Mabon in 1896 spoke in Welsh and quoted the illustrious Member for Rhondda, which is now represented by another illustrious person, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
    What is the present status? Even if the Standing Order is right, we are not allowed to quote in Welsh. A month ago during a debate on ferries I quoted from an account of a crossing of the channel that took place 50 years before the birth of Christ. Not unexpectedly, the account was in Latin and I quoted some 70 words, which was acceptable. My hon. Friends from Labour comprehensives understood what I was talking about, but I provided a translation for the Conservative victims of public school

    731
    education. It is extraordinary that speaking in Latin was permissible whereas I would have been stopped if I had uttered more than two or three words in Welsh.
    My constituency used to be wholly bilingual. The children in the town of Caerleon spoke Latin, but the children outside the walls of the town spoke Welsh. Today one does not hear much Latin on the tongues of the children in Caerleon but, happily, one can still hear Welsh. That extraordinary language has echoed down the centuries and is still with us as a living treasure of enormous worth and it means so much to so many of us.
    I did not have the advantage enjoyed by many hon. Members of speaking Welsh from the cradle, but as an adolescent I had the good luck to have a marvellous teacher who introduced me to Gweledigaethau'r Bardd Cwrsg, y Gododdin, Dafydd ap Gwilym and to the wonderful, majestic works of T. Gwyn Jones and the lyrical beauty of the imagery of Robert Williams Parry. No one has written with more accuracy, feeling and inspiration about working-class suffering in Wales in the north and south and about the quarry workers and miners than the Gwenally in the south or those who wrote about the quarry workers in north Wales.
    It is difficult to express to those who live in one language the experience of living in more than one. It is difficult to explain that the first language that one hears at one's mother's breast, the last one that is expressed in the final prayers before death and the only language with the tenderness to make love in or in which one can curse effectively is that mother tongue, the one—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether it would be necessary in the Welsh Grand Committee to curse in Welsh or in any other language. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks more closely to the subject under consideration.
    Mr. Flynn: We express strong words in the House. One of the disadvantages of a lack of simultaneous translation is that when curses in Welsh are made in the House—and I have heard them—there is no way that Front-Bench Members understand what is being said.
    Mr. Michael: Or the Chair. One hopes they are not directed at the Chair.
    Mr. Flynn: No, they are not.
    Our request is modest. Is it unusual for the world's Parliaments to have more than one language? A review undertaken by the Inter-Parliamentary Union discovered that 51 Parliaments use only one language, 22 use two languages on a daily basis, six use three languages and four Parliaments, including Singapore, which is well known to hon. Members, use more than three languages. There is nothing novel about that. Simultaneous translation is provided easily, in a sophisticated manner. There is no reason why members of the Government Front-Bench team who do not speak Welsh should feel nervous about any lack of understanding in Committee. The people who provide the translations are extremely skilful.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Did the hon. Gentleman see the Secretary of State for Wales on television at the weekend in the Council of Ministers, where translation equipment was provided for him?
    Mr. Flynn: Indeed I did. The European Community copes with half a dozen languages with great ease.
    732
    Amendment (y), which I am grateful has been selected, proposes a very modest concession. The main reason that we want to press it is that we know the extent of the difficulties when Welsh is spoken in the House. People from all corners of the world can sit in one part of the House where their companions can provide them with simultaneous translation. People have given evidence to Select Committees in a dozen languages.
    There is a great danger that we shall continue the traditional disregard of the Welsh language and other minority languages that has occurred for about 200 years. Such disregard is part of the linguistic colonisation that has taken place in Britain and in many other countries.
    Many of us are familiar with the sign in a Brittany classroom that said, "Défense de cracher, défense de parler Bretonne"—meaning do not spit, do not speak Breton. The little Bretons had sabots around their necks—exactly the same as the Welsh knot. One child who found another speaking Breton would pass the sabot. The petits delateurs were therefore turned against one another and into sneaks on the language in a positive movement to destroy the language.
    In my constituency, as chronicled in "Brad y Llytrau Gleision", inspectors visited two schools in the middle of the last century and said that the children were all stupid because they could not understand a word that was spoken. The inspectors were unilingual in English and could not understand a word of the Welsh spoken by the children. They did not understand why Welsh was being spoken. As hon. Members have said, the children are part of a great educational tradition.
    The language has survived. Waldo chronicled how by chance—it was miraculous—the language survived through the centuries because of the non-conformist Church, or because of the Catholic Church, as happened in Brittany. It survived not because people thought of it as a material reward but because they loved it, it was part of their lives and it was of genuine worth. They rejoiced in the literature of the language.
    Mr. Rogers: In paying tribute to the various agencies that have kept the language alive, my hon. Friend ought to pay a great tribute to people such as the late Lord Heycock and other Labour Members who in the valleys of south Wales adopted Welsh language policies, started the system of Welsh comprehensive and primary schools and saved the Welsh language.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans)indicated dissent.
    Mr. Rogers: The Minister who is shaking his head ought to be ashamed of his attitude to the Welsh language.
    Mr. Flynn: I was building up to the climax of mentioning the great success of Welsh-medium education, especially in south Wales. For many of us who have worked in local authorities, it has been one of the great joys to give children who did not speak Welsh in their homes the chance to learn the language. Indeed, they had the chance to learn the language as their parents' generation never did—to read and write it. Many people of the previous generation were not literate. It is one of the great successes of Welsh education that the children

    733
    have inherited the immense treasure of a second language—their own language. A second language is often the stepping stone to a third and fourth language.
    I am disappointed that the Government will not see fit to accept the amendment, which, as I have said, is very modest. All it would do is enable translation equipment and translators to be made available in the Welsh Grand Committee, regardless of its venue. Translators are skilled and would be able to provide a service.
    The difficulty is over what will happen with the Hansard writers. What will happen is what happens now when speeches of certain Members, whom I would not dare mention, are totally incomprehensible—to me, anyway. Some of them are from the far corners of these islands and speak in strange accents that I find very difficult to understand. By some odd process, we find that their speech is in Hansard in clear English. If the speech is not entirely understood, corrections can be made. I understand that in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, Select Committee reporters take down what the translators say. If the person who has spoken in Welsh wishes to correct that later, that can be done. There is no difficulty whatsoever.
    I accept that there are difficulties in other areas, for example, if we are to have a report in Welsh and English. However, there is nothing in amendment (y) to prevent it from being accepted tonight without any difficulty. The Government have given us a problem with how to proceed tonight. I want to consider whether to proceed with the amendment. We accept that a concession has been made.
    I take on board the comment by hon. Members that this is not a new issue. An early-day motion, signed by 66 hon. Members, was tabled as long ago as 1988. Something could have come from that. It is late in the life of this Parliament. I know that an hon. Member spoke to this Parliament in Chaucerian English. For almost every hon. Member it was complete gibberish—yet it was declared to be in order. I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by repeating what was said, but it was English. The Standing Order allows for hon. Members to speak in Chaucerian English, regardless of the fact that hardly anyone can understand what is being said. But the language of Wales is not allowed here. Fourteen members of the Welsh Grand Committee are fluent in the Welsh language; several others can understand a speech in Welsh. More than a third of the members of that Committee can speak fluent Welsh and more than half can understand a speech in Welsh.
    The final words of our national anthem, which we sing with great passion, are:
    "O bydded i'r heniaith barhau"—
    which means, "Oh would that the ancient language continues to live." "What we are asking tonight for Am yr uwch-bwyllgor Gymreig—the Welsh Grand Committee—is, O bydded i'r heniaith ddechreu."
    9.6 pm
    Mr. Alun Michael: We should paraphrase the child's question on seeing a politician in full flow—"Mummy, what is he for?" The same question needs to be asked of the Secretary of State for Wales when he attends the Welsh Grand
    734
    Committee. Indeed, it is the question that we need to ask about the Committee itself. What is the Welsh Grand Committee for? What is the Secretary of State present at the Committee for?
    A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State gave the impression of wanting to be reasonable in this debate. As I chair the Welsh group of Labour Members of Parliament this year, I want to stress the generosity and reasonableness with which we responded to the suggestions of change. The tone of our meetings; the tone adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and his Front-Bench colleagues; and, above all, the tone that all Welsh Members brought to the Welsh parliamentary party when we discussed the issue with the Secretary of State, demonstrated the good will towards having a sensible debate about changes. It was said earlier that the Secretary of State went from that meeting promising to listen, but reneged on that within an hour, if not within minutes. That is a disgraceful response to the generosity of spirit shown by Welsh Members.
    Why is not the right hon. Gentleman accepting a single one of the sensible amendments for change that have been put before the House tonight? They are not large and unreasonable changes; they are attempts to take forward the suggestions for change in a reasonable way. Surely it is unreasonable of the Secretary of State suddenly to become adamant that he will not accept anything other than the motion that he has put before the House.
    I want to refer to two of the amendments. The first is that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), which I welcome. My hon. Friend suggests that we should examine the departmental report of the Welsh Office, thereby suggesting a degree of accountability. The Secretary of State for Wales should be willing to answer questions and to respond on the detail in the report before the Welsh Grand Committee. Surely that is what we are in Parliament for. We are here to legislate and to hold the Executive accountable. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would welcome the opportunity to account to Welsh Members for his report and that he would accept the amendment.
    The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) suggested that the Labour party might lose its dominance in Wales and might, therefore, regret having suggested that powers should be given to the people of Wales through an elected assembly in Wales. It may have escaped his notice that the fact that the electors can elect whom they choose is known as democracy, and that the process can swing against a party as well as for it. The Labour party has no fear of democracy. If we lost our dominance, others would represent the people of Wales, and rightly so. I have no fear, however, of that coming about for many years, unless the Conservative party totally changes its attitude of intransigence to what the electorate in Wales wants. The right hon. Gentleman's comment demonstrated the Conservatives' lack of interest in accountability, and a wish to hang on desperately to power informed his criticisms.
    It is right that we should pursue the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that there should be a small degree of accountability, and it is also right that the Grand Committee should study the reports by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. The reports are often lost, although they raise important issues that interest our

    735

    constituents. When we tell them that there is no proper debate in the House on many of the Select Committee's reports, they are surprised. When a Select Committee has gone into an issue in depth and produced a report, the Government have to make a response. Is it not sensible that there should be a proper and reasonable debate on the issues, and that the Welsh Grand Committee should be the place for those debates?
    Amendment (y), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), would allow the use of the Welsh language when the Grand Committee meets in Wales. Developments in recent years have allowed people the opportunity to use the Welsh language when they choose to do so. Those developments have been sensible. Increasingly, it has been a matter not of ramming the Welsh language down people's throats but of encouraging them to use it. I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the way in which Labour local authorities have encouraged the teaching of Welsh, and encouraged people to exercise choice rather than dominating them.
    I was brought up in a Welsh-speaking family in north Wales, but I lost the Welsh language during my years in school. I welcome, therefore, the chance of relearning Welsh through adult education, as a second opportunity, and I also welcome the fact that, whereas I am semi-literate in the Welsh language, my children have had the opportunity of bilingual education and are able to speak Welsh. As adults, they have exercised their choice about what they do with that education and what they do with the ability to use two languages.
    Is it right that the House took the decision for public bodies in Wales through the Welsh Language Act 1993, but that it is unwilling to apply that decision to our own proceedings when we meet in Wales? Surely it is minimal progress for us to legislate for public bodies and to place requirements on them, yet not to observe those requirements ourselves when we meet in Wales. The Welsh Language Act is concerned primarily with the activities of public bodies in Wales. We should surely apply those requirements to ourselves when we operate as a Welsh Grand Committee in Wales. That is a modest proposal.
    As I mentioned earlier in an intervention, there are translation facilities in council chambers in Wales. At a recent meeting, British and German Members of Parliament were able to communicate because translation facilities were available. Translation is provided in a variety of public and private bodies, so why not have it in the Welsh Grand Committee? The Leader of the House said that the matter would be referred to the Procedure Committee. I simply reinforce the request for translation that was made earlier. Please let us have a speedy answer. Let the Government not drag their feet in the same way that they did for the Welsh Language Act, when there was unanimity of purpose in Wales and in the House.
    This is an opportunity to turn a pointless talking shop into a place for reasoned debate, where we can hold the Secretary of State to account and have real debates on issues that affect our constituents. In the House, under a Conservative Government, the Secretary of State always has the votes to ignore hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. That is a fact of life, but he will gain greater credit and enhance his reputation if he
    736
    changes the attitude that he has shown since the Welsh parliamentary party met and listen to what is being said by hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies.
    The saying to which the Secretary of State should pay attention is, "Bu ben byd bont," which means, "He who would be a leader must be a bridge." Let the Secretary of State listen to that and change his attitude, and help us to turn the Welsh Grand Committee into a place of meaningful debate, which will win respect from our constituents and the people of Wales as a whole.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the proposed changes to the Welsh Grand Committee.
    During my time in the House, I have felt that the Welsh Grand Committee is an underused creature. It meets irregularly, but potentially it is an excellent forum, and as it is made up of all the Members of Parliament who represent Wales, it should naturally deal with business that affects only Wales. Opposition Members felt deeply disappointed that the Welsh Language Bill was referred to Standing Committee, not the Welsh Grand Committee. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out, many of the amendments that we tabled, which had all-party support among the Opposition parties and were popular in Wales, were voted down by English Conservative Members.
    I very much wanted to be on the Committee that considered the Local Government (Wales) Bill, as did other hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. I naturally defer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) because of their experience and constituency interest, but I felt it highly improper that I could not speak for the new Carmarthenshire and for its powers and so on, when many English Conservative Members, who had no constituency interests, were voting down amendments tabled by the Labour party and the Opposition parties in Wales.
    I broadly welcome the changes that the Government propose. The extra Question Time would be lively, although 30 minutes would not be enough, as many Back Benchers—especially Labour Back Benchers, as there are so many of us—already find it difficult to participate in the 35 or 40 minutes of Welsh questions. The time allowed for short debates—five minutes for the proposer, five minutes for the Minister and three minutes for other Members—is very short. I have some reservations about ministerial statements, especially if it is the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer making an opportunist guest appearance. Such details need to be changed, but broadly the measures are good.
    I support the amendments spoken to by my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Indeed, I echo the comment made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on the use of the Welsh language. It is no big deal. It should be straightforward. Simultaneous translation is widespread now, certainly in Welsh-speaking Wales and across most of Wales. It is easily practicable. In view of the precedent of the Select Committee, I cannot see why the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are making such a mountain of what should be a straightforward procedure and why they do not treat the Welsh language on an equal basis.

    737
    Another feature that is missing from the Standing Orders is the frequency with which the reformed Welsh Grand Committee will meet. At the infamous meeting of 20 February, the Secretary of State said that it would meet about eight times a year. We want at least that. The Labour party suggested that it should meet every other Tuesday morning—a regular spot, which we would all know to expect. That would be 15 or 18 meetings a year.
    What will the people of Wales make of the changes, if the House votes for them this evening? The changes will give us a body with no powers that meets eight times a year for two and a half hours. That will amount to 20 hours a year. The people of Wales want something that meets at least 20 hours a week, with real powers to debate and exercise powers that are now the powers of the Secretary of State. That can come only when we have an elected Welsh Assembly.
    The proposals are a tiny 1 per cent. of what we want. They are a small improvement. I welcome them for those reasons.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had an illuminating debate, even including the comments made by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), and his particular concern to save the Labour party as the party of government in Wales. I can see which way he is veering on his retirement.
    The presentation of the new Standing Orders and our amendments represent a missed opportunity for the Government to take a significant step forward in the conduct of Welsh affairs within the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spotlighted clearly in his speech the fact that we have here a fig leaf presented by the Government, in an effort to show that they are interested in extending in some way our opportunities to debate Welsh affairs. I suppose that we can go that far, because the changes in the Standing Orders will provide additional opportunities to debate Welsh affairs and to ask more questions about Welsh affairs, but they will do nothing more substantial. They will not allow Members of Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies to play a more practical and effective role in determining what happens in Wales.
    The proposal made in a well-researched speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, our respected Friend with much experience, took one aspect of the business of the House dealt with by European Standing Committees, which could easily be used on the Welsh scene within the Welsh Grand Committee, to improve the ability of Welsh Members to question Ministers on their plans for any particular year in which they happened to be with us. They will not be there for much longer now, thank goodness. In view of what my hon. Friend said, some Opposition Members—no one knows who they may be—will be quaking at the thought of being on the Government's side of the Dispatch Box under the procedure that he has proposed and subject to questioning by him. Given that the procedure is already in use in the House, I hope that the Government will be prepared to support my hon. Friend's two amendments. We believe that they are worthy of support.
    738
    I was pleased that the Leader of the House was prepared to make a concession and consider the use of the Welsh language in meetings of the Grand Committee in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), although I missed the early part of his speech, seemed to be making an effective case about why it should be natural for Welsh to be used in debates in the Grand Committee when it meets in Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) argued convincingly that there should be no technical or other problems with that.
    I would go so far as to say that section 3(2)(b) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 gives the Government a duty to ensure that Welsh can be used in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales. It is fair to say that the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee are public business and that section 3 states that one of the functions of the Welsh Language Board is to
    "advise persons exercising functions of a public nature on the ways in which effect may be given to the principle that, in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
    When the matter is referred to the Procedure Committee, the Government will have the opportunity to recommend, as the Leader of the House said, that it should consider positively the way in which the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West can best be put into effect. While I accept that that cannot be hurried through in time for a meeting in a month's time, the Committee should be asked to consider the proposal with a view to bringing a report to the House that can be considered before the summer recess. On second thoughts, that may put the Committee under pressure because of rumours, which I hope that we can set aside, that we are due to finish at the end of May because of the Government's fears of not being able to continue for much longer.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): The hon. Gentleman should not bank on it.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am still planning my holidays for August. The report should be made before the summer recess.
    Given the angst that the run-up to the debate has caused, it is worth repeating that it was back in March 1993 that we first suggested that it would be worth reconsidering the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee to make it more effective. Since then, we have made several attempts to get a constructive dialogue going. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary Labour party—
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Welsh parliamentary party.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry. I was unable to attend the Welsh parliamentary party meeting because of my duties elsewhere—I was at the Standing Committee on the iniquitous Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. It is most unfortunate that, within an hour of the meeting, the Secretary of State virtually rubbished

    739
    all the proposals discussed there. When he replies to the debate, I hope that he will at least retrieve some of that ground, first, by reiterating the commitment that a report on the use of the Welsh language will be put before the House in plenty of time for us to consider it before the summer recess and, secondly, by accepting all the amendments that Opposition Members have tabled.
    The first amendment is fairly technical and ought to cause no problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) outlined the argument for amendment (ff) on the quorum at the beginning of the debate. It simply falls into line with the practice in the Scottish Grand Committee and would certainly make sense, given the references already made to the fact that there are some parallels on certain basic points between the two Committees.
    I hope that the Government will also accept amendment (a). Three members of the Committee with constituencies outside Wales ought to be a sufficient number when conducting the business of the Welsh Grand Committee. I hope that the Government are prepared to accept that—unless, of course, they think that a Conservative Government could come to power without any Conservative Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies. Otherwise, three members plus, from time to time, the one, two or three Conservative members of the Committee who might represent Welsh constituencies should be sufficient for them.
    My hon. Friend also referred to amendment (p) and the need to ensure that the Welsh Grand Committee recommends that a Bill be read a Second time. A Bill should proceed only if it gains the assent of the Grand Committee. That would be a small but important step forward. It would establish a really democratic view of the Government's business in Wales.
    Hon. Members cited a number of examples of how that might have helped the Government to avoid some disastrous mistakes, such as the poll tax, for which we have a permanent 2.5 per cent. increase on value added tax. The Government could have avoided that if they had tested the proposal in a Welsh Grand Committee that had the right to determine whether such a Bill should proceed.
    A number of references have been made to the legislation to reform Welsh local government, the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen said, he dearly wished to be on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill; he had direct interests that he wanted to air in detail on behalf of his constituents. As a result of the way in which the Committee was structured, the present procedures of the House and the fact that the Government decided not to use Standing Order No. 86, which would have enabled them to hold the entire debate in an all-Welsh Committee, he missed that opportunity—much to the detriment of the way in which that Bill proceeded through the House.
    I should have loved the opportunity to take part in the debates on the Bill—as would many other Welsh Members—but there were not enough places on the Committee for Labour Members. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State shaking his head—he does not have local government responsibilities—and trying to claim that that is rubbish. Given the membership and size of the Committee, there was no opportunity for Labour Members to be properly represented on it.
    Mr. Richards: Referring to the Local Government (Wales) Bill, the hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) wished to be a member of the Standing Committee. During the debate on that issue, I pointed out that that hon. Member, and many other Opposition Members, had shown no interest in local government in Wales, because they had not tabled written questions, asked oral questions or taken part in any debates on local government reform in Wales. Given that the hon. Member for Carmarthen had shown no interest in local government, why should he have been on the Standing Committee?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is a facetious remark—and I shall treat it as such. There was obviously no intent to take the argument forward.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: As I am being discussed, may I point out that at that time my constituency had a strong interest in that matter, which involved Carmarthenshire county council? My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) represented Dyfed on the Committee; there was a strong territorial interest in being on it. That is quite different from what the Minister said. As the Bill affected my constituency, I wanted to be a member of the Committee that examined the Bill.
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point and there is no reason for us to dwell on it.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Might we dwell on that point just a little longer? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that Committee illustrated the frustration of Welsh legislation in the House? The Committee, with the support of hon. Members on both sides, defeated the Government on the issue of small counties in rural mid-Wales. The Government then chose to defeat the Committee on Report. However, the Government then decided to do exactly what the Committee had voted for in relation to Welsh local government, for English local government. What sort of a Government is that?
    Mr. Griffiths: That was one of the ironies of the Local Government (Wales) Bill—Conservative members of the Committee were lobby fodder for the Government in terms of voting for a unitary system of government in Wales, but back home they fought tooth and nail to stop the local government boundary commission introducing unitary government in their constituencies. The reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill was the first occasion on which all the Opposition parties in Wales were united in the presentation of an argument against the Government's proposals.
    The Welsh Grand Committee ought to be given the opportunity to have a positive say on Bills that affect only Wales. Of course, the Bills would then be considered in Committee, according to the normal procedures of the House. At least there would have been genuine approval of the principles of the measure by the Welsh Grand Committee.
    When the Secretary of State winds up the debate, I hope that he will accept all our amendments and perhaps elaborate on how he hopes to put into effect the procedure for ensuring that the Welsh language amendment can be considered in detail by the House before the summer recess.
    9.38 pm
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): This interesting and varied debate has contained some constructive suggestions and a little synthetic indignation from time to time. I shall respond to the points that have been made. It is worth remembering that the objective that we are seeking to address with these motions is one on which there is a good deal of common ground across the Floor of the House—although one might not have thought so at times this evening.
    It is common ground that the procedures of the Welsh Grand Committee need improving; no one suggested otherwise tonight. It is common ground that the Grand Committee, as it stands, has not always been felt to be the most useful forum for discussion. It is common ground that it has not always been useful for Back Benchers because of the time that is taken up by Front-Bench speeches in the Grand Committee as it stands. It is common ground that, as a result, the Committee is not widely reported and has a ritual element. We should be clear in our minds about that at the outset.
    Undoubtedly, the proposals that the Leader of the House and I have brought before the House will make the Grand Committee more useful for Back Benchers and their constituents. They will increase the time that is available for Members to question Welsh Office Ministers. They will bring in the concept of short debates, which will have the merit that the Grand Committee can discuss different subjects and do so within time limits. They will bring the concept of Adjournment debates—a procedure used by the Scottish Grand Committee—into the Welsh Grand Committee. All those things will enhance the role of Back-Bench Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: All that the Secretary of State has said in the past few minutes about the Welsh Grand Committee and its defects is true, and has been true for 17 years.
    Why have the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland chosen this time to make similar proposals to change the way in which the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee discuss matters in Scotland and Wales respectively? Is it not the case that they have done so because they finally acknowledge that there is a case for devolution but are not prepared to answer it, so they are giving that answer to the people of Wales and the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Hague: No. It is a completely separate argument from the constitutional arguments about devolution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) rightly said.
    We know that the things I have said are common ground because many of the suggestions for changes in the Standing Orders were made by the Opposition. I might equally well ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) why he and other Labour Members produced their proposals for changes to the Grand Committee in the middle of November. We can all play the game of asking why things happened at a certain time.
    I made proposals to the House on 30 November which largely, if not entirely, incorporated the Opposition's proposals. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)
    742
    described my proposals as a fig leaf. If he believes that our proposals have been a fig leaf, what does he think he was wearing when the Opposition proposed their changes in the proceedings of the Grand Committee a couple of weeks before my proposals?
    That is the background to what has been described as an atmosphere of confrontation and no consultation—Opposition proposals that have been largely incorporated into the Government's proposals.
    We have proposed further changes in the Standing Orders, which would go further than the proposals of Opposition Front Benchers. One such change is for the Committee to meet in different parts of Wales. That system seems to work well in Scotland; the Scottish Grand Committee has met in a variety of places. The Welsh Grand Committee has already met in Cardiff in the past. It was a mystery to me why the Opposition's proposals did not include that proposition.
    Mr. Rogers rose—
    Mr. Ron Davies rose—
    Mr. Hague: I give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
    Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State mentioned two points that are a matter of contention between us.
    First, when we made submissions—initially in 1993, but several times since—we said that we wanted the Welsh Grand Committee to have substantial powers to make decisions, not only to engage in the ritualistic passing of question and answer between Opposition and Government.
    Secondly, the Welsh Grand Committee was able to meet in Cardiff without a change in the Standing Orders, so it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to claim that we need to change the Standing Orders to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to meet in Cardiff. It already can meet in Cardiff; it requires no change in the Standing Orders. That is why we did not propose any such changes.
    Mr. Hague: It nevertheless remains the case that that is a proposal that we made which was not made by the hon. Gentleman. He has not expressed any opposition to it, however, so it is one of the things on which there appears to be agreement across the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but we must get this clear. It was the Opposition who insisted, in 1993, that the Welsh Grand Committee should meet in Cardiff.
    Mr. Hague: Then it is all the more surprising that that insistence was not carried through to talking about other locations. I am pleased that there is agreement across the House on that issue.
    The second respect in which we took the proposals further is that we agreed that Ministers with United Kingdom-wide responsibilities—with responsibilities that cover Wales—should be able to attend the Welsh Grand Committee from time to time. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security, and my right hon. and learned Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home

    743
    Secretary, all have responsibilities that directly cover Wales and it is right that they should be able to attend the Committee.
    Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State talks about consultation. He must accept that when he came to the Welsh parliamentary party meeting that I chaired—we were thankful that he could come at such short notice—the Opposition thought that he had accepted some of the points made during the consultation process. We were amazed when he left the room and almost immediately reneged on some of the undertakings that he had made. If he talks about consultation and common ground, he must respect the statements that he made during those discussions.
    Mr. Hague: Yes, and I shall come to that point in a moment and discuss some of the subjects that we debated at that meeting of the parliamentary party.
    All the proposals are aimed at improving the Committee's workings. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) expressed scepticism about the changes. He thought that they were set in a different context and had a different motive behind them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy said, this argument is different from a proposal to change the constitutional position. If a sinister motive to undermine the Labour party lay behind our proposals, why did the Labour party advance very similar proposals?
    We do not need to change the Welsh Grand Committee and its proceedings in order to discredit the arguments for a Welsh Assembly; all that we have to do is to ask the hon. Member for Caerphilly to give another interview to "On the Record", where he treats repeated and authoritative reports of division in his party by saying that everything is clear. In one newspaper that I saw at the weekend, he was reported as saying that the Labour party's policy was clear and would become clearer. We do not need to change the Grand Committee in order to discredit such arguments.
    Mr. Rowlands: In that case, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in any debate that we have on Welsh devolution in the next nine months or so, he will not submit the proposals as his alternative?
    Mr. Hague: Certainly. This is not an alternative to devolution; it is an improvement in the workings of the United Kingdom Parliament in the context of a UK Parliament. The proposal creates a Committee which hon. Members will find more useful, to which people will want to listen and which will do a better job of scrutinising the work of the Executive. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney sees it in a particular context—if the measure were set in that context, I could understand his scepticism, but it is not. We have already incorporated many of the proposals made by Opposition Members, who have had many opportunities to add to them.
    744
    As my right hon. Friend the Lord President said, I wrote to the hon. Member for Caerphilly on 14 December and offered a meeting. The hon. Gentleman says that I did not, but I have the letter, which states:
    "I would welcome your comments on them"—
    the proposals—
    "and would be ready to discuss the changes if you would find that helpful."
    If that is not offering a meeting, I do not know what is. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is offering a meeting, his difficulty will not be if the Committee uses the Welsh language, but if it uses the English language for discussion.
    I met the leaders of the Opposition parties to discuss the subject and clearly asked them what alternative proposals they had. To be fair, they all made it clear in their letters that they would have preferred the establishment of a Welsh Assembly, but that is not common ground across the Floor of the House. I asked them for specific amendments to the Standing Orders as proposed and there was much sucking of teeth and furrowing of brows. It was suggested that we should not lay down a time of 10.30 am for meetings in different parts of Wales, as that might prove logistically difficult, and that proposal was changed in the Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that nothing had been changed as a result of his suggestions, but that change has been made.
    I was asked to discuss all those matters in the Welsh Grand Committee. That seems to have been the main bone of contention this evening. I have never deviated from my view that it is the House that has power to change Standing Orders, that the matter is of interest to hon. Members in general—not just Welsh Members—and that it should be debated on the Floor of the House. I recall expressing that view at the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party, as well as in a television interview afterwards.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hague: I am spoilt for choice. I must give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Caernarfon later.
    Mr. Davies: I hope that the Secretary of State is giving way to me out of choice rather than necessity, but I am grateful to him in any event.
    If the Secretary of State believes now, and has always believed, that it is inappropriate for the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss such changes, why did the Government suggest—via the usual channels—that, rather than debating the subject on the Floor of the House, we should do so in the Committee?
    Mr. Hague: I have made no such suggestion. I have consistently said that these matters should be discussed and resolved on the Floor of the House—and here we are, resolving them on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State will recall that a number of constructive proposals were advanced.

    745
    I acknowledge that one, relating to the variation of the starting time in rural Wales, has been taken on board; but why did not the right hon. Gentleman take on board the suggestion relating to European Standing Committee procedure, which I believe commands considerable support in the House?
    Mr. Hague: I was coming to that and, if I do not take too many more interventions, I shall be able to explain more about the Government's position.
    In the meeting to which I have referred, we engaged in a constructive discussion of a number of matters. The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked for reassurances about the timing and content of debates in the Welsh Grand Committee being determined by the usual channels, rather than solely dictated by the Government, and I gave him those reassurances. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and others made their point about the possible value of the Committee's discussing Select Committee reports; I agreed, and I am perfectly amenable to the idea of Conservative-led discussions over the coming months.
    In the meeting, I specifically said that I was amenable to the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney with regard to European Standing Committee procedure, and said that I was amenable. Let me make it clear that the procedure can be adopted under the proposed Standing Orders: a debate in the Grand Committee on a matter referred to it by the House could be a debate of the type cited by the hon. Gentleman, and could be dealt with in the same style as a European Standing Committee debate. I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of using one of the Grand Committee's meetings for that purpose in the coming months—but, according to all the advice that I have received, we do not need to change the proposed Standing Orders to achieve that.
    During the meeting, the hon. Member for Caernarfon and I discussed the number of meetings that should take place. I think that he was relatively reassured by what I said. Some hon. Members mentioned the use of the Welsh language; my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made an announcement about that earlier today. I do not think it fair to say that consultation has been ignored during the process that has taken place.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hague: I must press on, because I want to comment on the amendments. If there is time, however, I will give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
    We have heard some proposals this evening that were not made during our consultations, although there is nothing wrong with that. It has been proposed, for instance, that the Committee's quorum should be smaller. Given that the Committee became inquorate at various times during its most recent meeting, the proposition is not entirely unreasonable. The quorum of the Scottish Grand Committee is 10, as has been pointed out. That is a fair point, and the Government will accept the amendment.
    746
    Other amendments refer to the use of the Welsh language. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the matter could be referred to the Procedure Committee. We recognise that powerful points have been made. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) did not need to watch me on television at the Council of Ministers, listening to a simultaneous translation; he could have seen me chairing a meeting this morning in the chamber of Montgomeryshire district council, half of which was conducted in Welsh. I readily appreciate the ease, speed and simplicity with which those arrangements can be introduced and how many of the places in which the Grand Committee could meet already have the relevant equipment. All those factors must be borne in mind by the Procedure Committee which, of course, must also bear in mind the important change of principle that would be involved for the House as a whole. We intend the Committee to examine all those questions. There are other things—
    Mr. Flynn rose—
    Mr. Hague: I must deal with the remaining points.
    We have had frank disagreements on other matters. There were proposals for an increased or enhanced legislative role for the Grand Committee. Of course, the hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke from a completely different viewpoint on these matters. He has a wholly different perception of how the United Kingdom should be governed. We understand that; he wants to take the United Kingdom apart, so we approach the subject quite differently. We are making our proposals on the basis of the government of the UK as a whole.
    There have been elections in which the Labour party won in the UK as a whole entirely because of votes cast in Scotland and Wales. Everyone accepted that, and I have never noticed Labour saying that English Members should make separate legislative decisions because they won a majority only because of votes cast in Scotland. The UK continues to be governed on the original basis.
    Amendment (p) would set up the role of the Welsh Grand Committee quite differently from that of the Scottish Grand Committee, the European Standing Committees, Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation and Second Reading Committees, so we cannot accept it.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney wanted to intervene, and I now have time to give way to him.
    Mr. Rowlands: I had intended to press my amendment to a vote, so I want further clarification from the Secretary of State. The key to amendment (dd) is the second paragraph which sets out a specific procedure about the first hour of questions. That provision does not appear in the draft Standing Orders, which contain many prescriptive procedural provisions. I cannot see how the provision that I seek can be added or informally agreed unless it is part of the Standing Order itself.
    Mr. Hague: My advice is that it is possible to adopt the procedure that the hon. Gentleman envisages under the proposed Standing Orders. A Minister can make a statement and be questioned on it. That will be followed by a debate. The difficulty with the amendment is that it

    747
    also contains other proposals, such as deciding matters on a substantive motion—perhaps that might be suggested in the amendment linked with amendment (dd).
    I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that if any difficulty arises in the coming months in following the procedure that he advocates, I shall certainly want to introduce a further change by way of clarification. I assure him that all my advice is in the direction that he seeks.
    The changes are being proposed on the basis of government of the United Kingdom. That is the key to them, and it is the difference between our proposals and those of some Opposition Members. We have suggested a series of proposals to improve the workings of the Grand Committee. No one who has attended its meetings can fail to think anything other than that its proceedings should be improved. We have incorporated proposals made by the Opposition, but, in many respects, we have gone further, which is unfortunate for members of the Labour Front Bench who have struggled ever since to make this a party issue.
    We have taken the proposals through a consultation process during which a number of additional ideas have been accepted. We have brought them for debate to the Floor of the House where we propose to accept further amendments which have only now been brought forward. That lengthy procedure, in which every Welsh Member has had the opportunity to participate, has been described at times as lacking in consultation or disgraceful. This full evening's debate on the Floor of the House has, oddly, been described by the hon. Member for Caerphilly as restrictive. This is the first time that a full evening's debate on the Floor of the House, as opposed to a debate in Committee, has been described as restrictive.
    After examination, and given the range of reasons for improving the workings of the Grand Committee, we have now come to the right proposals. It is time to press ahead with them, so I commend them to the House and I hope that they will receive its support. Amendments that do not fit in with them, other than those that I have already shown flexibility over or that I have accepted, should be rejected by the House.
    Amendment proposed: (a), in line 15, leave out 'five' and insert `three'.—[Mr. Ron. Davies.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 164.

    Division No. 71]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Dixon, Don

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dowd, Jim

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Flynn, Paul

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Foulkes, George

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bradley, Keith

    Hall, Mike

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

    Hanson, David

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hood, Jimmy

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Corston, Jean

    Llwyd, Erfyn

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Dafis, Cynog

    McWilliam, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Marek,Dr John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Maxton, John

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Michael, Alun

    748

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pike, Peter L

    Timms, Stephen

    Rogers, Allan

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Salmond, Alex

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Simpson, Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Greg Pope.

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Gill, Christopher

    Alexander, Richard

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Amess, David

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Baldry, Tony

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Harris, David

    Bates, Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bellingham, Henry

    Heald, Oliver

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Booth, Hartley

    Hendry, Charles

    Boswell, Tim

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Horam, John

    Bowis, John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Brazier, Julian

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Jack, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Burt, Alistair

    Jessel, Toby

    Butler, Peter

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Clappison, James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Knapman, Roger

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Congdon, David

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Legg, Barry

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Leigh, Edward

    Couchman, James

    Lidington, David

    Cran, James

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

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

    Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Luff, Peter

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    MacKay, Andrew

    Devlin, Tim

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Dicks, Terry

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Douglas-Hamifton, Lord James

    Malone, Gerald

    Dover, Den

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Elletson, Harold

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Norris, Steve

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Evennett, David

    Page, Richard

    Faber, David

    Paice, James

    Fabricant, Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Richards, Rod

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Riddick, Graham

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    French, Douglas

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Gallie, Phil

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Garnier, Edward

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    749

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Trend, Michael

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Walden, George

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waller, Gary

    Soames, Nicholas

    Ward, John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spring, Richard

    Watts, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Wells, Bowen

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Whittingdale, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Willetts, David

    Stephen, Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sykes, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thomason, Roy

    Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Simon Burns.

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the remaining Questions relating to Welsh Business which she was then required to put, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Amendment made: (ff), in line 18, at end insert—
    '(1A) The quorum of the committee shall be seven, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))'.—[Mr. Ran Davies.]
    Amendment proposed: (p), in line 116, after `committee', insert—
    'the committee having recommended that the bill be read a second time'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 157.

    Division No. 72]

    [10.12 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea East)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Bennett, Andrew F

    McWilliam, John

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

    Marek, DrJohn

    Callaghan, Jim

    Maxton, John

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Michael, Alun

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Pike, Peter L

    Clarke, Eric (Midbthian)

    Rogers, Allan

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Rowlands, Ted

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Salmond, Alex

    Dafis, Cynog

    Simpson, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Spellar, John

    Dixon, Don

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Dowd, Jim

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Flynn, Paul

    Timms, Stephen

    Foulkes, George

    Wgley, Dafydd

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Hain, Peter

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Hall, Mike

    Hanson, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Greg Pope.

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Amess, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bates, Michael

    750

    Bellingham, Henry

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Booth, Hartley

    Knapman, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Bowis, John

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Brazier, Julian

    Leigh, Edward

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Lidington, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Burt, Alistair

    Luff, Peter

    Butler, Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Carttiss, Michael

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Clappison, James

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Malone, Gerald

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Congdon, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Couchman, James

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Cran, James

    Norris, Steve

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

    Ottaway, Richard

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Page, Richard

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Paice, James

    Devlin, Tim

    Pawsey, James

    Dicks, Terry

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Richards, Rod

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Riddick, Graham

    Dover, Den

    Robathan, Andrew

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Elletson, Harold

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Evennett, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Faber, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Forman, Nigel

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Spring, Richard

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Sproat, Iain

    French, Douglas

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Gallie, Phil

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Garnier, Edward

    Stephen, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Streeter, Gary

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Sweeney, Walter

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Sykes, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Thomason, Roy

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Trend, Michael

    Harris, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Hawkins, Nick

    Walden, George

    Heald, Oliver

    Waller, Gary

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Ward, John

    Hendry, Charles

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Heseltne, Rt Hon Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Watts, John

    Horam, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Whittingdale, John

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Willetts, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Jack, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Jessel, Toby

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Derek Conway.

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 50.

    Division No. 73]

    [10.25 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Alexander, Richard

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Amess, David

    Harris, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Heald, Oliver

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Baldry, Tony

    Hendry, Charles

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Bates, Michael

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Horam, John

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Booth, Hartley

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Boswell, Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Hunter, Andrew

    Bowis, John

    Jack, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Jessel, Toby

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Bums, Simon

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Butler, Peter

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Clappison, James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Lidington, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Coe, Sebastian

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Congdon, David

    Luff, Peter

    Conway, Derek

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Couchman, James

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Cran, James

    Malone, Gerald

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

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Devlin, Tim

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Dicks, Terry

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Norris, Steve

    Dover, Den

    Ottaway, Richard

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Page, Richard

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Paice, James

    Dykes, Hugh

    Pawsey, James

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Elletson, Harold

    Richards, Rod

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Evennett, David

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Faber, David

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Forman, Nigel

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    French, Douglas

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Gallie, Phil

    Soames, Nicholas

    Garnier, Edward

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Gill, Christopher

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Spring, Richard

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Sproat, Iain

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Stephen, Michael

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Streeter, Gary

    752

    Sweeney, Walter

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sykes, John

    Watts, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wells, Bowen

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Whittingdale, John

    Thomason, Roy

    Willetts, David

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Trend, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Walden, George

    Waller, Gary

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Ward, John

    Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    McWilliam, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Marek, Dr John

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Maxton, John

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

    Michael, Alun

    Callaghan, Jim

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Pike, Peter L

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Pope, Greg

    Clarke, Eric (Midtothian)

    Rogers, Allan

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Rowlands, Ted

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Salmond, Alex

    Dafls, Cynog

    Simpson, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Spellar, John

    Dixon, Don

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Dowd, Jim

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Eastham, Ken

    Timms, Stephen

    Flynn, Paul

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Foulkes, George

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Hall, Mike

    Hanson, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That—

    (1) Standing Order No. 98 (Welsh Grand Committee) shall be repealed and Standing Orders A to G below shall have effect;

    (2) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 9, after "business))", by inserting "or a motion in the Welsh Grand Committee under Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business))";

    (3) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) shall be amended, in line 3, after "business))", by inserting "Standing Order (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))"; and

    (4) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.

    A. Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)

    (1) There shall be a standing committee called the Welsh Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with not more than five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged.

    (2) The quorum of the committee shall be seven, subject to paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).

    (3) The business of the committee shall include—

    (a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));

    753

    (b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates));

    (c) ministerial statements proceeded with under Standing Order D (Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements));

    (d) bills referred to it in accordance with Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (bills));

    (e) such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales as may be referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)); and

    (f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, made under paragraph (5) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)).

    (4) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

    B. Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)

    (1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Office ministers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

    (2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Welsh Grand Committee.

    (3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.

    (4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no such question shall be taken later than half an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.

    (5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:

    Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

    C. Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)

    (1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Welsh Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

    (2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to Wales.

    (3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.

    (4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.

    (5)(a) No Member except the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.

    (b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the Minister of the Crown replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other Members may speak for three minutes.

    (c) The chairman may direct any Member who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.

    754

    (6) Notice of subjects under this order may be given 10 sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:

    Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.

    D. Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements)

    (1) The chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, on a matter relating to Wales, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.

    (2) Ministerial statements may be made—

    (a) at the commencement of a sitting; or

    (b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or

    (c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

    (3) Proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.

    (4) A Minister of the Crown making a statement under paragraph (1) of this Order, who is not a Member of the House, may not do so from the body of the committee; and shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.

    E. Welsh Grand Committee (bills)

    (1) A motion, of which at least ten days' notice has been given, may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that a public bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee, and the question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it:

    Provided that no such notice shall be given until the bill has been printed and delivered to the Vote Office.

    (2) The committee shall report to the House either that it recommends that the bill ought to be read a second time or that it recommends that the bill ought not to be read a second time, and in the latter case it shall have power to state its reasons for so recommending.

    (3) Upon a motion being made for the second reading of a bill reported from the committee, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

    F. Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)

    (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

    (2) If such a motion be agreed to, the committee shall consider the matter or matters referred to it and shall report only that it has considered the said matter or matters.

    G. Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)

    (1) A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown providing (or varying previous provision) for the Welsh Grand Committee—

    (a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Wales, the sitting commencing, and proceedings being interrupted, at such hours as shall be specified;

    (b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past ten o'clock, or at half-past ten o'clock and between four o'clock and six o'clock;

    (c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above; and

    (d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Welsh Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified;

    755

    (e) to consider specified bills which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order E (Welsh Grand Committee (bills)) on certain of the days so specified; and

    (f) to consider specified matters which shall have been referred to it under Standing Order F (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales) on certain of the days so specified;

    and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided at any hour, though opposed:

    Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Wales, nor from considering at a sitting in Wales business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.

    (2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Welsh Grand Committee.

    (3) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings (other than on a motion made under paragraph (5) below) at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).

    (4) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned.

    (5) After the interruption of proceedings, or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.

    ESTIMATES [2ND ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]
    It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph ( 5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) and the Order [this day], put forthwith the deferred Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates 1995–96.

    Class XIII, Vote 4
    Question put,
    That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £19,355,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.
    The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 10.

    Division No. 74]

    [10.30 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Alexander, Richard

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Booth, Hartley

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bowis, John

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Brazier, Julian

    Bates, Michael

    Bright, Sir Graham

    756

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Burns, Simon

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Burt, Alistair

    Lidington, David

    Butler, Peter

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Carttiss, Michael

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Luff, Peter

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    MacKay, Andrew

    Coe, Sebastian

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Congdon, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Conway, Derek

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Malone, Gerald

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Cran, James

    Moate, Sir Roger

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

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Devlin, Tim

    Nichcfls, Patrick

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Norris, Steve

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Ottaway, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Paice, James

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Pawsey, James

    Dykes, Hugh

    Richards, Rod

    Elletson, Harold

    Riddick, Graham

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Faber, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Forman, Nigel

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Shepherd, Sir Coiin (Hereford)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    French, Douglas

    Soames Nicholas

    Gallie, Phil

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Garnier, Edward

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Gill, Christopher

    Sproat, Iain

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Stephen, Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Streeter, Gary

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Thomason, Roy

    Harris, David

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Heald, Oliver

    Trend, Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Waller, Gary

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Wells, Bowen

    Jack, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Jessel, Toby

    Wolfson, Mark

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    NOES

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Flynn, Paul

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Foulkes, George

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Maxton, John

    Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Alan Simpson.

    Salmond, Alex

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £19,355,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates &c.).

    ESTIMATES 1996–97 (NAVY) VOTE A
    Resolved,
    That during the year ending on 31st March 1997 a number not exceeding 52,050 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

    ESTIMATES 1996–97 (ARMY) VOTE A
    Resolved,
    That during the year ending on 31st March 1997 a number not exceeding 140,260 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 131,500 for the Individual Reserves, and a number not exceeding 59,000 for the Territorial Army.

    ESTIMATES 1996–97 (AIR) VOTE A
    Resolved,
    That during the year ending on 31st March 1997 a number not exceeding 70,100 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 19,305 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,310 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

    ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1994–95
    Resolved,
    That a sum not exceeding £148,670,792.82 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1995, as set out in House of Commons paper No. 196.

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1995–96
    Resolved,
    That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £3,426,734,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1996, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 197 and 260.
    Ordered,
    That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates 1995–96 and the Estimates, Excesses, 1994–95; And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. Michael Jack do prepare and bring it in.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
    Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1995 and 1996; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

    Pensioner War Veterans
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    10.49 pm
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I wish to take up the case of my constituent, Mr. Jack Conn, which is linked to the cases of many constituents of other hon. Members.
    Mr. Conn served in the Royal Medical Corps from 1 November 1939 to May 1946 and rose to the rank of acting corporal. He saw service in the middle east from 1942, and spent most of the time there until he left the Army.
    Mr. Conn had, by all accounts, a fairly uneventful war, although, being in the Royal Medical Corps, he dealt with many casualties of battles such as El Alamein and beyond. Interestingly, his wife Sheena was the operator who sent the signal that conveyed from General Eisenhower's headquarters in Rheims the historic words:
    "unconditional surrender of all Gennan land, sea and air forces in Europe … all active operations cease".
    That is a small by the bye for my hon. Friend the Minister.
    On 13 June 1994, Mr. Conn, worried that he would have no medals for the 50th anniversary of VE day because they had been stolen from his son's house, contacted the Ministry of Defence medal office, requesting that his 1939–45 star, defence medal, Africa star and war medal be replaced, as they had been stolen in a burglary. They were being stored at his son's house at the time. The property was not insured because he had not believed that he had enough money to insure the medals.
    Mr. Conn received a standard response, advising him that his records would he checked and that he would have to pay a charge to have his medals replaced. He had already sent his AB64 book and he thought that that would cover the search. He received another letter from the Ministry of Defence on 11 October 1994, saying that his records had not been found and asking that he fill in a further questionnaire, although he had already sent his AB64 which he had thought would be enough. The Ministry of Defence still needed more information.
    Mr. Conn contacted me on 5 April 1995, and I went to the MOD and contacted the medal office, enclosing a copy of Mr. Conn's AB64, which he had sent to the MOD the previous year without much success.
    Eventually, on 11 May, I received a letter from my hon. Friend Lord Henley, then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, saying that Mr. Conn's service records were still unavailable, but that he expected that his application for replacement medals would be finalised by July. That was during the 50th anniversary year and obviously it was important that Mr. Conn had the medals in the year.
    On 18 August, I had to write to my noble Friend Earl Howe, who had replaced Lord Henley, asking what had happened to the application as Mr. Conn had heard nothing further from the MOD. On 8 September, my noble Friend responded, confirming that the medals that Mr. Conn was entitled to receive were there and saying that it would cost him £56.95 plus postage to have them sent to him.
    760
    Mr. Conn contacted me again to say that, unfortunately, he was unable to afford that sum at that time and would therefore be unable to claim his medals. Like many people, he was under financial restraints as a pensioner and the charge would, he believed, add to his outgoings and he could not justify it.
    It is interesting to note that when the local pensioner group of which Mr. Conn is a member took up his case, the secretary received a letter from the medal office saying:
    "Free replacements would be an unfair burden on official finances and it would be impossible to manage such a procedure and effect control to avoid abuse."
    It was that statement that annoyed, if not concerned, Mr. Conn, as he felt that he was being dismissed as a problem rather than being seen as part of a previous solution.
    I was subsequently asked by my constituents to petition Parliament. There were 1,400 names on the petition, which I lodged behind the Chair. Many of those names came from outside the constituency and I received a flood a letters at the time from many people laying out similar cases and problems. The petition requested that the House urge the Ministry of Defence to consider the plight of Mr. Conn and others of like disposition, having been awarded medals in recognition of their service in the armed forces of Her Majesty the Queen or her predecessors, and having been deprived of them by unlawful means or by misadventure and now being unable to replace them, and to endeavour to replace those medals. In essence, that is what tonight's debate is about; it is about the spirit behind that petition.
    There was a small press campaign in The Sun to gain support for the cause. I received some fascinating letters as a result of that campaign, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to just one of them. It was from Mrs. Marie Meikleham of Andersonstown, Belfast, who had just paid the same sum for her husband's RAF medals. That amount of money constituted her weekly income from her pension and she felt that, although she had paid it, she had had to make some serious savings elsewhere. Her letter stated:
    "I recently paid £56.89 to the RAF to have my late husband's medals replaced … He died 19 years ago after suffering five heart attacks in six years. Professor Frank Partridge, who was also a prisoner of war in the Far East, and a very well known heart specialist, told us that my husband's heart problems were probably caused by a lack of B1 while a prisoner."
    I do not intend to draw on that letter too much, but it strikes me that Mrs. Meikleham's husband had died and she wished to have some memento of her husband, whose medals had obviously disappeared. She found herself in an invidious position; despite the fact that her husband, like many others, had put his life on the line for this country, she found that she had to pay for the medals. She had to pay what seemed to me to be a reasonably small sum, but was, to her and many like her, a large sum.
    Realising that the problem was so widespread, I presented an early-day motion. To date, about 122 hon. Members have signed it; I asked only about 50 to do so but, remarkably, over the following few weeks, more and more hon. Members went to the Table Office and added their names. That is unusual; I did not chase them, but clearly the cause struck a chord with many of my colleagues.

