Sitting of 25 March 1996

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

    Deregulation
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of deregulation on employment protection rights for employees in small businesses. [20676]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Essential employment protection rights must be safeguarded. But removing unnecessary burdens on employers reduces barriers to growth and to flexibility. The Government would give full consideration to all the issues before making any proposals.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Deputy Prime Minister still have the same faith in deregulation when exactly that policy, when applied to the animal rendering industry, produced bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the 1980s and the crisis that we now face, which could cost £10 billion or £20 billion and untold numbers of human lives? Should not the interests of the consumer and public health always override those of the producer?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will realise the serious way in which the Government are dealing with the issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make statements on our latest views later this afternoon. It does no good for the hon. Gentleman to produce a range of statistics, which can only raise public concern, when it would be better to judge the issue against the scientific evidence on which the Government take decisions.
    Mr. Stephen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many thousands of people work in small businesses that depend on the beef industry. Does he agree that the press and the broadcast media are behaving like a bunch of hysterical old women over the current beef scare? Does he remember the egg scare, which cost many thousands of jobs? Does he remember the panic over AIDS? Does he remember the flesh-creeping microbe which was going to wipe out the entire population? Does he agree that the British people do not want to live in a nanny state? They want to have the facts, but they want to decide for themselves whether they and their children should eat beef.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Although all of us in the House recognise that, in a democratic society, the press have responsibilities properly to question such matters, it must be highly questionable whether taking worst case scenarios, and presenting them in headlines as though they are likely scenarios, serves the public interest.
    Mr. Mandelson: Should not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the difference between deregulation to cut out unnecessary red tape in business and deregulation that puts at risk people's safety, health and peace of mind? The current beef crisis started with the scrapping of Labour's regulations on the content of cattle feed. Key safety recommendations made following the Clapham rail crash have been dropped in the run-up to privatisation. Last week, the Government were forced to scrap their deregulation of children's play schemes in the wake of the Dunblane tragedy. When will the Government realise that their responsibility is to help and protect people, not hurt them and leave them prey to unscrupulous individuals and crude market forces?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: That intervention is contemptible—even by the standards that the hon. Gentleman has made his own. The Government are paying the most serious attention to public safety: we are not prepared to prejudice public safety through our deregulation initiative. It would do the House far more credit to listen to what my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend will say in under an hour's time based on the latest scientific advice that they shall report to the House.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the coordination of policy on deregulation and the best way to transpose EC directives into United Kingdom law. [20677]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): The best way to implement EC directives into United Kingdom law is that which imposes the least burden on business and others affected, while fully meeting our legal obligations.
    Mr. Jenkin: Has my right hon. Friend become aware of the tendency to gold plate European directives when transposing them into United Kingdom law? Is he aware also that that tendency is driven by the legal basis on which directives are drawn up? It is safer for British officials to over-implement rather than under-implement directives and find themselves before the courts being prosecuted under European law. Should we not address the issue of the interface between European and domestic laws in order to sustain effective deregulation?
    Mr. Freeman: The civil service and Ministers can best effect European directives by ensuring that they are written clearly in appropriate parliamentary language—it may not always be possible simply to copy out the original directive. It is possible to avoid what my hon. Friend describes as gold plating by ensuring that the language used in the text of any implemented United Kingdom legislation is clear, does not go beyond the purpose of the original directive and prevents misinterpretation and extension by the European Court of Justice.
    Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister assure us that, if any European Community directive is more lax than the existing United Kingdom regulations, it is within the terms of the treaty for Her Majesty's Government to make our statutory instruments stricter than the original directive? Does the Minister agree that that is necessary because any regulation should be a protection for some and an obligation on others?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree that it is important to ensure that, where regulations protect the consumer or the traveller and uphold health and safety standards, Parliament should decide the appropriate standard in most cases. Other countries may have domestic laws that impose lower standards. As to European directives, we should ensure that we sometimes take the opportunity to reform and repeal existing legislation. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the recent changes in trade mark legislation: we repealed our legislation and introduced a new, common European standard which will save some £60 million per annum.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we will face enormous problems in this country trying to implement the 48 hours work directive—leaving aside the question whether Madam Speaker would be able to continue to do her job? At the weekend, I spoke to people who are drilling for oil in the waters off my constituency, and they said that the regulations would make it impossible for them to do their job. One of the ways of ensuring that stupid regulations such as that are not imposed on the United Kingdom is for the Government to insist that every other partner country imposes those stupid regulations also; I think that other member states would then come to their senses.
    Mr. Freeman: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that there should be equal enforcement among all European Union member states. That enforcement should be even-handed and proportionate to the risks or the problems involved. I favour drawing attention to other countries, Governments and ministries that are not enforcing existing laws in a uniform and a fair manner.

    Official Hospitality
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his office has spent on official hospitality during the current financial year. [20678]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): The answer is £5,100.
    Mr. Banks: I realise that the Deputy Prime Minister has a lot of sorrows to drown, as he is always the political bridesmaid, but is that not rather a lot of money to spend wassailing at public expense? Would the Deputy Prime Minister have had a celebratory party if his advice to the Cabinet not to let the public know about the connection between mad cow disease and the human food chain had been agreed to? Would he have had a party and, if he had, would he have been serving beef chipolatas on sticks?
    Mr. Willetts: The Deputy Prime Minister's personal office spent £3,486 of that, largely on two dinners at Lancaster house, where I do not know what was served.
    694
    As regards the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he should not believe all the mad speculation that he reads in the press.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received concerning the impact of his deregulation initiative on small businesses. [20679]
    Mr. Freeman: We announced a package of new deregulation measures on 11 March in direct response to the concerns raised by small businesses. The package has been widely welcomed by them. It includes a single notification point for tax and national insurance for new businesses, new rights for business in enforcement actions and a pilot scheme to provide at local authority level a single point of reference for development approvals.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should protect our small businesses from unnecessary rules and regulations that weigh heavily and on their profitability are of little or no benefit to consumers? Does he further agree that small businesses created an extra 1 million-plus jobs in the 1980s and that, if we lift those unnecessary burdens from them, small businesses will create the extra jobs that we need for the future?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend absolutely. The Conservative party is the party of small business men and women, and so far our deregulation policies have been successful in reducing the burdens on small businesses. I draw my hon. Friend's attention in particular to a new initiative announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for a new information technology system, the prototype of which is on trial throughout the country, to bring together in a single information point details of all legislation and regulations affecting small businesses. That will be a great step forward and will help the creation of more small businesses.
    Ms Eagle: In the light of revelations about bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is it not time that the Government stopped pressing ahead with their ideological obsession with deregulation when, by allowing the remnants of animals to be fed to other animals, they have made what may have been a cause for concern into a great cause for concern and possibly destroyed the beef industry in the process? When will the Government realise that deregulation sometimes puts people's lives at risk and causes more expense in the long term? It is about time they apologised to the British people for their disgraceful behaviour.
    Mr. Freeman: Although it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Meat Hygiene Service, it has always been the view of all Government Departments that we need—and we have—high-quality, cost-effective enforcement of the existing regulations.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the recent 3i-MORI survey of small businesses

    695
    which demonstrated the effect of over-regulation on the jobs market? No fewer than one third of the firms surveyed said that they would lay people off directly as a result of the minimum wage that the Opposition would introduce. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figure rose to 60 per cent. in the north-east and 50 per cent. in the north-west, where unemployment needs to come down the most?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right, not only about the minimum wage but about the jobs tax from Europe that the Opposition propose to accept when they accede to the social chapter. They are probably not aware that in Germany non-wage costs are almost twice ours and in France they are almost 50 per cent. higher than ours as a direct result of accepting the provisions for higher non-wage labour costs advanced by the European Commission and accepted by those countries.

    Scott Report
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the Government's plans for implementing the recommendations of the Scott report in so far as they apply to the civil service. [20680]
    Mr. Willetts: The Government are currently consulting on a number of the issues raised by the Scott report and will consider how the report's recommendations should be implemented in the light of comments received. A memorandum has been submitted to the Public Service Select Committee setting out the timetable for taking forward the individual recommendations of the Scott report. With the consent of the Committee, that memorandum was placed in the Library of the House this morning.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister accept that the Government's response to the question of ministerial responsibility has left civil servants in an impossible position? If Ministers continue to deny responsibility for the actions of their Departments, the civil service will be left with no direct line of accountability to Parliament, which would be completely unacceptable to Parliament and the civil service. Does that not show the need for a freedom of information Act, so that Parliament and the public can be clear where responsibility for decisions lies?
    Mr. Willetts: There is a clear understanding of the difference between ministerial responsibility for decisions that Ministers take, for which they must take responsibility in the House, and the wider doctrine of accountability. Of course people must be held accountable for everything that goes on in their Department, but not necessarily personally responsible. Of course it is important that civil servants understand their position. This Government have done more to bring into the open the clear position of civil servants, and the code for civil servants' behaviour takes us way beyond anything that we had before.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Is not the Minister for open government shaken when the front page of the Daily Express clamours
    "Can we still trust them"?
    696
    Was not Scott right to call for the fullest information to Parliament, so that it and the public can judge who was responsible? Will not full disclosure only come with a freedom of information Act, a civil service Act and the strengthening of Select Committees after the next election under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Willetts: In a speech last week, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said:
    "We must be very careful before we edge civil service advice to ministers further into the public domain."
    Those words explain the reason for Governments of all parties hitherto refraining from making civil service advice to Ministers generally publicly available.
    As to a freedom of information Act, the crucial question is what exclusions there would be. We know that many such Acts around the world, such as that which operates in the United States of America, specifically exclude precisely the sort of advice that the right hon. Gentleman seems to want published in this country.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister to which Government policy he dedicated most attention in the week beginning 18 March. [20681]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I worked on a full range of those Government policies for which I am responsible.
    Mr. Arnold: At a time when the media are getting extremely excitable over a number of issues, is my right hon. Friend aware that the public still expect the Government to work quietly and steadily on the fundamentals? Will my right hon. Friend highlight in particular the sterling work done in the Department of Trade and Industry on inward investment? It is important for the future that the UK has the highest inward investment of any country in the European Union, since thousands of jobs exist because of it.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: There is a sharp contrast between the international industrialists who invest in this country because they know that it is the enterprise centre of Europe and Opposition Members who spend their life trying to pretend that it is other than that.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Deputy Prime Minister telling the House that Government policy on the beef crisis did not engage the main part of the right hon. Gentleman's attention in the latter part of last week? If it did not, why not? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the British beef industry's export activities are so crucial to the British economy that the fact that the Government are not trusted in this country or abroad when they make pronouncements on the beef crisis is a tragedy?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said, because I made it clear that I worked on a full range of policies for which I am responsible. I am not directly responsible for the policies of the Department of Health or of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although I was deeply involved in many meetings on the subject in question. That does not mean that there were not a lot of other matters with which I had to deal as the week proceeded.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House, following a week in which his proposals to deregulate employment protection for millions of employees were overruled by the Prime Minister and in which the disastrous turn of events in the beef industry threatens the lives of British citizens and the livelihoods of those who work in the beef industry, whether he will now review the whole approach to deregulation to restore public trust and confidence in what is clearly an incompetent Government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to link events that have no natural linkage in order to maximise the anxiety of people who would be much better employed listening to the scientific advice, on which the Government have to act, as opposed to the scaremongering of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) over that issue at the Dispatch Box today. If the right hon. Gentleman listened to what the Government have to say, it would be clear to him that we seek the best independent scientific advice and we act on that advice. That is the only responsible course that the Government can take.

    Competitiveness
    Ms Church: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government have taken in the last 12 months in respect of the relative competitiveness of the United Kingdom and other major states within the EU. [20682]
    Mr. Freeman: The Government's plans for improving the competitiveness of the United Kingdom were set out in last year's White Paper on competitiveness. Progress on those plans will be reported in a third competitiveness White Paper in the summer.
    Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer. I would be grateful if he would explain to the country how the splits and competition between members of the Cabinet—especially the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer over Europe—are assisting Britain's competitiveness in Europe.
    Mr. Freeman: There are no divisions in the Cabinet. The Cabinet, unlike the Labour party, speaks with a united voice. To answer the underlying serious part of the hon. Lady's question, we have enhanced the competitiveness of the United Kingdom by not acceding to the social chapter or to the minimum wage advanced on us by the Labour party. That is why British industry, at the moment, is extremely competitive and will stay so with a new Tory Government.
    Mr. Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend promise not to take any lectures from Opposition Members, especially from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church), who sits on the Deregulation Committee? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House and the country that the reason why companies of international status are queuing up to invest in Britain is that we have a Conservative Government and there is no prospect of a Labour Government?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to speculate about the attitude of those investors who are investing in the United Kingdom some 40 per cent. of all inward direct investment in the European Union and about why they come here and what their attitude would be if we ever had a Labour Government.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that the current awful beef crisis has destroyed the competitiveness of our agriculture industry to a large extent? What will the Government do about that?
    Mr. Freeman: As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be in his place to hear them, two statements will follow immediately.
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the competitiveness of the small business sector. [20685]
    Mr. Willetts: We are taking a range of measures to boost the competitiveness of small businesses. For example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a fortnight ago that new businesses will no longer have to register separately with Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency. The benefits of our measures to boost competitiveness are coming through. Sixty-five per cent. of UK businesses expect to increase turnover this year, compared with less than 50 per cent. on the continent.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware of the recent survey of business opinion in Wales that has shown that the overwhelming majority of businesses there feel that the best way to improve their competitiveness would be to have statutory interest on late payments? Is the Deputy Prime Minister now the only living Welshman who does not support that policy?
    Mr. Willetts: This is a subject on which we are consulting further. Whenever we have consulted on it in the past, we have found that many representatives of small business do not want a statutory right to interest, because they are afraid that such legislation would be used against them by larger businesses—precisely the point that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been trying to make.
    Mr. Steen: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the effect on competitiveness of the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Medical Stores) Regulations 1995? They increase the cost of medical stores on small ships from £47 to about £900. Is he further aware that on boats taking day trippers out to sea the first aid stores have to include tablets used for the treatment of worm infestation? All this stems from a European directive. I cannot believe that the Government want our small boats sent out to sea on such anti-competitive terms.
    Mr. Willetts: I am not sure that there is anything in my briefing on that point. My hon. Friend has a formidable reputation as an advocate of deregulation, and I shall ensure that our Department considers his point.

    Scott Report
    9. Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what disciplinary action is being taken against civil servants in respect of the findings of the Scott report. [20687]
    Mr. Freeman: Disciplinary action would not be appropriate if officials acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy. The great majority of civil servants identified in the Scott report are in this category. Where there is evidence to the contrary, Departments will consider whether disciplinary action is appropriate.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not true that, if civil servants had been free to reveal to Parliament the truth about arms sales to Iraq and those involved in them, there would never have been a Scott inquiry or any prosecutions and £610 million of taxpayers' money would not have been lost in respect of lost export credit guarantees?
    Mr. Freeman: There is, as the hon. Lady knows, a new code of practice in force for civil servants. If they feel that they have been asked to act improperly or have been subjected to political interference or direction, they have a right of appeal through their permanent secretary to the First Civil Service Commissioner.
    As the hon. Lady will also know, a review is under way in the Ministry of Defence, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I reported to the House in the Scott debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will also have something to say in due course about the degree of disclosure on arms sales.

    Secondments
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many temporary civil servants are currently seconded from private industry. [20688]
    Mr. Willetts: Two hundred and eighty people were seconded from the private sector to Government Departments during 1995.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people feel that there should be greater cross-fertilisation between the practical men of the private sector and the civil service?
    Mr. Willetts: I very much agree. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced a target of a 10 per cent. increase in secondment to and from the private sector for 1996–97. I might add that the numbers involved in longer-term secondments as between the private sector and the civil service have trebled since 1979.
    Mr. MacShane: The Minister is said to be one of the intellectuals or theoreticians of modern Conservatism. May I therefore put it to him that this mixing of the private and public interest may turn out to be unfortunate? It may prove impossible to distinguish between the private and profit-making interests of companies and the public
    700
    interest, which concerns defending and representing the interests of the citizen. I invite him to consider that there may be a serious problem in that regard.
    Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman says that he is concerned about this issue. I assure him that of course the Government take steps to avoid any conflicts of interest. Any secondment must be looked at by the Department involved to ensure that there is no risk of any impropriety. I believe that the overall benefits to the quality of public sector management and civil service advice from secondment outweigh the risks about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.

    Deregulation
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of deregulation with particular reference to health and safety. [20689]
    Mr. Freeman: The programme to review health and safety legislation recommended by the Health and Safety Commission will simplify the mass of legislation. New enforcement procedures have been introduced which are designed to improve fairness, transparency and consistency without jeopardising any necessary protection.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: As there seems to be misunderstanding, whether genuine or contrived, will the Minister confirm that the purpose of the deregulation initiative is to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and in no way to compromise anyone's health or safety? Does he accept that there are at least some so-called health and safety measures which have nothing to do with protecting the individual or looking after their safety? Does he agree, therefore, that there should be an explanation of the purpose of every regulation and how it will be enforced?
    Mr. Freeman: As I said in an earlier answer, there is no intention to remove necessary health protection for the consumer or for anyone else. We are after reductions in unnecessary bureaucracy, such as the abolition of 33 statutory notice and poster requirements. Many hon. Members will know of unnecessary and outdated regulations about posters, which are sometimes difficult to read. With the aid of modern technology, there are better ways to inform the work force of those regulations.
    I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has issued guidance to all Health and Safety Executive officers informing them of new and sensible procedures to take, whereby inspected firms are informed of what is wrong with the premises and what must be put right and they are given an informal right of appeal before, ultimately, an appeal is made to the courts.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Sub-Saharan Africa
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has carried out of the impact of debt on the provision of basic social services in sub—Saharan Africa; and if he will make a statement. [20706]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We are concerned about the low level of basic social services in sub-Saharan Africa. When debt reaches unsustainable levels, it has an impact on the whole of a country's economy, including the social sectors. That is why we have taken action, and why we are pressing for more action, to reduce to sustainable levels the debt of the poorest, most indebted countries and those which are pursuing sound economic policies.
    Mr. Hain: The Minister's reply does not measure up to the scale of the problem. There is now £135 billion of debt in sub-Saharan Africa—more than three quarters of the region's annual income. Surely the Government should be supporting measures such as the use of World bank reserves, special drawing rights and the sale of International Monetary Fund gold stocks? If that action is not taken, sub-Saharan Africa will continue to drown in debt and there will be no possibility of eradicating the enormous poverty problems, let alone of rebuilding the economies. Will he discuss such proposals to solve the problem with the Debt Crisis Network?
    Mr. Hanley: I accept that debt is a serious problem, but Britain has been ahead of most countries in dealing with it. The British Government have written off aid debts of 31 of the world's poorest countries—to the value of £1.2 billion—and for many years all new aid to the poorest countries has been on grant terms so as not to increase their debt burden. The British Government have also taken the lead in pressing for solutions to the official bilateral and multilateral debt burdens of the poorest and most indebted countries. I believe that we have made excellent progress.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not one of the principal ways to help sub-Saharan Africa cope with its debt the writing off of the public sector debt to those countries? Is it not worth bearing in mind that it was a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer who first put that idea forward at the Trinidad conference, which brought about the Trinidad terms which have already done so much to help those countries with their public debt problem?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the Paris club of Government creditors, 14 countries have now benefited from the Naples terms reschedulings which, as my hon. Friend says, were first introduced in 1990 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) as the Trinidad terms. The British Government have also pressed for action on multilateral debt. At last year's annual meetings of the IMF and the World bank, it was our Chancellor who called on all international financial institutions to examine further measures to deal with the problems of multilateral debt for the poorest and most indebted countries. That work is currently under way and we expect firm proposals at the spring 1996 meetings of the World bank and the IMF next month.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that in Zambia President Chiluba inherited a situation in which his country pays more in debt interest than it can afford to spend on health and education? Given the impact of that on mothers and children, can the Minister assure me
    702
    that he will do his very best to get Zambia and Tanzania, which has the same problem, included in the new IMF-World bank proposals?
    Mr. Hanley: It has also been said that United Kingdom aid should not be used to service the debts owed to multilateral financial institutions, as with Zambia. The UK programme of aid to Zambia was used for that purpose in 1994–95, but that was exceptional. Our allowing it enabled the Zambian Government to allocate more of their own money to the health sector, and our aid was directly linked to a World bank programme which included conditionality to protect and enhance the share of public expenditure devoted to basic education and health care services in Zambia. Zambia is one of the countries where there has been great success, and where debt rescheduling has helped tremendously and I believe that Zambia is the better for it.
    Mr. Foulkes: As countries in sub-Saharan Africa are forced to transfer four times as much to northern creditors as they spend on the health of their citizens, does the Minister agree that much more urgent action on debt is needed? When the Chancellor proposed at the IMF that gold stocks should be sold, he knew fine that it would be almost impossible to get agreement because it would need the support of 80 per cent. of the shareholders. What are the Government doing to get the necessary agreement on debt relief before more innocent children in Africa die? We need urgent action at the IMF, not fine words in the House.
    Mr. Hanley: I do not mind fine words in the House—it is nice of the hon. Gentleman to say that my words are fine—because the fine words reflect a fine effort. We are making serious progress. After all, sub-Saharan Africa received nearly $1 billion more from the World bank than it paid in debt service in 1993, the last full year. The Paris club of official creditors has made tremendous progress in rescheduling debts, increasing the figure from 50 per cent. to 67 per cent. in suitable cases. As I have said, 14 countries benefited; they include Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Cameroon, Mauritania, Senegal, Togo, Uganda and Zambia, and this week there will be a rescheduling for Sierra Leone. So tremendous progress is being made—it is not just fine words.

    Palestine National Authority
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to take to ensure that funds provided by the United Kingdom for overseas aid to areas controlled by the Palestine National Authority are properly used for the purposes provided. [20707]
    Mr. Hanley: All UK bilateral aid to the Palestinians is closely monitored and is channelled through reputable British project management organisations or international agencies with proven and reliable systems of disbursement.
    Mr. Janner: What check is made at the other end as to the actual disbursement, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that none of the money properly and rightly raised in this country or by other international

    703
    donors for the Palestine National Authority is used in any way or at any time for the activities of Hamas or Islamic jihad, whether for so-called communal welfare projects or anything else?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises an extremely important issue about which I am sure that the House shares his anxiety. Overseas Development Administration projects on the West Bank and in Gaza are monitored by project managers under contract to the ODA, by regular visits from ODA staff and by the consulate general in Jerusalem, which I visited recently. Staff at the consulate general have been strengthened by the secondment of an ODA officer as field manager for our aid programme.
    The UK receives great plaudits for the ODA's targeting of its aid. Its projects are extremely good—I can vouch for that. We have provided some £5.5 million of assistance to the police in Palestine over the past 18 months, and we are also helping with a number of health and education projects. I can confirm that the aid money going to the Palestinians is well spent, well targeted and well audited.
    Not long ago, I attended the donors' conference at which $850 million was collected for the Palestinians from 51 sources. I do not believe that that money would have been raised if there had been serious doubts about its proper maintenance and disbursement. If we receive any evidence that money is being collected in this country by Hamas for terrorist activities, we shall not fail to act immediately. That is something that we would not accept.
    Mr. Sumberg: I emphasise the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). It is vital to ensure that money does not get into the hands of terrorists. We call on the United States Government to ensure that money does not go to the IRA for its evil purposes, and we must call on the Palestinian authorities to ensure that money does not go to Hamas.
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that money raised for the Palestinians is not diverted to sponsor terrorism. That would be unacceptable to the Government and, I am sure, to all right hon. and hon. Members. The Charity Commission is investigating an accusation. If we, the Government, receive any information or evidence, we shall act on it immediately.

    Aid Target
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the Government's policy in respect of meeting the United Nations 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product target in relation to aid. [20709]
    Mr. Hanley: We have agreed to try to reach the UN target as soon as possible, but like many other donors we have not set a timetable for doing so. Progress towards the target will depend on our economic circumstances and on other priorities for public expenditure.
    Mr. O'Brien: If it is still a Government target, why does the Government's policy seem to be going in the opposite direction? They inherited from the Labour Administration a contribution of 0.5 per cent., which has
    704
    decreased to 0.3 per cent. The ODA's recently published fundamental expenditure review discloses that the contribution is falling to 0.26 per cent. Why is Government policy moving in the opposite direction from that which it should be following? Do the Government lack a sense of direction or do they lack a sense of candour?
    Mr. Hanley: No. The target still remains. Our ability to move towards it depends on the United Kingdom's future economic performance and on many public expenditure priorities. It is impossible to forecast how the economy will fare or what conflicting priorities may arise in the future. That statement might just as well be made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), because the Opposition have stated that they have the same target of 0.7 per cent. Yet they have refused to make a commitment or to set a time scale.
    We believe that it is right to concentrate on ensuring that our substantial aid is effective. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley tell the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) exactly what the Labour party's time scale would be for achieving 0.7 per cent. if Labour were ever to be in Government.
    Mr. Forman: Within what is still the fifth largest official aid programme in the world, will my right hon. Friend give due weight to the cost-effectiveness and importance of the pound-for-pound scheme, which was designed to contribute £1 of British taxpayers' money for every £1 that is raised and used extremely effectively by non-governmental organisations in the developing world, such as Oxfam and Christian Aid?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend does the House a service in reminding it that we have the fifth largest aid programme in the world. That is entirely sensible, because we have the fifth largest economy. Our budget—it is well over £2.2 billion—is impressive. I know that the Opposition do not like me repeating these facts. This year Italy's aid expenditure fell by 36 per cent. Canada has reduced its aid budget by 20.5 per cent. The United States provides only 0.15 per cent. of its gross national product as development assistance, and it is reducing its programme still further. In other words, our contribution is extremely impressive—and we intend to ensure that it remains so.

    Multilateral Aid
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the subject of multilateral aid. [20710]
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has discussed multilateral aid with his European counterparts regularly during meetings of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, the last of which was on 26 February. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development also has regular meetings with her opposite numbers.
    Dr. Godman: Multilateral aid has an important role to play, but does the Minister agree that the PHARE-TACIS programmes—Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring, and technical aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States—suffer from serious weaknesses and are poorly managed in Brussels? Why are millions of ecus wasted on expensive consultancy when NGOs are denied funding? Why not apply the principle of subsidiarity and ensure that those programmes are run by the Governments of the member states and not by Brussels?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are problems with the delivery of the PHARE and TACIS programmes. It seems that PHARE is slow. The causes of that include over-centralised control in Brussels, too few staff, and complex procedures. Recipient Governments can also cause delays. Improvements are planned. There will be better programme planning and more decentralisation of decision making. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be more decentralisation and more use of financial intermediaries, which should bring faster project implementation. There will be strengthened EC delegations and improved monitoring and evaluation.
    I believe that a certain councillor in Strathclyde had discussions recently with local NGOs which complained about the time that it takes to get the PHARE programme approved. I agree with her.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no correlation between economic aid which goes to countries and their economic growth, but that there is a strong positive correlation between private investment in the third world and growth in particular countries?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in terms of private investment from the United Kingdom to developing countries our record is second to none.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid given to Rwanda. [20711]
    Mr. Hanley: Since April 1994, Britain has committed nearly £100 million to the Rwandan crisis, including our contribution to European Union assistance which is worth some £41.5 million. I am pleased to announce that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has added to that a further £4 million as Rwanda's share of an £8.5 million British contribution to the 1996 great lakes appeal.
    Mr. Ainger: If Rwanda and Burundi are to return to some form of normality, does the Minister agree that there must be a working judicial system? He will be aware from my previous questions on this issue that there is a huge problem in relation to the large number of people in detention. Tens of thousands of individuals charged with possible genocide are not being processed through the judicial system. What assurance can the Minister give the House that this prime problem is being addressed with physical resources—personnel resources—rather than just financial resources?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that justice is an important prerequisite for rehabilitation in Rwanda. We remain concerned at the number of Rwandans being held in disturbing conditions in prison. The Rwandan Government have made some progress in recent weeks with the rehabilitation of the domestic justice system, and indictments have been issued by the international tribunal against 10 individuals for genocide and crimes against humanity. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential that justice should return, not just through money but through those who are committed to help the Rwandans to return to justice, and also to improve the ghastly human rights situation which has persisted for too long.
    Mr. Llwyd: Has the Minister read the recently published multi-donor evaluation of the situation in Rwanda, which makes it clear that although humanitarian aid is very important the real answer for Rwanda lies in political moves and political changes? What steps is the Minister likely to suggest?
    Mr. Hanley: I have indeed read the multi-donor evaluation of emergency assistance to Rwanda. We supported the study, because it is always necessary to assess the impact of international emergency assistance, and it makes a useful contribution to the international debate. We expect to discuss its recommendations with other donors, United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations in the reasonably near future.
    The United Kingdom's input in the Rwandan crisis was well regarded in the report. United Kingdom NGOs were at the forefront of the emergency response and are now contributing to Rwanda's recovery. It is an important study, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be worth the while of other hon. Members who are interested in the subject to read the report. It is in the Library.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Divorced Clergy (Accommodation)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what arrangements are made in respect of accommodation allocation following divorce among clergy. [20670]
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Where a clergy marriage has broken down and the diocesan bishop accepts pastoral responsibility for the spouse, he and his diocesan board of finance take steps to try to provide accommodation. If the diocese has difficulty in providing it, it may apply to the commissioners for a loan.
    Mr. Banks: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware, however, that no legal rights exist? When clergy marriages break down, accommodation can unfortunately be lost, pension rights can be sacrificed and lump sums can go at the same time. What talks is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to have with the commissioners to try to introduce an element of legality? Is it not perverse that the future head of the Church of

    707
    England can be discussing with his estranged wife who is to have which palace and who will pay for the colonic irrigation when all that the clergy whose marriages break up are left with is a pain in the butt?
    Mr. Alison: It is purely a matter of history that both the leaders of the Church of England and the future monarch happen to live in palaces. We attempt not to be legalistic; in the past 10 years we have made advances of £10 million in nearly 190 cases, specifically to help spouses who have suffered a marriage breakdown and are without accommodation. Whatever the law may dictate, we try to be humane, reasonable and constructive.

    Bequests
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate has been made of the number of bequests made to Church of England parishes in the latest year for which records are available; and what was their total estimated value. [20672]
    Mr. Alison: In 1993 there were about 6,150 bequests to parishes of the Church of England, excluding cathedrals. The total value was about £18 million.
    Mr. Jenkin: When people make bequests to parishes for the benefices of those parishes, why are the assets sequestered by the Church Commissioners? Why cannot the parishes raise money to better the livings of their clergy, as any other normal charity might be able to do?
    Mr. Alison: As far as I know, the Church Commissioners do not sequester any property from parishes; that is more likely to be done by the diocese, and it will be done on the basis that assets flow back into the parish from the diocese. Parishes almost certainly do
    708
    better by having such a relationship with the diocese. I shall verify the point, however, and write to my hon. Friend if necessary.

    Investments
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the latest figure of the value of the annual returns on Church investments. [20673]
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners are finalising their 1995 figures, which will shortly be published in their annual report. They expect the annual returns to be similar to the benchmark return of 19.1 per cent. in 1995 in the independent WM all-funds index.
    Mr. Flynn: Was not the right hon. Gentleman enunciating an extraordinary new Church of England doctrine when he told me on 29 January that the ethical investments in GEC were all right because GEC's arms production is below the 30 per cent. threshold? Does the Church of England now believe that it is okay for people to sin for 30 per cent. of the time if they are virtuous for 70 per cent. of the time? Is there to be a new doctrine saying that we can obey seven commandments and ignore the other three? How on earth can the Church justify the 30 per cent. threshold?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is being almost pharisaical in his nit-picking about particular figures. Whatever the exact balance, if the hon. Gentleman wants figures I can tell him that the Church of England believes in 100 per cent. forgiveness and in a reasonable balance of investments that will maintain a flow of funds to maintain the pensions of elderly clergy widows, for example. Clergy in retirement now outnumber those whom we support as incumbents. That all has to be done through our investment assets, whether they be in land, businesses or armaments firms. The investment is valid and proper.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for Thursday 28 March will now be as follows:
Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill. That will now be followed by a debate on bovine spongiform encephalopathy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Ms Harriet Harman: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. It is acceptable to the Opposition.

BSE (Health)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a further statement about the advice that the Government have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.
I begin by briefly reminding the House of the background. The advisory committee brings together leading experts in neurology, epidemiology and microbiology to provide scientifically based advice on the implications for animal and human health of different forms of spongiform encephalopathy. As I have repeatedly stressed, its members are not Government scientists: they are leading practitioners in their field, and it is the function of the advisory committee to allow them to pool their expertise to assess the latest scientific evidence that is available.
Both the Opposition health spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the Leader of the Opposition stressed last week the importance of reaching decisions on the basis of the scientific evidence. I agree with them. I also agree that it is important that both the evidence on which the committee reached its recommendations, and the recommendations themselves, should be made public as soon as practicable. That is why I published the committee's recommendations last Wednesday and why I have today put copies of its latest recommendations, accompanied by a statement from the chief medical officer, in the Vote Office. I can confirm to the House that arrangements are in hand to ensure that the evidence on which those recommendations are based will be published in the scientific journals within the next four to six weeks.
Science is not a substitute for political or personal choice, but it is the only basis on which an informed judgment about these issues can be reached. Last Wednesday, I informed the House of the advisory committee's conclusions about 10 new cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The statement that the committee approved at its weekend meeting emphasises that only 10 cases of this previously unrecognised variant of CJD have yet been identified and that the committee is not in a position to confirm whether there is a causal link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the human disease. However, the committee repeated its view that the most likely explanation at present of this new form of CJD is that these cases are linked to exposure to BSE before the introduction of the specified offals ban in 1989.
Following receipt of its advice last week, I asked the committee to consider as a matter of urgency the implication of its findings for children. In considering that question, the committee was joined by three leading experts in paediatrics, gastroenterology and immunology. The committee considered carefully its knowledge of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and considered the evidence available from the 10 identified cases. Taking all that into account, the committee concluded that
"if human infection with the BSE agent occurs, infants and children are not likely to be more susceptible to that infection than are adults".

711
The committee also considered the possibility of increased susceptibility among patients in hospital, pregnant women and people who are taking immuno-suppressive drugs. Again, it concluded that
"if human infection with a BSE agent occurs, none of these groups is likely to have any increased susceptibility to infection".
The committee's statement goes on:
"Parents are naturally concerned about the risks to their own children. No human activity is without some risk; if the Government rigorously enforces the current and newly recommended controls we believe that this risk is likely to be extremely small; however the Committee recognises that parents will often choose to reduce risk to their children beyond that which they are prepared to accept for themselves.
It is important to be aware that many foods are associated with health risks and that changing from beef to non-beef products is not necessarily without risk."
Following the scientific evidence, there is clearly no reason for the Government to advise local education authorities to remove beef from school menus. I understand, however, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that it is customary for schools to provide a choice of menu to accommodate different dietary and cultural practices. The Government believe that that choice should continue. Local education authorities will be sent copies of the advisory committee's statement so that they can be aware of the precise terms of its findings.
The committee reconfirmed the recommendations that were published last Wednesday concerning the deboning of cattle carcases aged over 30 months, and it has made a number of other recommendations concerning the treatment of specified bovine offal. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal with those questions in his statement.
The committee also made two recommendations concerning research. It recommended, first, the reinforcement of the CJD surveillance unit at Edinburgh university and, secondly, the commitment of substantial additional resources to long-term, basic and applied research, to improve our understanding of these diseases. The Government accept those recommendations. We have already made plans to strengthen the CJD surveillance unit. In addition, I have today instructed Professor John Swales, the NHS director of research and development, to prepare a directed programme of research in this sector involving the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
Against the background of those findings, the advisory committee reports two central conclusions. First, it reasserts that, provided that the restrictions that it recommends are fully implemented and sustained, any BSErelated risk from eating beef or beef products is likely to be extremely small. Secondly, the committee's statement concludes with these words:
"the Committee does not believe that any additional measures are justified at this stage but the situation needs to be kept under careful review so that additional significant information can be taken into account as soon as it becomes available".
Throughout their consideration of those questions, the Government have made it clear that our policy is to base our own decisions on an up-to-date assessment of the scientific evidence. We have also made clear our commitment to making that evidence public. That remains the position.
712
The statement of the advisory committee that I am publishing this afternoon makes clear recommendations both to the Government and to the public. The chief medical officer is taking steps to communicate that new advice to all doctors. The Government accept the recommendations and they will act on them.
Ms Harriet Harman: Once again, I thank the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee for its work. It appears that the Secretary of State has learned no lessons from last week, when I said that public confidence was hanging by a thread. Now, public confidence has collapsed. Why did he not recognise that public confidence was draining away? Even though he was advising that beef was safe, 10,000 schools had already taken it off the menu.
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that it is his Government's reckless disregard for public health and their dogma on deregulation that have swept us into this crisis—[Interruption.]
Hon. Members: Unparliamentary.
Madam Speaker: Order. Did I hear hon. Members saying that there was some unparliamentary language?
Mr. Tony Marlow: I said that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was a stupid cow. If that is unparliamentary, I certainly withdraw it.
Madam Speaker: It is certainly unparliamentary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Marlow: As I said, Madam Speaker, I certainly withdraw the remark.
Ms Harman: Is not it the Government's reckless disregard for public health and their dogma of deregulation that have swept us into this crisis? Will the Secretary of State admit that even after bovine spongiform encephalopathy was discovered, the Government dragged their feet? There was delay before making BSE notifiable; delay before banning animal protein; delay before compulsory slaughter and compensation; and delay before banning specified bovine offal.
Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the roots of this crisis lie in his Government's repeated failure to take prompt and effective action to protect our food? Instead, deregulation dogma fuelled by complacency has caused a nightmare scenario for consumers and farmers alike.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in 1978 the Labour Government put forward extra controls on animal feed, but that when the Tory Government took office, they changed those planned controls and said that the industry could decide for itself on cattle feeding?
SEAC says that there is an extremely low risk if all its proposals for slaughterhouse and food safety rules are fully implemented and enforced rigorously. But why should anyone expect that from this Government, when they have allowed flagrant breaches of the rules in the past? We must now have rigorous enforcement of the rules and tough penalties for those found breaking them. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the enforcement

713
authorities have the powers they need, the resources they need and strong Government backing? Is it not now time for full information and tough action?
Will the Government publish full information for the public, on the relative risk of eating beef compared with other meats? SEAC's statement barely touches on that. That is the question the public are asking. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish full information for the public on the relative risk of eating different parts of cattle? That is the question the public are asking. Will he publish a full list of all the food products that contain bovine material? Why should the public have to search the newspapers for that information? People cannot make their own choices if they do not know what they are eating.
Why is there to be a delay of four to six weeks before the publication of the scientific evidence? That evidence must be published by the right hon. Gentleman and it must be published now.
On the issue of children, SEAC recognised:
"parents will often choose to reduce risk to their children beyond that which they are prepared to accept for themselves."
When it comes to children, must not the Government therefore err on the side of caution? For school meals, should he not say, "Better safe than sorry," at least for the next nine months, during which time we shall see whether there are any further cases? Has he considered advising schools and local education authorities, to ensure that parents decide whether their children eat beef and whether there should be no beef in school dinners? To assist consumers, has he considered identifying and publishing a list of herds that have never brought in calves and where the cattle have been fed only on grass and hay? That would identify to consumers the herds that are less at risk.
Why has the Secretary of State not told the House today of all the other options that SEAC considered and that he could have acted on? Why did he reject the option of removing all cull cows or all cows over 30 months from the food chain? We should have that information. Why did he reject the option of deboning all cows—not only those over 30 months? We need to know why he has made his choices.
Does the Secretary of State not understand that he has still not done enough to restore British consumers' confidence in British beef? They will continue to buy beef, but it will not be ours. Does he not understand that it is only by tough action, which goes beyond the minimal recommendations of the scientists, that there will be any chance of restoring public confidence? Does he accept that there is a clear conflict of interest in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about food regulation? Will he therefore establish a separate food standards agency? Will he restore the strength and independence of the Department of Health's chief medical officer, who has been marginalised and weakened by the Government?
Is not the business of government about more than just occupying the high offices of state, but about occupying a position of respect in the public's mind? This crisis has shown that the Government can no longer govern because people do not trust them. How can the Government restore public confidence when the public have no confidence in the Government?
Mr. Dorrell: I think that the country, listening to the hon. Lady, will find it deeply offensive that she has opened up a wide chasm between the principles that she says inform her policy and the ferreting around for party political advantage that has manifested itself in both her interventions on the subject. She started off last Wednesday, as she did this afternoon, by stressing the importance of basing our decisions on this subject on science. That position was reinforced by her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition from the Dispatch Box on Thursday afternoon.
The science has been published. What the House and the country want to know from the hon. Lady is that if she does not accept the Government's actions on the basis of that science, what actions does she recommend to the House and the country? What is the way forward that she would want us to take, which is different from the way that I announced this afternoon, as recommended by the scientists who the hon. Lady says should inform our policy?
The hon. Lady talks about a dogma of deregulation. If she had examined the Southwood inquiry into the background of BSE, she would have found that it specifically dismissed that charge. She alleges that there has been delay, but has produced no evidence at any stage in the proceedings on the issue of any delay whatever. She asks for rigorous enforcement; I have committed us to rigorous enforcement. She asks for information to be published. Let her tell the House which information she wants published that I have not committed the Government to publishing from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. She asks why the information will not be made available in the scientific journals within less than four to six weeks. The reason for that, as the hon. Lady should know, is that the marshalling of scientific evidence to prepare it for a form for publication in a scientific journal normally takes between six and nine months. I have undertaken that it will be made available through that source in four to six weeks.
The hon. Lady asks about schools: I have set out clearly the position on schools. She says that we should base our decision on the science—let her explain which bit of the science would justify the removal of beef or beef products from school menus. There is no scientific conclusion available to the House that would justify that conclusion.
The hon. Lady asks why the Government are not proceeding with a culling policy and a range of other actions. The answer lies in the quotation from the scientific advice which I gave to the House and which I shall repeat to the hon. Lady:
"the Committee does not believe that additional measures are justified at this stage but the situation needs to be kept under careful review".
That is what will happen. The hon. Lady is asking the House to substitute her scientific judgment for the advisory committee's scientific judgment. I can think of no more absurd proposition.
Mrs. Marion Roe: My right hon. Friend will be appearing before a joint meeting of the Agriculture and Health Select Committees on Wednesday morning, where he will be a witness on this very important matter. Will he give an assurance that, faced with such complex matters, the Government will respond swiftly and decisively, but always based on the informed views of

715
scientific experts, not on some of the uninformed and occasionally hysterical views that we have seen expressed in recent days?
Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance. That assurance is not that we substitute, as I said in my statement, the judgment of scientists for personal or political judgment, but that we agree with the principle—although not with the practice of the principle—espoused last week by Opposition Front Benchers, that decisions on the subject should be based on the science.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his commitment to the research recommended by the committee. Does he agree that although questions may have to be asked about recommendations made in the late 1970s and 1980s, those are not the principal issue for today? The principal issue for today involves what steps need to be taken for the public to be reassured and people to be safe. In that context, will he do all that he can to ensure that the committee's principal conclusion that children and young people are not more at risk than adults is disseminated and understood by radio, television and newspapers, and that the media, the outlets and politicians who are willing to join him, seek to win over the public to an understanding of the issues, not to an understanding only of prejudice and prejudiced self-interest?
On the basis of the expectation that the Government will apply the precautionary principle, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most useful thing for the Government to consider now is whether beef that is entirely unaffected by the risk of BSE—particularly herbivore beef—can be separately labelled and identified, so that people can distinguish between the different types of beef?
As the offal ban came into effect in 1989, does the Secretary of State agree that there may be a precautionary reason for placing children under seven in a different category from children over seven?
Will the right hon. Gentleman reinforce the fact that the main question that should drive all our considerations is not where the beef comes from, but whether it is infected?
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the stand that I have taken on research. I assure him that, where research is necessary in order to improve our understanding of those conditions, the Government will ensure that there is support available to allow that research to be undertaken.
I agree entirely with the stand that the hon. Gentleman has taken, both in the House and in the community over the weekend, regarding the importance of ensuring that decisions are based in science. He is correct to restate and to remind the House this afternoon of the advisory committee's finding that there is no scientific basis for concluding that children are at any greater risk than adults.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether beef producers whose herds have hitherto been BSE-free for a variety of reasons should promote that fact. They are able to do that and there are examples of it having occurred. The scientific questions that lie behind some of the hon. Gentleman's assertions are reasonably complex, but it is open to producers to take that course of action.
716
The hon. Gentleman's key point is that, to the extent that there is a risk of infection to human beings from BSE-infected cattle, it is related to the specified bovine offals that were removed from the human food chain by Government order in 1989. Because those offals were removed from the food chain, the advisory committee concluded that the risks associated with eating all beef and beef products are extremely small.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In order to help to quell the urban panic that is being fomented on the Opposition Benches, will my right hon. Friend point out that people of all ages are at far greater risk from active and passive smoking than from BSE? Is he aware that this afternoon we are seeing a crude attempt to create the steak-rejecting economy?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is a far greater risk associated with tobacco use than with beef consumption. He makes his own point about stakeholding in his own way.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that, throughout this long, sorry saga, he has talked only about the human food chain? Is he aware that many people are concerned about the meat that is used in pet food for domestic cats and dogs? Can he assure millions of pensioners that the liver and lights used in pet food are also examined? Will he confirm that pets cannot be contaminated by the BSE strain and will he ask the research experts to examine that question as well, as many jobs are involved in the pet food industry?
Mr. Dorrell: I do not, I am afraid, apologise to the House for being concerned principally with human health in the past week since the advisory committee first made its information available. I am absolutely certain that the Government have got their priorities right. I am advised that specified bovine offals are also kept outside the pet food chain. SEAC—which is responsible for providing advice about pet food as well as human health—has, quite properly, concentrated its considerable attentions on human health questions in the past few days.
Mr. Michael Jopling: A few minutes ago, the Secretary of State said that the resources will be found if further research is necessary. Will he look specifically at, and take advice about, whether two areas need urgent further research: first, finding ways of better diagnosing BSE in cattle at an earlier stage; and, secondly, trying to find an effective way of treating CJD in human beings?
Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct on both counts. We would be in a much better position if we had an accurate live test for cattle and if we could diagnose accurately the condition CJD in humans. We shall ensure that sufficient resources are made available to allow those programmes to continue, as well as—critically, as my right hon. Friend rightly points out—examining the options for producing a treatment regime for humans in particular, which would enable us to cure the condition.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that most mothers and grandmothers are not scientists? They are just terribly worried. They

717
have no way of knowing whom to trust and they need clear and simple statements. If a doctor or a medical researcher says that there is very little risk, although that may be absolutely correct, it engenders real worry among parents who are not clear about the present position. What would the Minister regard as a significant change in the circumstances? Ten cases a year may be one thing, but 10 cases a month would be very significant, and the House would need to know about it urgently. All the parents who are totally bewildered would need a clear statement about what the Minister was doing to save them.
Mr. Dorrell: As regards the position today, parents have a very clear statement. I quote it again:
"infants and children are not likely to be more susceptible to that infection than are adults".
That is a clear statement. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on the important point that she made about ensuring that we conduct accurate and timely surveillance of CJD cases and draw any further lessons that are available to us from that evidence. That is why I have provided extra resources to the surveillance unit in Edinburgh. It corresponds directly with a SEAC recommendation. The Government are taking that forward for precisely the reasons that the hon. Lady mentioned.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should learn the lessons of the scare eight years ago, when a relatively small group of scientists extrapolated information from a small outbreak of salmonella food poisoning that had caused some fatalities, and drew conclusions that led the House to implement legislation which caused the death of more than I million chickens and the destruction of some 300 million eggs? Those regulations were quietly dropped about a year later, when it became perfectly obvious that the cause of that outbreak was kitchen hygiene and not farmyard practices.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that scientists should publish their work, especially when it is based on a relatively tiny sample, and have it evaluated by their colleagues in the scientific community before we in the House cause the slaughter of herds of cattle and the destruction of our industry? Will he take my assurance as a historian of science that history is replete with people who advanced hypotheses on limited evidence, only to have them refuted at a later date? We must put that line of argument to the public, to reassure them that, if a disease breaks out in one group of animals, it is not necessarily transmittable to another group of animals that may or may not have had contact with them.
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree—that is not something I can always say to my hon. Friend—with every word that she said. It is just as important not to overreact as it is not to underreact, as I said to the House last week. We must base our conclusions on the evidence. We are responsible for those conclusions, but they must be firmly based on the evidence and justified by it.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: If there is no evidence of age specificity among the 10 cases that were examined, is the low average age of cases explained by the process of selection? Are there other cases that were not included in the sample study?
Mr. Dorrell: There are two separate issues that could relate to the relatively young age of the 10 cases. One is their susceptibility because they were relatively young, and the other is the possibility of increased exposure to infected material before 1989. I remind the House again that we are talking about a risk associated with a product that has not been available since 1989, because that was the date when the agents of infection were removed. The background to the 10 cases may be susceptibility or exposure.
The question of susceptibility was specifically analysed by the committee, and it concluded that there was no evidence of any increased susceptibility among children, and therefore that parents and families should not proceed on the basis that children are at any greater risk of susceptibility to the condition.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the Secretary of State on dealing with this sensitive issue so effectively. Can he give any guidance as to why the health problem has apparently not existed in countries where British beef is consumed or where suspect beef has been used? Can my right hon. Friend give any guidance to parents and young people as to whether there is any truth in press reports of special dangers associated with sausages, liquorice allsorts and a certain kind of digestive biscuit?
Mr. Dorrell: As to my hon. Friend's second question, the answer is no—there is no truth in those press reports. The evidence has been analysed. This is a scientific question—it is not susceptible to political argument. There is no evidence available of increased age sensitivity, which is the basis on which the Government and the scientific community are advising families to proceed in their affairs.
As to whether CJD overseas may be related to the consumption of British beef, there is currently no difference between the incidence of CJD in many different countries. There is certainly no evidence to support the assertion that the condition has emerged in other countries related to the consumption of British beef. The advice to the export market—potential overseas consumers of British beef—is exactly the same as to the domestic consumer. The risks associated with consuming the product are extremely low.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth that the one thing that has characterised the Government during their entire period of office is that they have been telling the British people that deregulation is good for them? The net result is that there was bound to be a day when there would have to be a reckoning up. The British people are scared about the result of relaxing the rules. The Government had a judgment to make many years ago, as to whether to relax the rules in favour of animal feed manufacturers or stand four square with the British people. The Government chose deregulation. The consequence is that the British people are in fear. They have to pay for the Government's decision, and the farmers will have to sup the mop as well. The Government made the judgment and they should carry the can. It is time that they went.
Mr. Dorrell: There is not a scintilla of truth in anything that the hon. Gentleman just said. That is the worst kind of scaremongering—ferreting around for party political advantage in the sewer of politics.
Sir Michael Spicer: Is it true that, whereas the rate of BSE has been rising over the past 15 years, the incidence of CJD has fallen over the past two years? Does not that put in question the relationship between the two?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right in his interpretation of the figures on CJD. Attention has focused on the potential link between CJD and BSE, because the 10 cases to which I referred are of a particular sort of CJD of which we have not been previously aware. That specific group, having specific symptoms, has led people to conclude that there may be a link. The opinion of the advisory committee is that the most probable explanation for that specific group of 10 cases is that it is related—again I make the point—to the consumption of the infected material that was available before 1989. The controls introduced in 1989 led the committee to conclude that the consumption of British beef and beef products is now associated with a low level of risk.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware that on Thursday the Select Committee on Health was told that, in 1989, the Government stopped using bovine serum made in Britain and imported it for the manufacture of vaccine? If that is the case, why were not the rest of us told? Is he further aware that after a decade of deceit, prevarication and denial, nobody believes a word the Government say?
Mr. Dorrell: This process has been carried on in public. The advice on which the Government have acted has been published. The evidence that led the committee to reach those conclusions and give that advice has been published, and the recommendations made last week and this week will be published. The Government have nothing to hide because they do not want to hide. What they want to do is to provide well-founded scientific recommendations based on published evidence.
Sir Anthony Grant: In order to bring a sense of proportion to the hypochondriacal hysteria of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a list of the comparable risks in our society, based on statistical evidence, which would probably show that one is as likely to win the jackpot in the lottery and one has a much greater chance of being murdered than of dying from this disease?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The risks associated with eating this product are extremely low and are well within the normal range of risks that every citizen of this country takes every day of his life.
The hon. Member for Peckham said earlier that parents will be concerned about the taking of risks by children. I am a parent of a seven-year-old and a three-year-old, and I understand that parenting involves taking risks to develop a child's self-confidence. The risks associated with parenting are many and various. The risks associated with this product are defined by science as extremely low.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of an earlier reply, what research does the right hon. Gentleman intend to set up and what research is presently under way into the spread of BSE, because of the cannibalisation of feed, across the species barrier into pigs, sheep, cats and dogs? [Interruption.] Do listen, you silly berks. This is not a joking matter. You should all be put out of the House. Because none of you can do it well, do not be envious of those who can.
On a related issue, should not all transgenic experimentation cease forthwith?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point, which is the possibility of this disease being transmitted across the species barrier on farms. It is precisely for that reason that the rules on meat and bone meal were changed last week, and the advice has been given today. In particular, SEAC advised that meat and bone meal
"must not be incorporated into any feed for any farmed animals, including fish or horses, or into fertiliser likely to be used on land to which ruminants have access."
The issue about which the hon. Gentleman asked is covered by the advice, and the Government have made it clear that they intend to take that advice.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been an act of gross irresponsibility on his part to overreact to the hysterical demands coming from Labour Members? Does he further agree that if the British beef industry is destroyed as a result of that hysteria, voters in the rural economy, which will have suffered a devastating blow, will know whom to blame? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if billions of pounds of extra public money were suddenly to be available for the purpose of protecting children's health, it would certainly not be sensible to use that money to pay for the slaughter of millions of healthy British cattle?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend simply paraphrases the advice that is available to the Government, the House and the public. What those on the Opposition Front Benches have totally failed to do, in their comments on the issue, is to endorse the advice and make it clear that they carry through their commitment to observe science into action; or to say what they think we should do; or, crucially, to give any justification for taking different action from that advised by the scientists. That is the question that the Opposition have not answered.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Today the Secretary of State has consistently referred to the research issue. What time scale does he consider necessary for further research to be undertaken? What funding will the Government provide to ensure the highest quality of research? Will that include a live test of the nature of the disease? Many people attach considerable importance to the fact that Professor Lacey, who was involved in developing a live test, found his evidence dismissed because he was seen as politically unsound.
If this research is to be effective, will it include an assurance that BSE-free herds will be allocated the quality assurance mark that is already available to 6,000 farms in Scotland with Aberdeen Angus herds? We do not see why farmers with BSE-free herds should be affected by this panic.
Mr. Dorrell: There are two aspects to the research that the Government are undertaking. First, there is the expansion of the work of the surveillance unit at Edinburgh university—the unit that has been responsible for identifying the 10 cases and for leading the pathology work on which the advisory committee's findings have been based. I have committed extra resources to the surveillance of cases as they arise, at Edinburgh university and also at St. Mary's hospital in Paddington, which supplied the pathology service to Edinburgh.
Secondly, we must ensure sufficient resources to allow us to conduct a planned, directed research programme of original scientific research, so as to better understand the causes of the condition, and how it can be diagnosed and treated. That programme of research is what the NHS director of research and development, Professor Swales, will be preparing over the next few weeks. So resources have been provided for conducting the surveillance and the research necessary to improve our understanding of the underlying science of this condition.
Mr. Robert Banks: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the article in The Times today, written by William Rees-Mogg? Is it not the case that BSE has probably been in cattle for the past two centuries and was previously known as the staggers? Is it not also the case that Britain has built its reputation on roast beef and Yorkshire pudding—and there is nothing wrong in that?
Mr. Dorrell: The advice of the scientific committee confirms and reinforces my hon. Friend's view that there is nothing wrong with British roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. I therefore agree with that. The proposition that BSE is the same as the staggers has a rather more doubtful background. The key point is that the steps that have been taken ensure that we are able to say that the risks associated with eating the traditional Sunday joint are extremely low.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State is responsible for health. One would be forgiven for not understanding that 10 youngish people had died recently of the new strain of this disease—that shows how serious this matter is. Is it not a fact that public confidence has disappeared because for 10 years the Government have failed to react quickly enough or effectively enough? Just a few moments ago, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), the Minister said that the ghastly business of feeding animals dead animals across the food chain and across species had been stopped only in the past few days. Are not many people likely to die of this disease? If so, how many will die before the right hon. Gentleman resigns?
Mr. Dorrell: I find it objectionable when we are alleged to have acted with delay, when what we have actually done is take scientific advice and act promptly on it at every stage.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the feeding of animal-based bone meal back to farm animals. It was actually in 1988 that, on the advice of the scientists then, the feeding of ruminant-based meal to ruminants was banned. On the advice available last week, but not before last week, the feeding of meat and bone meal to other species has also been banned. It is no good saying that it
722
is unnatural for one species to eat the remains of another—that is what the meat industry is all about. The feeding of animal remains across the species barrier is what the meat industry is all about. We want to ensure that it is only done safely, and we rely on the experts on questions of safety.
Mr. John Redwood: Is the Secretary of State telling those who make and sell beefburgers in this country that it would be quite safe for them to buy any kind of British beef again for their products?
Mr. Dorrell: I do not want to paraphrase anyone, so I am saying that the risks associated with it are extremely low. I see absolutely no reason for any responsible citizen not to buy British beef or beef products of any kind in the shops today.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Secretary of State admit that, had the previous Labour Government's draft guidelines on animal feed been put into effect by this Government when they came into power, the BSE outbreak would have been completely contained and 10 young people would perhaps not have lost their lives? Will he apologise for the obsession with deregulation, which threatens to destroy the beef industry and which has scared every member of the public? When will he get up and say sorry?
Mr. Dorrell: The House is now being asked to compare the scientific expertise of the hon. Lady with that of Sir Richard Southwood, a former vice-chancellor of Oxford university. Given the choice, I prefer Sir Richard's.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we were to cull all cattle aged 30 months and over, as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) recommended, it would eventually cut milk output by 70 per cent.? Does he believe that the subsequent import of container-loads of continental milk would improve food hygiene in this country and the health of the nation?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would respond to such a suggestion with a simpler question: on what basis would we justify behaving in that way? Where is the evidence to prove that it is a necessary and proportionate response to the problem that we face? The evidence is that it is not a proportionate response. The evidence now available tells us that products benefiting from the protection of the ban imposed in 1989 can be consumed with extremely low levels of risk. I therefore see no justification for doing more against the background of advice from the experts, who said:
"the Committee does not believe that additional measures are justified at this stage".
That is the advice of the scientists, and I have not heard any argument that could lead me to cast it aside.
Mr. John Evans: Are the scientists who have advised the Secretary of State that there is no risk to children the same scientists who have been advising him and his predecessors for the past 15 years that there is no risk whatever from eating British beef? In view of his statement about the advice given a week ago,

723
will he give a categorical assurance to the House and the public that there is no health risk whatever from eating British sheepmeat?
Mr. Dorrell: As I have already said on several occasions, there are no human activities where the level of risk is zero. I cannot give an assurance that eating any product, crossing the street or engaging in a variety of other activities is 100 per cent. safe. There is no human activity to which no risk is attached.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the advisory committee, on whose evidence I rest. It was established not 15 years ago, but in 1990. I have heard nobody call in question the competence and expertise of the members of that committee. Indeed, yesterday morning I appeared in a television programme with Professor Richard Lacey, with whom I do not agree about everything. It was he who said that he accepts the scientific validity and authority of the committee.
Mr. John Gunnell: As the Minister has quoted Sir Richard Southwood, will he comment on the statement made by Sir Richard, which appeared in this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph? Sir Richard said that the Government did not react properly to his report in 1989. He stated that the Government should have said that meat was unsafe. He observed:
"They did not address it"—
that is, his report—
"with the kind of panic I think it … deserved. We are now fulfilling what was the inquiry's nightmare scenario. We acknowledged that there was a slight risk to human health. Our fears are now being realised."
What does the Minister now say to Sir Richard? Does he agree that if children and adults face the same risk, we are all at risk?
Mr. Dorrell: We have acknowledged for some years that there is a possibility of risk of infection from BSE. It was because of that acknowledgement that we put in place the specified offals ban in 1989. If there was no risk of infection of CJD from BSE, what was the justification for putting in place the specified offals ban? It was put in place precisely to guard against the possibility of cross-infection. Sir Richard Southwood's central recommendation was that we should establish the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, and that that committee should provide us with scientifically based evidence on which to base our judgments. That is what we have done.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall move on to the second statement.

BSE (Agriculture)
4.27 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the beef industry.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has informed the House of the advice that we have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee earlier today. I hope that this will help to reassure consumers as to the safety of British beef, and that this in turn will lead to an improvement in market conditions.
Some of the SEAC recommendations are for Agriculture Departments to take forward. In particular, SEAC has given advice on the treatment of trimmings from cattle over 30 months of age, on meat and bonemeal, and on the status of heads from animals over six months of age. The Government have accepted these recommendations in full and I will bring orders before the House as soon as possible. Because of the nature of the advice given by SEAC, these require consultation with the interests concerned. However, I propose to proceed as expeditiously as possible.
The House will appreciate that the orders will be complicated since, in particular, a new system of licensing for plants authorised to bone out animals over 30 months of age will be required.
I turn now to the consequences for trade and for the beef market. The House will be aware that certain EC member states have banned the import of some beef products from the UK, and in some instances live animals as well. I do not believe that these measures are justified by the SEAC findings, which explicitly referred to exposure before the imposition of the specified bovine offal ban in 1989. My officials are arguing in Brussels that the bans are unjustified.
The House will also be concerned, however, about the effect of recent alarm on the beef market and on the livelihoods of the many thousands employed in the several industries connected with it. As I made clear to the House last week, a number of mechanisms exist within the common agricultural policy to support the beef market. These include intervention on young male animals, including safety net intervention if prices fall to particularly low levels, export refunds, and other measures such as aids to private storage, and aid for the slaughter of young male calves from dairy herds.
Obviously the precise use that we wish to make of these, or other, mechanisms will depend upon the extent of the market reaction. It is too early to judge this with confidence, but I am in touch with the Commission so that measures can be put in place as soon as it is clear that they are justified.
I believe that second to putting in place the necessary measures recommended by SEAC, the most important task is to rebuild consumer and market confidence, a process helped by today's statement from SEAC. However, confidence is fragile. I shall monitor it with scrupulous care and I shall not hesitate to come before the House with further measures if it is clear that they are justified by the circumstances.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Does the Minister accept that, in the light of last week's announcements, his first priority should be to ensure that the BSE agent does not enter our food? Is it not clear that to do that he must first ensure that all the necessary regulations are in place; and, secondly, he has a responsibility to ensure that they are properly enforced? I remind the Minister that, in announcing new measures last week, he assured the public that they could eat British beef with confidence. He has announced further new measures today. When does he expect all these measures to be implemented? Enforcement of BSE control legislation is crucial. I remind him that, as recently as last summer, the state veterinary service found that BSE controls were being flouted in our abattoirs. Will the Minister give me an assurance today that the state veterinary service and the Meat Hygiene Service have all the resources and statutory authority that they require properly to enforce all the regulations?
As regards the new steps that the Minister announced today, will he confirm that if a carcase or part of a carcase is believed to be contaminated with bovine specified offal it will be kept out of the human food chain? Can he say who will be responsible for deciding whether that carcase is kept out of the food chain; who will have to implement that decision; and who will be responsible for enforcing that measure?
Will the Minister consider ensuring that all cull cows are slaughtered? I ask him to consider three further steps: first, to ban from human and animal food all calf bovine specified offal—I still put it to the House that it is not wise to allow the specified offal of cattle under six months to enter our food; secondly, a random testing programme for BSE of the brains of cattle going through our slaughterhouses, as recommended by the Tyrrell committee in 1989, which would be of great epidemiological significance—and, thirdly, the safety of mechanically recovered meat in the light of the new concerns.
For the sake of farmers and consumers alike, I make it clear to the Minister that only when consumers are satisfied that the necessary regulations to protect them are in place and are being effectively enforced will they be confident that our beef is as safe to eat as any other beef or beef products in Europe. Will he recognise that his prime responsibility to the British people is to ensure that the food in our shops is safe to eat, and that the British public will judge him not by his words but by his actions?
Mr. Hogg: May I deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first? Yes, I accept that the prime responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to do what he or she can to ensure that human food is wholly safe: that is our prime duty, and it overrides all others. It is, of course, true that as Minister of Agriculture I have a responsibility to the agricultural and farming communities, but my overriding duty relates to public health and the national interest.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we accept that it is important to keep the agent out of the food chain. Absolutely so—and that is the justification for the SBO controls, together with the new controls. He asked whether we could ensure proper implementation. He will remember that towards the end of last year I called in representatives of the slaughterhouse industry on, I think, two occasions; I have seen them subsequently, and so have my colleagues in the Ministry. This is an extremely
726
important issue, and last Wednesday I issued express instructions to the Meat Hygiene Service relating to the vigorous enforcement of controls. I believe that the state veterinary service and the Meat Hygiene Service have both the authority and the resources that they require.
Diseased cattle should not enter the food chain. Confirmed cases should be disposed of and destroyed before they enter the slaughterhouses, and in any event the SBOs of all cattle should be taken out and destroyed.
The question of cull cows has been put in a variety of ways, but SEAC considered the position of cattle over the age of 30 months, and sought to deal with the problem that the hon. Gentleman has in mind by means of the deboning requirement that was announced last Wednesday. As for mechanically recovered meat, it was banned last December.
Mr. Paul Marland: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that we are all here this afternoon because we care about public health. Does he also agree that, given that we are all here for that reason, it is nauseating for Opposition Members to try to claim this as their own public domain? I commend my right hon. and learned Friend: his actions have been taken on the basis of the best scientific advice available, not just today but historically. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to criticise what has gone on in the past, but the Government and the Ministry have always acted on the basis of the best available scientific advice. The Government have been very responsible in that regard.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a considerable amount has been written in today's newspapers about what is known in Europe as mineral deficiency, or manganese staggers? Is he entirely convinced that that is not just another name for BSE in France or Holland? Should it not be examined very carefully? I have a feeling that our European Union partners are using the current difficulties here as an opportunity to do down our beef industry to the betterment of their own.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He brings a great deal of knowledge to the issue, partly as a result of his time on the Select Committee on Agriculture and partly because of the nature of his constituency.
On the question of public health, my hon. Friend is entirely right. I have already stressed that maintaining public health is our paramount and overarching duty. He is also entirely right about the question of acting on scientific advice. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made absolutely plain, we have always published the scientific conclusions and recommendations and have acted on them fully and promptly. I was asked whether there is BSE on the mainland of Europe. There are indeed cases—I suspect that there are more than have been disclosed—but I proceed on the basis that the problem is greater in Britain than on mainland Europe.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister and the Secretary of State for Health have rightly laid great stress on the need to act only on the best possible scientific advice. Does the Minister think that it was