    761
    I later received a letter from Earl Howe in response to another letter that I sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the cost of the medals. Once again, the Ministry of Defence stayed with the line that the cost of replacing those medals must be borne by the recipient.
    I should like to raise a few thoughts with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Are we going to go through this saga every time we come up to the 50th anniversary of important military actions in which our constituents and their parents have fought—such as those in Korea or Malaysia? If many of those dismissive letters are sent out, it augurs ill for the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and pensioner groups, many of whom include veterans.
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State is perhaps unique in Government in that he is one of a dwindling number of people who have seen service in the armed forces. I hope that he understands the importance of medals to many people—I am pleased to see him on the Front Bench to respond to me tonight.
    Many like Jack Conn were not boy's own heroes, but simply went out and served their country. But it is that very sense of service that is at stake tonight. It is the fact that when their country called on them, they were not found wanting. Many of their friends and colleagues, who will be remembered through the medals, are not here today, because they were not as lucky as Mr. Conn and his like. The medals are a doorway to the past—a way of opening up memories and handing them on to their children.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, I am the last person to ask for increased Government expenditure, and I am not making an exception here. Such a small amount could probably be saved from any number of administrative budgets in almost any Whitehall Department.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The £30 million of compensation to Spanish fishermen, for instance.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend places yet another amount on the table. I should be grateful if that were taken into consideration.
    We set great store by entertaining overseas dignitaries and others. I wonder who comes first at the end of the day, when the budgets come up for grabs.
    I make no apology for calling the debate, or for detaining the House longer than necessary. Although my hon. Friend the Minister is unlikely to accept my suggestion that the Government should find some way of paying for the medals, I urge him to accept the natural justice of the case, and to find some way in which Mr. Conn and others like him can receive their medals so that they need not, in exceptional circumstances, make the invidious choice of doing without medals which are important to them and which they may wish to pass on.
    I hope that all Members of Parliament, from our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister downwards, will consider it fair and reasonable for my hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers to understand the true nature of the
    762
    sacrifice made by these men and women, and will make recompense by giving them what they deserve—their medals—as soon as possible.
    11.1 pm
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate, and on presenting his case in such a measured and moving manner. As a former Scots Guardsman, he is a worthy and eminently well-qualified champion of the cause of our service veterans—and this is not the first representation that he has made on their behalf. He has written to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, laid a substantial petition before the House and tabled an early-day motion which has—as he said—commanded substantial and largely unsought support. I am sure that those who have given a great deal in the service of their country welcome his support, and the robust, clear and sensible way in which he presented his case.
    Campaign medals have been awarded to officers since the Armada, and to other ranks since the battle of Waterloo. Gallantry awards have a similar history: the Crimean war saw the introduction of the distinguished conduct medal for other ranks. All medals are a tangible reminder of gallant exploits, and are naturally a source of considerable pride both to those to whom they are awarded and to their families. After all, they represent public recognition of dedicated and honourable service to the Crown, sometimes in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances. Any of us who saw it need only recall the unbelievable, very moving and memorable sight of the massed ranks of veterans marching on the VE and VJ day parades last year to realise the wholesome pride and inestimable value that veterans rightly attach to their medals.
    Before I deal with the points made by my hon. Friend, let me point out that—as he said—he sees the issue in a broader context than that of Mr. Conn. I trust that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I set out a little of the background. He outlined the details of one case, but I know that he will not wish rime to limit the scope of my response. I hope that what I say will clarify the position of Mr. Conn, whose interests he has represented so tenaciously.
    Our policy on the issue of medals is clear, and has been followed by all Governments. First-issue medals are issued free of charge to recipients; replacements are issued in certain circumstances on a pre-payment basis. All who have qualified for medals receive their awards free of charge. If they are still serving—as is the case with many medals awarded for service in the Falklands, with the coalition forces in the Gulf, in Northern Ireland or, most recently, with the United Nations protection force and the implementation force in Bosnia—service men are given their medals to wear with their uniform by their commanding officers.
    In the case of service rendered during the two world wars, campaign medals were issued after the majority of service men were demobbed. After the first world war, medals were issued to individuals or their next of kin automatically. The situation after the second world war was slightly different, as ex-service men were invited to apply for their medals. Many did and received them at the

    763
    time. Others did not, and it was not until the celebrations last year stimulated, for obvious reasons, wonderful, happy old memories—and not such happy old memories—that many finally came forward. Although, I regret to say, because of that there have been inevitable delays in issuing medals—delays caused by the sudden, immense demand—all those who have made their first application are entitled to free issue of their awards.
    Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the medal offices in Droitwich, Innsworth and Gosport, who have dealt with a huge number of applications in a very short time. Their work has brought great pleasure to many veterans and their families.
    I should stress that, once issued, medals are, in common with any other personal belongings, the responsibility of the recipient. We expect those who are entrusted with their safety, whether veterans or their families, to take reasonable care of them and ensure that they are safe from casual loss. Most people have their medals insured as part of their house contents policy and do not leave them lying about or loan them to others without first considering their safety.
    If an individual chooses not to take such care, or not to take out such a policy, it is entirely his own decision. To do so is not mandatory; nor, of course, am I suggesting that it should be, but there are always those who trust to luck that they will not suffer the unspeakable and unfortunate invasion of privacy or unforeseen disaster that might result in the theft of their valuables and do not make adequate provision for that possibility. My hon. Friend and I would not disagree about that, and such an event is, of course, a tragedy. I have every sympathy for those who suffer what is undeniably a trauma, but we cannot escape the fact that it was entirely due to their free choice.
    I entirely understand and accept that medals will be lost in wholly unforeseen circumstances. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that, despite the very best efforts of those looking after them, some medals will be mislaid through theft, fire, flood or other natural disaster. In such cases, my Department does all that it can to provide replacements where entitlement has been confirmed from surviving service records and where proof of loss has been provided by the claimant. We ask for copies of police reports or insurance claims to prove genuine loss.
    Regrettably, when records are not to hand, the process of reassessment of entitlement can take many months to complete. To ensure that all are treated fairly, claims are dealt with in the strict order that they are received. Nevertheless, we are happy to provide replacements in such cases.
    My hon. Friend will be aware that this policy extends, where medal stocks allow, even to veterans who served as long ago as the first world war. That alone is an extraordinarily remarkable feat—let us not forget that this is for service rendered some 80 years ago. In addition, if the circumstances are as I have outlined, my Department may supply replacement medals to first-generation next of kin.
    I come now to the point of my hon. Friend's complaint. My Department does charge for the costs of replacing lost or stolen medals. Although we freely and willingly issue medals in the first place for nothing, we do not consider it appropriate for the taxpayer to foot the bill for replacements, although I accept what my hon. Friend said about the sum of money involved.
    764
    Replacements for medals lost in circumstances beyond the owner's control are therefore supplied only on pre-payment of the appropriate charge. I understand that this position is shared by the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood, which has confirmed that it is its practice to issue replacement insignia or medals only on pre-payment.
    I fully understand and acknowledge the splendid efforts made by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Conn. I understand that Mr. Conn lost his medals, the 1939–45 star, the Africa star, the defence medal and war medal—all of which are very honourable and form an impressive line-up by anyone's stretch of service—during a burglary at his son's home. The House and I have every sympathy for him. He is, as he knows, entitled to have his medals replaced on pre-payment of £56.95, the cost of the medals and postage. Unfortunately, we cannot make an exception in his case, since to treat an individual specially would be to treat many others unfairly.
    I hasten to add that our policy of charging for the replacement of lost medals is not a new one dreamt up by a wicked, parsimonious Government. As early as 1899, paragraph 2042 of Queen's Regulations stated that
    "replacement at public expense will not be recommended unless the loss is proved to come under (a)",
    that is,
    "when the soldier was on duty and from causes entirely beyond his control".
    We expect that the costs of providing replacement medals, whether to the recipient, serving or non-serving, or to relatives should not be borne by the defence budget. To do so would be a foolish waste of money.
    I make it abundantly clear that, as my hon. Friend will understand, the Ministry of Defence is not in the business of selling campaign medals for profit. We leave that business to independent medal dealers. The charge for replacing medals represents the unit cost of doing so and is carefully costed from different elements.
    Medals are manufactured for us by the Royal Mint, which invoices my Department for its services and for its material costs, including any bullion charges involved. Most campaign medals are, of course, made from base metals, but others have a precious metal content. On top of that, my Department makes a small administrative charge, which is intended to cover purely the staff cost of checking medal entitlement from records kept at the appropriate medal office, or, more expensively, of recovering an individual's service records from the archives. My hon. Friend will know better than me that that is an appallingly difficult task. Finally, value added tax will be charged if the recipient resides in the United Kingdom.
    My hon. Friend may be aware that the value of medals can vary widely, even though the prices charged by my Department for certain categories of medal do not. For example, second world war campaign stars, which are issued in significant numbers, like the 1939–45 star or the France and Germany star, have only a marginal "collectors" value once they appear on the open market. In contrast, medals that were issued far less frequently, like the Aircrew Europe star, are worth more than £100 in a dealer's window, yet all three medals are issued as replacements on the pre-payment of just under £13. As my hon. Friend will realise, that is hardly the action of an organisation that seeks to amass profit.

    765
    In recent years, an increasing number of veterans have reported the loss of their medals for a variety of reasons. Apart from those such as theft or fire, for which little blame could be attached to the owner, other reasons cited have been house moves, medals being pawned or sold by the family or, understandably, medals being mislaid over the passage of time. I regret that, where the loss was avoidable or through simple carelessness, replacement medals clearly cannot be provided.
    That will appear harsh on the face of it, but there are sound reasons for that stance. British campaign medals are highly prized, not in monetary terms, but because of what they represent. They are approved by the sovereign and granted for specific service where the rigours and hardship of campaigns justify national recognition. If we were to supply replacement medals on demand, without thought or care as to how the originals have been lost, the honours system's integrity would be undermined. We know that some individuals seek to abuse the system by falsely claiming replacement medals as spares, or more cynically for monetary gain. That is clearly unacceptable.
    The onus must be on the owner to take good care of medals awarded by the sovereign on the nation's behalf in gratitude for loyal service. It would be wrong, after all, to use up stocks of medals by issuing them to people who had mislaid them at the expense of people awaiting their first issue.
    I am glad that I have had the chance once again to pay tribute to the people who have given such service to this country over the years. I am grateful to my hon. Friend
    766
    for allowing me the opportunity to set out my Department's policy. Although some medals have a high collectors value, it is the emotional and sentimental attachments of those emblems of past honour that are so important and I accept that they are what is so important to Mr. Conn and to his family. I am pleased to report that medals for service rendered many years previously are still available to people entitled to receive them. I confirm that it is the policy that first-issue medals are distributed by a grateful nation free of any charge and I hope that that will always happen.
    It is entirely reasonable, however, for the Ministry of Defence to seek pre-payment for any replacement medals that are issued to recipients or their next of kin, following loss beyond their control. I do not consider it an appropriate charge to the taxpayer to pay for such replacements. If people choose not to protect their valuables through a simple insurance policy, that is their choice. If they do not take out insurance, they must be prepared to pay for replacement medals.
    As I have said, no one is better qualified or more suited to raise such a matter than my hon. Friend. I hope that he will understand that I deeply regret that I am not able to accede to his request in this case. He has done a signal and valuable service in raising the matter. We have dealt with Mr. Conn's case, as we deal with all medal cases, with great care and diligence. I am most grateful, as I am sure is the House, to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter of behalf of his constituent.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Office Space
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to buy or rent office space in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. [19363]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's Department, including its executive agencies, has no plans to rent or buy office accommodation in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in the immediate future.

  Transsexuals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent from public funds in the last two financial years on cases brought by transsexuals in the European Court. [19259]

  The Attorney-General
  Legal costs amounting to £7,357 were incurred for the purposes of the Government's intervention in one case in the European Court of Justice.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been expended from public funds in each of the last five financial years in defence of actions brought by transsexuals against the Government or their Departments. [19258]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested by the hon. Member is contained in my letter of 4 March to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), which has been placed in the Libraries of the House. In summary, the total cost so far of the three current cases alleging breaches of the European convention on human rights is £26,245. The cost of the recent unsuccessful application for judicial review against the registrar general was £14,597. The cost of proceedings for unfair dismissal brought by a person who was dismissed by the Prison Service was £28,260.

TREASURY

  Factor 8
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on charging value added tax on(a) recombinant factor 8 and (b) plasma-derived factor 8; how much of each is (i) exported and (ii) imported annually; and what revenue accrues to the Exchequer as a result. [19565]
  414
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Human blood and substances derived from it, including plasma-derived factor 8, are exempt from VAT under items 6 and 7 of group 7 of schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Recombinant factor 8, being synthetic and not derived from human blood, does not fall within the exemption. Its taxable treatment is the same as that of other drugs and therapeutic products, both here and in other EC member states in accordance with the sixth VAT directive of 1977.

  There are no official import or export data relating to these specific products.

  The application of the standard rate of VAT to recombinant factor 8 is estimated to raise approximately £1.2 million per year.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue from the extension of value added tax to(a) newspapers, (b) children's shoes and (c) other exempt items. [19323]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The tax ready reckoner and tax reliefs, published by Her Majesty's Treasury in July 1995, shows that the estimated cost of not applying standard rate VAT to certain groups of expenditure is as follows:

  £ million 1995–96

  (a) Books, newspapers and magazines

  1,200

  (b) Children's clothing and footwear

  750

  (c) Other zero and reduced rate items

  15,700

  Exempt items

  5,750

  These figures make no allowance for changes in consumer behaviour.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19415]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As the table shows, seven written parliamentary questions and 99 letters from Members have been referred to the executive agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer since the arrangements for delegating replies to agencies were introduced in October and December 1992 respectively:

  Year

  Written Questions

  Letters

  1992

  3

  —

  1993

  —

  16

  1994

  —

  45

  1995

  2

  36

  1996 to date

  2

  2

  7

  99

  415
  These are tiny proportions of Members' 7,500 written questions and 60,200 letters to Treasury Ministers over this period.

ENVIRONMENT

  Cumbria County Council
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that public money allocated by Cumbria county council for the funding of trade union duties has not been spent on those trade union activities for which public money is not permitted to be used. [18813]

  Mr. Gummer
  I am sure my right hon. Friend will want to draw his concerns to the attention of the independent auditor of the county council, who is empowered to act in cases of illegal expenditure.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has issued to local authorities about the form in which they record expenses arising from their responsibilities to asylum seekers following the implementation of new benefit regulations on 5 February. [19612]

  Mr. Curry
  An official in my Department wrote to all directors of housing in English local authorities on 12 February to advise them about information that they could collect. I am placing a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Officers (Pay)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the statutory obligations on local authorities to publish the salaries and other employment costs of senior local government officers; and what assessment he has made of the availability of such information to the public. [19617]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have today laid before Parliament the Accounts and Audit Regulations 1996 which will require the annual statement of accounts of local authorities to disclose the number of employees whose remuneration falls in each bracket of a scale in multiples of £10,000 starting with £40,000. "Remuneration" means all amounts paid to or receivable by an employee, including the estimated money value of any benefits received or receivable otherwise than in cash. These new requirements will apply for the first time to the financial year 1996–97. Local authority statements of accounts will continue to be required to be published and to be available for public inspection.

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19458]
  416
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information which identifies externally purchased computer processing is available only for 1991–92 to 1995–96.

  The only external processing in this period provided by other departments was the payroll processing service from the Treasury Chessington Computer Centre and the superannuation service from the Paymaster General's Office.

  Contracts with private sector contractors in this period were:

  Contractor

  Project

  Expenditure per annum £

  F International

  Construction industry consultants and contractors registers

  110,000

  CFM

  Construction industry consultants and contractors registers

  180,000

  CAM Ltd.

  National dwelling and household survey

  3,000

  Peter Peregrinus Ltd.

  Environmental research in Britain database

  70,000

  Flags
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 747, what distinction is made between the flags of sovereign nations and states and those of non-sovereign nations, British dependencies, territories or colonies. [19606]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The provision in schedule 2—class 1—to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 refer to "the national flag of any country", without further interpretation. It would be for the court to interpret how these provisions should apply to a particular flag. No judicial authority is known to my Department.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has recently received from the Fire Brigades Union; and if he will make a statement. [19752]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Fire Brigades Union has made representations to the Department on overall fire service funding for 1996–97, on the fire service college and on the report of the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement in the UK. Overall fire service funding and the fire service college are matters for the Home Secretary. The Government's response to the report of the interdepartmental review will be given as soon as possible.

  Leghold Traps
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the outcome of the discussions relating to animal leghold traps at the Environment Council on Monday 4 March. [20209]
  417
  Mr. Gummer
  As a result of UK representations, supported by the Ministers of several other member states, the Commission was invited to produce a fixed timetable as soon as possible for the negotiations that it is conducting with the fur-producer countries. The Council also accepted unanimously the UK's proposals that the import ban on furs obtained by leghold traps should come into force on 1 January 1997, unless this final attempt at a negotiated agreement with the producer states on the introduction of alternative humane traps succeeds.

  Released Animals (Disease)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on protocols to reduce the risk of disease from released animals being transferred to their own kind in the wild, or to species other than their own. [17908]

  Mr. Clappison
  No research has been commissioned into the risks of disease transference from released animals either to their own kind or to other species.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the Housing Bill were considered in environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [19544]

  (2) if the Housing Bill has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by his Department; [19543]

  (3) how the Housing Bill was modified by the results of environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [19545]

  (4) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the Housing Bill. [19546]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Housing Bill, introduced into Parliament on 18 January, implements policies set out in the White Paper, "Our Future Homes", published in June 1995. Referring to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to the hon. Lady on Wednesday 22 November 1995,Official Report column 114, environmental considerations were taken into account in the preparation of this White Paper, and a specific chapter on "Housing and the Environment" set out the Government's aim of meeting demand for housing in an environmentally sustainable way.

  The specific provisions in the Bill do not have significant environmental implications. The environmental and sustainable development implications of housing policy more generally will, however, continue to be kept under review, in accordance with the Department's guidance.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the environmental appraisal conducted under the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" published by his Department on the forthcoming proposals to revise the outdoor advertisement control regime. [19579]
  418
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The consultation paper entitled "Outdoor Advertisement Control: Areas of Special Control of Advertisements" is intended to contribute to the policy appraisal process. The paper and the accompanying research consultants' report outline the environmental consequences of possible changes to the areas of special advertisement control regime. The responses to consultation will help to complete the appraisal process before my right hon. Friend's decision is taken.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the environmental appraisal conducted under the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" published by his Department on the forthcoming guidance to the Environment Agency. [19578]

  Mr. Clappison
  An environmental appraisal conducted according to "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" was not appropriate for the forthcoming guidance to the Environment Agency. The guidance was concerned not with identifying and judging policy options but rather with advising the agency on its objectives and the contribution it should make towards achieving sustainable development.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how the Housing Contracts, Construction and Development Bill was modified by the results of environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [19541]

  (2) if the Housing Contracts, Construction and Development Bill has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by his Department; [19539]

  (3) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the Housing Contracts, Construction and Development Bill; [19542]

  (4) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the Housing Contracts, Construction and Development Bill were considered in environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department. [19540]

  Mr. Clappison
  The housing provisions within the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill implements policies set out in the White Paper, "Our Future Homes", published in June 1995. Referring to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to the hon. Lady on Wednesday 22 November 1995,Official Report, column 114, environmental considerations were taken into account in the preparation of this White Paper, and a specific chapter on "Housing and the Environment" set out the Government's aim of meeting demand for housing in an environmentally sustainable way.

  Of the other provisions, the Bill will enable a wider range of energy saving measures to become eligible for grants made in connection with the home energy efficiency scheme. The proposed powers for financial assistance under the single regeneration budget will support activities that help to create an attractive and safe environment. The other provisions within the Bill have little or no environmental impact.
  419
  In implementing the policies and provisions within this Bill, environmental and sustainable development considerations will be assessed in accordance with the Department's guidance as it relates to each policy area. For example, successful schemes under the single regeneration budget challenge fund will be monitored to ensure that the intended outputs, including improvements to land and buildings, waste management, recycling schemes, etcetera, are achieved.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of "Policy Guidelines for the Coast"; [19526]

  (2) "Policy Guidelines for the Coast" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and Environment"; and if he will publish the appraisal; [19523]

  (3) What alternative courses of action from those detailed in "Policy Guidelines for the Coast" were considered in the environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [19524]

  (4) how "Policy Guidelines for the Coast" was modified by the results of environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department. [19525]

  Mr. Clappison
  An environmental appraisal conducted according to "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" was not appropriate for the recent DOE publication "Policy Guidelines for the Coast" as this set out—in summary form—existing policies on the various issues described.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the draft circular "Local Government Change and the planning system" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by his Department; [19531]

  (2) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the draft circular "Local Government Change and the Planning System" were considered in environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [19532]

  (3) how the draft circular "Local Government Change and the Planning System" was modified by the results of any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [19533]

  (4) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the draft circular "Local Government Change and the Planning System". [19534]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An environmental appraisal conducted according to "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" was not appropriate for the consultation draft circular "Local Government Change and the Planning System". The draft circular is not concerned with identifying and judging new planning policies; its purpose is to explain how development plan functions and procedures will be affected by changes made following the Local Government Commission's review of local government structure, and how transitional regulations will enable work in progress on development plans to continue after those changes come into effect.
  420
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the consultation paper, "Planning Obligations"—draft revised DOE circular 16/91—has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by his Department; [19535]

  (2) how the consultation paper "Planning Obligations"—draft revised DOE circular 16/91— was modified by the results of environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [19537]

  (3) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the consultation paper "Planning Obligations"—draft revised DOE circular 16/91—were considered in environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [19536]

  (4) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the consultation paper "Planning Obligations"—draft revised DOE circular 16/91. [19538]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An environmental appraisal conducted according to "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" was not appropriate for the consultation draft circular "Planning Obligations"—proposed as a replacement for DOE circular 16/91. The draft revised circular is not concerned with identifying and judging new planning policies; its purpose is rather to reaffirm the advice contained in circular 16/91 in the light of recent legal decisions and to clarify existing guidance on detailed matters.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the results of the environmental appraisal conducted under the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" published by his Department on the forthcoming consultation paper on draft hedgerow regulations. [19577]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government expressed their commitment to the protection of key hedgerows in the 1990 White Paper "This Common Inheritance". This commitment was renewed in 1994 when the results of a survey into hedgerow changes between 1990 and 1993 were published. The report showed that, although the rate of hedgerow removal has slowed and was now broadly balanced by that for new planting, hedgerows of key importance were still at risk. Consideration of the environmental impacts that would result if action was not taken to address this trend has therefore been a major factor throughout the development of our policy, and will inform the forthcoming consultation paper on hedgerow protection regulations. The regulations themselves will be introduced only after careful consideration of all responses received.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the savings to business from the Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996. [19500]

  Mr. Clappison
  The estimated saving to business that will result from this order is £68,000 per annum.
  421

  Waste Classification
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects the report on the consultation exercise on the system for classifying waste for the national waste classification system; and if he will publish the results; [19692]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to extend the scope of the proposed category 1 of the system for classifying waste for the national waste classification system to include salt purification waste; [19696]

  (3) if he will change the emphasis in the system for classifying wastes for the national waste classification system between the natural qualities of the material and their disposal method and the process through which they may pass. [19697]

  Mr. Clappison
  The national waste classification scheme is being introduced with several aims:

  to provide a means to describe waste consistently that will assist waste producers and the waste management industry in assessing the wastes they have to deal with;

  to help promote consistency of waste management licensing and the effectiveness of the duty of care; and

  to assist the new environment agencies in their waste management planning roles to provide the sort of information on the production and management of waste that is needed for the development of sound waste strategies at both local and national level.

  Grade

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Scientists

  Engineers

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Grade 4

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  4

  8

  5

  9

  7

  6

  10

  7

  8

  6

  7

  6

  Grade 6

  19

  31

  20

  27

  22

  24

  23

  23

  23

  22

  22

  23

  Grade 7

  68

  90

  70

  88

  75

  94

  83

  85

  80

  80

  78

  72

  SEO and equivalent

  42

  58

  85

  63

  107

  70

  110

  69

  114

  69

  110

  62

  HEO and equivalent

  14

  12

  14

  14

  19

  13

  20

  10

  12

  8

  11

  2

  EO and equivalent

  0

  5

  0

  12

  0

  19

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  AO and equivalent

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AA and equivalent

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Allason
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to amend the public interest immunity certificates issued in the litigation brought by Andrew Balfour. [18811]

    Mr. Hanley
    The public interest immunity certificates issued have been upheld by the Court of Appeal, and there are no plans to amend them.
    422
    The stage 2 consultation paper on the national waste classification scheme classifies waste by both the intrinsic properties and its origins. I propose to keep to these principles in the third stage of consultation.

    Responses to stage 2 of the consultation exercise, including those about the classification of salt purification waste, are being considered. The results will be published next month as part of the third stage of consultation. This will involve the introduction of the scheme on a non-statutory basis from April, so that its use can be fully assessed.

    Water (Conservation and Consumer Choice) Bill
    Mr. Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing the Water (Conservation and Consumer Choice) Bill. [19779]

    Mr. Clappison
    [holding answer 8 March 1996]: The Department has received about 3,000 representations to date. Almost all have been inspired by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds' campaign, which urges members to write in support of the Bill. The majority of the representations dealt with reflect that view.

    Scientists and Engineers
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in the headquarters division of his Department in each year from 1991 to the current year. [19801]

    Sir Paul Beresford
    The following information gives the numbers of professional scientists and engineers each year from 1991 to the current year.

    Iran
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the introduction of international trade sanctions against Iran. [19762]

    Mr. Hanley
    We have a number of serious concerns about Iranian policy which we and our European Union partners make clear to the Iranian Government. Exports to Iran are strictly controlled. But we do not believe that an international trade embargo would be practicable.
    423

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 31 January,Official Report, column 766, if he will ensure that no licences will be granted for export of equipment to the former Yugoslavia that could be used in the development of indigenous arms industries. [19956]

    Mr. David Davis
    We will consider all export licence applications for defence equipment to the former Yugoslavia on a case by case basis as explained in the answer to which the hon. Member refers.

    For the duration of the implementation force's deployment, our primary objective will be the safety of British troops.

    Kenya
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote increased investment from the United Kingdom to Kenya; and if he will make a statement. [17102]

    Mr. Nelson
    I have been asked to reply.

    My Department, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, is offering assistance to the Kenyan Government in their efforts to attract investment through financial and technical assistance and the introduction of key Kenyan individuals to UK organisations for attracting inward investment. We are also making potential UK investors aware of the opportunities in Kenya through our trade promotion programme.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Rowe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Sierra Leone with particular reference to allegations of breaches of human rights. [19342]

    Mr. Hanley
    Any lasting improvement in the political and human rights situations in Sierra Leone depends on the restoration of accountable, civilian government and an end to the rebel war. We therefore welcome the elections held on 26 and 27 February as well as the opening of peace talks between Sierra Leone authorities and the Revolutionary United Front.

    Mr. Omar al Hassan
    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about Mr. Omar al Hassan; and if he will make a statement. [17855]

    Mr. Hanley
    From time to time, this Department receives information about Dr. al Hassan and the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies.
    424

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    British Coal Enterprise
    Mr. Battle
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) upon what criteria the successful bids for British Coal Enterprise will be chosen; and if he will make a statement; [19894]

    (2) how many bids have been made for British Coal Enterprise; and by whom. [19893]

    Mr. Page
    The sale of British Coal Enterprise is a matter for British Coal. I understand, however, that the corporation has announced that two management buy-out teams have been identified as preferred bidders for the business funding and outplacement arms of BCE. Discussions will be continuing with a number of parties about the sale of the company's property portfolio.

    When launching the sales process for BCE, British Coal indicated that it would be considering proposals for the company in the light of its statutory duties and the importance of ensuring continuation of effective assistance to coalfield communities.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many bids(a) he has received, (b) he has rejected and (c) are still under consideration for British Coal Enterprise; and if he will make a statement; [19127]

    (2) what criteria the bidding party has to fulfil to be accepted as the buyer of British Coal Enterprise; and if he will make a statement; [19128]

    (3) if he will make it his policy that the present level of economic regeneration in coal mining communities be maintained after the sale of British Coal Enterprise; [19129]

    (4) if the sale of British Coal Enterprise will go ahead if the European Commission requires repayment of some or all of European regional development fund loans; [19130]

    (5) if he will make it his policy that the money generated from the sale of British Coal Enterprise be used on new projects to regenerate coalfield areas; and if he will make a statement; [19131]

    (6) if he will make it a condition of sale of British Coal Enterprise that the buyer will retain its activities in the United Kingdom coalfields; and if he will make a statement; [19132]

    (7) what extra funding the coalfield areas fund will receive after the sale of British Coal Enterprise; [19133]

    (8) when he will announce which bid has won the contract to buy British Coal Enterprise. [19134]

    Mr. Page
    The sale of British Coal Enterprise is a matter for British Coal. When launching the sales process, British Coal indicated that it would be considering proposals for the BCE in the light of its statutory duties and the importance of ensuring continuation of effective assistance to coalfield communities.

    The Government's continuing support for economic regeneration in the coalfields is provided through regional selective assistance and the single regeneration budget, in addition to the availability of European structural funds.
    425
    Where projects supported by ERDF grant or the associated grant payments are complete, the Government do not believe that the sale of BCE or of its workspace activities, will affect the status of the projects or of the grants, provided that the assets continue to be used for eligible purposes and in accordance with the terms of the relevant offers of grant.

    Where projects supported by ERDF grant or the associated grant payments are not complete, or where offers of grant are still to be made in response to applications from BCE, the Government will seek assurances from any prospective purchaser of BCE, or of its work space activities, that it will complete the projects in accordance with the terms of the offer of ERDF grant, continue to use the assets for eligible purposes and comply with the other requirements, both of the Government and of European Community law, as they relate to the offer of those grants.

    The corporation has announced that two management buy-out teams have been identified as preferred bidders for for the business funding and outplacement arms of BCE. Discussions will be proceeding with a number of parties about the sale of the company's property portfolio. The corporation expects that the process will be concluded at or shortly after the end of March 1996.

    Scott Inquiry
    Mr. Clwyd
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade, 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. [17418]

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 26 February 1996]: The Principal Clerk to the Table Office gave evidence in 1972 to a Select Committee appointed
    "to consider the practice and procedure in relation to Questions and Question Time",
    giving a list of matters about which successive Administrations have refused to answer. This list is referred to in the current edition of "Erskine May." Subjects listed under the Department of Trade and Industry are as follows:

    Commercial activities of the Overseas Marketing Corporation

    Trade Statistics for Scotland

    Financial support for trade fairs in the UK

    Relations between ECGD and individual exporters

    Reasons for refusal to refer mergers to monopolies Commission

    Names of complainants about companies

    Day to day matters for the English Tourist Board

    Details of defence research establishments

    Details of research contracts

    Forecasts of price movements

    Advice from Economic Planning Councils

    Details of financial assistance to individual companies

    Individual applicants for IDCs

    Details of export licenses

    Details of air miss inquiries

    Individual transactions between National Film Finance
    Corporation and Customers.

    426
    Some of these subjects no longer fall within the responsibilities of my Department.

    On 9 November 1979, the then Secretary of State for Trade and the Under-Secretary of State for Industry stated that it was not possible to provide an exhaustive list of subjects on which they would decline to answer and that each question would be considered on its merits, Official Report, columns 365 and 338. This is still the case.

    Warren Springs Laboratory
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the research projects relating to the aviation industry undertaken by the Warren Springs laboratory in the five years prior to its closure. [19086]

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Departmental Equipment and Furniture
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [19040]

    Mr. John M. Taylor
    Details of equipment stolen or otherwise unaccounted for from the Department during the last five years are set out.

    All incidents involving losses exceeding £5,000 are listed individually, to the nearest £1,000.

    Value £

    1991–92

    It equipment incidents: 24

    30,000

    Other equipment incidents: 46

    66,000

    Items over £5,000: Theft of chairs

    49,000

    1992–93

    It equipment incidents: 11

    15,000

    Other equipment incidents: 5

    1,000

    Items over £5,000: Theft of personal computers

    7,000

    1993–94

    IT equipment incidents: 20

    59,000

    Other equipment incidents: 35

    9,000

    Items over £5,000: Theft of computer chips

    42,000

    1994–95

    It equipment incidents: 35

    69,000

    Other equipment incidents: 26

    17,000

    Items over £5,000: Theft of vehicle

    5,000

    Theft of computer components

    26,000

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library for each of the local education authority areas participating in her scheme for early years education, the names of the providers who have agreed to supply
    427
    existing, or new places, for the scheme together with the number of full-time equivalent places offered and the nature of their settings. [17869]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    [holding answer 28 February 1996]: A list of providers classified by type has been placed in the Library of the House. The estimated number of four-year-olds in the maintained sector in each of the phase 1 authorities is listed below.

    LEA

    Estimates number of four year-olds in maintained provision at January 1995

    Kensington and Chelsea

    800

    Wandsworth

    2,600

    Westminster

    1,100

    Norfolk

    6,300

    Travel to Interview Scheme
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors underlay her decision to extend the qualifying period of unemployment to be eligible for assistance under the travel to interview scheme from four to 13 weeks. [19101]

    Mr. Forth
    From April 1996, the travel to interview scheme will form part of a package of measures for people who have been unemployed for 13 weeks. It will support jobseeker's who are required to widen their search for jobs after they have been unemployed for 13 weeks and who, after the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, will be interviewed and expected to review their jobseeker's agreement at that point.

    Youth Training (South Yorkshire)
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many eligible young people in(a) Doncaster and (b) the Mexborough area of South Yorkshire are currently unable to obtain a place on a youth training scheme; and what this figure was 12 months ago. [19350]

    Mr. Paice
    The information is not available in the format requested.

    In the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council area, no young person within the youth training guarantee group was awaiting a place on youth training at January 1996. At the same time last year only one young person in the guarantee group had been waiting more than eight weeks for a training place.

    Computers
    Mr. Miller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19466]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    428

    Access to Work
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) of 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 738, what research her Department has undertaken into how many people will not be able to participate in the access to work scheme as a result of the priority setting; and if she will review the possibility of making available extra funding for the scheme. [19321]

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

    Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 11 March 1996:

    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about research into the number of people participating in the Access to Work programme; and about funding for the programme.

    We have not undertaken research into how many people will not be able to particpate in the programme as a result of the priority setting announced by the secretary of state on 14 December; although we know that about 80% of new applicants were employed.

    The report of major research on Access to Work overall after its first year of operation will be published imminently.

    By the end of January 1996 12,749 people (of whom 8,799 were new applicants) had been helped by Access to Work compared to 10,394 in the whole of 1994/5. Significant extra funds have been provided to make this possible.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in her Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19427]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Devlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional assisted places are to be made available, by school, in the north of England. [19622]

    Mrs. Gillan
    The information requested for schools already participating in the assisted places scheme is given in the table:

    Number of additional entry places in September 1996

    North-east

    Barnard Castle school

    10

    Central Newcastle high school

    5

    Dame Allan's boys' school

    7

    Dame Allan's girls' school

    7

    King's school, Tynemouth

    28

    Newcastle upon Tyne church high

    30

    Polam Hall school

    10

    429

    Number of additional entry places in September 1996

    Royal Grammar school

    5

    Teeside high

    7

    Yarm school

    10

    North-west

    Arnold school

    25

    Austin Friars school

    8

    Belverdere school

    20

    Birkenhead high school

    5

    Birkenhead school

    5

    Bolton school boys' division

    10

    Bolton school girls' division

    10

    Bury Grammar school (boys)

    10

    Bury Grammar school (girls)

    10

    Casterton school

    8

    Cheadle Hulme School

    5

    Hulme Grammar school for boys

    5

    Hulme Grammar school for girls

    5

    King Edward VII school

    5

    King's school Chester

    4

    King's school Macclesfield

    35

    Kirkham Grammar

    5

    Manchester Grammar school

    10

    Manchester High school for girls

    10

    Merchant Taylors' boys' school

    20

    Merchant Taylors' school for girls

    15

    Queen Elizabeth's Grammar school

    20

    Queen Mary school

    10

    Sedbergh school

    15

    St. Ambrose college

    22

    St. Bede's college

    25

    St. Bees

    4

    St. Edward's

    25

    Stockport Grammar school

    5

    Stonyhurst college

    29

    Westholme school

    40

    William Hulme's Grammar

    30

    Withington Girls' school

    3

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    Ashville college

    13

    Batley Grammar school

    30

    Bootham

    12

    Bradford Girls' Grammar school

    3

    Bradford Grammar school

    20

    Giggleswick school

    10

    Harrogate Ladies' college

    14

    Hymers college

    5

    Leeds Girls' high school

    5

    Leeds Grammar school

    15

    Mount school

    13

    Queen Elizabeth Grammar school

    10

    Scarborough college

    33

    Sheffield High school for girls

    12

    St. Peter's school

    5

    Wakefield girls' high school

    10

    Woodhouse Grove

    5

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce shortly the allocation of a further 1,100 entry places in September 1996 at 60 or so schools in England not currently participating in the scheme.

    Higher Education Funding (London)
    Ms Hodge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the recurrent and formula capital grant for each higher education
    430
    institution in London for 1995–96 and 1996–97, (b) the percentage variation in the level of grants between these years and (c) the total figures for institutions in Greater London. [19658]

    Mr. Forth
    This information was published on 29 February and communicated to institutions by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in its circular 4/96, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

    Jobcentres (Lancashire)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many complaints were received about the services provided by jobcentres in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; [19628]

    (2) what assessments she has made of the performance of jobcentres in (a) Burnley, (b) Pendle and (c) Rossendale measured against charter standards in the last 12 months.

    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.

    Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 11 March 1996:

    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your two recent written questions. The first concerned the number of complaints received about the services offered by Jobcentres in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale areas. The second question asked what assessment had been made of the performance of these Jobcentres against Charter standards.

    As both questions relate to information obtained through monitoring performance against the Jobseeker's Charter, I am dealing with both questions in this reply.

    The Jobseeker's Charter sets out obligations both of the Employment Service (ES) to deliver services, and of its clients. It informs jobseekers about the standards of service they can expect when visiting or calling ES offices, the help we provide, and what we expect from our clients. It is a valuable medium to demonstrate to jobseekers and others that ES is committed to looking at the services we provide, and that we actively seek to improve our standards, where possible. As part of this process, complaints about our services and suggestions for improving them are encouraged and welcomed.

    Jobseeker's Charter statistical and monitoring returns are completed on a quarterly basis and, during the 12 months ended December 1995, within the Burnley ES District (which covers the areas of Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale), 61 complaints were recorded.

    This should be viewed in the context of staff in the district making 120,000 job submissions and conducting over 29,000 advisory interviews during that period. You should also be aware that 45 letters were received, complimenting the ES on the service it provides locally.

    As well as recording suggestions and complaints, the ES currently monitors performance against five standards of service set out in its Jobseeker's Charter. These are:

    Telephone answering times (within 30 seconds)

    Waiting times (Clients to be seen within 10 minutes)

    Answering correspondence (replies to written correspondence within 5 working days)

    Currency of vacancies (during a sample week)

    Speed and accuracy of payments

    431
    The performance levels achieved by Jobcentres in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale in the last four quarters is detailed below. Unfortunately, some of these standards are monitored at District, rather than Jobcentre, level, so the performance information contained in the table relates to all nine offices in the Burnley ES District, rather than just those in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale.

    Burnley ES District

    Percentage

    Quarter ending

    Standard

    March 1995

    June 1995

    September 1995

    December 1995

    Telephone answering time

    100

    96.5

    85

    92.8

    Waiting time

    90

    99

    97.1

    99.4

    Answering correspondence

    100

    100

    100

    100

    Currency of vacancies

    96

    95.9

    96

    94

    Speed and accuracy of payment

    96.3

    97.4

    95.8

    100

    Performance against standards is regularly reviewed by ES managers and improvements are continually sought where possible. I hope this is helpful.

    Age of Transfer, Burnham
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to determine the proposals from Buckinghamshire county council for a change in age of transfer in the Burnham area. [19442]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will determine these proposals as quickly as is compatible with a full and careful consideration of all comments made and the educational issues involved.

    Higher education awards: Students domiciled in Wales

    Mandatory

    Discretionary

    Total

    Academic year

    1Awards (000)

    2Average grant (£)

    1Awards (000)

    2Average grant (£)

    1Awards (000)

    Full-time and sandwich HE students (000)

    1989–90

    28.4

    1,540

    1.2

    1,630

    29.6

    31.0

    1990–91

    30.9

    1,590

    1.7

    1,670

    32.6

    34.4

    1991–92

    34.8

    1,620

    1.4

    1,830

    36.2

    38.7

    1992–93

    39.6

    1,690

    1.1

    1,760

    40.7

    43.2

    1993–94

    42.3

    1,740

    0.3

    1,840

    42.6

    47.7

    Notes:

    1 Awards made by local education authorities to students normally domiciled in Wales irrespective of their place of study; includes placement year sandwich students.

    2 Average net maintenance grant paid by LEAs (to the nearest £10); excludes fees and placement year sandwich students

    Source:

    F503G, FESR, USR and HESA.

    Scientists and Engineers
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in the headquarters division of her Department in each year from 1991 to the current year.[19800]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    There are no practicing professional scientists working in the Department for Education and Employment. The number of professional engineers is shown in the table:
    432

    Teacher Training Agency
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria have been used by the Teacher Training Agency to appoint the members of the working groups which will develop draft standards for teachers; and if she will list the membership of each group and their professional qualifications. [19441]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    I will ask the chairman of the Teacher Training Agency, Mr. Geoffrey Parker, to write to the hon. Member as soon as the membership of the groups is finalised.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in higher education in Wales have received(a) mandatory and (b) discretionary grants in each of the last five years; what percentage of students this represents in each case; and what is the annual average amount of the grant in each case in each of the last five years. [19921]

    Mr. Forth
    The information requested for the academic years 1989–90 to 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available, is given in the following table. Since 1990–91, eligible students have also had access to non means-tested student loans. It is not possible to say what percentage of students received awards because some awards are made to students in private institutions for which population data are not available. The number of full-time and sandwich students in the final column is therefore given for illustration only.

    Number of staff by grade

    Date

    Grade 7 engineer

    Grade 6 engineer

    Senior professional and technology officer

    1 January1991

    1

    0

    2

    1 January 1992

    1

    0

    1

    1 January 1993

    1

    0

    1

    1 January 1994

    1

    0

    1

    1 January 1995

    0

    1

    1

    1 January 1996

    0

    1

    1

    There are other professionally qualified engineers and scientists working in mainstream grades, but information on these staff is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    433

    Student Loans
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in higher education in Wales have received loans from the Student Loans Company in each year that it has been granting them; and what has been the percentage of students claiming in each year and the annual average amount of the loan. [19922]

    Mr. Forth
    The information requested is given in the table. Figures are shown from the academic year 1990–91, when the student loan scheme was introduced, to 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available.

    Student loans made to students studying in Wales

    Academic year

    Number of loans taken out

    Loans as a percentage of eligible students (Percentage)

    Average loan £

    1990–91

    7,100

    22

    384

    1991–92

    10,900

    29

    524

    1992–93

    15,900

    36

    643

    1993–94

    20,500

    42

    721

    1994–95

    26,500

    51

    1,018

    Sources:

    Student Loans Company, Welsh Office, Higher Educational Statistical Agency.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Plutonium
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to take up the recent suggestion by the United States Government regarding the declassification of hitherto secret data on plutonium to encourage other nations with military plutonium stocks to declassify and release similar data. [20267]

    The Prime Minister
    It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of the United Kingdom's stocks of fissile materials held for defence purposes.

    Hong Kong (Visit)
    Mr. Parry
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong. [19665]

    The Prime Minister
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) on 7 March,Official Report, columns 315–16.

    Royal Residences
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those members of the royal family living in accommodation a contribution to the upkeep of which is made from public funds. [19649]

    The Prime Minister
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 13 February,Official Report, column 547.
    434

    Weapons Licensing
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make the Ministry of Defence the licensing authority in respect of weapons and goods licensable under the military list. [17207]

    The Prime Minister
    I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February,Official Report, columns 589–604. The Department of Trade and Industry is to undertake a review of the current export control powers and procedures, following which a consultation paper will be produced.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Hall
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a list of Ministers who have requested prior assent from the Prime Minister, under "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", paragraph 75, for payment from public funds to meet the expenses of special advisers whose salary is not met from public funds accompanying Ministers on overseas visits; and if he will indicate which requests were granted and which were refused for each year since 1990. [17495]

    The Prime Minister
    None.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of European Community legislation has been simplified or repealed in the past year, as referred to in his oral answer of 12 April 1994,Official Report, column 18. [19618]

    The Prime Minister
    The answer that I gave on 12 April 1994 refers to the Commission estimate of the reduction in the volume of EC legislation arising from recommendations in the report on subsidiarity which was presented to the European Council meeting in Brussels in December 1993. In its "Better Law Making" report to the Madrid European Council in December 1995, the Commission reported on progress in implementing the Brussels programme. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House. Although the number of new Commission legislative proposals continues to decline, down from 48 in 1993 to a forecast of 19 in the 1996 work programme, the Government want the Commission to do more. I therefore welcome the remit given to the Commission by the Madrid European Council to bring forward further proposals to repeal and simplify both existing and proposed legislation.

    Ex-service Men and Women
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of interdepartmental co-operation in relation to ex-service affairs; and if he will meet the chairman of the Royal British Legion to discuss his views on this matter. [19670]

    The Prime Minister
    I have no plans to do so. My noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has regular meetings with ex-services organisations, including the Royal British Legion. In addition, my noble Friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Henley met
    435
    the Royal British Legion on 23 November 1994 to discuss the provision of Government services to ex-service men and women.

    The Government's continuing commitment is to ensure that all Departments provide an effective service for every citizen.

    Biodiversity Steering Group
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Prime Minister which Departments are involved in the cross-sectional steering group on the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan; and what assistance they are giving the Department of the Environment. [17909]

    The Prime Minister
    The United Kingdom biodiversity steering group included officials from the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Department of the Environment for 436
    Northern Ireland, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Forestry Commission.

    The steering group published its report containing advice on the Government on 13 December 1995. Departments throughout Whitehall, including those involved in the steering group, are assisting the Department of the Environment in preparing the Government's response to the report. We expect to publish this in the spring of 1996.

    Welsh Office (Permanent Secretary)
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to announce the appointment of the new permanent secretary of the Welsh Office. [19668]

    The Prime Minister
    The next permanent secretary of the Welsh Office will be selected following an open competition and the appointment will then be announced in the normal way.
    437

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Immigration Detainees
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, columns 101–2, if he will set out in the same format information relating to (a) overstayers and (b) convicted criminals awaiting deportation; and if he will ensure that the figures relating to the three categories concerned are contained in future statistical publications. [19616]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    The information requested is given in tables A and B covering all overstayers and convicted criminals respectively, including those who have applied for asylum. Information on asylum seekers in detention—which account for the great majority of immigration detainees—is already published in the annual Home Office statistical bulletin on asylum statistics, copies of which are in the Library. There are no plans to publish, in the half-yearly bulletin or annual Command Paper on immigration statistics, detailed analyses of the additional categories of immigration detainee.

    Table A1: Overstayers recorded as detained1 on 31 January 1996 by gender

    Number detained2

    Male

    60

    Female

    2

    Total

    62

    1Under Immigration Act powers.

    2Data are subject to recording error—eg in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention.

    Table A2: Overstayers recorded as detained1 on 31 January 1996, by length of detention

    Length of detention

    Number detained2

    0–1 month

    20

    1–2 months

    6

    2–6 months

    23

    6–12 months

    12

    12 months+

    1

    Total

    62

    1Under Immigration Act powers.

    2Data are subject to recording error—eg in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention.

    Table A3: Overstayers recorded as detained1 on 31 January 1996, by nationality

    Nationality

    Number detained2

    Nigeria

    14

    Algeria

    7

    Ghana

    7

    Bangladesh

    5

    India

    4

    Jamaica

    4

    Pakistan

    3

    Poland

    3

    Morocco

    2

    Others

    13

    Total

    62

    1Under Immigration Act powers.

    2Data are subject to recording error—eg in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention.

    438

    Table A4: Overstayers recorded as detained1 on 31 January 1996, by place of detention

    Place of detention

    Number detained1

    Prison Service establishments

    HMP Rochester

    14

    HMP Winson Green

    6

    HMP Haslar

    4

    HMP Wandsworth

    2

    Others

    6

    32

    Other places of detention

    Police cells

    13

    Campsfield House

    10

    Harmondsworth

    6

    Queen's Building

    1

    30

    Total

    62

    1Under Immigration Act powers.

    2Data are subject to recording error—eg in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention.

    Table B1: Convicted criminals1 recorded as detained2 on 31 January 1996, by gender

    Number detained1

    Male

    44

    Female

    5

    Total

    49

    1Subject to deportation action either following a court recommendation or on grounds that their continued presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good (where the court did not address the question of making a recommendation for deportation).

    2Under Immigration Act powers.

    3Data are subject to recording error—eg in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention.

    Table B2: Convicted criminals1 recorded as detained2 on 31 January 1996, by length of detention

    Length of detention

    Number detained3

    0–1 month

    10

    1–2 months

    18

    2–6 months

    15

    6–12 months

    6

    12 months+

    —

    Total

    49

    1Subject to deportation action either following a court recommendation or on grounds that their continued presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good (where the court did not address the question of making a recommendation for deportation).

    2Under Immigration Act powers.

    3Data are subject to recording error—eg in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention.

    Table B3: Convicted criminals1 recorded as detained2 on 31 January 1996, by nationality

    Nationality

    Number detained3

    Nigeria

    9

    Gambia

    8

    Angola

    3

    439

    Table B3: Convicted criminals1 recorded as detained2 on 31 January 1996, by nationality

    Nationality

    Number detained3

    Colombia

    3

    Jamaica

    3

    Zaire

    3

    Algeria

    2

    Poland

    2

    Others

    16

    Total

    49

    1Subject to deportation action either following a court recommendation or on grounds that their continued presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good (where the court did not address the question of making a recommendation for deportation).

    2Under Immigration Act powers.

    3Data are subject to recording error—e.g. in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention.

    Table B4: Convicted criminals1 recorded as detained2 on 31 January 1996, by place of detention

    Place of detention

    Number detained3

    Prison Service establishments

    HMP Brixton

    10

    HMP Rochester

    9

    HMP Wandsworth

    5

    HMYOI Feltham

    3

    HMP Holloway

    3

    HMP Pentonville

    2

    HMP Preston

    2

    HMP The Mount

    2

    Others

    8

    44

    Other places of detention

    Campsfield House

    3

    Others

    2

    5

    Total

    49

    1Subject to deportation action either following a court recommendation or on grounds that their continued presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good (where the court did not address the question of making a recommendation for deportation).

    2Under Immigration Act powers.

    3Data are subject to recording error—e.g. in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention.

    Private Security Industry
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he is undertaking, and with whom, on the statutory regulation of the private security industry; and if he will make a statement. [19353]

    Mr. Maclean
    We have spoken to the police, the industry, other Government Departments, and have examined evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the private security industry. We are now consulting Cabinet colleagues on the way forward.

    Convicted Prisoners (Deportation)
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure that 440
    forms required under the Immigration Act 1971 to be filled in by convicted prisoners liable to deportation on conclusion of their sentences are not given to prisoners to whom they do not apply. [19506]

    Mr. Kirkhope
    I am not aware of any form required to be completed under the Immigration Act 1971 by people in this category. A person charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment may be served by the arresting authority with a notice warning him of his liability to deportation. The notice—IM3—sets out categories of persons who are not liable to deportation and every effort is made to ensure that notices are not given to people who are not so liable.

    Anabolic Steroids
    Mr. Pendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, columns 292–93, when the Government will lay the draft modification order to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to outlaw the use of anabolic steroids and other similar drugs. [19311]

    Mr. Sackville
    We hope to lay the draft modification order very soon.

    Mr. Pendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the number of family break-ups caused by the abuse of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in each year from 1979; [19320]

    (2) what estimate he has made of the number of violent crimes caused by the abuse of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in each year since 1979. [19319]

    Mr. Sackville
    No data are available to enable any such estimates to be made.

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19422]

    Mr. Howard
    The information in the form requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Football
    Mr. Pendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the premier league and Endsleigh league clubs giving separately the total season's attendance at(a) matches played in the premier league and football league and (b) matches played in the FA cup and Coca-Cola cup along with (i) the total number of arrests and (ii) arrests as a percentage of total attendance at each category of such matches accurate to four decimal places for the seasons (1) 1990–91, (2) 1991–92, (3) 1992–93, (4) 1993–94 and (5) 1994–95. [19309]

    Mr. Maclean
    The hon. Member has previously received such information for seasons 1990–91,1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. I refer the hon. Member to the
    441
    reply given to him on 15 February 1995, Official Report, columns 691–93, for details about the 1993–94 season. Details for the other seasons referred to were provided under cover of ministerial correspondence of 31 July 1991 and 1 February 1994—copies were also placed in the Library.

    Information in the requested format for season 199495 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Arrests during season 1994–95 for premier league, Endsleigh league, FA cup and Coca-Cola cup matches is provided.

    Premier League: 1,723

    Endsleigh League: 2,127

    FA Cup: 914

    Coca-Cola Cup: 308

    Computers
    Mr. Miller
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has brought computer capacity from(a) other departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19465]

    Mr. Howard
    There are no records of computer capacity in my Department having been bought from other Departments or from the private sector since 1987.

    Fire Fighters (Pensions)
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the next meeting will be held of the review group, to review the pension arrangements for fire fighters; and when it will conclude its studies and publish its findings. [19764]

    Mr. Sackville
    No such meeting has been arranged. I hope that it will soon be possible to circulate a consultation document on the review group's findings to the fire service organisations.

    Fire Brigades Union
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has recently received from the Fire Brigades Union; and if he will make a statement. [19753]

    Mr. Sackville
    My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from the Fire Brigades Union. Issues raised in recent months have included fire service funding, fire safety, the Fire Service College and the new brigade structure in Wales. All these representations have received, or will be given, considered replies.

    Fire Brigades (Standards)
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fire brigades failed to meet the statutory minimum standards for their rescue and firefighting role in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) Northern Ireland in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [19758]

    Mr. Sackville
    I am satisfied that, in general, all brigades in England and Wales remain able to meet the nationally recommended standards of fire cover which are 442
    set out in terms of the response times that fire brigades are expected to maintain. Her Majesty's inspectors of fire services draw attention to any exceptions in the course of their inspections of brigades. It is for the fire authority concerned to take the appropriate action in any such case. Responsibilities for brigades in Scotland and Northern Ireland are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, respectively.

    Peter Welch
    Mr. Nigel Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Peter Welch was awarded compensation by the European Court of Human Rights. [20529]

    Mr. Maclean
    Peter Welch claimed compensation of £320,596, but this claim was rejected by the court. In its judgment dated 26 February, the court ruled that Peter Welch's alleged losses could not legitimately be said to result from the application to him of the confiscatory provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. Therefore, no compensation was awarded, nor did the court grant him any costs in bringing the claim.

    Scientists and Engineers
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in the headquarters division of his Department in each year from 1991 to the current year. [19802]

    Mr. Howard
    The figures for the main Home Office, excluding Agencies, for 1993–96 are as follows. Figures are not available in the form requested for 1991 and 1992.