727
alarmist of him and the Secretary of State in media interviews to give such weight to the suggestion of mass slaughter, even complete slaughter of the national herd? Will he consider the circumstances of replacement in that eventuality since, as I hope he will be able to confirm, in some cases young stock imported from France and Holland and from other continental breeders were subsequently found to have BSE? Would it not be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire if we found that we were re-importing BSE after having slaughtered our own herd? Is it not equally absurd for the burger giants to import beef that is not controlled, regulated and inspected to the high standards that we have in this country?
Mr. Hogg: One needs to go on repeating that, in all probability, the exposure to BSE occurred before 1989. That is the considered judgment of SEAC. The scientific committee also concluded that the risks associated with eating British beef are extremely small. It follows that in logic and on the scientific evidence I must agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not necessary for anybody to stop eating British beef or to stop using it.
I was asked about a cull policy. The announcements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I have made today reflect our considered policy. They are based on the recommendations that we have received from the scientific committee and we have no other recommendations to make to the House at the moment.
Mr. James Couchman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ignore the hysterical politicking by the Opposition and the mass, whipped-up scaremongering by the media over the weekend? Rather, will he listen to a dairy farmer in my constituency whose herd has never had BSE and who is desperately worried about the hysteria? What does my right hon. and learned Friend propose for dairy-bred calves that are now virtually worthless and unsaleable? Can he find some sort of scheme to help my constituent? If he is forced into a slaughter policy, what will happen to milk quotas? I gather that we are heavily over quota for this year, but that a slaughter policy next year or in the near future would make us very heavily under quota. If a slaughter policy is introduced, what compensation would be available to my constituent whose herd has never had BSE and who has not felt it necessary to insure against BSE because he did not feed his cattle on the sort of feed that has led to it?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has asked a number of important questions reflecting the concern of his constituent and, I have no doubt, the concern of other people in his constituency and elsewhere. I shall begin by dealing with his question about calves. In my statement, I drew attention to the mechanisms in the common agricultural policy—in particular, the aid mechanism for the slaughter of young male calves from dairy herds. However, it is important first to try to restore confidence in the market. Confidence should be restored on the basis of what SEAC and others have said. If consumer confidence is restored it will have a very important and beneficial impact on the market. However, if for any reason that does not happen, I anticipate that I may have to come back to the House with further proposals. But that is not the position at the moment and, consequently, I am not doing that. Rather similar propositions apply to
728
compensation. My hon. Friend will note that I have not in any way suggested a cull policy. That being so, I am not suggesting a compensation policy.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister and the Secretary of State for Health keep hiding behind what they say is the best scientific advice. But surely the problem is that the scientific advice has been constantly overtaken by events and has been shown to be wrong. In 1989, the Southwood committee said that the cumulative total of cases by 1995 would be 20,000. It is now 155,000. The best scientific advice said that it was unlikely that the disease could be transmitted from cattle to humans, but it now says that it is likely to be so transmitted. [Interruption.] The word used is "likely". Before it was said that it was highly unlikely, but the scientists now say that the cases are likely to have been transmitted by BSE in cattle. Therefore, the Government's responsibility is to go beyond the scientific advice and get ahead of events: they should not wait for public confidence to plummet again. The first step that they should take is to ban the feeding of offal to cattle under the age of six months, as was recommended by the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1989.
Mr. Hogg: Of course Ministers have a responsibility, and that may sometimes go beyond simply acting on scientific advice. I accept that, but it is absolutely the case that any policy that one presents to the House must be considered and informed and proportionate to the risk. When one determines against those criteria what it is proper to bring to the House, one inevitably and rightly places enormous weight on the scientific advice. That is not to say that Ministers are thereby exonerated from making decisions, but it is to say that our decisions have to be justified in rational and informed terms. As I say, that means placing great weight on the expert and scientific advice that we receive.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly laid great stress on the competence and integrity of SEAC. Its recommendations are accepted, and we are all delighted that it has come out today in the way that it has. Can he assure us that the informed views that are being heard today by the standing veterinary committee in Brussels and which will be put to it again on Wednesday will be received by people who are, first, qualified to understand exactly what they are being told and, secondly, will not have been got at by their Governments in an attempt to defend the situation that they have brought upon themselves by imposing a unilateral beef ban on no basis whatever?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wholly right to draw attention to the importance of ensuring that those who serve on the standing veterinary committee and the scientific veterinary committee in Brussels are fully aware of the facts and arguments as they are determined by SEAC. SEAC probably contains the most prestigious and informed group of scientists on this topic anywhere in the world. We have taken enormous pains to ensure that members of the veterinary committees are aware—and will be continually informed—of the facts and considerations that have led SEAC to its conclusion.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that for six long years there has been consistent abuse by abattoir owners of the procedures that were recommended at the time of the original SBO ban—so much so that last year the Minister's officials undertook two studies, one of 163 slaughterhouses and the other of 120 slaughterhouses? It seems that they found abuses of the procedures in half the slaughterhouses that were surveyed. How is it possible that over all those years, while we were being told that the rules were being complied with in slaughterhouses, all this happened without officials in the Department or the state veterinary service even knowing that it was going on?
Mr. Hogg: It is true, and the hon. Gentleman knows, that instances have been found of non-compliance with SBO controls. In the latter part of last year in particular, those instances were made known by way of parliamentary answers.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I told you in a letter early last year.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes a sedentary intervention, but it matters not because I accept that there has been a degree of non-implementation of the controls. As I say, I made that plain by parliamentary answer. I called in the industry on at least two occasions. One of the important functions of the Meat Hygiene Service, which has taken over responsibility from local authorities for the enforcement of the requirements, is to supervise and enforce the controls more vigorously.
Mr. Quentin Davies: In retrospect, do not the Government deserve much credit for the regulations in 1989 banning the use of offal and for setting up the scientific advisory service in 1990? Despite this afternoon's reassuring statements, for which hon. Members and people outside will be grateful, do not two major problems remain? One relates to the single market. How can we possibly have a single market where there are national bans on certain products? Surely, if there had been a danger to human health through eating British beef, that beef should have been banned everywhere, including in this country. As there is no danger, there is no justification for its being banned anywhere else. What will my right hon. and learned Friend do to restore the integrity of the single market?
Secondly, is it not a problem that this country's beef industry has progressively become a by-product of the dairy industry? The overwhelming majority of beef comes either from dairy cattle or from crosses with dairy cows. Would it not be a good idea to consider whether beef farmers who wish to specialise in pedigree beef herds and to produce pure beef cattle should receive full recognition for that? Should we therefore not consider some form of certification procedure such as exists, I believe, in France?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a number of important suggestions. As to the latter suggestion, essentially, that is a matter for the industry, but, clearly, his suggestion has considerable force, although most prime beef that he would eat comes from specialist beef herds.
My hon. Friend suggests that the Government should claim credit for putting the SBO controls into place. The Government were performing their duty in that respect. It
730
is important to remind the House that, when those controls were put in place, the best evidence that we had and the best views that we could form were that the condition was not transmissible, but it was against a possibility of error that those controls were put into place. We thus had a belt-and-braces approach to the control of the disease.
For all the reasons that have been outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend and me, European Union countries are not entitled to erect a barrier against the importation of British beef.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Minister will recognise that, today, he cannot say with 100 per cent. certainty why we should believe the expert advice, which has been wrong on so many previous occasions. Nor can he say with 100 per cent. certainty that he will not have to return to the Dispatch Box to make yet another statement. Who appoints these so-called independent experts? Will he give an assurance that other people who may believe that they are experts will have all the evidence that is available so that they can check whether what we are now being told is correct?
Mr. Hogg: As to the publication of the evidence, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already made it plain that the relevant considerations will appear in the scientific journals. Consequently, anyone who disagrees with or wishes to criticise the considerations that have led SEAC to its conclusions can readily do so—the material will be available in the scientific journals, as has been consistently the case throughout the management of this business.
On the question of SEAC's standing, again, my right hon. Friend made a clear point on that. Professor Lacey, who is a critic of the conclusions, does not for a moment impugn the quality of the advisory committee. I believe that, in SEAC, we have the most qualified, eminent and distinguished group of people operating in this sector of disciplines anywhere in the world.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to redress the balance that has been created by people in other countries who are seeking to take commercial advantage from beleaguered British farmers, in respect of both dairy and beef farms, and from other people who depend on them for the goods that they sell here and abroad? Will he ensure that, in other countries, a proper summary is put in newspapers by way of advertisement, for example, so that people have an objective analysis against which they could form their judgments on British beef, which I ate on Sunday and again today?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Essentially, it is this: how best do we try to ensure that the debate in other European Union countries is as rational and as considered as that which we are seeking to have in this country, and that people can make decisions in the informed and considered way that we are able to do in this country because of the quality of the advice that we receive.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that I am astonished at his complacency while countries around the world are banning British beef, while slaughterhouses are closing,

731
while farmers in my constituency have been telephoning me all weekend distraught at what is happening and while meat renderers, butchers and processors are paying people off? All that is happening not because of any scaremongering by Labour Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Not at all. It is caused by the Government's panic, indecision and dogma. It is about time that they dealt with the matter with the urgency and seriousness that it deserves.
Mr. Hogg: We should go back to the basic facts: if CJD has been caused by BSE—and it seems that it may have been—that resulted from exposure before 1989. The advice that we have received and accept is that beef now is extremely safe—the risks are extremely small. Against that background, our common duty is to ensure that the public understand those basic facts because, if they do understand that the risk is extremely small, consumer and market confidence will be restored. The criticism that is properly made of Opposition Members—especially the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), whose comments are unjustified in many respects—is that their comments damage the confidence of both the consumer and the market.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pursue the instances of BSE in Germany, Holland, France and Italy so that those facts can be published and it can be shown that their regulations are much less stringent than ours? Will he consider the position in relation to marketing beef from herds that are absolutely free of BSE? It is wrong that farmers who have gone out of their way to keep BSE-free herds should suffer in the same way as other farmers. Cannot he design a way of either labelling or inspecting that meat for the market so that those farmers are not caught up in the general panic that has been expressed by Opposition Front-Bench Members?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the quality of beef in Britain compared with the quality of beef in countries in mainland Europe. It is true that, in a number of important respects, those other countries are operating a much less tight regime than Britain, in particular in the handling of SBOs and the contents of feed rations for ruminants. In those two respects, our controls are very much tighter than those operated in mainland Europe.
My right hon. Friend made an important point about marketing, although it is more specifically for industry to take advantage of the status that he identified than it is for MAFF to advise.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Surely one of the lessons to be learnt from this whole sorry saga is that food policy in this country should be rethought. Whatever Ministers have said today, the belief is that consumer interests have been subjugated to the interests of producers. [Interruption.] That is the general belief in this country and nothing that has been said today will change that.
Scientists have said today that people who may be worried about beef should not think that they can simply change to chicken, pork or any other meat because they are full of antibiotics which may bring their own risks. The consumer is totally confused.
732
The Minister boasts about taking note of scientific advice. Why did not the Government take note of their own committee's advice in 1989—the Tyrrell committee—which recommended research into the brains of slaughtered cattle to examine the incidence of unknown diseases? Why was that not done?
Mr. Hogg: On the question of food policy, it is clear that these sort of incidences will inform the way that we think about food. Lessons will be learnt. It is nonsense to suggest that policy does not develop against the background of emerging problems. We learn from experience and draw our lessons from what we now know. The hon. Lady can be certain of that.
The consumer interest is heavily protected in Britain. The weight of regulations currently in place shows the significance and importance attached to the consumer interest. I shall cite one example. The House will remember that in the latter part of last year I introduced restrictions on mechanically recovered meat. Now, I am being sued for having acted in, it is said, an irrational and disproportionate manner in doing that. That shows that we put public health first.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am conscious of the need to safeguard the remainder of today's business. I appeal to hon. Members to put brisk questions. I am sure that the Minister will oblige with brisk answers.
Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome the fact that the Government are not overreacting to the hysteria generated over the past few days by certain of the media, by the self-interested action of some of our competitors and, in particular, by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and some of her colleagues—in sharp contrast to the restraint shown by the Liberal Democrats on this issue.
Bearing in mind what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. Marland), my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and also that McDonald's and other organisations in this country that are banning British beef intend to import beef from Ireland, France and elsewhere, will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House of the risk of BSE infection being imported into this country by that means?
Mr. Hogg: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the hysterical reaction of a number of Opposition Members—and I include the nationalist parties in that. My hon. Friend referred to importing beef into Britain to satisfy the requirements of McDonald's. On the advice of SEAC, we believe that the position adopted by McDonald's is not justified on any assessment of the facts.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I do not wish to be hysterical, but I am sure that the Minister realises that his statement will do nothing for consumer confidence, and nor will it help the industry. I respectfully refer him to the fact that in Ireland the problem was virtually eradicated by selective culling in 1989, at a

733
comparatively small cost of £12 million. When will the Minister take a real, decisive step and not pass the buck and waste time?
Mr. Hogg: A number of policies can be pursued, but it is important to rest our conclusions on the best possible evidence and assessments. We have two important strategies. The first is to try to eliminate the incidence of BSE from the cattle herd. It is falling rapidly, but not fast enough. That is the justification for excluding from the animal feed chain the ruminant protein to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred. Secondly, on the question of public health—and we have concentrated for most of the past hour and a half on this—we believe that the arrangements now in place ensure that the risk from eating British beef is extremely low.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that throughout the west country, which is a major livestock area, there is considerable resentment that premature judgments have been made about the safety of beef, largely on the basis of certain irresponsible statements by politicians, journalists and other so-called instant experts? Does he agree that the greatest need now is to restore confidence in the beef market and the consumption of British beef? If a further package of measures is required to achieve that objective, it should be implemented sooner rather than later.
Mr. Hogg: We have a clear duty to inform the public and the House of any important conclusions or recommendations that come to us from SEAC. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I came to the House as expeditiously as we did last week with the information that we had, namely, that CJD may have been caused by BSE, the exposure having taken place before 1989. That we have to do. The central point is that exposure probably occurred before 1989. Thereafter, controls have been in place. My hon. Friend referred to confidence. I believe that there should be confidence in the safety of British beef, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend and I have been outlining over the past hour and a half.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the only way in which confidence in British beef will be restored among British and European consumers and the market generally is an assurance that no BSE-infected meat will enter the human food chain? Can he explain to the House why the research carried out by Mr. Narang in Newcastle, which was to develop a live test for BSE, was not continued and developed? If there were to be a live test, we would be able to begin to solve this horrendous problem.
Mr. Hogg: Obviously, it is vital to keep infected beef out of the human food chain; that is the purpose of the SBOs and that is why we have reinforced them. It is also true that it is highly desirable to develop a live test as soon as possible. At the moment, we do not have one and the best estimate is that we will not have one in the near future. I wish that it were otherwise, but I believe that what I have said represents the facts.
Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has been absolutely right this afternoon to keep underlining the importance of restoring the confidence of consumers in British beef. Will he call in the heads of those retail chains that are refusing to serve British beef and at least ask them to offer a choice between Dutch or other beef and British beef?
Mr. Hogg: That is an interesting suggestion, and I should like to reflect on it.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the Hansard report of the debate on BSE and CJD that I initiated on 10 January? If he has, how it is possible for him to state that stringent controls are operating to ensure that unsafe meat is removed from the food chain? May I express my appreciation of his Department, particularly the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), for arranging, following that debate, a briefing on BSE and CJD with his officials, which is due to take place on Wednesday? Why are his officials refusing to allow me to take along to that briefing as an advisor Dr. Stephen Dealler, a consultant microbiologist who has studied the issue since 1988?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words regarding my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I am glad that the briefing to which he has referred is being held. I do not dispute, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), that, from time to time, there has been non-compliance with SBO controls, to which the hon. Member for Wakefield apparently referred in his debate and which I am afraid I was unable to attend. That information was volunteered by my Department by way of a parliamentary answer. We are doing our utmost to ensure full compliance. I believe that now that people fully realise the significance of non-compliance, there will be infinitely better compliance, to the extent that one can say in any meaningful way that there will be full implementation. What I cannot guarantee is that we shall always avoid the possibility of some slight error. I think that we will get full implementation in the sense that it is ordinarily meant. If one asked whether that would be 100 per cent., the answer would be not always.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the two statements today have been encouraging, especially to those who have to make decisions on school meals? Does he further agree that those who stand back and take a practical, sensible and cool look at SEAC's advice must realise that the risk is infinitesimal? Does he also accept that those who are selling prime cattle this week, next week and the week after will face substantial losses? Will he assure me that if intervention buying is essential, it will be introduced quickly?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. As I mentioned on—I think—Wednesday, he has considerable experience in this field. I am conscious of the possibility that farmers who live in his constituency will be seriously affected by the loss of market confidence. It is for that reason that I drew attention to market support mechanisms in the common agricultural

735
policy. I am also grateful to him for welcoming what our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said regarding the risks to children and food provided in schools.
Mr. Tony Banks: It would have been helpful if Conservative Members who are farmers had declared their interests when they asked questions. We are in this situation mainly because we have interfered with nature. Feeding animal protein, especially diseased animal protein, to herbivores was clearly going to have severe implications.
On scientific evidence, would it not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to talk to Professor Richard Lacey, who, before 1989, was warning of a connection between humans and mad cow disease, but was dismissed as either making it up or as being lucky with his evidence? Was he making it up? Was he lucky with his evidence, just as he was about listeria and salmonella? Will the Secretary of State add Mr. Lacey and Dr. Narang to the committee of experts?
Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that different scientific opinions have been expressed on occasions during the past eight or 10 years. The Government have however brought together, as I have said before, probably the most authoritative group of experts on this subject in the world. We placed before the House last week the result of new information, and we did so with all possible speed.
Mr. Richard Alexander: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the dispassionate way in which he has dealt with the subject this afternoon and on his refusal to be panicked into taking drastic action—which was widely predicted in the press—that was not justified by scientific evidence? Has he learnt today that two further outbreaks of BSE have occurred in France? If it is appropriate for countries to ban our beef because of BSE, surely it is entirely appropriate, if BSE occurs in those countries, that we should institute such a ban against their products.
Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his support. I was not aware of the two cases in France. It is right to say that the scale of the problem on mainland Europe is quite different from the scale of the problem here, and that fact should inform our considerations. My hon. Friend does, however, make an important remark regarding the controls in Europe. It is right to keep in mind, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton stressed, that in a number of important respects, most especially relating to feed content and SBO controls, our regime is very much tighter than that which is found on mainland Europe.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Can the Minister clarify that the scientific advice that he has had about the safety of eating beef makes no distinction between beef from pedigree Aberdeen Angus herds, for example, and beef products such as sausages, pork pies, black pudding, and so on? Will he draw the lesson that it would be in everybody's interest—feed manufacturers as well as food processors—if all compounds that derived from animals were listed on product labels?
Mr. Hogg: One has to start from the basic proposition that, in the judgment of SEAC, British beef is safe and the risk involved in eating it is extremely low. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed from its statements—I am sure that he has read both statements, which were issued on Wednesday and earlier today—it has focused on the particular status of the older cow. For these purposes, that is the cow over the age of 30 months. To reinforce public confidence, it has introduced a deboning regime in respect of older beasts.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although consumers in my constituency can take great heart from the fact that the risk is extremely small, for farmers and their families in many areas, the results could yet be devastating? Does he also agree that if there comes a time when compensation in some shape or form has to be paid, we should be entitled to receive the same compensation from Europe as our European partners would demand for themselves? Does he further agree that the reason why the incidence of BSE may seem less on the continent is precisely because, as he said a few moments ago, their efforts to control it are the less?
Mr. Hogg: On the question of controls, I have no doubt that, as I have already said, our controls are very much tighter than those that one finds on mainland Europe. However, it is also true that the scale of the problem here is very much greater than that on mainland Europe, and I would not want to pretend otherwise in the House. I very much hope that we can get financial support from Europe—indeed, I expect to because of CAP market support mechanisms, to which I have already referred. I look to our colleagues in Europe to play their part in ensuring that the market is supported in Britain, if that is required.
Miss Kate Hoey: As someone who has always eaten British beef, and will continue to do so, particularly if it comes from organically raised cattle, may I ask the Minister to clarify one issue as there are some concerns about the meat that McDonald's and other chains are bringing from Europe? What evidence has he that the cattle, from which the beef that is now being imported has come, have never been fed on contaminated foodstuffs?
Mr. Hogg: That is an important question, but it is best put to the Dutch Minister and, of course, to McDonald's.
Mr. Roger Gale: May I express my sense of relief at the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have based their decisions on scientific evidence, not the scaremongering emanating from the Opposition Front Bench which, if followed through, would undoubtedly have led to the warranted slaughter of the millions of animals that make up the national herd. Is it not time that we clearly expressed the view that the continental ban on British beef has everything to do with commercial advantage and nothing to do with health? If the Commission approves the continuation of that continental ban, should not my right hon. and learned Friend follow it through to its logical conclusion and ban

737
the importation of veal, much of which, regrettably, still emanates from animals originally exported from this country?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has supported the recommendations and I am extremely grateful to him. It is important that we base our policy on an informed discussion of the facts and I am grateful to SEAC for making that possible. I have no doubt that some of the reaction that we have seen in Europe is motivated as much by commerce as by any other consideration. Some Ministers in Europe certainly do not question the scientific position that we are adopting, but are simply seeking to respond to anxiety among the public, which is quite different.
Mr. Hinchliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me and clarify the rules in the House on the disclosure of personal interests during statements? I sat through last week's two statements on BSE and CID, as well as today's statements, and I am concerned that a number of Conservative Members, who have direct pecuniary interests—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I assume that all hon. Members know the rules and it is for them to decide whether to declare an interest.

Orders of the Day

  Family Law Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before I call the Minister, I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has placed a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
  5.22 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Let no one doubt that marriage is intended for life. The current level of divorce at about 160,000 each year in England and Wales is a matter for regret and its relatively high rate in comparison with that of other European nations is a matter of concern. The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the institution of marriage by encouraging the process of reflection and consideration and by giving couples every opportunity to effect a reconciliation before divorce is granted. It will better protect the interests of the children of a marriage by reducing unnecessary acrimony and by ensuring that conduct is taken into account where it is relevant to the upbringing of children. In financial settlements, conduct will continue to be taken into account where it would be inequitable to disregard it.
  Divorce should not be available effectively on demand. Commitment to a lifetime of marriage should be emphasised to all those who propose to enter upon it.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I apologise for asking my right hon. Friend to give way so early in his speech. He used the word "continue" with regard to conduct in financial settlements, but surely he must acknowledge that, in almost all cases, courts currently disregard conduct. Two courts did so in a case where a wife had ousted her husband on false testimony and had assisted him in an attempt to commit suicide. The case went all the way to the Court of Appeal before even some account was taken of the conduct in it.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue and I know full well that he and other right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about it. However, that is a matter for the Standing Committee, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have a chance to advance his argument in the Standing Committee if the Bill receives a Second Reading. My hon. Friend will also be able to return to the subject when the Bill is on Report.
  The provisions of the Family Law Bill were brought forward after wide-ranging consultation. One of the most striking aspects of the consultation is that hardly anyone has supported the present method of dissolving marriages. The overwhelming majority of people agree that the present system is not working properly. Therefore, the Government have a clear duty to bring forward legislation to address the problem.
  The Bill has been the subject of careful and detailed scrutiny in another place. The Government have been able to draw on the considerable expertise on the subject

  739
  available in the other place and have been able to strengthen and refine the Bill's proposals in the light of suggestions. In particular, we have inserted in clause 1 a statement of the general principles underlying marriage, divorce and mediation.
  At present, the ground for divorce—the reason given to the court for seeking a divorce—is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. That can be proved by one of five facts, three of which are fault-based: adultery, intolerable behaviour and desertion. The other two facts are two years' separation with mutual consent and five years' separation without mutual consent. Most people use the fault-based facts. Under those facts, a divorce is often granted in less than six months and before arrangements for children, finance and property are settled. Allegations of fault are often exaggerated and unsupported.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend take it from someone who has failed to maintain his first marriage successfully that the idea that people going through divorce do not feel at fault is nonsense? Nearly everyone of whom I can think wants their marriages to succeed and if their marriages break down, they feel very much at fault. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the idea of being asked by a solicitor to list the most unreasonable behaviour that can be dreamt up for the other spouse while he or she is asked by his or her solicitor to do the same makes the possibility of either a reconciliation or making appropriate arrangements for children very much harder to achieve?
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend has put succinctly one of the main reasons for changing the procedures and criteria for divorce. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with the position put forward by my hon. Friend, and I am sure that when he winds up the debate he will refer to that crucial fact: recourse to the law and the disclosure of evidence concerning the alleged facts lead to acrimony and bitterness and, in many cases, are not in the children's interests.
  Figures for 1994 from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that, in a total of nearly 160,000 divorces, 26 per cent. used adultery as a reason for divorce, 45 per cent. used behaviour, 1 per cent. used desertion, 22 per cent. used two years' separation with consent and 6 per cent. used five years' separation without consent. Hence, in 72 per cent. of all cases, fault was the basis for the divorce—leading to divorce taking place in less than a year and often before arrangements are decided for children or financial matters. At present, the median period for all divorces in England and Wales is about seven months.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I am listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend is saying and I read some of the things that were said in the other place. I am concerned that we may be sending out the message that it is easy to marry and plan a divorce in 12 months. If one signs a hire purchase agreement on the same day, one has a longer commitment to that financial agreement than to the marriage. That worries many people and perhaps my right hon. Friend could comment on that.
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend, of course, appreciates that the present law prohibits divorce taking place within one year of marriage. Under the Bill, that period would
  740
  be extended by a further 12 months. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me as I develop my argument; it is important to lay out the arguments carefully for the benefit of the House, and I shall be dealing with some of them.
  I hope that hon. Members will listen to the reasons that we shall give for introducing the Bill. I appreciate that we should not send signals to the community—particularly to young people—that encourage the attitude that divorce is easily reversible or that marriage or divorce are available on demand. However, it is important to understand the underlying reasons why my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor brought the Bill before the House of Lords, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I shall enlarge upon them today.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Freeman: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I shall make a little progress and then give way. I will not depart from the point to which I think that my hon. Friend wishes to refer.
  Statistics published by OPCS show that the incidence of decrees based on allegations of behaviour to establish irretrievable breakdown has doubled from 21 per cent. in 1973 to 45 per cent. in 1994, whereas the use of five years' separation has dropped from 16 per cent. in 1973 to 6 per cent. in 1994. I shall outline the proposals and then give way to my hon. Friends.
  Under the proposed new system, which is intended to come into effect about two years after Royal Assent, the ground for divorce will remain the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. That will be established by the passage of a fixed period. It should substantially reduce the acrimony, hostility and legal costs associated with the current system. The Government want to ensure that there is an adequate period to test whether the marriage has genuinely broken down and to enable the couple to consider whether the marriage can be saved.
  Marriage involves mutual legal obligations of support and sharing that other relationships do not. Under the new system, during the minimum period for reflection and consideration before divorce can be granted, the couple will have to consider those obligations and decide arrangements for children, finance and property before the divorce can be granted. The couple can take longer than the minimum period to decide arrangements if necessary. Professional mediation services will assist in such matters. In some circumstances, the court can refuse to grant a divorce after the minimum period if one party can show hardship, either financial or non-financial.
  Mr. Bottomley: I refer my right hon. Friend to the comparison with hire purchase agreements. Is my right hon. Friend saying that, whereas almost three quarters of marriages break up in less than a year at present, no marriages would be ended in less than a year under the legislation? Has he seen the evidence gathered in Canada—where people must wait for at least one year for a divorce—which shows that up to one fifth of divorce petitions are withdrawn? In New Zealand, where the problems of the first marriage are tidied before a second marriage is possible, the success rate of second marriages is far higher than it was. Should we not view the legislation as a pro-marriage measure?
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. He reminds the House that, under the present procedure, people can be divorced in a few months. Under the Bill as it is presently drafted—even with a 12-month minimum period for reflection and consideration—no divorce can take place in less than a year. Therefore, by definition, the median length of time between marriage breakdown and divorce will rise.
  I am not familiar with the Canadian experience—perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to it in due course. However, evidence gathered by Bristol university revealed that 53 per cent. of men and 28 per cent. of women regret having entered into divorce, which can become largely irreversible once one relies on fault under the present system and begins the process of legal argument.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise that the Government wish to remove the rancour surrounding divorce and that the Bill may have the effect of reducing the number of quickie divorces based on fault. However, it is important to remember that our divorce rate is 41 per cent. Should we not do all that we can to minimise that figure? The effect of no-fault divorce in the United States in those states that introduced the measure more than four years ago—from about 1990—was a 24 per cent. increase in the number of divorces. While I understand the Government's intention in trying to promote the institution of marriage via their proposals, will they not have the opposite effect?
  Mr. Freeman: I believe that the evidence points in the other direction—therefore, the answer must be no. The Bill provides a mandatory 12-month minimum period for reflection and consideration. I believe—speaking personally—that that will lead to a downward pressure on the number of divorces. We are providing a cooling-off period during which individuals can reflect on the consequences of divorce, both on their children and financially. I hope that many will reconsider their decision.
  Mr. David Alton: Notwithstanding the good faith of the Minister, and of the Lord Chancellor, does he accept that there is genuine concern on both sides of the House that, as was the result of other legislation enacted in the past 20 years, it will lead to more rather than fewer divorces? Perhaps the most devastating change in the social landscape in the past 20 years is the number of children who are caught up in divorce, not least the 750,000 children who no longer have access to their fathers—something that results in all sorts of adverse consequences, of which the Minister is well aware. Would not the Bill be better if it contained more about reconciliation rather than mediation, more about preparation for marriage and about the impact that policies have on family life? In other words, would we not do more for family life if we helped families to stay together rather than making it easier for them to break up?
  Mr. Freeman: The reconciliation part of the process—to which I shall refer in detail in a moment—is as important as the mediation proposals, if not more so. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman: advice before and during marriage when there may be a breakdown is very
  742
  important. It must be funded and the normal sources of marriage guidance information should be reviewed to ensure that they are effective.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Freeman: Before I give way again, I shall confirm for the convenience of the House that the Government recognise that the Bill involves important issues of confidence. Therefore, we intend that there should be free votes on clauses 5 and 7—which I hope that hon. Members will accept encompass most of the key points on fault and on the length of period for reflection and consideration. I am well aware that there are free votes and free votes. The votes that I describe are genuine free votes, in which my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are included.
  It is my intention, and that of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to facilitate the drafting of amendments after Second Reading to ensure that they are accurate and, if passed, can be incorporated in the Bill. Effective from tomorrow, I offer the facilities of parliamentary draftsmen to all hon. Members who may wish to draft appropriate amendments to those two broad clauses in order to promote an informed debate.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Initially, I had considerable misgivings about the way in which the matter was handled politically. For 12 years, I dealt with virtually nothing but divorce law in practice and I learnt that the fault structure does not provide time for reflection: it provides an instant divorce, which exacerbates the opportunity to bring people together—if only to produce a good funeral for their marriage.
  If there is a defect in the Bill—I appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments—it is that it should emphasise more strongly the need for time for reflection and consideration so that people realise that it is harder to get out of marriage than they may have thought. They can use that time constructively. We should consider extending the one-year period to 18 months or two years. However, the idea that a moral audit can take place which will satisfy the concept of fault is not borne out by the experiences of divorce practitioners like me.
  Mr. Freeman: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Consideration of the Bill in Committee should reflect genuinely the divisions of opinion in the House: it should not be a narrow reflection of those views that might nominally be regarded as appropriate. My hon. Friend seems to be talking himself on to the Standing Committee.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the genuinely free vote will apply to parliamentary private secretaries also? They should not be obliged to vote: they should be allowed to absent themselves and not vote. Why can we not have a free vote on the whole Bill?
  Mr. Freeman: The answer to my hon. Friend's specific question is that it will be a genuine free vote. All Ministers and parliamentary private secretaries, including my own, will have a genuinely free vote. We are considering important matters of conscience. My hon. Friend asked why is it a Government Bill. The Lord

  743
  Chancellor, on behalf of the Government, has introduced a Government Bill that needs to be supported by a majority in the House, and to receive proper consideration on the Floor of the House, in Standing Committee and on Report. Perhaps I should remind the House that, in certain circumstances, even issues that are discussed in a Committee of the whole House can be considered again on Report.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Freeman: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).
  Dame Jill Knight: I am not sure whether he finished the point that he was making, but my right hon. Friend has laid it clearly on the line that the Bill abolishes the concept of fault. Some Members are in favour of that and some are not. Others are somewhat puzzled by its reference to conduct. Surely bad conduct is a fault. I do not understand how no fault will be judged, yet conduct will be judged. Will my right hon. Friend address that point?
  Mr. Freeman: I speak as a non-lawyer, but in the past, we have spoken about fault in a rather narrow, legalistic sense. Fault has been a reason for bringing a divorce action. Conduct is extremely important, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who raised the matter in an earlier intervention, was alluding to what he believes to be the need to strengthen schedule 8. That needs to be argued through, but I believe that the Standing Committee is the right place to do that.
  The conduct of a partner is extremely important in matters concerning children and the division of financial assets. I hope that my hon. Friend will not get caught up in too narrow a legalistic argument. There are faults on both sides in marriages that either continue or end in divorce. The aim of the Bill is to save marriages, not to create more divorces. Its main thrust is to create a period for reconciliation through advice and mediation on the division of assets, and that is one reason why we hope that it will reduce the number of divorces.
  Mr. John Patten: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speech thus far. I am sure that he is dying to get to the end of it, so I shall try not to delay him too long. As I am sure that he will appreciate, I do not necessarily agree with everything that he said; however, I congratulate him warmly on his splendid new constitutional convention of the real free vote as opposed to the free vote. We constitutionalists have longed to see that drawn out of the closet.
  Will my right hon. Friend wind his mind back to the point that he was making before this serial intervention? He said that, in his personal view, he judged that the Bill would bring about a reduction, and not an increase, in the number of divorces. I am sure that he recognises that he is speaking not in a personal context, but as a Government Minister. What is the Government's prediction and what is his firm policy view as to whether the Bill will reduce or increase the number of divorces?
  Mr. Freeman: I am sorry if I confused my right hon. Friend. As the Bill provides for a minimum period for reflection and consideration of 12, 18 or 24 months—at present, it contains a provision of 12 months as agreed in the other place—there will be a lengthening in the period before divorces can occur. That must be mathematically correct because, at present, it is possible to obtain a divorce after a matter of a few months. As to supporting the argument about the total number of divorces, it is probably more accurate to reflect that as a proportion of the number of marriages rather than as an absolute number, but however we define it, I understand that my right hon. Friend wants some evidence or argument in detail. It is a central point, and the Parliamentary Secretary is planning to deal with it when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Is it not important that a clear signal goes out from Parliament that those who faithfully abide by their marriage vows will not be treated in exactly the same way as people who deliberately violate their marriage vows? I agree that it would be inappropriate to bring in concepts of fault at the dissolution stage, or the stage at which custody of the children is considered; however, the concept of fault or conduct should be an important factor for the court to consider when dividing property between a husband and wife.
  Mr. Freeman: That is clearly understood. The matter has already been referred to in interventions. I assure my hon. Friend that the courts already have the power to take into account conduct and the implications of conduct. The point has been made that that power is not discharged as efficiently and effectively as some hon. Members would like. That is best dealt with in Standing Committee rather than on the Floor of the House.
  I shall endeavour to make rapid progress, as it is important to lay some facts before the House and I am aware that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.
  Let me turn to the proposed new separation and divorce procedures. It is obviously of critical importance that marriages should not be dissolved if they can be saved. The mechanism for testing breakdown must be clear and unambiguous. The Government's proposal in the Bill is, therefore, that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage should be established solely by the passage of a fixed period of time. It will be a period for reflection, and for consideration of whether the marriage can be saved, and it will provide an opportunity to effect a reconciliation or to think about what arrangements can be made for the future should divorce be inevitable.
  We recognise that whether allegations of fault should have any place in the divorce process is a matter of conscience for some hon. Members. As I have already said, the Government intend to allow a free vote on that issue.
  The period of time for reflection and consideration would start by the lodging of a neutral statement that one or both parties believed that the marriage had broken down. Such a statement would not contain allegations, nor would it state that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. One of the concerns that emerged most strongly in debates in another place was the need to ensure

  745
  that proper emphasis was placed on reconciliation through the divorce process. The Bill has been strengthened in that area by ensuring that the possibility of reconciliation is always before the parties. As it now stands, the Bill states that one of the purposes of the period is to provide an opportunity to effect a reconciliation.
  It is important to make it clear that the Bill will allow the door to reconciliation to remain open throughout the divorce process. Couples will be able to attempt reconciliation at any time during the period without prejudicing their position and may also suspend the period if they want longer to attempt a reconciliation.
  Between 20,000 and 30,000 couples each year start divorce proceedings, but do not proceed to divorce. I believe that the number proceeding to divorce is likely to decrease under the new system. At the information meeting, parties will be told about marriage counselling and other support services, about the importance to be attached to the welfare, wishes and feelings of children and about how they may acquire a better understanding of the ways in which children can be helped to cope with the breakdown of a marriage. They will be told about the financial issues that may arise on divorce or separation and the services that are available to help, such as mediation and the availability to each of them of independent legal advice about the divorce and separation process. Couples will be much better placed than at present to understand what divorce is likely to entail. As a result, I expect more couples to decide to try to keep their marriage going. I have already dealt with the Bristol university study on those matters.
  The Lord Chancellor has taken over the funding of marriage support services so that there can be the best possible integration of the policy on supporting marriage with that on divorce law. The Government have set up an interdepartmental official working party on marriage to see how best use can be made of the resources available to support those who are considering marriage and those whose marriage is in difficulty.
  Research since the last major reform of the ground for divorce has shown us how important it is to try to reduce conflict in separation and divorce cases, to reduce at least some of the damage caused to children. It is clear that the children who do best after divorce are those whose parents reach amicable arrangements for the future of their children and co-operate in the upbringing of their children even though living separately. In those important respects—the improvement of communication and the reduction of conflict—mediation has been shown to be most effective.
  Mediation has enormous potential in appropriate cases, so part III provides for the Legal Aid Act 1988 to be amended, to allow parties who are eligible to apply for state funding for the use of mediation. Any mediation will not become compulsory.
  Legal advice will be available in support of mediation for those who need it and will be state funded for those who are eligible. When couples mediate, they negotiate together with the help of a neutral mediator—in other words, they represent themselves in negotiations. They should not need a lawyer to represent them in those same negotiations. They may, however, need legal advice and assistance in support of mediation and, as I said earlier, that will continue to be available when needed.
  746
  It is important that a couple should face up to the practical consequences, including the financial consequences, of divorce before they end their marriage. By confronting what life will be like after divorce, they may realise that it is not what they want. Clause 9 requires the couple to have decided their financial arrangements before they can divorce. The court is currently under a duty to take the conduct of the parties into account when considering financial provision on divorce, where it would be inequitable to disregard it.
  The most significant change to the present law is that financial provision and property adjustment orders can be made before the separation or divorce order is made but cannot take effect before that time. The only circumstances in which such orders can take effect before divorce or separation is where the circumstances are exceptional and it would be just and reasonable for the orders to do so. It is important that the orders are capable of being made before the divorce order or separation order, so that the couple are compelled to focus on the consequences that will result, if they go ahead and get divorced.
  Mr. John Redwood: What would my right hon. Friend say to a man or woman who feels that he or she has done nothing wrong, and would like their marriage to continue for their own sake or that of their children, but whose spouse has decided to petition and would—as I understand the Bill—be granted a divorce 12 months later? Is that not a grave change from current law, whereby the spouse has to wait much longer, separated, before he or she can get a divorce?
  Mr. Freeman: I understand the strength of feeling of people who—on moral, religious, spiritual grounds—feel that they cannot become party to a divorce and for whom, at present, divorce might have to wait five years. When we debate clause 7 on the Floor of the House, my right hon. Friend may advance an amendment to protect those persons who feel strongly that the minimum period of reflection and consideration should be longer. Without over-emphasising and placing too much weight on clause 10, which contains the hardship bar, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that an application to extend the minimum period depends on not only financial but non-financial hardship. That point will be debated, argued and perhaps further amended in Committee.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend knows that a large number of us are opposed in principle to the Bill, but while we can exercise our conscience, some hon. Members on the payroll might find that more difficult. Can my right hon. Friend give the assurance that, in addition to the genuine free votes on clauses 5 and 7, he will consider free votes on the hardship bar in clause 10 and on court orders, which are dealt with in clause 14 and schedule 2, on the Floor of the House? Those provisions are also germane and central to the Bill, and it is important that those of us who can exercise our consciences look after the interests of those hon. Members who cannot.
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will have read the committal and business motions. I am prepared to reconsider those issues as grounds of conscience, but I am

  747
  not persuaded at present. If my hon. Friend can persuade me, we can return to those issues on Report, on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for indulging me a second time. My right hon. Friend referred to property settlements. As someone who supports the Second Reading, I put it to my right hon. Friend that unless we make the one-year bar—some of us would like the period to be a little longer—absolute on final orders on property, without any just and reasonable let-out of the sort that my right hon. Friend described, and through which our liberal-minded judges could run a coach and horses, we would find that although the divorce on paper would be held for a year, de facto the family home could still be broken up in a matter of weeks. The divorce would take effect in those cases that the court ruled to be exceptional—which, as asylum seekers and everyone else finds, can be case after case after case in far too many instances. We must tighten up the Bill and remove the exceptions.
  Mr. Freeman: I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling, as he represents the Conservative family forum. There may be cases in which one party becomes terminally ill, disabled or desperately needs somewhere to live, to facilitate seeing his or her children. I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that that matter will in Committee receive the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is well aware of the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has in mind—he too seems to be talking himself on to the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Concern is felt by many people, including by couples who go for mediation—which I certainly encourage, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman outlined—that they may be disfranchised. They can take legal advice for mediation, but that may jeopardise taking a second opinion because mediation is not to do with negotiation but with trying to work things out. Either spouse might want a second opinion from a solicitor or lawyer. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that legal aid will not be available in that respect?
  Mr. Freeman: My understanding is that mediation would not jeopardise the ability to seek a second opinion. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is more qualified than I in such matters, will clarify that point if necessary.
  Sir Jim Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the evidence is that children are the principal sufferers in a divorce, whether it is amicable or contested? The majority of divorces are petitioned because of fault in the short term. Those of us who have served constituencies for a long time know that the most pressing reason for change is the effect that divorce has on children. Everything that my right hon. Friend has suggested so far will improve the situation, not destroy it.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observation. The interests of the children in a divorce must be paramount. I am sure that the House will support anything that can be done to protect their interests and to avoid wounds that can last a lifetime.
  748
  I refer next to the minimum time for reflection and consideration, and to pension splitting. Some individuals who have contributed to discussion of the Government's proposals have suggested that the longer the period, the more chance there is that there will be a reconciliation. The Bill sets the minimum period at one year. On the one hand, the period should be sufficiently long to give parties a realistic amount of time in which to reflect on whether the marriage could be saved, but also a realistic time within which the practical questions about children, home and finances can be resolved. On the other hand, the period is meant to be an active period of reflection and consideration. If it is too long, the parties could postpone active consideration of their situation—thereby making it more likely that their marriage breakdown becomes irretrievable, as the longer the time the more likely it is that attitudes will become hardened. Alternatively, they simply walk away from the marriage that has broken down into a new relationship, without any of the practical questions being resolved.
  The majority of responses to the Law Commission and the Government's consultations favoured a period of 12 months. In particular, that period was regarded by the main children's organisations as being long enough, and they recently repeated that advice. An extremely important factor in deciding the appropriate length of time is that when children are involved, uncertainty is bad for them. It cannot be stressed too strongly that 12 months is a long time in the life of a young child living with uncertainty. Too long a period would prolong the agony not only for the adults, but for the children. Children are after all the innocent victims of marriage breakdown. It is vital that the divorce law should do all that it can to minimise the damaging effect of divorce on children. Recognising that, it is vital that, so far as possible, children emerge after the divorce having a good relationship with both parents.
  There have been suggestions that if the minimum period for reflection and consideration was lengthened to say 18 or 24 months, the period should be capable of being abridged in exceptional circumstances. The Government believe that there should be an absolute minimum period to demonstrate irretrievable breakdown. It is the Government's view that there should be no abridgement below 12 months. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill are adequate to deal separately with circumstances of domestic violence.
  I accept that this issue is controversial and a matter of conscience and I repeat my offer to meet any right hon. or hon. Member to begin the process of drafting amendments.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend is right that this is an area of controversy. Many people might regard the fact that children thrive better after an amicable divorce as a myth that is perpetrated by people who want a divorce. Is not it true that recent research shows that even those children who live in unhappy marriages thrive better in the long run—because they have both parents at home—than those who are subject to divorce?
  Mr. Freeman: I understand the strength of feeling and that is precisely why we are determined to have genuinely free votes, for Ministers and Back Benchers alike. I look forward to a serious debate and my hon. Friend's contribution to it.
  Mrs. Peacock: To add to that point, there is great concern also that when divorce takes place children are left usually with their mother and sometimes another relationship develops. The father is not present and, on occasions, children are ill-treated by the mother's new partner because they are not his children. There are statistics that prove that point and we must not say that children are so much better off once they are removed from a family through divorce.
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right that one cannot be dogmatic about this issue. There is evidence on both sides and it is a question of reaching a balance, as in most of our legislation, on what is in the interests of children overall.
  We have modified the provisions of the current hardship bar contained in clause 10. As the Bill now stands, if the court is satisfied, on the application of one party, that the legal dissolution of the marriage would cause substantial hardship to that party or to a child of the family, for financial or non-financial reasons, and that it would be wrong in all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and the interests of any child of the family, for the marriage to be dissolved, the court may order that the marriage not be dissolved. That will apply to all cases, not just to the 6 per cent. of divorces that proceed on the basis of five years' separation, as at present. There have been criticisms that, because of the way in which the hardship bar operates under the present law, it is ineffective. The changes we have made demonstrate the Government's commitment to making it an effective protection against substantial hardship caused by the divorce itself, where such protection is needed.
  Mr. Alton: May I draw attention to a case in Liverpool two years ago, in which a constituent of mine, when she said that she wanted her marriage to continue, was told by a judge that she was living in mediaeval times if she dared to suggest that she was being divorced against her will? Will the Minister assure the House that this new provision will be transmitted to judges in such a way that they will realise that when people involved in divorces say that they do not wish to be divorced against their will, their feelings will be taken into account?
  Mr. Freeman: On behalf of the Lord Chancellor, I can give that assurance. It is not only important to get the legislation right, but it is important to communicate the intentions of Parliament to the judiciary in a fair and impartial way. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Pensions can be an important element in the totality of assets, financial and otherwise, that form the basis for an equitable financial settlement between divorcing couples. The Government have already taken a number of steps to ensure that pensions are fully recognised in such settlements.
  In the Pensions Act 1995, we clarified the courts' existing duty to take pensions into account in financial settlements, which had not always been recognised in practice. The courts already have the power to order maintenance payments to the ex-spouse, payable from the former partner's income including pensions. But the Pensions Act 1995 extended that power to allow the courts to order a pension scheme to pay the relevant sum from the scheme member's pension, including any lump sums payable, directly to the ex-spouse, when the pension
  750
  comes into payment. I take the opportunity here to clear up any confusion on this matter—the courts will not be constrained to order a 50:50 allocation: they will have the flexibility to order whatever allocation or none, as seems appropriate. Those provisions will take effect from July this year.
  During the passage of the Bill through the other place, some of the noble Lords argued that the courts should be given the power to split the pension fund itself at the time of divorce—again, not necessarily 50:50. We have always recognised the force of the arguments in favour of pension splitting, especially the contribution towards achieving clean-break settlements.
  However, the technical complexities of pension splitting should not be underestimated. Let me mention just two. An occupational pension is deferred pay, and it is the relationship between employer and employee that governs the pension scheme and the related tax reliefs and benefits. If the pension is split, the former wife would effectively become a pension scheme member on an entirely different basis from the other scheme members. The employer's obligations to this new member would have to be defined, making sure that the scheme's tax-approved and, in some cases, contracted-out status was not placed in jeopardy. Similarly, it would be necessary to define the obligations of the pension scheme's trustees and managers and what rights the ex-wife might acquire, including benefits for her dependants.
  We must also have regard to the effects on public spending of any changes. It is vital to ensure that former spouses—usually wives—are not able immediately to withdraw their portion of the pensions of members of unfunded public service schemes. Otherwise, that could mean immediate public expenditure costs of up to £500 million a year in the early years. The position of the state earnings-related pension scheme and its interaction with guaranteed minimum pensions must also be safeguarded.
  Those are just two sets of complications. There are many others. We have already identified some 30 Acts of Parliament that would need changing. That is why the Government resisted the Opposition's amendment in the other place which sought to achieve immediate pension splitting. Indeed, the scale of the complexity is demonstrated by the fact that the Opposition's amendment, drafted with the help of some of the best minds in the pensions industry, is still defective and insufficient. It fails to give the wide powers necessary to make pension splitting a reality. Indeed, it would be quite unreasonable to take such wide powers before fully working through how they would be used.
  We believe that the best way forward is to introduce proposals that are of genuine benefit to individuals, that are workable for pension scheme administrators, and that are affordable for taxpayers. Given the scale of the task, and the importance of getting it right, it is simply not feasible to introduce pension splitting in the Bill. No sensible person would want to foist an unworkable set of provisions on to courts and pension schemes.
  The Government accept, however, that pension splitting is right in principle. We will publish a Green Paper in the summer to consult about how it can be achieved, and we will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity thereafter to put that principle into practice. That legislation will replace or amend the Opposition's

  751
  amendment, which does not fully achieve what we assume is the intention and which could otherwise have undesirable and unintended consequences, given its acknowledged incompleteness. As a measure of our acceptance of the principle we will not be seeking to overturn clause 15.
  Mr. John Butterfill: I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend has had to say, but what would be the likely time scale of any new legislation? Much work has been done behind the scenes by those who are concerned about this matter, including the National Association of Pension Funds, the Association of Consulting Actuaries and others. It therefore seems likely that a Bill could be brought forward quite quickly if there were a quick consultation period.
  Mr. Freeman: It will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to commence the process. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I have discussed this matter with Ministers in the Department of Social Security and we will get on with it. The commitment to publish a Green Paper in the summer—probably July—is a firm commitment. I cannot give a commitment as to when a Bill will be introduced, but we agree with the principle and we are leaving the clause in the Bill. We shall issue a Green Paper and we will legislate as quickly as possible thereafter.
  Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that—on the question of pension splitting—not the least consideration is to come up with a scheme that will provide a deterrent to divorce, not an inducement?
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend touches on an important point—the tax consequences for those who are not married as compared with those who are. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I assure my hon. Friend that he and I are both aware of the issue. I shall draw to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention the comments of my hon. Friend—and I dare say of others—in this regard.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Should people considering lodging a divorce petition and wanting to take advantage of the new pension splitting arrangements delay until after 1 July?
  Mr. Freeman: The earmarking provisions come into effect this July—I refer to earmarking when the pension is paid. That does not necessarily, however, protect the spouses of those who have died. Sometimes a pension may not be in payment so as to be able to be earmarked or split. I can assure my hon. Friend, though, that the provisions will come into effect in July; and that legal advice should be sought from those competent to provide it, not from a Minister unversed in the law of pensions. For further information, my hon. Friend might like to write to me or to the Parliamentary Secretary, and we will endeavour to give him further detailed advice.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Given the complexities of the issue the Government should obviously consult further, but am I right in thinking that implementation may not be delayed much in any event?
  752
  The mediation element in the Bill will take two years to implement, so the processes of consultation in respect of pension splitting may have been concluded by then, and can thus be implemented at the same time.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of the timetable in which the measure will become effective. It is important not to send the wrong signal about pension splitting. The argument has to do with protecting the legitimate rights of spouses who get divorced but do not enjoy the benefits of a pension scheme. At the same time, we want to ensure that we have thought the subject through—both the policy and the practical implications, direct and indirect.
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am glad that the Government accept the principle of pension splitting, but it would seem from what my right hon. Friend has said, and from what some of us already know, that interfering with pension funds and occupational schemes is an immensely complex business. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has mentioned several Acts of Parliament referring to the issue.
  Is it not possible, even at this late stage, to consider a scheme that splits the entitlement to a pension between the beneficiary and the original wife or husband, instead of trying to tamper with the pension scheme itself? If we do not do that, I fear that these problems will be resolved in the courts for years to come, so complex are they.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The courts already have the power to take into account the accrued rights of a pension scheme in the allocation of assets. This July, a further provision comes into effect: the allocation of a pension when it is paid—the so-called earmarking provision. I am agreeing on behalf of the Government to a third stage, which is a logical development: splitting the pension assets themselves. That gives rise to fundamental and difficult problems, and we shall have to consult thoroughly with the help of the National Association of Pension Funds.
  I apologise for going on at length. I turn, finally, to part IV, which deals with domestic violence and the occupation of the family home. This part of the Bill substantially reintroduces the provisions of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, which was before the House in the last Session. Controversial points arose on that Bill at a late stage, and unfortunately the timetable did not allow it to complete its passage in that Session. A number of amendments have been made to the contents of the earlier Bill to clarify the principle that the courts must take into account the difference between marriage and cohabitation when settling occupation orders.
  We shall introduce at the conclusion this evening a motion for committal to the Floor of the House of the clauses relevant to free votes.
  As the Lord Chancellor has stated, and as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members are well aware, this is an important Bill that deals with areas fundamental to people's lives. It will lengthen the median period in which a divorce order can be made. It gives couples both the information and the time that they need to consider whether they can effect a reconciliation; and it makes them focus on the consequences of divorce, regarding financial matters and, more importantly, children, before they take this step.

  753
  Ministers have always said that we should be happy to listen to suggestions for the improvement of the Bill's proposals, consistent with the principles that we have set out. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Families are the natural, fundamental units of our society, and safe, secure marriages are the most certain buttress of those families. We shall be concerned in the course of our deliberations to ensure that nothing that we do here adds to the strain and stress already manifest around the institution of the family.
  The history of the House legislating in the area of family law has not been altogether happy. In 1969, we stated as a House that the objective of what is now the law was
  "to buttress rather than undermine, the stability of marriage, but when a marriage had irretrievably broken down, to enable the empty legal shell to be destroyed with the maximum fairness, and the minimum bitterness, distress and humiliation".
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: With his knowledge of history, the hon. Gentleman may recall that it is almost 150 years since a Government introduced a Bill on divorce. The Leo Abse Bill was a private Bill taken through with Government assistance, but it is not usual for a Government to bring in such legislation.
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is because this is a Government Bill that we have a special responsibility to get it right, and we shall do so together for as long as it takes in the weeks and months ahead.
  Since the Divorce Reform Act 1969, the incidence of divorce has escalated, with the consequential increase in bitterness and alienation on the part of the parties to it. All too often, the children are forgotten during the battles fought out in divorce proceedings. Moreover, the House Library estimates that the consequences of divorce cost the country about £5 billion per year.
  The impact of the current law on marriage can be clearly seen in the statistics. Men and women are marrying later, and fewer of them are marrying. More and more people are divorcing younger and younger and after ever shorter marriages. In 1951, 10 per cent. of marriages had ended in divorce after 25 years. By contrast, 10 per cent. of couples who married in 1971 were divorced by their sixth wedding anniversary and 10 per cent. of those who married in 1981 had divorced within four and a half years. It is a problem with immense human consequences.
  Labour Members will be guided by the following criteria: how we can best support marriage and family life, how we can best encourage shared parental responsibility and how we can best protect vulnerable family members. Each part of the legislation must be judged against those criteria.
  We welcome the fact that the Government, in sponsoring the Bill, have recognised their responsibility to ensure that there will be free votes on those parts of the Bill which are peculiarly matters of conscience. Other matters, however, are equally important. I very much hope that there will be a prevailing spirit on both sides of the House that enables us
  754
  to approach them in a manner that is free from partisan considerations. Partisan considerations should not apply because every hon. Member and every Government—present or future—will have to live with the consequences of the legislation that we make. We must approach our consideration of the Bill with that thought very much in mind.
  At the heart of the Government's proposals is the notion that the family's interests are better protected by mediation than by the adversarial approach that is all too often associated with lawyers and with the current law. The Lord Chancellor has referred to that aspect on a number of occasions, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to it in introducing the Bill. That proposition must be tested with great care. While mediation undoubtedly has a role to play, and I welcome it, we must ensure that an infrastructure is in place for it and that it is undertaken by properly qualified people. There are gaps in the Bill in relation to such provision.
  In appropriate cases, there is a role for mediation, but it is folly to believe that it is primarily concerned with justice and equity, because it is not. Mediation is about arriving at a settlement with a minimum of conflict, whereas conflict is sometimes necessary to achieve justice and equity. During our deliberations on the Floor of the House and in Committee, we must ensure that we do not propose a two-tier divorce system which says, in effect, "If you can afford a lawyer, you will receive justice and equity; if you cannot afford a lawyer, it will be the mediators for you." That cannot be right, and we must ensure that it is not a consequence of the Bill.
  The matter does not end there, because there is another confusion at the heart of the Bill, which the Lords were beginning to tease out so as to remedy it. The confusion arises from the notion that mediation and reconciliation are somehow interchangeable; they are not. Mediators tell us that they are not concerned to effect reconciliation or to save those marriages which can be saved. They have another interest, which in some senses may be opposed to the achievement of reconciliation between the parties. Their interest is to achieve the speediest possible resolution of outstanding conflicts about the disposal of property, the children's future and parental responsibility.
  Reconciliation is a very different matter. The Bill says much about mediation, but much less about reconciliation. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his opening remarks, did not allay my concerns on that score.
  Mr. Leigh: In the hon. Gentleman's view, is there an arguable case for extending the time so that people can have at least six months for reconciliation before mediation even begins?
  Mr. Boateng: There is no point in approaching the issue on the basis that there would necessarily be greater attempts at reconciliation if one had 18 or 24 months to wait as opposed to 12 months. That would be a mistake. That is not to say that, in Committee, we should not try to ensure that some time is designated in which reconciliation is the focus and to discover where the link can be made between that opportunity—whether it is through meetings with marriage guidance counsellors or in some other way—and the information meeting. It is an illusion to suppose that at the information meeting a magic wand can be waved that will direct people in the "right direction" of mediators, lawyers and people concerned with reconciliation, because it will not happen.

  755
  In Committee, we must examine in much more detail what form the information sessions or meetings will take and what opportunities there will be for people to go from information meetings into a process that is primarily about reconciliation rather than mediation. We shall table amendments on that issue in Committee.
  The Government also need to deal with the issue of infrastructure—I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it at the end of this debate—and the related issue of resources. The Chancellor mentioned that it would be necessary to make resources available for reconciliation. I do not know what thought has been given during the preparation of the Bill to the exact scale of resources that will be necessary. It has been said—the Lord Chancellor's Department has gone on at some length about it—that the Bill is a cost-neutral measure, but that is impossible. As currently constituted, the measure cannot be cost neutral. If it is intended, in appropriate cases, that there should not be a reduction of access to legal advice, assistance and representation, that it will continue to be available under the legal aid scheme and that there will be access to mediation, reconciliation, marriage guidance and counselling, where will the money come from? How much will it cost?
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only a question of resources, however important those are, but of people? It is unlikely that an army of people will emerge like terracotta Chinese soldiers from the ground to reconcile and to mediate. Will such people be available and can they be trained in time? Will the effort be put in to ensure that the people are available as well as the money?
  Mr. Boateng: That is another unanswered question. The Government must publish their figures, as we have asked them to do in the past. Some costing must have been done during the preparation of this measure. If the House is to give the Bill the detailed consideration that it must have, we must know how much it will cost. If we do not know that, anything that Ministers say about the importance that they attach to reconciliation will amount to little more than weasel words and pie in the sky. As the Chancellor recognised, one cannot hope to have adequate machinery for reconciliation without resources being made available for it. We ask that the Government publish the figures, that we have an informed debate on the resource implications of the Bill and that the pretence that the Bill is cost neutral be abandoned. If cost neutrality is to be obtained by abandoning access to legal aid, I have to inform Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department that we shall fight them tooth and nail.
  There are some cases in which mediation is simply not appropriate. That is most true in cases involving violence against women. To ask a woman who has been the victim of repeated assaults and who has been terrorised in her own home to sit down in the same room as her victimiser and oppressor and to believe that there can be a hope in hell of that resulting in adequate mediation is to live in cloud cuckoo land.
  My experience of family law dates back to the very start of my career as an articled clerk—long before going to the Bar—when I acted for a marvellous woman called Erin Pizzey, who was a founder of the women's refuge movement. There is not an estate in south London around
  756
  which I have not been chased by a wife batterer or partner, for the entirely innocent reason that I attempted to serve an injunction on him.
  I know what it is for a woman even to contemplate bringing an action to deal with a violent man. We want to ensure that women have ready access to legal aid for that purpose and that disadvantaged women generally have access to legal aid. The Bill needs to be strengthened so that people responsible for the perpetuation of violence in the home are dealt with adequately.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken but, as I understand it—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—mediation is legally aided and not compulsory and those parties who do not want it can still obtain legal aid to consult solicitors in the usual way.
  Mr. Boateng: Like the hon. Lady, we look forward to receiving the clearest assurances along those lines. The thrust of the Bill is to do little more than encourage people to move towards mediation. We are anxious to dispose of that element which comes perilously close to compelling the party relying on legal aid to adopt mediation rather than any other court-based remedies. There must be a free choice in that respect.
  We want the scourge of domestic violence—for it is nothing less than a scourge—dealt with in the Bill. The Bill makes some welcome additions to the law in this area, but it is right to consider how it can be improved still further. On that point, we need do little more than consult those who deal daily with domestic violence and who are to be found in women's refuge movements and district courts across the country. District court judges have to deal with the nuts and bolts of family law in relation to domestic violence.
  There is one point, to which we shall return in Committee, on which the Government may well need to think again. I refer to undertakings and their role in combating domestic violence. I am thinking especially of Judge Stephen Gerlis and his experience. He said that undertakings
  "have clear advantages—they reduce confrontation, they avoid the need for full, often lengthy hearings and findings of fact, there are no winners and losers thus mitigating feelings of resentment. Because of these effects, they are breached somewhat less than injunctions. To put it plainly—they are popular and they work."
  It is his view, and he is not alone, that elements of the Bill are a disincentive to undertakings. We want that examined in Committee. We also want to examine in Committee the link between the new warrant of arrest—the concept and the order—and undertakings themselves to see whether there is scope for new warrants of arrests to be attached to undertakings. These are all aspects of the law that we should approach with a view to ensuring zero tolerance of domestic violence.
  The Bill will require careful scrutiny. It contains welcome elements, but its faults need to be remedied. In the area of family law, we cannot pretend that there is no such thing as culpability or that what is decided in the House and enacted in law has no bearing on the nation's approach to family and marriage or the nation's perception of family and marriage. Similarly, however, we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that it was somehow possible to reverse deep-rooted trends in our society simply by passing an Act of Parliament.