    Grade and discipline

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Grade 3: (science and physics)

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Grade 5: (research: social science)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Grade 5: (science: life science: toxicology)

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Grade 5: (statistics)

    3

    3

    3

    3

    Grade 6 (engineering telecommunications)

    3

    3

    1

    1

    Grade 6 (research: social science)

    1

    4

    5

    5

    Grade 6 (science)

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Grade 6 (science: chemistry)

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Grade 6 (science: forensics)

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Grade 6 (science: life science)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Grade 6 (science: life science: biology)

    2

    0

    0

    2

    Grade 6 (science: life science: zoology)

    I

    0

    1

    0

    Grade 6 (science: physics)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Grade 7 (engineering mechanical)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Grade 7 (engineering metallurgy)

    0

    0

    1

    1

    Grade 7 (engineering: tele-communications)

    11

    12

    6

    6

    Grade 7 (research: social science)

    14

    15

    14

    13

    Grade 7 (science: chemistry)1

    18

    2

    2

    2

    Grade 7 (science: computer science)

    3

    3

    4

    5

    Grade 7 (science: engineering)

    3

    3

    3

    2

    443

    Grade and discipline

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Grade 7 (science: life science)

    8

    2

    2

    1

    Grade 7 (science: life science: photography)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Grade 7 (science: operational research)

    8

    8

    8

    8

    Grade 7 (science: physics)

    11

    12

    12

    11

    Grade 7 (statistics)

    21

    20

    19

    19

    Senior Executive Officer (engineering: civil)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Senior Executive Officer (engineering: electronic)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Senior Executive Officer (engineering: mechanical)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Senior Executive Officer (engineering: tele-communications)+

    42

    41

    21

    21

    Senior Executive Officer (engineering: professional and technological construction)

    0

    1

    0

    1

    Senior Executive Officer (science)

    4

    4

    3

    5

    Senior Executive Officer (science: computer science)

    7

    9

    8

    8

    Senior Executive Officer (science: electronics)

    3

    3

    3

    3

    Senior Executive Officer (science: engineering)

    2

    2

    2

    2

    Senior Executive Officer (science: mathematics/statistics)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Senior Executive Officer (science: meteorology)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Senior Executive Officer (science: operational research)

    8

    8

    8

    8

    Senior Executive Officer (science: physics)

    6

    8

    8

    9

    Senior Executive Officer (science: life sciences)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Senior Executive Officer (research: social science)

    8

    7

    13

    13

    Higher Executive Officer (engineering)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Higher Executive Officer (engineering: building)

    1

    1

    2

    2

    Higher Executive Officer (engineering: electronic)

    5

    4

    3

    3

    Higher Executive Officer (engineering: mechanical)

    1

    1

    1

    2

    Higher Executive Officer (engineering: mechanical/electrical)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Higher Executive Officer (engineering: production)

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Higher Executive Officer (engineering: professional and technological construction)

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Higher Executive Officer (engineering: tele-communications) +

    97

    93

    9

    9

    Higher Executive Officer (science)

    8

    8

    5

    8

    Higher Executive Officer (science: computer science)

    3

    1

    0

    0

    Higher Executive Officer (science: forensics1)

    139

    0

    2

    2

    Higher Executive Officer (science: operational research)

    4

    4

    4

    3

    Higher Executive Officer (science: physics)

    15

    12

    13

    11

    444

    Grade and discipline

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Higher Executive Officer (science: social science)

    2

    1

    0

    0

    Higher Executive Officer (science: life science)

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Higher Executive Officer (research: social science)

    9

    8

    14

    15

    Higher Executive Officer (statistics)

    7

    8

    8

    7

    Executive Officer (engineering: building)

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Executive Officer (engineering: civil)

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Executive Officer (engineering: electronic)

    4

    3

    3

    3

    Executive Officer (engineering: mechanical)

    3

    2

    2

    1

    Executive Officer (engineering: production)

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Executive Officer (engineering: tele-communications)2

    192

    197

    0

    1

    Executive Officer (science)

    9

    9

    10

    7

    Executive Officer (science: computer science)

    1

    1

    0

    1

    Executive Officer (science: physics)

    2

    2

    2

    2

    Executive Officer (science: life science)

    2

    2

    2

    1

    Executive Officer (science: mathematics/statistics)

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Executive Officer (statistics)

    2

    1

    1

    1

    Administrative Officer (science)

    6

    5

    5

    4

    Administrative Officer (science: forensic)1

    82

    0

    0

    0

    Administrative Officer (statistics)

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Administrative Assistant (science: forensic)1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    1Reduction reflects establishments of the Forensic Science Service as an executive agency.

    2Reduction reflects the privatisation of Directorate of Telecommunications.

    Departmental Staff Guidelines
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department provides regarding employees and recent ex-employees taking up positions with companies tendering for his Department's contracts. [19677]

    Mr. Howard
    All staff who are offered employment within two years of leaving Crown service—or outside normal working hours while still in the service—by organisations with which they have had official dealings must apply for approval under the business appointment rules. The rules are set out in standing guidance to staff and also in the civil service management code; they are part of all civil servants' conditions of service. Staff are reminded of the rules when they join the Department and on leaving the civil service.

    Buckley Hall Prison
    Ms Lynne
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are currently adopted in Buckley Hall prison to stop the smuggling into the prison

    445
    of (a) alcohol, (b) cannabis and other illegal drugs and Great Britain (c) other items; and what plans there are to increase the Excluded, number of searches carried out on (i) male and (ii) female deported or prison visitors. [19793]

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

    Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Liz Lynne, dated II 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 the procedures currently adopted at Buckley Hall prison to stop smuggling, and whether there are any plans to increase the number of searches carried out on both male and female prison visitors.

    Every visitor to Buckley Hall prison is already searched before being allowed to visit a prisoner. In addition all visitors are required to pass through a metal detector portal. Procedures for the regular searching of staff are also in place.

    Other procedures at Buckley Hall prison to prevent any attempt to smuggle alcohol, cannabis, other illegal drugs or any other items into the prison are extensive. These include the searching of all items accompanying visitors which may hold illicit items. Items taken into the visiting room are x-rayed and there is camera and video monitoring of visits.

    Prevention of Terrorism Acts
    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders under the prevention of terrorism Acts are still in force. [20313]

    Mr. Howard
    There are currently 33 people subject to exclusion orders, 29 from Great Britain and four from the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been released without charge after being(a) arrested and (b) detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts for each calendar year since 1974. [20315]

    Mr. Howard
    The figures relate to persons arrested and/or detained under section 14 or schedule 5 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. The table additionally shows numbers for those detainees who, although not charged, were subsequently made the subject of exclusion orders, were deported, or removed under the Immigration Act 1971.

    Great Britain

    Year

    Detained

    Not charged

    Excluded, deported or removed

    1974 (from 29 November)

    59

    51

    12

    1975

    1,067

    1,004

    46

    1976

    1,066

    1,009

    23

    1977

    853

    806

    17

    1978

    622

    603

    49

    1979

    857

    749

    48

    1980

    537

    495

    45

    1981

    274

    235

    10

    1982

    220

    198

    11

    1983

    191

    160

    13

    1984

    203

    172

    14

    1985

    266

    205

    12

    1986

    202

    166

    16

    1987

    225

    200

    24

    446

    Great Britain

    Year

    Detained

    Not charged

    Excluded, deported or removed

    1988

    186

    165

    16

    1989

    181

    160

    12

    1990

    193

    165

    16

    1991

    153

    146

    11

    1992

    160

    120

    1

    1993

    152

    120

    4

    1994

    61

    52

    4

    1995

    34

    21

    0

    Northern Ireland

    Year

    Detained

    Not charged

    1989

    1,583

    1,223

    1990

    1,549

    1,179

    1991

    1,680

    1,294

    1992

    1,795

    1,335

    1993

    1,641

    1,259

    1994

    1,503

    11,136

    1995

    443

    335

    Figures for Northern Ireland are readily available only from 1989: those prior to then could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been subject to exclusion orders under the prevention of terrorism Acts for each calendar year since 1974. [20312]

    Mr. Howard
    Figures for exclusion orders are set out in the lists.

    Great Britain

    1974: 191

    1975: 50

    1976: 24

    1977: 18

    1978: 53

    1979: 53

    1980: 49

    1981: 11

    1982: 15

    1983: 15

    1984: 3

    1985: 7

    1986: 9

    1987: 19

    1988: 20

    1989: 9

    1990: 16

    1991: 11

    1992: 2

    1993: 7

    1994: 4

    1995: 0

    1From 29 November

    Northern Ireland

    1974: 01

    1975: 1

    1976: 1

    1977: 0

    447

    1978: 2

    1979: 4

    1980: 3

    1981: 11

    1982: 2

    1983: 4

    1984: 2

    1985: 0

    1986: 0

    1987: 1

    1988: 1

    1989: 1

    1990: 0

    1991: 0

    1992: 0

    1993: 0

    1994: 1

    1995: 0

    1From 29 November.

    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) arrested and (b) detained under the prevention of terrorism Acts for each calendar year since 1974; and if he will give a breakdown of the lengths of detention. [20314]

    Mr. Howard
    The figures relate to persons arrested and/or detained under section 14 or schedule 5 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Detentions under 48 hours can be authorised by the police. Those over 48 hours must be authorised by the Secretary of State.

    In Great Britain

    Under 48 hours

    Over 48 hours

    1974 (from 29 November)

    13

    46

    1975

    930

    137

    1976

    1,006

    60

    1977

    824

    29

    1978

    599

    23

    1979

    617

    240

    1980

    411

    126

    1981

    216

    58

    1982

    183

    37

    1983

    146

    45

    1984

    163

    40

    1985

    172

    94

    1986

    145

    57

    1987

    174

    51

    1988

    161

    25

    1989

    145

    36

    1990

    158

    35

    1991

    123

    30

    1992

    143

    17

    1993

    113

    39

    1994

    57

    4

    1995

    16

    18

    In Northern Ireland

    Under 48 hours

    Over 48 hours

    1974 (from 29 November)

    0

    0

    1975

    3

    5

    448

    In Northern Ireland

    Under 48 hours

    Over 48 hours

    1976

    44

    202

    1977

    39

    123

    1978

    7

    144

    1979

    36

    126

    1980

    36

    186

    1981

    94

    401

    1982

    189

    639

    1983

    447

    728

    1984

    375

    533

    1985

    381

    557

    1986

    825

    484

    1987

    1,008

    451

    1988

    1,175

    542

    1989

    1,053

    530

    1990

    1,089

    460

    1991

    1,109

    571

    1992

    1,354

    441

    1993

    1,186

    455

    1994

    1,119

    384

    1995

    431

    12

    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have taken place in the terms of reference of the Lloyd review of the prevention of terrorism acts since the resumption of violence connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. [20316]

    Mr. Howard
    None.

    Capita Managed Services
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19905]

    Mr. Howard
    [holding answer 8 March 1996]: Neither Capita Managed Services nor Lusis Business Solutions is currently involved in bidding for any of the projects listed.

  DEFENCE

    Aircraft Crashes
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) the Royal Navy Sea Harrier T4 which crashed near Wellington, Somerset, on 23 February and (b) the Royal Air Force Tornado GR I which crashed near Issam, Germany, on 26 February last has a major service; who carried it out; and if he will make a statement. [19312]

    Mr. Soames
    All Royal Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft are maintained in accordance with the appropriate authorised servicing cycle and approved maintenance procedures. Harrier T Mk 4 XZ445 underwent its last scheduled basic maintenance, the deepest appropriate level of maintenance, in 1994. This was carried out by the Maintenance Group Defence Agency at RAF St. Athan. The aircraft's last scheduled servicing was carried out on the parent squadron in January 1996. The servicing policy
    449
    for RAF Tornados was explained in my answer to the hon. Member on 8 March 1996, Official Report, columns 368–69.

    Tornado GR1 ZD845's last major servicing was carried out in August 1995 at the operating unit. The separate boards of inquiry into these aircraft losses are on-going; a summary of the board's findings will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current damage and repair status of Tornado GR1 serial number ZD844; what repair work is schedules for this aircraft; where such repairs will be carried out; and what is the expected date of re-entry to service of this aircraft. [19756]

    Mr. Soames
    Tornado GR1 ZD844 was involved in a mid-air collision over Canada on 1 August 1994. The aircraft, which landed safely, sustained varying degrees of damage to the left-hand engine intake, engine bay door, main landing gear, fuselage and left wing. Repairs to the damaged wing are being carried out by the Maintenance Group Defence Agency at RAF St. Athan. Repairs to the fuselage are being undertaken using service manpower at RAF Marham. It is expected that ZD844 will re-enter service in 1997.

    Dismissals (Drug Offences)
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been(a) charged with drug offences and (b) subsequently dismissed for such offences in each of the last 10 years. [19486]

    Mr. Soames
    The information is not available in the format requested, but we are able to provide the following information for the nine-year period 1986 to 1994:

    (a) The number of armed forces personnel convicted of drug offences:

    1986: 131

    1987: 145

    1988: 105

    1989: 196

    1990: 339

    1991: 426

    1992: 612

    1993: 513

    1994: 296

    (b) The number subsequently dismissed' for such offences:

    1986: 60

    1987: 56

    1988: 67

    1989: 68

    1990: 118

    1991: 165

    1992: 225

    1993: 152

    1994: 112

    1The figures relate to those sentenced to dismissal from service at court martial, summary trial or were dismissed following a sentence of imprisonment from a service or civilian court.
    450

    Empty Properties
    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD properties in Hampshire are currently empty; and if he will indicate the number of properties in each local authority area. [19623]

    Mr. Soames
    No central record is maintained of the number of buildings other than married quarters which may be empty at any given time. At 7 March 1996, there were 831 married quarters in the following council areas:

    Number

    East Hampshire DC

    53

    Fareham DC

    21

    Gosport BC

    238

    Hart DC

    22

    Havant DC

    20

    Portsmouth CC

    142

    Ruchmoor BC

    120

    Test Valley BC

    101

    Winchester CC

    63

    New Forest DC

    51

    Married Quarters Discounted Sale Scheme
    Mr. Spellar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) of 1 March,Official Report, column 766, how many personnel will be eligible for the interest-free advance scheme; and if personnel made redundant between 1 March and 1 August will be eligible for the scheme. [19833]

    Mr. Soames
    Some 23 per cent. of Army and RAF personnel will qualify by age for the long service advance of pay scheme, but significantly fewer personnel are expected to join the scheme because the pattern of service in the Army and RAF promotes accompanied service and this can deter home ownership in some circumstances.

    The Royal Navy has enjoyed the benefits of LSAP since 1963 and, because of the pattern of family separation which is inherent in a sea-going service, it has promoted a housing policy which does not differentiate between accompanied or unaccompanied service when ashore. The historical take-up rate of LSAP in the RN is approximately 40 per cent. of all eligible personnel, and represent an annual maximum uptake of 1,500 personnel. Although take-up figures can be only speculative, the RN trends, with the differing age qualifications and accompanied service preferences of the Army and RAF, would indicate an average of 1,200 new LSAP members each year. This would represent a threefold increase over those who have annually benefited from the married quarters discounted sales scheme.

    Army or RAF personnel made redundant between now and 1 August 1996 will not be able to take advantage of the scheme. They will, however, still be able to apply to purchase a home under the married quarter discounted sales scheme, which will remain in force until 1 August 1996.

    Abbey Wood
    Mr. Berry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 5 March,Official Report,

    451
    column 141, what additional payments have been claimed by the construction contractors for the new MOD building at Abbey Wood. [20087]

    Mr. Arbuthnot
    We respect the commercial in confidence nature of contractual and claims issues which are between the Department and the contractors concerned. As is our normal practice, claims against the Department are reviewed and processed in accordance with the contract terms—action which has and is being taken in respect of claims submitted by the shell and core contractor. As I have said, there is a constructive dialogue going on between the Department and the contractor. Both the contractor and the Department are working positively to realise the project's programme objectives.

    Future Large Aircraft
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart concerning the future large aircraft programme. [20196]

    Mr. Arbuthnot
    I met Henri Conzé, délegué général pour 1'armement on Friday 1 March. The future large aircraft programme was discussed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not recently discussed the future large aircraft programme with his French counterpart.

    Scott Inquiry
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes his Department will introduce in relation to defence exports following the Scott inquiry report. [20197]

    Mr. Arbuthnot
    My Department will participate fully in the review of the Government's existing export control powers and procedures being undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry. In addition, my Department will take the lead in the review of the convention on the disclosure of information about defence exports.

    Otterburn Training Area
    Ms Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what alternative courses of action from those listed in "Improving the Training Infrastructure at Otterburn Training Area: The MOD's Aspirations for the Next Five Years" were considered in environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [19528]

    (2) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of "Improving the Training Infrastructure at Otterburn Training Area: The MOD's Aspirations for the Next Five Years"; [19530]

    (3) if "Improving the Training Infrastructure at Otterburn Training Area: The MOD's Aspirations for the Next Five Years" has been subject to an environmental
    452
    appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by the Department of the Environment; [19527]

    (4) how "Improving the Training Infrastructure at Otterburn Training Area: The MOD's Aspirations for the Next Five Years" was modified by the results the environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department. [19529]

    Mr. Soames
    The Ministry of Defence document to which the hon. Member refers was produced at the request of the Northumberland national park authority. It sets out my Department's aspirations for improving the infrastructure at Otterburn training area for the next five years and describes the positive planning principles the Ministry of Defence has adopted for taking these forward. It will be used to take forward our discussions with the park authority under the normal planning arrangements in Department of the Environment circular 18/84. None of the aspirations has yet been agreed, and each remains subject to internal scrutiny, funding, and planning consent.

    My Department's aim, through this forward-looking document, is to provide the national park authority with a clearer understanding of the likely trend of development, against which they will be better placed to judge the acceptability or otherwise of individual development applications. Full environmental appraisals will be undertaken as appropriate, and these will take due account of all relevant environmental considerations and where necessary draw upon Government policy and guidance as contained in documents such as the Department of the Environment's "Policy Appraisal and the Environment".

  SCOTLAND

    Railway Investment
    Mr. Galbraith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what applications for railway investment have been(a) approved and (b) submitted for consideration to the highland and Islands development partnership since objective 1 status was announced. [19330]

    Mr. Kynoch
    None.

    Mr. Galbraith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if railway capital investment in the highlands is eligible for EC objective 1 funding. [19331]

    Mr. Kynoch
    In principle, applications may be eligible, but this would depend on the precise nature of the project.

    Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many orthopaedic trauma operations have been carried out in Edinburgh for each month since January 1995 to the present; how many such patients had to wait more than two days for surgery after sustaining a fracture; if he will express the numbers waiting for more than two days, as a percentage of the number of operations carried out; and if he will give the monthly budget for such operations; [19558]
    453
    (2) what evaluation he has made of the adequacy of available theatre time to cope with demands for orthopaedic trauma surgery at peak periods. [19559]

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    Information on the number of orthopaedic trauma operations carried out in Edinburgh, the number of patients who wait more than two days for surgery after sustaining a fracture and the

    Emergency admissions1 to orthopaedic surgery, receiving an operation, by pre-operative stay and month of discharge NHS hospitals in Edinburgh2, for calendar year 19953

    Month of Discharge

    January

    February

    March

    April

    May

    June

    Pre-operative stay

    0–2 days Number

    240

    244

    256

    254

    227

    259

    Percentage

    94.5

    95.7

    94.5

    93.7

    86.6

    87.8

    3+ days Number

    14

    11

    15

    17

    35

    36

    Percentage

    5.5

    4.3

    5.5

    6.3

    13.4

    12.2

    Total

    Number

    254

    255

    271

    271

    262

    295

    Percentage

    100

    100

    100

    100

    100

    100

    Month of discharge

    July

    August

    September

    October

    November

    December

    Total

    Pre-operative stay

    0–2 days Number

    228

    231

    283

    287

    245

    192

    2,946

    Percentage

    91.9

    93.9

    88.4

    92.0

    88.1

    81.7

    90.7

    3+ days Number

    20

    15

    37

    25

    33

    43

    301

    Percentage

    8.1

    6.1

    11.6

    8.0

    11.9

    18.3

    9.3

    Total

    Number

    248

    246

    320

    312

    278

    235

    3,247

    Percentage

    100

    100

    100

    100

    100

    100

    100

    1 Day case, out-patient and accident and emergency attendances are excluded.

    2 The hospitals included in the above table are: Princess Margaret Rose orthopaedic hospital, Royal Hospital for sick children, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh.

    3 1995 data are provisional.

    Transport Funding
    Mr. Galbraith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amounts of objective 1 funding has been approved in the Highlands and Islands so far for(a) roads and road transport, (b) airports and air transport, (c) ferries and (d) railways. [19327]

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

    Sector

    Number of projects

    European Regional Development Award £ million

    Roads

    32

    14.35

    Ferries

    2

    1.75

    Airports

    1

    0.32

    Railways

    0

    0

    454
    monthly budget for such operations is not held centrally. The table sets out the number of discharges, admitted as emergencies, from orthopaedics who received an operation for each month in 1995 in Edinburgh NHS hospitals showing the percentage and number waiting more than two days. The data are provisional. The availability of theatre time to cope with demand for orthopaedic traumatic surgery is a matter for the NHS trusts concerned.

    Lothian Health Board
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds the last general manager of Lothian health board left that position. [19345]

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The last board general manager of Lothian health retired early on grounds of ill health.

    European Structural Funds
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the resourcing and administrative arrangements for the secretariat dealing with the distribution of European structural funds in Scotland; on what date the independent secretariat was established; what is the number of full-time equivalent employees involved in its administration; and what
    455
    representations he has received from infrastructure providers and others in relation to the present arrangements. [19361]

    Mr. Kynoch
    [holding answer 7 March 1996]: Of the seven structural fund programmes operating in Scotland, four are administered by programme executives. Infrastructure providers and others in areas with programme executives appear to be generally content with the arrangements; and any discussions about their operation have tended to focus on various detailed points. Details of the resourcing and administration arrangements for dealing with the funds in Scotland are as follows:

    Programme executives

    The Strathclyde European Partnership

    Established—June 1989

    Staff number—16 full-time equivalent—FTE

    Highlands and Islands Partnership

    Established—February 1994

    Staff number—eight FTE

    Eastern Scotland European Partnership

    Established—January 1995

    Staff number—8.8 FTE

    Dumfries and Galloway European Partnership

    Established—November 1994

    Staff number—3.5 FTE.

    European Social Fund
    Mr. Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for changing the administration of the European social fund in Scotland; what is the number of full-time equivalent employees required to administer the funds under(a) present and (b) future arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [19362]

    Mr. Kynoch
    [holding answer 7 March 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland accepted responsibility for the administration of the European social fund on 1 January 1994 for objective 1, 2 and 5b programme areas. Responsibility for the objective 3 programme and EC community initiatives was transferred on 1 April 1995. These major changes have required new administrative arrangements, which we are keeping under review to ensure that they are as effective as possible.

    Presently, there are 12 full-time equivalent employees, in the Scottish Office and nine full-time equivalent employees in the four programme executives involved in the administration of the funds.

    Falkirk Football Club
    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the reporter to expedite the report of the public inquiry on the planning application by Falkirk football club for a new stadium, to enable the club to meet the deadline for implementation of the Taylor report requirement for all-seater stadia. [15543]

    Mr. Kynoch
    [holding answer 29 February 1996]: The reporter is aware of the requirements of the Taylor report for all-seater stadia. For that reason, this case has been given—and will continue to receive—priority.
    456
    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the public inquiry on the planning application by Falkirk football club for a new stadium. [15544]

    Mr. Kynoch
    [holding answer 29 February 1996]: Depending on the extent, nature and content of comments received following circulation to parties of part I of the report, my right hon. Friend expects to receive the final report by the end of the first week in May.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    School Pupils (Strangford)
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils there(a) are this year and (b) were last year at each primary school in the constituency of Strangford. [18932]

    Mr. Ancram
    The information requested is as follows:

    Strangford

    School name

    (a) 1995–96

    (b) 1994–95

    Abbey PS

    590

    558

    Alexander Dickson PS

    215

    216

    Andrews Memorial PS

    522

    523

    Ballykeigle PS

    59

    61

    Ballyvester PS

    92

    97

    Ballywalter PS

    153

    141

    Belvoir Park PS

    394

    383

    Braniel PS

    417

    409

    Cairnshill PS

    474

    457

    Carrickmannon PS

    82

    79

    Carrowdore PS

    133

    126

    Castle Gardens PS

    408

    414

    Comber PS

    394

    398

    Cottown PS

    —

    23

    Donaghadee PS

    479

    459

    Greyabbey PS

    70

    72

    Killinchy PS

    243

    233

    Killyleagh PS

    146

    157

    Kircubbin PS

    68

    58

    Kirkistown PS

    58

    54

    Leadhill PS

    206

    201

    Londonderry PS

    315

    317

    Lough View Integrated PS

    93

    51

    Loughries PS

    89

    88

    Millisle PS

    172

    180

    Moneyrea PS

    136

    126

    Newtownards Model PS

    388

    376

    Newtownbreda PS

    230

    232

    O'Neill Memorial PS

    41

    36

    Portaferry PS

    54

    43

    Portavogie PS

    132

    143

    Regent House School

    165

    175

    St. Anne's PS

    49

    37

    St. Finian's PS

    161

    174

    St. Mary's PS, Portaferry

    281

    308

    St. Mary's PS, Comber

    39

    32

    St. Mary's PS, Ballygowan

    50

    54

    St. Mary's PS, Kirkcubbin

    224

    228

    St. Patrick's PS

    104

    98

    Victoria PS (Newtownards)

    553

    543

    Victoria PS (Ballyhalbert)

    106

    104

    West Winds PS

    181

    194

    Cottown Primary School closed 31 August 1995.
    457
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils there(a) are this year and (b) were last year at each secondary school of all categories in the constituency of Strangford. [18934]

    Mr. Ancram
    The information requested is as follows:

    School Name

    (a) 1995–96

    (b) 1994–95

    Comber High School

    422

    424

    Donaghadee High School

    254

    283

    Glastry High School

    560

    573

    Lagan College

    933

    917

    Movilla High School

    834

    799

    Regent House School

    1,444

    1,445

    Scrabo High School

    309

    325

    St. Columba's High School

    348

    342

    Regent House Grammar School, Newtownards
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils there are at Regent House grammar school, Newtownards; how many temporary classrooms there are at the school; how many applicants there were for entry into form 1 in the current year; how many pupils were enrolled into form 1 in the current year; what proposals there are to provide permanent classrooms at the school; and if he will make a statement. [18936]

    Mr. Ancram
    Regent House school has 1,444 pupils in its secondary department and 165 pupils in its preparatory department. The school has 31 temporary classrooms. It had 217 applicants for entry into form 1 for 1995–96—figures for 1996–97 are not yet available—and has 215 pupils in form 1 this year.

    I understand that the south-eastern education and library board is developing plans to extend and refurbish the existing premises.

    Leadhill Primary School
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment in each of the past five years at Leadhill primary school; what is the expected enrolment at the school in each of the next five years; when was the last capital investment for extra accommodation at Leadhill primary school; what proposals there are for the provision of further accommodation at this school; and if he will make a statement. [18933]

    Mr. Ancram
    The information is as follows:

    1990: 175

    1991: 172

    1992: 179

    1993: 187

    1994: 201

    1995: 206.

    Enrolments over the next five years are expected to be around 220.

    The last capital investment for extra accommodation at the school was in 1984: and I understand that the south-eastern education and library board is currently considering the provision of a purpose-built three classroom block for the school.
    458

    Dundonald Primary School
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment in each of the past five years at Dundonald primary school; what is the expected enrolment at the school in each of the next five years; what proposals there are to provide additional accommodation at the school; how many places in primary 1 will be available in the next academic year; how many applicants there are for places in primary 1 at the school for the next academic year; and if he will make a statement. [18935]

    Mr. Ancram
    The enrolments in each of the past five years are as follows:

    Year

    Number of pupils enrolled

    Number of applicants refused places1

    1991–92

    537 (at January 1991)

    n/a

    1992–93

    558 (at October 1992)

    none

    1993–94

    563 (at October 1993)

    14

    1994–95

    547 (at October 1994)

    5

    1995–96

    553 (at October 1995)

    9

    1 Information available only from 1992–93 onwards.

    It is not possible to accurately project an enrolment figure for each of the next five years.

    Provision of controlled primary school places in Dundonald is the responsibility of the South Eastern education and library board. I understand that the board has no plans to increase the size of Dundonald primary school at present, but it is reviewing demand for primary schools places in the Dundonald area and is monitoring residential development as part of its consideration of future primary school provision.

    The approved admissions number for the 1996–97 school year is 81, but the school has discretion to admit a maximum of five pupils above this number. The school has received 91 applications.

    Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be the addresses of the proposed six offices of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency; and if these offices will(a) be at ground floor level or (b) provide access by a lift. [19935]

    Mr. Moss
    Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency under its chief executive Mr. Brian Watson. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from J. B. Watson to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 7 March 1996:

    Your Question about the location of Driver amp; Vehicle Testing Agency offices has been referred to me for reply.

    Theory test centres will be located in Ballymena, Belfast, Londonderry, Newry, Omagh and Portadown. The addresses of the centres will be published when suitable premises have been acquired.

    It is expected that theory test centres will either be at ground floor level or that appropriate arrangements will be made for disabled candidates.
    459

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Office Facilities
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the right hon. Member or Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps he is taking to ensure adequate office facilities for hon. Members. [18032]

    Mr. Beith
    The new parliamentary building will provide offices for 208 hon. Members. It will also accommodate at least the same number of Members' support staff.

    Until the new building is opened in 1999, every effort is being made to improve Members' office facilities as part of the building refurbishment programme, which includes the installation of the parliamentary data and video network and the clean feed from the Chamber as well as more telephone lines.

    EU Legislation
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has had concerning the preparation and scrutiny of European legislation. [18030]

    Mr. Newton
    The Select Committee on European Legislation published a report in July 1995 on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. This addressed a number of issues including the European Community's legislative process and the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of European Community legislation. The Government responded to the report in November and look forward to receiving a further report from the Committee focusing in more detail on parliamentary scrutiny arrangements.

    Central and Members' Lobbies
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the names of the Central and Members' Lobbies. [18031]

    Mr. Newton
    I have no plans to do so.

    Libya and Iraq (Sanctions)
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to examine the policy of UN sanctions against Libya and Iraq. [18033]

    Grade 3

    Grade 5

    Grade 6

    Grade 7

    Below G7

    Total

    1997

    Science

    2

    10

    35

    50

    15

    112

    Engineering

    —

    1

    9

    8

    —

    19

    1992

    Science

    2

    11

    38

    42

    12

    105

    Engineering

    —

    1

    9

    8

    —

    18

    1993

    Science

    2

    12

    43

    41

    13

    111

    Engineering

    —

    1

    8

    8

    —

    17

    1994

    Science

    2

    12

    41

    53

    11

    119

    Engineering

    —

    1

    8

    8

    —

    17

    1995

    460
    Mr. Newton
    I have no plans to do so.

    Office Allowances
    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on future office allowances for hon. Members. [18026]

    Mr. Newton
    As I announced on 6 February,Official Report, columns 101–2, the Senior Salaries Review Body has been asked to undertake a review of the whole matter of Members' pay and allowances. In the meantime, under the existing resolution, the office costs allowance will increase automatically with effect from 1 April by reference to the retail prices index.

    Scottish Grand Committee
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the total cost of each of the sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee held in Scotland during this Parliament; and what is the estimated cost of the future sittings in Scotland planned for this parliamentary Session for(a) accommodation for Members, (b) travel for Members and (c) other costs. [17776]

    Mr. Newton
    My responsibility in this area is limited to the reimbursement to extended travel, although information on this is not collected in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Accommodation and other costs associated with the work of the Scottish Grand Committee are the responsibility of the House of Commons Commission.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

    Scientists and Engineers
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in the headquarters division of the Overseas Development Administration in each year from 1991 to the current year. [19799]

    Mr. Hanley
    Information is not held in the form requested. The figures cover professional scientists and engineers employed by ODA in each year, including a small number seconded to other organisations:
    461

    Grade 3

    Grade 5

    Grade 6

    Grade 7

    Below G7

    Total

    Science

    2

    12

    39

    50

    11

    114

    Engineering

    —

    1

    10

    6

    —

    17

    Aid and Trade Provision
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British companies were awarded contracts under the aid and trade provision; and how much ATP money was disbursed on each contract, connected with(a) the Botswana flight information region project approved in 1988, (b) the television studio in Indonesia approved in 1985 and (c) the metro in Ankara approved in 1990. [19962]

    Mr. Hanley
    The information requested is as follows:

    Project

    Company

    ATP disbursement (£ million)

    Flight Information Region Project (Botswana)

    Siemens Plessey Radar

    2.936

    Bandung Television Studio Project (Indonesia)

    Quantel Link Systems

    2.906

    Ankara Metro Project (Turkey)

    Coppee UK/Westinghouse Brakes

    6.334

    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many aid and trade provision projects for which all Overseas Development Administration payments were made before 10 November 1994 fall outside the interpretation of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 given in the judgments in the divisional court on that day in relation to the Pergau hydro-electric project; and if he will list these projects, the British companies awarded contracts in relation to these projects and the amount of aid and trade provision aid spent on each of those contracts. [20006]

    Mr. Hanley
    Three projects were pronounced to have fallen outside the interpretation of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 in the judgment relating to the Pergau hydro-electric project.

    The projects are listed.

    Project

    Company

    Disbursement (£ millions)

    Flight Information Region Project (Botswana)

    Siemens Plessey Radar

    2,936

    Bandung Television Studio Project (Indonesia)

    Quantel Link Systems

    2.906

    Ankara Metro Project (Turkey)

    Coppee UK/Westinghouse Brakes

    6,334

    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each contract awarded under the aid and trade provision since its inception in 1978 to(a) Trafalgar House, including Davy and John Brown Engineering, (b) Balfour Beatty, (c) Rolls-Royce, including NEI, and (d) Biwater, specifying the date each contract was awarded and its cash value. [19943]
    462
    Mr. Hanley
    Since its inception in 1978 the following aid and trade provision projects have been awarded to(a) Trafalgar House, including Davy and John Brown Engineering, (b) Balfour Beatty, (c) Rolls-Royce, including Northern Engineering Industries and (d) Biwater:

    Project

    Date of contract

    ATP allocation (£ millions)

    (A) Trafalgar House, including Davy and John Brown Engineering

    Sicartsa Steel Plate Mill (Mexico)

    8 March 1982

    34.945

    Brake Block Foundry (Egypt)

    15 July 1986

    0.635

    Chongquing Power Station (China)

    17 May 1988

    6.500

    Bohai Aluminium Mill I (China)

    19 October 1988

    8.802

    Danyang Aluminium Plant (China)

    11 December 1990

    3.532

    Cigading/Serpong Railway (Indonesia)

    15 March 1990

    24.690

    Tetouan Gas Turbines (Morocco)

    11 June 1993

    10.925

    Cikampek-Cirebon Double Track Railway (Indonesia)

    27 February 1995

    15.010

    Nador Roll Mill (Morocco)

    14 April 1981

    13.505

    Haipon Power Station (Vietnam)

    12 February 1979

    2.888

    Gas Turbines Project (Burma)

    3 April 1980

    3.201

    Gas Turbines Project (Burma)

    6 August 1982

    2.213

    Kipevu Power Station (Kenya)

    29 August 1986

    1.959

    Shengli Power Plant (China)

    17 March 1987

    4.247

    Gas Turbine Power Station (Panama)

    30 October 1987

    6.727

    Gas Turbines Power Station (Philippines)

    2 May 1989

    13.125

    Gas Turbines (Morocco)

    2 February 1990

    7.276

    (B) Balfour Beatty

    Wood Burning Power Station (Philippines)

    3 September 1980

    1.967

    Nini Hydros (Philippines)

    12 March 1980

    4.610

    Railway Electrification (Zimbabwe)

    30 July 1980

    2.931

    Bridges Project (Colombia)

    16 December 1981

    0.300

    Power Transmission Scheme (Paraguay)

    3 December 1981

    2.870

    Power Transmission Scheme (Paraguay)

    7 July 1982

    1.350

    Mini Hydro Project (Peru)

    5 August 1982

    4.843

    Mini Hydro Project (Indonesia)

    22 October 1982

    12.075

    Bridge Project (Burma)

    8 March 1983

    0.090

    Bridge Project Extension (Colombia)

    30 July 1984

    0.152

    HV Transmission Line (Jordan)

    19 February 1984

    3.611

    463

    Project

    Date of contract

    ATP allocation (£ millions)

    Sungei Ashning Dam (Malaysia)

    28 December 1984

    2.344

    Ascuncion Sewerage Consultancy (Paraguay)

    21 December 1984

    0.950

    Dendro Power Station Adviser (Philippines)

    21 February 1984

    0.040

    Mini Hydros Pilot Plant (Thailand)

    8 August 1984

    3.200

    Bukit Asam Rail Bridges (Indonesia)

    15 July 1984

    0.152

    Samanala Wewa Hydro Project (Sri Lanka)

    24 April 1986

    16.570

    N. W. Electrification (Cameroon)

    24 February 1986

    1.795

    Power Transmission (Malawi)

    12 June 1987

    2.590

    Yue Yang Transmission Line (China)

    16 December 1988

    3.072

    Karachi Water II Consultancy (Pakistan)

    25 July 1988

    1.360

    Railway Equipment (Tunisia)

    30 August 1989

    0.500

    Beijing Subway (China)

    16 May 1990

    9.987

    Pergau Hydro Electric Project (Malaysia)

    8 July 1991

    24.370

    Mini Hydros (Thailand)

    17 August 1994

    4.121

    (C) Rolls Royce (Including NEI)

    Electricity Generation Project (Egypt)

    29 October 1979

    10.020

    Dhekelia B Power Station (Cyprus)

    30 August 1980

    0.366

    Rihand I Super Thermal Power Plant (India)

    17 November 1982

    17.034

    Morupule Power Station Turbines (Botswana)

    26 September 1983

    4.418

    Sandakan Power Station (Malaysia)

    6 November 1988

    0.929

    Connaught Bridge (Malaysia)

    3 December 1990

    23.485

    Samarinda Power Station (Indonesia)

    6 March 1996

    12.568

    (D) Biwater

    Rural Water Supply Scheme (Malaysia)

    29 August 1986

    59.460

    Hill Country Water (Sri Lanka)

    29 December 1988

    2.129

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Departmental Equipment and Furniture
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [19037]

    The Attorney-General
    No equipment or furniture has been stolen from my own office in the past five years nor from the Government Property Lawyers Agency since its inception on 1 April 1993. The number of items and cost of equipment and furniture stolen from the Treasury 464
    Solicitor's Department, Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service is stated in the table. No item was valued at £5,000 or more.

    IT equipment stolen

    Non-IT equipment and furniture stolen

    Items

    £

    Items

    £

    1991

    6

    8,300

    1

    400

    1992

    24

    33,627

    6

    2,000

    1993

    19

    16,930

    11

    1,114

    1994

    12

    10,051

    17

    5,116

    1995

    8

    13,608

    17

    6,904

    Two non-IT items, costing in total £1,300, were otherwise unaccounted for from the Serious Fraud Office in 1995. No other items were otherwise unaccounted for in the past five years from the departments and agency for which I am responsible.

    UNSCOM Report
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Attorney-General what prosecutions will follow the UN special commission on Iraq—UNSCOM—report on the involvement of British companies in supplying the Iraqi programmes developing weapons of mass destruction. [20085]

    The Attorney-General
    I understand any information contained in an UNSCOM report indicating possible unlawful supply of weapons to Iraq will have been passed to HM Customs and Excise. Follow-up to any information about, and investigation of, any suspected breaches of UK export controls will be a matter for that Department. Decisions about prosecution are taken in the light of the outcome of such investigations.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Deregulation
    Mr. Deva
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made towards the formulation of a model appeals mechanism as provided for under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [20447]

    Mr. Freeman
    I am today issuing for consultation a draft statutory instrument setting out the model provisions. The model appeal mechanism is designed to provide a fair and independent process for resolving disputes about enforcement across a wide range of policy areas. It provides for problems to be ironed out at the earliest stage by giving a right to be warned before enforcement action is taken, and a chance to make representations to challenge proposed enforcement action, unless immediate action is necessary. It will also require enforcers to give reasons for taking action and explain how an appeal can be made. These rights have already been applied to health and safety regulations and will shortly be applied to environmental standards, food safety and building regulations, with a range of consumer affairs legislation to follow.

    The model appeal mechanism provides for appeals to be considered on the merits of the case by a three person panel. Common procedural rules would apply to all enforcement appeals with time limits and active case

    465
    management to ensure a simple, speedy and inexpensive process. I have arranged for copies of the consultation paper to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Deregulation Unit
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the estimated cost of maintaining the deregulation unit within the Cabinet Office; and how many permanent staff are employed in it. [18646]

    Mr. Freeman
    The cost of the deregulation unit was set out in the annual MINIS 95 return for the Department of Trade and Industry, as the unit was at that stage part of that Department. The return was published on 12 June 1995 and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

    The staff complement of the deregulation unit at January 1996 was equivalent to 43.5 man years.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what vehicles carrying calves were loaded on ships at Dover bound for French and Belgian ports on 8 February 1995; and what was the declared country of destination on each journey plan and the health certification for the purposes of the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1995. [15716]

    Mrs. Browning
    Scheduled ferry operators announced their intention to stop carrying farm animals for further fattening, or immediate slaughter, in 1994. No specialist livestock ships operated from Dover before 20 April 1995.

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19414]

    Mr. Douglas Hogg
    The information requested is as follows:

    (a) The number of letters to which I, or my predecessors, have asked executive agencies to reply during the last five calendar years are as follows:

    Year

    Number

    As a percentage of all letters from hon. Members or Peers

    1991

    234

    2.35

    1992

    357

    3.25

    1993

    475

    4.26

    1994

    872

    9.24

    1995

    828

    9.70

    466
    The answer to the vast majority of such letters were partially or wholly prepared by agencies but signed by MAFF Ministers.

    (b) Parliamentary questions are not passed to chief executives, although chief executives are asked to write to the Member concerned when the question seeks information about operational matters delegated to them.

    The number of questions for which I, or my predecessors, have asked executive agencies to respond to by letter are as follows:

    Parliamentary Session

    Number

    As a percentage of all questions

    1993–94

    6

    0.3

    1994–95

    35

    1.84

    1995–96 (to date)

    16

    2.09

    These figures include parliamentary answers where a partial answer has been given by me or my predecessors in respect of the core Department

    Figures are not readily available for earlier sessions of Parliament.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the ages of cattle confirmed as having BSE between 6 October 1995 and 29 December 1995. [19354]

    Mrs. Browning
    The following table shows the age distribution of BSE confirmed cases by age at clinical onset during the period 6 October to 29 December 1995:

    Age (years)

    Number

    <2

    0

    2–3

    4

    3–4

    116

    4–5

    324

    5–6

    636

    6–7

    576

    7–8

    566

    8–9

    248

    9–10

    78

    10–11

    25

    11–12

    4

    12–13

    6

    13–14

    2

    Unknown

    136

  TRANSPORT

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Donald Anderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the costs of the Government's rail privatisation programme; and if he will make a statement. [18004]

    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the costs to public funds of rail privatisation. [18019]
    467
    Mr. Watts
    Total Government privatisation costs by the end of 1995–96 are estimated to be some £145 million.

    Total sale proceeds are in excess of £2 billion.

    Maritime Safety
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to improve maritime safety. [18007]

    Sir George Young
    The Government are committed to further improvements in maritime safety, both in the United Kingdom and internationally. We have successfully pursued a range of proposals through the International Maritime Organisation and we will continue to work towards higher standards and their proper implementation. This commitment has been clearly demonstrated recently with regard to roll-on roll-off passenger ferries. Working first through IMO and then with our regional neighbours, we played a leading role in securing agreement to the application of a higher stability standard to ferries operating in north-western Europe.

    UK-US Air Services Agreement
    Sir Alan Haselhurst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to resume discussions with the United States Government about the air services agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. [18008]

    Sir George Young
    The US suspended formal air services talks in October last year. However, informal contacts are continuing at official level.

    Marine Pollution
    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to improve the protection of the marine environment from accidents to oil tankers. [18011]

    Sir George Young
    In addition to our policies to improve vessel safety, we are committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom has the resources to respond quickly and effectively to marine pollution incidents. We have accepted the vast majority of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the protection of the marine environment from pollution from ships, and we are implementing those recommendations vigorously.

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the danger of marine pollution arising from the presence of oil tankers off British coasts; and if he will make a statement. [18018]

    Sir George Young
    The carriage of any hazardous or polluting cargo by any transport mode inevitably involves some element of risk. The Government remain committed to reducing that risk so far as is possible.

    Trunk Road Construction
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made on attracting private finance initiative bids to assist trunk road construction. [18012]
    468
    Mr. Watts
    We have made excellent progress in attracting private finance initiative bids to assist trunk road construction. Industry enthusiasm for the DBFO programme has meant there has been no shortage of bidders and we have already awarded the contract for the A69 and expect to announce the award of other tranche 1 projects shortly.

    Royal Train
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Wisconsin Central paid for the royal train. [18013]

    Mr. Watts
    Wisconsin Central Transportation has not bought the royal train.

    Mr. Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the date of manufacture of the royal train locomotive and rolling stock; and what was the purchase price in current prices. [18910]

    Mr. Watts
    One of two class 47 locomotives—built in the 1960s—owned by Rail Express Systems Ltd, is generally used to haul the royal train, and they are also used for other purposes. The royal train coaches are owned by Railtrack, and were originally manufactured between 1969 and 1986. Apart from four which entered royal train service from new in the mid-1980s, they are all conversions from prototype or redundant coaches. The conversions took place in 1976–97 and between 1988 and 1991. The cost was approximately £10 million at historic prices. The purchase price at current prices is not available.

    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, in order of precedence, those members of the royal family entitled to use the royal train on official business. [19343]

    Mr. Watts
    If on official business, the following members of the royal family are entitled to use the royal train: the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Duke of York, the Prince Edward, the Princess Royal, the Princess Margaret, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, and Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy.

    Birmingham Northern Relief Road
    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long after the inquiry has closed it has taken on average in each of the last 10 major road inquiries for the decision to be announced; and when he expects to announce the decision into the Birmingham northern relief road. [18014]

    Mr. Watts
    Sixteen months. The decision on the Birmingham northern relief road will be announced when my by right Hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport, have received and considered the inquiry inspector's report.

    Railway Investment
    Sir David Madel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans next to meet the chairman of Railtrack to discuss future investment; and if he will make a statement. [18015]
    469
    Mr. Watts
    My right Hon. Friend has regular meetings with the chairman of Railtrack to discuss all aspects of Railtrack's business. Railtrack's plans for its expenditure on the network are set out in its network management statement, published on 20 December 1995. This document shows that Railtrack is planning to spend over £1 billion per year over the next 10 years.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to review the impact of bus deregulation. [18017]

    Mr. Norris
    Bus deregulation outside London has meant more bus operators running more bus miles at lower cost than previously, with new buses on many routes, and with greatly reduced public subsidy. The bus working group, which I chair and on which are represented bus operators, local authorities and bus users, has been reviewing the scope for further enhancement of the role of buses in meeting public transport needs, within the deregulated framework. I announced its initial conclusions and a further programme of work on 8 January.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. William O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the Freight Transport Association to discuss exhaust emissions from heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [18021]

    Mr. Norris
    My right Hon. Friend has met the Freight Transport Association twice in the past six months but has not discussed with it the subject of exhaust emissions from goods vehicles. Officials of the Department and the Vehicle Inspectorate do, however, hold regular meetings with the FTA to discuss matters of mutual interest, including exhaust emissions.

    Blind People (Public Transport)
    Mr. Booth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government assistance towards access for blind people to all means of public transport. [18016]

    Mr. Norris
    The needs of blind and partially sighted people have, over a number of years, been an integral part of the work to improve access to transport for disabled people. Many of the features which are now commonplace on our public transport systems—colour-contrasted step edges and handrails and the use of tactile indicators—have been developed and introduced in consultation with visually impaired people.

    The regulations which will be introduced under the transport section of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will build on current developments to ensure that the needs of people with sensory impairments are addressed, in the same way as those of people with physical disabilities. Consultation with disabled people will be an essential element in the development of those regulations.
    470

    Rail Safety Standards
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate safety standards are maintained by Railtrack. [18009]

    Mr. Watts
    We have implemented in full the health and safety commission's recommendations for an enhanced safety regime. The independent Health and Safety Executive will continue to ensure that standards and commitments are met, and will react as necessary.

    Chiltern Line
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of rail services on the Chiltern line; and if he will make a statement. [18382]

    Mr. Watts
    None. Current levels of service are a matter for Chiltern. The franchising director has invited indicative bids for the Chiltern franchise by 22 March. The passenger service requirement, which is the contractually agreed level of service that the franchise operator will be required to provide, was finalised on 22 January following consultation between the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and relevant local authorities—including the London boroughs of Ealing and Brent—and rail users' consultative committees.

    London to Colchester Rail Services
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the train operating companies running services between London and Colchester will be taken over by the private sector. [18596]

    Mr. Watts
    Services between London and Colchester are currently operated by Great Eastern and Anglia. The franchising director issued invitations to pre-qualify for the Anglia franchise on 22 February, and the deadline for expressions of interest is 22 March. Invitations to tender will be issued as soon as is practicable. The Great Eastern franchise will be offered to the private sector in due course.

    Guidance Notes
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18647]

    Mr. Norris
    This information is not collected.

    London to Greenwich Transport
    Sir Michael Neubert
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase transport capacity between central London and Greenwich. [18903]

    Mr. Norris
    Transport links between central London and Greenwich will be substantially improved by both the Jubilee line extension, which is under construction, and the proposed extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham. Together with members of the River Thames working group, which I chair, the Government are also considering a report by London First on the potential for improving access to Greenwich by boat and ferry services
    471
    via the River Thames. We are also considering the responses received to our consultation document on possible river crossings to the east of Tower bridge.

    Scientists and Engineers
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in the headquarters division of his Department in each year from 1991 to the current year. [19792]

    Mr. Norris
    I will place a table containing the figures in the Library of the House.

    Environmental Appraisals
    Ms Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of Transport if he will publish the result of the environmental appraisal conducted under the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" published by the Department of the Environment on the forthcoming transport policies and programmes circular 1997–98. [19547]

    Mr. Norris
    The transport policies and programme circular contains guidance to local authorities on their annual TPP submissions, and is not in itself susceptible to environmental appraisal. Environmental considerations play a large part in the development of the Government's local transport policies. For example, we have introduced the package approach to local transport investment, which encourages local authorities to develop alternatives to road building and discourages use of the private car where effective alternatives exist.

    Ms Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the result of the environmental appraisal conducted under the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" published by the Department of the Environment on the forthcoming transport policy paper. [19548]

    Mr. Norris
    The Government have not yet published their report drawing together the threads of the national debate on transport, so it would be premature to discuss the report's contents.

    Buses (London)
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for transport what arrangements are in place to ensure that, in central London, bus journeys between the same stops attract the same fares whatever the number of the bus service on the route or the operator; and if he will make a statement. [20240]

    Mr. Norris
    Fares on London Transport bus services are set by London Transport. With certain exceptions, fares in central London are determined by a zoning system, and are not related to the operator and route. Special fares apply to journeys on night buses, limited stop express services, and the Red Arrow network. For any local service provided independently of the London Transport network, fares would be a matter for individual operators.
    472

    M40
    Mr. Tim Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on the widening of the M40 between Denham and Loudwater. [19443]

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

    Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tim Smith, dated 11 March 1996:

    The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about widening the M40 between Denham and Loudwater.

    As you know, the M40 Junctions 1A to 3 (Denham to Loudwater) widening scheme has been included as part of the larger DBFO project M40 Junctions 1 to 15. Tenders for the DBFO project were invited in June 1995 and bids were received at the end of October. Since then negotiations have been taking place with the tenderers and we would hope to sign a contract with the successful tenderer this summer. On that basis work could still start on the widening in late summer.

    I am sorry that I cannot be more precise about the date for the start of works, but that depends on progress with negotiations and the successful tenderer's programme. However, we have included a strong financial incentive in the contract for the contractor to complete the widening as quickly as possible and I expect work to progress speedily once it starts.

    Kensington Olympia (Train Marshalling)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last valuation was made of the site at Kensington Olympia where facilities for train marshalling are being provided; and what value was attached to the asset. [20303]

    Mr. Norris
    The site at Kensington Olympia has been valued during 1995–96 with a historic cost value of £800,000.

    English Channel (Collisions)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many collisions were reported in(a) the English channel and (b) the western approaches in each year since 1987. [20309]

    Mr. Norris
    Figures for collisions reported to the marine accidents investigation branch are available only from 1991 onwards and are as follows:

    Collisions in the English channel

    1991: 12

    1992: 7

    1993: 11

    1994: 11

    1995: 14

    1996: 1 (to date)

    Collisions in the western approaches

    1991: —

    1992: 1

    1993: 1

    1994: 2

    1995: —

    1996: — (to date)

    473

    Challenge Funding
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce challenge funding into the transport policies and programmes—transport supplementary grant process. [19768]

    Mr. Norris
    We already incorporate the essential features of the challenge approach in our TPP process, a competitive bidding process which requires local authorities to set out a clear local transport strategy aimed at meeting overarching local objectives, and to prioritise their capital requirements in support of that strategy.

    Traffic Flow
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if new roads are required to meet a British Standard with regard to carriageway traffic flow rates. [20043]

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

    Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 11 March 1996:

    The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking if new roads should be designed to a British Standard with regards to carriageway traffic flow rates.