  757
  We cannot legislate for domestic virtue—nor, in all humility, are we as a House especially suited to do so. What we can do, however, is to send important messages about what is valued in our society. We value families—the domestic relationship and the safety and security provided for children by families—and we must make it clear that we are not prepared to see the family continually eroded. That is why, in our consideration of the Bill, we shall make a specific proposition to change the way in which we approach and monitor family law.
  Inadequate attention has been given to the impact of family law on the institution of the family. Reference was made to the experience of Canada and Australia. Australia is especially interesting. In the 1970s, the Australian Parliament held a debate similar to this and similar concerns were expressed about what the move to no-fault divorce would entail. There was concern about the message that would be sent out, and about the impact on family life and the institution of marriage. It has to be said that the evidence from Australia is that there has not been an escalation of divorce as a result of the move to no-fault divorces. The research also seems to show that there is much room for good work to be done—this was found to be so in both Australia and New Zealand—through early intervention in terms of marriage guidance and counselling and that marriages can indeed be saved if there is a proper approach to education for marriage.
  All too often, of necessity—it is perhaps in the nature of the Bill—our consideration of what might be done has focused on almost the last moment. What about considering what we might do at the beginning? What about considering what we might do in introducing registration for marriage? What about provision of information for those who intend to marry? Despite the increase in marriage failures, in terms of numbers and earliness, the evidence is that most people still want to marry. Most people continue to share the fantasy of what a perfect marriage might be, but all too often the fantasies with which we surround marriage cause the failure of marriages. We have an ideal notion of what marriage might be, but unfortunately, when that ideal is confronted with the difficulties and challenges of sustaining a relationship, it is unable to endure.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have been blessed with two happy marriages. Would the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that even the happiest marriages include difficult periods? Surely it is far better to make divorce more difficult so that couples have to run through those difficult stages.
  Mr. Boateng: We must ensure that people enter into marriage with something approaching a realistic expectation of what is involved. We must also ensure that when the stresses and strains of domestic life begin to emerge there is somewhere for the people concerned to confront those stresses and strains. There should be help available to show them a way through. That is a responsibility that the House must recognise.
  The experience of Australia and Canada has shown that if no-fault divorce is to be given a chance of working and not contributing towards deterioration of the fabric of society, it must be introduced within the context of greater
  758
  emphasis on counselling and guidance. That is what the House must commit itself to in the weeks and months ahead.
  If the Lord Chancellor's Department is to take on the role of seeing through the pilot projects that are to be the precursors of the proposed legislation, and if it is to have the role of funding marriage guidance and counselling, it must itself seek guidance. I do not believe that the Department as constituted and the civil servants within it necessarily form the best structure and body of people to determine these matters. They are not necessarily the sole depositories of wisdom in this area. That being so, let us examine how we can bring other influences to bear which are sustaining and supportive of marriage.
  Against that background, we intend at a later stage to propose the establishment of a Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on family law and marriage. There is ample precedent for that. There is an opportunity to set up a committee that will report to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor. It would be based, as with Australia's experience of family studies, on the notion and with the specific object of promoting the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit in society. That would be its prime objective. That is necessary if we are to monitor pilot projects. It will also be necessary if we are to monitor the impact of the law on the family. The Opposition intend to share that proposition with the House, and we hope that it will find support on both sides of the Chamber.
  We need a body of men and women with the requisite expertise and experience and committed to the notion of the family as the fundamental unit in our society. It will have the responsibility of monitoring pilot projects. We do not want a repeat of the Child Support Agency fiasco, but when I consider some features of the Bill, the spectre of that agency comes very much to mind. A great deal is left to the future. There are many hopes and aspirations, but there is not necessarily the will to see them implemented.
  An advisory committee would be able to monitor pilot projects. It would be able to offer independent, objective advice which would be supportive of the family. It would not be clouded by any other consideration. Importantly, it would be able to ensure that we are in the business of commissioning research into why families break down. It would also be in a position to commission research into why some families succeed and endure.
  We need to do all that, but not merely as a means of imposing another layer of bureaucracy. The approach should be taken as a means of preserving an institution which the House should be committed to upholding: the institution of the family. It is with that objective and determination—maintaining and developing the family and supporting the institution of marriage as the best buttress of the family—that the Opposition will approach the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Madam Speaker has ruled that from 7 o'clock until 9 o'clock speeches must be restricted to 10 minutes.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. John Patten: I listened with great care to the eloquence of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who spoke from

  759
  the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he was as right about the importance of reconciliation as he will turn out to be wrong in his evaluation of what has gone on in New Zealand and Australia. In those countries, despite all the best efforts of reconcilers and mediators, whatever they are called, divorce rates have shot up since the introduction of no-fault divorce.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the way in which he handled the House this afternoon. He has demonstrated open-mindedness and has introduced himself to the annals of parliamentary history with a new phrase. We have long known about the free vote, to which Ministers, parliamentary private secretaries and the payroll generally do not necessarily apply. We now have the Freeman vote, which really is a free vote. It will find its place in "Erskine May" in generations to come.
  That having been said, I am sorry that the Bill is before the House. I greatly regret that I am unable to support it. My objections are twofold. They rest on principle and on the practical outcomes of the reforms, should the Bill reach the statute book.
  I refer first to principle. I have a strong conscientious objection to the Bill as drafted. That objection does not rest on how the Bill might emerge after consideration in Committee. The core of the Bill is founded on the introduction of what is commonly thought of as no-fault divorce. No no-fault divorce, no Family Law Bill. That is absolutely central. The Bill would strip the marriage contract of commitment and thus meaning. It is my strongly held conviction that the vows exchanged and the contracts thus sealed, whether in a secular or religious ceremony, should be meaningful, not meaningless. In no other part of British law are we as a Government—I strongly support the Government—bent on stripping all responsibility from contracts.
  In this instance, uniquely, the Government wish to take away the freedom of choice of my constituents to say, when they exchange their marriage vows, "I mean it; I want a binding contract." It is wrong for the Government to wish to remove that freedom. If the Government wish to do that, they should introduce legislation at least to give people a choice of having what might be considered a real marriage contract or what might be considered a no-commitment contract.
  I have not received a letter or representation from any of my constituents in favour of the Bill. For example, my constituents, Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Halls—entirely unknown to me personally—wrote from Hurst Rise road, Oxford, to say:
  "If we continually dismiss our vows and pledges as worthless, we are undermining the very basis of our civilisation. Are our words to have no meaning at all? What conclusions will our children come to?"
  To my mind, they are absolutely right, as is the head teacher of an infant school in Norwich, Mr. Keith Pearshouse—again unknown to me personally, and who wrote to me out of the blue. He writes from Christchurch road in that city:
  "Allowing marriages to wither away as though they were friendships that have merely been neglected demeans marriage."
  How right he is, for marriage contracts are, apparently, no longer to mean, "till death us do part," but rather, "until the going gets rough."
  760
  The Bishop of Chester, who has said that the Bill
  "undermines the meaning of marriage, and will make it a temporary contract",
  is surely right. Principles and contracts must be about setting out to try to keep one's word.
  Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend believe that more effort, counselling and guidance might be given to people and couples before marriage, so that they can resist and overcome the difficulties that inevitably come in marriage? Should not Churches give a firmer lead in preparing couples for marriage?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have, in a spirit of helpfulness, a six-point plan to help Her Majesty's Government, with which I intend to conclude. One of those points is exactly the one to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Patten: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin).
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that although what he says will, I suspect, have the support of the whole House, the tragedy is that many of the evils that he describes exist in the present situation and that today's law allows all those things to happen? This is a genuine attempt to try to improve what is currently an outrageous situation.
  Mr. Patten: I do not doubt that. I listened with great care to what my hon. Friend said. Of course, he is right when he puts forward the view that, on many occasions, there is no or very little—fault when a marriage breaks down. People fall out of love, get bored with each other, drift apart, and, alas, a marriage dies on its feet and they end up in the divorce courts. It is wrong of the House to send a message to people in the real world outside, who know that from time to time a fault occurs in a marriage, that we in this place say that that fault can never happen.
  That is why I was so interested to hear the hon. Member for Brent, South say that we must recognise that, in marriage, as in other areas of human relations, culpability exists. I remember exactly what he said and look forward to hearing what he has to say during later stages of the Bill as to how we can take into account that recognition of culpability. It does us no good, whichever party we belong to, to pretend to the outside world that something does not exist when the outside world knows jolly well that it does.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: I am trying, in the spirit of Madam Speaker's earlier ruling, to make a quickie speech, but I shall give way to my two hon. Friends and then try to crack on.
  Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there is a fault in a marriage, it is not compulsory that one must immediately exercise one's right to divorce, and that

  761
  many people gloss over faults to continue with a perfectly viable marriage; but on the other hand, people who have no wish to continue in an unhappy marriage will—and do—often manufacture a fault to divorce quickly? Given that that is the current situation, surely we should seek to ameliorate that process and make it more acceptable for everyone.
  Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend and I agree that much more effort will be needed in reconciliation. I sense from interventions that have been made that there is common ground on that between hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
  Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I address myself to his sincere remarks. Is it not a fact that the Catholic Church has welcomed the Bill, particularly because it helps to protect children?
  Mr. Patten: His Eminence the Archbishop of Westminster, in an article in The Tablet, made his views perfectly clear and suggested ways in which he thought that the Bill could be improved, but I argue my case purely personally and on secular grounds, to which I now wish to refer.
  Surely, practice must be about learning from experience. Bitter experience in this country has taught us that predictions made when the divorce law was last reformed, in 1969, have turned out to be entirely wrong. The hon. Member for Brent, South made that point. Experts told us then that as a result of that legislation, the divorce rate would stabilise, the rate of illegitimacy would drop, and cohabitation in place of marriage would become rare. Yet my distinguished constituent, Ruth Deetch, principal of St. Anne's college, Oxford, has demonstrated that nothing of the sort has happened.
  Since 1969, the rate of births out of wedlock has risen from 6 per cent. to more than 30 per cent., and in 30 years the divorce rate has more than trebled. In 1969, doubtless for the best of motives, we in this place set out to make changes, which, alas, have made us the divorce capital of Europe.
  These new reforms will, in their turn, considerably quicken the rate of divorce, for they will speed up the 27 per cent. of divorces that are currently granted on the basis of at least two years' separation. They will also speed up many divorces that are already based on fault.
  Fortunately for the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Bill does not apply there. I do not see many Northern Irish or Scottish Members here clamouring for the measure to be introduced in their countries.
  Sir James Molyneaux indicated assent.
  Mr. Patten: I see my right hon. Friend from the Ulster Unionist party indicating assent. I do not think that he and his hon. Friends wish to have the Bill visited on them.
  762
  We already know that, in Northern Ireland and Scotland respectively, about 60 per cent. and 75 per cent. of divorces are granted after two or five years' separation. Why is this new divorce law being uniquely visited on England and Wales? Why is there no clamour for it in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Why have not those who bear the heavy responsibility of formulating this legislation harkened to the experiences of the United States, where individual states began to go in for no-fault divorce from 1969 onwards? Since then, they have reaped a social and economic whirlwind.
  I was told in January this year that records in the state administrative office in Oklahoma show that, over the past three years, the number of marriage licences issued across the state has nearly been matched by the number of divorce petitions. There are as many divorce petitions as there are applications to get married. The reaction against no-fault divorce and its social and economic consequences, particularly for women, has led to the introduction of Bills to reform no-fault divorce in six states in the United States. As its journal, Newsweek, pointed out on 18 March, that movement is beginning to sweep America.
  In America, many who would class themselves as feminists, some of whom once supported these forms of no-commitment marriage, now believe that they are creating a whole new class of people in poverty as a result—divorced women with children. As Mrs. Deech says, there is an equal danger in this country of accelerating the trend towards a two-tier system that disadvantages women; in other words, a world with husbands who can afford their own lawyers and where many wives will have to rely on mediation.
  In conclusion, I shall make some practical suggestions, in the same measured and constructive way as my noble Friend and constituent, Baroness Young, did so far-sightedly in another place. These debates are certainly not a waste of time, for they have brought matters to a head, giving the Government the chance to stop and rethink what they are doing.
  I have six suggestions for Her Majesty's Government. First, if they wish to proceed with the Bill as drafted, they should give my constituents the choice of a real marriage contract if they insist on trying to forge ahead with a no-commitment marriage contract. Secondly, we must introduce an element of consideration of conduct or of fault, or, to borrow the phrase used by the hon. Member for Brent, South, of culpability in the divorce process.
  Thirdly, we should lengthen to 18 months—or perhaps two years would be better—the period during which couples with children should go through not just mediation but reconciliation procedures. That is very important. Fourthly—this deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—Churches, voluntary organisations and others need to do much more to provide couples with courses explaining what marriage is like and how they can surmount the problems before they marry. That should be not just encouraged but supported by the Government.
  Fifthly, if a divorce is contemplated, specific attempts at reconciliation should be made before mediation. They should involve frankness. Advice should be given to couples with children which spells out the uncomfortable facts that many do not wish to hear, although, sadly, they are true. For instance, despite the best efforts of many

  763
  divorced or divorcing parents, the children of such parents are five times more likely to live in poverty, and at least twice as likely to suffer from health problems or difficulties with employment or to take drugs.
  That is the rough, tough stuff of reconciliation: putting the facts before a man and his wife before they split and help to wreck their children's lives—although they do not mean to. We should be talking about that rather than about mediation and the divvying up of spoils, which is a secondary and residuary matter. The Government must accept the consensus that clearly exists in the House. What is being said is hard-edged, nasty and not nice to say or to think about, but it is true.
  Sixthly, the Government must have the courage to avoid relativism, and to make trying to reduce the divorce rate stated Government policy rather than merely regretting that divorce rate, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did in his excellent speech. The Government must face the fact that, under the present legal regime—which goes back to the 1969 reforms—they are bequeathing a great social challenge to their successors in the new century. The emotional, social, economic and health problems of the divorced generation that we are now breeding will be much worse for that generation than the problems of those who grew up during the depression or wartime years.
  Worst of all, if the Bill is passed, it will compound three decades of error, dating back to 1969. It will also set in train irreversible trends. I predict that, by the year 2025, there are likely to be as many applications for divorces as for marriage licences. No Government should countenance that.
  7.2 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Given that this is a Family Law Bill, we should have started with a commission on marriage and the family rather than a Law Commission report on the grounds for divorce. Even to get divorce law right, we need to see what has happened to marriage.
  Some of the Bill's sponsors seem to have an unrealistic concept of marriage. It is not a remote, irrelevant or unattainable ideal; it is a practical working arrangement in which most people still choose to live with a loved partner, to make love, bear children and raise them, and to live in circumstances that provide mutual help, society and comfort until they die. Even today, when Britain has the highest divorce rate in Europe, most people—for better or for worse—live out that commitment.
  An initial mistake on the part of the sponsors was to suppose that divorce law has no effect on the breakdown of marriage. Of course, once a marriage has broken down, a tighter divorce law will not save it; but it might well have prevented that marriage, and other marriages, from collapsing under a strain. As hon. Members have pointed out, every marriage has its rough spots. If at the first sign of difficulty either partner can think, "I can walk out and be shot of all this in a year," the marriage will be weakened.
  The law has a declaratory effect on behaviour. Even the climate of debate on divorce law has an effect on the resort to divorce. People are influenced for the rest of their lives by the contract that they thought that they were making when they were married. The Government demographer John Haskey has shown that the two groups
  764
  of couples who married in the years when divorce law was being changed—in 1970 and 1981—are more ready to resort to divorce, and remain so for the rest of their lives, than those who married one or two years earlier or later. It is a small but clear effect. It is as if marriage were a bond in which the very act of bonding has a lasting effect on the strength of the union. Influences are difficult to trace if we look only at the surface, but there can be turmoil underneath.
  The increases in marriage breakdown and divorce have occurred over the same period, and among the same age groups, as changes in the pattern of sexual behaviour. In the sterilised, fault-free world in which the Bill seeks to operate, it is almost necessary to remind the House that marriage and sexual behaviour are related—and both are related to other influences, such as contraception and the greater economic independence of women. The most systematic and objective evidence was provided by the recent "National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles" produced by Kay Wellings, Julia Field, Anne Johnson and Jane Wadsworth, and by Haskey's articles, which I have already mentioned.
  In the 1960s, fewer than 5 per cent. of women cohabited with their future husbands before marriage; today, 70 per cent. do. Of people aged over 45 today, 52 per cent. of women and 20 per cent. of men were married or engaged to be married when they first had sexual intercourse. Of those over 25 today, only 3 per cent. of women and 1 per cent. of men were married or engaged when they first had intercourse, but 63 per cent. of women and 48 per cent. of men were in a steady relationship. In all age groups, about 90 per cent. of people had had intercourse by the age of 25. In all age groups, the proportion of both men and women who disapprove of a married person having sexual relations with someone other than his or her partner is rock steady at 80 per cent.
  How do those sexual attitudes and experiences relate to divorce? Divorce rates have risen in all age groups. Among men and women over the age of 55, the annual divorce rate jumped from about 0.1 per cent. before the Divorce Reform Act 1969 to 0.4 per cent. after it, and has remained virtually steady ever since. The Act clearly had a lasting effect. Among those in their 30s, the annual divorce rate has risen to around 2.8 per cent. per annum, and is still rising. Among those in their 20s, there has been a marked fall in the rate of marriage; but among those in their 20s who did marry, the divorce rate peaked at over 3 per cent. per annum after the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, and has fallen sharply since then—to 2 per cent. per annum among those under 25.
  The broad pattern that emerges is that the first act and the first years of intercourse used to coincide with the first years of marriage, and helped to create a life-long bond within which the marriage relationship could develop. With the first years of intercourse now preceding marriage, the bond from early intercourse does not contribute to the strengthening of a lasting relationship. Lasting relationships are still built, but that has become more difficult, and more relationships break down. Society has a deep sense of the underlying commitment that is required in love and marriage, but the Bill does not recognise or support that commitment.
  The adverse consequences of marriage breakdown for the development of children, the plight of single parents, the burden of support costs for second families and the stability of family life in general are widely agreed on and

  765
  must be addressed, but it is no good doing so in a way that increases the number of children in distress. What we should look for in a divorce law is a framework within which successive age groups can learn from their own experience, and from observation of their parents' and grandparents' generations, sometimes reacting against them and sometimes returning to them, so that they can shape their own relationships and the life and values of their own family. It has not helped that we have been presented with this somewhat sterile and morally anaemic Bill.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: When the Bill's predecessors were presented I had grave reservations about much of what they intended to do. I am grateful to the Government for ensuring that this Bill is a considerable improvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and I went to see the Lord Chancellor to express our grave concerns about the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. I am grateful that the Bill before the House differentiates significantly between cohabitation and marriage. It is absolutely right that it should.
  In the context of divorce the Bill has emerged from the other place considerably improved, and I am grateful to the Minister for considering all the representations that he received and for giving due weight to the changes that were made in another place. As a result of that and because of the procedures that we now intend to follow, we shall ultimately ensure that the Bill is considerably improved, although I doubt whether it would be possible to accommodate the varying views in all parts of the House about its detail.
  I am in favour of the removal of fault from divorce proceedings because I have seen many of my friends getting divorced in proceedings where one side alleges adultery and the other side counter-petitions for unreasonable behaviour. The resulting acrimony leads to untold misery for those concerned and to even more misery for any children of the marriage. It is incumbent on us to do anything that we can do to make the sad event of divorce more tolerable for all those who are affected by it. Unlike some hon. Members, I believe that mediation and the fact that one year will have to pass will play a powerful part in that.
  The fact that the parties to a divorce will have to agree all the details in advance in relation to the children and finances will make many of them confront the reality of what they intend to do. In doing that and in realising what they face, at least some of them may withdraw from the course of action on which they have embarked. That would not be possible if we were to retain the present fault system under which people would immediately engage—in some cases, I regret to say, encouraged by their lawyers—in a process of mutual acrimony which can only be corrosive and destructive.
  My principal concern is not about matters in the Bill but about pension splitting, and their Lordships were right to amend the proposals on that. They have done the House a service, albeit that the amendment is defective in some respects and major changes to other legislation will be necessary to give full and proper effect to it. It would not
  766
  be understood by women or by any fair-minded man if we let this legislative opportunity pass without agreeing to split the assets of pensions in a way that may be determined by the courts. The alternatives are entire unsatisfactory. Although the proposals in other legislation for earmarking go some way towards meeting the problem, they still leave the position very unsatisfactory for many divorced women.
  Women who have to wait until their husbands retire before they can get any pension benefit are uncertain about when or whether they will receive it, and about the amount. We have a public duty to ensure that this is sorted out because many women are forced to rely on state benefits if they are divorced and retired, and that must be unsatisfactory. If we can at least remedy that we will have achieved a great deal.
  I do not accept some of the Treasury arguments that people will be encouraged to seek a divorce to gain a tax advantage. Anybody who believes that a person would go through all the trauma and agony of a divorce simply to achieve a tax advantage must be living on a completely different planet. Even if in some extraordinary way that were the primary motive, all that it demonstrates is the fault within our existing tax legislation which discriminates against the institution of marriage and pays couples to live together rather than to commit themselves to marriage. None of those Treasury arguments is reasonable.
  I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government will leave their Lordships' amendment in the Bill unscathed but will seek to present their own legislation as soon as is practicable. I urge him to advance the time scale. I am puzzled as to why it should take until June or July to produce a White Paper because much of the work that needs to be done has already been done. The National Association of Pension Funds has studied the matter in great detail. As long ago as 1993 the Pensions Management Institute, sponsored by the Rowntree Foundation, produced a booklet on pensions and divorce which outlines in great detail the issues that the Government will need to consider. That booklet alone would be a good foundation for a Green Paper. The Association of Consulting Actuaries and the Law Society have done a great deal of work on the problem.
  We do not need to wait until July for the Green Paper, and when it is produced I should like an assurance from the Minister that legislation will be presented within a reasonable time. If we have to wait until the summer for the Green Paper it would be reasonable to have the responses by the autumn so that we could decide on the form of the legislation by the end of the year and a Bill could be presented by the new year. I should like the Minister to commit himself to such a timetable, or some hon. Members will suspect that the matter will be shuffled off into the long grass until after a general election, and that after that everything may be somewhat different. I do not think that that will happen because there is determination in all parts of the House to achieve the appropriate legislation. I hope that when he responds to the debate the Minister will be able to give assurances on the concerns that I have expressed.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Chris Davies: The Bill divides Members of all parties and it is with some difficulty that I rise to speak as the spokesman for

  767
  the Liberal Democrats because I know that among our ranks opinions are equally divided. I hope that my hon. Friends will respect my views just as I respect theirs when they differ from mine.
  I give the Bill a guarded welcome and support much that is in it. It is based on reality and its spirit credits individuals with intelligence and expects them to face the responsibilities that they have to face at a time of emotional crisis. It also recognises the limitations of Parliament in intervening in such matters, let alone in trying to resolve them.
  Of course the Liberal Democrats support the family and the institution of marriage, but I am conscious that perhaps my interpretation of that institution and of the role that its members should play within it will differ from that of some of my colleagues and of other hon. Members. It is important, however, to recognise that the Bill is not about strengthening the institution of marriage, but about sorting out the problems when marriages fail. Some hon. Members may not have taken full account of that.
  Marriage should be a partnership, entered into freely by individuals, which brings much good. It brings economic benefits. It is said that two can live as cheaply as one. That may be true, but there is no question that the accumulation of wealth is one of the reasons for the institution of marriage. The statistics and the evidence of single parents demonstrate that poverty hits people who are not part of that basic structure.
  Marriage provides a framework for the rearing of children, security and happiness, I hope, for the individuals who are joined together it. It represents a commitment, publicly entered into by two individuals, that can strengthen both. That, however, is not always the case. Just as the individuals freely chose to come together, so either one or both have the right to choose at any time to take steps to dissolve that partnership and to go their separate ways. Parliament's job should be not to stand in the way of that choice, but to ensure, so far as possible, that the responsibilities that the individuals accept when they enter into a marriage are properly exercised, if necessary for the rest of their lives.
  I hope that the right to exercise free will does not blind couples to the truth that almost all successful marriages have their ups and downs. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred to that earlier. There are many ups and downs, as well as much simply getting along. Rather than speak from my experience. as a husband—although the years are starting to accumulate and to provide me with some respectability on that score—I shall speak from the perspective of a long-distance runner.
  Anyone who has run 100 miles at a single stretch will know that we go through some bad and good sections. A niggling problem with a knee at 40 miles disappears by the time we get to 50. We may feel absolutely low one moment and, a few miles later, suddenly run strongly again and feel high. Some hon. Members may think that an illustration more of hell than of marriage, but a good marriage is not unlike that. The problems that an ultra-distance runner can experience may be an appropriate metaphor. When we look back from the finishing line, we appreciate how much we have enjoyed the experience, but it is not Parliament's job to force people to go the whole 100 miles. Individuals must make their own decisions.
  768
  I am sorry that the Bill does not deal enough with how marriages can be encouraged, how counselling can be provided where that is appropriate and how the difficulties of marriage can be explained to couples thinking of joining together in matrimony. The Bill is aimed at dealing with problems when marriages fail, but its strengths would be brought to the fore if emphasis were given to the desirability of encouraging the family and the institution of marriage. Some of the opposition to the Bill would thus be reduced.
  Members of a marriage partnership must balance their short-term wishes with the fact that the break-up of the marriage and of their family unit can lead to much distress. It can lead to economic hardship, to which I have referred. It can cause great unhappiness among the children and, not least, for the partner who has been spurned by the other partner, to whom he or she has looked for so many years. It can also, however, lead to great unhappiness for the person who spurned the other partner because, in time, he or she may realise that the grass on the other side was not all that greener.
  Sometimes, those misfortunes are all wrapped up together. All hon. Members have had experience at their advice centres of members of the public asking for assistance in dealing with Child Support Agency matters. Hon. Members have felt the full burden placed on people whose marriages have failed and who face difficulties, but let us remember that divorce is by no means a disaster for all. In many cases, it is a liberation for one party; sometimes it is a liberation for both parties.
  Statistics were bandied about earlier suggesting that a high proportion of people who have become divorced regret that they entered into the process, but I have yet to meet a divorced person who still wishes to share a bed with or to live under the same roof as the person from whom they are divorced. On the contrary, more often, the venom with which people refer to their former partner is a stronger and more frequent emotion than the desire to recover that which they have lost.
  The House has no power to revive a marriage that is emotionally dead. We should not seek to prevent individuals from making a free choice or add to the misery of an already distressing position. It has been said that the Bill will make divorce easier and that it will therefore contribute to an increased number of divorces. I do not think that it is true. By abolishing the concept of fault and by standardising arrangements, the Bill makes the process of divorce more clinical, perhaps even more acceptable, but it does not make it easier for people to drift out of a marriage or to run away from it.
  In relation to cases where emotions run at their highest and, often, where the hurt goes most deep—where one partner is revealed as an adulterer—the Bill ensures that there is probably greater time for reflection and for a sense of perspective to be restored than at present. By abolishing the notion of fault and by clarifying the administrative arrangements for divorce, the Bill may increase the number of marriages. The majority of couples live together before getting married. A growing number choose never to get married. I suspect that fear of the future and of love eventually being replaced by the degrading procedures of a divorce court are reasons why they are reluctant to enter into the public avowal of commitment that marriage entails. The Bill may lessen those fears and make that initial commitment easier.

  769
  What about the children when a divorce takes place? Adults may have the right to choose to do as they wish, but I recognise that children have no such freedom. As hon. Members have said, there is evidence that children prefer their parents to stay together, however much they may argue. That may be so. Every loving parent will take that factor into account when considering their future relations, but now that the stigma of having divorced parents has, in effect, passed—because, sadly, it is commonplace—it must be recognised that the emotional upset of rows between parents who do not wish to be together is also a cause of pain. It is difficult for children to be in the middle of a household in which their parents have come to loathe each other. We must treat parents as adults in every sense of word and trust that they will place their children's interests high on their scale of priorities. I am not sure that we have the right to do other that than.
  The 12 months of preparation before the granting of a divorce should be sufficient for the views and wishes of children to be impressed on the parents. I do not accept the argument that, in all circumstances, people who loathe each other must stay together for the sake of children. I welcome the Bill's provisions requiring agreement over responsibilities for the care of children, although it may be easier written in statute than undertaken in practice. I will seek clarification about that when the Bill returns from Committee. I hope that those matters can be resolved there.
  Throughout my remarks, I have stressed the importance of individuals being ultimately free to make their own choice, but the initial commitment to a marriage implies the acceptance of responsibilities that may be lifelong. Where there are children, it includes parental care and a financial contribution. Where one person has developed a career while the other has maintained the home, it involves a recognition that both parties have a right to the economic benefits of that partnership. My party is united in its determination to support the pension splitting arrangements that were insisted upon when the Bill was considered in the other place. I welcome the Minister's commitment to the principle of that, but I endorse the view of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) that we want more detailed undertakings about the timetable for the necessary legislation. We see no reason for delays in bringing it forward.
  I can think of no worse advertisement for the institution of marriage than the 60-year-old business man who runs off with a young woman, leaving his partner of 30 years or more living on a pittance. The House must protect the weaker partner in such circumstances and stand up for the principle of equality within marriage.
  I want briefly to refer to mediation. It is often said by former couples that the divorce was proceeding amicably until lawyers became involved. Whether or not that is true, the Bill's encouragement of mediation is welcome. It is a sensible, practical and humane step. However, I have reservations about whether the funding will be adequate and whether the resources exist to provide high-quality assistance. I fear that whatever the good principles involved, the practice may prove sadly lacking.
  7.31 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: I must confess puzzlement tonight on two counts. The first is about the name of the Bill. Why is it called the Family
  770
  Law Bill? I would have thought a more appropriate name to be the Break-up of Family Bill. If we talk about these matters in the House, we should call a spade a spade and call it the Divorce Bill 1996.
  The second reason for puzzlement is that I do not understand why Conservative Members are whipped to support the Bill. From what the Minister said, it appears that because the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill it had to be a Government Bill and therefore there could not be a free vote on Second Reading. I think that that is quite wrong. Hon. Members should understand that when the Minister spoke previously about a free vote, he was dealing not with tonight's vote, but votes in Committee. I find that strange because not since 1857 has there been a whipped Bill on divorce. It is so obviously a question of conscience.
  We are dealing with a subject fundamental to the whole fabric of society. Divorce is a deeply unhappy business. I have not been divorced, but friends who have speak of it with obvious pain, even years after the event. However, I do have personal experience of how divorce affects children, my parents having divorced when I was a small child. I was deeply unhappy about it. My feelings were a tangled mess of rejection, shame, insecurity and the belief that, somehow, it was all my fault. Many children feel that way. My feelings lasted for many years. I would have given anything and everything in my small world to keep my parents together.
  I accept that all children may not feel the same, but research clearly shows that divorce upsets children far more than losing a parent by death. That is an extremely serious point that should be well understood by the House. We know that children from divorced families are twice as likely to do badly at school, have less chance of going on to university, have less chance of finding a job when they leave school, are more likely to be divorced themselves and—perhaps not altogether surprisingly—are two thirds more likely to become regular smokers.
  I accept that it is true that some children grow up perfectly well in one-parent families and that it is not only divorce that makes one-parent families. We all understand that. However, there is no doubt in my mind that children get a better start in life with both mother and father in a stable marriage.
  So far, I may not be in disagreement with any of my colleagues. I want to make it clear that in no way do I question the Government's sincerity or good intentions in introducing the Bill; there is no doubt that they mean well. I agree that the present position is not satisfactory, but that is not the issue. We are not arguing about the effectiveness of the Bill or the Government's good intentions. The questions we need to ask include, will the Bill be better in all ways than the present position; is it just; will it buttress the institution of marriage; are we safeguarding a couple's right to pledge themselves to each other for life; is there a public demand for the Bill? The answer to all those questions is no, which is why I feel impelled to speak and, probably, to vote against Second Reading tonight.
  This is a lawyer's Bill, cooked up by the Law Commission. I shall never forget that a very prominent member of the Law Commission—without doubt an architect of this Bill—said in 1980:
  "We have reached a point when we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage serves any useful purpose."

  771
  Perhaps that is not a universal view among all members of the Law Commission, but lawyers do not understand that a concept enshrined in a Bill passed in this House sends out a clear signal.
  It is true that we cannot legislate for goodness and I agree with what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said about that. However, in passing this Bill we show that we no longer have a great deal of faith in marriage. The signal that we will send out tonight is that marriage vows are of no great importance and can be cancelled speedily for no reason at all.
  It cannot be right that an unwilling spouse, man or woman, anxious to keep the marriage alive and accused of no fault of any sort can find himself or herself divorced against his or her will. I cannot think it right that divorce should be available on demand with no reason necessary. I must tell the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) that we are not talking about a couple who hate each other; we are talking about one half of a couple who is desperately anxious for the marriage to succeed and is ready to make sacrifices to achieve that. If two people loathe each other, I would not object to a divorce. My objection is to an innocent, well-intentioned partner being abandoned for no reason. That is what upsets me about the Bill.
  It is important to remember that fault came in on the back of a statutory instrument passed upstairs in Committee, not on the Floor of the House. The purpose of that statutory instrument was to facilitate a quickie divorce. I have been given figures that show that when Australia, for example, brought in a no-fault, quickie divorce, the divorce rate rose from 5 per cent. to 18 per cent. It has since dropped back, but only to 11 per cent. In other words, there are more than twice as many divorces under the no-fault system. In America, the divorce rate rose by 50 per cent. under the no-fault system. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) reminded us, many states in America are reverting to fault divorces because they are convinced that no-fault divorces push up the divorce rate.
  In Northern Ireland, where the statutory instrument did not apply, the divorce rate is a quarter of that in the United Kingdom as a whole. Of course Northern Ireland is extremely anxious not to have the law, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said. It is interesting that, in Scotland, the other part that he mentioned, which was also not affected by the statutory instrument, the Scottish Law Commission has made it very clear that it will in no way support a no-fault divorce.
  Other people are worried about the speed at which divorce will be carried out. In another place, their Lordships tried to ensure that where there were children, or where one spouse did not want a divorce, the time waited should not be one year but 18 months. I deeply regret that that amendment was not successful. Perhaps we can have another shot at it.
  The Bill acknowledges that conciliation may be possible, although I could not find much reference to conciliation in it. It encourages and introduces mediation, which of course is not conciliation. It would merely sort the money out, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said. Many questions on mediation are still to be answered. Some suspect that enthusiasm for mediation has been brought about because it is thought to be cheaper
  772
  than legal advice. Conciliation would not be compulsory, and it is difficult to imagine how it could possibly be made so. A would-be divorcee—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: This is a very serious debate, about which we all have opinions and individual emotions. One has to be rational. I must say, however, that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) really got under my skin. Someone who has had some experience of divorce and who has waited a considerable time to enable the children to understand it, would take it as misinformation to say that children are affected more by their parents divorcing than by their families living together.
  There are many reasons why children do not like divorce and feel guilty about it. One of them is when other institutions, in which partners may not necessarily believe, insist that marriages are for life, unless certain circumstances mean that they break down. Not only divorce causes emotional problems in children. Society makes judgments on parents that are reflected on children. I know many couples who have undergone a proper divorce in—if it can ever be—a civilised way, and the effect on their children has been minimal. Society accepts to some extent that children can be born outside marriage without feeling guilty about it or being called all the names under the sun. It is possible for them to be respected in society and be no worse off. They will certainly not start smoking or taking drugs as a result of their parents divorcing or never getting married. Such an assertion is absolute nonsense.
  An introduction to a Sheffield family conciliation service pamphlet, which I fully endorse, says:
  "There is no such thing as an easy separation or divorce. Partners often have strong feelings of anger, or helplessness, or betrayal, or shame. It is difficult for them to be sure what will be best for the children. Important questions about the future of the home and family must be decided, but husband and wife may feel unable to talk together. On the other hand, if they simply take legal action to settle their affairs, solicitors or courts may deal with matters which the couple would prefer to decide for themselves."
  That is the premise on which we start the conciliation procedure in the Sheffield area.
  I support the proposal to abolish the principle of fault in divorce, but, in many other respects, the Bill is seriously flawed. There are many concerns, for example, about the requirement to attend "information sessions". Are they to be in public? There cannot be group therapy. How are they to be arranged? As far as I know, that is to be left entirely to regulation that will be created by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Will there be privacy for those who need it? Will there be a media jamboree for those in the public eye? All Members of Parliament could find ourselves in a difficult situation.
  Will services such as mediation and couple counselling be funded adequately and be available to those in remote areas? Will a market-based system fail those needing support? How do we get round those problems? How do we enable information to be given privately by licensed providers, including solicitors, who are the usual first port of call at present? How are we to define mediation and place on the Lord Chancellor the obligation to ensure, through funding, the availability of such services?

  773
  Other concerns focus mainly on the proposals for mediation, and require assurances from the Government on the following points. Will separating couples be entitled to treat mediation as a truly optional facility in the same way as Relate counselling? It is a betrayal of the concept of mediation for it to be provided on any other basis, and if so provided will send out the wrong signals to participating couples.
  There should be an assurance that there will be no inducement for couples to enter into mediation or that prejudice will be incurred if either or both choose to withdraw from it, regardless of whether they qualify for legal aid. The concern is that the Government propose to specify circumstances in which mediation would be considered inappropriate. If the concept of mediation were fully appreciated, there would be no need to specify any such circumstances. Specifying such circumstances raises the overwhelming inference that any individual or couple who decline mediation for non-specified reasons will be disadvantaged in some way. That aspect requires special scrutiny. As has already been said, there would be no way in which violent partners would go for such mediation. Will such circumstances be considered special cases? Non co-operative partners might decide not to participate in any shape or form and sabotage any mediation process. There are obviously other problems, too.
  I should stress that mediation is the facilitating of communication. It is not a forum for giving advice. Negotiations cannot take place without advice. Legal advice must therefore be available throughout. If it were not, those receiving legal aid would be severely disadvantaged. I intervened on the Minister on that point to try to get an answer to that question. I hope that we shall get an answer by the end of the evening. It would be unfair to those on legal aid if they were disfranchised from seeking a second opinion after or during mediation.
  There should be an assurance that legal aid regulations will not be amended in any way to give legally aided people who opt for mediation any advantage within the system over those who decline mediation, especially those who do so for non-specific reasons. I note from reading through my stuff this weekend that the South Yorkshire Group of Solicitors Family Law Association is in no doubt that full legal aid certificates will be denied to people who choose not to attend mediation, and that the claw-back on cost—the statutory charge—will be waived for couples who opt for mediation. The same constraints on paying back legal aid should apply to people who opt for mediation as well as to those who do not.
  The proposed pre-condition to a decree absolute being granted, that all arrangements for children and finances must first be settled, wholly undermines the central premise of a "period for reflection and consideration" by encouraging litigation. The divorce process will force individuals to litigate immediately to be sure of resolving financial and child-related issues in time to obtain a divorce at the first attempt.
  The proposal that the divorce should be abandoned if matters concerning the children and finances are not resolved within the cooling-off period needs to be re-examined. In appropriate cases, particularly complicated ones, the court should have the power to extend the period. Divorces should be abandoned only in
  774
  the event of reconciliation; they should not be kept artificially and technically alive because of a dispute that is not resolved within the time limit. Future arrangements should not be made a pre-condition to divorce. Instead, the scope of the hardship bar should be extended to provide appropriate protection.
  The proposed pilot project will, hopefully, accurately reflect the mediation services that will be required. It is estimated that currently only 110 accredited mediators are able to undertake financial and child-related disputes. There are, on average, 160,000 divorces every year. The pilot scheme must be located where it can be rigorously tested. If the pilot scheme is considered a success, we must have an assurance that a national scheme will not be implemented until it is fully resourced to avoid court delay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the scheme must be rigorously monitored to avoid any repetition of the fiasco over the Child Support Agency.
  The sensitive nature of divorce proceedings is obvious and should be respected. I hope that, for the good of all who find themselves in such difficult circumstances, the House takes its time in passing the legislation.
  7.50 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: It seems obvious that a Bill that addresses the awful problem of the growing number of divorces in our country, that follows a large-scale consultation exercise that has effectively been going on for three years, that has received support from a large number of agencies—from Relate, the leader of the Catholic Church, the Christian Churches, the synagogues, Marriage Care, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Law Society to name but a few—and that does something to strengthen the institution of marriage, should have the support of the House. I find it difficult to follow much of the criticism that has been levelled against the Bill. Those who want to get rid of easy divorces and those who want to provide better protection for the children of a marriage should welcome the Bill with open arms.
  There are currently four major faults with the divorce law for those of us who think that marriage is important. First, divorce is now, to all intents and purposes, available on demand. Is that what the Bill's objectors want? Secondly, by alleging fault and inventing and exaggerating, someone can obtain a divorce as soon as three months after he or she petitions for it—72 per cent. of all divorces are secured on that basis within six months. Is that what the Bill's objectors want?
  Thirdly, the process causes bitterness and unnecessary distress to the children caught in the middle, who are often made the excuse for the divorce. Is that what the Bill's objectors want? Fourthly, there is little attempt made, or encouragement given by the present system, to save a marriage that can be saved. Once one of the parties does not want to be married any more, all he or she has to do is to reach for the divorce gun. Is that what the Bill's objectors want?
  Why anyone who cares about marriage should think that the law should remain as it is and that it is better than the Bill is beyond me. The Lord Chancellor's proposals will considerably strengthen marriage and considerably reduce divorce—for several reasons. First, there will be no quickie divorces—everyone will have to wait a year

  775
  before anything can be done and before getting a divorce. That means that, in many cases, there will be no divorce for 18 months or more after proceedings have been started.
  Secondly, there will be no divorces at all under the legislation for a year after it is implemented. Thirdly, if the element of fault is taken out of the legislation, there will be much less bitterness to distress the children. Fourthly, if everyone has to wait a year or so and is encouraged to seek conciliation, many marriages will be saved. That is why Relate, with all its experience, so favours the process. That is why the divorce rate has fallen in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where such a system operates.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) was wrong when he said that the rates had risen there—they have fallen in all those countries after a short period in which they increased. Fifthly, through mediation, those who are determined to divorce can use the year to get their financial and property arrangements in order, which will remove or reduce much of the misery for the children and the expenditure of court time—to say nothing of costs.
  It is a flight of fancy—and shows a lack of awareness about today's world—for hon. Members to pretend that fault is now a necessary element in saving marriages and protecting the children; it is no such thing. It may have been in the 1900s when women were chattels—the property of their lord and master. But the reason why divorce has doubled and the marriage rate has halved in the past 20 years is precisely that fault is being deployed as a reason for divorce. If I am wrong about that, why are as many as 72 per cent. of all marriages ended with allegations of adultery and unreasonable behaviour after only six months? The answer is that fault is used as an excuse—an easy excuse—for divorce. There can be no other reason. Fault does not save marriages; it is being used as a weapon to destroy them more quickly.
  In the 1990s, what is "fault"? Who can really judge the truth? I should think that most of us have experienced surgeries when the biggest complaint against the legal system has been that the judge believed the "lies" told by one spouse about the other in the divorce court. Some people pretend that most of the cases involving fault are one sided, but the truth that can be learnt from every divorce judge is that most allegations are a matter of "six of one and half a dozen of the other". How on earth is "fault" then worth defending? In 1996 we should say goodbye to fault as a ground for divorce and bid it good riddance; it has become totally counter productive.
  We should start to do what we can to save marriages that can be saved and to make the dissolution of those that cannot be saved as painless as possible for the parties and children involved. To accept the principles of the proposed regime is not, however, the end of the matter.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry but I cannot give way as I have just 10 minutes for my speech.
  Many details need to be worked out and there has been much useful discussion in another place. The Government have responded with a number of significant
  776
  improvements to the original scheme; they are on record, so I shall not burden the House by listing them. But I must mention one.
  I very much welcome the pension splitting arrangements which are under consideration. They are extremely complicated and it is impossible to implement them immediately without creating more problems than they solve. I welcome the acceptance that pension splitting is right in principle and the Government's determination to create a scheme that works. It is not widely enough appreciated by people who have not gone through a divorce that, under existing law, pension income is taken into account in the assessment of future assets.
  I have heard some strange objections to the Bill raised in the House this afternoon. In her question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) seemed to think that people may enter into marriage in order to secure a hire purchase agreement. I do not think that that is why people enter marriage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) seemed to think that a marriage can be sustained where one party wants it and the other does not. He must have been reading too many Galsworthy books, "I shouldn't wonder". It is another era and he will have to read about Soames Forsyte to realise just how that family looked on marriage and the fact that if one party did not like it, that was just too bad.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) argued that children do better in bad marriages than if there is no marriage—that may be true for some, but for others it is not. In any event, my hon. Friend misses the point: the Bill seeks to save marriage—that will help children in the marriage, even if the marriage is a bit rocky. My hon. Friend should support, not oppose, the Bill because if it helps children, it answers his point.
  Besides, the measure largely refers to marriages that are breaking up, not about bad marriages that are sticking together. The removal of fault does not harm the chances of the partners in a bad marriage remaining together, but it eases the misery of the children from the marriage that is breaking up.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) spoke in support of the Bill, but then began tilting at a windmill when referring to victims of domestic violence. No battered wife should have to mediate with her tormentor, as he will see if he reads the Bill and the words of the Lord Chancellor, who said in a press release:
  "Clearly there will be cases where the breakdown of the marriage has been too painful for couples to negotiate in this way, and legal aid will be available in situations where mediation is not appropriate."
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be less heated about that aspect of the legislation. So, I disagree with a great many of the arguments presented by those who oppose the Bill.
  We should, if it were possible, address preparation for marriage in the future: nothing could do more to make marriage more meaningful, and therefore less likely to be dissolved. It might help if we could devise some way of requiring preparation for marriage. However, the infringement of civil liberties and the cost to the taxpayer or to those anticipating marriage might be substantial. That is why I am afraid that we must leave that issue for the future.

  777
  Meanwhile, it is sensible to face the fact that the present system is increasing the number of divorces, is driving the parties into the hands of lawyers and the adversarial system, and is leading to anger and bitterness and to a preoccupation with the past, which is less important than our concern for the future—and we should change it.
  8.1 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: I welcome the Bill with reservations, as someone who has been through the trauma of divorce and who practised for a time at the family Bar dealing with matters concerning children, domestic violence and ancillary relief.
  There is a contradiction inherent in the present divorce law. In theory, there is only one ground for divorce—irretrievable breakdown—but it must be proved by one of five facts. Two of those facts are based on fault: adultery and unreasonable behaviour. When the Divorce Reform Bill was enacted in 1969, it was assumed that most divorcing couples would wait two years for a divorce instead of relying on the allegations of adultery or unreasonable behaviour.
  As we have heard, in 1993 73 per cent. of divorce petitions were based on one or other of those two faults, because they are often seen as a convenient way of getting a quickie divorce. As many hon. Members have said, that can take as little as three or four months. That is simply not long enough for people to think through the consequences of divorce, to consider whether divorce is appropriate or to resolve all the issues arising from divorce. Some hon. Members have said that it is just about money, but it is also about the family home, who lives in it, who will pay the mortgage or the rent, and the resolution of financial matters and issues relating to the children—who they will live with, contact with the other parent and other family members, and child support considerations.
  As it is almost impossible to defend a divorce petition nowadays, allegations of fault that are difficult to challenge heighten tension and foster acrimony. That potentially poisonous climate inevitably affects children.
  It is time to recognise that the two-year wait under current law is too long—most couples who adopt a mature and a constructive attitude can resolve issues within a year. It is important to remember also that time is a different concept for children. All people with children know that, if one tells them that they must wait a week for something, they think that it is eternity. When I was in court, I would often hear someone suggest an adjournment of three months or so on the ground that it would give the lawyers time to write some letters. However, three months is an eternity for children: it is wrong to make them wait two years before their lives regain a settled pattern. I believe that a one-year waiting period, as a time for reflection and resolution of consequential issues, is about right.
  When I listen to the critics of the Bill, I remember the campaign against the Divorce Reform Act 1969. I remember some woman—I do not recall who it was—describing it as a "Casanova's charter". I do not know whether anyone else remembers it, but she said that women would be discarded like old slippers. However, women are more likely to petition for divorce. In 1993
  778
  women petitioned for two and a half times as many divorces as men. Perhaps we should acknowledge that men and women have different expectations of marriage and we should ask what so many women appear to find so unsatisfactory about marriage. Critics of the Bill have said that it will undermine marriage and family life, but the Government have done little to nurture and support families—a point to which I shall return.
  I turn now to the subject of mediation during the one-year period for reflection. I emphasise that it is not a cheap option and it will not always be appropriate—I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said about mediation and the victims of domestic violence. I am pleased to say that mediation, like other good ideas such as health centres and victim support, started in Bristol. I am proud to be a patron of the Bristol Family Mediation Service. Through my contacts with that service and from my experience at the family Bar, I have seen how mediation assists in the mature resolution of issues that are potentially a source of major conflict. The current system encourages irresponsibility.
  It is ironic that, as the Government extol mediation, local services are under threat from underfunding or must levy charges that are beyond the reach of many. I have some reservations about the proposals for mediation. For example, there should be a range of options to ensure privacy during information sessions or meetings. Both parties should have access to independent legal advice so that the weaker party in a marriage—economically, it is often the woman—does not lose out. As other hon. Members have said, there is not enough emphasis on reconciliation in the Bill.
  Domestic violence is a huge social issue about which I have spoken often in the House. Current legislation in that area is a mess. Injunctions are available under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Half a million violent assaults on family members occur each year, and they are usually perpetrated against women and children. It is estimated that 750,000 children are affected by domestic violence. The Bill is mainly a consolidation measure. For the first time, the remedies will be available to all courts which will operate the same law. That will be of great benefit to those seeking injunctions and to their legal advisers.
  In summer 1994, the all-party parliamentary group on parenting, of which I am an officer, held public hearings in the Grand Committee Room. We heard evidence over three weeks from a large number of organisations and interested people and we produced a cross-party list of recommendations supporting marriage and families and seeking to improve parenting skills. We called for co-ordination within Government Departments to ensure that families receive the necessary support and for relationship education funding.
  A couple of weeks ago I spoke at a National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children conference in Bath, the subject of which was "Listening to Children". A 15-year-old student attending the conference said that she was alarmed to think that in a few years' time she could get married and have children. She said that she thought she should receive some parenting education first, and I agree with her.

  779
  The all-party parliamentary group agreed that there should be preventive work with families to catch problems early and to help families through crises.
  We called for a reform of the benefits system to remove disincentives to work and to address poverty in families and low-paid work. Many families with children who are caught up in divorce are poor because they can just manage to run one home on two wages and, therefore, find it impossible to run two homes. We also agreed that it was important to provide and encourage good quality childcare, to reduce stress and to help families out of poverty.
  Another important consideration is to allow fathers to become more involved with their children through boosting family-friendly employment practices. That cannot be stressed enough because, all too often, children end up living in a world of women.
  I remember my father saying that there are only two people who can know what went wrong in a marriage and usually neither of them do know. I hope that the Bill will give people who are divorcing the time and space to think through the issues and decide whether divorce is appropriate, and if it is, to resolve it in a way that enables the children afterwards to relate to each of their parents without a betrayal of trust or loyalty and without feeling that in being nice to their Mum they are betraying their Dad and vice versa. That certainly does not happen at present. I hope that we can establish a system that enables to us say that the divorce rate has gone down because we are supporting marriage.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: Some of the Bill's critics say that it will make divorce quicker. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, that is a misconception, as it is now possible to start divorce proceedings after one year of marriage and to divorce within four or six months. If the Bill becomes law in its present form, it will be one year before one can put in a divorce statement and another year before the divorce can take place.
  There have been references to the message that the 12-month period is sending from the House. I would ask about the message conveyed by existing law, which allows a divorce application 12 months after a marriage. Before 1985, the period was three years. The marriage service stipulates that marriage is not to be entered into "unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly", but at present surely the message is that one can get married and, if after one year, it does not work out and there are difficulties, one can undo the marriage.
  There is much discussion about the proposal that 12 months should elapse between the statement of intention to divorce and that intention being fulfilled. I would not alter that, but I would look again at the minimum period between marriage and the ability to make a statement of intention to divorce. I would like to see it increased at least to two years—I endeavoured to do that in 1985, but there was insufficient support in the House for my proposal—if not the three-year period that applied before 1985. I hope that at a later stage of the Bill, the House will be given the opportunity to consider that amendment.
  If two people have decided that their marriage is not working and is not likely to work, they should consider the implications, but do they need to justify that decision
  780
  publicly? The Bill is said to be introducing no-fault divorce, but as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, a no-fault divorce can be obtained after two years. It can be sooner if fault can be quoted, but what exactly does that achieve? Listing faults makes divorce more unpleasant and acrimonious as each side digs around for real or imagined grievances against the other—a process that culminates in distasteful court proceedings. It also makes that process more expensive. Does detailing faults really help the procedure? No-fault divorce is a misnomer. The Bill is not saying that when a divorce takes place, there is no fault. Of course there is almost certainly bound to be fault on both sides, but it does not seem advantageous to have a recitation of those faults as a ground for divorce.
  I have heard it argued that there is not necessarily fault on both sides—if, for example, adultery or violence is involved that may be so, but we can be sure that if adultery is claimed, there will be a counterclaim in similar terms or it will be said that the other party showed a lack of interest or was frequently absent. If violence is claimed, we can be sure that there will be counterclaims that it was provoked. Surely a reasonably amicable settlement is more likely if listing faults on both sides can be avoided.
  Speaking of settlement brings me to mediation and I very much welcome the Bill's endorsement and promotion of mediation, which I fear is sometimes misunderstood and misrepresented. It is not counselling—helping married couples through problems so that their marriage can continue. It is not reconciliation—discussing with couples considering separation whether and how their differences might be resolved and the relationship continued. Mediation serves those who have started or contemplated divorce proceedings and it is defined by National Family Mediation as
  "a process in which an impartial third person, the mediator, assists couples considering separation or divorce to make arrangements, to communicate better, to reduce conflict between them and to reach their own agreed joint decisions. The issues to be decided may concern separation, the divorce, the children, finance and property."
  The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) mentioned correctly that the first mediation services started in Bristol rather less than 20 years ago. Similar services were set up in Wandsworth and the one in Bromley in my constituency was one of the earliest. I have been on the management committee of a Westminster-based mediation service for a number of years.
  There are now 66 local services and 700 trained and accredited mediators. In 1981, the National Association of Family Mediation and Conciliation Services, known as National Family Mediation, was established and most of the local services now belong to that body. It selects, trains and accredits mediators and trains local supervisors. Earlier this year, the various bodies involved in mediation formed the United Kingdom College of Family Mediators to set and promote standards for mediators, to operate a register and to issue a code of practice.
  Mediators are drawn from a variety of backgrounds, including probation officers, social workers and solicitors. It must surely be self-evident that, instead of the cost and ill-feeling involved in the exchange of letters between two parties' solicitors culminating in acrimonious court proceedings, there should be available a third party who can discuss with both parties separately and together how to reach agreement with regard to the house, other

  781
  property and, most importantly, their children and to decide with whom, and where, the children should live, and access arrangements.
  Mediation does not replace legal help. As the study carried out by Newcastle university in 1994 commented:
  "Legal advice and mediation are complementary."
  It pointed out that
  "39 per cent. of cases of mediation resulted in agreement on all issues and 41 per cent. of cases resulted in some issues being agreed".
  Those are fairly high proportions.
  In 1993, 165,000 couples divorced and fewer than 5 per cent. of them had access to mediation. It is obvious that we need rapidly to expand, develop and build upon existing services. I regret that, at present, the Government appear to be taking no steps to facilitate that expansion by supporting existing services. My concern is that they are operating on a shoestring. Unlike Relate, National Family Mediation gets no core grant funding from the Government. Each local service depends on charity, charging fees only to the extent that its client can afford. It may have contracts, but, on the whole, must rely on charitable donations, which are diminishing. Some services have closed for lack of funds, while others are in difficulty. Bristol is under threat, Sussex is about to close and the Westminster service, with which I am involved, is waiting for the next cheque—otherwise it may have to close.
  I have written and spoken to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, asking for support for those organisations. I was told that funds will be available under legal aid when the Bill becomes law and is implemented. However, it will be later this year before the Bill receives Royal Assent and two years before it is implemented. By then, it will be too late to fund mediation services that, at the very time that they need to expand, are withering on the vine. I heard my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say on the radio this morning that he wants to promote mediation. I urge him to demonstrate that desire by giving mediation services the financial support without which it will be more difficult to put the Bill's good intentions into practice.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I declare an interest as a solicitor who practised in a firm that did a fair bit of divorce work.
  Forty one per cent. of marriages in the British Isles, or 3.1 per 1,000 population, end in divorce—a shocking figure that is twice the European average. No doubt, those statistics have exercised the minds of the Bill's opponents, who wrongly claim that the measure will make divorce far easier and increase the divorce rate. Broadly speaking, nothing in the Bill is likely to do that. The contrary is true. If the Bill's opponents were to come clean, they would admit that they are against divorce per se. Arguing about the time involved and the no-fault concept is just to use the Bill to their own ends. Those opponents are not in step with the majority of the public.
  The Lord Chancellor's stated aim, which everybody would welcome, is to safeguard the institution of marriage, However, a friend who is an experienced
  782
  divorce lawyer put it to me that the Bill approaches the problem from the wrong end. He reminded me that it is already much more difficult to dissolve a marriage than to enter into marriage. Should we not consider more thorough and compulsory preparation for marriage, and increasing the minimum age for marriage? The incredibly high divorce rate among teenagers bolsters the arguments for both. The current legal limit was introduced by the Age of Marriage Act 1929, when life expectancy was substantially less. It almost goes without saying that the decision to enter the most sacred contract of all is momentous—that view is generally held. It is, alas, entered into without formal instruction, advice or counselling. I hope that that aspect will be meaningfully addressed during the passage of the Bill, because I believe that such preparation would decrease the divorce rate at a stroke, and save young couples and their children a great deal of heartache and emotional turmoil.
  I cannot cover all the points that concern me on Second Reading, but I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill, which is a helpful attempt to reform and codify existing matrimonial law. The no-fault debate has polarised the argument. As the law currently stands, at least two grounds for divorce do not involve fault. One is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. No-fault divorce is not a new concept, so the true picture is not that presented by the Bill's opponents. The so-called no-fault concept, which is much maligned by opponents of change, is nothing new and is welcome.
  It is illogical and intellectually unsustainable for advocates of the fault principle to opine that pitting spouses against one another deters them from divorce and protects the institution of marriage. It is self-evident that the fault concept has never been a deterrent to divorce. Nearly three quarters of all couples choose divorce as the route out of their marriages, with all the acrimony and upset that it causes them and, more importantly, any children of the marriage.
  Every divorce lawyer spends hours going through intimate details that have been dredged up by warring clients. They are often painfully retold, and would always be best left unspoken. What possible use can there be for that practice, apart from allowing the parties to the divorce to exercise their minds and be as horrible as possible to each other? In many cases, the parties to a divorce are being self-indulgent, and it almost becomes some kind of a game to them—and it is a waste of legal aid to boot.
  I welcome the extension of the no-fault concept. It will bring a saving in emotional stress to many divorcing couples and their children, in lawyers' time, and in costs to the legal aid fund. Everyone would like to see fewer divorces, and the Bill extends the length of time needed to divorce from an average of seven months to a minimum of one year and two weeks. The one year allowed for consideration and reflection is also welcome. Relate, which does excellent work, is firmly of the view that one year is appropriate. It is significantly longer than the present limit and will allow couples sufficient time to make arrangements about children, property and finance—but not so long as to cause disadvantage or hardship to families who need to make decisions and take action in respect of the distribution of assets, including the matrimonial home. One year is long enough. Relate refers to it as a year with a purpose, which sums it up well.

  783
  I welcome, with many other hon. Members, the mediation principle, and the Lord Chancellor's assurance that it will be voluntary—but some reassurances are needed. By which authority will directions for mediation be given—a circuit judge, deputy circuit judge or district judge?
  I do not accept that the Bill will be cost neutral. There are only two mediators in the whole of Clwyd in north Wales and not one in Gwynedd. To get up to speed will be an uphill task but I am sure that will happen in due course, in the spirit of the Bill. However, it is clearly impossible for the Bill to be cost neutral.
  I will not comment in detail on the provisions on domestic violence but I appreciate and accept the reasons for them. The codification of existing law is substantially overdue.
  Children's voices should be heard throughout the Bill. Where complex and difficult cases arise, the child's needs should be protected by the appointment of a guardian ad litem and reporting officer. It is crucial that independent advice and assistance is offered to children, because they are often the real losers—not only emotionally but materially. There should be a legal requirement, as exists in Scottish legislation, for parents to have regard to their children's views. When a parent makes a statement of marital breakdown, courts can provide children with information appropriate to their age. Those proposals enjoy support from many organisations involved in child welfare. I also welcome the pension-splitting provisions, although I would like them in the body of the Bill.
  The Bill is a step in the right direction and its opponents are mistaken if they think that it will imperil the institution of marriage. Much could be done to strengthen the Bill. Many questions need to be answered and we need to know exactly what form the delegated legislation will take. Far too much of the Bill will be at the mercy of delegated legislation, including core issues such as information about meetings and arrangements for the future. Those substantial issues should have proper, detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
  I broadly welcome the Bill as a genuine attempt to improve the current divorce law. As I have said, several amendments are needed to deal with some of the points that I have made. I hope that there will be an opportunity substantially to improve the Bill during its passage through the House.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am grateful for the extreme courtesy shown to me and my colleagues by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the way that they have listened to our representations about the need for free votes. I regret to say that, despite their great courtesy, I remain opposed in principle to the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I do not think that it is amendable, because the concept of no-fault divorce is at the heart of the legislation.
  The Bill would have a great impact on millions of lives and it is also of enormous quasi-constitutional importance. Many of our institutions are based on the concept of the Judaeo-Christian state. Even the layout of the Chamber is based on the mediaeval chapel of St. Stephen's. The gospel view of marriage is clear: marriage is for life. The
  784
  Bill would advance further down the dangerous road of ending the concept of a Christian state laying down the framework of social life.
  In the past 30 years, we have effectively said that the courts should no longer consider conduct in granting custody or dividing assets. Now, fault would not even be a trigger and would not even be considered. We would explicitly end the fiction—I accept that it is a fiction—that fault is considered by the courts. We would get rid of that altogether. The Bill, therefore, would not buttress marriage: it would undermine it. If we really wanted to get rid of quickie divorces, we could simple repeal the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1977. It does not apply in Northern Ireland—Northern Ireland Members have attended the debate—where 75 per cent. of divorces take between two and five years.
  The Bill would explicitly give us divorce on demand when previously we implicitly had divorce on demand. If the current legislation is not being implemented or is being abused, that alone is not a reason for sweeping away the concept of fault. What message would we give to young people and our children? People make vows to maintain their marriage for life. That is a unique contract. Therefore, it follows that if a marriage ends, one or both parties are at fault. That may be unpleasant, but it is the logical reality. I am asked whether it is right to force people to make allegations against each other to achieve divorce. I agree that that is not pleasant, but the nature of the marriage vows mean that they can be ended only by a breaking of those vows and fault, on one or both parts, is involved.
  I am told that the process of alleging fault damages children. They need not necessarily be involved in any consideration of fault, but they are necessarily involved in the fact of divorce. Therefore, divorce negotiations need not necessarily damage children, but divorce damages children. That is why at least eight states in the United States, where they have had no-fault divorce for 20 years, are considering getting rid of it. Hillary Clinton, who is not a crusty reactionary, has written:
  "For much of the 1970s and 1980s many believed that a bad marriage was worse than a good divorce. Now, however, we know that children bear the brunt of failed marriages … Divorce has become too easy because of our permissive laws and attitudes".
  The governor of Iowa, in his 1996 state of the state message, said:
  "I do believe we should reform our divorce laws to require mutual consent or specific grounds for divorce. Our present no-fault divorce laws have transformed into an arrangement of convenience rather than an act of commitment. Parents need to understand that divorce can severely hurt children and impact the opportunities their kids have. Please join me in our effort to find a better way".
  No-fault divorce has simply resulted in the divorce rate in America increasing by 20 per cent. Even if we wanted to sweep away the concept of fault—I do not believe that, given the nature of the marriage vows, one can do that—are we really arguing that a year is adequate time when children may be involved and when a promise has been made for life? A year is far too short a time. Is it too much to argue that we should wait just 18 months or two years as a period for mature consideration of reconciliation and before mediation begins? It has been pointed out from both sides of the House, noticeably by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), that mediation is not reconciliation. Mediators are not trained to reconcile. They resolve conflicts about property or about custody: they do not save marriages.