    No. There is no British Standard for carriageway flow rates.

    Newbury Bypass
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the clearance work being carried out for the Newbury bypass is on schedule; and if the targets and deadlines for clearance work will be met. [19667]

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

    Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Rendel, dated 11 March 1996:

    The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking if clearance work being carried out for the Newbury bypass is on schedule; and if the targets and deadlines for clearance work will be met.

    We are broadly on schedule despite the efforts of the protestors. Good progress is being made with felling the trees and shrubs. We may need to carry some work over into the main contract later this year, but we do not anticipate any delays to that contract.

    British Rail Freight Business
    Ms Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken in negotiations with prospective buyers of the British Railways Board's freight businesses to ensure that he complies with section 113 of the Railways Act 1993. [19860]

    Mr. Watts
    Negotiations with prospective purchasers are a matter for the British Railways Board. My right hon. Friend considers the board's recommendations for disposal in the light of his objectives under section 113 before deciding whether to consent to a sale.

    Ms Short
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been spent by(a) his Department, (b) the Office of the Rail Regulator and (c) the British Railways Board in the reorganisation of the British Railways Board's freight business. [19858]
    474
    Mr. Watts
    The expenditure by my Department and by the Office of the Rail Regulator on reorganising the British Railways Board's trainload freight division cannot be identified separately, nor could the expenditure by the board without a detailed analysis at disproportionate cost to the board.

    Highways Agency
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the Highways Agency to co-operate with local authorities on preparing package submissions. [19769]

    Mr. Watts
    No such instruction is necessary—the Highways Agency already discusses trunk road aspects of package submissions with local authorities when requested.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 150, if he (a) commissioned and (b) received valuations of the assets to be transferred to the successful bidder for the channel tunnel rail link. [19940]

    Mr. Watts
    The bidders in the CTRL competition made their own assessment of the value of these assets as part of the calculation to determine the amount of public sector support they required.

    Mr. Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the consortia bidding for the CTRL contract were invited to consider in their submissions a direct link from the CTRL to the west coast main line. [20307]

    Mr. Watts
    No.

    Railway Bridge, Kidsgrove
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans to demolish the unused railway bridge in Kidsgrove. [19947]

    Mr. Watts
    The British Rail Property Board is responsible for several disused railway bridges at Kidsgrove and several others have been sold to the local council. BR has no plans at present to demolish any of the bridges in its ownership.

    Overseas Visits
    Mr. Hall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, 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 and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17492]

    Sir George Young
    I am placing the information requested in the Library.

    London Underground Penalty Fares
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, (1) how many people have had penalty fares waived on appeal by London Underground on the ground
    475
    that they had a valid travelcard but had forgotten to take it with them on their journey; and what proportion of people appealing on those grounds this represents; [19508]

    (2) how much income has been received by London Underground from penalty fares on travellers who had valid travelcards but had forgotten to take their travelcard on their journey. [19507]

    Mr. Norris
    London Underground does not generally uphold appeals where the reason for issuing a penalty fare is that the customer has left his or her travelcard at home. This is because travelcard holders are required to carry their tickets with them as proof of their entitlement to travel. However, London Underground has made an exception in some 105 cases—just over 1 per cent. of people appealing on these grounds—where there were extenuating circumstances.

    London Underground estimates that it has received £37,600 to date in penalty fares from customers claiming that they had forgotten to take their travelcard with them.

    Railtrack (Compensation Agreement)
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the compensation agreement between Railtrack and(a) InterCity and (b) the west coast main line, stating the amount which is payable in compensation for each minute of delay. [19255]

    Mr. Watts
    This is commercially sensitive information between Railtrack and train operating companies.

    Railways (Rolling Stock Maintenance)
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the(a) specifications and (b) time intervals between maintenance overhauls of InterCity and regional railways engines and coaches; [19253]

    (2) what regular maintenance overhauls were carried out and what changes were made to the routine maintenance checks and to the regularity of those checks on the stock involved in (a) the Staffordshire and (b) the Longsight decoupling incidents in the last three years. [19254]

    Mr. Watts
    The stock involved in the Staffordshire and Longsight decoupling incidents consisted of InterCity west coast electrically hauled push-pull trains.

    The specification for the maintenance and overhaul of Intercity west coast push-pull trains and electric locomotives are laid down in vehicle maintenance and overhaul instructions, originally issued by the InterCity fleet engineer.

    A visual safety check of locomotives and coaching stock takes place each day.

    For coaching stock, a more detailed safety examination is completed every three to four days, with progressively larger examinations at one, three, six and 12-monthly intervals.

    The full vehicle overhaul is mileage based, but occurs approximately every two years.
    476
    For locomotives, a more detailed safety examination is completed every 120 hours in traffic equating to 10 to 14 days. There is a range of progressively larger examinations based on hours in traffic.

    Locomotive overhaul is also based on hours in traffic, but the regime consists of three types of overhaul occurring approximately at two and three-quarter, five and a half and 11-year intervals respectively.

    Similar specifications and frequencies apply to other engines and coaches. The contents of the vehicle maintenance and overhaul instructions are the subject of occasional review. However, British Rail has advised me that the periodicities have not been changed in the last three years.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    One-Parent Benefit
    Mr. Chisholm
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland currently receive(a) one-parent benefit without any means-tested benefit and (b) one-parent benefit with a means-tested benefit, broken down by each means-tested benefit. [17164]

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the following table:

    Recipients of one-parent benefit in Scotland

    Number1 of recipients

    Total number receiving one-parent benefit Number receiving one-parent benefit with a means-tested benefit (by benefit)2.

    97,000

    Income support

    38,000

    Housing benefit

    45,000

    Council tax benefit

    36,000

    1. In Scotland, 34,000 lone parents are in receipt of family credit. It is estimated that the vast majority are also receiving one-parent benefit; however, precise figures are not available.

    1Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

    2It is not possible to provide a breakdown of one-parent benefit recipients between those with and without at least one means-tested benefit because a person can be in receipt of more than one means-tested benefit and not all of the overlaps between benefits can be identified.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum duration of unemployment benefit that claimants will receive if their period of unemployment commences before 8 April and they otherwise meet the conditions of entitlement but are not in receipt of unemployment benefit on this date because they(a) are in receipt of a payment in lieu of notice, (b) are still within the three-day waiting period, (c) have informed the Employment Service of their unemployment before 8 April but are given an appointment with a new client adviser on, or after, this date or have not informed the Employment Service before 8 April of their unemployment but have a good cause for a delayed claim; and if she will make a statement. [17225]
    477
    Mr. Roger Evans
    The unemployment benefit scheme will continue until it is replaced by jobseeker's allowance on 7 October 1996. Those who are unemployed, entitled to benefit based on their contributions and whose entitlement spans this date will receive days of contribution-based benefit comprising unemployment benefit and jobseeker's allowance.

    If a claimant is in receipt of a payment in lieu of notice, or they are within the three-day period, the maximum duration of unemployment benefit they will receive will be 156 days.

    There is a maximum of 312 days where unemployment benefit is payable for 6 or 7 April 1996, either because the claim is made before 8 April 1996 or because good cause is accepted for a claim made after that date but in respect of a period before it, and unemployment benefit is also payable for 5 or 6 October 1996. If both of these conditions do not apply the maximum number of days will be 156.

    Asbestosis
    Mr. Chris Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the rules governing the payment of industrial injuries compensation to current or former Government employees who contracted asbestosis before 1987. [18303]

    Mr. Roger Evans
    For the purposes of industrial injuries disablement benefit, crown employees, other than members of Her Majesty's forces, are treated under the same rules as all other employees. Asbestosis has been a prescribed disease since 4 July 1948.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of allowing families in receipt of family credit to claim a child care disregard for each dependent child. [18241]

    Mr. Roger Evans
    [holding answer 29 February 1996]: The estimated cost of disregarding all child care expenses for recipients of family credit would be in the region of £40 million in the long run, with or without allowing for behavioural effects. If all such costs were disregarded, there would be a strong incentive for people who do not pay for child care at the moment to declare some payment. There are about 100,000 people on family credit who would be faced with such an incentive, which could lead to very substantial further costs.

    Note:

    Estimates based on date 1991–92 and 1993 family expenditure surveys, and the 1994 annual statistical enquiry, uprated to 1996–97 and 1997–98 levels adjusted using data on child care in the 199394 family resources survey.

    Income Support
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of allowing income support claimants to disregard work-related child care expenses in calculating income support entitlement. [18235]
    478
    Mr. Roger Evans
    [holding answer 29 February 1996]: The estimated cost of offsetting work-related child care expenses against earnings in income support is in the region of £10 million for 1996–97 and 1997–98. This figure takes no account of around 50,000 income support claimants who currently have unpaid child care. On the assumption that these people each started to pay £10 a week for child care, the additional cost is estimated to be in the region of £25 million in both years. These figures do not take account of other behavioural changes or of the additional costs of administration.

    Note:

    Estimates based on data from the 1991–92 and 1993 family expenditure surveys, and the 1994 annual statistical enquiry, uprated to 1996–97 and 1997–98 levels, adjusted using data on child care from the 1993–94 family resource survey.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Chris Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has issued to local authorities about the form in which they record expenses arising from their responsibilities to asylum seekers following the implementation of new regulations on 5 February. [19613]

    Mr. Curry
    I have been asked to reply.

    An official in my Department wrote to all directors of housing in English local authorities on 12 February to advise them about information that they could collect. I am placing a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

    Income Support (Residential Care)
    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change income support regulations to reflect the changes in capital asset levels for residential long-term care. [18964]

    Mr. Roger Evans
    Regulation 12 of the Income-Related Benefits (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996—SI 1996 No. 462—which was laid before the House on 4 March, implements the changes in the capital asset levels for residential long-term care. The regulations come into force on 1 April in relation to housing benefit and 8 April in relation to income support.

    Departmental Research
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all Departments for Social Security funded pilots, trials and research studies which have been conducted since 1990 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Mexborough, (c) Doncaster travel-to-work area and (d) Mexborough travel-to-work area identifying (i) title, summary and duration of the pilot or trial, (ii) target population and total number of participants and (iii) whether each pilot, trial or research finding was published and the date of publication; and if he will list all other non-DSS research bodies or organisations involved in each pilot, trial or research scheme. [19090]
    479
    Mr. Roger Evans
    Since 1990, the following research has been carried out in the geographical areas specified:

    Target population, number and duration

    1991–95 Doncaster

    Title

    Annual Local Customer Survey

    Duration

    Several weeks

    Target population

    All District customers

    Participants

    10 per cent, of total customer base

    Publication

    Yes—results held locally

    Non-DSS involvement

    None

    1993

    Mexborough

    Doncaster and Mexborough travel-to-work areas

    Title

    Annual Local Customer Survey

    Duration

    Several weeks

    Target population

    250 customers

    Participants

    138 customers

    Publication

    Yes—results held locally

    Non-DSS involvement

    None

    1994

    Mexborough

    Doncaster and Mexborough travel-to-work areas

    Title

    Annual Local Customer Survey

    Duration

    Several weeks

    Target population

    1,349 customers

    Participants

    1,019 customers

    Publication

    Yes—results held locally

    Non-DSS involvement

    None

    1995

    Mexborough

    Doncaster and Mexborough travel-to-work areas

    Title

    Annual Local Customer Survey

    Duration

    Several weeks

    Target population

    1,538 customers

    Participants

    700 customers

    Publication

    Yes—results held locally

    Non-DSS involvement

    None

    1995

    Doncaster

    Title

    Qualitative survey of customer representatives

    Duration

    6 months

    Target population

    19 local customer representative organisations

    Participants

    All 19 took part

    Publication

    Report produced and held locally

    Non-DSS involvement

    None

    1 No other pilots, trials or research studies have been identified.

    2 All the above research was conducted by the Benefits Agency.

    Disability Discrimination Act 1995
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 from organisations for people with diabetes; what replies have been sent; and if he will make a statement. [18474]
    480
    Mr. Burt
    Representations have been received from a broad range of organisations representing disabled people, which may include people with diabetes. All representations received are given careful consideration.

    Guidance Notes
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18648]

    Mr. Burt
    The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Children's Maintenance Payments
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that no court order for children's maintenance payments are stopped by the Child Support Agency until the parent responsible for child support payments has accepted the agency's(a) temporary and (b) other assessments and agreed to make payments from a specified date. [19920]

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    No. The child support scheme aims to ensure that all parents maintain their children to the extent that they can afford to do so. Making action conditional on confirmation that the absent parent accepts the assessment would allow such parents to defer indefinitely any enforcement of maintenance by the Child Support Agency.

    Mr. Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Child Support Agency to collect information about the number of court orders for children's maintenance payments which they stop and the date, in each case, that payments begin under Child Support Act 1991 arrangements. [19919]

    Mr. Mitchell
    No. The Child Support Agency has no business need to record the number of such cases nor would it serve any reliable policy monitoring function.

    Benefits
    Mr. Bradley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many awards for benefit he has suspended under regulation 37A of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 for each year since its introduction; [20084]

    (2) how many awards of benefit he has suspended under regulation 37A of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 in each year since 1990. [20086]

    Mr. Roger Evans
    The information is not available in the format requested as figures are not kept on an annual basis. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
    481

    Provision

    Estimated number of cases affected

    Regulation 37A of the Social Security Claims and Payments Regulations 1987

    52,100

    Estimate relates to the number of cases affected since the regulation came into force on 9 March 1992.

    Mr. Bradley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of benefit he has suspended pending appeals in the cases of(a) Graham and (b) Halliday, aka Fairey; in how many cases the suspension was lifted following representations by or on behalf of claimants; and if he will give a breakdown of the reasons for lifting the suspension. [20194]

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

    Lead case

    Number of suspensions

    Number of suspensions lifted

    Graham

    46,418

    1,693

    Halliday

    2,796

    13

    Note:

    In all cases the suspension was lifted on the grounds of hardship.

    Child Support Departures Scheme
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to carry out the planned pilot exercise referred to during the passage of the Child Support Bill to test arrangements for the new child support departures scheme. [20528]

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell
    I have today laid before parliament a statutory instrument containing the regulations which will underpin the trial of the child support departures scheme. The pilot exercise will begin on Tuesday 9 April and will involve cases covered by the Hastings Child Support Agency centre. Invitations to participate in this pilot scheme will be issued from today onwards.

  HEALTH

    Locum Budget
    Ms Harman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the locum budget for(a) doctors and (b) nurses in each of the last five years. [17940]

    Mr. Malone
    There is no national budget for locum doctors or nurses.

    Message Handling Services
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has undertaken of the benefits for emergency and immediate notifications of the use of a uniform electronic messaging system at all levels of the NHS. [18787]

    October 1995

    February 1996

    Number

    Per cent.

    Number

    Per cent.

    Health authorities

    2

    3

    2

    1

    Family health services authorities

    4

    5

    29

    13

    Hospital trusts

    20

    27

    32

    14

    482
    Mr. Horam
    A system for the electronic transmission of emergency communications between the Chief Medical Officer and the national health service is currently being piloted in Kent and Birmingham. The benefits to the NHS will be assessed once the pilot is complete.

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the BT Syntegra system became generally available within the NHS in October 1995. [18791]

    Mr. Horam
    After extensive testing in several health authorities, involving a range of users in the national health service, Syntegra launched its message handling service for use in the NHS at the Exchanging Healthcare Information conference in October 1995. So far, 222 connections have been made and this number is expected to grow over time.

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if trusts are obliged to have regard to the contract awarded by his Department by competitive procurement to BT Syntegra in 1994 when making decisions concerning message handling services. [18789]

    Mr. Horam
    The use of Syntegra's message handling service is not mandatory in the national health service. Each NHS organisation will decide on the basis of value for money whether or not to use the Syntegra message handling service. The large corporate discounts obtained from Syntegra mean that alternatives are unlikely to be cost effective.

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current estimate of the cost savings to the NHS accruing from use of Syntegra's message handling service. [18793]

    Mr. Horam
    It is too early to make realistic estimates of cost savings to the national health service due to the use of Syntegra's message handling service.

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number, in actual and percentage terms, of subscribers to the BT Syntegra NHS message handling system; and what was the number in October 1995 among(a) health authorities, (b) family health services authorities (c) hospital trusts, (d) other trusts and (e) general practitioners. [18792]

    Mr. Horam
    The number of subscribers to Syntegra's message handling system are as follows:

    October 1995

    February 1996

    Organisationally based systems—e.g. health authorities and trusts where there would be many individual users

    44

    86

    Personal systems—e.g. a GP.

    29

    136

    Numbers of users by national health service units, also expressed as a percentage of the total subscribers, are as follows:
    483

    October 1995

    February 1996

    Number

    Per cent.

    Number

    Per cent.

    Other trusts

    2

    3

    4

    2

    General practitioners

    0

    0

    20

    9

    Others—e.g. Department of Health, NHS Executive

    45

    62

    135

    61

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to trusts regarding the take-up and use of each of the message handling services available within the NHS. [18790]

    Mr. Horam
    General guidance about NHS-wide networking services, which includes message handling, has been issued to all NHS organisations, including NHS trusts. It is planned that this guidance will be supplemented by Syntegra's marketing activities, and other networking suppliers wishing to sell their services to the NHS.

    Computers
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many separate local area networks and wide area networks are currently in operation within the NHS. [18796]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not available centrally.

    Mr. Miller
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19457]

    Mr. Horam
    During 1995–96 the Department rented computer capacity from:

    Hoskyns Group plc: £112,300

    Office of Population Censuses and Surveys: £14,000

    Apart from this the Department has, since 1987, purchased total services which have included computer processing capacity from other departments and the private sector. Services have been provided by Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Department of Social Security, Information Technology Services Agency and Chessington Computer Centre—an agency of the Cabinet Office—in the public sector and by Data Sciences and CMS, taken over recently by Hoskyns Group plc, in the private sector. The cost of computer capacity cannot be separated within the total charges.

    Pharmacists
    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the 80 per cent.-20 per cent. payment schedule for pharmacists; and if he will make a statement. [19208]

    Mr. Malone
    We continue to discuss the pharmacists' concerns about the present payment arrangements.

    Gender Identity Disorder
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of diagnosed cases of gender 484
    identity disorder in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many were (i) male-to-female and (ii) female-to-male. [19269]

    Mr. Bowis
    This information is not available centrally.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department gives to practitioners and health authorities regarding the treatment of gender identity disorder. [19273]

    Mr Bowis
    Guidelines on specific medical treatments are a matter for the relevant professional body.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's forecast for the future growth of numbers of diagnoses of gender identity disorder created by the backlog of previously untreated cases. [19270]

    Mr. Horam
    It is for individual health authorities to assess the health care needs of their local populations, working closely with clinicians.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition of the gender identity disorder syndrome is used by the NHS and by his Department. [19272]

    Mr. Bowis
    There are a variety of internationally recognised gender disorders classified within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and ICD-10 Classification of Mental Disorders.

    North Staffordshire and South Cheshire Health Authorities
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the five most common causes of death for women in the North Staffordshire and South Cheshire health authorities in the last year for which figures are available. [19556]

    Mr. Horam
    The information requested is shown in the table. Data are not at present available for the new South Cheshire health authority, which incorporates the former Chester district health authority, South and East Cheshire DHA, and small parts formerly within Wirral DHA and North Cheshire DHA. Chester DHA and South and East Cheshire DHA together constitute almost 95 per cent. of the new South Cheshire health authority.

    Top five causes of death in 1994 to female residents of:

    ICD

    North Staffordshire DHA

    1. Ischaemic heart disease

    410–414

    2. Cerebrovascular disease

    430–438

    3. Pneumonia

    480–486

    4. Breast cancer

    174

    5. Malignant neoplasm of the trachea, bronchus and lung

    162

    Chester DHA

    1. Ischaemic heart disease

    410–414

    2. Cerebrovascular disease

    430–438

    3. Pneumonia

    480–486

    485

    Top five causes of death in 1994 to female residents of:

    ICD

    4. Malignant neoplasm of the trachea, bronchus and lung

    162

    5. Breast cancer

    174

    South and East Cheshire DHA

    1. Ischaemic heart disease

    410–414

    2. Cerebrovascular disease

    430–438

    3. Pneumonia

    480–486

    4. Breast cancer

    174

    5. Malignant neoplasm of the trachea, bronchus and lung

    162

    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnancies occurred in each of the last five years in the North Staffordshire and South Cheshire health authorities. [19557]

    Mr. Horam
    The information requested for the North Staffordshire health authority is shown in the table. Data are not at present available for the new South Cheshire HA, which incorporates the former Cheshire DHA, South and East Cheshire DHA, and small parts formerly within Wirral DHA and North Cheshire DHA. Estimates are provided for the former Cheshire DHA and the former South and East Cheshire DHA which together constitute almost 95 per cent. of the new South Cheshire HA.

    Conceptions1, 1989–93

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    19931

    North Staffordshire

    HA Chester

    6,295

    7,599

    7,118

    6,882

    6,542

    DHA South and East

    2,532

    2,971

    3,041

    2,718

    2,723

    Cheshire DHA

    5,774

    6,688

    6,435

    6,239

    6,199

    8,306

    9,659

    9,476

    8,957

    8,922

    1Includes pregnancies which resulted in either a maternity or a termination of pregnancy by abortion under the 1967 Act. There is no reliable information about pregnancies which led to spontaneous abortions and these are not included.

    2Analyses of data about conceptions in 1994, most of which resulted in births during 1995, will be completed later this year.

    Ambulance Service
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS ambulance trusts are deemed to be rural services; which of these contain significantly sized urban areas; and, in each case, what is the latest percentage of emergency calls reached within(a) eight minutes, (b) 14 minutes and (c) 19 minutes, for (i) the trust as a whole, (ii) the urban areas and (iii) the rural areas. [19564]

    Mr. Horam
    Information on rural services and their response times can be found in "Statistical Bulletin on Patient Transport Services in England: 1994–95," copies of which have been placed in the Library.

    Information on areas and response times within ambulance services is not available centrally, but may be available from local health authorities and ambulance services.
    486
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many vehicles were in service with each NHS ambulance trust in each of the last three years; and, of these, how many were(a) emergency vehicles and (b) vehicles for non-emergency purposes; [19560]

    (2) how many vehicles and of what type are (i) owned and (ii) leased by each NHS ambulance trust; and, for each type, how many are (a) less than one year old, (b) between one and three years old, (c) between four and seven years old and (d) eight or more years old. [19511]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not available centrally.

    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of criterion-based dispatch systems for the prioritisation of emergency calls. [19512]

    Mr. Horam
    We are still awaiting the final report of a research study commissioned from Sheffield university.

    York District Hospital
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for cataract surgery was at York district hospital at the latest date for which figures are available and at the same date in each of the previous five years. [19610]

    Mr. Horam
    Waiting time returns are collected centrally on a specialty basis and not by individual procedure. The number waiting by time band for elective admission in ophthalmology at York Health Services National Health Service Trust, and for York district health authority prior to 1992, are contained in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

    Chiropody Services
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what entitlements apply in respect of free chiropody services for(a) men and (b) ladies over the age of 60 years. [19351]

    Mr. Bowis
    Whatever the age and sex of the patient, national health service services, including chiropody services, are available on the basis on clinical need.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions his Department has reached in respect of the studies on the health effects of opencast mining referred to in his answer of 9 May 1995,Official Report, column 419. [19447]

    Mr. Horam
    We are still in discussion with researchers about a proposal for research on this subject. We hope to reach a decision shortly.

    Emergency Patients (Transport)
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold centrally records of the number of emergency patients transported more than 50 miles to receive hospital treatment and of how many subsequently died; and if he will make a statement. [19348]
    487
    Mr. Horam
    I have no such plans. Health authorities and hospital trusts are responsible for the health-care of national health service patients in each locality. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 6 March a programme of action on emergency care services.

    Ward Closures
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what notification has been received by his Department in respect of ward closures at(a) Doncaster royal infirmary and (b) Mexborough Montagu trust. [19633]

    Mr. Horam
    None

    Psychiatric Hospital Care
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is collated centrally in relation to the extra-contractual referral of patients needing acute psychiatric hospital care; and if he will make a statement. [19823]

    Mr. Bowis
    No such information is collected centrally.

    Thyroid Cancer
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Prime Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 8 January, what consideration he is giving to the evidence gained regarding stable iodine prophylaxis in the cause of World Health Organisation and European Union work in western European nuclear matters in relation to United Kingdom health service planning for radiological emergencies involving diseases such as thyroid cancer.[17910]

    Mr. Horam
    The United Kingdom Health Departments are fully aware of the evidence arising from the World Health Organisation and European Union work as was stated in the reply by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Balton, West Blaenau Gwent (Mr Smith) on 27 November 1995 at columns 523–24. This work is being taken into account in a revision of guidance to the national health service on planning for radiological emergencies, which is under way.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the current average waiting time for men claiming refunds as a result of the recent European Court ruling on prescription charges for men aged 60 to 65 years before(a) decisions are made about eligibility and (b) the refunds are provided; 19197]

    (2) what measures have been taken to shorten the waiting time for men claiming refunds as a result of the recent European Court ruling on prescription charges for men aged 60 to 65 years. 19198]

    . Malone
    A total of 187,000 claim forms have been issued by the prescription claims processing unit. Once completed claim forms have been received, the average time taken to assess entitlement and issue authorisation of payment is one month.

    Administrative procedures have been kept as simple as possible and we expect 90 per cent.of payments to have been authorized by the end of March.
    488

    Child Labour
    Mr. Parry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions have occurred for the illegal employment of children in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [19336]

    Mr. Bowis
    I understand that the number of defendants prosecuted under the relevant provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the Education Act 1944 in the last three years for which statistics are available was as shown in the table.

    England and Wales

    Offence Description/Legislation

    1992

    1993

    1994

    Causing or allowing person under 18 to go abroad to perform for profit [Children and Young Persons Act 1933 sections 25 and 26]

    1

    —

    2

    Offences against the [Education Act 1944 sections 58 to 60] including offences against byelaws as to employment of children (except offences relating to mines, factories or workshops)

    —

    2

    8

    Offences in connection with employment of children and young persons [Children and Young Persons Act 1933 sections 18 to 21 (section 18 as amended by the Children Act 1972)]

    12

    5

    3

    Causing or allowing children to take part in entertainments without licence [Children and Young Persons Act 1963 section 40(1)(a)]

    Total

    13

    7

    13

    Source:

    Home Office.

    In addition, I understand that the number of informations laid under the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920, which prohibits the employment of school age children in industrial undertakings was as set out in the following table:

    England and Wales

    Date of hearing1

    Informations laid

    1992–93

    1

    1993–94

    8

    1994–95

    2

    Notes:

    1Years commencing 1 April.

    2 Provisional.

    Source:

    Health and Safety Executive.

    Mr. Parry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on child labour. [19298]

    Mr. Bowis
    We have a comprehensive legal system in place to protect the health, welfare and education of children who work.

    Public Consultation
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public consultation procedure a health
    489
    authority is required to undertake before using private facilities to provide care services previously available in hospital. [19366]

    Mr. Malone
    Health authorities are statutorily required to consult the relevant community health council on proposals which would result in substantial changes to local services.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has to monitor the delivery of undertakings given by health authorities during public consultation procedures on the closure or change of use of health facilities. [19367]

    (2) what mechanisms are available to the public to ensure the implementation of policy commitments given by a health authority during a public consultation process. [19368]

    Mr. Malone
    Progress on the development of new health facilities, or changes to them, is monitored by the NHS Executive. The public can raise any matters of concern direct with a health authority or through their community health council.

    Contact Lenses
    Mr. Fatchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend the leaflet, "Contact Lenses and You", published by his Department, to make reference to acanthamoeba; and if he will make a statement. [19502]

    Mr. Malone
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to amend the leaflet, "Contact Lenses and You", since it already makes reference to the necessary aspects of lens care and hygiene relevant to acanthamoeba.

    Mr. Fatchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has taken to ensure that the leaflet "Contact Lenses and You" is available at opticians. [19503]

    Mr. Malone
    My Department has ensured widespread availability firstly by taking out a series of press notices in leading eye care professional journals setting out the necessary information for obtaining these leaflets; and secondly through direct promotion by the relevant eye care professional bodies.

    Property Sale, Harrogate
    Mr. Fatchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the procedures adopted by his Department for the sale of the former Yorkshire regional health authority building in Harrogate; and if he will make a statement. [19698]

    Mr. Malone
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on March 1996,Official Report columns 288–89.

    Myodil
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers of United Kingdom citizens rendered disabled by Myodil. [19680]

    Mr. Malone
    None, as this information is not centrally available.
    490
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations his Department has received from, and what assistance it has given to(a) the Myodil Action Group and (b) the Arachnoiditis Trust since 1987; [19678]

    (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into seeking a cure for arachnoiditis. [19679]

    Mr. Horam
    We have received a number of representations from arachnoiditis sufferers and organisations representing them since 1987. The Government have offered financial assistance to the Arachnoiditis Trust for three years through the general scheme of grants to voluntary organisations under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to help fund a pain management nurse. Since making its grant application, the Arachnoiditis Trust has re-assessed its priorities and has declined to take up our offer of funding.

    My Department has not directly commissioned research into a cure for arachnoiditis. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The MRC is always willing to consider high quality research proposals.

    Scientists and Engineers
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many professional scientists and engineers of each category were employed at each grade in the headquarters division of the Department of Health in each year from 1991 to the current year. [19796]

    Mr. Horam
    Information for Department of Health headquarters only is not available prior to April 1995. Information for 1995 is shown in the table.

    Scientific staff numbers (whole-time equivalents)

    April 1995

    Senior scientific officer

    19

    Higher scientific officer

    13

    Scientific officer

    9

    Assistant scientific officer

    1

    Total

    42

    Engineering staff (all grades)

    Nil

    Tobacco Advertising
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what immediate measures he will take to tighten the voluntary agreements on tobacco advertising. [20027]

    Mr. Horam
    The voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising was comprehensively renegotiated at the end of 1994 and strengthened substantially in a number of areas, particularly in relation to the protection of children.

    Meningitis
    Ms Harman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what money has been given for research into meningitis in each of the last five years. [19224]
    491
    Mr. Horam
    [holding answer 6 March 1996]: The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC, which is currently doing research in this area, receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department of Health commissioned a two-year clinical trial of candidate meningococcal vaccines in 1993 at a cost of £198,528. The NHS is known to have spent £88,900 on two meningitis-related research projects since 1991.

  WALES

    Mr. Mark Griffen
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will enable Mark Griffen of Buckley to have essential treatment at the Breakspeare hospital, Hertfordshire. [17341]

    Mr. Richards
    Responsibility for arranging treatment for Mark Griffen remains a matter for the Clwyd health authority.

    I understand that the health authority has recently issued a press statement to explain its action to date and the arrangements under way to secure the necessary treatment for Mark Griffen.

    Nursing Homes
    Ms Corston
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the average daily number and (b) the number per 1,000 people aged 75 years and over, of (i) occupied geriatric beds, (ii) long-stay beds in NHS nursing homes and (iii) places occupied in (1) local authority residential homes, (2) voluntary residential homes, (3) private residential homes and (4) private nursing homes in Wales for the latest year for which information is available. [18912]

    Mr. Richards
    The information is given in the following table. There are no NHS nursing homes in Wales.

    Number

    Rate1

    Average daily occupied geriatric beds in NHS hospitals (1994–95)

    2,704

    12.7

    Places occupied by residents of all ages in:

    Local authority residential homes for the elderly (at 31 March 1994)

    4,957

    23.2

    Voluntary residential homes for the elderly (at 31 March 1994)

    972

    4.5

    Private residential homes for the elderly (at 31 March 1994)

    6,722

    31.5

    Private nursing homes (at March 1995)

    10,969

    51.3

    1 Per 1,000 population aged 75 years and over using the 1994 mid-year estimate.

    492

    Full-time Education
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of 16-year-olds stay on in full-time education. [18924]

    Mr. Richards
    The information requested is as follows:

    16-year-olds in full-time education 1994–951

    Number

    Percentage of mid year population

    Schools2

    13,074

    39

    Further and Higher Education Institutions3

    10,770

    32

    Total

    23,844

    72

    1Numbers enrolled at January for schools, November for further education institutions and December for Higher education institutions. Age at 31 August prior to academic year. Provisional.

    2All maintained and independent schools.

    3Includes the University of Wales. Full-time, short full-time, short course and sandwich students.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the number of extra pupils that will be coming into full-time statutory education in each of the next three years and the number of teachers that will need to be employed on the basis of the pupil-teacher ratio of 1989–90. [19918]

    Mr. Richards
    The available information is as follows:

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    Estimated Welsh population of an age to receive statutory full-time education1

    433,100

    435,000

    435,900

    435,900

    Change on previous year

    —

    1,900

    900

    0

    Source:

    Government Actuary's Department 1994 based population projection.

    Notes:

    1At January each year, aged 5–15 or 16 but not yet of school leaving age.

    The 1989–90 pupil/teacher ratio for all pupils within Welsh schools, including the pupils who were younger than five or over the school leaving age, was 18.1. No assessment has been made centrally of the need for additional teachers.

    School Pupils
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of children in Wales are in(a) primary schools, including voluntary primary, (b) comprehensive and grant-maintained comprehensive schools, (c) nursery schools, (d) private schools and (e) selective state grammar schools. [18926]

    Mr. Richards
    The following table shows the percentages as at January 1995. All maintained secondary schools in Wales are comprehensive.

    Percentage1 of all pupils

    Primary schools:

    LEA and grant maintained (including voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools)

    57.3

    493

    Percentage1 of all pupils

    Secondary schools:

    LEA maintained comprehensives

    37.4

    Grant maintained

    1.9

    LEA maintained nursery schools

    0.7

    LEA maintained special schools

    0.7

    Independent schools

    2.0

    Total

    100

    1Percentages have been calculated by dividing the number of full-time and part-time pupils in each type of school by the total number of full-time and part-time pupils in each type of school by the total number of full-time and part-time pupils in all schools.

    Nursery Voucher Scheme
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the nursery voucher system. [18916]

    Mr. Richards
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 January 1996,Official Report, column 838, and to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 26 January 1996, Official Report, columns 479–80.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost to local education authorities of administering the nursery voucher scheme; and if he will make it his policy to provide for these costs in the revenue settlement to local authorities in the event of the scheme being implemented in 1997. [19944]

    Mr. Richards
    The vouchers will be distributed and redeemed by a private contractor selected through normal tendering procedures to secure best value for money. The costs of the contractor will be funded from the new money that will be available. Additional administrative burdens for local authorities should be minimal. It is open to the Welsh Local Government Association to identify additional costs in the annual revenue settlement discussions with the Department.

    Mr. Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which voucher schemes he examined before agreeing to introduce vouchers for pre-school provision for four-year-olds; and what conclusions he reached about their success in expanding provision and improving quality. [19942]

    Mr. Richards
    The Government consider that a voucher scheme is the most appropriate means of expanding nursery provision, while offering parents a greater choice in the sort of provision they want for their child, stimulating greater diversity of provision to enhance that choice, and raising standards generally. The scheme is being developed and tailored specifically to achieve those objectives. It is not meaningful to seek to make comparisons with other voucher schemes.

    1990–91

    1991–92

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–952

    Aberystwyth

    4,013

    4,502

    5,070

    5,767

    6,629

    Bangor

    3,819

    4,291

    5,015

    5,509

    6,163

    Cardiff

    10,069

    11,065

    12,134

    13,110

    15,155

    St. Davids

    1,012

    1,150

    1,332

    1,472

    1,592

    494

    School Inspections
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales, by county, have been commended by the inspectorate; and if he will make a statement. [18919]

    Mr. Richards
    This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member and will place a copy of his reply in the Library of the House.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each of the new unitary authorities and for Wales as a whole the(a) estimated council tax levels for each band per two-person household, (b) average council tax for each two-person household, (c) estimated revenue raised from council tax, (d) estimated revenue from all other sources and (e) column (c) expressed as a percentage of the totals of columns (c) and (d). [18528]

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Unitary authorities in Wales are required to notify my right hon. Friend of the level of council tax set for 1996–97 by 18 March. I will write to the hon. Member when the final figures are available and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the mandatory exceptions that are taken into account when local education authorities are assessing that part of their education budget on which the minimum of 90 per cent. must be given to schools under the local management formula; and if all of the mandatory exceptions are covered by properly approved orders under which local authorities operate local management of schools properties. [19925]

    Mr. Richards
    Details are contained in the Education (Financial Delegation to Schools) (Mandatory Exceptions) Regulations 1995 which as a result of the Education (Financial Delegation to Schools) (Mandatory Exceptions) Revocation and Amendment) Regulations 1996 will apply to local education authorities in Wales for a financial year beginning on or after 1 April 1996.

    University of Wales
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers of students at each college of the university of Wales in each of the last five years, indicating the funding provided by the Government in(a) cash and (b) real terms for each college in each of these years. [19929]

    Mr. Richards
    The number of students at each college of the university of Wales from 1990–91 to 1994–951 was:
    495

    1990–91

    1991–92

    1992–93

    1993–94

    1994–952

    Swansea

    6,056

    7,124

    7,823

    8,807

    9,688

    College of Medicine

    1,201

    1,355

    1,738

    1,725

    2,295

    Total

    26,170

    29,487

    33,112

    36,390

    41,522

    1Includes full-time and part-time students. At December.

    2Provisional.

    In cash terms, the colleges received the following grant support from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in the academic years 1993–94 and 1994–95:

    £ million

    1993–94

    1994–95

    Aberystwyth

    15.7

    21.9

    Bangor

    16.1

    21.4

    Cardiff

    37.2

    49.7

    St. Davids

    3.3

    5.0

    Medicine

    10.5

    12.7

    Swansea

    23.7

    32.2

    In addition, the colleges received grant from the funding council in respect of backlog maintenance and some other capital works in the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95. This was:

    £ million

    1993–94

    1994–95

    Aberystwyth

    0.5

    0.6

    Bangor

    0.5

    0.7

    Cardiff

    0.8

    0.3

    St. Davids

    0.1

    0.1

    Medicine

    —

    —

    Swansea

    0.6

    0.8

    The movement in GDP between 1993–94 and 1994–95 was nearly 2 per cent.

    Prior to 1993–94, funding for the higher education institutions in Wales was from a variety of sources. Comparable funding information for these years could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

    Pre-school Education
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what percentage of the rate support grant has been included by the Welsh Office to give local education authorities the option to provide pre-school education for(a) four-year-olds and (b) three-year-olds in each of the last five years; [19924]

    (2) what percentage of the revenue support grant has been included by the Welsh Office to support local authorities in meeting their statutory commitments to provide services for children under five years in each of the last five years. [19923]

    Mr. Richards
    Revenue support grant is not attributed to specific local authority services.
    496

    University of Glamorgan
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of students at the university of Glamorgan in each of the last five years, indicating the sums provided from public funds in(a) cash and (b) real terms in each of these years. [19928]

    Mr. Richards
    The number of students at the university of Glamorgan—formerly the polytechnic of Wales—from 1990–91 to 1994–951 was:

    1990–91: 6,791

    1991–92: 8,098

    1992–93: 11,525

    1993–94: 13,886

    1994–95: 14,5172

    1Includes full-time and part-time students. At November for 1990–91 to 1993–94 and at December for 1994–95.

    1Provisional.

    In cash terms, the university of Glamorgan received grant support from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in the academic years 1993–94 and 1994–95 of £18.7 million and £28.9 million respectively. In the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95, it also received grant of £600,000 and £1.1 million respectively, in respect of backlog maintenance. The movement in GDP between 1993–94 and 1994–95 was nearly 2 per cent.

    Information on funding in the three years prior to 1993–94 could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has for the funding of the university of Glamorgan in 1998–99; and how many students this funding will enable the university to accept; [19926]

    (2) what plans he has for the funding of the colleges of the university of Wales in 1998–99; and how many students this funding will enable the colleges to accept. [19927]

    Mr. Richards
    My right hon. Friend announced the financial provision for the higher education sector in Wales for 1996–97, and the planning figures for the following two years, on 13 December 1995,Official Report, column 1004. A copy of the Department's letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales setting out the details of the settlements has been placed in the Library of the House. Decisions relating to individual institutions are for the HEFCW.

    Special Needs Teacher Training
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps he has taken in the last three years at(a) the initial teacher training level and (b) in the grants for education support and training programme to provide teachers with the skills to identify children who may be dyslexic; [19930]
    497
    (2) what steps he has taken in the process of preparation and implementation of the code of practice in the identification and assessment of special educational needs of providing training for teachers to identify children (a) learning with difficulties with particular reference to dyslexia and (b) behavioural problems with particular reference to the autistic spectrum. [19931]

    Mr. Richards
    From autumn 1996 all newly qualified primary teachers will have to acquire in their initial training the necessary foundation to develop the ability to identify and provide for special educational needs, including specific learning difficulties or dyslexia.498
    A similar requirement has been in place for newly qualified secondary teachers since autumn 1994.

    The Welsh Office for a number of years has made specific grant available to local education authorities under the grants for education support and training programme to develop staff expertise and provision for pupils with special educational needs. This includes grant expressly for training in the teaching of pupils with dyslexia or autism, for teachers with designated responsibilities for special educational needs in ordinary schools and for measures to support schools in the application of the code of practice. The grant is continuing in 1996–97.

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

Legal Aid Expenditure
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the expenditure on legal aid in the last year, and what was the largest individual item.
Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the net expenditure on legal aid in 1994–95 was £1.299 billion. The largest single item of expenditure identified in that year was a payment to solicitors of £4.57 million made in respect of a lead case in a childhood leukaemia multi-party action. However, the largest single item of expenditure relating to a single case was a payment of £1.02 million to solicitors acting on behalf of a defendant involved in a fraud trial which arose out of the investigation into the BCCI banking fraud.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extremely interesting, if depressing, Answer. Can he possibly tell the House whether steps are now being taken to reduce the expenditure on legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, steps are being taken to control further expenditure on legal aid. I have already indicated some of those to your Lordships. The most important is the possibility of taking into account the circumstances of those who may assist persons applying for legal aid to maintain a lifestyle which seems higher than the assets and income that they possess. The second aspect is a new unit to investigate in more detail the circumstances of those whose financial affairs seem to be complicated and who are applying for legal aid.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that his department's latest estimate is of an underspend of £65 million this year on the legal aid budget? Can he further confirm that that is the third consecutive substantial underspend against the estimate's provision and therefore any assertion that the legal aid budget is out of control is without foundation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, legal aid expenditure is rising. However, it is true that the forecast that we made to date this year indicates an underspend on this year's figure. That is a sign that the controls are effective; it does not mean that the budget itself is in any way being reduced. I believe that the efficacy of the control system is being demonstrated.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say what proportion of that total was spent on
612
personal injury cases? Can he say also how much out of that amount of money was involved in successful litigation and whether any of that was recoverable as a result?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures to mind. But quite a high proportion of the expenditure in personal injury actions is recovered by the Legal Aid Board because success is normally attended by an order for costs. As I mentioned in my original Answer, the largest single item of expenditure was in respect of a childhood leukaemia multi-party action which is in the nature of a personal injury action of a special type. However, that case was unsuccessful and therefore would not have given rise to a costs order and recovery.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that when legal aid was introduced over 40 years ago the object was to help the poorer sections of the community? Now that objective has completely vanished and in many cases it is helping extremely dubious people.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the intention of the scheme is still to help those from the poorer sections of the community. The same rules are applied to everyone. However, experience has shown that in some circumstances a fuller investigation of some people's financial affairs is required before a final determination is made. The object of the scheme remains very much as the noble Lord described it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of the noble and learned Lord's proposal that legal aid should be denied to people who own a house worth more than £100,000, does that figure include the mortgaged element? Also, will the noble and learned Lord reconsider that figure since in relation to house property in southern England it appears to be quite unrealistic?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a question of whether it is right across the country to have a figure of that sort. The £100,000 refers to the equity in the house. I should have thought that a figure of £100,000 as a disregard is reasonable as a way of trying to ensure that the legal aid scheme serves the interests of those who need assistance.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is not the main sufferer in the legal aid system the successful defendant who all too often is unable to recover any part of his costs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a matter that I have addressed in the Green Paper because it is seen as a cause of injustice that a successful defendant may not be able to recover his costs. The normal way in which this is applied means that, where there is no contribution, on the whole there is no cost. Yet the person in question might have a house of substantial size. This issue requires to be re-examined and the consultation on the Green Paper will enable that to be done.

Economic Growth
2.43 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their latest estimates of economic growth in 1996.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government's latest forecast is set out in the November Financial Statement and Budget Report, and shows the economy growing by 3 per cent. in 1996.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I note the optimistic tone of the noble Lord's response. However, will he accept that the present rate of growth is not at that level, and if this rate is to be achieved over the year as a whole, there will have to be a surge in growth in the latter part of the year? Will he also accept that it is unlikely to be export-led, as our main export markets, particularly on the Continent, are going through a difficult economic period? Moreover, will he accept it is unlikely to be investment-led because of cut-backs in government capital investment and manufacturing and construction investment, and therefore it is likely to be consumer-led? Will the noble Lord accept that in those circumstances, we will be running the risk of once more seeing some overheating in the economy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to decide whether we shall hit the 3 per cent. growth target or whether we shall overheat the economy. Of course our GDP growth has slowed down, as it has done elsewhere in Europe; but the fundamentals are in place to ensure that good growth will continue. I am sure the noble Lord read Saturday's newspapers where he would have seen the very encouraging headline in the Guardian:
"'Bumper year' spells poll gloom for Labour.
Most economists back Clarke's forecast of strong growth, lower inflation and higher prosperity in 1996".
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, does the Minister not also recall a headline from today's Financial Times in which the Government are referred to as having apparently abandoned their safety first policy on inflation in their interest rate reduction in order to achieve the projected rates of growth about which so many noble Lords on this side of the House are sceptical?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure how one satisfies the Opposition or indeed the Shadow Chancellor. Week by week they call for lower interest rates; but the moment my right honourable friend the Chancellor lowers interest rates, they then complain. We are in no doubt that the level of inflation is set to continue its current trend which is well within the targets set out by my right honourable friend the Chancellor. The cut in interest rates on Friday is a sensible way to help everyone in the economy, particularly house owners.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that growth can indeed be led by both investment and consumer expenditure through this prudent, managed and consistent reduction in interest rates?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. A number of factors will help this year, including the reduction in taxes which will come into play in April and the fact that TESSAs will be maturing. In particular, as a result of the three interest rate cuts by the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, the payment for an average mortgage of £33,000 will have fallen by £150 a month since the high point in October 1990. That represents a great deal of extra consumer spending.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as well as having the lowest interest rates, and particularly mortgage rates, for very many years, can my noble friend tell me how unemployment in this country compares with unemployment in the countries of some of our European Union colleagues?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have explained from the Dispatch Box before, we have seen unemployment fall by around 750,000 as we have come out of this recession and our unemployment is still falling in contrast to many of our friends in the European Union—using the EUROSTAT standardised unemployment rates, just in case the Opposition demand to know whether the rates I quote are standardised, as indeed they always are. In December, the last month for which we have these standardised figures, ourselves and Germany were both at 8.6 per cent. The Germans will now be above us. The French were at 11.6 per cent.; Italy at 12.6 per cent.; and the European Union average was 10.9 per cent. So we seem to be doing rather well.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that regarding unemployment figures he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land? The unemployment figures, which are now renamed "claimant unemployment", are about 1.25 million lower than the actual figure at the present time. If unemployment were calculated and reported on the same basis as in 1979, it would today be standing at 4 million. Sooner or later, the country will become aware of that, and then the noble Lord will be smiling on the other side of his face.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is rather a pity that the noble Lord, who is always very careful in these matters, did not listen carefully to what I said before I explained the figures. The figures I used were not the figures we collect monthly; they were the EUROSTAT standardised unemployment figures which are collected and put on a standard rate. That is why, at 8.6 per cent., they are higher than the figures we produce every month.

Sierra Leone: Elections
2.50 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the outcome of the elections in Sierra Leone, and the initiation of a dialogue between the government and the Revolutionary United Front.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we welcome the favourable judgment of the international observer missions on the elections on 26th-27th February and look forward to the run-off vote for the presidency on 15th March. We also welcome the opening of talks between the Revolutionary United Front and the Sierra Leone authorities. Political progress is essential if there is to be lasting peace in Sierra Leone.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness join me in congratulating Brigadier Bio on his commitment to democracy and express the hope that the second round of elections, which are to be held, I believe, on Friday, will be as peaceful as the first, although they were marred by a certain amount of violence? Can the Minister explain why the observers have been withdrawn and will not be present to witness the run-off of the presidential election on 15th March? Will she also join me in congratulating President Bedie and Foreign Minister Essy on their successful diplomacy which brought the RUF to the conference table? Does she agree that it is best to leave further measures of negotiation to the Côte d'Ivoire and not to muddy the waters by interfering through the Commonwealth or the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Brigadier Bio and the council are to be congratulated on the elections. We hope that the run-off will be free and fair. We are very grateful that the Cote d'Ivoire has been positively helpful. It is now critical that the RUF continues in discussions with the National Provincial Ruling Council. That is one of the things that we hope to see happening.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, accepting what the Minister has said about the election, as I do, can she tell the House what the Government intend to do to support the new government in Sierra Leone? Does she agree that resources from the international community to support a good governance programme are vital and that the disarming of the rebels and the demobilisation of the Sierra Leone army are now absolutely vital as a first priority, preferably with a jobs programme for former soldiers?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. It is a little early to go into this in some detail. We have obviously helped with the elections to the tune of £3 million to make sure that they
616
were properly run. We are now looking at what happens afterwards. I shall bring the results to the House as soon as that is completed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how she believes that the peace process can be continued in the interim period between now and the handover to the incoming president on 27th April? Will those negotiations be conducted as heretofore by Brigadier Bio or will there be some way of associating the winning candidate on 15th March with any further talks that take place?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it must be for the successful candidate and Brigadier Bio to make sure that there is a successful handover. We shall do our best to help.