  785
  Why is the Bill so important to the Government and to the Conservative party? It is of vital importance to all of us because the Conservative party is not a devil-take-the-hindmost, free-trade, libertarian movement. We are a traditional party and we believe that the market on its own is not enough. There must be a moral foundation and a Judaeo-Christian basis to ethics and society. Perhaps, the view now is that the state no longer has the courage or the will to provide that basis. I believe that it can and it should.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am pleased to take part in what, so far, has been a thoughtful debate. Few things are more important than partnership, marriage and having children, and seeing those children go through the cycle again. That is the fundamental life-blood that runs through our society and we all have experience of it.
  We must learn not to let our experience prejudice social policy, because all marriages are different. People adapt in different ways and people find different solutions to their problems. My own experience before coming to the House was of working for 20 years with families. I must confess that most of those families were experiencing real problems, including marriage difficulties, being in the process of separating and in some cases having separated.
  That brings me to my first major concern about the Bill. It seems to me to be set in a social vacuum—it has already been pointed out that it was drafted by lawyers—and it takes no account of the social climate, of unemployment, housing and the stresses on families. There is no recognition in the Bill, or in the documents which preceded it, of what constitutes a good marriage. We need to do more research on that, and the Lord Chancellor's Department has an important role to play. I do not believe that the Department should be just a cipher. The Lord Chancellor should commission and evaluate research and bring forward social policies, in conjunction with other Departments, which will strengthen partnerships and marriages.
  There is a curious asymmetry in the Bill: it allows a period of 12 months for reflection at the end of marriage, but it says nothing about what might be done before marriage. The Government should have an important role in promoting discussion and education about partnership and marriage.
  I generally support the notion of a no-fault divorce. My experience suggests that the acrimony which can arise in the current circumstances is extremely distressing. I believe that a no-fault approach can help children, who are the real losers when marriages break up.
  I was interested to hear the Minister say that children's needs are paramount. He will recall that that is a phrase used in the Children Act 1989. It is no good idealising marriages or determining what is best in general for children because there is no common rule. I have spoken to hundreds of children in difficult marriages. I have talked to children who have been physically and sexually abused by their fathers. Some of them want their fathers to stay—they want to maintain a relationship—while others think it better to have the father expelled. There is no common solution, and we cannot say that it is always best for children if families are kept together.
  786
  Children's views should always be taken into account, of course, and I am pleased that the Bill reinforces that idea. I am also pleased that it includes a 12-month period for reconciliation and mediation. That is a long time in a child's life—50 per cent. of a two-year-old's life, 33 per cent. of a three-year-old' s life, and so on. For a child, a day or a week can be a very long time. I believe that a year is long enough to settle uncertainty, and short enough to find a way forward by means of mediation or reconciliation.
  I am sorry that so much of what lies behind the mediation and reconciliation provision is to be stipulated in regulations after the passage of the Bill. I should like to know whether the information sessions will be private or public. I should like Ministers to explain, perhaps in Committee, the difference between mediation and reconciliation: they are different processes. We need to focus, too, on the resources necessary for the whole process. The Bill is described as cost-neutral. I always take the view that when legislating for something new we have to accept, at least in the short term, that it will cost more. We should be investing in the people who are to mediate and reconcile; otherwise, in two years' time there will not be enough people with the requisite skills to pursue the task.
  I hope that in Committee we shall consider the subject of domestic violence and that we shall listen to groups such as the Women's Aid Federation and Rights for Women. They point out that 500,000 women are victims of domestic violence, and that there were 1,015 rapes in 1977 and 5,082 in 1994. Half those rapes are perpetrated by husbands or partners.
  For groups like those, the notion of no-fault divorce has a hollow ring. For a woman who has been beaten half to death, the concept of no fault is of no help—she wants early action, not reconciliation. Such women want justice, and soon. They do not want to wait a year. I hope that the Minister will assure them of the right to legal aid. I hope that we shall use this Bill as a platform to give women who are the victims of domestic violence greater protection. There is certainly scope to do that.
  I am pleased that the Government have accepted the principle of pension splitting. Now we want them to work hard to ensure that when the Bill comes into force, in two years' time, pension splitting can be dealt with at the same time.
  Supporting marriage is the key task that lies ahead. Strong marriages and partnerships create healthy children, who in their turn create healthy families and good communities. Children are our future and we neglect them at our peril. Investment in children is investment in all our futures.
  I am far from confident that the Bill provides all the answers, but it is a good platform for discussion and positive movement. I look forward to the Committee stage because I want to amend the Bill and to strengthen it. Above all, I want to invest in children. We must take a look at policies which can create strong families and healthy communities: their future is our survival.
  8.45 pm
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I got divorced—I use the phrase deliberately, as I did not want to be divorced and I do not believe that there was a reason for the divorce, but I shall not trouble the House with the

  787
  details of my personal affairs. I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who said that our personal experiences should not influence our attitudes to social legislation. In my view, it is our personal experiences which drive us and give this House its life.
  As a result of my experience, I am infinitely more pro-family and pro-marriage. Being deprived of something makes one realise its value. I was very shaken and upset by my experience, which was the worst of my life and one that I would not wish on my worst enemy. One thing that I learned was that all divorces are different. There seems to have been a steady assumption in the commentaries on the Bill that divorce is always a matter of men going off with bimbos and leaving their wives and children behind. Yet many divorces are similar to mine, instigated by the woman, who either gets bored—there was no third party in my case—or decides that she wants to change her life. Such women then seek legal advice.
  The solicitors who live by divorce fall into two distinct camps. There are those who try to make it as easy, cheap and gentle as possible, and there are those who deliberately exacerbate divisions between the partners and are quite willing to run up high costs. I am afraid there are far too many of the latter sort.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made an excellent assessment of the situation, which I fear has not been appreciated by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken against the Bill. The fact is that no fault or bad conduct is taken into account at present, even though that may not be what the law says. I acknowledge the long experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) as a divorce lawyer. He made it clear that "unreasonable behaviour" may amount to no more than a couple of rows undergone in the previous four years.
  I was advised that I could go to court and have my case heard before a judge, and it would last two or three days and cost tens of thousands of pounds which I could ill afford. As I was a Minister at the time, my name would have been spread across the papers and my children would have read about the family divisions. It was simply not a common-sense option; anyone serious about arriving at a practical resolution as easily as possible would not entertain it. One party is forced to submit; one partner can do that to the other without any difficulty.
  Not much has been said about the division of money in today's debate—the Bill is not primarily about that—but that is what causes so much concern. Once the lawyers decide that there is effectively no blame in a divorce, the objective with regard to the family's funds should be to leave the two parties as near as possible to their financial situation before the split. That objective is fine for millionaires, but it is a farce for the rest of the population—97 per cent. of us—to attempt to split the family's funds so as to leave the situation as before.
  The ping pong played with and by the lawyers—the allegations, the letters that have to be answered, the papers that have to be found and, all the while, the costs ticking up on a one-way ratchet—does nothing to calm people down or to persuade them to approach the situation with a gentle attitude. Misunderstanding and acrimony can become totally unbearable.
  The Bill is a very well-intentioned attempt to solve a nigh-on insoluble problem. I support mediation. I hope that, as some hon. Members have mentioned, mediation
  788
  will sometimes even lead to reconciliation. When I saw Father Jack Dominian, a very well-known expert in these matters—he gave me time on a Sunday night, which was very good of him—he said:
  "I can help you only if I can talk to your wife."
  She did not wish to go, and there was no compulsion on her to go, so no more came of it.
  I support the one-year period. I believe that any longer period would be damaging. Some resolution of people's problems is perhaps better than allowing them to run on. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) rightly mentioned in fulsome terms the Bristol Family Mediation Service, of which I am a patron. It wrote to me:
  "For these reasons, we support the replacement of the fault clauses (as a means of establishing that the marriage has irretrievably broken down) by a period of reflection for a year. It is our experience that a year is about the right length of time. Any less does not give time for everything to be sorted out constructively; longer than a year is to prolong the period of uncertainty for the children"—
  and, they might have added, for the parties as well.
  I am concerned about the odd aberration: the person who discovers on honeymoon that there is no possible hope for a marriage to continue. I am familiar with a person who married a strange man who for many years had a mistress: he thought that marriage might be rather fun, so he married this person. There could be no future in such a marriage and since there were no children involved it was quickly ended. Under this Bill, there is no way in which there can be a rapid divorce. I hope that, perhaps in Committee, some thought might be given to them.
  There is not one hon. Member who has not had his or her surgery filled with Child Support Agency cases. A part of those CSA cases is the physical distress of the parties. Those hon. Members who have never been involved in divorce personally have only to come in contact with it on that basis to recognise the great personal distress experienced by the parties.
  I should like to add my voice to those asking that the mediation service should receive money. It is a very strange situation that we spend not millions but billions of pounds of public money dealing with the aftermath of divorce, supporting the lone women and men and dealing with all those tragedies. There must be a multiplier benefit if some of that money were to be hived off, in modest terms, for some assistance, even if the success rate was low.
  I know that time is very short. Finally, therefore, I commend to the House the debate in the other place, which was of an extremely high order. The one comment that really caught my mind was that of the Chief Rabbi, who described marriage and divorce in the Jewish community and how the practice of divorce has—as in the case of every other religion—grown steadily in recent times. He asked why people did not divorce in earlier times. The answer was that it was because of the stigma: he repeated the word many times, and I think that we all know what he meant.
  My mother would not have a divorced person in her house. She perhaps took an old-fashioned view, but because there was a stigma many people stayed together. I do not believe that we can—or, it might be argued, should—reintroduce stigma into our society, but any attempt, however modest, to solve the problem should have the wholehearted support of right-thinking people.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: When the Law Commission first published its proposals for divorce law reform in 1990, one in three marriages ended in divorce. The figure now, sadly, is nearer to one in two. In 1993, there were nearly 160,000 divorces, which directly affected the lives of nearly 200,000 children under the age of 16.
  Marriage breakdown, quite simply, despite all its traumas and financial hardship, is now an everyday event. Unlike some Conservative Members who have spoken in this debate, however, I do not think that those statistics can reasonably be attributed to legislation. Social and economic factors are much more important in determining the incidence of marital breakdown than is divorce legislation—which leads me to conclude that divorce legislation will never succeed in altering those basic social facts of life. Marriages will continue to break down whether we like it or not. That was certainly true of the time before the Divorce Reform Act 1969. Divorce was not invented in 1969. So although the law alone is unlikely directly to influence the rate of marital breakdown, it should not make matters worse than they already are and, wherever possible, it should make things better.
  Two fundamental principles should guide the development of divorce and family law. First, we should try to save as many marriages as possible. That will require better access to well-resourced marriage guidance and reconciliation services. Divorce should not be the first option when a marriage gets into difficulty. Secondly, we should ensure that, when a marriage is not capable of being saved, it can be dissolved as quickly as possible, with a minimum of bitterness and distress.
  Everyone knows that divorce is an ugly and painful business; it is probably the lowest point in a person's life. But it is absolutely right that we should look again at our current rules on divorce to ensure that couples who split up are able to leave their marriages with the least pain and in circumstances in which they are required to make proper provision for their finances and for the welfare of any children. That simply does not happen under the present rules. I believe that the Bill will improve the present procedures and should therefore be supported.
  In particular, I welcome part I of the Bill, which comprises one clause setting out the general principles which are to guide the courts and the individuals responsible for discharging the legislation. I am in favour of such "general principle" clauses because they are of value to the courts, lawyers and others involved in divorce proceedings.
  Many of the opponents of the Bill have concentrated on clauses 5 and 7 and the abolition of the fault principle. They have criticised the Bill for introducing what they see as divorce on demand after 12 months. This, they believe, will undermine the sanctity of marriage and damage society. I do not believe that that will be the case—in fact, quite the contrary. This is one of the rare occasions when there is probably more support for a Government Bill on the Opposition side of the House than on the Government side. That has been reflected in many of the speeches made by Conservative Members today. It is a sad reflection of the fact that some Conservative Members have fallen under the spell and influence of some pretty disreputable leading articles in The Daily Telegraph and
  790
  the Daily Mail, which have tried to characterise the Bill as striking a fundamental blow at the sanctity of marriage. That is rubbish, and I am glad that some Conservative Members support the Bill and have made their support public and obvious.
  The fault principle contained in existing divorce law is used in nearly 75 per cent. of cases. Fault in the form of adultery or unreasonable behaviour is cited so often as the reason for marital breakdown precisely in order to obtain a quick divorce. The existing emphasis on fault in our divorce law has not resulted in fewer divorces taking place; nor has it acted as a buttress for the Judaeo-Christian moral norms to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) referred.
  Many hon. Members referred to the Family Mediation Service. I shall read briefly from a letter that I received from the Cumbria Family Mediation Service on 19 March and which deals with the question of fault. Marcia Start, the administrator of the Cumbrian service, said:
  "It is our clients' experience that, if they have had to allege fault in order to get divorced more quickly than two years … this has added to the tension between them and has had effects on their children by making it difficult to maintain a secure atmosphere for them. The Bill cannot get rid of 'fault' and most divorcing parents blame one another. But it can remove the need to use fault as a means of establishing breakdown."
  That is the important point. If we can remove fault from the proceedings, we have a chance of ending up with a better result.
  It is also worth reminding ourselves of what Mrs. Justice Booth argued in an article in The Guardian on 8 March. She said:
  "In reality, the existence of fault in our present divorce law creates no obstacles to divorce: quite the reverse."
  She then compiles a pretty dismal catalogue of deficiencies in the existing arrangements and concludes:
  "The present law and procedures have evolved without any clear direction or consistent policy. They are manifestly unsatisfactory. The opportunity for reform should not be lost."
  I agree with those comments.
  I hope that, by removing the concept of blame from the divorce process, the Bill will create an opportunity for both parties to face up to their own responsibilities. This in turn can make the divorce process itself less acrimonious. That will be of obvious benefit to all the parties involved, especially the children. The combination of no fault and a cooling-off period is much more likely to protect the emotional interests of children caught up in the nightmare of divorce than a continuation of the present laws.
  We have to be honest with ourselves and recognise that no law that we could devise will succeed in compelling people who do not want to live with each other to continue to live with each other. We simply do not live in that world any longer. We delude ourselves if we pretend that we can devise some legislative formula that will suddenly turn back the tide of divorce. We should be deluding ourselves if we thought that such a device existed or that we could create one. We cannot. If people no longer love each other and do not want to live with each other we cannot make them, and it would be foolish to try. We must be concerned to devise procedures and mechanisms that will allow the break to take place in the best possible circumstances.

  791
  Many of the organisations involved in family law have expressed their support for the abolition of the fault principle and the promotion of mediation services. That is the right way to proceed, but there must be greater emphasis in the Bill on marriage guidance and reconciliation. I have read the Bill quite carefully, and I do not think that the words "marriage guidance" appear in it at all—and they should. As we know, mediation and guidance are not the same.
  The Family Policies Study Centre expressed concern about funding for mediation services, a matter to which several hon. Members have referred today. Under clause 24, the Legal Aid Board will have new powers to fund mediation services. That is to be welcomed, but the FPSC has reported concern that more resources need to be devoted to these services now in order to guarantee their current level of existence. Without that, there may be an even smaller base of existing provision on which to peg the operation of the proposed legislation. I hope that, either now or in Committee, the Government will give us the benefit of their opinions on these matters. The Government must deal with these problems. I am afraid that there is no escape from the simple conclusion that there will be a need for extra resources.
  Our top priority should be to create the right legal framework in which to support and protect families. There are a number of aspects of the Bill that could be improved, and I hope that they will be improved in Committee. Nevertheless, the Bill takes us broadly in the right direction, and for that it is to be welcomed.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I share the horror of divorce, as expressed by the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate. As the father of three young children, I am constantly aware of the advantage that my children have in life, in having parents who are married. If my wife remains as tolerant as ever, we shall remain married throughout their childhood. I believe firmly in marriage. I support the Bill and I urge the House to give it a Second Reading. With amendment, it will represent a substantial and worthwhile improvement to the present state of the law.
  I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and especially my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, for the open and listening way in which they have received the issues that colleagues have raised.
  Most of us agree that the courts have trampled over Parliament's clear intentions. The most frequently quoted example is the way in which unreasonable behaviour has been extended to the most trivial matters. In any event, it is no longer verified. That is important. We may have pious hopes that we all agree with in the early clauses and the introductory material, but it is the letter of what the law states and enjoins on the courts that is critical.
  Under the control of the courts in England and Wales we have had divorce on demand, without fault and without conduct, for some years. The Bill offers three main advantages. The first is the one-year delay. It has already been said that that will effectively double the average time that is taken for a divorce.
  The second advantage is the provision for mediation and reconciliation. I am surprised that there are some who think that the information session should be compulsory. The
  792
  first contact that most people have at the beginning of a divorce is with an adversarial lawyer. Whatever his personal motivation, he has a direct financial interest, both in the marriage breaking up and in that break-up being as bloody as possible. We know that the bloodier it is, the longer it will be, and the larger will be the fee. It seems eminently sensible that initially there should be a compulsory information session, so that the parties are made aware of the opportunities for reconciliation and mediation.
  In cases where domestic violence is not involved, legal aid should be restricted to green-form advice, as the Government propose, until people have tried mediation. That process encourages people to talk about their problems first. I understand that mediators will have a statutory duty to bear in mind the possibility of reconciliation. That will again tend to make people aware of the opportunities for getting together again. There is no such duty at present.
  The third advantage bears on children. We know that the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. Over 70 per cent. were initiated by women last year. They are usually brought about by young women with children, who know that under present arrangements their chances of getting custody are overwhelming. They know also that, with that advantage, they will get control of the house along with guaranteed maintenance for the children and, usually, for themselves.
  By balancing a little the arrangements for children and by making courts slightly more reluctant to hand custody automatically to the mother, we shall remove one of the main incentives for divorce, as well as being much fairer to the children and, dare I say it, to the father.
  Thus I am glad that the Government were prepared to take on board Baroness Elles's amendments, as introduced in the other place. They were drafted by the Conservative Family Campaign. The amendment will make it a specific duty of the court to consider the conduct of both parents towards the children in making custody arrangements. Before divorce is granted, the courts will consider access arrangements for fathers. I should like to see more teeth in the proposed arrangements. In any event, courts will have to consider access arrangements for fathers, or for the other parent, before a divorce is granted. They will have to take account also of any new partners who come on the scene.
  The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) mentioned the fact that many cases involve child abuse. I have news for him: the overwhelming majority of child abuse cases involve not the natural father, but the new partner of the child's natural mother. That is why it is absolutely right that one of those amendments accepted in the House of Lords says that, when it comes to the custody of the children, the court must look at any new partners, too, before the divorce is granted.
  I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) wants to speak, so I shall be brief. Two areas in the Bill should be strengthened: first, orders on the family home. The Government have rightly majored on the fact that there will be a minimum period before a divorce can be granted. Personally, I should like it to be longer than a year and will support an amendment for 18 months on a free vote, but the essential point is that the period must be watertight.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know from my earlier urgings that a number of us are concerned that, if we allowed orders other than "ouster" orders,

  793
  arrangements for domestic violence and so on, to be made on the family home in the first few weeks of the proceedings, any provision for mediation, reconciliation and the rest would be a waste of time. The marriage would already be dead. The divorce might not have gone through as a piece of paper, but, de facto, it would have happened. I urge that there should be no exceptions where final orders are to be made on the family home during the year concerned.
  The other issue on which I urge amendment to improve the Bill is conduct. I think that five hon. Members specifically referred to it. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), part of whose speech I had to miss because of a constituency engagement, mentioned culpability, by which I take it that he means the same thing. There is a strong feeling among some hon. Members on both sides of the House that, when it is manifestly clear that one party is largely to blame for the break-up of a marriage, that should be taken into account by the court. I accept the Government's argument that it should not be through fault. We do not want to begin the process of divorce with fault as a way to speed it up. Even when reconciliation has failed, many couples will none the less be able to settle their differences without fault.
  We do not want a return to fault. We want conduct, which has also effectively been abolished by the courts. In the minority of cases in which there has been no reconciliation and there has been an inability to settle the terms amicably through mediation and a divorce will go ahead, the court should take account of the conduct of the parties. The innocent party should be able to argue, whether it is domestic violence, desertion or whatever, that when making the various orders—not just about the children, where we have had the concession already, but orders on financial matters—conduct should be taken into account. That was quite clearly Parliament's intention in the original legislation. The courts have departed from that in practice.
  One example illustrates that point, that of Kyte v. Kyte, where a wife lied to the courts to get her husband ousted from the home, installed the new boyfriend and went out of her way to assist her husband in an attempted suicide. Two courts of this country ruled that even that was not sufficiently serious conduct to be taken into account. That had to go all the way to the Court of Appeal to be overruled, and it still forced some financial settlement on the husband.
  I believe that the Bill is a courageous attempt to tackle a very difficult problem. I urge the House to support it on Second Reading, but very much hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will continue to listen to the representations that some of us will make, because the Bill needs considerable strengthening.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I share many of the assumptions made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). Like him, I am blessed with a happy marriage, which I believe has lasted 30 years—although I always forget the precise number of years.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What was the date?
  Mr. Anderson: I always forget the date as well. Moreover, like the hon. Gentleman, I have three children.
  For several years I practised in the family division; I was also a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee that produced a report on domestic violence—along with a number of distinguished hon. Members on both sides of the House who are present tonight.
  Although I agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury that the saddest element of divorce is the need to protect the children involved, I do not agree with him about fault. In my long experience of the family division, I have rarely seen a case in which the fault is 100 per cent. on one side. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of Kyte v. Kyte, but that was nothing like the generality of cases. We are discussing complex human circumstances. Mr. Justice Ormrod, as he then was, put it well in his judgment on the famous leading case of Wachtel v. Wachtel, reported in 1973:
  "The fact is that the forensic process is reasonably well adapted to determining in broad terms the share of responsibility of each party for an accident on the road or at work because the issues are relatively confined in scope, but it is much too clumsy a tool for dissecting the complex inter-actions which go on all the time in a family. Shares in responsibility for breakdown cannot be properly assessed without a meticulous examination and understanding of the characters and personalities of the spouses concerned, and the more thorough the investigation the more the shares will, in most cases, approach equality."
  On the basis of practice, I know that the petitioner is normally the person who has the incentive to consult a solicitor first. All too frequently, following the "escalator principle", the solicitor or counsel will ask the petitioner about incidents in what may be a normal marriage, but a marriage which—if it has lasted for six, seven or 10 years—may feature incidents that, if isolated and combined in a petition, will make that marriage appear the most lurid possible. The juggernaut will then move on, and the bitterness will overflow into the ancillary proceedings. That will affect children and, to a less important extent, property.
  That is the reality of fault in marriage: it is a complex human situation. The courts are ill adapted to say precisely where the fault lies. Even if a wife has committed adultery, that may be put in the context of a long period of unreasonable conduct on the part of her husband. Certain considerations are not helpful when decisions must be made about the dissolution of an unhappy marriage. It is, however, in the public interest for marriage to be preserved. Not only is that morally right, given that marriage represents a cornerstone of our society; as many hon. Members have pointed out, the breakdown of marriage is very costly to the public purse, to the tune of some £4 million. We should not be too bemused by the divorce law, or consider it to be the only or best way in which the public and the Government can have an impact on the family. Tax, housing and benefits law should also be considered.
  I wholly accept what has been said about the need for reconciliation as well as mediation. Those are two very different concepts. Perhaps in Committee we can look at ways in which a statutory time might be set aside for reconciliation and mediation. I should like to look at amendments which would seek to preserve the interests of parties who do not consent to divorce and which would allow a longer period for consideration. I should like to consider ways in which judicial separation might be

  795
  abused and could move into divorce without one of the parties being properly consulted. A number of areas need close examination, but fault, as traditionally defined in the old ecclesiastical law days and which to some extent was preserved in the Divorce Reform Act 1969 and continued in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, is not a helpful concept.
  In broad terms, the Bill is a step forward. It will not stem the sad tide of increasing divorce, but it may give people who are so inclined time to stand still and consider. However, it must be buttressed with far more education about responsible marriage, especially for young people. There must be more attempts to advise people at each stage of the marriage before they step on to the escalator on which solicitors are concerned, alas, in so many sad cases, simply to see the matter through without looking at the broader public interest. That broader interest is the preservation of marriage and the protection of the vulnerable, particularly children, and that is what the House should be concerned about.
  9.21 pm
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: This has been an extremely good, sober and serious debate and we have had high-quality contributions from all parts of the House. We all bring to the debate our own experiences. We are elected to serve by our constituents and, much as we like to think that we are elected for our own sakes, which I am sure we are in part, we are elected mainly to serve under our party political colours.
  When we debate issues of this kind we bring to bear our own experiences, histories and backgrounds. We have experience as husbands, wives or parents and, of course, as members of families. There are probably no more important subjects to be discussed in this place than marriage and families. I am sure that there is broad consensus on that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, families are the building blocks of society. The family is the unit that sustains us in time of trouble and it brings us joy, hope and comfort.
  It must be the objective of every hon. Member from whatever party they come to do everything that they can to bolster families and to support and preserve the institution of marriage. Perhaps our most important aim is to do whatever we can to make sure that our children, the nation's children, are brought up to lead good and fulfilling lives and give something to society.
  I have said that we have had high-quality contributions in the debate. There were some impressive personal testaments by hon. Members in all parts of the House and from different viewpoints. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) spoke movingly about the importance of children and about divorce. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) spoke from his own experiences, as did the hon. Member for Mid?Kent (Mr. Rowe) in a short but pertinent intervention. The right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) spoke about the importance of reconciliation, a theme that hon. Members have returned to time and again. It comes as a surprise that, as originally presented in another place, the Bill did not mention reconciliation. That illustrates some of the confusion about this matter. It is one of the things that Labour Members intend to emphasise in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) mentioned the social context of marriage. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood
  796
  (Mr. Tipping) who has a wealth of experience of working with children. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) put the context of the debate in terms of the stresses that are sometimes placed on families and that involve not so much the law, but social problems, unemployment and many other factors that are pertinent to marriage.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) mentioned pension splitting and his support for that. There was an interesting debate about mediation. An interesting thing about this place, especially when we have important debates such as this one, is that we learn about the background of hon. Members. For example, my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) not only spoke with passion and enthusiasm about mediation, but clearly knew what they were talking about. Perhaps all hon. Members will agree that, sometimes, there is a tinge to speeches in this place which shows that Members may not know what they are talking about. That was certainly not the case in this debate. We all benefited from that. The Committee that considers the Bill will benefit from hon. Members' experience.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke about preparation for marriage, which is relevant. For those of us who enter into marriage, it is probably the most important decision that we make in our lives, yet preparation for it is often patchy and sometimes non-existent. Again, that theme is not dealt with in the Bill, but it will emerge when hon. Members discuss the matter in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) managed in a short time to put the whole question in context. He reminded me of the case of Wachtel v. Wachtel, which I dimly remember from my Bar exam days. What was good about his speech was that he placed his experience at the Bar at our disposal in telling us what the position was.
  The aim of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 was to buttress rather than to undermine the stability of marriage, but, where marriages were thought to have irretrievably broken down, to provide a structure where they could end with minimum bitterness and acrimony. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, the 1969 Act had one ground for the ending of the marriage: irretrievable breakdown. That is established by five facts. Three of the facts involve fault, but it was assumed—certainly by the House at the time—that the two years' separation fact would be the one mostly used.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, however, that is not the case. Seventy-five per cent. of all cases go on the facts of adultery and unreasonable behaviour. We know the reason for that: to have a quick divorce. Thirty-two per cent. of divorces are granted in under six months and 82 per cent. in under one year. The facts illustrate that the Act's two purposes, which I mentioned—to support marriage and to provide the appropriate structure where they had irretrievably broken down—are not being achieved by current legislation.
  The one-year period provided for in the Bill will be subject to a free vote on both sides of the House, as will the removal of the concept of fault. The Bill moves away

  797
  from the sometimes adversarial nature of divorce towards mediation. I acted for both petitioners and respondents when I was at the Bar, so I have some experience of these matters. Both the solicitors' profession and the Bar have moved on and now the majority of solicitors and barristers recognise the importance of acting responsibly and in the interests of the family.
  There is no doubt that our court structure is adversarial. Just as this House is based on adversarial lines, so is our court structure. The Bill moves away from that towards mediation. However, it cannot be stressed enough that mediation is not reconciliation; nor is it counselling. As we go through the Committee stage, we must keep returning to that point—and make no apology for doing so. We must ask some hard questions about the structure of mediation, the training required and the pattern throughout the country. Mediation is not an easy option; it is not something that the enthusiastic amateur can take on. We cannot simply talk about mediation and assume that it will be provided everywhere. Nor can we assume, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, that the structure exists to bring about mediation. It will require highly trained and skilled people. I shall listen closely to the Minister when he replies as I want to hear in detail about the preparations to bring that about.
  I understand that there will be a number of pilot projects throughout the country. How will they be run? How will the people in those projects be trained? How will we provide for monitoring? How will we allow for regional variation? If we get it wrong, we could create something as unpalatable and unworkable as the Child Support Agency in its early stages. We will create something that will not work.
  In Committee, we must examine how the practical structure will work. We must look at the practical experience of other countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We must look at best practice. Again, we need to ask hard questions about the information meetings. How will they be held? In what context will they be held? How will they safeguard privacy? How will we ensure that people feel comfortable in those meetings? How will we ensure that people go to them with the best possible attitude?
  We must remember that mediation is not always suitable. Some cases, because of their complex nature or the particular facts involved, will not be appropriate for mediation. We must ensure that the need for independent legal advice in such cases is recognised. We want an assurance from the Minister that that legal advice will be available. We certainly do not want the Bill to result in a two-tier divorce system, with one remedy available for those rich enough to pay for it and another for those who are not. That is important.
  As well as being members of our political parties, we all have another role as constituency Members of Parliament. Mention has already been made of the effects of marriage breakdown. We see them in our surgeries every week. We see the distress caused to families, the financial hardship and, most important, the distress caused to that group that we can never forget, our children—the most vulnerable people in our community. I say our children because we all have a responsibility for the
  798
  children in our society. We will need to ensure that during the Minister's reply and in Committee, those hard questions are answered.
  An important part of the Bill deals with domestic violence, which is of course tackled by existing legislation, but in a very piecemeal fashion that sometimes makes it difficult for practitioners, and more importantly victims, who are overwhelmingly women, to seek help.
  Together with other hon. Members, I was extremely proud to be a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which reported earlier this Session on domestic violence. The most important thing that the House can say about domestic violence is that it is a crime that will be punished by the full weight of the law; that the House takes it seriously; and that the courts and the police take it very seriously. It is important that we consider the Select Committee's conclusions, so I should like to quote a passage from them.
  "We were very impressed by the commitment of many of those we encountered in this inquiry: those who work directly in refuges and with the Women's Aid movement, police officers, probation officers, Crown Prosecutors and others. We should now like to see the energy and zeal displayed by the best in each service becoming common to all. Awareness of the issue must be spread throughout the relevant practitioners in the criminal and civil justice system, and it must be complemented by the full-hearted commitment from the centre of Government to guarantee that most basic of a citizen's rights: the one of living a life where violence is not feared and individual dignity is respected."
  Violent crime of whatever description is completely abhorrent to the House and society. The unique thing that distinguishes domestic violence from any other violent crime is that it occurs in the very place where we are entitled to feel most secure, safe and protected. For too many of our citizens, especially women and children, the home is a place of fear and violence, where they feel totally unprotected. I am very glad that, in part IV, the issue of domestic violence has been introduced. I am sure that we shall be having detailed discussions of the proposals in Committee.
  There has been a great deal of discussion in another place about pension splitting. It is clearly an issue of fairness and equity. The pension built up during a marriage is obviously a family asset. Like the matrimonial home, it needs to be taken into consideration on divorce. I should like to pay a very full-hearted tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Hollis for the campaign that she waged in another place.
  Although we welcome the Government's announcement that they will not oppose clause 15, I should like to hear from the Minister—the point was echoed by other hon. Members, certainly the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West—the reason why the time scale for introducing the Green Paper is so dilatory. Why are we talking about June and July? We know that a great deal of preparatory work has been done. Surely the sooner the Green Paper is published and the sooner we can consider some of the complex technical issues the better. We welcome the Government's announcement, but we want to hear more. We certainly want to hear more assurances about the time scale and about how the measure is to be implemented.
  I do not think that I am egging the pudding too much when I say that we face a solemn task today. We shall certainly face a solemn task in Committee when we consider the Bill. We are not merely considering the way in which we live our lives in society today, but how we

  799
  will lead our lives in the next century and the sort of society that we build for our children and grandchildren, who are our future. The Bill is about the future of marriage, the future of families and the future of our children. We owe it to all of them to ensure that we get it right.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I begin by echoing the words of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche)—we came to the House at the same time, the last general election. I have participated in a number of debates in the short time that I have been in the House, and I do not recall a debate as good as this. At a time when so much of parliamentary life is derided in the press, it would have been a revelation for some of those who have had so much to say about the subject in our newspapers if they had been present to hear the debate. The quality of contributions from both sides of the House has been immense. It has been said that many hon. Members have chosen to contribute on the basis of personal experience; many other hon. Members have brought strong personal views on conscience issues to bear in the debate—that has all contributed to the quality of the debate.
  I shall quote some remarks issued by the Catholic bishops conference on 15 November last year. In touching on the issue of divorce law reform, the bishops said:
  "In respect of the proposed legislation to reform the divorce law, we recognise that differing judgments can be made, sincerely, honestly and legitimately on the details of the Bill and its predictable effects."
  I agree with that view; that approach has underlined the stance taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who said earlier that he could not be present for the winding-up speeches. They have had the opportunity to outline their specific concerns, of which the Government are keen to take account.
  The core aim of the Bill is not to introduce no-fault divorce, as some have claimed. The core aim of the Bill is to introduce a new concept of a minimum period for reflection and consideration—the introduction of a sort of cooling-off period. It is important to stress that that is wholly different from anything that has been part of our law hitherto. It is true that two of the grounds under current divorce law require people to have been living apart for periods of two years, for a consensual divorce, or five years for a non-consensual divorce. But, as with fault-based grounds, from the time that the petition is presented, one is on a conveyor belt—or, as others have put it, an escalator—the outcome of which is the divorce itself.
  What do we know about the presentation of the petition? We know that there is a median time of, broadly, seven months from the time that the petition is presented to the time that a divorce order is granted. We also know that many thousands of people withdraw their petitions within that time—the petition is presented, but the petitioner then thinks better of it. How many other marriages might have been saved if there had been time for reflection and consideration?
  800
  I must take Issue with one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies)—I am sure that he will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended. He said that he did not know anyone who regretted having gone through a divorce. However, the statistics are slightly against him: more than half of men and 28 per cent. of women who have been through divorce regret it and, oddly enough, 10 per cent. regret divorcing each other—in other words, both husband and wife regret the divorce. I believe that the introduction of the cooling-off period is an essential step.
  The legislation will encourage reconciliation. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said that marriage support services are not mentioned on the face of the Bill. I do not expect him to have read all the legislation at this stage, but clause 8 refers specifically to marriage support services, and reconciliation is mentioned in other parts of the Bill.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in his usual courteous manner. I said that the Bill does not refer to marriage guidance services. Will he confirm that he is prepared to use clause 20 to provide active support for marriage guidance services? Whether we call it marriage guidance or marriage support is neither here nor there. The Bill certainly does not refer to marriage guidance.
  Mr. Evans: The new structure that we shall put in place will channel people towards marriage support services. For example, we have introduced the information meeting. Under current law, lawyers are required to advise their clients of the availability of marriage support services. No doubt due to the stress of the divorce process, 75 per cent. of people have no recollection of those services having been outlined to them.
  That is one of the reasons why we need a structure that will ensure that people receive the requisite information. We are receptive to all sorts of proposals—to which hon. Members referred in the debate—as to how that information may be conveyed to the individual. The Lord Chancellor's Department proposes to deal with it by establishing an advisory committee and a pilot project. I am sure that that approach will be welcomed across the House.
  A statement can be served only after the information meeting has taken place. The cooling-off period then begins. We are promoting mediation—I shall refer later to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on that subject—which we believe is the best way of reducing much of the hostility in the divorce process. I state clearly at the outset that no one claims that the Government are in a position to remove the acrimony or hostility from divorce: we could not contrive a situation to achieve that objective. However, we can remove from our divorce process those structures that build upon hostility and acrimony and that emphasise or exaggerate those elements. I believe that they are not in the interests of children.
  It has been said that the proposals will lead to quicker and easier divorces. As was made clear during the debate, the median time for granting a divorce is seven months, and that time will almost double under the proposals. Greatest interest was expressed in what has been characterised wrongly as the "no-fault divorce". It is wrong to claim that the proposal to move to one, set

  801
  ground for divorce—the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage—was dreamt up by a liberal Law Commission in the 1990s. We must go further back to a committee established by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1966—I do not know whether some of my hon. Friends would express the same view about that Archbishop of Canterbury as they have expressed about more recent Archbishops.
  According to "Putting Asunder", the Archbishop of Canterbury's report in 1966 said that the structure of the marital offence built upon the very hostilities to which I have referred and, for the first time, proposed moving to a structure in which the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage should be the ground for divorce.
  A matter has been raised on many occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle raised it with me tonight. It is certainly not a part of our law that conduct has no part to play. Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that conduct should be taken into account. I have listened with care to the points that have been raised and, in view of the concerns that have been outlined in that regard, I shall certainly examine what the practice has been in the courts.
  In the same way. the period of time is clearly a matter of conscience and must be subject to a free vote. I am pleased that the whole House has welcomed that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) is not in her place, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy promised that I would respond to her earlier intervention. Under current law, one is unable to present a petition for divorce unless a period of at least 12 months has elapsed. Therefore, a petition could be presented by a newly married person only after that 12-month period has elapsed. Under the proposed new law, that period would double to a minimum two-year period—the one-year period during which no petition can be presented and the following year, during which the couple would have to engage in reconciliation and consideration of their position. That is a great advance on the current state of the law.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) should examine one aspect of the current structure of our law in relation to the two-year and five-year periods. It is a requirement of those conditions that couples should live apart. I am very much aware that concerns have been expressed in many quarters about the fact that once a couple separate, they are moving towards the eventual break-up of their marriage. If the difficulties in a marriage lead to circumstances in which a couple are required to live apart, they may inexorably proceed to divorce. The two-year and five-year grounds both require the couple to live apart for a period of two or five years.
  I would argue that a proposal such as that on the face of the Bill—that, from the time that a statement is made stating that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the couple would be required to concentrate on the prospects of reconciliation because they will be directed towards that through the information sessions and the mediator will be under a requirement to keep the prospects of reconciliation very much to the fore—is very much better than the position in our current law.
  Mr. Patten: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, by attributing to me an approval of the present law that requires people to live separately for two or five years, he has baited a trap and fallen into it? At no stage have I argued that. I have argued, however, that there should be a proper period of reflection for 18 months or two years, during which people can go through reconciliation and mediation. Does he recognise that it is not wise to put words in other people's mouths?
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. The outcome of his comments is that he recognises that the current structure of the law should not be supported, and in those circumstances the Bill presents us with the opportunity to address the very problem that he has outlined.
  Let me also deal with a specific point to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy promised that I would respond. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked what was the Government's view as to whether there was likely to be a decline in the number of divorces. I am loth to make too many predictions, because my right hon. Friend quoted an article in The Spectator by Ruth Deetch—whom my right hon. Friend said is one of his constituents. She wrote:
  "Experience should have taught us to be wary of predictions about future human behaviour."
  I pay attention to her interdiction about predictions, but I am happy to predict that when the Bill is passed, the requirement for a 12-month cooling-off period is certain to result in a reduction in the number of divorces. It follows, and is clear from the measure, that no one will be able to go through the divorce process before the one-year cooling-off period.
  Sir Michael Neubert: As that point has been made more than once, will that not be a one-off effect and, thereafter, the sequence will follow and there will be no reduction in the number of divorces?
  Mr. Evans: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but I was invited to predict the outcome of passing the Bill. My hon. Friend probably agrees that that would be the response. However, the structure that I have outlined infinitely promotes reconciliation over the current situation. I hope that, in due course, we would not return to the current figures. The objective of not returning to that disadvantageous situation underpins the Government's proposals. I would be surprised if my hon. Friend is happy with the current structure of divorce law. Our proposals present my hon. Friend and me with the opportunity of doing something about it.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend accept that the only safe way to predict the future is through past experience? The introduction of no-fault divorce in America has resulted in a 20 per cent. increase in the divorce rate.
  Mr. Evans: I certainly do not want to follow the American experience, which is one reason why we have not gone down the American route of a specific period of separation and the no-fault provision. The requirement for a cooling-off period, and for a period during which active steps will be taken through mediation to resolve issues in relation to children, finance and property in a less hostile atmosphere is a big advantage over the practice in the

  803
  United States of America. The experience of some other jurisdictions, notably those quoted in the debate, is wholly different—the signs are that there has not been an increase in divorces. I will be happy to provide my hon. Friend with that information in due course.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South asked for an idea of the way in which mediation will proceed. Particular interest was shown in the debate in the situation in respect of legal advice and representation. The current cost of supporting lawyers to undertake legal aid divorce cases is £376 million—a huge sum that amounts to much more than £2,000 for each couple. It is clear from all the studies of mediation that it is not likely to be anywhere near as expensive as a protracted or contested divorce. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who has substantial knowledge of the subject, recounted his experience. He will confirm that the costs of mediation are significantly less. It is important that couples should have access to green form legal advice and, if they are eligible, it will be available to them during the mediation process. If the parties are found not to be susceptible to dealing with matters by mediation, ultimately the court process will be available to them.
  I say to my hon. Friends, as I said at the outset of the debate, that we are dealing with issues of fundamental importance to the people of Britain. Some people have asked whether we should be engaged in a debate about divorce. Divorce touches more than half a million people a year. If the current structure does not work well, we have to resolve it, and that is what the Bill will do.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 13.