European Court of Auditors: Coopers & Lybrand Report
2.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make available to Parliament the report of the Coopers & Lybrand audit of the accounts of the European Court of Auditors; what is their view of its findings and what action they propose to take.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the report of the external auditors on the accounts of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 1994 was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities OJ C 298 dated 11th November 1995. A copy is available in the Library and the Government are content with these findings.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he will probably regret his endorsement of Coopers & Lybrand's audit report on the Court of Auditors because in Brussels at present there is very little talk of anything other than the gross extravagance which the Court of Auditors, which should be the guardians of expenditure, has incurred in the year in question and is likely to incur in 1996, with the approval of the Government? Will the Government give an undertaking that they will examine this matter a little further and thus avoid a rather more detailed ventilation of the matter, which they will surely get unless they do so?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is putting far too much faith in a recent press article in the Observer. Perhaps I can recommend that he reads the Official Journal and the conclusion of the Coopers & Lybrand report which says:
"Our detailed examination, which was carried out in accordance with the approach described above, enables us to conclude that the reliability of the accounts was of a high standard; this was reflected in the fact that we proposed no corrections or amendments, [and]

617
the information systems functioned in compliance with the rules of internal control as we understand them, … and as they are laid down in the aforesaid regulatory framework".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that nobody is questioning the accuracy or reliability of the accounts that have been prepared? The question relates to what the accounts themselves truthfully disclose. Does the Minister agree that they disclose an extravagance which, in modem times, ought to be entirely denounced by a government that are bent on achieving the utmost economy in public expenditure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are dedicated to achieving the utmost economy in public expenditure. I am a bit disappointed that the noble Lord has gone very quickly from the Court of Auditors being a collection of heroes when it comes to criticising other parts of the European budget, to today being, so to speak, the villains of the piece. I do not believe that the noble Lord's generalised remarks bear any resemblance to the actual truth. As I said in my answer, they are taken heavily from an article in the Observer. I commend the noble Lord not to believe everything that he reads in newspapers.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government's efforts to increase the powers of the Court of Auditors have been fully justified?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes indeed, and my noble friend is quite right about that. The Court of Auditors undertakes a very important function, normally backed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Its members have to do quite a bit of travelling as the money is spent and has to be checked in the member states and, in many cases, outside the European Union where we spend money as a community. That is right and proper. I believe that the Court of Auditors and its officials would be attacked if they did not go to the places where the money is spent to check the audit trail right through to the final user.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as I understand it, the Court of Auditors audits the expenditure of the European Union centrally. Coopers & Lybrand seems to have audited the Court of Auditors' accounts. Can the Minister say who audits Coopers & Lybrand's accounts?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, not me, anyway.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I take very much to heart his strictures on not believing everything one reads in the press? Under those circumstances, is it right for us to believe the reports we have seen in the press about the new ambassadorial service initiated by the EC, where it has representatives in various parts of the world posing as ambassadors and called "Your Excellency", which is costing about £100 million a year?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have ranged a little wide of the Court of Auditors and the audit of its accounts by Coopers & Lybrand. The
618
European Union is represented in many parts of the world and it is important that it should be, because it represents Europe collectively when it comes to important matters like trade.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The general principles underlying Parts II and III]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, after ("affected;") insert—
("(ii) with questions dealt with in a manner designed to promote as good a continuing relationship between the parties and any children affected as is possible in the circumstances;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which adds a new paragraph to Clause 1, requires that one of the principles to which the court should have regard when exercising its functions under Parts II and III is that marriages which are to be brought to an end should have questions dealt with in a way which is intended to promote as good a continuing relationship between the parties and any children affected as possible.
I have tabled this amendment as a result of a most helpful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, at Report stage. The noble Lord drew attention to the continuing needs of children. I am entirely sympathetic to his point that the current draft of the Bill, without this amendment, might be seen to imply that children's needs and problems can be disposed of when the marriage is brought to an end. I have therefore brought forward this amendment which indicates that, when exercising functions under Parts II and III, the court or any person concerned in these matters should have regard to the principle that where a marriage must be brought to an end, questions should be dealt with in such a way as to promote the best possible relationship now and in the future between the parties and, crucially in my view, any children affected, as the circumstances allow.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for drawing attention to this point, which enables us to put early and fundamentally into the Bill

619
a matter which has concerned your Lordships again and again during our discussions. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lady Elles drew attention to the fact that in many cases these days fathers completely lose contact with their children after divorce. That is extremely bad for the children. Therefore, it is important that attention should be focused on this issue when the divorce is being considered. I beg to move.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for moving this amendment and for his kind words. The amendment deals with a point that I raised at Report stage and means that all who are concerned with children who are affected by divorce will have to look beyond the divorce settlement. I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in thanking my noble and learned friend for picking up this point which is a theme that has run through all our debates on the Bill. On behalf of all of those children who will be affected by divorce, I thank my noble and learned friend for including this provision in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("it") and insert ("the marriage").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Divorce and Separation]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to the requirements of section 7(3)(a) and (b)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 3 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 5. I am conscious that we are returning to one of the central proposals in the Bill. The amendment would have the effect of extending from one year to 18 months the period for reflection and consideration where there are children in the marriage or where one spouse does not wish to divorce. It will leave the period at a year for couples both of whom consent to the divorce and where there are no children of the marriage. I should make it clear that in this case by "children" I am using the definition that applies in all other parts of the Bill.
As I said on Report, the amendment is a compromise. I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree that it does not in any way go against the principle of what he is seeking to do in the Bill. It is a compromise because I recognise that by extending the year to 18 months in particular circumstances it goes further than some would like, but, on the other hand, it does not go as far as I know that quite a lot of other people would like. The principal aim of the amendment is to buttress marriage, which is what I believe fundamentally that we should be doing in this Bill because it is so important for the whole fabric of society.
I have said before that my great concern about the Bill is the message that it sends out. Divorce at the end of one year, even against the wishes of one spouse who may not want it, is not in my view a good message to send out. Now that your Lordships have voted for the abolition of the concept of fault, the period of time before divorce is even more important than it was originally.
I believe that this amendment has the support of a number of people whose opinion I value. Perhaps I may start by quoting from what Cardinal Hume said in his article in the Tablet on 20th January, in which he wrote:
"Whatever the truth of this"—
referring to fault—
"it is necessary to find effective ways of underlining the seriousness of the marriage contract. One obvious possibility is to lengthen the so-called waiting period. The Bill, as I understand it, proposes that either or both parties should be able to apply for a divorce after a 12-month period for reflection providing that they declare that the marriage has irretrievably broken down … here again there are a number of factors to be considered—not least the effect of prolonged uncertainty on children, but I do myself wonder whether a period as short as a year is sufficient to establish that a marriage has irretrievably broken down".
It is only right to say that my amendment also has the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. In addition, I have today received a letter of support from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I believe that the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of York also supports the amendment.
If there is one thing on which we are all agreed, it is that there are too many divorces. When deciding on the length of time for reflection and consideration it is very much a matter of judgment as to how the arguments fall between having a period of one year or a period of 18 months. I believe that an 18-month period is important for one reason above all others: it provides a longer opportunity for reconciliation. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have stressed the importance of reconciliation and of the opportunity for reconciliation. Extending the period to 18 months in those cases where one spouse does not want a divorce or where children are involved provides a longer opportunity for reconciliation to take place.
We know that 27 per cent. of divorces in England and Wales are based on separation and take between three and six years. Some 16.3 per cent. of all fault-based divorces take more than a year. Therefore, some 43 per cent. of all divorces now take more than a year. In dealing with the so-called "quickie" divorce, we are in fact speeding up divorce for a very large proportion of all couples who seek divorce in England and Wales. The situation in Scotland is different. Some 60 per cent. of divorces take place on the basis of separation and take some two years, and in Northern Ireland 73 per cent. of divorces take place on the basis of separation and take at least two years. By definition, therefore, the length of time in at least two parts of the United Kingdom is considerably longer. I believe that it is not without significance that the divorce rate is lower in both Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We also know that between 20,000 and 30,000 couples each year draw back from divorce before it is granted. Surely we should encourage more to do so. At any rate, according to Relate, the organisation concerned with marriage guidance, 50 per cent. of divorced men regret the fact that they ever divorced. Should we not be helping those people by offering them more opportunity for reconciliation?
The Lord Chancellor's MORI poll showed that 60 per cent. of the respondents who answered the question about the time limits supported a period of 20 months, which is approximately what I have said.
Since Report, I have been able to obtain some information from countries within the EU. We have often been quoted—I believe it to be true—that we have in England and Wales the highest divorce rate in the EU—a rather doubtful distinction. It is clear from the table I have that the difference between divorces where there is mutual consent and where there is no consent is considerable. In Germany, for instance, with mutual consent it is one year's separation, and without consent it is three years' separation. In Spain, with mutual consent it is one year's separation, and with no consent two years' separation, or it could be up to five years' separation. I shall not read out the entire table, but I can assure noble Lords that a considerable degree of difference is set out as between couples who consent to a divorce and those who do not. As we all know, their divorce rates are lower. We should look at some of those figures and ask why that should be the case.
When we debated this matter previously, a great deal of emphasis was placed on children. Much of the argument centred on the fact that it was said that a year of uncertainty in a child's life is a long time, and that it is better to end the uncertainty—to have the divorce—rather than to continue the uncertainty for up to 18 months.
The more I have reflected upon that argument, the more I have wondered whether it is as true as it appears. What we know for certain is that there are few children for whom divorce is positively beneficial. Indeed, we know that 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of fathers lose contact with their children two years after the divorce. Only this morning I was at a conference where I was told by a headmaster of a school of 500 pupils in the north that only 10 per cent. of the children had fathers. That is a terrible situation in which to find ourselves. Is it surprising that we worry about the state of the fabric of society when one sees those children growing up without the influence of a father? What is hardly surprising—I am sure we have all read it—is the report, which was widely noted in the press, of Mr. Chris Woodhead, the Chief Inspector of Schools, which shows how badly a great many white, working class, as they are described, boys are doing in terms of examination results. If we looked into it I am sure that we would find that they are the children of divorced parents and are without fathers. Those are facts which we must consider.
When noble Lords consider the amendment they must weigh up the balance of interests of many people: the husband, the wife, and the children. We must determine
622
how much time we should give that extra chance of reconciliation to see whether we can bring together the husband and the wife.
We have to determine what is the effect of divorce on children. The pain of the child does not end with the divorce, it goes on. If we can prevent the divorce, we can ameliorate at least some of the pain. It is the divorce itself, not the procedures, which affects children. It is often the acrimony involved. There are later amendments which try to buttress marriage and do something which I believe my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to achieve, as I do—less acrimony than there is at present.
I believe that it is right to extend the period of one year to 18 months for reflection and consideration. That would apply where there are children. It would provide a greater opportunity for reconciliation. It would help those couples who are uncertain. It would, in particular, help those couples where one spouse does not want the divorce, to see whether they cannot find some way of coming together.
I accept that where both parties consent to a divorce and where there are no children, a year is the right time. I am content to go along with that, but where other people are to be considered, especially the children, a year is a short period in which to consider whether to take the extremely important step of divorce—of ending a marriage—with all the consequences that that entails, not just to the two people who are divorcing but to the children.
In weighing up this matter, we must consider the effect that all this will have on the fabric of our society. I said at the beginning of the Second Reading of the Bill that I regarded it as the most important piece of legislation this Session. Its effects are profound and far-reaching. I can speak only for myself, but I have never weighed so carefully all the arguments and considered so hard and so long about anything because the effects for us all are profound. That applies wherever we may live.
The amendment gives us an extra six months, which is not a long time. It offers a better chance to hold more marriages together. That is something which I believe to be right in the Bill; it is right for the couple concerned and the children; and it is right for society as a whole. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I ask of these amendments the same question that I have asked of other amendments designed to make divorce more difficult to obtain: what sensible purpose is being sought to be achieved? The noble Baroness describes the amendments as a compromise. Compromise is only sensible if it serves a sensible purpose. Apparently it is accepted that a year for reflection and consideration is sufficient where there are no children, but 18 months is said to be necessary where there are children.
I start from the basic position that it can make no sense to compel parties to remain married if the marriage is dead. The law cannot compel parties to
—

623
remain together. Even if it could, which it cannot, compelling them to live together against their will would cause greater harm to the innocent children.
The law can deny divorce; it cannot compel people to live together. Once that is recognised, I ask: what is the point of denying divorce where there are children until 18 months has elapsed? I believe, as I believe the noble and learned Lord believes, that one year is sufficient for the state to be satisfied that a marriage has broken down irretrievably. I believe that to be equally so where there are children and where there are not.
To deny divorce does not prevent breakdown. Therefore, where there are children of marriages and where there may be innocent children of new relationships outside lawful marriages, I see no point in denying the regularisation of these new relationships after lawful marriages have broken down irretrievably.
I know, and I acknowledge, that these amendments are well meaning but I believe them not to be well judged. Therefore, I oppose them.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he consider that a marriage has irretrievably broken down when one of the parties to the marriage does not wish it to be broken down?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I fear that the answer to that question is yes: I believe that, sadly, the same arguments as I have addressed in relation to the children apply where one party alone is determined that the marriage has broken down. Only the consent of the two parties can prevent that.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked what sensible purpose there is in prolonging what he considers to be the agony of having a marriage that has broken down to go on for another six months. The fact is that we are dealing with thousands of different complex cases. We are dealing not only with the cases in which two people have decided that they do not get on and imagine that they would both be happier if they were divorced. When one marries and has children there is another party to the consideration, even if two people are unhappy together. I know of many couples of my children's and grandchildren's generations who prefer to stay together than to leave their family and to suffer the agonies of not seeing their children any more.
That is one of the reasons why I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. What has not been taken into account is that a year in the life of a child is a short time, in particular if the child is at school. My noble and learned friend may say that hard cases make bad law, but the fact is that many marriages have been saved by the long school holidays during which the father will suffer the horror and the agony when he realises that next year he will not have that holiday with his children if he divorces.
I believe that the period of six months is a most reasonable and modest demand. I understand my noble and learned friend's principle that a year is a year is a year, but life is not like that. There are cases in which 18 months is of great value. I think in particular of the
624
case that I raised during our discussions on Report and in Committee. In cases in which one is allowed to make a statement after only one year, many wives must be left literally holding the baby. Is it fair on a woman who does not want a divorce to live through a whole year imagining that the marriage must come to an end regardless of whether or not she wants that? Is it not reasonable, fair and just for a woman in that situation to have an extra six months to be able to consider the matter and to take the necessary measures to protect her interests and those of the child? I speak only on one side but we know of many cases in which the husband is equally unwilling to divorce his wife who has gone away.
My noble friend mentioned education. It was clear from the report as well as from the headmasters' conference that divorce is one of the three major factors in the lowering of standards, the lack of self-esteem and of discipline and the vandalism with which so many schools now have to deal.
We are not babies in this House and we must know what is going on around us. Some of us may pretend that we do not know and lead lives in ivory towers, but we have only to read the press to know of the horrors that are affecting young children and their standards, education and chances in life. If we do not protect the children of today who will be the adult society of tomorrow, is it not the duty of this House to ensure that every opportunity is given to defend the lives of those children within a sure and stable family life?
It is with the greatest pleasure that I support my noble friend Lady Young. I pay tribute to the stand that she has taken throughout the Bill to see that fairness as well as justice is given to people who do not want a divorce and, above all, to protect the lives of children who suffer not only on divorce but often for the rest of their lives.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, it appeared that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, was asking a question in my direction and therefore, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may make one short observation. Delay means uncertainty and uncertainty is always bad for children. Surely it is the quality and not the absolute length of the consideration that matters. Surely one year is always enough.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was pleased to sign the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She has left us little to say. My noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg believes that the amendments are ill judged and unnecessary. However, I would say to him and to the noble and learned Lord that those who are concerned that the Bill will send the wrong messages to people who are married or about to be married have greatly shifted their ground. Even though they still hold their original beliefs they, through these amendments, are making the compromises.
Let us not forget that in Committee and on Report we came forward with amendments which would have retained fault and the waiting period at two and five years. Neither the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor nor my noble friend Lord Irvine have moved towards that position. They have been rigid in

625
their opposition. They have not been prepared to make any concession at all. Here are we, the people who wanted to keep the 1969 Act virtually intact, coming forward with a very mild amendment. I should have thought that at this stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Irvine would have said, "All right, that seems a fair compromise. There are good reasons for the compromise and let us go along with it". Unfortunately, they have not done so.
Arguments have been adduced in favour of the amendments. Perhaps we may go through the two major arguments again. The first proposition is that there should be a further delay of six months in cases in which the parties are not agreed. I refer to cases in which one party has said that there is no irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. It is very different because one party obviously believes that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down. In those circumstances, and in order to take into account both points of view, is it not fair and just that there should be an additional period of six months for further reflection and perhaps further reconciliation and mediation? Is that too much to ask when one of the parties says, "I do not believe that this marriage has irretrievably broken down"? Is it not just that that person should have as much, if not a little more, consideration than the person .who says that it has?
The other major point raised in these amendments is the position of children. The special position of children has already been recognised in the Bill—and I compliment the noble and learned Lord on that. And, indeed, there are amendments which go rather further along that line.
These amendments propose that where there are children, it is surely right that the parties who are to divorce should take a little more time to consider whether that is the right course to take. After all, we are saying, and the noble and learned Lord is saying, that although children obviously should not be a bar to the divorce, at least they have interests and they may be able to express some sort of view. Therefore, do we not need a little more time to see that the interests of children are expressed and are taken into account by the divorcing couples, bearing in mind the expression of those opinions? Is an extra six months for the sake of the children too much to ask? Surely it cannot be. Surely we must consider that that extra six months will certainly do no harm. What harm can it do? It may do a lot of good.
For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will vote for these amendments this afternoon. They are important. They are the minimum which are needed to make the Bill at least somewhat acceptable throughout the country. Therefore, I commend them to the House.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, described this amendment as extremely mild. I do not think that one would disagree with him. But the question that we must answer today is whether it would be useful and to whom.
626
There are two reasons why I have not sought to intervene so far in the debates on this Bill. The first is because I think that it poses very difficult questions to which I personally have no absolutely certain answers. Once you embark on the road of divorce, it is very difficult to know where you can call an acceptable and enduring halt to the process. There are those who wish to protect the cause of sustaining the institution of marriage. My noble friend Lady Young, with whom I am very sorry indeed to differ this afternoon, is championing that cause. Against her are those who wish to limit the anguish which may follow a relationship which has irrevocably broken down.
The second reason on which I should not wish to dwell, although it still seems to me to be relevant, is that 30 years ago I was divorced and the fault was mine. Therefore, during the passage of the Bill I felt in no position to preach to or advise others. But this issue is one on which I do venture an opinion.
The wrenching apart of a relationship as fundamental as marriage must cause distress and anguish for all those who are close to it, not just the two principally concerned but very particularly the children. I quite see that this is a very difficult question. However, once one accepts that a year's period for reflection is enough where there are no children, I cannot for the life of me see why the presence of children should be allowed to change that view. What would that extra six months be likely to achieve?
I recognise that this is very much a matter of opinion and no one can prove to everyone else's satisfaction that either side is right. But I still find it very difficult to believe that a further six months would do anything other than prolong the anguish and uncertainty and postpone even the possibility of recovery.
In moving the amendment with her usual skill and sincerity, as she did, my noble friend referred to the jeopardy in which the fabric of our society is placed today. I do not disagree with her about that. But once the point has been reached in the history of divorce that we accept that a year is a sufficient period for reflection for those facing the breakdown of a relationship, I believe sincerely, after a good deal of reflection, that the extra six months would not really achieve very much, although I realise that it would afford a measure of satisfaction to those who are desperately concerned about what is to happen to the fabric of our society.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I too have not intervened in the debates. I have not intervened for the first reason that he mentioned but not yet for the second. One hopes that the 50th anniversary will be achieved this year.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that this is a mild amendment. It seems to have been overlooked that once the one year has expired, it does not provide an entitlement to a divorce. A year must pass and the ancillaries must be completed. The necessary arrangements and decisions must be made as to the children; that is, as regards custody, care or control, access, maintenance, education and so on.

627
In regard to the party who is resisting the divorce, arrangements have to be made for maintenance, division of property and so on.
Where there are children and where there is resistance to divorce, I believe that it will be a very rare case indeed where the ancillaries are completed within the 12 months. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be giving away anything in practice if he were to accept the amendment because the 18 months is necessary to deal with those cases in relation to the ancillaries.
I have three further points to make. First, I believe that there is a marked difference which ought to be signified in the legislation between the divorce which involves children and the one that does not. In the latter case, when the parties marry they take on a responsibility to each other which, after the year, they can get rid of without doing any harm to anyone else other than themselves. But where a couple have brought children into the world they have extended their range of responsibility beyond themselves. I believe that that fact ought to be recognised. The recognition of six months is a small recognition. The difference between a consensual parting where both parties agree to a divorce and one where the other party says, "No, I want six further months for this to be sorted out if possible and if that is not possible it must be sorted out amicably in regard to the ancillaries", should also be recognised.
My final point relates to the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that this suggestion would serve no sensible purpose. The noble Lord is intensely busy and will not have seen a "Panorama" programme that I switched on by mistake and continued to watch. It involved a young couple. They were shown on the programme as having met, become very enthusiastic about one another, married and continued that marriage very happily. But when a child arrived the marriage deteriorated and there was a divorce.
To my surprise, both parties in that programme were utterly perplexed as to why the marriage had broken down. It seemed to me that it had broken down quite simply for one reason; namely, that they were unable to adapt themselves to the enormous change which is made to a matrimonial relationship with the arrival of a child. It is a particularly radical change nowadays and it arose in regard to that couple. There was no child and they both worked. They returned home at the end of the day having had an interesting time. They were tired from their occupations and swapped stories about how they had spent the day, and so on.
However, with the arrival of a child, the wife has to give up her work. She stays in all day faced with the rather unsatisfactory occupation of putting food into one end of the child and dealing with the complications at the other. When the husband returns from work she expects that the stimulus which she has lacked throughout the day will be made up by him. But he is tired and has not spent the day having a jolly game of golf: he has been working. He comes home tired and expects to be able to relax by watching the television or reading the paper. But not a bit of it. He is expected to cope with the child to some extent—something which
628
he has never been taught to do and which, in the case to which I referred, the husband was clearly quite incompetent in doing. So the marriage begins to break down. The couple are angry and disappointed with one another and it ends. It ends so obviously because no one told them in advance about the extent to which they had to adapt.
With that type of situation, an extra six months when attempts at reconciliation would be made might make some couples realise that there has to be a great deal more adaptation; in other words, something must be done to enable the wife to get out of an evening with some adult company. Something will have to be done to take the child off her shoulders for 24 hours, which is often the case. Because of the consequence to the father of a divorce—who, in this case, was utterly devoted—with the difficulties of access, the obsession which descends on the frustrated father in that way, the opportunity to explain the consequences of at least not trying a little harder would be a heaven-sent opportunity. Therefore, 18 months in order to cope with that task is not long. It seems to me that it is a very granite-like approach to refuse to accept this very mild compromise. I support it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, can we just be clear about what he has described as the "ancillaries". When the Bill becomes law, will they begin to operate from the beginning or the end of the 12-month reflection period? To my mind, that makes a very big difference and has a strong bearing on the thrust of the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as it understand it—subject to correction—the ancillaries are available to be dealt from the moment that the 12-month period begins. The mediation proposals in the Bill were designed to take the friction out of coping with settling those ancillaries. My proposition was that if you had the complication of children, or the resistance of one spouse who does not want a divorce, you would not in the ordinary course of events complete those ancillaries within a year; indeed, the process would go on for a good 18 months. Therefore, the amendment seeks no concession of any significance.
Baroness David: My Lords, to accede to the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—that the ancillaries would take longer than a year so why not require an 18-month waiting period where there are children which would, therefore, make no difference in practice—is to impose a delay. If there is no delay, the ancillaries are completed in under the year. It seems to me that it would be sensible to accept that. Where there is no delay, the arrangements should continue and a year would be ample in that case.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I do not support the amendment. I greatly admire the speakers who have spoken for it, but I believe that they have overlooked one aspect; namely, that there is a time before this period—the time of reconciliation. We have had long debates on the difference between mediation and reconciliation.

629
Many of the couples whom I know and with whom I work have been to Relate, which gives marriage guidance. They have gone there for perhaps a year or two years, so there has been a period of uncertainty for the children before mediation started. The process has, therefore, been going on for more than a year. That is not good for children. The period of one year is not the only time when the couple have considered the matter. Indeed, they considered it for a long time beforehand. I have to say that children cannot bear such long periods of uncertainty.
I absolutely agree with my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Elles that the children of divorcing parents suffer. But it is much better for them to suffer for less, not more, time because they have already been suffering. Relate's figures show that a number of couples do not go forward with their divorce. However, if the couple have reached the point of going through with a divorce, then they have already had a long time for consideration before reaching that decision. Therefore, for the sake of the children, I believe that a year for consideration is enough.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I shall be brief because the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, have covered most of the points that we have tried to make throughout the Bill on Second Reading, at Committee stage and today. We are still saying much the same thing. We have achieved some minor successes and there have been changes. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has responded positively to many of the suggestions that we made, and we are grateful for that. Nevertheless, there is still a great difference between us regarding the matter we are discussing. However, the difference between 18 months and two years is not so great. It is only six months.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was quite wrong to try to pretend that there is a definite period for reconciliation. I wish to God there was! Ever since November I have been asking for a definite period for reconciliation. As yet we have not achieved that. There is no definite period for reconciliation in the Bill. Therefore, it is not quite true to suggest that there is. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who asked for whom the extended period would be useful. It is obvious that it would be useful for the partner who does not wish to end the marriage.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, it is only just that we should try to be as fair as possible to the partner who in the first instance does not want the marriage to break up. Why should she be told that it has to break up whether she likes it or not? The extended period would also be useful to the children of a marriage. At least it would postpone the damage and misery caused to children by divorce. In Committee we heard all about the damage caused to children when parents decide to part. It is not true that more damage is caused to children when an unhappy couple stays together than when such a couple divorces. There is an element of doubt regarding the reasoning of some people on the matter.
630
This whole matter is based on the White Paper which in turn is based on a false premise; namely, that 75 per cent. of people seek a quickie divorce, and that this Bill will do away with the quickie divorce. However, that figure is wrong. The true figure is between 27 and 32 per cent. Therefore, the White Paper is based on a false assumption to begin with. Had we started with correct statistics, the period of 18 months might already have been included in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Irvine said that the law cannot force people to remain married; in other words, one cannot influence people's morals by means of laws. There are umpteen examples of where that argument has been turned on its head. I refer to laws countering sexual discrimination, racial discrimination or, more recently, the movement to introduce laws countering age discrimination. Those are all attempts to change people's morals and conduct through the introduction of legislation. I believe it was at the Committee stage that I quoted the words of Dr. Johnson who said, using much the same argument as my noble friend,
"How small of all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or kings can make or cure".
Benjamin Jowett—whom I have quoted many times—replied,
"It is of course true 'that you cannot make men moral by Act of Parliament'; yet the laws and institutions of a country do make it, to a degree, which it is difficult to exaggerate, either easier or harder for men to walk in the right way".
It is more accurate to espouse the latter theory than simply to say one cannot change people's minds by introducing certain laws. People can be guided in the right direction through the introduction of legislation. I believe we are justified in seeking this modest extension of six months. I only hope that the extended period would be used for reconciliation. Then it would be worthwhile. I support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, like others in your Lordships' House, I am speaking in a debate on this Bill for the first time. Others of my colleagues have spoken at previous stages of the Bill. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that they have not spoken with united voice. That illustrates the immense complexity of the matter before us and the great difficulty of reaching decisions on these matters. All of us in your Lordships' House are concerned to buttress the institution of marriage—or rather, I would say, to give it respect—and to encourage the expectation that marriage is something that has to be worked hard at—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said—not just in practical ways, but also in more profound ways. It is a partnership within which we have to grow and within which we learn a great deal about our own faults and how to live with the faults of others. What we are concerned about is how best to enable that partnership to be reinforced and to continue. However, we are also aware that there are times when relationships break down.
I wish to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her tremendous persistence in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. I wish to make three simple points. The first is to underline the point that

631
has already been made about the signal which the Bill will send out. I was particularly taken by the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; namely, that within the signal that is sent out there needs to be a distinction made between those marriages where there are no children and those marriages where there are children. Clearly, the damage done to children by divorce is immense. It needs to be made clear that those who are married with children bear an additional responsibility than simply the responsibility of two people to each other. I believe that this simple amendment would send that signal.
As regards cases where one partner contests a divorce, I have found in my experience that there is frequently considerable bitterness on the part of a person who opposes a divorce, even with the present regulations. That bitterness is likely to be increased with the shortened period of time that is proposed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, it is just that the partner who contests a divorce should be allowed a period in which to make representation, and indeed perhaps to come to terms with what is happening to him or her as a result of a course of action which he or she does not approve of. Therefore I believe that the extended period would be of help in that regard.
In relation to children, I should have thought that the moment that most disturbed children was the moment of separation which is not necessarily the moment of divorce. Indeed the moment of separation can sometimes take place before—as I understand it—proceedings under this Bill could ever begin. Therefore the uncertainty is created in the period leading up to the separation. I should have thought that any measure which resulted in one or two marriages where there were children being reconciled was worth considering. The damage done to children by divorce is enormous. If this modest increase of six months were included in the Bill and saved even a limited number of marriages, it would achieve a great deal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have not spoken so far during the debates on this Bill but I have listened carefully, particularly to this important debate. I must confess to a considerable bias in favour of marriage having had 59 years of happy married life. The point is a perfectly straightforward one. What the amendment seeks to do is to specify that where there are children to the marriage, the situation is somewhat different from cases where there are not, and that therefore there is a strong argument, it seems to me, for having a slightly longer period—it is only a six-month increase that is sought—for reflection, or possibly for reconciliation, where there are children than in the case where there are not.
Therefore my noble friend Lady Young is right in urging that where there are children, 18 months is a reasonable period. I appreciate that it is essentially a compromise. There are many people who would think it should be a longer period. There are others who doubt whether it would be of any great value. However, a small increase of six months in the cases where there are children to consider seems of the greatest importance. The presence of children makes a real
632
difference. I urge that that difference be reflected in the length of time required for the dissolution of the marriage.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise to give strong support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Before I give my reasons I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the two amendments which he moved after listening to your Lordships during earlier stages of the Bill. I refer to the amendment which lists the general principles on which the Bill should be considered and, secondly, to the important amendment to Clause 20 relating to marriage support services, which opens the door for reconciliation or counselling. Those amendments improve the Bill enormously.
It is that second aspect which leads me to believe that we should have the longer period before divorce. If we accept the amendment, that will achieve two things. First, it will make clear the very real difference between a marriage which is not blessed with children and one that is and the special responsibilities that are involved in that case. Secondly, it gives longer for counselling which, with the recent changes to the Bill, we recognise as being so appropriate. That is the main thrust of what I want to say to your Lordships.
If the amendments are accepted, at least two of the cardinal's wishes have been carried out; namely, a longer period of time and recognition of the responsibilities to children. Many noble Lords would prefer an even longer period, but we must try to reach agreement.
At an earlier stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the period is a matter of judgment. He recognised that there are two views. However, he went on to ask whether it can be right to require that, just because there are children, those children should be subjected to a longer period of distress. That is the nub of the issue. I am quite clear in my own mind that if, as a result of providing for an extra six months where there are children, there is a chance of reconciliation, although some others may suffer, on balance there is no question which is the right approach.
There was a remarkable article in The Times on Saturday, which might have been written in the knowledge that this debate was to take place. It was on the subject of marriage counselling and was written by a lady called Theresa Buck. I beg your Lordships to read it. The thrust of the article was the need for proper training in counselling and the importance of counselling in saving marriages. She made the point, which has already been made today, that the divorce rate in this country is twice that of the rest of Europe. She also felt that this country should jettison its muddled attitude towards marriage guidance. The Bill would he very much better if marriage guidance were regarded as at least as important as mediation. However, marriage guidance takes time, and if there are children it should necessarily take longer.

633
One of the problems in relation to marriage guidance is the shortage of money. The eminent and excellent bodies which provide marriage counselling between them receive £3 million a year, whereas legal aid for divorce amounts to over £300 million. That is wrong. It reinforces the need to provide greater opportunity for marriage guidance or reconciliation, especially where there are children. Therefore, we should support the longer period that is proposed.
The 1969 marriage Bill did not achieve its purpose. As we all know, it resulted in a great increase in the number of divorces. Let that not happen again with this Bill. None of us wants that. The signal that goes out should be that children matter, and that in those cases where children are involved a year is too short a time and the reconciliation and mediation will have a better chance of success if the period is 18 months.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the integrity, determination and persistence with which she has fought her corner on this Bill. It is never easy to go out into the road and stand in front of the legislative juggernaut and signal it to stop. I admire the way in which she has done that. However, having said that, I do not understand her reasons for doing so any better than I did at Second Reading.
The noble Baroness has said that her objective is to buttress marriage. That objective is shared in every quarter of this Chamber. I do not see how she can pursue that objective by making divorce more difficult. It is so self-evident to the noble Baroness that that link holds that she has not entirely taken on board that many of us in this Chamber not only do not accept it but cannot understand why others do accept it.
A legal marriage is an outward and visible sign of an inward and personal relationship between two parties. I do not understand how, by keeping the outward and legal relationship going, you can invigorate the inward and personal relationship between two parties. I cannot understand how the prevention of divorce can make two people love each other when they have ceased to do so.
The noble Baroness said that many people draw back from divorce. She is quite right about that. However, I have yet to hear of cases where they draw back simply because the legal procedures of divorce are too difficult. Some of your Lordships may remember a film of some time ago called "The Sheep has Five Legs", all five of them being played by Fernandel. At one moment in the film the wife of one of Fernandel's characters had decided to leave him, packed her suitcase, shoved in everything in a hurry and a rage and filled it too full. She could not shut it. He had to sit on the suitcase beside her to help to shut it, at which moment they both burst out laughing and the thought of divorce went out of the window. I believe that that is the kind of way in which couples draw back from divorce. I believe that the state of the divorce laws, difficult or easy, has nothing to contribute to it. The divorce laws contribute to the number of broken relationships which end up in
634
separation and in divorce. Whichever way that goes, I do not think that it contributes anything to the buttressing of marriage.
As we are at Third Reading, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness this question. When she refers to children under 18, does that mean under 18 at the beginning of the period of reflection and consideration or at the end? At what moment do they have to be under 18? If we do not decide that now, and the amendment is carried, some court will do so at considerable public expense. I believe that that should be made clear at some stage.
We have again heard statistics that we have heard many times since Second Reading about divorced men regretting that they were divorced. But what exactly does that mean? I doubt whether a professional opinion pollster would be entirely confident in using such a question. It may mean that one regrets one's marriage broke down: that many people do without believing that it could be saved. It may mean something very different: that one wishes one could have made a go of it. But it may only mean wishing that one's misguided spouse had done something different. We have all heard people in negotiations talking like that and getting nowhere. Until I understand what that information means, I shall not give it that much weight.
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, raised the question of the unwilling party to a divorce. But it is a personal relationship. You cannot have a relationship of one. Therefore I would say to the noble Earl that by no endeavour can a magnet ever attract a silver churn. That is why, however sad it may be, one unwilling party cannot be used to defer divorce unduly, because the spouse cannot keep the marriage going on his or her own.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, raised the parallel of anti-discrimination legislation, but I do not think that the cases are quite on all fours. In anti-discrimination legislation we ask people to refrain from performing or to perform an action. One may do that with a good or an ill heart. I may appoint a woman, a black man, a homosexual, or whoever, against my own inclination that it is still a perfectly good appointment, but I cannot be required by the law to love somebody. However determined you are to obey the law, you cannot do so simply because the law says so. If you cannot do that, I do not see how you can save the marriage. That seems to me to be a very big distinction between anti-discrimination legislation and the legislation required in the Bill.
I listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. So much of what he said was so vivid that I think we shall all remember it when much of the remainder of the debate is forgotten. But the noble and learned Lord illustrated to me why I believe that the introduction of paternity leave would do more to preserve marriage than anything we can do or refrain from doing in the whole of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord was proposing to lock the door, but I fear that his horse was already stolen.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young stated that we are not introducing a matter of principle but of degree; and that is perfectly true. We are properly treating the provision as though it were a matter of principle. As the amendment is drafted, it is a matter of two principles, paragraphs (a) and (b). I for one regret that they are tied together because I am not sure that I have the same feelings about the two. The first deals with marriages where one of the partners does not consent to a divorce. The right reverend Prelate reminded us that a principle of justice applies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, applied his formidable intellect to producing intellectual arguments which support one's instinct in the matter.
However, there is a second leg to the amendment: that which deals with children. That is a principle not of justice but of compassion. In my book that must always prevail. Therefore, in order to judge how to conduct myself on this amendment—I hope that your Lordships will feel the same—it is the effect on the children and not the effect on the partners which must take primacy. The children, after all, were no part of the contract from which they sprang into existence. They are innocent parties and are almost certain to be damaged in some degree by what is happening. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said earlier, what is happening begins long before the order is applied for. That is not the beginning of the process; it is the culmination.
My noble friend Lady Young said that the process of divorce takes more than a year in 43 per cent. of cases. The amendment, presumably, will not bite too much on them. But the Bill bites on the remaining 57 per cent. I suspect—I think that your Lordships will share my suspicion—that the cases in which children are involved will largely fall in the 43 per cent. because of the intricacy and importance of making arrangements for them. If that were not the case now, it would be provided under the Bill not only because of the welcome amendment that my noble and learned friend has put into Clause 1 at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, but also because Clause 3(1)(c) states that,
"the court shall make the order applied for if (but only if)—the requirements of section 9 about the parties' arrangements for the future are satisfied".
Clause 9(3) states:
"The requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act (duty of court to consider whether there are children of the family and, if there are, the arrangements to be made for them) must have been satisfied".
If that were not enough, Schedule 8 amends Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act to ensure that the minutiae of the Act are applied as regards children. I refer to paragraph 23 on page 71.
There is a whole range of protection for children and a requirement that their interests shall be fully attended to before the order can be given. Again, once there is a dispute, the whole process is caught by the Children Act. So there is no question of a quickie divorce so far as concerns children.
We come now to the question of whether, where there are cases involving children, the process of divorce should he extended from a minimum of one year to a
636
minimum of 18 months in order to prolong the period for reflection. I listened to my noble friend Lady Elles with the close attention that I always give her. It worries me greatly to be sitting and speaking between two ladies of your Lordships' House whom I so greatly admire, if I may say so, and in whose opinions in almost everything I so greatly concur. Indeed, I concur in the opinion that the institution of marriage is central to the fabric of our society and that children are the most important feature of it. I concur that decline in the stability of marriage is one of the principal contributing factors to a decline in the strength of the fabric of our society.
If my noble friend Lady Young were to go to school in the north of England, she would find—and she will correct me if I am wrong—that the majority of the horrifying 90 per cent. of children in that school with no known father are not the product of broken marriages but, I fear, are the product of what is now a quite common feature: liaisons which produce children without marriage; and I think that they are outwith the terms of this debate.
We come back to the question of the interests of the children. I have studied this issue painfully and at close hand. It seems to me that the only good that can come from a divorce is the protection of the children from damage. That protection is intensely difficult for parents to achieve.
Your Lordships have, in my view mercifully and rightly, agreed to remove the issue of fault and therefore litigation in court over the heads of children as an inevitable part of this Bill, and for that I am profoundly grateful on their behalf. But one comes back to what is left, and that is the period which started long before the application to the court and will last until it is over. I can tell your Lordships that the really difficult time in which to maintain a relationship with an estranged party which protects the children is the period while the matter is in the hands of the lawyers. That is the time that your Lordships are speaking about. I hope your Lordships will not extend it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I support this amendment. Much of the discourse about divorce treats the question as if it concerned only husband and wife. There have been signs of that in today's debate. The great value of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her splendid speech in support of it, is that it focuses clearly on the fact that as soon as a child is born the marriage is concerned with more than husband and wife. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the right reverend Prelate and many others.
There is a focus as if there were only husband and wife. We have heard today of a dead marriage. If there is a living child, the marriage is not dead. Earlier in our deliberations there was talk of the parties being locked in a loveless marriage. How many marriages are there where parents do not love their children? By focusing exclusively on husband and wife one loses sight of the fact that the first of the purposes for which marriage is ordained is the procreation of children. That is also the first purpose that a sociologist will accept. Even today

637
the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whose clarity of mind on these matters has been so valuable to us, spoke of marriage as a relationship between two people. It is not. As soon as there is a child, it is a relationship with more than two people. It is for that reason that the amendment is valuable.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to say something, which I shall not hear but I shall read.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I merely wish to say to the noble and learned Lord that I have spoken of the interest of children in these amendments at such length at earlier stages of the Bill that I chose not to do it again.
Lord Elton: My Lords, and I spoke of almost nothing else!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, and said truly, that uncertainty is bad for a child, and that was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. So it is. But there are two things to say. The first is that responsible parents can shield the child from uncertainty to a large extent during these painful processes, and wise counselling can help them to do so. The second is that, although there is uncertainty, we now know for certain that divorce is very bad for a child. The statistics have been mulled over in the course of our deliberations but, in the end, one comes down to this. When there is a divorce, there are two families to be supported. Remarkably few people in this country can afford more than one family. More often than not the result is that both families go down to subsistence level; income support level. After the divorce, which is a licence to remarry, there is the gravely damaging conflict of loyalty in the mind of a child between two families, with probably a surrogate parent being substituted for the natural parent.
It is not much to ask that, where a child is involved, the parties should consider the matter for an extra six months and be helped to have regard to their responsibilities to the child as well as to each other.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I hope I may briefly trespass upon your time. I suppose in some way I have a double interest in this amendment which I should declare. The first lies in the fact that I have been through the divorce courts myself; the second is that I am the father of four grown-up children and, through a second marriage, I have inherited two grown-up stepsons. I have therefore listened very closely to many of the proceedings on this Bill and have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose underlying the amendments which have been tabled and which have been so movingly addressed by many of your Lordships. However, I do not agree with them, for the following two reasons.
First, I think it is very often the case that the breakdown of a marriage is the product of a lengthy period of decline in the relationship between the partners to that marriage. That period sometimes lasts for years
638
and can put very considerable strain upon the husband and wife; that strain frequently being reflected in the home and therefore impacting upon the children.
Secondly—I am not in a position to enumerate in how many instances—it is quite often the case that, where there are children of the marriage, the children themselves, assuming they are of a certain age, contribute to the continuing relationship between the father and the mother even when they find it difficult to continue to live together. The influence of the children helps to continue the marriage, very often in time bringing about a reconciliation, sometimes after a period of separation. I do not believe that formalising arrangements in the sense that is proposed will help in those processes, nor that protracting the processes through the introduction of a law will help to bring about greater contentment between the two people concerned or greater happiness for any children of that marriage.
I very much agree with the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Perth that there should be better guidance for marriage. However, guidance for marriage should come before marriage. That is where the emphasis is needed. It is where Churches of all denominations have a major responsibility and part to play in the advice they give to people before they marry.
It is not a question of making divorce easier or harder; divorce is usually hard. We should be considering how to make marriage more difficult, the result of a more thought-through process by the partners concerned. Then there would be less divorce because the product of that relationship, when marriage comes about, would be the result of careful thought and long drawn out consideration. I hope that we shall reject the amendments and concentrate on guidance before marriage.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the amendment. I put one down at Report stage which would have had largely the same effect. However, it had one other feature: it provided that either party should be able to appeal to the court if they felt that the interests of the children would be disadvantaged by the extension of the period from 12 months to 18 months. If the court felt that to be the case, it could reduce the period from 18 months to 12 months, but no less.
The noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, and others, referred to the situation where a marriage was dead at the end of the 12-month period. They went on to suggest that it is important to limit the anguish of the parties and the children. That is a fatalistic approach; I do not believe that all marriages are dead at the end of that period. The evidence is to the contrary.
In the amendment we are trying to save marriages and a little extra anguish may be necessary in order to achieve that objective. If the anguish will be too great in relation to the children, then if noble Lords are minded to vote for the amendment this afternoon, a small additional amendment could be introduced in another place to cover the point which I made at Report stage.

639
There are many reasons for your Lordships to vote for the amendment, but perhaps the most important is the message or signal that it gives. I have talked to many people—my friends, taxi drivers, bus drivers—and almost without exception they all had the impression that the Bill is intended to make divorce easier. I know that the noble and learned Lord will tell me that that is not the Bill's intention, but I am sorry to say that is the way it is being received. It is the way a message is received and not the way it is sent that matters. Noble Lords will remember the schoolboy story about the general who sent back a message: "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance". It arrived at headquarters: "Send three-and-four pence, we're going to a dance". The message received is what matters and if the message received is wrong, we must change the message that we are sending. By introducing the 18-month period on the face of the Bill, we would strengthen the Bill somewhat, though not much.
I was going to speak about the important difference between marriages with children and with no children, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said fluently everything that I had intended to say. They are right. Where there are children in a marriage it is essential to give the marriage a little extra chance of achieving reconciliation. As the right reverend Prelate said, some marriages might be saved. That is a tremendously worthwhile objective and I urge your Lordships to vote for the amendment.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, one of the most important and valuable things in the world is time, as noble Lords are aware. Everyone who has had the good fortune to be married for a short time, or even a considerable time, will know that occasionally we have the odd disagreement. But we manage to get over it. On his wedding anniversary my father used to say: "We've had only one argument during all our married life". Then he would add, "But every now and again we have an armistice". Probably his armistice was longer than the war. We all believe in the sanctity and value of marriage as the foundation of all proper civilisation. The most important thing we can give anyone to save their marriage is a little time to heal it.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, I have waited for an hour-and-a-half during the debate to make a contribution because, frankly, I came with an open mind on Amendment No. 3. To me it is not a matter of principle whether one waits 12 months or 18 months, or even whether one draws a distinction between children or no children, because every divorce, with or without children, is an infinite tragedy.
I waited because I wanted to listen. I have been richly rewarded because I am immensely moved by the contributions, and by the manner in which noble Lords have agonised over the subject. Having listened to both sides, I feel that those in favour of the amendment have persuaded me more than those who oppose it.
I wish to add one angle to the reasons which have been mentioned, and I was stirred by what I heard. My pastoral experience tells me, dealing with any number of unhappy marriages, threats of divorce, young couples
640
and elderly couples coming to me, that a prime reason for the rise in the divorce rate is that people simply do not try hard enough. Divorce becomes the first alternative, instead of being the last. In many cases—though not all—I am persuaded that were people to give it another try, put more effort into it, they would succeed and the marriage would remain intact. But this is an age in which we want instant solutions, instant answers. We do not have the patience to work out a problem. The result is that many divorces occur simply because they are snap decisions, taken on the spur of the moment. There is not enough time to allow the decision to mature.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that one cannot force people to love one another. I beg to differ. I think that necessity becomes the mother of invention; and a mother loves. Therefore, if people feel a necessity to live together, to make a success of their marriage for their own sake or their children's sake, if they try hard enough then many will find that, where a great effort is put in, the reward will come. It will be a mother of invention. That invention will lead to the capacity to generate love, to nurture love and eventually to have a perfectly happy marriage after a period of disturbance. Therefore, by increasing the time, particularly where children are concerned, to me the signal that will go out is, "Try harder".
Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Young and am proud to have my name on the amendment. I have listened to every stage of the debate and this is the first time I have spoken. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I say that, although I am fairly new to the House, I believe that my noble friend Lady Young has given the example to everyone of exactly how to fight a cause when you believe in it, at every single level. I am proud to be on her side.
At the same time, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. During the past few weeks he has given way on two or three matters on which I felt strongly. One thing has become obvious to me at every level. The sincerity of feeling in the debates is something I have rarely seen in any Chamber anywhere in the world. It is possibly because so many of us speak from personal experience. I cannot match the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who is coming up for 50 years of marriage; or indeed my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, at 59 years of marriage. But, at a mere 30 years, I have an opinion to give, and indeed look forward to joining them both.
I have two sons, one aged 21 and the other 23. I take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, on Report. The most important argument to emerge from this debate is surely that we should be working on the importance of how hard it is to get married, not how easy it is to get divorced.
As I am sure many noble Lords remember, at school the child of a divorced pair in the class was somehow a strange and rare object. Now my sons tell me that I am strange because I have been married for 30 years. That is where the message is wrong. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, means by "the fabric of society"

641
for which we should fight. Surely we should be fighting for our children to believe that you should think very carefully indeed before you get married.
Most of the arguments have been rehearsed very competently this afternoon. However, I should like to answer one or two of my noble friends and others who did not agree with our argument. We heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, use the word "drawback". He told us the story of how sitting on a suitcase had made a couple realise they wanted to remain married. That might have happened in the 13th month, or the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th or 18th month; and they might have spent the rest of their life regretting that they had made the wrong decision.
We heard the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, say, with all the brilliance that we hear from lawyers, that this is a compromise. Of course it is a compromise. Many of us on this side wanted something a damn sight tougher and knew we could not get it. This afternoon we are trying to get through the House a proposal not only in which we believe, but on which we think we might be able to carry people with us. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine: do not kid yourself; the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I would have liked to table an amendment that was a damn sight tougher, but we realised that we would never get it through the Chamber, and all we would win, among a few of us, was an academic moral argument. I say to the noble Lord: yes, the amendment is a compromise. But it is one in which we believe and on which we hope people will join us in the Lobby. We want to push the period from 12 to 18 months.
My noble friend Lord Peyton made a very sincere and moving speech. Whenever one talks at a personal level it rightly seems to capture the whole House. I say to my noble friend that if both sides agree that there should be a divorce, we are not standing in their way. We are saying: if one person still believes there is an outside chance, let us give them another six months to find out. That is our suggestion.
I say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull: has she never heard of marriages where one party is shocked to discover that the other wants to leave; and then that same person changes his or her mind at a later date? I agree with my noble friend that for a great percentage of people another six months is tiresome. But for those few for whom it is not, and whose marriage might be saved, this amendment is worthy of your Lordships' consideration.
For the children, and for that marvellous concept that comes up again and again, "the fabric of society", I say to noble Lords who are still considering the matter: perhaps 18 months will save a few thousand marriages. Perhaps it will help a few thousand children. It is not a large number. It will not change the whole world. But I ask those who have still not made up their minds: for those few thousand, I hope you will join the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the Lobby.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I shall detain the House only briefly. I take up two points that the noble Baroness,
642
Lady Elles, mentioned in passing. She said that all of us know many people who have had marriage troubles, but who have managed to get together and sort things out and have been reconciled. She also said, "We are not babies in this House". It is worth reminding ourselves that the vast majority of people who get divorced are not babies either. They are adults. They are a total cross-section, literally from princes to paupers. Another problem is that people in very happy marriages have difficulty in understanding just how bad a bad marriage can be.
So far as children are concerned, we have our convictions—and somebody else will tell us one day whether we are right or wrong. I believe that the consequences of this amendment could be for very many children an extension of misery. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon said that marriage cannot die while the children are alive. I can show him children who look back on the day the marriage finally died as a point of relief.
The only good thing about this amendment is the clarity of its objective. It seeks to force a couple to remain married when at least one partner finds life with the other intolerable. We cannot even say on that basis that it is to force them into a happy marriage. I say "at least one of them" because much has been made of one partner. In these circumstances an extra six months of compulsory matrimony—an attractive proposition!—is a devastating weapon in the hands of one party in a vicious and bitter divorce. Can Members of this House realise the extent to which the children will be prayed in aid when there is one partner who does not want the divorce? It is not because the marriage can be put together; they have already tried that. People do not come down to breakfast one morning and say: "You remember that row last night; I'm seeing the lawyers today". As the noble Lord, Lord Eden, said, it grows and festers to the point where people can take it no longer.
I ask the House to consider the situation of the typical family in those circumstances. They live in a very small house. They have a couple of children. The children do not go to boarding school; they are in the house seven days a week, and are there over the weekends when the family can have that "happy time" together from Friday night right through to Monday morning. It is not coincidence, as is well-known, that one of the great times for divorces and final breakdown of marriages is Christmas—because it is a time when they cannot stand each other any longer. The children are there. And what do noble Lords think in that circumstance Mummy and Daddy do in the evenings and over breakfast? What is the conversation? Do they chat about cricket, or the new exhibition at the Tate? No. They resurrect the argument, accusations and bitternesses that they have been resurrecting day in, day out for months before. They pick over the corpse of the marriage like a couple of crows with a dead rabbit. Is that what we want a further six months for?
I never claim to be particularly modest and remain regularly amazed that people do things in a different way than I would have done them but it has never occurred to me that I had a role to play in the marriages of my closest friends, let alone hundreds of thousands

643
of people that I have never seen. The difference between a democracy and a totalitarian society is the way in which the family survives as a family. There are some things where politicians writ should not run and they have no real role in this particular case.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment. I recognise, as my noble friend Lady Young made clear, that there is a considerable element of compromise in this proposal. My feelings in favour of compromise will not entirely have escaped your Lordships over the years when I have had an opportunity of addressing the House on legislation. However, when it comes to a matter of this kind, I must try to examine the effects of that compromise on others. I have sought to do so.
This Bill did not come forward without a great deal of consultation. One of the questions, as those who read the consultation paper will recall, was whether the period for reflection and consideration should be longer where children are involved than otherwise. The result of that consultation was decisively against that proposition.
My noble friend Lady Young gave some figures, and I am not sure that they are central to this issue. However, I should perhaps place on record that in the 1993 OPCS statistics on page 79, your Lordships will find that the number of divorces that took place within six months was 52,852, and those that took place within six months to one year amounted to 78,408. When one adds those together It comes to 131,260 out of a total of 164,668 divorces. That means that 79.7 per cent.—or around 80 per cent. of divorces in round figures—were obtained within a year or less. The Bill, in proposing a minimum period of one year, is a considerable change in the divorce legislation in that respect.
We must bear in mind a second point when considering the amendments. The Bill proposes another fundamental change in the divorce law arrangements; namely, that the arrangements for children and property are, with a few exceptions in the relevant schedule, to be made generally speaking before the divorce is granted. That means that the year is a minimum because, depending on the circumstances, the arrangements may take longer than a year to finalise.
That led my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner to say that, in practice, this amendment may not make much difference. He anticipates that the arrangements for children particularly would take longer than a year in any event and therefore that the amendment does not lengthen the period unduly. My point is a point of principle. Where the arrangements require longer than a year to make, it is right that the divorce should be postponed until those arrangements are in place. That is the appropriate difference between a marriage where there are children and a marriage where there are no children. The arrangements may take longer; it is appropriate that those arrangements should be made and therefore the Bill, as presently drafted, takes account of that.
My second point is that, as a result of amendments made in respect of the hardship bar, hardship to children of the marriage is a relevant consideration in that
644
connection. That is another reason that the court, in consideration of specific circumstances, might consider it right to postpone the divorce order. Those are geared to the needs of the specific family.
The third point relates to the question of whether the court wishes to invoke powers under the Children Act. If the court considers that the divorce should be postponed on that account, then it can do so. Therefore the Bill, as presently drafted and without the amendment, contains clear provisions which enable the court, in appropriate circumstances, to lengthen the period required for divorce to take account of the fact that there are children. The amendment seeks, irrespective of the circumstances, to lengthen the minimum period in all cases, whatever the circumstances may be, to a minimum of 18 months.
Reference was made to the article in the Tablet by Cardinal Hume. Your Lordships will remember that one of the considerations that he mentioned specifically, as a factor tending to reduce the length of the period, arose where he was talking about considering whether the period should be extended. He said,
"Here again there are a number of factors to be considered, not least the effect of prolonged uncertainty on children".
That was an important factor in the Cardinal's approach to this matter. I have given effect to certain of his views in relation particularly to the hardship bar when I proposed to your Lordships, and your Lordships passed on Report, considerable relaxation in that respect.
This is a difficult issue. However, your Lordships are not wise, as a matter of principle and judgment, to distinguish—from the point of view of irretrievable breakdown—between marriages involving children and marriages that do not involve children so long as there are appropriate arrangements for taking account of the existence of children and seeing that they are properly regarded before the divorce is granted in any event.
We have had a full debate on these matters. I want simply to refer your Lordships to two letters that I received recently. One is from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. That is a society with considerable experience, recognised in public general statutes, in this area. The letter is dated 11th March and is from the director and chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I think it only fair to read it to your Lordships. It states:
"I am writing to express the NSPCC's concern that amendments to the Family Law Bill may result in the lengthening of the period for reflection between initial application and the granting of a divorce from twelve to eighteen months. The NSPCC welcomes the legislation's intention of reducing family breakdown and saving marriages. The Bill will provide an invaluable opportunity to couples to consider their difficulties and of saving their relationship. This can only be good for the children. We recognise that all families are different and that decisions about how long a period of reflection should be allowed is always going to be controversial and difficult. We do however take the view that on balance a twelve month period is appropriate.
We believe that twelve months should be sufficient for a couple to decide whether or not the marriage can be saved. We know that the disruption caused by divorce can severely limit the parents capacity to parent their children".

645
That is an important issue. The distraction from the responsibility of parenting is a point to which the NSPCC draws attention. The letter continues:
"In our view a longer period than twelve months would unnecessarily extend the period of uncertainty and insecurity for the child. A year is a very long time in the life of a child both developmentally and psychologically.
We would therefore strongly urge you"—
it is a letter to me—
"to retain the twelve month period for reflection and consideration before a divorce is granted."
I have also received a letter on the notepaper of the Children's Society, which is a voluntary society of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. It is signed by the senior director of Barnados, the chief executive of the Children's Society and the chief executive of NCH Action for Children. I should say that my wife happens to be a member of the Council of Barnados, but so far as I know she had no part whatever in the letter which will probably come as much of a surprise to her as it did to me. The letter states:
"Dear Lord Chancellor
We write to express our concern at the possibility of lengthening the Family Law Bill's twelve month 'period for reflection and consideration' between initial application and the granting of a divorce. We understand that an amendment to this effect will be debated in the House of Lords today: we believe that it would run counter to the interests of children if agreed.
Clearly, for a young child, a period of twelve months is a very substantial proportion of his or her life. In the circumstances of divorce, this will be a time of continuing and fundamental insecurity. We hope that those debating this issue will consider this point very seriously and not take steps to lengthen the period. The welfare of children will not be well served if the Bill is changed in this way.
The Children Act already draws attention to the damaging effect of delay in reaching decisions about children's upbringing and care. The same principle must apply in the context of separation and divorce".
I do not think I can add to the force of those views, which come from groups with tremendous experience in relation to children.
I want to make two other points. I should like to revert to what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said about the "Panorama" programme because it draws attention to a very important area of possible family breakdown. That occurs before there is any question of divorce arising. The desire for divorce may come out of that, but it arises at an early stage. I believe that the clause that has been put into the Bill to provide for research into these matters and for grants in respect of marriage support services will do a great deal to try to deal with these matters.
It often happens that the young couple at that stage do not realise their need for help. The sooner help comes, the more likely it is to be effective. One does not want matters to fester on to a divorce if it is possible to avoid that. I should like to emphasise that the Bill seeks to put that matter at the very heart of the consideration of family law in this circumstance—that support should not be related only to divorce hut should be much more generally available. Your
646
Lordships have had figures of comparison. I believe those figures are important, and possibly over the years the balance will be changed.
The second point I want to make is that I am firmly of the view that marriage is at the very heart of our society. I believe that the Bill has an important part to play in protecting that position and in increasing the beneficial effect of the precious ordinance of marriage in our nation. I believe that the Bill is important for that reason.
The precise matter that has been focused on very much in the Bill in relation to children is the point about relations with both parents following on divorce. Your Lordships will have to consider very carefully whether prolonging the period of uncertainty, when the parents may well be in positions in which they are seeking to advance their own particular situation, one against the other, is likely to increase the chance of that all-important relationship. This is a difficult issue. My own fundamental idea is always to try to seek as much consensus as possible but I believe that seeking to attain consensus by accepting the amendment would be, from my point of view anyway, a betrayal of the interests which have been brought to my attention as fundamental for those children who are affected by the sad phenomenon of marital breakdown. Therefore, I invite your Lordships not to support the amendments, much as I admire and share the objectives with which they have been moved by my noble friend Lady Young and those who have supported her.
Baroness Young: My Lords, after two hours of debate, it is very difficult to do justice in replying to it. But I should like to start by thanking all those who have supported me. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles, the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Stallard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who have walked this very long path together since Second Reading and throughout all the stages of the Bill.
There are others, too, to whom I am most grateful. If I do not reply to every point that has been made, I think your Lordships will be grateful because I am sure we do not want to stay here for much longer. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Kind remarks from those who do not agree with what you have to say are all the more sincere. I very much respect his point of view, as I know he respects mine. I thank him for what he has said. I am also particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, both of whom have entered into the debate for the first time and have given me their support.
I am deeply disappointed that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor feels unable to accept this amendment which was offered in the spirit of compromise. In replying to his remarks, I start by thanking him for the many amendments he has made to the Bill for which I am deeply appreciative—I know many others are as well. Those are

647
amendments covering children and the hardship bar and there are other amendments with which we shall be dealing later this evening. I shall be glad to comment on them in due course. But perhaps I may deal with the arguments he has put up against the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.
First, he said that he had consulted widely. He has done so. He has consulted a great many people. I recognise that the Bill is based on the work of the Law Commission. A White Paper has been produced, and we have had the views of lawyers and a great many experts in the field. We all have our own experiences, but I can only say to the House that in my entire political experience, which now, I regret to say, extends almost 50 years, since I was a Young Conservative—that is a long time ago—I have never had such support for anything as I have had for the stand I have taken in this case. It has been quite extraordinary, extending from people stopping me in the street to people in shops where I normally shop coming up to me and saying, "We have seen you on television and we so agree with what you have had to say". I have been astonished. I believe that by raising the issues we have raised in the House, we have tapped into a very deep feeling of great anxiety in society that marriage is breaking down and we must do more to buttress it.
I know that every statistician will say that personal example does not prove anything at all. Before someone says so, I shall accept their argument. But all of us in public life know when something we are doing is popular; we know even more rapidly when something we are doing is not popular. The experience that I have had has been quite extraordinary.
The noble and learned Lord quoted statistics about divorce, which I wrote down at the time. He said that 80 per cent. of divorces take place within a year or less. I do not see how that can be the same. I am looking at the table from which the noble and learned Lord quoted. As, in fact, 26 per cent. of divorces take between two and five years, I do not see how 80 per cent. can take less than a year. No doubt we can argue about these figures afterwards.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there may be confusion about the time before the divorce process starts, which in the two to five year period is the same, and the actual period of time that the process itself takes.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I know that it is a very dangerous thing to start arguing about figures with a mathematician. Were my husband here he would tell me to stop at once, and that advice is probably very sound. We might discuss this matter afterwards. The fact is that I am not entirely satisfied that the figures are quite as stated.
The noble and learned Lord said that there are many opportunities in the Bill for the postponement of the actual divorce itself, and those are greatly to he welcomed. I do not in any way wish to cast doubt on them or to say that I am anything but very grateful to my noble and learned friend for introducing these
648
amendments into the Bill. The fact is that we depend on the courts. One has some slight hesitation—I realise that it is very difficult to know exactly what to say—in putting much faith in how the courts determine these matters because, as we all know, different courts have different views.
My noble and learned friend concluded by reading out two letters, one from the NSPCC and the other from the Children's Society. I accept what they have to say and their sincerity. What I find most extraordinary about the letters from the societies is that in Scotland, where 60 per cent. of divorces take at least two years, and in Northern Ireland, where 73 per cent. of divorces take two years or more, we have no outcry about the damage being done to children. There is no move to shorten the length of time. If we look further afield into Europe we find that there is a much longer period before couples with children can get a divorce and where one spouse does not consent. Those countries are always being held up to us as having fewer divorces. We do not hear about damage to children.
This debate has turned on the issue of damage to the children. In public life one of the first questions one asks about any change in practice is whether we have any examples where that has happened, either in this country or abroad. One of the most extraordinary features of this debate has been the refusal to look at the facts of other countries where these matters are now happening. In the whole of the argument about fault, the evidence is overwhelming in the United States that it increases the number of divorces.
I return to the issue of children. The evidence is perfectly clear. In countries where there are lower divorce rates—something which I believe we all want—there is a longer period of time. I do not believe that there is any evidence that the children suffer more there. They are going to suffer wherever it is. They are the innocent victims in all of these matters. I ask your Lordships to look at the evidence of other countries and to ask: if it works there, why would it not work here?
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, rightly said, this is not an enormous amendment. It is a compromise and an opportunity for people to think again. I met someone over the weekend who said that they had been separated for four years, but before the divorce had come through they had got together again. Is that not the sort of thing that we want to encourage? I appreciate the sadness and tragedy of which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, spoke and I try to understand his feelings. But surely for all of us we must try to do all we can to encourage reconciliation, to buttress marriage, to support the fabric of society and to help the children who are the innocent victims of divorce.
I ask your Lordships to support me in this amendment, which will extend from one year to 18 months the period where a couple with children, or where one spouse does not want a divorce, have to wait and to leave the period at a year for couples without children where both are agreed. I wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided* Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 157.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Longford, E.

Ashbourne, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bauer, L.

Marlesford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blake, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Blaker, L.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brookes, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Carnock, L.

Moran, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Norton, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Coleraine, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pender, L.

Donegall, M.

Perth, E.

Drogheda, E.

Pike, B.

Dundee, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Erroll, E

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Fill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reading, M.

Gage, V.

Rees, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Halifax, E.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Halsbury, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hanworth, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Stallard,L. [Teller]

Harvington, L.

Stewartby, L.

Haslam, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strange, B.

Hayter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hemphill, L.

Tebbit, L.

Holderness, L.

Tollemache, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Howell, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Young, B. [Teller.]

Kintore, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ampthill, L.

Acton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Addington, L.

Barnett, L.

Addison, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ailsa, M.

Beloff, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blyth, L.

650

Borrie, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McConnell, L.

Brentford, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Brightman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Burnham,L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cadman, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Caithness, E

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L

Milverton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Monkswell, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Munster, E

Coleridge, L.

Courtown, E.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Nelson, E

Crickhowell, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

David, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Desai, L.

Phillimore, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ferrers, E.

Runcie, L.

Finsberg, L.

Freyberg, L.

Russell, E

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Samuel, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seear, B.

Habgood, L.

Selborne, E.

Hacking, L.

Sharples, B.

Hamwee, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harrowby, E.

Shepherd, L.

Haskel, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Healey, L.

Slim, V.

Henley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hoffmann, L.

Stedman, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Hylton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ilchester, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Teviot, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thurlow, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tope, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Kimball, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trumpington, B.

Knollys, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lawrence, L.

Ullswater, V.

Leigh, L.

Vinson, L.

Lindsay, E

Long, V. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Lucas, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

651

Weatherill, L.

Wise, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wolfson, L.

Winston, L.

Wynford, L

*Listed names: Contents 108;
Not-Contents, 156. A Lord voted in both lobbies and is counted in the recorded figures.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.25 p.m.
Clause 7 [Period for reflection and consideration]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 19, after ("saved") insert ("and to have an opportunity to effect a reconciliation").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, tabled a number of amendments which sought to change the name of the period for reflection and consideration to the period for reconciliation, reflection and consideration. I indicated at the time that I supported the spirit in which these amendments were tabled, but foresaw some problems in accepting them and said that I would consider them further.
I have reached the conclusion that it would be inadvisable to rename the period in the way suggested. As I said in debate, reconciliation is an outcome, not a process, and the period of reflection and consideration a means of reaching that outcome.
I understand, however, my noble and learned friend's concerns that, as he said at Report stage, the year period should be used for opportunities of reconciliation. It is for that reason that I have tabled this amendment, the effect of which is to place an additional statement of purpose into Clause 7(1), which provides that the period which must pass before an application for a divorce or separation order can be made is for the parties to have the opportunity to effect a reconciliation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 6, I should point out that if that amendment is agreed to, an effect will be had on Amendment No. 7.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert ("except where subsection (10) applies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. These amendments are intended to be a narrower substitute for the amendments numbered 31 and 43 which my noble friend Lady David was good enough to move on my behalf on 11th March, the third day of Report stage.
I support, in principle, Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 which stand in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. The reason for my preference for Amendments Nos. 6 and 8, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady David, is that because they are narrower and are
652
focused exclusively on the interests of the children of the marriage they are most likely to attract the support of your Lordships' House.
Amendment No. 8 is the substantive amendment, which seeks to insert a new subsection at page 5, line 11, which would read:
"On application by a person authorised by order of the Lord Chancellor the court shall have the power to abridge the period for reflection and consideration if (but only if) the requirements of section 2(1)"—
that should read "section 3(1)"; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for pointing that out to me—
"are satisfied and the court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of any relevant children of the marriage, having regard to section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989, to dissolve the marriage before such period has elapsed.
(11) Where the court decides to exercise its powers under subsection (10), it shall specify when the marriage is to be dissolved".
That amendment is narrower because, if carried, the earlier Amendment No. 43 would have given the court the power to abridge the period for reflection and consideration if the court was satisfied that it was necessary either in the interests of the parties or of any relevant children to dissolve the marriage before expiry of the year.
Amendment No. 8 gives the court a discretion to dissolve a marriage before expiry of a year, if, and only if, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of any relevant children of the marriage to do so. No such discretion is given under the amendment to dissolve a marriage before the expiry of the year in the interests of the parties.
The amendment therefore puts the interests of the children centre stage, and gives the court an exceptional jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage prior to the expiry of the year where that is necessary in the interests of the children of the marriage.
I know that the noble and learned Lord has before expressed the opinion that a year for reflection and consideration is the minimum period necessary to demonstrate that a marriage has irretrievably broken down. I accept that as a general principle, but it should be capable of exception. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he said on 4th March that there are limits to the extent to which one single legal principle may fit every individual case.
I agree with the noble Earl too that there are cases in which it is vital in the interests of the children for the marriage to be dissolved before the expiry of the year. I was heartened to read the qualified support that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who sadly is not in her place for the amendment, felt able to give my noble friend Lady David on Report when she said:
"I can just see that there may be very limited cases where that might be necessary".—[Official Report, 4/3/96; col. 15.]
I appreciate that, on that occasion, the noble Baroness expressed her concern that any exception to the requirement of one year might open what she feared might be a floodgate. It is in recognition of her concern that I have drafted the amendment so narrowly.
First, the power to be vested in the court would not be exercised on the application of either of the parties to the marriage. An application could be made only by a person authorised by order of the Lord Chancellor. I have in mind court welfare officers or perhaps a guardian ad litem. Such a person would apply only where he or she thought that a court should be given the opportunity to decide whether an earlier dissolution was necessary in the interests of any relevant children of the marriage.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will, I imagine, confirm that the word "necessary" signifies a very high 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 the toughest of tests to satisfy. I know that the noble and learned Lord is of the opinion that the law should send out a clear signal that marriage is an important relationship and a year is required before it can be dissolved once one or both of the parties has initiated the necessary procedure.
I do not, however, believe that the amendment conflicts with that principle, because application may be made only by a person authorised by order of the Lord Chancellor, and not the parties, and because the discretion is so narrow. When we have regard to the paramount interest of the welfare of the children of a marriage, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called attention in moving her previous amendments, I do not see why the court should be deprived of a discretion to dissolve a marriage prior to the expiry of the year where the court is satisfied that early dissolution is necessary in the interests of the children.
The amendment is designed to put children first, and it is the children who are so often the casualties of marital breakdown. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, since the noble Lord has referred to Amendment No. 8, I would draw attention not merely to the correction that he made expressly, but also point out that he read the amendment as if it said:
"relevant children of the marriage".
There is a misprint in the amendment as printed. What the noble Lord read out is what the amendment should be. I did not mention that earlier, because Amendment No. 8 has not been called formally, but as it forms part of the argument it is right that I should do so now.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I give my support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I agree with pretty well everything that he said. This is a tightly drafted pair of amendments. They deal with cases which are, truly, in anyone's view, exceptional. I would like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 which are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.
We had a particularly good debate on these issues on Report. The two amendments to which I wish to speak arise from that debate and are designed, so far as I can, to meet it. There was a general agreement in the House
654
on Report that we wanted there to be some cases where it was necessary, for reasons of physical safety, for there to be an abridgement of the one-year period. But the view was also strongly expressed—I listened to it—that that should not be drafted in any way which would open the floodgates to a much more general use of a limited period; that this was to be, it was felt, a provision simply for safety—a safety valve in the most literal sense of the phrase.
The amendments in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, are designed to achieve precisely that objective. First, they are confined to allowing the court to abridge the one-year period in cases of domestic violence only. Those situations are—thank God!—exceptional, but they can be very acute. But that is not the only restriction.
The second restriction in Amendment No. 9 is that the abridgement is possible only in cases involving the fear of significant physical harm to one of the parties or any relevant child. There is no loophole here for mental harm. That can be acute, but it is something which is very much harder to define than physical harm. So the restriction to physical harm is meant to meet the requirement that the amendment should be tight. I believe that it does so.
The next restriction is that it should apply only to cases where it appears to the court that the provisions of Part IV—that is what was once the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill—will not guarantee sufficient protection or access to safe accommodation.
The insertion of that provision is not meant in the least degree to diminish my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for all he has done in promoting Part IV. It is truly a valuable measure, but there are some men who are so ruthlessly determined to reclaim their property that practically none of these provisions seems to stand up against them. We have had murders committed by former partners inside women's refuges. If those are not safe, I do not know what on earth is.
In those cases usually the only way a women can achieve safety is by living in some different part of the country, changing her name, and probably changing her hairstyle as well. In those circumstances, there may be safety, but the ability to conceal completely what her whereabouts may be cannot be achieved while negotiations for divorce are still in progress. Where there are negotiations for a divorce, there must be correspondence with lawyers. It is not understood as widely as it should be, but in cases involving acute domestic violence, the withholding of information from the threatening party can be absolutely vital. I have known such information obtained in the most devious of ways from the most unsuspecting, innocent, and public spirited people. For that reason I believe that it is essential that in cases where life may he at stake it is better to allow an abridgement of the period of reflection and consideration than it is to force the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, to further careful consideration of the law of provocation, no doubt at great expense to the Legal Aid Fund however well he would undoubtedly do it.

655
I hope that the amendments will meet with the approval of the House. I am extremely happy with the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I shall listen most carefully to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to see whether there is a different way in which the objective can be achieved. I hope that one way or another some safety valve will be left.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as a consequence of a debate during the Report stage. I appreciate the rigidity with which my noble and learned friend sticks to a minimum of a year. However, there must be a slight dent in that as regards exceptional cases. The noble Earl convinced me that there may he a case in which the court, without the amendment, will be deprived of taking action where a child or the other party to the marriage could be seriously harmed or murdered.
Reference has been made to such cases. My noble and learned friend will remember the debates that we had in relation to the Child Support Act. Many noble Lords from all sides were concerned that the party to the marriage who was due to pay maintenance would seek out and threaten violence to the other party or to the child. Therefore, the phenomenon is well-known and has not been fished out of the minds of noble Lords. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take seriously Amendment No. 9. It is most tightly drafted and can he used only in a limited number of cases.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I appreciate the objectives behind the amendments, but I would caution your Lordships about agreeing to any exceptions to the basic rule. If we do so, we may see defences that are holed before they start. We should view the amendments with great caution.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I appreciate the spirit behind these amendments and the fact that they have been tightly drawn. I agree that the word "necessary" used in Amendment No. 8 is a strong requirement. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine what stronger requirement could be placed upon it. I also understand that the application is to be made by a person authorised by order of the Lord Chancellor. However, I urge your Lordships to be careful about reducing the period of one year. That is the period required between the date on which the statement becomes effective and the date on which an order of divorce can first be granted.
As your Lordships will know—I and one or two others have said so often enough—the purpose of that is to provide convincing proof that the breakdown of the marriage is irretrievable. The period is intended to provide a realistic time for the parties to decide whether they can he reconciled and their marriage saved and, if not, to resolve the practical problems relating to marital breakdown.
The amendments would have the effect of introducing powers of abridgement to the period where a court was satisfied that to do so would he necessary in the interests
656
of any children involved or that failure to do so would result in physical harm. I appreciate the narrowness with which the amendment is drawn, signified by the fact that, as the noble Earl mentioned, it is restricted to "significant physical harm". That is a tight description.
However, the other provisions of the Bill, in particular those in Part IV, are designed to deal with such a situation. I feel strongly that if one has a period required to demonstrate the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, in principle that period should not be capable of abridgement. Unless and until the marriage has irretrievably broken down, it cannot be right to grant a decree of divorce, whatever else one may do by way of protective orders and so forth.
I shall be happy to see whether we can make improvements to the protective orders. However, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Elles, even after divorce there may well be obligations of maintenance. Merely granting a decree of divorce does not necessarily end the need for some kind of correspondence or exchange between, say, the father and someone representing the mother. Even divorce does not undercut that completely in every case. Therefore, while I appreciate the reason behind the proposal, I do not see that it is an effective way of providing a particular type of relief. To overcome the difficulty of, for example, the inadvertent disclosure of addresses and so forth, we have to take steps to prevent that happening and to tighten up the arrangements and so forth.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before relying on measures to discourage the disclosure of addresses, would the noble and learned Lord take the advice of his honourable friends Mr. Burt and Mr. Mitchell who have done their level best to achieve this?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am happy to receive advice on this matter from whatever quarter, especially if it happens to be helpful. I understand the difficulty, but the noble Earl is saying that granting a decree of divorce early is not likely to effect what has eluded Mr. Burt and Mr. Mitchell. The noble Earl is, in effect, claiming for this order that the labours of Mr. Burt and Mr. Mitchell are suddenly to come to a good end because we have discovered that a way of handling the whole situation is to grant a divorce early. The problem is that these matters do and can subsist after the granting of a divorce. I am anxious to provide in law as good a protection for the parties and the children as is possible but, for the reasons that I have explained, I am not at all keen to do that to the damage of the effective need for a period of a year to demonstrate that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. All the protection of Part IV is available whether or not a divorce proceeding is in place. Of course, it continues to be available when a divorce proceeding is in place and after a divorce order is granted. There is nothing in the present Bill which will prevent courts making any of these orders in respect of children under the Children Act during the period for reflection. As your Lordships know, the Bill gives an extra power in that respect in the removal of the abuser from the home in some circumstances.

657
I submit that a power to abridge is inconsistent with the principal aim of the one-year period, which is to establish beyond doubt that the breakdown of the marriage is irretrievable. In my submission, it is an unabridgeable period, making a clear and absolute statement about the importance of marriage and its obligations and of parenthood. It is on that basis that I sought to deal with the earlier amendments.
I believe that introducing extensions of any kind to that rule will weaken the way in which the period is perceived. After all, where one party is anxious for a quick divorce, such a provision could well lead to allegations being made against the other party in order to show that a quick divorce would be fair and just and there may be a consequent increase in hostility, bitterness and trauma for the children.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, my noble and learned friend spoke about the protection of children. Will he assure me that, for example, a mother who wishes to take her child out of the jurisdiction will be free to do so in order to escape the activities of her partner?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would be within the power of the court in some circumstances to allow that to happen. It would be a matter for the court to decide. I have the provisions of the Children Act reasonably well in mind and my impression is that where it is necessary and the court is prepared to grant such an order, then that will be possible. Of course, very strong undertakings are required in relation to the jurisdiction of the court because, as my noble friend knows only too well, once the child is out of the jurisdiction of the court in some situations the court loses all control. That may not always be for the benefit of the child. Therefore, it would have to be a very extreme case, but it would be possible.
I mentioned previously—and it was referred to again—that hard cases make bad law. I stand by that remark and remain firmly of the opinion that we need a principle which emphasises the importance of a year as a test of whether a ground for dissolution exists. I remain unconvinced that the existence of particularly difficult circumstances should alter our adherence to that principle. I do not wish to make any exceptions to the requirement that parties may apply for a divorce only after a 12-month period for reflection and consideration and, indeed, when the parties have been married for at least two years.
The Government wish to have a definite period which is clear and unequivocal for everyone, without any exceptions. If it were impossible to meet the problems raised except in this way, I should think the matter worthy of consideration. But the explanations of the noble Lord and the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, show that such problems may well subsist even where an order of divorce has been granted. I am anxious to protect children but I do not feel that this is the wisest way in which to do so in the context of this Bill.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I do not believe that the law should be so rigid as to deny the courts that
658
exceptional jurisdiction which, in the case of Amendments Nos. 6 and 8, would be exercised solely in the interests of the children.
With respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, his last argument, that the amendments could lead to abuse by the parties, ignores the fact that the amendments provide that only an independent person authorised by him may apply to the court in the interests of the children. Therefore, I desire to test the opinion of the House.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNally, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mar and Kellie, E

David, B.

Meston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Russell, E [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E

Tope, L.

Hamwee, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Courtown, E.

Ailsa, M.

Craig of Radley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Blaker, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boardman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Donegall, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L

Brentford, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Brookes, L.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Faithfull, B.

Burnham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Cadman, L.

Finsberg, L.

Caithness, E

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Habgood, L.

Carnock, L.

Hacking, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Harrowby, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Haslam, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Coleraine, L.

Henley, L.

Coleridge, L.

Holderness, L.

659

HolmPatrick, L.

Orkney, E.

Hooper, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Howe, E.

Oxford, Bp.

Hylton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Parkinson, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Perth, E.

Kimball, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Layton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Leigh, L.

Rawlings, B.

Lindsay, E.

Reay, L.

Liverpool, E.

Rees, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Lucas, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

(Lord Chancellor)

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Marlesford, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Marsh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Moran, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ullswater, V.

Nelson, E.

Vinson, L.

Northbourne, L.

Vivian, L.

Northesk, E.

Wilcox, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.2 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Attendance at information meetings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations made under subsection (5) must, in particular, make provision with respect to the giving of information about—

(a) marriage counselling and other marriage support services;

(b) the importance to be attached to the welfare, wishes and feelings of children;

(c) how the parties may acquire a better understanding of the ways in which children can be helped to cope with the breakdown of a marriage;

(d) the nature of the financial questions that may arise on divorce or separation, and services which are available to help the parties;

(e) mediation;

(f) the availability to each of the parties of independent legal advice;

(g) the divorce and separation process.

( ) Before making any regulations under subsection (5), the Lord Chancellor must consult such persons concerned with the provision of relevant information as he considers appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the above amendment arises out of the earlier debates in which a number of your Lordships queried what kind of information the information meeting is designed to include. I have explained that it would not be wise to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill regarding the content of the information meeting as this is a matter we wish to pilot extensively to ensure that we find a format and content which best meets the needs of couples at a very difficult and distressing time in their lives.
However, in the light of the debates that we have had, I have felt it right to bring forward such an amendment in which I have sought to achieve a balance between maintaining the flexibility that we need to ensure that the system works effectively into the future and giving your Lordships a clear indication as to the type of information which we intend to include and which, if I have understood noble Lords correctly, they most wish to see given. The list of information to be included is not intended to be exhaustive and the regulations could provide for other information if that was thought necessary following the pilot.
I intend to review the regulation-making power to ensure that regulations will be able to address the issue of those organisations and services about which it would be appropriate to provide information as a number of your Lordships have expressed concern that there should not be an obligation to provide information about any service regardless of its motives or standards of service. That is a sentiment with which I fully agree. I have also, in response to an amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, specified on the face of the Bill that there will be consultation in framing the regulations which will support the information meetings.
I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whom I believe would prefer that such a commitment to consultation was not given on the face of the statute, will be able to accept that part of the amendment because of the pressure for it from some others. My noble and learned friend's point of view is that I would, in any case, certainly do it; but I believe it is comforting to have it on the face of the statute.
In formulating regulations which are likely to rely extensively on a practical testing of a number of models of information giving, I believe it is right to make clear that this is an exercise in which the expertise of those involved in the field will be sought. I believe that noble Lords know from what I said earlier that I attach a great deal of importance to the information meeting, not only as regards its content but also as regards ensuring that such information is given effectively so that people know what is available to them in the way of assistance.
I have also emphasised that I should wish for assistance to be available earlier than that in those areas where it seems to be wise to have it—indeed, we have already discussed that aspect—but these are

661
the regulations intended to deal with the situation where people first come into contact with a process of a legal kind to seek dissolution of a marriage. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for bringing forward the amendment. I know that a wide range of marriage support organisations will be most grateful for the fact that the regulations will now include a reference to,
"marriage counselling and other marriage support services",
and also for the fact that there is now a requirement for the Lord Chancellor to consult. I believe that that is a way in which the services offered can be kept properly under review and also ensure that only properly authorised and trained people from properly authorised organisations will be able to offer their services. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness David: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for introducing the amendment, which I believe is partly in response to Amendment No. 75 which I tabled on Report. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord said that he would bring forward an amendment on Third Reading. I am very pleased to see the paragraph which incorporates,
"the importance to be attached the welfare, wishes and feelings of children",
in the amendment. I know that the children's organisations will also be very pleased to see the amendment.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady David, in welcoming the amendment. I also thank my noble and learned friend for paragraph (b) as regards the,
"welfare, wishes and feelings of children".
That issue was debated during earlier stages of the Bill. We are most grateful for the fact that my noble and learned friend has recognised the importance of that particular aspect of the problem.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord for tabling the amendment. I do so especially because I see that,
"marriage counselling and other marriage support services",
arc set out in paragraph (a) in the list of requirements.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to join in the chorus of welcome for the amendment. However, can my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor give me reassurance in one particular? Whenever we introduce a catalogue or criteria or contents into a subsection of a Bill, we are reminded of the legal dictum, expressio unius est exclusion alterius— the inference being that paragraphs (a) to (g) are really very important and that nothing else much matters. That is advanced if one puts forward a package amendment, given that the words "in particular" are
662
mentioned in the prolegomenon, if that is what it is, of the subsection. I merely ask my noble and learned friend whether, on reflection, he feels that this shuts the door on anything else. Might he, perhaps, put in something a little stronger than "in particular" in case changing circumstances make it desirable for a further item—for example, under paragraph (h)—to be included?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the fact that we have nothing to say from these Benches does not mean that we do not entirely agree with it; because we do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the amendment refers to "Regulations". I am not quite sure whether those regulations will be brought forward by negative or affirmative orders. Can the noble and learned Lord clarify the situation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee suggested only one change in connection with the period where it was thought that an affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale took up the matter and I have given effect to that, but, obviously, I would want to consult pretty widely. I hope that your Lordships will have no reason to invoke any kind of procedure against regulations that I would make under that head.
I am extremely grateful for the support this measure has received. I do not think I have taken the point against a Back Bench amendment to which my noble friend Lord Elton referred. In the context of an amendment such as this, I do not think that would be a good point. Therefore, I hope I would not take it. This amendment seems to me to be perfectly adequate to allow for measures other than those listed here. The phrase,
"the importance to be attached to the welfare, wishes and feelings of children",
strikes me as an extremely effective way of raising these issues. We have considered various amendments during the period that the Bill has been before us. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friends Lady Elles and Lady Faithful] and many others who have taken an interest in this aspect of the matter feel that this measure is effective.
I believe that we can make available effective information and that may be better than instituting formal legal requirements in the context of the Bill. I am also glad that marriage counselling and other marriage support services head this list of measures. My noble friend Lady Young has previously expressed concern about precisely what is covered. The fact that we have referred to marriage counselling and marriage support services at the head of the list of measures should underline the fact that they are covered. I am grateful to your Lordships for the support which has been given to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Arrangements for the future]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 10, at end insert—
("(2A) If the parties—

(a) were married to each other in accordance with usages of a kind mentioned in section 26(1) of the Marriage Act 1949 (marriages which may be solemnized on authority of superintendent registrar's certificate), and

(b) are required to co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages,

the court may, on the application of either party, direct that there must also be produced to the court a declaration by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages.
(2B) A direction under subsection (2A)—

(a) may be given only if the court is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable to give it; and

(b) may be revoked by the court at any time.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide a mechanism whereby those who were married in accordance with the usages of a kind mentioned in Section 26 of the Marriage Act 1949, and who are required to co-operate in accordance with such usages in obtaining a divorce, can apply for a direction that they should have a declaration that they have taken all necessary steps to dissolve the marriage according to those usages. This is designed to meet the particular problem raised at earlier stages of the Bill of the marriage which, although capable of being dissolved in civil law, cannot be dissolved under the system of religious law under which the parties married because that religious divorce depends on the co-operation of the parties which may not be forthcoming.
It is a particular problem in the case of Jewish marriages for which the bill of divorcement, known as a get, is a consensual procedure, but one which has to he instigated by the husband. A stubborn husband can use his power to effect a religious divorce as an improper bargaining tool in negotiations relating to financial matters or to the children. Or, out of mere spite, he can withhold the religious divorce altogether so preventing the observant wife from remarrying according to her religion, causing the original marriage to limp on, dissolved in civil law but without a religious dissolution. This has long been recognised as a significant injustice and one which various other jurisdictions have already addressed by legislation.
Earlier in the course of debates on the Bill, it was thought that this matter could be dealt with under the hardship bar, although to do so would have depended on rather artificially deeming the situation described as a hardship deriving from the divorce. It seems better to allow the parties and the court to deal with the question at the stage when they are to satisfy the court that they have made appropriate arrangements for their future—that is, under Clause 9 as it now stands. It is to be hoped that the proposed procedure will, by its very presence in the legislation, limit the need for it to be invoked in all hut a few cases. It will be a procedure which requires an application to the court, and a direction by the court if the court is satisfied that it is just and reasonable. It also provides for a power of revocation in the court.
664
There can in practice be even fewer cases in which the power of revocation might be invoked, but it is a safeguard.
I should add that the policy behind this amendment is not in any way the secular enforcement of a religious procedure, even though English law expressly provides recognition of Jewish and other religious divorces, but rather the prevention of abuse of the contractual release required particularly under Jewish law. Such abuse can affect the negotiating position of the wife, as well as her right to remarry. The policy which I have mentioned is consistent with other policies in civil law which try to end limping marriages and try to facilitate a clean break where practicable. It is also consistent with the requirement of Section 49 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to secure, so far as possible, that all matters in dispute between the parties are completely determined. Finally, I suggest that it will facilitate remarriage and the recognition within the community concerned of any second family.
I am grateful for the assistance of those advising the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the drafting of this amendment and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord himself for pointing out the various pitfalls and problems in earlier amendments. Despite that help, I should emphasise that in no sense is this a government amendment, but nevertheless I hope that it is an amendment which will find support from all parts of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, there is no need to rehearse once again the considerations leading to the presentation of this amendment which was so splendidly put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I would merely want to add two remarks on the significance of this amendment, which I hope will be accepted.
First, I dare say that of all the new clauses and new amendments now introduced into this Bill none will have more immediate significance as a source of relief to those affected than this particular amendment. It would mean, possibly, that they would not have to remain in a state of suspension, neither married under the previous marriage which has ended in a civil divorce, nor being able to contract a new one because of the commitments entered into at the time of the original bond between them. Therefore the amendment will come as an enormous relief to those in our community, and far beyond. In many foreign countries people have constantly watched the progress of this amendment with a view, possibly, to adopting it to resolve what has proved to be an agonising problem caused by the exploitation of one party. Usually it is the wife who is held to ransom by the husband but this can occur the opposite way around. I hail with profound appreciation on behalf of a grateful community all those who have contributed to this historic amendment. I hope that it will be passed and will be confirmed in another place.
Secondly, on most matters of policy there are deep divisions within the Jewish community. This is the one item on which all sections of our community are united, whether they be reform, liberal, orthodox or conservative. They are all united in supporting this

665
measure. If there has been a degree of opposition or questioning, it was solely by individuals who spoke for themselves—and said so—and who were concerned partly with matters of principle to them, but in greater measure with presentation of the problem which did not always reflect the complete realities of the situation.
Therefore, I join the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in expressing profound and abiding appreciation, above all to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his immense help and counsel in making the presentation of the amendment possible, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has been uniquely helpful. To use the Hebrew phrase, last but not least, I should like to thank the presenter of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships have heard a full explanation of the amendment. I have nothing to add to it. It is for your Lordships to decide whether the amendment should be passed. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, explained, it is a matter that concerns primarily the problem to which he addressed himself. The technicalities have been dealt with fully in the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Hardship: orders preventing divorce]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Such an order (an "order preventing divorce") may be made if the court is satisfied that to grant a divorce order would be—

(a) unjust to the other party; or

(b) contrary to the interests of any child of the family.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment concerns what is known as the hardship bar. I appreciate that the situation under the Bill as presently drafted is a great improvement on the present situation. At present the hardship bar applies only in the case of a five-year separation without consent and would prevent a divorce application where there would be grave financial or other hardship. As only 6 per cent. of divorces at present are on the basis of a five-year separation, in 25 years the hardship bar has been accepted only once, based on grave hardship.
Therefore, it is a great improvement that the Bill extends the hardship bar to all divorces and that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has amended the wording to "substantial financial or other hardship"; the hardship bar is also extended to include consideration of the children as well as the spouse who does not want a divorce. At the beginning of my remarks I should like to acknowledge that fact. Those are welcome improvements to the hardship bar.
However, when we debated the matter previously I expressed my anxiety that the hardship bar, even with those changes, might not be used in the future. Therefore, even if it is improved, if it is not used it will have little effect. I have been further advised that the amendments, valuable though they are, will not make much difference in practice to the operation of the
666
hardship bar. Many of the people who have advised me have said that the changes are simply cosmetic and that the definition of hardship is not strong enough.
It is important to bear in mind the inherent problems with the hardship bar. The hardship bar only prevents the present application going through. Under Clause 10(5) it is possible for the court to impose conditions which must be satisfied before the bar on divorce is lifted. At the end of the day, the hardship bar is essentially a temporary bar. The previous bar failed because of the interpretation of the word "grave" by judges. Unless the hardship bar is absolutely clear—whether the word is "grave" or "substantial"—the same will happen again.
As we have said, divorce can lead to severe hardship for one spouse. No-fault divorce—which we now have—will mean that it will be impossible to defend or prevent a divorce. Divorce normally has serious economic and health consequences for both parties. We know that the existing bar is completely ineffective. I am therefore very anxious to see a strengthened hardship bar which will force people to face their responsibilities, both to their spouse and to their children. After all, a wife may have given up her entire career for the sake of bringing up children, and a financial settlement following a divorce would not be adequate compensation.
I put down the amendment because I am advised that it would strengthen the hardship bar. I do not in any way wish to undermine it. Far from it. When we have discussed the matter all of your Lordships have seen the value of the bar. Clause 10 is entitled "Hardship: orders preventing divorce". I understand that it is to be seen as a longstop, which is very valuable. However, it is of no value to anybody if it does not work. I have been advised that, valuable though the changes are, if they will not work, they are not of value. Many lawyers feel that the clause as it stands will suffer the same fate as the clause in the 1969 Act. The amendment is designed to strengthen the hardship bar. I beg to move.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Young, who moved the amendment so effectively.
The problem that the amendment addresses is that the press have unhelpfully characterised the amendments of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as giving children a veto over their parents' divorce. In fact, far from doing that, the noble and learned Lord's amendments are likely to make little difference in practice. A number of lawyers have described the changes as cosmetic, as my noble friend said. The definition of hardship is neither strong enough nor precise enough.
It is important to bear in mind the inherent problems with the hardship bar; namely, that it only prevents the present application going through. Under Clause 10(5) it is possible for the court to impose conditions which must be satisfied before the bar on divorce is lifted. But the hardship bar is essentially temporary in nature, and under the present law it has failed because of the interpretations judges have given to the word "grave". Unless the hardship bar is crystal clear and quite unambiguous the same will happen again with this Bill.

667
It is therefore important that the hardship bar is strengthened as the introduction of no-fault, or no-reason, divorce will mean that it will be impossible to defend or prevent a divorce.
Furthermore, divorce can lead to severe hardship for one spouse, and normally has serious economic and health consequences for both parties. The existing bar has proved completely ineffective, and a strengthened hardship bar will force couples to face their responsibilities both to their spouse and to their children.
For all those reasons I urge the House to support the amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I have considerable concerns about the amendment. I understand the point of view that the hardship bar, even in its modified form following earlier amendments to the Bill, may not be strong enough. However, I have little doubt that the amendment, if enacted, would open up the floodgates, to the benefit of the lawyers and to no great benefit to the parties to the marriage.
At an earlier stage in the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, questioned the justiciability of the concept of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In the context of the amendment, I would question the justiciability of the various concepts which a court would be required to consider in any litigation under the amendment: as regards whether a marriage had irretrievably broken down and whether it was unjust to grant a divorce or contrary to the interests of any child of the marriage.
As the clause stands, unamended, substantial hardship is an issue with which the court could grapple. But I question whether it is necessary or desirable to allow in considerations of fault by the back door. It will greatly increase acrimony between the parties. Consideration of the interests of the children is of course important. But as has been said several times in debates on the Bill, the disservice which the parties do to their children is in separating not necessarily in divorcing. It is difficult to see how a court can consider objectively whether or not it is contrary to the interests of the child to allow a divorce to go forward. As was said in the earlier debate, I can see the temptation to pray in aid the interests of children in an improper way.
The main point I wish to emphasise is that litigation will undoubtedly be generated. That litigation will almost certainly emphasise beyond any doubt that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. I doubt whether an amendment along these lines could save any marriage in reality, although in certain circumstances it might preserve for an indefinite period the legal status of marriage. An application under this amendment may fail, in which case it will be costly both emotionally and financially to the parties, or it will succeed. It is hard to decide which is worse. If it succeeds, it will create immense bitterness, preserving the status of marriage and storing up further litigation for the future because the frustrated party will be tempted to apply under the provisions of the Bill to cancel the order in due course. Meanwhile, the marriage will limp on indefinitely.
668
There may be a few cases where the compensation (to use that phrase perhaps inappropriately) awarded to a wife under the financial and property adjustment provisions of the legislation may not be adequate. But that in itself is not always a reason for preventing the divorce and for not recognising the reality of the position which the parties have reached. I therefore advise your Lordships to be very careful about the amendment, at least in this form.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, quite frankly, I do not see the need for Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in the reasons that he has given against them. As it stands, Clause 10 ensures that the interests of the children of the marriage are well cared for.
However, I wish to say a few words about Amendment No. 15. It proposes to leave out subsection (6) which states:
"In this section 'hardship' includes the loss of a chance to obtain a future benefit (as well as the loss of an existing benefit)".
I cannot see the need for leaving that out. I believe that it would be best to let it stand. However, the proposed subsection (6) on the burden of proof requires serious consideration. I should be grateful if, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replies, he could either say that new subsection (6) in Amendment No. 15 is necessary and acceptable to him or that it is unnecessary because the burden of proof is dealt with satisfactorily.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I support the whole argument put forward by the noble Baroness. I specifically wish to bring to mind paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 13. It refers to,
"the social, cultural and ethnic background of the parties, and their religious beliefs if any".
I am a little surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I was going to speak in support of the most recently approved amendment, Amendment No. 11, which is closely associated with the wording that I have just read. In England—the argument does not apply only in Israel and in other countries—we have religious beliefs. We have the Roman Catholic Church. Often the senior member of the family is the father. The family are baptised as Roman Catholics. The mother divorces the father. Noble Lords can probably understand—and, if not, allow me to educate your Lordships—that the Roman Catholic Church then has the Catholic father on trial. I am assuming that the female spouse, the wife, is not a Roman Catholic. Those trials are not just civil trials; they are also Church trials, and they can go on and on.
The most important point to remember is that we are talking about the children. If they are brought up initially as Roman Catholics, they cannot understand why their father is not receiving that most holy Sacrament, the Body of Christ. They ask dad, "Why are you not going to communion when you have had me brought up as a Catholic, and I can take communion? What is the trouble?".

669
I do not believe that enough consideration has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The provision is closely associated with Amendment No. 11, to which all noble Lords agreed. I request that your Lordships consider the provision seriously.
Lord Elton: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is considering his answer, perhaps I may seek to reassure my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, on one small point. He stated that the hardship bar, in such form as it previously existed, had foundered on the term "grave". We have changed that. The word is now "substantial". It has been changed for the very reason that he adduced. Therefore one of the four or five reasons that he advanced has been dealt with.
On the remainder, I do not wish to recapitulate what I said on an earlier amendment about the protections which already exist for a child as a result of Amendment No. 1, with Clause 3 bringing in Clause 9 and hence Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, and paragraph 23 of Schedule 8 strengthening that clause. I believe that those are sufficient reassurances as regards children even if the Children Act which overarches them were not.
I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, would illuminate me on paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 13. I am not entirely sure that he has done so. In any case, he has addressed himself only to religious beliefs. I find it difficult to understand how ethnic background can contribute to the situation. I begin to wonder whether the Bill is trying to embrace the Mormon or Moslem faiths, where it is perfectly proper to have what in British statute law is a bigamous marriage. We have to be careful about the interrelationship between statute and religious law. Where a religious divorce is required, that is a matter for the officials of the religious faith. I can see the noble Lord teetering on the edge of his seat. Perhaps I might conclude by saying that I believe that as much as needs to be done in that direction was done by Amendment No. 11 and therefore, while I am not passionately against this amendment, I am certainly not enthusiastically for it.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, if Amendment No. 11 will cover that particular part of the clause, I totally agree, and there is no need for it to be included in Amendment No. 13 as paragraph (d). As long as it is included somewhere, that is fine. I was trying to emphasise the interests of children.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the hardships we are considering under this group of amendments relate both to the children of the marriage and to the other party. As far as the children are concerned, is this not yet another case where an amendment is totally unnecessary by reason of the provisions of the Children Act? The court has discretion to apply the whole panoply of the powers of that Act to cure any problems which may arise on behalf of the children.
670
With regard to the other party, there are so many conditions which apply before a divorce can be granted that it is surely not necessary on this rather smaller point to apply the hardship bar in this case.
I assume my noble friend Lady Young was speaking to this whole group of Amendments Nos. 12 to 15. Is not the provision that,
"the burden of showing that dissolution of the marriage will not adversely affect the interests of any child of the family shall rest on the party seeking the divorce"
a little unjust to the other party, who has a very considerable interest in the matter?
As a final point I note that that amendment proposes that subsection (6) should be omitted. That subsection provides:
"In this section 'hardship' includes the loss of a chance to obtain a future benefit (as well as the loss of an existing benefit)".
Am I right in thinking that my noble friend Lady Young has dropped any claim that on divorce a future pension should be shared between the two parties to a marriage?
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too was slightly disappointed that my noble friend Lady Young did not explain more clearly the differences between her amendment and the existing Bill. For instance, in Amendment No. 13 reference to health is imported in subsection (b), which I should have thought was probably covered by the interests of children. I wonder why she has specifically incorporated that.
I should also have liked my noble friend to explain the significance of subsection (d), which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, asked about, and what it is meant to cover that is not covered by the Bill at present.
In addition, I cannot see why in this group of amendments she has removed part of the existing subsection (2) and put it into the new subsection. It seems to me not to make an enormous difference overall except for these new additions. I question whether it is worth making Clause 10 this much more cumbersome and complicated. I am not clear where it is leading us. I am very happy with the revised Clause 10 as it now stands in the Bill after the amendments which have already been agreed. It seems to me to be clear.
I have too many questions as to what this amendment means. I believe it is important that we should be satisfied that Clause 10 is clear in what it says so that the courts can interpret it as clearly as possible. I should certainly need a lot more explanation before I was happy with this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh was referring to the Roman Catholic system for annulling marriages. That system starts from totally different premises from divorce law and I think it would be a great mistake to try to import it into this Bill. Nor do I think that parties should be allowed to plead their religious beliefs as a way of preventing a divorce from taking place.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I have to confess that I am somewhat puzzled and I should welcome an

671
explanation from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as to why she considers it right to drop the existing subsection (6) of Clause 10. However, the purpose of my rising to my feet is to demonstrate my even-handedness and to support the suggestion which she makes in Amendment No. 15, essentially for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. From a reading of Clause 10, it appears to me that a burden would be imposed on the other party—that is, the party other than the applicant for a divorce—to satisfy the court that the marriage should not be dissolved on one of the hardship grounds. That is how it appears to me, as I think it appears to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If that is so, I think there is much merit in making it express that the burden of showing that dissolution of the marriage will not adversely affect the interests of any child of the family should rest upon the party seeking the divorce and not upon the other party.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, to my great surprise, I find that on this occasion I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. On this Bill I have so far agreed with everything he has said. Only on this Bill!
When it comes to proving that divorce does not affect the interests of a child, I should have thought one could show that any divorce would adversely affect the interests of the child. We have agreed all the way through that the main sufferers are the children. If this were taken literally, I should have thought a great many divorces could have been stopped. However, we accept that, regrettably, the interests of children are damaged by divorce. That is why we have been so careful to highlight the position of children all the way through. This seems to me to be negating what we have supported all along.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that in proposing these amendments both my noble friend Lady Young and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne indicated that in their view hardship could be caused to the spouse or children by a dissolution of marriage. That is recognised in Clause 10 of the Bill, where the focus is on hardship.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for pointing out that the hardship bar has been extended under this Bill to all divorces whereas previously it applied only to five-year separation cases. That is a very considerable extension of the scope of the hardship bar.
In the amendments which were introduced with your Lordships' concurrence on Report the word "grave", which both my noble friends referred to as the foundation of the judicial interpretation that they found difficult or unacceptable, has been taken out and I have put in place the word "substantial", which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale pointed out at Report stage, would in any event be understood to be there. Of course, the courts would only take account of substantial hardship.
My noble friends went on to say that they had been advised that my amendments were cosmetic. I am not absolutely certain that I know exactly what that means in the context of this particular Bill. I intend them to be effective in reducing the burden that is required to be
672
proved from "grave" to "substantial". I believe that that is quite a considerable change. Noble Lords' basic concerns are with hardship, as they said in moving the amendments. Surely it is right to keep an anchor on what one seeks to aim at. If we become involved in justice and injustice, we are into litigation in a big way.
I do not believe that the institution of marriage or actual marriages will be helped in this country by tremendous litigation in connection with divorce. As I explained earlier to your Lordships, in my former career I had experience of both undefended divorces and defended divorces. At least one of the defended divorces attained great national notoriety which did nothing for the marriage, although it did a good deal for the deprivation of resources of those who were involved as parties to the litigation. It would be much better for such resources as are available to be concentrated on trying to help people at the stage where they get into difficulties.
I would be in favour of a reasonably precise hardship bar which is, nevertheless, effective to deal with the problems that my noble friend enunciated. That is the hardship to the person who does not want the divorce. Having carefully considered the arguments put forward in Committee and at Report stage, I have reached the conclusion that that is the way to handle the problem of the person who is disturbed by the fact that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and who wants it to continue because he or she does not accept the position. I do not believe that it is possible to do that in a more practical way than by basing it on hardship. That is what we have done.
The group of amendments would lead us into considerable litigation and the opportunity for malicious delay by a party who would seek to use the children as pawns in the fight. The amendments would significantly change the current hardship bar under Section 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and under the current draft of Clause 10. The hardship which is properly to be dealt with is hardship which has resulted or is thought to be likely to result from the dissolution of the marriage. That is the important focus of Clause 10. I venture to think that it is lost in the amendment.
It has been said more than once that I seek to introduce a no-fault divorce. Any telegraphic description of such a Bill is likely to be misleading. That description is particularly so. From the beginning I have understood that where conduct is important it should be taken into account. I have made that clear. What I disagree with is the idea that fault should be used as a basis for a dissolution order itself in some circumstance which enables it to be obtained more quickly because of the had behaviour on which it is based than if there were no such behaviour. That is what I have been talking about. I am not and I do not think anyone who has taken part in the debates should be under any illusion that conduct in relation to the children and conduct in relation to the property are matters which the court can take into account where it is equitable and proper to do so.
I understand well the reason the amendments have been put forward, but they do not take adequately into account the point which I have sought to make. The amendments which I proposed to Clause 10 which were

673
accepted by your Lordships deal with the hardship which may be caused, to which my noble friends referred. I have no doubt that the courts will direct attention to the new clause, if and when it becomes law and in force, in a way that will recognise that the clause is different from what it was before. The courts will recognise that "grave" has been dropped and instead "substantial" has been used. I would therefore expect them to give effect to what the House has so far decided in their consideration of any future case.
I do not see why subsection (6) in Clause 10 should disappear. It strikes me as important. All the problems of pensions may some day be solved, but I would not guarantee it at the moment. It seems to me right to keep subsection (6) in place. I would not wish to alter the onus of proof without a good deal of further consideration. The whole purpose of the arrangements is to do everything possible to minimise the effect of what has happened on children. Dissolution of the marriage is something which one would wish to prevent. But I agree with those who take the view that the greatest damage is done by the breakdown of the relationship of marriage which leads to its dissolution. One has only to see the practical circumstances of people to realise that.
I hope that my noble friends will feel that Clause 10, as amended on Report by the. House, deals sufficiently with their concerns. The amendments would introduce an area which is completely uncharted and likely to lead to substantial litigation, with no or very little, likelihood of benefit to the parties to the litigation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, would he clarify further the question of the burden of proof to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and I referred? Listening to my noble and learned friend carefully, I assume that he takes the view that, under Clause 10 as it stands, whoever is the petitioner will, as at present in the courts, have the burden of proof placed upon him. Therefore, there is no need to add anything else in the way that Amendment No. 15 does. Is that the position?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords. I also take the view that the hardship to the children will be pretty easy to recognise once it is brought to the court's attention. Therefore, it is not an issue on which the precise onus of proof has much effect. My noble friend will remember that the courts have often said that the question of which way the onus goes is seldom of real importance. Normally the facts are capable of being ascertained. That is true in relation to hardship, particularly to children. Therefore, I see no reason to alter the ordinary rules. All it would do, if one tried to alter the rules, would be to introduce unnecessary and impractical complexity.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble and learned friend for the further explanation about Clause 10 and the operation of the hardship bar. It comes into operation on the dissolution of marriage and particularly concerns the spouse who does not want the dissolution of the marriage at all.
674
I was slightly surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, say, if I heard him correctly, that there are few cases where compensation may not be adequate. He said that in any case that is not always a reason for preventing divorce. The kind of case one has in mind is women who have devoted the whole of their lives to bringing up children, who have never done a job but who find themselves dumped at the end of their days for someone else. They may feel strongly that the hardship they suffer is not properly compensated for. That is a real case which one should not overlook; nor should one write it off as of no account. We have had enough debate on the matter to know that it is not an altogether uncommon experience.
I was particularly pleased to hear my noble and learned friend say that the hardship bar was intended to be effective. No doubt that is exactly what was said in 1969. Let us hope that this time it is effective. Changing the word "grave" to "substantial" will presumably lead to less litigation and will be effective in what it says. It is always very difficult when one is not a lawyer to know quite how such matters will operate. The amendments of my noble and learned friend, though welcome, will certainly do no good at all unless Clause 10 proves effective. That of course we do not know.
Perhaps I might answer a number of smaller points that were raised. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked why we should introduce the health of the parties. Quite often, on divorce, one of the parties, if not both, suffers considerable ill-health. That is often so in the case of the spouse who does not want the divorce and in the particular circumstances I described. It is a consideration that ought to be taken into account. There is all this talk about the children, and so on. We might take into account the wife (who is almost certain to be the person in question) who has looked after the children and who is perhaps being divorced against her will.
I realise that my next point may be contentious. However, since I have raised many contentious points before and have not been afraid to say so, I shall risk putting my head over the parapet once again. Religious beliefs do come into this consideration. Some people actually believe what they say they believe, and carry it out—odd as it may seem in this House—and they think that it should be carried out in marriage as well as at any other time. I make no apology for including this idea. It is very desirable that the matter should at least be raised and that some of us believe it matters. I do not see any need at all to apologise for it or to explain it further.
I listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Knowing her concern for the position of women, I was surprised that she was not more sympathetic to this amendment. I shall read her remarks about children very carefully in Hansard. The debate that we have just had about extending the one-year period to 18 months hinged on the fact that it was better for children to have a divorce. It is not a view to which I personally subscribe. I think it is wrong. But I do not see why we should turn this matter round. I am completely consistent in all this. I believe the interests of the child should be taken into account. There are still a lot of unanswered questions in relation to this Bill.

675
However, I shall read the remarks of my noble and learned friend; and the Bill will go to another place, where no doubt these matters will be taken up. At this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as this seems a convenient moment, I beg to move that the further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned until five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Secretary of State's Trunk Road Functions (Contracting Out) (Scotland) Order 1996
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [10th Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are today considering a draft order which will enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to contract out certain of his statutory functions as roads authority for the trunk road and motorway network. Noble Lords may recall that similar provision has already been made for England and Wales under the terms of the Contracting Out (Highways Functions) Order 1995.
The powers are needed for two purposes. The first is our intention, under the private finance initiative, to procure a comprehensive construction and road management service to private contractors—commonly known as DBFO (Design, Build, Finance and Operate) contracts. Three such DBFO projects are in the current Scottish trunk road programme. The second is for the new arrangements for the management and maintenance of the trunk road network which replace the present agency agreements between the Secretary of State and local roads authorities and will come into effect in April this year.
Before I go into the detail of the order, it may be helpful if I say a few words about the underlying policy. Most of the design, major construction work and capital maintenance for the trunk road network is already done by private sector consultants and contractors. We wish to widen the scope for competition to ensure value for money in the more day-to-day management activities. I should stress that this is not deregulation or privatisation. The Secretary of State will remain as the roads authority.
DBFOs form a prominent part of the Government's private finance initiative and will play an increasingly important role in the financing of major road schemes. Essentially, companies, or consortia, formed for the purpose are being invited to compete for DBFO contracts which would deliver a major section of new road construction and then manage and maintain what they have built. The revenue the DBFO companies receive will he significantly influenced by the amount of traffic using the new or improved road. This will
676
provide a major incentive for the operator to build in quality and ensure that necessary repair work is carried out quickly and efficiently.
A principal feature of such contracts is that the company managing the road should have overall responsibility for keeping the road in service, under contract to the Secretary of State. Without this order it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to act for the DBFO company in a variety of circumstances where his formal functions are involved. That is not sensible given that the object is to unify responsibility with the DBFO operator under the commercial contract. Operators themselves will want to take as much control as possible to fulfil their obligations without reliance on third parties, including government.
DBFO companies want the freedom to have access to services such as winter and routine maintenance which they feel would be best procured from local roads authorities. Likewise, local roads authorities have indicated that they wish to have the opportunity to bid for sub-contracts let by DBFO companies. We believe that this is sensible and the order will enable this.
At present, trunk road management and maintenance is carried out by the regional councils under broadly based agency agreements on behalf of the Secretary of State. Local government reorganisation means that new arrangements will have to be in place for April this year. The opportunity was taken therefore to review the way in which these services are delivered.
The main thrust of the new arrangements which are set out in the consultation paper, Competing for Better Roads, is to introduce a formal contractual basis on which trunk roads should be managed and maintained, together with open competition for the provision of these services —the key objectives being to improve customer service, secure the best value for money and promote the use of the most effective management resources. The first round of term contracts have been tendered for and won by local authority consortia. The first of these contracts in the all-purpose network will be re-tendered in three years' time.
A related proposal set out in Competing for Better Roads is to establish a new traffic controller organisation. This is to act as agent for the Secretary of State to operate and manage the new traffic control and driver information systems that are currently being installed and developed on the motorway and trunk road network in the central belt. It is our intention that the appointment of a traffic controller should be subject to competitive tender. At present the powers to operate these systems are confined to the Secretary of State and local roads authorities. That severely limits our ability to test value by competition.
The draft order sets out a series of statutory functions from which the Secretary of State may select those to be contracted out. In short, the power is intended to be permissive and selective according to the particular circumstances of the case.
As I said earlier the underlying purpose is to widen the range of choice in contracting and management arrangements for the strategically important trunk road and motorway network. The Secretary of State remains

677
the responsible authority and nothing in the draft order reduces the range of those responsibilities. We recognise that a great deal of effort goes into the present management of the network. What we are now seeking is the ability to provide for a better service to the travelling public through the ability to choose from a wider selection of management arrangements. The draft order under consideration today would help this process forward, and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Courtown.)
7.10 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Carmichael replies for the Opposition, perhaps I can ask the Minister one or two questions.
First, when the noble Earl introduced the draft order he was careful to point out that it was required in order to facilitate the design, finance, build and operate policy of the Scottish Office. Where, therefore, does the Skye Bridge fit into that?
We already have a design, build, finance and operate road in Scotland. The approach roads and bridge to the River Skye were built under such a provision. The company that built the Skye Bridge also assumed to itself the powers to impose and collect tolls. I am the first to accept that that matter has been decided in recent days by the Scottish courts; but does the order mean that any company that is granted the right to design, finance, build and operate a road—for example, a bypass or, even more pertinent, the proposal to construct a new bridge over the River Forth at Kincardine—will automatically be given the right to levy tolls? Since the Kincardine Bridge was built and opened in 1936, no tolls have ever been charged on that crossing of the River Forth.
It must be of deep concern to the travelling public, particularly commercial operators in Scotland, if one of the implications of the order is that those companies, those consortia, that are given the right to design, finance, build and operate roads in Scotland are ipso facto given the right to charge tolls as well. It is a serious issue that was not addressed in the noble Earl's comments and for the record we must get that clear.
Perhaps I can delay my noble friend for a few seconds more. I cannot for the life of me see how, if the Secretary of State contracts out the operation of traffic signalling and the various information systems that are being constructed throughout central Scotland, that can be cheaper than if the Scottish Office does it. As I was driving this morning from my home in Fife to the airport at Edinburgh those systems were in operation. All they were saying was: "Watch your speed"; "Please drive carefully". For goodness' sake, how will any private operator be able to provide that kind of information or advice cheaper than the Scottish Office? We need much more information than we have been given on what is behind the order. I have to say, in a critical fashion, that I was somewhat disappointed by the inadequate debate
678
in another place on the order. In my view this order is much more serious than a number of people seem to have grasped.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend spoke in this debate. Scotland is buzzing and the people are not happy about what happened in relation to the Skye Bridge. In Scotland generally people feel that they have been cheated on the whole question of that bridge. If the Kincardine Bridge is replaced—I have travelled on it frequently—and if that is tolled, the tolls will be extremely heavy, which will be a great detriment to the industrial and social life of east-central Scotland.
The whole question of the need to set up the bodies about which the noble Earl spoke seems to me to be an afterthought to the reorganisation of Scottish local government. The local authorities, particularly the regional authorities, were already responsible for the roads, the lighting and all the other matters required to keep them in good condition. Now we hear that a rather complicated system is to be established by the Scottish Office.
I have no great worries. I know that local authorities cannot themselves build roads. They can do minor work, but they cannot build roads. As was said in another place and the Minister repeated tonight, most of the design work is handed out to private consultants and contractors are then asked to tender. That is a point that was not properly handled by the Minster of State in the other place.
The Member for Dumbarton, my honourable friend Mr. John McFall, spoke of the burden that would be placed on contractors who bid for those long lengths of road. It was estimated that for a big project the burden could be extremely heavy and there would be no compensation if contractors were unsuccessful. I agree that that is part of the risk of contracting, but the cost to the nation generally, however it is done, must be summed up in total.
When the Minister replied in the other House he hinted—he did not actually say—that there would probably be a cutting down of the numbers of contractors asked to tender for each job. Although competitive tendering for a large project is acceptable, it is extremely expensive. If there is a selection of tenderers for the various large jobs, how will we ensure that one comfy little group do not do it all the time? How will other contractors be able to break in and make known their desire to tender? Also, as was raised by another Member in the other place, how far will they go? The example given was whether or not a contractor from Milan would be acceptable. I know the Italian roads and they are beautiful. The Italians are skilled road engineers. I do not know whether or not they inherited that skill from the Romans, but the roads are exceptional.
Those are questions that have not yet been answered and the Minister should be willing to answer them, if not tonight, then at least to write to us. I worry about the fact that if we are too chummy with those we ask to

679
take on certain jobs, the contracting list could become static. That would be detrimental and unfair to other contractors.
A number of important points arise with which members of the public will be concerned. The schedule to the order is most illuminating when one looks at the powers that people will be expected to handle. For instance, at one time, when anything went wrong with a road—for example, the lighting—the public knew, regardless of which part of the road they were on (whether it was Fife, Lanarkshire or in a Highland area) who to telephone to have it put right. If the road is a design, finance, build and operate scheme, how will the public know who to contact'? There may be a skip in the road which is allowed for in the schedule to the Bill; the powers of the roads authority with respect to doors and so forth opening outwards; in relation to all those minor points at one time the public knew who to contact. If the contractor is doing the managing and all the other operations that were previously done by the local authority, who does the member of the public contact now? That is an important point and something with which people are concerned.
I can assure the Minister that my next point is not a small one. I had a number of problems in another place over the question of cattle on roads. Presumably the trunk roads will be going through difficult terrain where there may be cattle on either side. I should like to know whether there will be continuous fencing or what will happen when a fence breaks down. There have been many cases in which much damage has been done and claimed for because cattle stray onto a road. Again, at one time the local authority could be notified very quickly, but now it may take a long time before an outside contractor can be contacted.
My other point concerns reinstatement. The Minister said—I can see that there is a certain validity in the point—that if someone has built the road and is responsible for maintaining it, he will make sure that the road is kept in good fettle. However, sometimes these things do not work out quite like that. Who will be liable if there is damage to vehicles or injuries to people because of a badly maintained road? At present the local authority or the regional authority is able to be contacted and if necessary—it happens frequently—sued; whereas if it is a contractor a good deal of time may be taken and wasted and a good deal of court time may be involved in trying to deal with these matters. The order has some good points but there are a great many questions which need to be answered.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this order deals with the possible transfer to private contractors of the lesser functions which the Secretary of State for Scotland holds with regard to the trunk roads—the so called all-purpose roads. I must draw your Lordships' attention to the risks, as I see them, implicit in this order. The first is the likely loss of uniformity in the appearance of roads in such matters as road signing, layout and design and indeed the colour of the road materials. The second risk concerns safety standards, in particular regarding the treatment of snow and ice,
680
lighting, footpaths and the removal of unplanned or unapproved obstructions, including skips. When dealing with winter conditions, the Minister does not need to be told that only completely uniform standards of gritting and salting on a 24-hour basis can lead to public confidence in the use of a trunk road—or indeed any road—in the extremes of winter.
I want to draw out this question. If the trunk roads are to he maintained by private contractors—my question has been asked before—how will the motoring public know whom to contact about a problem with the road? Will there be adequate signposting of this information? Currently the motoring public are aware that roads are maintained by the nine regional road authorities, with the premier and trunk roads being looked after by the local authorities on an agency basis. If I want to report a fault, I can visit my community information point in Clackmannan or I can phone the central regional council. I acknowledge that some citizens of Scotland have been confused over the past 19 years by the functions of the district and regional councils. That confusion with regard to roads could have ended on 1st April this year when the new unitary authorities take over. But, no, the trunk roads will be maintained by an even wider group of undertakings—the local authority, a consortium of local authorities, local authorities bidding for this work from afar, or private contractors. That will not promote clarity in responsibility for the trunk roads. I think I can safely say that in Scotland we broadly resent the loss of local democratic control of roads in any form. I would say that compulsory competitive tendering has already had its effect in sharpening up local authority management costs.
Before concluding, I have some questions about bridges which carry trunk roads over water. I have given prior notice of these questions. I understand that the Forth Road bridge on the A.90 has now paid off its costs and is running at a profit at the tolls. At Kyle of Lochalsh, on the A.87 the Skye bridge is most unpopular for its high tolls, and in consequence Dingwall Sheriff Court is choked with not guilty pleas. I also understand that a part of the new A.74(M) is owned by its builder, who is in receipt of shadow tolls, paid on a usage basis by the Scottish Office. There is also, as has been mentioned, an active consultation out at the present moment about a new bridge at Kincardine-on-Forth on the A.876. Indeed, that was the bridge I crossed this morning in order to get to your Lordships' House.
Will the noble Earl consider transferring surplus cash from the Forth Bridge to the Skye Bridge, or imposing a shadow toll, or arranging payment from the National Lottery for the Skye Bridge? With regard to the new bridge at Kincardine-on-Forth, can the noble Earl please tell me how the bridge will be financed? Will it be a cash toll bridge, or what? That will be of considerable interest to both myself and my neighbours in Fife and Clackmannanshire.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what noble Lords have had to say about the draft order. Its purpose is straightforward. It is to allow us to continue to bring efficiencies to bear on the provision, management and maintenance of trunk roads. A number

681
of points have been made by noble Lords. Some have been duplicated but I shall do my best to answer them now. If I cannot, I shall write to the noble Lords involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, mentioned the Skye Bridge, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. This order has nothing to do with toll bridges such as the Skye Bridge. This is promoted under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which gives the Secretary of State the necessary powers to assign his right to charge and collect tolls. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said that the Skye Bridge tolls are excessive. I believe that they are at just the same level as are charged for those going across on the ferry.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: No.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, that is the information I have. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made a point concerning traffic controllers. This system is still being installed. When it becomes fully operational later this year, many more messages to assist drivers will be able to be displayed. If local authorities can operate this system cheaper than the private sector they will win their tenders for that operation.
The Kincardine Bridge was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. No decision has yet been made on how a possible new bridge at Kincardine might be financed or how the position will be progressed. A decision will be taken in due course.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, may I have on the record an absolute guarantee that, no tolls ever having been charged over the past 60 years that the present Kincardine bridge has been in operation, on any new bridge there will also be no tolls charged? May I have a guarantee that it will be a toll-free crossing?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that guarantee. I am sorry that I cannot be any more helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, mentioned the problem of cattle straying on to trunk roads. The terms of the DBFO contracts will include provisions for such occurrences.
A number of other matters were raised. Thenoble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to a complicated system in terms of the premium areas and the all-purpose network. I believe that the new system will be a great deal simpler than the present one. The existing system is managed under 32 different authorities but for the trunk road network we shall now have three premium networks and five all-purpose networks.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the cost of tendering. We are not talking about peanuts. The extension of the A.74 from Carlisle to Glasgow, which will eventually he designated the M.6, is a £200 million
682
contract. Therefore the businesses that tender for these operations realise that there is expense involved in such work.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, how wide will be the tendering list? It is quite important. Will there be selected lists which were half-promised by the Minister of State in another place? He said that there would be a selection because too many contractors estimated or put in a bid for the particular roads. Somehow or other the contractors need to be repaid in the next contract. Therefore the total cost to the country will be considerably higher. We are talking about millions of pounds for an estimate on a contract.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, we realise that costs are involved. Initially, when we come to the new system and the DBFOs, the actual tendering process might be more complicated and expensive. After the first successful DBFO contract there will not be the repetition of costs incurred by some contractors in the first instance. The tendering lists are being restricted to three or four, which keeps the total costs down. I believe that I have covered all the questions which have been raised. If I have not, I shall write to noble Lords.
The delegation of functions to the private sector which would become possible under this order is important, as otherwise it would not be possible for the private sector to show properly what it can do. The private sector would have to revert to government to carry out a range of maintenance improvement functions. Our local authority agents are not constrained in this way as existing statutes provide for delegation to them. This draft order will allow a level playing field, in that the private sector will have the same degree of control over its operations. It will be more efficient for private sector operators. I expect these efficiencies to be reflected in pricing.
In future, private sector bidders for DBFO and management and maintenance contracts will be able to submit their proposals in the knowledge that they will have as much control over their operations as is practical. Delegation to them of functions which otherwise would be for government will provide reassurance that they will not be subject to delay and unnecessary administration over matters of importance to them in the management of the roads.
We are continually working to ensure that we are able to meet ever-increasing demands on the trunk road network in ways that will provide value for money and are efficient for the road user. This order will allow us to extend the range of options which we have for managing the network. It will allow us, from a broad spread of functions, to select which functions are suitable to delegate in the particular circumstances. With traffic volumes continuing to increase, we need to be flexible to best meet the challenges which lie ahead and he responsive to changing circumstances. I believe that this order will play a vital role in helping us to achieve this.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Life Prisoners: Prison Regime
7.33 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to introduce a prison regime for life prisoners who have been told that they can never expect to be released which will be consistent with their social, mental and physical needs as they grow older.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the risk of causing shock and horror to those few Members of your Lordships' House who are going to stay for this brief debate, perhaps I may start by saying that my purpose in putting down this Question is to get information. It is an old-fashioned way of using Unstarred Questions. I know that they are very often used as a basis for party political debate, but that is not my intention this evening. I want sincerely to probe the Government in more detail than they have been able to give in answer to Questions in the past about the conditions under which full-term prisoners—that is to say, prisoners who have been told that they can expect never to be released—are going to serve their sentence; in other words, to spend the rest of their lives.
Perhaps I may say at the outset two things which this Question is not about. It is not about the issue of whether there should be full-term sentences for anybody. I say that with some feeling because when I asked a Question in July last year, to which I shall refer in a moment, about the conditions under which full-term prisoners should be treated, I received while I was on holiday soon afterwards a telephone call from the Sunday Express. I told them the nature of my Question and of my interest. I told them specifically that they were not entitled to say, as a result of what I told them, that I or the Labour Party were in favour of releasing specifically—because they asked me—Myra Hindley. So what happened? The whole of the front page of the Sunday Express on the first Sunday in August was taken up with a headline saying, "Labour bid to free Myra Hindley". That was an absolute untruth, which had to be, and was, corrected. It was a lesson to me on how innocent questions can be distorted by the press. I have to repeat the nature of my concern this evening in order to make that position clear.
The second matter this Question is not about is whether the Home Secretary should make decisions. That is an issue on which the Labour Party has a view. We have come to the view that the judges, the Parole Board and the prison system as a whole are responsible for the tariff for mandatory life prisoners rather than a politician, the Home Secretary. Again, that is not something about which I am seeking information this evening, because it is not within the terms of the Question I am asking.
In June 1993, the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House decided that mandatory life prisoners should be told of the tariff imposed on them. They should he told of any change in that tariff and given the opportunity to appeal against it as well as against the original sentence. After a considerable gap, I followed that up with a series of Questions for
684
Written Answer on 19th July 1995. The helpful Answers that I was given by the Minister who is to reply tonight were that there were 16 mandatory life sentence prisoners who had been informed that previous Ministers had set a whole life tariff in their case and that those prisoners had the right to make representations.
The noble Baroness went on to say, as regards the conditions and in response to my third Question,
"The Prison Service already provides a variety of regimes suited to the needs of different types of prisoner. These regimes are kept under review. In allocating mandatory life sentence prisoners, individual circumstances, including the need to facilitate visits from family and friends, are always taken into account subject of course to the overriding consideration of security".—[Official Report, 19/7/95; WA31.]
It is that Answer which I seek to have extended by the Minister when she replies to this Question this evening.
Two things have happened since then; one to me and one much more publicly. What happened to me is that representations were made on behalf of Roy Hall, a prisoner in Full Sutton Prison. He is 72 years old. He has been imprisoned for multiple murders. I hasten to say that, as I understand it, all the prisoners who have been told that they are never going to be released are multiple murderers and probably sadistic murderers as well. Therefore, there is no question of sympathy for the crimes or lack of sympathy for the victims of the crimes concerned.
Roy Hall is in Full Sutton Prison. He is 72 years old. He has been told that he cannot have a television set, radio or tape recorder in his room because those are the prison rules. He has been deprived of the work that he had been doing for a number of years in the prison kitchens. His letter to me was written in despair because he does not see how he is going to have any sort of self-respect or decent life for the rest of his life. He is an old man. Surely he is not a danger to the public at his age. That was the first and perhaps the more private concern which prompted me to table this Unstarred Question.
The second is somewhat fortuitous in the sense that on Friday the report of the full inspection by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into conditions at Durham Prison was published. It is generally a favourable report, recognising that substantial improvements have been made at Durham Prison between the previous inspection in 1992 and the inspection in 1995 which was the subject of this report as a result of refurbishment and changes of policy. I am the first to recognise that.
The report was written under the then chief inspectorship of Judge Tumim, but is now published in the name of Sir David Ramsbotham, Her Majesty's new Chief Inspector of Prisons. The inspectors make points about Myra Hindley, who is a female prisoner in the hospital there following a serious fall. At paragraph 4.31 the report records the fact that after 30 years in prison she was past the point where she felt that she could mix in normal association with other prisoners whose attention was focused on their own eventual release dates.
The inspectors make a number of specific recommendations and outline some principles which they say should govern the treatment of that small group of prisoners, the 20 or so men and women who have been formally told that they will never be released. I think that we can all agree with the first recommendation which states that security should be sufficient to prevent escape. Secondly, such prisoners should he given as much autonomy over their lives as possible; for example, they should be able, if they wish, to cook for themselves. Thirdly, they should be afforded as much privacy as possible, consonant with the need to prevent escape. Fourthly, they should have suitable occupations, including the use of a typewriter or computer. Fifthly, as they are never to be released, they should have as many opportunities to receive visits as possible away from the normal visiting area. They should also have additional access to telephones. Finally, providing that their behaviour merits these privileges, they should have as much freedom as possible to make decisions for themselves about the way in which they lead their lives in prison.
The inspectors couched the report in general terms although in the press release issued by the chief inspector those recommendations are related to a particular prisoner rather than in general terms. The question that I am asking the Government is: how far do they agree with the inspectors' policy recommendations?. I was very disappointed to see the Prison Service press release which accompanied the report on Friday, which stated:
"The report also recommended that long term female prisoners should receive special privileges. That has been rejected by the Prison Service as conditions at Durham are considered suitable for all female prisoners".
My question is: is that the case? Is that the view of the Government as well as of the Prison Service? Is that the Government's view about the other full-term prisoners to whom the report does not refer, but to whom all the considerations which Judge Tumim and his colleagues felt were appropriate in the case in question should presumably also apply?
I do not ask those questions in any spirit of antagonism. I apologise if in referring to the case of Roy Hall I have caused the Minister any difficulty since I did not give her warning. If the noble Baroness cannot reply on that example, I shall fully understand; indeed, I do not expect it. However, generalising to a very limited extent, he is a man of 72; is there any plan for a special regime for people who are, let us say, over the age of 70—that is, over retirement age—who will never be released?
In the more general case, looking at Judge Tumim's recommendations for Durham Prison, what is the Government's view of those recommendations? How do the Government feel about the Prison Service's response to the report? To what extent do they feel, as I do, that there should be separate and special provision—not perks, but simply a recognition of their circumstances—for those prisoners who will never be released?
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am always quick to support any Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, partly out of party loyalty to my esteemed deputy leader, and partly because he is a convinced penal reformer who may not always be free to speak his mind or from his heart as he would wish. Nevertheless, he remains a convinced penal reformer in the eyes of all of us.
My noble friend interpreted his Unstarred Question in narrow terms. Over the years I have introduced a good many Unstarred Questions and noble Lords have spoken to them widely, interpreting them as they wished. I beg leave to do the same tonight. I agree with all that my noble friend said about the need to treat prisoners who have been told that they are to serve a life-long sentence in the way suggested by Judge Tumim in his report.
I return to Myra Hindley, but she is not the only prisoner known to me in that category. Dennis Nilsen is another example. There is no question of him coming out for many years. He has been forbidden to have his music published outside the prison even for charitable purposes. That case bears directly on the Unstarred Question. Why should Dennis Nilsen not be able to have his music published outside the prison, even for charitable purposes and when there is no question of personal profit? He has been told—I believe that this is true of other prisoners in Whitemoor also—that in future he must not have both a typewriter and a keyboard in his cell. He has to choose one or the other. The man has done terrible things, but he is a creative man. He has written an essay on how he became a murderer, which has been published by Ruth Rendell in an anthology on murder. I take him as an example to show that Myra Hindley is not the only person I have in mind.
To be quite frank, discussing whether prisoners who have been told that they will never be released should be treated a little better is rather like discussing whether those who are to be hanged should be entitled to a silken rope. I believe that that was once accorded to an ancestor of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I am afraid that in my view the whole idea of one man or woman who happens to be the Home Secretary saying to another human being, "You will never come out; you will die in prison", is obscene, or even worse if such words were in your Lordships' vocabulary.
I do not want to blame Mr. Howard for this. I am afraid that I blame him for many things, but I am not entitled to blame him for this. For quite a while, like most of the public, I had assumed that this was some new ploy by Mr. Howard—not so; this was introduced secretly, slyly, covertly, by Mr. Waddington, now the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in 1990.
It was an unprecedented move in British history to say that someone should never come out of prison. It was introduced in 1990 without the public being told. As far as I am aware, Mr. Howard has not confirmed to the prisoners that they will never come out. No prisoner has been told finally by Mr. Howard that he will not come out. I hope and pray that in humanity and justice, in this case at least, he will bring himself not to do so.

687
My noble friend mentioned the case of Myra Hindley, so I cannot help but mention it. The press has been quick to mention it in all sorts of ways in the past few days. Let us take the way that woman has been treated. We know that as an infatuated young woman she did terrible things 30 years ago. The Lord Chief Justice gave her a tariff of 25 years. Then secretly, the Home Secretary, the then Mr. Waddington—because in those days it was all kept secret—gave her 30 years. Then still secretly, the then Mr. Waddington increased the sentence to life, meaning life. What possible justification did he have?
If the tariff is supposed to reflect the iniquity of the crime, which is one way of looking at it, how can the crime become worse as the years pass? It is balderdash even to suggest that. Eventually under pressure the tariffs have been published. We have now been told that a number of prisoners will serve life, meaning life, so far as one Home Secretary can say that. Mr. Waddington laid it down, but the present Home Secretary has not yet committed that enormity.
What is the solution? It is one that my noble friend mentioned. It has the party's approval. It is that the Home Secretary should be removed altogether from the process of deciding how long a mandatory life prisoner spends in prison. That is not a way-out doctrine. It applies already to discretionary life prisoners. It is only a question of applying to mandatory life prisoners the same solution as is applied to discretionary life prisoners.
It is a terrible responsibility to cast upon a politician who is anxious, not unnaturally, to secure election or re-election. He or she has the terrible responsibility of deciding whether a fellow human will rot and die in gaol. That is a terrible thought. The solution is obvious. The Penal Affairs Consortium, which includes not just penal reform organisations but prison governors and the Probation Service, has recently come out with that solution.
When people talk about prisoners who have done terrible things many years previously, do they ever think what that person may be like now? No one who knows what a prisoner is like now ever talks in that way.
I call the Conservative Evening Standard and the Daily Telegraph, which I enjoy reading, enlightened newspapers. The Evening Standard had a leading article which claimed that whatever the state of Myra Hindley's soul, she should stay in prison until she dies. The Daily Telegraph published an article in a different connection asking whether the present Lord Chief Justice compared well with the late Lord Goddard. The mention of Lord Goddard reminds some of the old-timers in the House of a speech he made 40 years ago in favour of retaining capital punishment. Referring to a man convicted of murder, he said that such a man should be destroyed.
When we say that a man or woman must remain in prison until they die, we are saying that that human being is to be destroyed, as far as it is in human power to do so. It is a detestable doctrine. I only hope that in this case at least Mr. Howard will draw back before he commits that mortal sin.
7.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I listened with interest to both speakers. I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on initiating this useful debate. If his quest is to obtain information, and if he is saying that it is an act of desperation to use the Unstarred Question system to obtain information, he has not written to me asking for the information, because had he done so I would have provided answers to his questions by letter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say it was in desperation. I did not say I had any difficulty in obtaining information. I wanted information to be in the public sphere. This is an effective way of achieving that. I should have thought that the Government would have wished Starred Questions and Unstarred Questions to be in accordance with the Companion to Standing Orders of the House which says that we should be seeking information.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was not querying that this is not a proper process to use. I am delighted to come to the Dispatch Box to use it. If the noble Lord were to see a video re-run of the debate he would see that he appeared to make the point—I was receiving it rather than that he was saying it—that the reason he was putting down this Unstarred Question was to seek information. Information is something that can be ascertained in a number of different ways.
I started by saying that I congratulated the noble Lord, because this has been a useful debate to hold publicly. The subject of the debate has been prisoners with what I will refer to as whole life tariffs. They are the prisoners told by the Secretary of State that they will not be released from prison.
Before referring to them specifically I should like to remind the House that this is not a new problem. The prison service has long experience of dealing with a small number of prisoners who face spending their lives in prison.
The whole life tariff prisoners form a very small group—18 in all. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set only one of these tariffs. The other 17 were set by previous Secretaries of State. As a result of the decision by your Lordships' House in the case of Doody and others those 17 have had their tariffs disclosed to them retrospectively and have been given the opportunity to make representations. Those who make representations will have their tariffs considered afresh. In the meantime I do not propose to disclose their names.
The 18 whole life tariff prisoners are at present dispersed among 10 prison establishments; 15 of the individuals are Category A prisoners. One of them is aged over 70 and another one is over 60.
Given the small numbers and the range of ages it is neither practical nor desirable for the prison service to provide a special regime for these prisoners. Following the Doody judgment, to which I have just referred, all mandatory life sentence prisoners are now told of the judicial recommendation on the period to he served and

689
the tariff set by Ministers. So whole life tariff prisoners now know exactly where they stand. But their life in prison continues to reflect their particular circumstances and needs.
Like all life sentence prisoners they have a life sentence plan which is updated every year. They take part in the regimes of the establishments where they are held. Those regimes will aim to provide a balanced programme of work, education and training activities to cater for the physical and mental well-being of the prisoners. The work element is an option for prisoners reaching retirement age. If they decide not to work they will be paid as unemployed prisoners, with an additional allowance if they are willing to undertake light work.
Whole life tariff prisoners come within the incentives and earned privileges schemes operating in prisons in the same way as any other prisoner, although community visits are not available to them. They have the same arrangements for visits, telephone calls and letters as other prisoners, to help them maintain family links, which are considered to be important. And where possible they will be located sufficiently close for their families to visit.
The prison service does nevertheless recognise that there is a group, small but growing, of elderly life sentence prisoners, not just those with whole life tariffs. At the end of last year there were 157 life sentence prisoners aged over 60; 151 of them were male and six were female. Of the total number, three were over 80 and another 25 were over 70. The oldest male life sentence prisoner is aged 84 and oldest female life sentence prisoner is 69.
Governors, healthcare staff and prison officers all play their part in providing for the particular needs that go with old age as part of their overall responsibility of care. Sentenced prisoners are offered a full health assessment at least every three years. All prisoners are seen by medical staff when a health problem arises and those in receipt of regular medication will have regular reviews.
The prison service's directorate of healthcare is currently compiling a health strategy for prisoners and staff and has particularly identified the needs of older prisoners among its topics, including a target for women prisoners of cervical and breast screening in line with the NHS. The prisons board should be considering it this May after a period of internal and external consultation and the strategy will contain guidance on particular health needs and on good practice.
Elderly life sentence prisoners have available to them the full range of prison healthcare services. Some prisoners who are ill or infirm may need to be looked after in a prison healthcare centre; or, if an older prisoner has a medical problem which fails to respond to primary medical care within the prison, specialist care can be obtained in NHS hospitals as it would if the prisoner were living in the community. Alternatively, some establishments hold general medical and other specialist clinics run by local NHS consultants at which the prisoner's medical management is reviewed in conjunction with prison healthcare staff.
690
If a prisoner's condition deteriorates or a new problem occurs, such as a heart attack, the prisoner can be transferred to a local NHS hospital for assessment and treatment. In other cases, where there are problems of mobility, the prison healthcare staff will advise on the most suitable location in the establishment and on any limitations on work or activity. Prisoners over retirement age, as I have said, have the choice of not working in any case.
Governors and prison staff can help by providing wheelchairs, by locating elderly or infirm prisoners at ground level, by giving help in writing letters and so on. A development of particular interest is the special unit at present being commissioned at Kingston Prison, Portsmouth, for male life sentence prisoners aged 60 years and over. An existing accommodation block is being refurbished and will include specialist facilities for older prisoners. Its aim is to help elderly prisoners progress towards eventual release. The unit has 25 places and should receive its first prisoners this May.
The refurbished accommodation will have lavatory and shower facilities suitable for disabled prisoners with poor mobility. It will also provide a degree of separation for any elderly prisoners who are liable to be bullied by other inmates. It is a low-cost scheme and, in my view, a very imaginative one.
The prison service is at present reviewing its policy and guidance to governors on managing prisoners with physical disabilities. All types of physical disability will be taken into account, including problems such as reduced mobility and dexterity arising particularly among the elderly. As part of this, governors will be completing questionnaires on the numbers of physically disabled prisoners, where they are located and what facilities are provided for them. As part of this also the prison service will be working with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the British Deaf Association and the Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made an interesting comment about the powers of the Home Secretary as regards whole life tariffs. He made clear his position and that of his colleagues. It disagrees with the view of his Front Bench Shadow Home Secretary who believes that, on balance, the Home Secretary should retain the power to determine tariffs for mandatory life sentences.
The noble Lord also referred to Roy Hall, or Roy Fontaine, as he is often called. As the noble Lord said, Roy Hall is at Full Sutton Prison and a possible transfer to Kingston Prison, Portsmouth, was considered last year but refused. According to the noble Lord, Roy Hall was refused a piece of equipment; I believe that it was a word processor or a typewriter—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was a television.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that, first, he must be treated consistently with the rules of the prison. He is also party to the privileges system. In the case of Myra Hindley, who has a word processor, that is earnt but bought at her expense. That is one of the conditions of having other equipment in the prison.

691
Kingston Prison is a Category B establishment wholly for life sentence prisoners and it is where the planned older prisoner unit, which I have already mentioned, is being developed. Kingston Prison is currently being refurbished and the prison service intends to reconsider Mr. Hall's case when that work is completed. Its decision will have to take account, among other matters, of security considerations, of the prisoner's individual needs and, as regards the older prison unit, of the particular purpose and regime there.
I wish to make one comment because there is no one else speaking in the debate to make it. As I have outlined during the course of my response to the Question, as regards the pleading for more comfortable arrangements for older prisoners, in particular for those serving long sentences, someone somewhere must say on behalf of the victim—in the case of Mr. Hall we are talking about four deaths and possibly a fifth which was not put before the court—that they did not see middle age and they will not see old age. There is no question of considering conditions for them in their old age. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that it was obscene that a man or a woman should never come out of prison. What is obscene is the way in which so many lives were brought to a cruel end by those very people. The victims had no chances for any kind of reconsideration of their conditions—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Baroness is aware that any pretence of speaking in favour of victims comes badly from that Bench. The Home Secretary was roundly condemned by the law courts for the way in which he was attempting to treat victims.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I work closely with the Home Secretary and I know no Home Secretary who has devoted so much time and energy to concern himself with the plight of the victims. This Government have put in place Victim Support, active programmes to support and counsel victims and positive consideration of victims when tariffs are being considered. That is absolutely right.
In the course of the debate much has been said about making life more comfortable for prisoners. I believe that we are honouring our obligation to those prisoners. We have made a considerable effort to concern ourselves with people who grow old in prison. I am simply countering that point by saying that there are many people who will never grow old—indeed, many of them did not see young adulthood—because of the crimes of the very people about whom we are talking.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on Durham, which was published last week. Myra Hindley is subject to the earned privileges and incentives scheme applying to all prisoners and introduced since the inspection took place. She is on the enhanced level of privileges. As such, while on normal location she and other prisoners who have earned the same level of privileges have access to cooking facilities during association time for food which they have purchased. She is currently in the healthcare centre but while on normal location she had
692
the privacy of an individual cell and was able to have additional visits, although those were in the normal visiting area. As I said a moment ago, she has access to a word processor.
The Home Secretary will consider the advice that was given as a result of Myra Hindley's representations about her tariff. They were recently received in the department. The Parole Board has provided the Home Secretary with advice about her case. All that will be considered and when the Home Secretary has reached a decision the prisoner will be told. It is not the practice of the Home Secretary to disclose or to comment upon any advice given to him by the Parole Board before he has reached his decision. The prisoner is aware of the final outcome of the review. The prisoner is also aware of the history of the case, what the judges have said, what the Lord Chief Justice recommends and what previous Home Secretaries have recommended. However, the Home Secretary is not prepared to say when his decision will be made.
I repeat that it is the aim of the prison service to deal with the very small number of whole life tariff prisoners on the basis of an assessment of individual needs, both present and future, but grounded in the individual regimes of the prisons in which they are held. There would not be merit in any attempt to introduce a single regime for those individuals as they grow older. The prison service will meet their particular needs in the same way.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that she has obviously tried to give a helpful reply and has given a great deal of detail. Nevertheless, I urge her to ask her colleagues to reflect on the kind of despair which is likely to be induced in people when they are told that they will never be released from prison and how that despair is likely to be even greater when they appeal and are unsuccessful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I acknowledge readily that there must be a feeling of despair. But I invite the noble Lord to consider along with me the despair of the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers of the people whose lives have been snuffed out by those people.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
8.11 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 10.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Lord Chancellor's rules]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert ("and what information must accompany it").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. Amendments were tabled on Report by my noble friend Lady Elles and by the noble

693
and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Archer of Sandwell, which sought to place a requirement on the face of the Bill for the statement of marital breakdown to state the attempts made to promote reconciliation between the two parties.
I have been giving this matter some consideration since Report. I believe that a requirement of this kind would be a valuable addition to the Bill as it will draw the attention of parties making a statement to the issue of reconciliation and perhaps make them question their own efforts in this regard. However, I believe very strongly that the provision should be one which requires the parties simply to state whether or not they have attempted reconciliation. It should not be assumed that attempts at reconciliation will have been appropriate in every case and there should be no punitive result in cases where parties have not attempted reconciliation. Its appropriateness depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
For the reasons which I gave at Report stage—namely, that I do not wish to tempt people into giving a history of their marital difficulties which the other party may wish to refute and which may then have the effect of increasing the hostility between the parties—I have drafted the amendment to enable rules made by the Lord Chancellor to require parties to state whether or not they have attempted reconciliation since they attended an information meeting. The information meeting is intended to give parties information on the divorce process itself and on the facilities available to them if they wish to seek help in saving their marriage, and it is therefore of relevance to ask parties whether or not they have attempted reconciliation since receiving this information and before taking the serious step of making a statement of marital breakdown.
I have taken advice on how best to incorporate a provision of this kind into the Bill, as a result of which I have tabled Amendment No. 17 to Clause 11 to empower the Lord Chancellor to make rules to this effect. I have also tabled Amendment No. 16 to ensure that the Lord Chancellor is able to make rules specifying the information which should accompany a statement of marital breakdown, as well as the form in which that statement is to be made.
As appeared from the discussion on Report, there is also merit in the information about reconciliation referring to the period after the information meeting because that may give a good impression of the extent to which the information meeting is successful in transmitting information to the parties. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for incorporating the amendment which we tabled on Report in this new form into the Bill. It makes a good addition to the role of the information meeting. As my noble and learned friend said, it will help also to assess the value of the information meeting and as to whether the parties concerned are encouraged
694
to embark on reconciliation before taking what I consider to be the final step of making a statement. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. Primarily it provides that the parties should be required to say whether they have attempted reconciliation but they are not placed under any obligation to do so and there are not adverse consequences if they do not do so. That must be right. Attempting reconciliation can only be voluntary. Therefore, I support the amendments.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which the amendments have received. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("(aa) requiring the person making the statement to state whether or not, since satisfying the requirements of section 8, he has made any attempt at reconciliation;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("or has been").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 to 21. I have tabled Amendment No. 19 partly in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, at Report stage and partly to bring the duty of legal representatives into line with that placed on mediators by Clause 24 of the Bill as amended on Report. The amendment will empower the Lord Chancellor to make rules which impose a duty on legal representatives to inform a client who is initiating, or proposes to initiate, the divorce process of the availability of marriage support services and mediation; and where there are children of the family, to inform the party that in relation to the arrangements to be made for any such child the party should consider the child's welfare, wishes and feelings. Under the terms of the amendment, any rules made by the Lord Chancellor will also require legal representatives to provide the party with names and addresses of persons qualified to assist them to effect a reconciliation and in connection with mediation.
Your Lordships will see from the Marshalled List that I have tabled an amendment to Clause 24 to require mediators to have arrangements in place to ensure that parties are informed about the availability of independent legal advice, in addition to those matters specified in the new Section 13B(6) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 inserted by Clause 24.
Under Amendment No. 21, any rules made by the Lord Chancellor will require the legal representative to certify whether he has complied with the provisions of the paragraphs introduced by Amendment No. 19, and also to certify whether he has discussed with the party any of the matters mentioned in the first of those paragraphs or the possibility of reconciliation and, if so,

695
which of those matters he has discussed. The form of that is intended to elicit reasonably detailed answers rather than a rubber-stamped form.
Amendment No. 18 restricts the provisions to legal representatives currently acting for parties making or proposing to make a statement.
Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 20 removes the reference to counselling from Clause 11 (2)(c). I have considered carefully the arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on Report and your Lordships will note that I have changed the references from "counselling" to "marriage support services". I know that the right reverend Prelate and others in the House were concerned that the requirements of this clause should be focused on the issue of reconciliation, and I believe that that is achieved by the changes. In addition, the amendments I am proposing enable rules to impose a duty on legal representatives to inform their clients of certain matters. While I am sure that the usual practice of legal representatives is to inform their clients of many services which may be of assistance to them, I believe that, in the context of the Bill, it is only appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to impose a duty on legal representatives in relation to the matters raised in the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for Amendment No. 19 and for Amendment No. 25, which amends Clause 24. I believe that these amendments are responses to the amendments that I moved at earlier stages. I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for his amendments.
I wonder whether I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question which is not exactly directly related. On Report I moved Amendment No. 63 for my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. The noble and learned Lord said that he would not accept that amendment but would bring forward an amendment, probably on Third Reading. I have not yet found that amendment, although that may be due to my stupidity. However, when the noble and learned Lord responds, I would be most grateful if he could tell me whether I have just missed it or whether, perhaps, that will be an amendment tabled in another place at a later stage. Nevertheless, I thank the noble and learned Lord for what has been done.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is unable to be present at this stage but he has asked me to express his thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the amendments and in particular for the inclusion of "marriage support services" in Amendment No. 19. On his behalf, I am glad to express my support for the amendments.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for that support. If the noble Baroness, Lady David, could tell me the subject matter of her Amendment No. 63, I might well he able to answer her question, although I may be able to answer it in due course. I cannot
696
recollect at this moment the precise subject matter of the amendment, but I will probably remember it if it turns out that I have dealt with it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I have just been reproved by my noble friend for not having mentioned the subject matter of the amendment. It related to divorces which were agreed to on bogus evidence, where false information had been accepted. Is that enough information to trigger the noble and learned Lord's memory?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords; my impression at the minute is that it is a little removed from the subject matter now under discussion.
Baroness David: My Lords, it is.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not wish to incur a further rebuke from the noble Baroness and I am sympathetic to the amendment that she moved on Report. However, I have to ascertain whether it is necessary to do something along the lines suggested and, if so, on precisely what terms. Therefore, the answer is that I have not yet been able to deal with the subject matter of the noble Baroness's amendment. If it turns out that something is required, then I shall seek to promote it in another place.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the noble an learned Lord allow me to write a letter to him in order to explain the position a little further? I regret that I have been so inadequate in explaining what I wanted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Baroness wishes to write me a letter. I must say that I am always extremely glad to receive communications from Members of your Lordships' House. I believe that I have the point in mind now. Once we got away from the number of the amendment to the subject matter I remembered the position quite well. As I said, I must ascertain what is required, if anything, to deal with the point that the noble Baroness and her noble and learned friend raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21:
Page 7, line 30, leave out from ("made") to ("names") in line 38 and insert—
("(aa) to inform that party, at such time or times as may be specified—

(i) about the availability to the parties of marriage support services;

(ii) about the availability to them of mediation; and

(iii) where there are children of the family, that in relation to the arrangements to be made for any child the parties should consider the child's welfare, wishes and feelings;

(ab) to give that party, at such time or times as may be specified,").
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("(ii) by counselling").
Page 7, line 42, at end insert ("; and
(ac) to certify, at such time or times as may be specified—

697

(i) whether he has complied with the provision made in the rules by virtue of paragraphs (aa) and (ab);

(ii) whether he has discussed with that party any of the matters mentioned in paragraph (aa) or the possibility of reconciliation; and

(iii) which, if any, of those matters they have discussed.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [Financial arrangements]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
("(aa) to provide that such orders are not to be made, except in cases of special and immediate need, during the first six months of the period for reflection and consideration, in order to promote reconciliation and, where reconciliation is not possible, the settlement of arrangements for the future by negotiation or mediation; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 and 57. Amendment No. 22 is a paving amendment for the latter and it is supported by my noble friends Lady Young, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The intention behind the amendments is to provide a period in which the parties to a divorce can attempt to resolve their financial arrangements for the future by agreement with the aid of mediators or their lawyers and without the threat of an immediate order by the court hanging over them.
The amendments would provide that no court order for financial provision of property adjustment may be made in the first six months after the statement, except where there are shown to be special circumstances of "urgent need". That provision takes account of points made by my noble and learned friend on Report. The sort of circumstances which are intended to be covered by reference to "urgent need" are cases where, shall we say, a wasting asset needs to be sold such as where there is a negative equity situation, where one or both of the parties requires to be housed when they are both living together and it is impossible to house them, or for an occupation order under Part IV of the Bill to be made. In that sort of case, one would readily agree that it would probably be necessary for an immediate order to be made.
The amendments would apply to immediate orders as well as to the orders taking effect on the divorce only, which are the orders presently favoured by my noble and learned friend. I would preclude those. Allowing a court order of whatever sort to be made immediately the statement has been made will inevitably result in increased acrimony as solicitors' letters are exchanged, bargaining goes on, positions are jockeyed for and the solicitor for one party or the other attempts to get on top in the battle of finance straight away. In many cases, the early settlement or financial arrangements made under duress will produce de facto an early, irretrievable breakdown of marriage and give no opportunity for mediation to work or even to be tried.
The amendments do not preclude applications to the court during the six-month period. They do not preclude the procedures leading up to the hearing and the need to
698
make financial disclosures and the like. The intention is merely that the order should not be made in the first six months so that, if a party feels that nothing is being achieved by mediation or attempting to reach agreement, that party will still be able to apply for an order. The fact that the hearing of the application may be delayed until the end of the six-month period will provide the incentive for both parties to negotiate.
It is a very modest amendment. When my noble and learned friend dealt with the matter at earlier stages in a different form he was fairly lukewarm in his opposition to my amendment or to what we proposed. That did not surprise me because I know that my noble and learned friend has no wish for the court to be tried in preference to mediation or negotiated agreement elsewhere. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to say that the thoughts behind the amendments are now agreed, that they may need redrafting and that he will bring forward something in another place. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to express my support for my noble friend Lord Coleraine. As the House will recall, my noble friend introduced amendments along similar lines both in Committee and on Report. The point that he has raised is an extremely important one in that, if such orders are made at any time after the first statement, the whole idea of reconciliation, reflection, consideration, and so on, is pointless because the situation is decided by those circumstances.
We are concerned with two orders here and, as I understand it—although it is quite possible that I have not got it quite correct—the Bill permits lump sum orders to be made at any time after the first statement and provides for property transfers to be made in special circumstances before the divorce. I believe that my noble and learned friend has gone some way towards meeting one of those points and that is most welcome. That will certainly help the situation. The provision would mean that either the husband or the wife could obtain a court order during the reflection period which would settle who would own the house at the divorce and how much would be paid in a lump sum on divorce. Therefore, although my noble and learned friend's provision goes part of the way, it does not go as far as we would wish.
Having gone part of the way, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to go all the way with my noble friend Lord Coleraine on this most important series of amendments. I believe that that would be in keeping with what my noble and learned friend wants; namely, to have such a period for reflection and consideration. It would not in any way be damaged by the fact that a party could make a settlement of their assets right at the beginning before anything else had been considered.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments because they establish a six month period when the court may not make property or financial provision orders so that reconciliation can be

699
concentrated on. If the Government are really saying that this Bill is supportive of the family and buttresses marriage, then surely reconciliation needs to be the central focus of the Bill.
Many people take the view that one of the more pressing problems we face in this country today is the breakdown of the traditional family leading to widespread social misery and great distress among children who frequently suffer from loss of status, loss of identity, loss of self-esteem, and in many cases loss of one parent altogether. Of course I realise that one cannot legislate against human nature and that whatever laws are passed in Westminster may have little effect on human relations within a family; but I believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to create an atmosphere within which marriage and the traditional family can flourish. In fact the 1969 Act did exactly the opposite with the result that we now have the highest divorce rate in Europe. By putting more emphasis on reconciliation, more marriages will be saved. It is for that reason that I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise to say briefly how much I support the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. It seems to me quite inimical to the objectives of the Bill to allow the courts to make what appear to be permanent settlements in regard to lump sum payments and property transfers before the parties have had an opportunity to attempt reconciliation and before the parties have had an opportunity to attempt mediation and to arrive at an agreed solution. Surely, it should be possible to make temporary arrangements for sufficient capital or income to be available to the spouse, or, alternatively, for occupation of the property, without actually making a property transfer.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend intends to do with the amendment after he has heard my noble and learned friend's reply but if, as I imagine, the matter may be left open to go to another place, I wonder whether that opportunity will he taken to look at it again in a slightly different light. I think we have all accepted that the divorce proceedings are not the start but the conclusion of a process, and we need to consider whether any additional time or slack water is to be introduced in the light of that. There will have been great turbulence before this passage of time—the 12 months—begins.
That said, surely the difference that strikes the parties to the marriage and the divorce at the moment divorce proceedings begin, is the crystallisation into reality of what they had merely imagined to be the arrangements that will result. Many of your Lordships feel—I rather think that I feel this way too—that it is that crystallisation that makes people seriously have a second look. Merely beginning the argument about the arrangements, or beginning the process, does not. It is arguable—this is probably a persuasive argument—that it is when they see what the position will be at the end of the process that they think, "Good heavens! Is this really what we meant?" I should have thought that an amendment which made the order of the court in some way provisional after it had been made, and left the six
700
months for reflection at the end of the process, so that people would know what they were reflecting about, would have much more attraction than what is now proposed. That is what I would say if my noble friend was leaving it to be discussed in another place.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the logic behind this amendment is, I think, impeccable. The points made in its support are serious, but I also listened with a great deal of interest to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I can see a great deal of force in those points. The other point that occurred to me is one about the tempo of negotiation. I think most of us find that in negotiation there is usually one moment at which the parties may be induced to reach agreement. It may come sooner or later when moods coincide.
If that moment is attained, it is a matter of a tide in the affairs of men which is not taken at the flood, especially in cases involving matrimonial breakdown. It is not unknown after matrimonial breakdown for hostility between the parties to go on growing which may mean there could be some cases where a settlement might have been accessible early on but there may be bitter contests later if it is not taken when it is accessible. I hope that all those points on both sides will be taken into account. However, I recognise the case that has been made in favour of the amendment is a serious one; I just think that it probably is not quite the whole story.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have indicated on previous occasions what my noble friend Lord Coleraine has described as a rather lukewarm antagonism to these amendments. That just about accurately reflects my attitude to them. There is a great deal to be said in the ordinary case for an order being made in the first six months. I think as a practical matter it is highly unlikely that a contested order would in any event be made in the first six months. However, there may be situations in which agreement is required on the basis of which some further understanding can be built. There is also the point that under the European Convention on Human Rights there is the question of conducting a hearing within a reasonable time. What amounts to "reasonable time" depends very much on the circumstances.
It is important to think about these amendments against the background of what I am proposing both in the Bill and in amendments to be discussed later; namely, that any order that is made for property adjustment or for financial provision will not take effect until the divorce order is granted unless there are exceptional circumstances and it is just and reasonable to do so. I have added the term "exceptional circumstances" out of concern to meet the points that my noble friends have made to me before.
I am endeavouring to see whether reforms of the ancillary relief procedure can be put in place to reduce the cost and delay involved. My inclination at the moment is to think that this sort of matter is best dealt with in rules of court which take account of the various circumstances. However, I think that the present rules of court may not be sufficient to enable this particular

701
type of obstacle to become effective. If your Lordships would be kind enough to allow me further time on this matter, I should like to consider whether a degree of flexibility, taking account of this desire, could be built into the rule-making procedure in such a way as to give effect, generally speaking, to the wishes expressed in this amendment by my noble friend Lord Coleraine and those who have supported him.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the general understanding around the House of the purpose of these amendments. At the moment I find it difficult to see what rules of court can do when the thrust of the Bill, as it is at the moment, is that at any time after the statement is made one party can go to court and obtain a financial provision order or a property adjustment order. That will effectively ruin any chances of reconciliation or mediation on other aspects of the arrangements for the future.
The Bill ought to be aimed at ensuring that as far as possible mediation and negotiated agreements are favoured rather than court applications. Taking up a point which my noble and learned friend made when discussing his disagreement with his advisory group, my noble friend Lord Elton made the point that if the order was made the parties would then realise that that was not what they wanted. I believe that in fact when the order is made one party will realise that it is not what he or she wanted but the other party will be extremely satisfied with what he or she has, and the divorce will continue in an acrimonious manner.
As regards the tempo of negotiations, I understand that the early stages are possibly not the time when one will achieve an easy agreement. On the other hand, if agreement is not achieved in the early stages I very much doubt whether it will be possible to reach agreement in the later stages.
Nevertheless, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he said about looking into ways in which those points can be met. I know that he will do so because he said that his opposition to the amendments was lukewarm. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Legal aid for mediation in family matters]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Parts II and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment provides that legal aid for mediation will be available for questions arising under Part H of the Act as well as those arising under Part IV. It is desirable to ensure that if any issues arise under any part of the Bill which are appropriate for mediation then funding for publicly supported mediation will be available. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Provision and availability of mediation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 24:
702
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25. The amendments amend subsection (6)(a) of Section 13B of the Legal Aid Act 1988, introduced by Clause 24. They provide that where the Legal Aid Board enters into a contract for the provision of mediation the contract must include provision requiring the mediator to have in place arrangements to ensure that each party is informed about the availability of independent legal advice.
I have put down the amendments in response to an amendment tabled at Report stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I am grateful to them for drawing this matter to my attention, and have pleasure in moving Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
("(iii) that each party is informed about the availability of independent legal advice; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Payment for mediation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 15, line 4, after ("is") insert (", except so far as the regulations otherwise provide,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage I indicated my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for drawing my attention to a lacuna in the Bill as a result of which the statutory charge disregard did not apply in respect of legal aid for mediation. The amendment rectifies that.
The amendment extends the regulation-making power of the Lord Chancellor in respect of the statutory charge for mediation to mirror the current provisions in the Legal Aid Act 1988 which allow regulations to be made in respect of advice, assistance and representation in matrimonial matters where the statutory charge applies, to disregard the first £2,500 of property recovered or preserved in the calculation of the statutory charge.
As I indicated at Report stage, it would not be appropriate for that provision to appear on the face of the Bill: first, because that would make any changes which were necessary regarding the level of the disregard more difficult; and, secondly, because I believe that details such as this are appropriately left to regulations, as they are in relation to the disregard under the present provisions of the 1988 Act.
I reiterate that my intention has always been 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 should like to express my thanks once again to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for drawing this oversight to my attention. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord very warmly indeed for the

703
amendment. To be able to make a concession to me in the form of a new regulation-making power must have afforded the noble and learned Lord considerable amusement, in which I share.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 26 [Mediation and civil legal aid]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
Page 16, line 22, 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 have reflected on the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord at Report stage on 4th March in relation to the amendment, and shall not move the amendment at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Occupation orders where applicant has estate or interest etc. or has matrimonial home rights]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 20, line 34, after ("parties;") insert—
("( ) the conduct of the parties;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31.
I am in some difficulty, as I am sure my noble and learned friend will appreciate, because I understand that his Amendment No. 30 to a large extent meets the purpose of Amendment No. 28. If that understanding is correct, I am very grateful. That is of value. There was anxiety that it might be possible for one spouse to turn the other out of the house without conduct being taken into account. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I supported a similar amendment at Report stage, both on general grounds and invoking a technical canon of construction—the ejusdem generic rule—which I thought prevented the general rule, on which my noble and learned friend relied, covering the case of conduct.
I was remiss in not having given my noble and learned friend notice that I would raise that point. Therefore, understandably, he did not deal with it. As a result I wrote to him after the debate. As I understand it, my noble and learned friend has now completely met our point, and I join the noble Baroness in expressing thanks for that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for what they have said.
Reviewing what was said at Report stage, having regard to the pre-existing law, and looking at the most recent decision in this area, I came to the conclusion that the result of leaving out the reference to the conduct of the parties was probably to change the appearance of the law without changing its substance, and therefore it was wise simply to restore the phraseology of the existing law. I have therefore met the thrust of the amendments of my noble friend Lady Young and
704
the technical point of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which I would have met in more detail even without notice had I not thought, after hearing so much of the debate on the previous occasion, that I should be wise to go ahead on this basis. That is what I have done. I am grateful.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am anxious to be constitutionally in order on this matter. I wonder whether I should be right now to withdraw my amendment in order that my noble and learned friend can move his. I am happy to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 20, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 is the first of a rather large number of amendments that I wish to propose. The amendments in my name grouped between Amendments Nos. 28 to 38 and Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 43 to 46, and 48 to 50 are on this point generally.
The amendments are intended to emphasise the need for the court to take into account the conduct of the parties when making occupation orders under Part IV of the Bill. They also ensure that the balance of harm test or questions should apply where significant harm to an applicant or a relevant child is harm attributable to the conduct of the respondent.
As I said a little while ago, I have reflected further on the amendments tabled at Report stage by my noble friend Lady Young and have tabled these amendments to ensure that when the court is considering whether to make an occupation order under Clauses 30(3), 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the Bill it must take into account, in addition to the factors already specified in those clauses, the conduct of the parties in relation to each other and otherwise. I believe that in the previous wording they included notwithstanding the general point. But I think that it is quite wise to make it explicit. The amendments enable the Bill so far as possible to reflect the existing law on this point in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983.
At Report stage I made amendments to the definition of harm in Clause 59 in respect of an adult applicant to provide that the harm in question would have to be the result of the conduct of the respondent. Your Lordships will remember that that arose out of an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, which focused on the distinction between the harm as described for children, which included harm other than physical harm, and the adults where we did not have that introduction. In looking at that, it brought me to consider this question. After further consideration, I have decided that harm to children should be treated in a similar way. The later amendments therefore provide that where significant harm to an applicant or a relevant child is referred to in the Bill, it is significant harm attributable to the conduct of the respondent. However, where reference is made to harm to the respondent or a relevant child in the balance of harm test to be applied in relation to occupation orders, the harm will be harm as a consequence of the respondent's occupation being

705
regulated by the occupation order. The later amendments therefore dealing with this matter amend the definition of harm in Clause 59 accordingly.
In the light of that explanation, I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 20, line 37, at end insert ("and
( ) the conduct of the parties in relation to each other and otherwise.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 31:
Page 20, line 38, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to my noble and learned friend for the series of amendments which he has just moved which meets at least one of the points that I raised at Report stage and I am sure will be regarded as a great improvement to the Bill.
I am a little concerned that he has not dealt fully with the whole question of the balance of harm test which was one of the other issues raised. He says that he has amended the definition of harm in, I think, Clause 59 which includes a child as well as others.
At this late stage of the proceedings, I shall not repeat the arguments that I put forward at Report stage. It is very valuable that my noble and learned friend has moved the amendments which meet a considerable part of my concern. As regards the balance of harm test, I shall read carefully what my noble and learned friend said. The matter may well be taken up in another place.
It is important that definitions should be sufficiently tight so that it is not possible to argue a case of harm which in effect is bogus, in the serious event that someone asked to be removed from the occupation of a house should be brought before the court on the matter.
I do not wish to pursue the matter on this occasion, but to thank my noble and learned friend for the point to which he has agreed.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
Page 20, line 39, after ("harm") insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent").
Page 20, line 45, after ("harm") insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent which is").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 32 to 39 with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32 [One former spouse with no existing right to occupy]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 37:
Page 22, line 19, at end insert—
( ) the conduct of the parties in relation to each other and otherwise;"),
Page 22, line 36, leave out ("(b) and (c)") and insert ("to (d)").
Page 22, line 39, after ("harm") insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent").
Page 22, line 44, after ("harm") insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent which is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 33 [One cohabitant or former cohabitant with no existing right to occupy]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 24, line 15, at end insert—
( ) the conduct of the parties in relation to each other and otherwise;").
Page 24, line 34, leave out ("(b) and (c)") and insert ("to (d)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 24, line 34, leave out from ("(c)") to end of line 43 and insert—
("(8) If it appears to the court that the applicant or any relevant child is likely to suffer significant harm if an order under this section containing one or more of the provisions mentioned in subsection (4) is not made, the court shall make the order unless it appears to it that—

(a) the respondent or any relevant child is likely to suffer significant harm if the order is made; and

(b) the harm likely to be suffered by the respondent or the child in that event is as great as, or greater than, the harm likely to be suffered by the applicant or child if the order is not made.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40 and speak to Amendment No. 43 which I also moved on Report.
The amendments are designed to restore the full force of the previous Bill before concessions were made to appease what I previously described, and would continue to describe, as the uninformed minority in the other place.
I yield to no one in my acceptance of the need sometimes for political compromise. What I cannot accept is that such a need existed where there was a clear majority in every party, including that of the noble and learned Lord, for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill in the form in which it left your Lordships' House. At this hour of the night, and because these amendments were fully argued on Report on 4th March, I shall express myself shortly.
The first amendment is to ensure that the balance of harm test is equally applicable in cases where the victims of violence have no strict legal right to occupy the property as it applies to cases where the victims of violence do have such a right. I believe that the Law Commission's view should prevail: that is, that the courts should make an order in favour of the non-entitled applicant when the courts are satisfied that

707
more harm would be caused to that applicant or any child than would be caused by not making the order. The plain fact is that under the Bill the courts are being given a discretion to withhold a protection from non-entitled partners even though the balance of harm test is satisfied in their cases.
I welcome the support which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, felt able to give these amendments on Report on 4th March. He chaired our Jellicoe Committee into the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill of the last Session with great distinction. His support on Report, however, was perhaps not in political terms the most cogent for which I could have wished when he was commending these amendments to your Lordships' House. He said that he felt the courts would ensure that justice was done whether or not the amendments were carried. Perhaps I may say to him, with great respect, that that is a lawyer speaking rather than a politician. For my part, I do not feel so sanguine. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack feels that there will be no difference in practice in the court's decisions on his watered-down proposals, then he would be as well to reinstate his first thoughts on the subject for the avoidance of any doubt.
The second of the amendments is likewise aimed at restoring the previous provisions in the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. Under that Bill, ouster orders in favour of non-owners, the victims of domestic violence, could continue for as long as the court thought necessary. Ouster orders in favour of non-owners may now be for six months only, with the possibility of one single extension of six months but no further extension in whatever circumstances.
I believe—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, believes, and as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack once believed, and perhaps still believes—that judges should have the same discretion as they had under the previous Bill so that the hands of the court should not be tied to arbitrary time limits.
As I said on Report, rare cases will arise in which acute difficulty will be found in rehousing the abused and in particular where couples may be elderly, ill or even terminally ill. If alternative accommodation does not become available within 12 months, under the Bill in its present form the courts are powerless to prevent the individual being turned out into the street. I really do not know what the answer to that point can be and I believe that the present Bill must therefore be wrong in principle.
I submit that this gap in the courts' protective powers leaves the abused and uniquely vulnerable at risk of homelessness. These amendments will fill that gap and I therefore beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am sorry I did not give satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on the last occasion and I will try to do better this time.
May I begin, as I began at the Report stage, 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, had nothing whatever to do with the saving of the institution of marriage and
708
nothing to do with the buttressing of marriage. It was concerned only with the avoidance of anti-social behaviour and violence after a marriage, after a family home, had come to an end. Part III of this Bill has exactly the same purpose. I therefore turn to these amendments.
For convenience I will refer to the earlier Bill simply as the domestic violence Bill, which I think is expressive of the basis of that Bill. All that I respectfully ask now, and all that these amendments are designed to do, is to restore a part of the domestic violence Bill to the form which it took when it was before your Lordships' House on the previous occasion—that is, the part that deals with occupation orders affecting, co-habitants who have no legal right to occupy the family home. An occupation order is a purely temporary order for regulating the temporary occupation of the family home after the breakdown of the relationship between the parties. Under the domestic violence Bill a man and a woman cohabiting were equated with a married couple for the purposes of this temporary order.
I wish to submit only two points for consideration. My first point is this. If a couple have set up a family home together and the relationship comes to grief, it is just as necessary to regulate the temporary occupation of the family home whether that home was based on a marriage in church, a marriage in a registry office or an informal relationship. The same stresses, the same risk of anti-social behaviour, the same risk of violence, the same risk to any child, will arise whatever the origin of the family home. Therefore, the court ought to have the same jurisdiction, exercisable to the same extent, in the same way, on the same principles, whatever the origins of the family home. This result will be achieved if Amendments Nos. 40 and 43 are accepted by your Lordships. The jurisdiction of the court will be restored to the form it took in the domestic violence Bill. That will not be achieved if these amendments are rejected.
My second point is this. This House decided in the last Session what form your Lordships wished the occupation order jurisdiction to take. I suggest, with the greatest possible respect to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, that there is no reason for this House to change its mind at this stage.
Perhaps I may say a brief word in order to record the unusual history of the domestic violence Bill upon which Part III of this Bill is based. A Committee of this House considered the domestic violence Bill over several days in the last Session. It received written evidence from almost 50 witnesses. It heard oral evidence at six meetings. This House considered the Bill at the Report stage in May of last year. There was no Division. The Bill had its Third Reading in June and again there was no Division. The Bill went to the other place. After a Second Reading debate the Bill went to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It then came before Standing Committee B. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department told Standing Committee B, according to the Official Report, that the Bill had been "intensively scrutinised" by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. No change was made by Standing Committee B to the provisions affecting occupation orders. No amendment to those

709
provisions was even tabled. The Bill was then dropped, for reasons which I would not presume to question. I ask myself: why should we now take it upon ourselves to alter our considered opinion on occupation orders? It was an opinion with which the other place has so far shown no disagreement whatever. Let us therefore send the Bill back to the other place in the form, in relation to temporary occupation orders, which in our considered opinion of last year we thought to be right. That will happen if the amendments are accepted. Let us see what the other place thinks. In my submission, it is far too early to change our minds. I therefore support the amendments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too wish to add my support for the amendments. First, I do so because I believe that in the last Session, in the Select Committee—of which I regret I was not able to be a member—the Bill received a far more careful scrutiny than we in full House have been able to give it now.
Part IV of the Bill is highly technical. We have been through it concentrating on the "headline" points. For all the effort I have put into trying to get it right, I do not understand it nearly so well as those who were members of the Select Committee in the previous Session. I therefore think that, if we disagree with the Select Committee, the balance of probability is that the Select Committee got it right. All Her Majesty's subjects are entitled to equal protection against physical violence and may suffer from an equal need for it. That point appears to me to be capable of carrying great weight.
The balance of harm test is a good one. So far as I can see, it is what we need to know in order to decide what should be done. That test enables the court to take all relevant influences into consideration. It enables the court to weigh conflicting interests, conflicting needs and conflicting dangers against each other. Since cases are extremely individual, it can be difficult to fetter the consideration of the court in such matters. At present, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is probably right that it will not make much difference in practice. However, we must hope that the Bill will remain on the statute book for a long time. I do not believe that we can foresee how judges in 30 or 50 years might interpret the clauses. Therefore, the fact that it may make little difference at present does not obviate the need to give ourselves security for the future.
Also I see no answer to this question: if the changes did not make much difference, why were they worth introducing? They set the mark of Cain upon some of Her Majesty's subjects. Why was that worth doing, unless it made a difference to how the Bill operated in practice? If it is useless, then it should go out because it is a provoking and, in many quarters, extremely unpopular set of changes. They could only have been justified by showing that they met a genuine practical need. I have not heard that case demonstrated; I have not even heard it argued.
On Amendment No. 43, the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, about terminal illness is powerful. If someone is in a state of terminal illness and may live
710
another three months, it seems gratuitously cruel to have to move them out, with all the disruption that that entails, in the last few weeks of their life. It might also entail a considerable cost to public funds. There is the further possibility that the accommodation might be purpose-built for a disabled person. In those circumstances, if the court were entirely free to consider the issue, it might appear to be sensible to continue the order. I wish to see the court given back that discretion. I would trust the court not to use it in any reckless or unadvised way. I too very much hope that the amendments will be accepted.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, as a member of the committee which was chaired with such skill by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, I wish to add my strong support for the amendments, for the reasons which have been stated so clearly and convincingly. I have in mind something which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on a different amendment at Report stage. It was that there was a difference between marriage and cohabitation but it is simply not relevant in this context. Both families are equally in need of protection.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I had not intended to enter into this debate at all. However, I have listened to the arguments, and my noble and learned friend will perhaps be astonished to hear that I very much support the stand that he has taken over this matter.
I was quite concerned at the speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and that by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). There is a very real distinction between marriage and cohabitation. One of the great dangers now is that we are going down the path of making that distinction less and less. This is one such case. I accept that there are hard cases. But after all, if you are living together, you can always leave. That is one of the points about living together as opposed to marriage, where you are in an entirely different legal situation.
I regret very much that I did not follow the intricacies of this debate when it came before the House last year. I apologise for that. I realise that I should have done so, but other matters intervened. I am one of those who feel that there is a very real danger—signalled, I may say, by the Law Commission—that we shall be pushed into a situation where there is not a distinction between marriage and cohabitation; and this bit of the Bill is a classic example. We need to think very carefully before accepting these amendments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I ask her to read tomorrow in the Official Report what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) actually said. She did not say that there was no distinction between marriage and cohabiting; she said that it was not relevant to this Bill.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, of course I shall read tomorrow in Hansard the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), with whose views

711
on most matters I am in agreement. I do not agree with her on this point. I believe that the distinction is relevant to the Bill.
Baroness David: My Lords, as another member of the Jellicoe Committee, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is wrong about this. I do not think it is a question of whether people are married or not. It is a case of domestic violence. I very much support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). That particular argument is irrelevant to this small part of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I, too, was a member of the committee over which my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman presided with such distinction. In some of these issues one has to take account of perceptions and the way in which matters are dealt with.
As I mentioned before, Part IV of the Bill recognises in relation to occupation a distinction between those who are married and those who are not, in the respect that those who are married have rights of occupation in the matrimonial home, whereas those who are not married do not. They may get an order from the court for occupation, but they are not entitled as of right to occupy the family home. So that distinction is recognised in this part of the Bill, and was recognised in the Bill as it emerged from the committee last time and also from this House last time.
The question is how far that distinction should go. In this particular situation, in consideration—I shall be quite frank about it—of the views of my colleagues in another place, I proposed amendments to the Bill that emerged from this House and had gone through a considerable part of its passage in the other place when difficulties arose in relation to it. It is reasonable to take account of those in the way in which this Bill as now drafted does.
As I mentioned before, Amendment No. 40 is not appropriate. It refers to subsection (4) rather than subsection (5). Reading the whole thing together does not make sense. Therefore it is not a particularly happy amendment to insert at Third Reading on that account. I mention that again only because this is Third Reading.
Turning to Amendment No. 43, it seems reasonable when this question is raised and people are concerned about it, to recognise the distinction between those who are married and those who are not in the respect that the person who is unmarried has no right in the family home. It is not a question of people being "second-class" but of recognising all the circumstances. If one wants a right in the family home, the law says that people have that by being married. Surely the law can recognise that. If you do not have a right in that way, this clause as presently drafted limits, and not particularly narrowly, the power of the court to grant an occupation order twice, up to a total of two with six-month periods as the periods of the order.
I certainly see the arguments on both sides of this question. Earlier I saw more forcefully the argument on one side and I am now proposing the argument on the other, having regard to the views expressed by my
712
colleagues in another place. This point having been raised in the other place, I invite your Lordships to agree that the Bill goes forward as it is presently drafted. In any event, there is a technical obstacle in the path of Amendment No. 40.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am completely unconvinced by the Lord Chancellor's response. If the noble and learned Lord respected intellectual consistency, he would not even convince himself.
I am disappointed but unsurprised by the response. That is a condition which I often experience when listening to the noble and learned Lord, though I can assure him that I have the identical experience when listening, from time to time, to others from the Government Front Benches.
Despite the hour; despite the small number of your Lordships in the Chamber—though I dare say that there will be many more on hand who will vote who have not listened to the debate—I desire to test the opinion of the House. I do that not least because it will show the other place the concern that some in this House feel for this subject. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 58.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Hylton, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Brightman, L.

Lawrence, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

Meston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Brentford, V.

Inglewood, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Leigh, L.

Burnham, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

McConnell, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Courtown, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Elles, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Faithfull, B.

Mountevans, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northbouene, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Northesk, E.

Habgood, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hamilton of Dalze11, L.

Perth, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Harmsworth, L

St. John of Bletso, L.

Harvington, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

713

Shrewsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vinson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wade or Chorlton, L.

Strange, B.

Wilcox, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.29 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 24, line 38, after ("harm") insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent").
Page 24, line 41, at end insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent which is").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Neither cohabitant or former cohabitant entitled to occupy]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 46:
Page 26, line 25, after ("child;") insert-—
( ) the conduct of the parties in relation to each other and otherwise;").
Page 26, line 29, after ("harm") insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent").
Page 26, line 32, at end insert ("attributable to conduct of the respondent which is").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 42 [Ex-parte orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 29, line 14, after ("child") insert (", attributable to conduct of the respondent,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 29, line 26, leave out ("initial order") and insert ("order by virtue of subsection (1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 48 and 59 are drafting amendments. The first concerns an amendment to Clause 42(3) made at Report stage in relation to ex-parte orders. As drafted, this would have the effect of preventing the provision that the respondent should be given an opportunity to make representations in relation to an ex-parte order as soon as is just and convenient at a full hearing from applying to non-molestation orders. That was certainly not my intention. The first amendment corrects the position.
Amendment No. 59 is a drafting alteration to Schedule 7 arising from a renumbering of subsections following earlier amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Arrest for breach of order]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 30, line 24, after ("child") insert (", attributable to conduct of the respondent,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interpretation of Part IV]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 38, line 6, leave out ("an applicant") and insert ("a person").
Page 38, leave out lines 8 to 10.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Arrangements for the Future]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 41, line 13, after ("has") insert ("wilfully").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 53, which is also in my name. My purpose in speaking on these amendments is to question my noble and learned friend on the drafting of a peculiarly sensitive part of the Bill. As noble Lords will recall, the requirements concerning the arrangements for the future have to be satisfied before a divorce can be obtained. I shall read from Clause 9(5) so far as is relevant:
"If the court is satisfied, on an application made by one of the parties after the end of the period for reflection and consideration, that the circumstances of the case are—
"(a) those set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1,
"it may make a divorce order or a separation order even though the requirements of subsection (2) have not been satisfied"
as regards the arrangements for the future.
Again, as far as relevant, the first exemption in Schedule 1 is that,
"The circumstances referred to in section 9(5) [include that] the applicant has made an application to the court for financial relief and has complied with all requirements of the court in relation to proceedings for financial relief, but—
(i) the other party has delayed in complying with the requirements of the court or has otherwise been obstructive".
Dealing with the first amendment, that puts the word "wilfully" before "delay". It seems to me that the delay may be outside the control of the party and therefore an element of culpability ought to be imported into the Bill. I go a bit further and ask my noble and learned friend exactly what he has in mind. The normal requirement of a court will be to do something within a certain time. The failure to do something within a certain time does not come within the heading of "delay". If that is what my noble and learned friend has in mind, I would have thought the words would have been "the other party has failed to comply with the requirements of the court".
The other point raised by Amendment No. 53 is to inquire as to the meaning in this context of "obstructive". What sort of things does my noble and learned friend consider that the word would cover? I have provided that the other party has been obstructive "of the court process". The word "obstructive" is a very vague one and seems capable of being used in a number of ways. I shall be grateful if my noble and learned friend can explain what is in mind here. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend has drawn to our attention Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. It might be useful if I turn first to Amendment No. 53, which sets the scene. There are circumstances—for example, not responding to correspondence from the applicant's solicitors or refusing to instruct his or her solicitor so that matters may progress—where one party is being obstructive to the applicant without necessarily being obstructive of the court's process. I believe that the court, which will have before it all the papers relevant to the case, should be entitled to make its own judgment, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, as to whether behaviour has been obstructive or not. I am also concerned that, by requiring the court to make a judgment as to whether behaviour has been obstructive "of the court's process" rather than other aspects of obstruction, another proposition is introduced which the delaying party could use to create further delay.
The object is to try to ensure that that party does not without proper reason drag out the process of having the arrangements made. The idea behind the exemption is therefore reasonably clear. Any form of obstruction, which the court regards as simply obstruction, could be taken into account.
In relation to Amendment No. 52, the court is likely to have to undertake lengthy investigations into the state of mind of those parties who have delayed in complying with the directions of the court to establish whether that delay was wilful. Your Lordships will be aware that questions which relate to the state of mind of a person are always difficult to determine. I heard recently of a case where one party to a marriage had avoided paying maintenance to his wife for some five years because he happened to be on business trips every time the court was to have a hearing to set the level of his maintenance obligations or he was due to file relevant papers in order to comply with directions. I am sure that your Lordships have come across such cases—perhaps not involving a delay of five years, because that is exceptional, but I thought that it might therefore be of particular interest. The only time when the business trips did not interfere with the husband's appearance in court or prompt compliance with court directions was the day before the time available for him to appeal against orders made in his absence was due to expire. He then seemed miraculously to be at home. On the face of it, that may appear to be wilful delay, but how is the court to prove or judge wilfulness against coincidence? It may just have happened that his employers arranged their business in that extraordinarily coincidental way.
It must be remembered that, when considering questions in relation to the application of Schedule 1, the court will have before it all the papers relevant to
716
the case. It will be able to see when and where delay has arisen and whether there was a good reason for delay and so judge the merits of the application for exemption on the basis of the facts before it. I do not believe that a test of wilfulness is necessary, as this may lead to many protracted appeals to the detriment of the parties and the children when the court will have available to it the sort of information which would enable it to make a fair and just decision on the issue of delay.
I think that it is reasonably plain that the purpose of the schedule and the provisions connected with it is to ensure that, unless there are really exceptional circumstances, the arrangements are complete before the divorce order is pronounced. That is the common sense of the matter. What is being attempted in this part of the schedule is to make sure that, if the reason why the arrangements have not been made is simply because of a delay without good reason—that is, obstruction—that will not be allowed to delay the process indefinitely. That seems a sensible balance in a difficult area. I hope that that has sufficiently answered the probes which my noble friend directed to me and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. It is helpful to have that on the record. Beyond saying that I find it difficult to see how the passivity of failing to respond to correspondence can be called "obstruction", I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Financial Provision]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 45, line 7, leave out from ("satisfied") to end of line 8 and insert—
("( ) that the circumstances of the case are exceptional; and
( ) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to be so made.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 60. The amendments ensure that financial provision orders and property adjustment orders, except interim orders, cannot take effect before the divorce order or the separation order is made, unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances and that it would be just and reasonable for the order to take effect before that time.
Your Lordships will remember that on Report I mentioned that I was advised by the Ancillary Relief Advisory Group that the phrase "just and reasonable" was stronger than the phrase proposed in the amendment tabled by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Coleraine. I of course accepted that advice. But looking back over the debate, I am entirely supportive of the principle lying behind my noble friends' amendment. I thought that it might add a degree of security if I added "exceptional circumstances" as well. So we have "exceptional circumstances" and that it would be "just and reasonable", in order to make it as clear as we can that the ordinary rule is that these orders

717
should not take effect until the divorce itself is pronounced. I hope that your Lordships will feel that that is an emphasis which is worth making and which the amendment underlines.
Your Lordships will remember that in the previous amendments there was a specification of circumstances. I have taken the view that that might make it easier to make the orders take effect earlier, so I have not incorporated that. I believe that the general words that we have now used send the message plainly. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for tabling the amendment which entirely meets the points raised at Report. I am grateful to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 47, line 36, leave out from ("satisfied") to end of line 37 and insert—
("( ) that the circumstances of the case are exceptional; and
( ) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to be so made.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 48, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) For section 25, substitute—
"Principles which the court is to apply.
25.—(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;

(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 family 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 not more than three years, 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;
718
"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 one party may be disregarded.
(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, in this Part of this Act "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—

(a) under a life policy or similar arrangement; and

(b) in any benefits under a pension scheme which either party has or may have (including such benefits payable in respect of the death of either party),

which is 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, 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 a matrimonial home) and the extent to which it is reasonable to expect it to be realised or divided or used as security."

( ) For section 25A, substitute—
"Matters which the court is w take into account.
25A.—(1) In applying the principles set out in section 25 of this Act, the following provisions of this section shall have effect.
(2) For the purposes of section 25(1(b) of this Act, the court shall have regard to the extent to which—

(a) the economic advantages or disadvantages sustained by either party have been balanced by the economic advantages or disadvantages sustained by the other party, and

(b) any resulting imbalance has been or will be corrected by a sharing of the matrimonial property or otherwise.

(3) For the purposes of section 25(1)(c) of this Act, the court shall have regard to—

(a) any maintenance being paid to or on behalf of the child;

(b) any expenditure or loss of earning capacity caused by the need to care for the child;

(c) the need to provide suitable accommodation for the child;

719

(d) the age and health of the child;

(e) the educational, financial and other circumstances of the child;

(f) the availability and cost of suitable child-care facilities or services;

(g) the needs and resources of the parties; and

(h) all the other circumstances of the case.

(4) For the purposes of section 25(1)(d) of this Act, the court shall have regard to—

(a) the age, health and earning capacity of the party who is claiming the financial provision;

(b) the duration and extent of the dependence of that party prior to divorce;

(c) any intention of that party to undertake a course of education or training;

(d) the needs and resources of the parties; and

(e) all the other circumstances of the case.

(5) For the purposes of section 25(1)(c) of this Act, the court shall have regard to—

(a) the age, health and earning capacity of the party who is claiming the financial provision;

(b) the duration of the marriage;

(c) the standard of living of the parties during the marriage;

(d) the needs and resources of the parties; and

(e) all the other circumstances of the case.

(6) In having regard under subsections (3) to (5) above to all the other circumstances of the case, the court may, if it thinks fit, take account of—

(a) any legal or moral duty of support owed to a third party by the party against whom the claim is made;

(b) the conduct of the parties both during and since the marriage (including the way in which they deal with any contact arrangements for a child of the family).".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved this amendment briefly at the end of the Report stage. It was at such a late hour that I did not feel it appropriate to go into any detail. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will recall that he kindly offered to arrange a meeting on this matter, which we had last week.
As a result of that meeting, I retabled the amendment. It may be helpful to the House if I say clearly that this is not an amendment upon which I would wish to divide the House, because that would be inappropriate. It opens up a new principle which would be helpful to the principles which my noble and learned friend wishes to have behind this piece of legislation.
The amendment is based on Scottish law and what happens now in Scotland. It may surprise your Lordships, as it did me, to discover that English law is devoid of any principle of sharing assets on divorce. The ruling section (Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) leaves everything to the court's discretion. There is a power to transfer assets from one spouse to another, or to settle property on one or both spouses and the children, but there is no guidance on how those powers are to be exercised.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal has said repeatedly that previous decisions are no guide: every case turns on its own facts. The House had a long debate on pension splitting on Report, and an amendment was
720
carried which opens up the principle of splitting, assets. I believe that amendments must be made to the Bill in order to meet that decision of your Lordships' House.
I understand that most systems of law treat marriage as a partnership of equals. Systems of law, in particular in Europe, go on to provide what most people would accept as fair; namely, that property and savings which will come into being during the marriage as a result of joint efforts of the parties should be divided equally. It matters not whether one goes out to work while the other stays at home looking after the children. The corollary is that assets brought into the marriage by one spouse or come from outside by way of a gift or inheritance remain the separate property of that spouse. That is broadly the position in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and, last but not least, Scotland. Therefore, there is extensive experience of the working of the provision. As I said, in every one of those countries the divorce rate is lower.
Therefore, it shows that the English system of making such settlements raises a number of problems. In the first place, on entering divorce people do not know what their rights are. Lawyers cannot advise on the likely outcome of court proceedings because a court may award this or it may award something else. Furthermore, practice may vary in different parts of the country. It appears to be the case that, proportionately speaking, wives in the south east tend to do better than in the Midlands or the north. Whether or not that is the case it is certainly a perceived case.
Since the outcome of such cases is so unpredictable, lawyers are reluctant to commit themselves to a quoted fee in advance and therefore they quote on an hourly rate. The client is then sucked into a spiral which he or she often cannot control and costs increase. I understand that my noble and learned friend is looking for savings and this appears to be an area in which savings might be made. I believe that we would all agree that it would be to our advantage if savings could be made on legal aid in this way. It would appear that Scottish law is fairer than ours and there is no sound reason why England and Wales should operate a different system.
One of the reasons why I have tabled the amendment is that we need to ask ourselves whether the different system has any influence on the divorce rate. In the absence of clear statistics it is difficult to make such judgments. Nevertheless, it is observable that 75 per cent. of divorce petitions are presented by wives. It is just possible that the majority of men have behaved badly and that this is a restoration of some kind of balance of power over the ages. What seems to be a more likely explanation is that women are now cushioned economically from the effects of divorce. That arises in two ways; there are state benefits in the Child Support Act and the courts frequently award 75, 80 or even 100 per cent. of the family home to the custodial parent, who is usually the mother.
It appears that as a consequence divorce may be a much more attractive option for many women than struggling to make the marriage work. I regret to have to say that because I do not like to speak in such a way

721
about my own sex. However, there is considerable evidence to show that for no good reason many men appear to be turned out of the house and divorce follows. It would be unrealistic to suppose that all those factors have no effect on the divorce rate because, in a way, our system offers incentives to divorce rather than the reverse.
This is a wide subject and I do not wish to take up more time at this late hour. I believe that it shows that there are serious weaknesses in the English system. It generates anxiety; it certainly generates uncertainty; and I believe that it generates acrimony.
It seems to me that if there were clearer ground rules, more cases would be settled which would contribute to the saving of public funds. It seems strange that we are alone among European powers and quite distinct from Scotland in what we do. If the Scottish system has the great merits of clarity, fairness and providing much greater certainty so that you know much more clearly when you go into divorce what the consequences will be, and if it leads to less acrimony, they would be merits which make the amendment well worth very serious consideration.
It is for those reasons that I have tabled the amendment. My attention has been drawn to what is currently happening in Scotland where the system appears to work well. It works well in a great many countries in Europe. We should consider having something similar if it has all those beneficial advantages which other countries appear to enjoy coupled with a lower divorce rate, which I believe we all wish to see. I do not wish to push that argument too far because I am not sufficiently familiar with all the details of it, but I hope that my noble and learned friend will take away the amendment and consider and consult upon the matter. If at the end of all that, it were thought to be a good idea, perhaps we should incorporate it into our legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the noble Baroness said very realistically that this is an important amendment. Indeed it is. It proposes to replace the existing provisions of Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which is familiar to family lawyers in England and Wales, with a set of guidelines based on Scottish law and relating to matrimonial property.
At earlier stages of the Bill, reference was made to the differences between English and Scottish divorce law. Indeed, a long time ago, one of the factors which contributed to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 was protracted conflict between English and Scottish law. Scotland was then the place where divorce was much easier.
English law on property and financial matters has been in its present form since 1970, with some modification in 1984. It is the product of the Law Commission and detailed parliamentary consideration before each enactment.
This Bill is primarily concerned with the substantive law of divorce rather than with any attempt to make major policy changes in the property and financial law
722
of England and Wales. In no way would I wish to say that Scottish law in this area, of which I have little knowledge and less experience, is in any way inferior. The Scottish legislation was of course the result of parliamentary consideration, and indeed, it could be said that it is more recent than that for the English law.
The general perception among English lawyers is that Scottish law is rather less generous to wives and perhaps less flexible. That perception may or may not be correct. I think that it can be said that where the marriage of an English wife and a Scottish husband breaks up, the Scottish husband tends to head north of the Border and he goes to see his lawyers in the hope that they can get in first.
The amendment is important. It is really too important for the Third Reading of this Bill. What is required for any serious consideration of this important point is a full comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the law in each jurisdiction. I would be very reluctant to accept anything which drives a coach and horses through 25 years of English law without very careful and full debate. We must be sure of the merits of anything which will replace English law.
Without clear evidence, I would question whether English law as it presently stands could in any sense be described as an incentive to divorce. The noble Baroness suggested that Scottish law appears to be fairer. There is certainly more emphasis on an equal division, but, even in Scotland, that does not always happen. As I understand it, a 50:50 split is not always a fair split; indeed, it is not always a practical split, especially when there are children involved.
English law concentrates rather more on other discretionary factors—for example, the length of the marriage, the contributions of the parties, the loss of pension rights and other disparities. It might he said that the discretion is a little more subtle. Even pension splitting, which may well come into effect and to which reference has been made, I do not understand necessarily to be the equal splitting of pensions but rather a provision designed, if it is enacted eventually, to enable a split either equally or in some other proportion.
The noble Baroness also suggested that Scottish law was more certain and, indeed, that English law was undesirably uncertain. I am not able to say whether a Scottish lawyer is better able to state with any confidence or accuracy the likely result of court proceedings. However, I do know that English law is not so wide in its discretion that cases cannot be settled with a reasonable expectation of what a court would do. The noble Baroness further suggested that lawyers found it difficult to give advice, so vague and discretionary was the English system. Well, some of us have to try to give firm advice. I do not know about fixing the cost of that advice, but I know somewhere where the noble Baroness can obtain cheap and cheerful advice should it be required.
There are of course differences as between court and court, even within a relatively small jurisdiction. That is not simply applicable to divorce law; indeed, it can apply to the quantification of damages for a broken leg. One can have two different judges looking at the same

723
set of medical reports and producing different figures, but not producing such a wide disparity in the awards that either award could be said to be wrong or unfair. I respect the motives behind the amendment, and I ask your Lordships to accept the spirit in which it was moved. However, as I said, it is really too important a topic to be considered in detail at this stage and at this late hour.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was very pleased to attach my name to the amendment. I agree with the two former speakers that perhaps we ought not to discuss such a matter in great depth at this time of night in relation to this Bill. I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has had discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and has expressed his interest in giving the matter further consideration. I sincerely hope that he will do so.
The noble and learned Lord will remember that we discussed the matter during the proceedings on the Child Support Act. A good deal of praise was heaped on the Scottish system at that time, which the noble and learned Lord gladly accepted with alacrity. After the Bill has been passed, I sincerely hope that action will be taken to try to clear what many people believe are grave anomalies in the present law in relation to the distribution of assets on divorce.
There is great resentment, particularly among men who believe that they are badly treated and that on divorce the splitting of assets goes very much in favour of wives, and often unfairly so. That resentment has expressed itself in all sorts of ways throughout the country—for example, in letters to Members of both Houses of Parliament and in demonstrations up and down the land. I accept that many of those demonstrations were occasioned by the Child Support Act, but nevertheless there is clearly a grave problem here which ought to be investigated and which ought to he addressed by Parliament in the near future. That is all I want to say, except to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he can give an assurance that this matter will be attended to and will be addressed at an early moment.
10 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing this issue forward. I want to draw attention to an aspect of the matter which, if I have correctly understood the situation, is important and makes the amendment relevant to this particular Bill. If Spouse A is seeking to obtain a divorce, and Spouse B does not wish to have a divorce, and Spouse B has not committed any fault, under the law as it exists at the moment, Spouse A would have to wait five years. Under the Bill which we have before us, Spouse A will only have to wait one year. Therefore that means that this Bill gives an enormous opportunity for gold-diggers and for injustice if an unscrupulous spouse enters into marriage with a view to gaining financial advantage.
As a result, the issues that are raised by this proposal are of extreme importance and relevance to this Bill. I marginally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart
724
of Swindon, in saying that I think this issue should be dealt with under this Bill. I know of a number of cases where I believe gross injustice has occurred, usually to men who are fairly newly married with a young wife who has a child, and those men have lost a high proportion of their assets as a result of a divorce precipitated by the wife. That situation could become much worse under the terms of this Bill when it is enacted.
My other point, which has also been mentioned, is that it can be argued that the English system as it stands at present can offer incentives to divorce to young women with children. I believe that courts frequently award 75 to 80, and even sometimes 100 per cent., of the family home to the custodial parent, who is usually the mother. State benefits and child support are also tailored to support the lone parent. On the other hand, at a later stage in the marital cycle the man may have the advantage when the children are grown up, and it may be more attractive financially for the man to divorce.
It seems to me from what I hear that the Scottish system is fairer than ours. It has the enormous advantage that people know roughly where they stand. Some sort of criteria for decision are laid out on the face of the Scottish legislation. If that were to be transposed into this Bill, that would surely give a sounder basis for mediation criteria; criteria to help enable sensible decisions to be made at mediation rather than leaving the matter completely open and vague. It seems to me that we have here a great opportunity to improve the law. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will seriously consider the ideas behind this amendment, and consider them for amendment in another place.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness is greatly to be congratulated in bringing this amendment before the House. It is an important amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested that it was unsuitable for Third Reading but the alternative was to move it after midnight on the final day of the Report stage. The noble Baroness quite rightly withdrew it at that stage, when it would have been indecent to discuss a proposal of such importance.
This is a divorce Bill, although it parades under the name of a family law Bill. It is a divorce Bill with a domestic violence Bill left over from last Session attached to it. However, the law can intervene in support of marriage as well as in its destruction. One of the ways in which it can intervene in support of marriage is in adjusting the law of family property so that it reflects the promise made at marriage of the sharing of worldly goods.
At the moment, for a married woman to acquire any interest in the matrimonial home she has either to become a widow or to be divorced. At an earlier stage of the Bill I proposed, as schedules to the Bill, two Law Commission Bills which are of long standing dealing precisely with matrimonial property during the subsistence of the marriage and not merely after divorce. My noble and learned friend was, I thought, fairly encouraging, but he has since written to me to suggest that that matter, which has been outstanding with Law

725
Commission recommendations since 1980, cannot be considered now for another three years. That is shameful to the law. I very much hope that, although that is a matter of prime importance, a married woman who stands by her marriage should not have to be divorced in order to acquire any rights and should not be put at a disadvantage by the law compared with a woman who takes divorce proceedings.
In the meantime, I hope that my noble and learned friend will take the amendment away, consider it very carefully, and, if it so commends itself to him, table the necessary amendments in the other place.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I came to the Bill not liking it in principle, and took particular exception to it in that I felt that it created a gold-diggers' charter. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for taking me on board and putting me through the mill on this Bill, and for explaining that Schedule 10 of the Bill covered much of the ground by introducing the interests of children and protecting property. It will have the effect that if there is a child of the marriage it will not be in the interests of the child for the squabbling couple to split inherited property or businesses.
One of the interesting points that should be borne in mind is that Ireland very nearly defeated the right to divorce because of the effect it has on property. That is not only the prerogative of large landowners but also ordinary people affected by divorce, and also businesses. One of the challenges was to improve Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I have studied it. After a perfectly sensible collection of matters which the courts ought to bear in mind it ends by stating,
"and so to exercise those powers as to place the parties, so far as it is practicable and, having regard to their conduct, just to do so, in the financial position which they would have been if the marriage had not broken down and each had properly discharged his or her financial obligations and responsibilities towards the other."
The fact is that that is an inducement to cut everything down the middle. The question then hinges on,
"having regard to their conduct, just to do so".
Lord Meston: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord. However, the statutory objective of placing the parties in the position in which they would have been had the marriage not broken down has not been the law since 1984. That has gone.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am grateful for that. In talking to people who have experienced divorce, the fact that that provision has gone does not seem to be apparent to them.
If one is not to have a gold digger's charter, how on earth does one decide who will get what out of the division after a divorce unless someone is prepared to consider what took place before the divorce?
My noble and learned friend wrote to me saying that in response to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, in Committee, the view of the ancillary relief advisory group—it consists of members of the
726
judiciary and representatives of the Law Society, the Solicitors Family Law Association, and so on—was that the amendment should not be accepted. The letter states:
"It was the Group's view that the current provisions did not cause problems".
That is news to noble Lords who have people involved in divorce proceedings. The document continues:
"The court was not the appropriate forum to look into the causes of marital breakdown".
I know that the purpose of the Bill is that the courts should not have to look into the causes of marital breakdown. It is a pragmatic Bill which incorporates the existing situation. Does my noble and learned friend consider that the Scottish alternative to Section 25 is a more pragmatic solution to the problem than the present Section 25, if fault is not to be involved?
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. I wish to address subsection (6). The remainder has been addressed already.
The issue relates to pensions. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who has avowed to give much more attention to this part of the Bill despite what happened in Committee. It may be wise to listen to the advice that I have been given on certain matters relating to occupational pensions. My advisers tell me—I think that noble Lords will be interested to know it if they do not already know—that we should be concerned that the domestic law measure in 1981, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, is, sadly, being undermined. It appears that future occupational pension rights are not protected by those regulations. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will consider that point.
As we have heard, and as we were well aware, approximately 71 per cent. of couples today both have jobs. Should that be the case, it makes it that much fairer that each party contributes to a pension scheme, and that there should be a fairer share on a divorce.
I agree 100 per cent. with what the noble Baroness said. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the Scottish law holds that whatever asset is brought into a marriage, it is retained by the party who brought it in. Any of the assets which are brought in after the marriage are shared by both parties. It is only fair to consider the mother in a marriage who has nurtured, cared for and looked after the social education of her children, that her contribution should be considered as equivalent to the premium paid to a pension and that that should therefore guarantee to her a due share. Apart from that, I agree with what the noble Baroness said. We must consider very seriously the ideas which have been practised in Scottish law.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for tabling Amendment No. 58, which seeks to replace Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 with Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 with some modifications, one of which is quite major.

727
Section 25 is the provision of the 1973 Act which lists the factors which the court is to take into account when it is considering financial provisions on divorce, first consideration being given to the children of the family who are under 18.
The wide discretion which the 1973 Act gives to the court when it is considering financial provision on divorce would be restricted by this amendment. The court would instead be required to consider the five principles set out in subsection (1) of the amendment; for example, the principle that the net value of the matrimonial property should be shared fairly between the parties.
The ambit of matrimonial property would be more limited under the proposed amendment than at present. Gifts and inheritance are excluded and also pre-marriage property unless acquired for use as a family home or its furniture. In contrast, the 1973 Act permits the court to consider all the spouses' property.
Your Lordships will not be tremendously surprised to know that I am somewhat attracted to the Scottish system, although it came into force after I ceased to practise in that distinguished jurisdiction. It may well be that the application of the principles would form an effective starting point for negotiations. Parties would know better where they stood and perhaps there would be less acrimony than under a more discretionary system such as the current system here. On this aspect I attach a great deal of importance, as does my noble friend Lady Young, to reducing as far as possible acrimony at this stage of the matter where questions arise about distribution of property and the like.
However, the substitution of the amendment for the existing law in England and Wales would represent a major change in the law relating to financial provisions on divorce. I have taken the preliminary advice of the Ancillary Relief Advisory Group. It agrees that this is a complex area, the reform of which would require detailed consideration. The loss of a wealth of expertise and jurisprudence on Section 25 of the 1973 Act could only be contemplated after detailed review because it is in the light of the jurisprudence that exists on Section 25 that cheap and cheerful advice is available on the law of England, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said earlier. It is not just the statute, it is the jurisprudence that has followed from the statute which enables that to happen.
I do not for a moment accept that this Bill, as it bears on divorce, will enhance the prospects of a gold-digger. The courts are astute in taking account of conduct where it is inequitable not to do so in such a situation. The wide discretion which the courts have under Section 25 is an important factor. If one considers law across the world, opportunities for gold-digging are more apt to arise in jurisdictions where there is a set scheme than in cases where there is discretion. However, that is a subsidiary matter. A degree of precision in the prescription of the rules can help in negotiations and also in the forecasting of court decisions.
My noble friend's amendment contains a major difference between the amendment and Section 11 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. It is the reference in Clause 25 A(6) to the conduct of the parties, both
728
during and since the marriage, including the way in which they deal with any contact arrangements for a child of the family. The 1985 provisions allow the court, in having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and if it thinks fit, to take into account the conduct of either party, unless the conduct has adversely affected the relevant financial resources or it would be manifestly inequitable to leave the conduct out of account. It is therefore similar to the 1973 Act in relation to conduct.
The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the important advantage that there might be in having a more prescriptive system than is set out in Clause 25. On the other hand, it is clear that that would be a major move from the present law, not to be contemplated without extensive consultation and consideration. I would wish to take it forward, but it is out of the question to do so within the timetable of the Bill. Therefore I confirm to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I wish the matter to be further considered and due consultation to take place upon it. However, I do not believe that we could properly deal with the problems in the course of this Bill.
I wish to make one other point. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale mentioned that the Bill deals with divorce. But it also deals in an important way with the support services for marriage, as a result of the amendments which your Lordships have passed. I regard that as an extremely important part of the Bill and am glad to have been able to move the amendments to it. They show a way forward to concentrate on trying to prevent marital breakdown before any question of divorce arises. To concentrate on it only in relation to the divorce process is too close to pathology, whereas preventive medicine is a much better approach. I believe that the Bill encourages it. I hope that your Lordships will not lose sight of that aspect. The Bill gives a good opportunity to put the strength of the nation behind the institution of marriage in a way that has not been possible for some time.
In the light of what I have said about the amendment and what I feel as to how it should be taken forward, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw it. It has served the purpose for which she put it down, as a result of our consultation.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I feel that we have had a short but useful debate on the matter. I have been interested in all the points that have been raised. I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that, even were I contemplating a divorce, I could not possibly afford his fees. My experience of lawyers does not quite bear out what he said. You can ask them for advice and you are fortunate if you receive a clear statement. Lawyers are always much too clever in covering themselves. You find that when you consider what they said, it was not as helpful as you thought at the beginning. One thing is for sure: it is certainly expensive. I agree with the noble Lord that this is not a big issue on which we should divide the House. Nevertheless, it is worth raising on this occasion.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his support. The noble Lord is quite right on the point he drew to the attention of the House. There are two groups

729
of people who are particularly affected by divorce. One is older women who are left by their husbands for younger women; and the other is men who seem to be left in increasing numbers by their wives effectively turning them out of the house. That is a very undesirable development. In that case, the wife is just as much at fault as the man is in the other case. It is a matter that we should consider.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, were very valuable. It will be very interesting to see whether some of the dangers to which he pointed become evident in the Bill as it stands.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has been assiduous in raising in particular issues of fairness towards the spouse who does not wish the divorce, or indeed the wife who remains at home to look after the children and does not earn a salary, qualify for a pension and so on, and to try to make quite sure that such people get an equal benefit.
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that to introduce this amendment would mean major change. Clearly it would be quite inappropriate to introduce such a measure at this stage. It would need extensive consultation and consideration. I recognise that at the end of that process we might feel that there was no benefit to be gained. However, it is right to consider the proposal. It clearly seems to work and is seen to be fair in Scotland. In this very complex world we are looking for fixed points, and it might well be helpful to parties to know much more accurately when they enter into a divorce what would be the result. That is one of the uncertainties. I am told repeatedly that one of the greatest causes of acrimony is the division of the assets and the fighting over them. It is bad for everybody, particularly for children. If that can be avoided in any way, it is certainly worth considering. I was very pleased to hear that the noble and learned Lord is considering taking this matter up with his advisory committee and consulting about it. It is certainly something that we should examine. As I said, it is not a
730
matter that we could include in the Bill this evening. I am satisfied with my noble and learned friend's remarks and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Transfer of certain tenancies on divorce etc. or on separation of cohabitants]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 62, line 17, leave out (" 33(5)(d)") and insert (" 33(6)(d)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 69, line 29, leave out from ("satisfied") to end of line 30 and insertx2014;
("( ) that the circumstances of the case are exceptional; and
( ) that it would be just and reasonable for the variation to be so made.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, in our debates there have been sharp differences. I recognise that those who have opposed some of the central provisions of the Bill—
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I believe that the Bill has actually been passed. I do not know whether it was accidental or not, but it has been passed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That was speed!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry. I did pause to see whether anyone wished to enlighten us at this hour. I then put the Question and I understood the House to agree.
House adjourned at half past ten o'clock.

  Mr. Mark Higson
  Mr. Mark Higson
  East Timor: Hawk Jets
  East Timor: Hawk Jets
  Asia-Europe Meeting: Human Rights Undertakings
  Asia-Europe Meeting: Human Rights Undertakings
  Iranian Civil Airliner Destruction by USS "Vincennes"
  Iranian Civil Airliner Destruction by USS "Vincennes"
  Bosniac-Croat Federation: Assistance with Equipment and Training
  Bosniac-Croat Federation: Assistance with Equipment and Training
  Cuba: Shooting Down of Civil Aircraft
  Cuba: Shooting Down of Civil Aircraft
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link Contracts
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link Contracts
  Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987: Unpaid Fines
  Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987: Unpaid Fines
  Mobile Telephone Use on Trains
  Mobile Telephone Use on Trains
  Northern Ireland Action for Community Employment
  Northern Ireland Action for Community Employment
  Palace of Westminster: Relocation of Staff
  Palace of Westminster: Relocation of Staff
  Seal Population and Fish Consumption
  Seal Population and Fish Consumption
  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994: Appeals Mechanism
  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994: Appeals Mechanism
  Former Yugoslavia: USAF E-8 Joint-STARS Aircraft
  Former Yugoslavia: USAF E-8 Joint-STARS Aircraft
  Retired Civil Servants: Ministerial Instructions
  Retired Civil Servants: Ministerial Instructions
  UK Residents' Currency Exchange Costs and EU Visits
  UK Residents' Currency Exchange Costs and EU Visits
  Sterling: Withdrawal from ERM
  Sterling: Withdrawal from ERM
  IMF and World Bank: Countries in Default or Arrears
  IMF and World Bank: Countries in Default or Arrears