  Division No. 85]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Alexander, Richard

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butler, Peter

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Barnes, Harry

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Churchill, Mr

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clappison, James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coe, Sebastian

  Betts, Clive

  Congdon, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Conway, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Boateng, Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Corston, Jean

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Cran, James

  Bowis, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  804

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

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

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

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dobson, Frank

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dover, Den

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Eastham, Ken

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lidington, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McFall, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Mackay, Mr Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Garnier, Edward

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Malone, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maxton, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Milburn, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hall, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Harris, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Heppell, John

  Olner, Bill

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  805

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Rendel, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Richards, Rod

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tyler, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waller, Gary

  Sackville, Tom

  Ward, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Simpson, Alan

  Whittingdale, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Wray, Jimmy

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stephen, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Gary Streeter.

  Sweeney, Walter

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Butcher John

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Trimble, David

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Mr. Bob Dunn and Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Bill read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That—

  (a) Clauses Nos. 5 and 7, and

  (b) any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order paper not later than Monday 1st April and relating to the circumstances in which a marriage may be taken to have broken down irretrievably or in which a divorce order or a separation order may be made by the Court, or to the period for reflection and consideration.

  be committed to a Committee of the whole House;

  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
  That when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 2nd April, in Committee of the whole House on Clauses Nos. 5 and 7 of the Family Law Bill [Lords] and any new Clauses or new Schedules committed thereto—
  (1) the Bill shall be considered in the following order, namely—

  (a) Clause No. 5; new Clauses relating to the circumstances in which a marriage may be taken to have broken down irretrievably or in which a divorce order or a separation order may be made by the Court; new Schedules relating thereto;

  (b) Clause No. 7; new Clauses relating to the period for reflection and consideration; new Schedules relating thereto;

  (2) the Chairman shall—

  (i) in respect of the Clause, new Clauses and new Schedules referred to in paragraph (1)(a) above, not later than Seven o'clock, and

  (ii) in respect of the remaining proceedings in Committee, not later than three hours after their commencement, put successively—

  (a) the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question on any Amendment to such new Clause or Schedule which has been selected by him and which may then be moved and, thereafter, the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill); and

  (c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, which shall include the Question on any Amendment or new Clause or Schedule or Amendment thereto which has been selected by him and which may then be moved.—[Mr. Wells.]

  FAMILY LAW BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Family Law Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in connection with the provision of information or the arrangement of meetings;

  (b) other administrative expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (c) expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of provision about division of assets in respect of which rights have accrued under a pension scheme;

  (d) any sums required by the Lord Chancellor for making grants in connection with—

  (i) the provision of marriage support services; or

  (ii) research into the causes of, or ways of preventing, marital breakdown; and

  (e) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Question agreed to.

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

  LEGAL AID ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
  That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

  GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
  That the draft Registers of Scotland Executive Agency Trading Fund Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  CO-OPERATION WITH GULF STATES
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. COM (95) 541, on improving relations between the European Union and the countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council; and supports the Government's view that this is a useful basis for the development of relations between the European Union and the Gulf Co-operation Council.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Bridget Prentice and Dr Tony Wright be discharged from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Mr. Paddy Tipping and Mr. Bill Etherington be. added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Isle of Wight (Sewerage)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me the Adjournment debate. As the National Rivers Authority seems to have featured quite significantly in my parliamentary life lately, it is perhaps appropriate, first, to set the scene and to pay some tributes.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published his draft Environment Agency Bill, I welcomed the fact that it was the first draft Bill that Parliament had seen in many a long day. At that time, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, I undertook an inquiry into the Bill. I have always supported the principle of Select Committees' scrutiny of primary legislation. I believe that the work of the Select Committee on Deregulation, which I now chair, has proved the merits of the system. I hope that the Committee's short inquiry will ensure the successful launch of the new agency, which will take over from the NRA and other bodies on 1 April. I have to say that that is not an especially propitious date.
  I thank the NRA staff for all that they have done. It is sad that the staff has laboured under the propaganda of the Liberal Democrat party, the master in British politics of the smear-and-sneer technique. It has continually denigrated the authority's work, principally on the ground that some of the staff used to work for Southern Water. Integrity and honour seem not to occur to the Liberal Democrat party.
  As always, proof is in actions, not in words. The NRA has, without fear or favour, brought to account those who flouted the law and caused pollution. How many prosecutions were initiated when the Liberal Democrat council was responsible for such matters? The answer is that there were so few that no one can remember there ever having been one. So much for the party's environment credentials. I wanted to get that off my chest because even council officers have been parroting black propaganda about the NRA lately, no doubt to cover up their previous inertia.
  We know from the BSE problem that issues can get out of control as a result of the media. At the same time, the Isle of Wight has had great successes with its tourism image. It was announced last week that eight of the island's beaches have been given the Tidy Britain group's seaside award. That means that the island has more beaches than any other county in that group's south-east region. The Yarmouth tourist information centre came second in a nationwide competition, winning the silver award.
  Southern Water has spent an enormous sum in improving the island's sewage schemes in the past few years. The raw sewage from my home on the island was discharged straight into Cowes harbour—a reversal of the usual practice of Cowes on Field. Similar schemes round our island shores have connected old Victorian outfalls and improved the environment out of all recognition.
  Why is there a need for tonight's debate? We know that the public's expectations and the requirements of the European Union are rising all the time, as, too, is

  809
  our knowledge. Given powerful computer programs, the ability to model the tidal effects of sewage outfalls is much greater now than ever before.
  Southern Water proposes to link up the whole of the island's sewerage system, including all those that discharge into the Solent, with a question mark over the Norton outfall at Yarmouth, and to pipe the effluent out to sea via one point on the channel side at Sandown. That has given rise to the concerns that I wish to address tonight.
  First, the Solent is the largest natural oyster bed in the whole of the United Kingdom, covering 93 sq km. In fact, it is much larger than that, as I know, having dived from the Needles bridge on a flood tide up through the Solent towards Black Rock. Many of the oysters are at depths that make them uneconomic to collect or are too near the main shipping channel to be harvested safely. To all intents and purposes, the Solent can be considered as one giant oyster bed. I am concerned that the NRA does not seem to have the power to monitor the length and effectiveness of outfalls. The one at Norton, for example, is several feet shorter than was originally designed, which has undoubtedly given rise to some of the problems.
  At the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I visited, with an island deputation, the MAFF fish laboratory at Weymouth. We were told the e-coli count of oysters sampled from around the Solent and were shown the NRA's tidal model for sewer outfalls. As all that information is shared with the NRA, MAFF and vice versa, I was very concerned that my parliamentary questions to the Department of the Environment produced somewhat obscure answers. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has agreed to see a deputation from the island. Sadly, it is a worrying example of two separate Departments that are both responsible for different aspects of the same problem but with no one able to exercise full control over the food chain.
  The Department of the Environment must explain why it has continually refused to support the complete treatment of sewage being discharged into the sea generally, and particularly into the Solent. Please do not tell me that the European Communities directive does not require it, because the health data held by MAFF is there for all to see, and the European Community will revise and improve the standards in years to come. I want to know, either tonight, or, as a result of the debate, in due course, what powers the Minister, the NRA or the new Environment Agency have to require Southern Water's scheme, known as Seaclean Wight, to be put on hold while the whole scheme is reappraised, not just for the island but for Portsmouth and Southampton. The data that I have been given cause me great concern. It needs a fresh look, if for no other reason than the fact that the very same Southern Water engineers categorically assured me that the existing schemes and outfalls into the Solent would meet future requirements. Operation Seaclean Wight will make every one of those outfalls redundant, just a few years, or, in one case, just a few months, after millions of pounds have been spent, to say nothing of the considerable disruption that we have already endured.
  810
  That disruption will be nothing compared with what is envisaged under the new scheme. The Sandown Hotel and Guesthouse Association has expressed through its chairman, Brian Byatt, and its secretary, Mrs. Sandy Ringer, considerable misgivings on three counts: first, the length of the outfall and the position of the discharge points, which, from my experience as a yachtsman, is not in deep enough water, and is placed where currents will not carry sewage out into mid-channel; secondly, apart from rudimentary screening, no treatment is envisaged; and, thirdly—it is the only organisation to have raised this with me—Sandown is the wrong place, because in hot weather, with still air, there is an inversion problem and any odour can linger over the town. We have experienced that already.
  Although I understand that Southern Water already owns the site—it is probably a natural decision on its part to use the area for this expansion—I do not believe that, given the massive capital sum and the fact that in future more and more treatment will be required, the Minister, the NRA, the Environment Agency, or I as the Member of Parliament, should accept this scheme without another appraisal, particularly as it is clear to me that Southern Water will have to address the problems of its outfalls on the mainland side of the Solent sooner rather than later. I fear that the island may then be seen as the principal treatment centre for all the Solent's cities and population. Given that millions of pounds have been spent and that the right solution was not found the first time, surely it is not asking too much to request a delay of a few months so that a more suitable site can be sought in conjunction with the council.
  Finally, may I ask what powers my hon. Friend the Minister has to ensure that the Norton outfall is also connected to a single treatment plant for the whole island, as well as requiring a reappraisal of the whole scheme? My hon. Friend may feel that I have overstated my case, or, perhaps, that I am one of those Back Benchers to whom a handful of constituents have only to say boo to put them into a bit of a panic. Let me tell him that when the Ventnor scheme was mooted by Southern Water—indeed, the very same engineers were involved—the hoteliers and the town's population, including Ventnor town council, asked for a scheme to pipe the sewage to another treatment works rather than discharge it into the sea.
  I backed Southern Water to the hilt. I supported its judgment that that was not possible because of the geology surrounding the town. My hon. Friend may imagine my surprise when, after all that, Southern Water performed a complete about-turn. That is why I am so wary of its advice in regard to the new all-island scheme. I cannot and will not, for the sake of Sandown and of the island's tourist industry, allow the scheme to proceed without alerting Ministers to the possible problems. I told representatives of Southern Water that I had serious misgivings about Sandown as a site when they visited me at the House on 10 January. If anything, what I have heard from MAFF and the Department of the Environment, and learnt from my visit to Weymouth and answers to my parliamentary questions, has reinforced my gravest misgivings.

  811
  The turn of the century will see an end to the "flush and forget" mentality of our forefathers. It is my job to ensure that the Isle of Wight's sewerage system is good for another 50 years, not another five minutes—which, sadly, is our island's experience to date.
  10.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). As he has told the House, he takes a close interest in all environmental issues, especially those affecting the precious environment of the Isle of Wight.
  Let me take as my starting point what my hon. Friend rightly said about the investment programme being carried out by Southern Water. By the end of the century, Southern Water will have invested £1.2 billion in projects since privatisation: that represents an average spend of approximately £1,200 per household throughout the region. On the Isle of Wight, the investment figures equate to approximately £3,700 for each household—more than three times the regional average.
  It is important to give some of the background to the schemes to which my hon. Friend has referred. As part of the scheme that is currently due to be completed by the year 2000, Southern Water is evaluating two options for the continuous sewage discharges to the Solent that are affecting water and hence shellfish quality. My hon. Friend drew attention to those. The first is to transfer all flows for primary treatment and discharge through the new Sandown outfall. The alternative is to transfer all flows except the Norton discharge, which would be given secondary treatment. Southern Water is now undertaking a feasibility study, and expects to announce its chosen option later this year. Whichever option is chosen, it should have a major positive effect on the quality of shellfisheries in the Solent. The timetable for the completion of the scheme is the year 2000, but Southern Water has confirmed that once a decision has been made it will look at accelerating the necessary works.
  The problems facing local shellfisheries form part of a wider pattern of water quality issues. Southern Water is committed to improving the waste water treatment facilities on the Isle of Wight. The company has invested more than £50 million over the past decade in improving waste water discharges to coastal and esturial waters on the island and the benefits can be seen in the number of beaches where water quality now meets European Union standards. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to that as he mentioned that eight "Tidy Britain" awards were received this year on the Isle of Wight.
  In 1986, six of the 13 EU bathing beaches failed the defined standards, whereas last year only two failed and remedial works are planned for both of those. That is good news for the Isle of Wight and for those who enjoy its beaches.
  The recent downgrading of the Yarmouth shellfish harvesting area has been associated with an increase in flow through the Norton outfall. It is not yet clear what has caused the deterioration in the Yarmouth shellfishery and the Norton discharge may not be the
  812
  only explanation. There may be a number of sources of contaminants and these need to be investigated. What can be said is that the improvements that are required under the urban waste water treatment directive by the year 2000 will contribute significantly to improvements in water quality at nearby shellfish beds.
  As for the concerns about the shellfishery classification, it is far from clear that any deterioration is the result of the transfer of flow to Norton. The issues to be addressed are, first, is the deterioration only apparent? The classification system is complex and inaccuracies are always possible in what is an imprecise science. Secondly, if there is a deterioration, what is causing it?
  I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend and of his constituents. It is clear that further work needs to be done to determine what is causing the problem. I am therefore asking my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture to ask his officials to meet the National Rivers Authority again to pool their information and to see exactly what lies behind the deterioration. In this way the most appropriate and cost-effective response can be found. The NRA has also offered to meet concerned hon. Members and their constituents to provide information and advice.
  I shall now deal with Southern Water's plans for sewerage on the Isle of Wight. The company's long-term proposal for Ventnor and Bembridge is to intercept the sewage flows and direct them to Sandown for primary treatment. The proposal includes the construction of a new 3.25 km long sea outfall into Sandown bay, with the whole scheme to be delivered by the end of 1998.
  This new outfall has been designed to accommodate the potential transfer of flows from the continuous sewerage discharges now entering the Solent area, as well as those for Sandown, Bembridge and Ventnor. The discharges include Norton, Gurnard, East Cowes, Ryde and Fairlee.
  Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend mentions Norton, but Southern Water says that it has not decided whether it will connect Norton and the National Rivers Authority, in correspondence with me, says that it has no powers to require it to do so, although it would like Southern Water to do so.
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right to mention that. I said earlier that it was one of the two options for Norton, and it is important to see it in those terms. As my hon. Friend knows, Southern Water is now consulting on the waste water treatment strategy for the Isle of Wight.
  The receiving waters for the discharge at Sandown have been identified as a high natural dispersion area under the urban waste water treatment directive. This would require the combined discharge to be given a minimum of primary treatment, which the NRA agrees is adequate for many coastal discharges. It is the NRA which recommended a number of candidate coastal and estuarine areas for identification as high natural dispersion areas. In so doing it advised the Department that no further environmental benefit would accrue from the provision of secondary or tertiary treatment.
  Primary treatment will produce a very significant improvement where existing discharges are untreated, as at Sandown. However, under the terms of the directive,

  813
  a comprehensive study is first required to demonstrate whether there would be any adverse environmental effect from a primary treated discharge into an identified HNDA, rather than secondary treatment. Southern Water is undertaking the comprehensive study required at Sandown. If it should show that a primary treated discharge would result in an adverse effect on the environment, the National Rivers Authority will not give consent for a primary treated discharge and secondary treatment will have to be provided. That work is being undertaken to the timetable set out in the urban waste water treatment directive, which requires the necessary treatment to be provided by the end of 2000.
  814
  As my hon. Friend said, he is bringing a delegation to see me. I have listened carefully to his concerns about the overall sewage treatment plan for the Isle of Wight and, especially, to his three points on behalf of the Sandown Hotel and Guesthouse Association about the length and the position of the outfall, the extent of treatment and the choice of Sandown as a location. I also listened carefully to his comments about Norton being one of the options for treatment. I have listened carefully to all those points and I look forward to exploring them further with my hon. Friend when I meet him with his constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  War Pension Appeals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 254–55, when the domiciliary visit to assess Mr. John Middleton's war pension appeal took place. [22172]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As arranged with Mr. Middleton earlier this month, the visit took place on 21 March, that being the earliest date at which the medical member was available.

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21504]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This answer is given on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters, including associated offices, the Court Service and the Public Trust Office.

  The number of staff recorded as being paid for overtime which took their hours worked to over 48 hours a week are 143, 3,068 and 130 respectively, which represents approximately 15.6 per cent., 29.2 per cent. and 22.7 per cent. of total staff employed in the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters, the Court Service and the Public Trust Office.

  No records are held centrally, however, of the hours worked either by senior staff not eligible for paid overtime or by those on flexible working schemes.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21467]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Terms and conditions of employment, including wages, are a matter between the contractor or supplier and his employees, subject of course to any relevant legal requirements. For certain contracts, however, the Department requests salary information from contractors and suppliers in support of tenders, as part of its value for money criteria.

  Compliance with health and safety regulations is a legal requirement for the contractor or supplier.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Pension Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate he has made of the continuing viability of the pension fund. [20674]

  Mr. Alison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 29 January,Official Report, column 492.

  The commissioners have had detailed discussions with dioceses about how quickly they expect to be able to raise the full costs of pension contributions and the response has been very encouraging. The General Synod has given general approval to draft legislation to give effect to the arrangements. This legislation is now in the revision stage and will come before Parliament in due course in the usual way.

  Clergy
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many currently beneficed clergy are(a) male and (b) female; and if he will make a statement. [20675]

  Mr. Alison
  As at 31 December 1995, 5,835 men and 63 women held benefices. The total numbers of clergy of incumbent status, including priests-in-charge and team vicars, were 7,417 men and 250 women.

ENVIRONMENT

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those areas of executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20542]

  Mr. Gummer
  Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested but the following provisions have been identified from readily available sources.Common lands
  Decisions are required from the Secretary of State under public, local and private Acts. Examples of matters involving individuals are applications to the Secretary of State for—
  Orders for the exchange of lands under section 147 of the Inclosure Act 1845, applications for consent to the improvement of common land under the Law of Commons Amendment Act 1893, confirmation of regulation of regulations under the Commons Act 1908, imposition of limitations on the public's rights of access to common land under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
  Countryside
  Decisions on nature conservation orders, limestones pavement orders, designation of marine nature reserves and orders in respect of moor and heath land in National Parks (under sections 29, 34, 36 and 42 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981).
  Wild birds, habitats and animals and plants
  Decisions on special protection areas for birds, designation of special areas of conservation, the system for licensing various matters in respect of sale and possession of wild birds (in particular under sections 3, 6, 7 and 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and regulations made thereunder).

  397
  Highways
  Certain powers with respect to public path extinguishment and diversion orders and temporary stopping up of highways under section 120 of the Highways Act 1980 and section 261 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  Trees
  The power for the Secretary of State to make tree preservation orders under section 202 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  Town and country planning
  Various powers relating to the preservation of listed buildings and in particular sections 46 to 48, 54, 55 and 76 to 78 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
  The decision to issue a direction calling in an application for planning permission or hazardous substance consent under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 20 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990.
  Building control
  The determination of questions referred to the Secretary of State about plans for building work under section 16(10) of the Building Act 1984.
  Housing
  Decisions as to whether to give assistance in connection with legal proceedings in relation to the right to buy (section 170 of the Housing Act 1985).
  Landlord and tenant
  Decisions about apportionment of rent under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927.
  Rentcharges
  Decisions relating to redemption and apportionment of rentcharges under sections 3 and 5 of the Rentcharges Act 1977.
  Zoos
  Decisions on revocation of licences, and on directions on dispensation from the Act under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

  This list does not include certain provisions which allow the Secretary of State to take decisions which might in theory apply only to a particular individual, such as section 115(9) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which confers powers to specify generally or for particular cases purposes for which renovation work may be approved for grant.

  Under section 10 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, Ministers are under a duty to give reasons for decisions in any case in which a person concerned could have required a statutory inquiry or hearing to be held.

  Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which former public sector research establishments in his Department have been privatised since 1979; and which public sector research establishments in his Department are currently undergoing reviews with a view to placing them in the private sector. [21939]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Hydraulics Research Station was converted to an independent company limited by guarantee in 1982.

  Prior options reviews of the Building Research Establishment and the Health and Safety Executive's health and safety laboratory have been undertaken and the recommendations of both reviews are being considered. The reviews have addressed the relationship of the establishments to others working in similar or related fields and, among other things, the potential for privatisation or rationalisation.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the district auditor's report on Westminster city council will be published. [22061]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The timing of the publication of his report is a matter for the auditor.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent evidence he has evaluated concerning damage to the ozone layer; and if he will make a statement. [22063]

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of recent changes in the ozone layer over the British Isles; and if he will make a statement. [22814]

  Mr. Clappison
  On behalf of the Department, the United Kingdom Meteorological Office makes daily measurements of total ozone levels at two sites in the UK and publishes the information weekly during the sensitive winter and spring period of potentially low ozone. The Government also receive all reports from the World Meteorological Organisation on the state of the global ozone layer and information on the ozone layer over Europe from the European ozone research co-ordinating unit in Cambridge.

  Statistically significant stratospheric ozone reductions continue everywhere except in equatorial regions, due to the high level of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere. Recent levels of ozone over the United Kingdom have been significantly lower on individual days than previously observed due mainly to a particularly cold stratosphere this winter. Some year-to-year variation is to be expected due to fluctuations in meteorological conditions.

  During the next 50 years, ozone levels are expected to return slowly to normal as a result of actions being taken under the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches that do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches that proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22519]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No cases have arisen in the current year. Two cases arose during the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995: one in category(a) (ii) amounted to £16,526 and one in category (b) (ii) amounted to £21,500.

  Organic Pollutants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the 12 most dangerous persistent organic pollutants which the United Nations Environmental Programme has recommended should be banned; and if he will make a statement. [22227]

  Mr. Clappison
  The United Nations Environmental Programme has not yet come to a decision on the need to ban any persistent organic pollutants, although it has identified 12 substances that should be assessed for risks posed to human health and the environment. Consideration will then be given to measures necessary to control risks identified. The 12 consist of:pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, endrin, chlordane, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene and heptachlor);
  industrial chemicals known as polychlorobiphenyls (or PCBs); dioxins and furans.

  The UK has played a major role in developing a proposed protocol on persistent organic pollutants under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. The Government support the UNEP initiative to build on this work, and will play an active role in its development.

  Government Office for the South-West
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call for, and publish, a cost-benefit analysis on the work of the Government office for the south-west. [22355]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The GOSW's programme and running cost expenditure for 1994–95, objectives and achievements, are contained in the office's annual report, which I have arranged to be sent to the hon. Member. For 1995–96, the office's running cost budget is £7.6 million. Details are available in GO-MINIS1, a copy of which is in the Library of this House.

  The office's annual report for 1995–96 and GO-MINIS2 with details of Government office running costs budgets for 1995–96 will be available in due course. I believe that the Government office, operating within the rigorous framework of the GO-MINIS exercise, provides good value for money.

  Bat Conservation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has for bat conservation measures in(a) urban and (b) rural conservation areas. [22808]

  Mr. Clappison
  Four species of bat have had a range of measures proposed within biodiversity species action plans, which the Government are currently considering. A response to these proposals is expected this spring.

  A range of measures within the rural environment to improve habitat identification and management are being considered. English Nature's species recovery programme for the greater horseshoe bat includes the promotion of appropriate land management around maternity roosts.

  Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to improve the(a) rural and (b) urban habitats for butterfly and moth conservation. [22816]

  Mr. Clappison
  Preparation of action plans for the large blue and large copper, and the high brown and marsh fritillaries, via English Nature's species action plans is in hand in appropriate habitats.

  Work continues on five of our most threatened moth species—reddish buff moth, black-veined moth, Sussex emerald moth, barberry carpet moth and fiery clearwing moth. The 1996 programme involves enlarging the areas of available habitat and restoration of other sites in preparation for colonisation.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the White Paper on sustainable development and the Government response to the second annual report of the panel on sustainable development will be published; and if he will make a statement. [22995]

  Mr. Gummer
  We will publish "This Common Inheritance: UK Annual Report 1996" and the "Government Response to the Second Annual Report of the Government's Panel on Sustainable Development" tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The White Paper reports progress during 1995 in meeting the commitments which we made in previous White Papers and in the UK sustainable development strategy, as well as making commitments for future action. In particular, it highlights our new priorities for the year ahead and bring together the main quantified targets which have been already agreed by Government or which are under consideration.

  At the strategic level, Government policy is guided by advice from their panel on sustainable development, which issued its second annual report in January of this year, focused on environmental accounting, biotechnology, forestry and the disposal of radioactive waste. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is writing to the convenor of the panel with the Government's response, which is also being issued in the form of a short booklet.

  The White Paper and the panel reports provided an objective audit of the Government's success in moving towards sustainable development. They complement the recently published "Indicators of Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom", which aims to demonstrate the progress which the country is making towards sustainable development and to show where further action is needed—not just by Government but by business, local authorities and individuals.

  Housing Partnership Fund
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the allocation of resources to local authorities under his Department's housing partnership fund for 1996–97. [23057]
  401
  Mr. Curry
  Some 238 schemes in 181 housing authorities will benefit from the £30 million housing partnership fund for 1996–97.

  The scheme, which brings together the combined skills of the private sector, housing associations and other local organisations, continues to prove a popular and successful one. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to supporting imaginative, high-quality housing projects which will be of long-lasting benefit to local communities.

  The successful bids involve a wide range of innovative and valuable housing projects, which address local housing needs. This year, we have particularly focused on schemes to bring empty properties back into use.

  The combination of public sector money means that up to £135 million will be invested to meet local housing need, help stimulate local economic growth and create jobs.

  A list of the resources being allocated to local authorities under the housing partnership fund for 1996–97 has been placed in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Manchester Airport Exhibition
  Mr. William O' Brien
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to 50 years of achievement of Manchester airport to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [22537]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 1 July to Friday 5 July 1996.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many parliamentary questions have been tabled since 6 November with the indication that a relevant registered interest has been declared.

  Mr. Newton
  There have been 73 parliamentary questions tabled from 6 November 1995 until 21 March 1996 where a registered interest was declared-56 written, 17 oral. These figures do not include those oral parliamentary questions tabled but not successful in the ballot.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21585]

  The Solicitor-General
  For the departments and agency for which my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible the number of staff recorded as being paid for overtime which took their hours worked to over 48 hours in a week is in the table.
  402

  Number of staff

  Percentage of staff

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  3

  0.74

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  5

  20

  Serious Fraud Office

  71

  41.5

  Government Property Lawyers

  4

  3

  Information for the Crown Prosecution Service is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  No records are held centrally of the hours worked by senior staff not eligible for paid overtime or those on flexible working schemes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Heathrow Airport Passengers
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers arriving at Heathrow airport were refused admission to the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many were deported immediately. [21079]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information on passengers refused leave to enter and removed at Heathrow airport is given in the table. The available statistics do not show how many were removed immediately following refusal.

  Passengers refused and removed at Heathrow Airport

  Year

  Number of passengers removed

  1991

  8,086

  1992

  6,809

  1993

  7,155

  1994

  7,108

  1995

  7,937

  Police Tasks
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which of the 26 police tasks to be reviewed under the police core roles and ancillary tasks report have been identified as being less cost-effective if they were removed from police responsibility; [22083]

  (2) what savings his Department expects as a result of the police core roles and ancillary tasks report; and if he will list the savings he expects to attribute to each of the 26 identified police tasks. [22082]

  Mr. Maclean
  Work is still in progress on these matters in consultation with the police and other interested parties, as part of the follow-up work to the review. We expect to receive a report on the review's proposals, including an evaluation of savings and other benefits, by the summer.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the Home Office inquiry into police core roles and ancillary tasks, established in 1993 and reporting in 1995. [22081]

  Mr. Maclean
  The total estimated cost to my Department of conducting the review, including pay costs, travelling and subsistence, and the final costs of printing and distribution, amounted to about £232,000.

  Computer Misuse Act 1990
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act 1990; and how many of these have resulted in convictions. [22249]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of prosecutions at magistrates1 courts and convictions at all courts for offences1 under the Computer Misuse Act 19902 1990–94

  England and Wales

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions3

  Indictable offences

  1990

  —

  —

  1991

  4

  2

  1992

  7

  10

  1993

  8

  5

  1994

  4

  3

  1 Data for summary offences committed under Section 1 of the Act cannot be separately identified from other summary non-motoring offences.

  2 Came into force 29 August 1990.

  3 Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or initially for other offences.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of concerted indiscipline at Buckley Hall prison have been reported to the Prison Service headquarters since the prison first opened; and what is the average figure over the same period of time for male category C training prisons. [22760]

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

  Letter from A. Pearson to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 25 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, to reply to your recent Question asking how many incidents of concerted indiscipline at Buckley Hall prison have been reported to Prison Service Headquarters since the prison first opened; and what is the average figure over the same period of time for male category C training prisons.
  The number of incidents of concerted indiscipline reported from Buckley Hall prison since its opening on 14 December 1994 until 20 march 1996 is seven.
  The average number of incidents of concerted indiscipline reported during the same period from male category C training prisons is 0.6.

  Domestic Violence (Islington)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation his Department has made of the domestic violence matters project based at Islington police station. [22542]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Islington domestic violence matters project was funded by the Home Office programme development unit from 1992 to September 1995. The work was independently evaluated by the university of North London and the final evaluation is close to completion.

  Irish Prisoners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decisions have been taken by the parole board in relation to Irish prisoners who completed 20-year sentences last July; and if he will make a statement. [22417]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 22 March 1996]: Discretionary lifer panels of the parole board heard the cases of Sean Kinsella, Stephen Nordone, Noel Gibson, Paul Norney and Brendan Dowd on 12, 13 and 14 December 1995.

  Noel Gibson, Sean Kinsella and Stephen Nordone were directed to be released. Such a direction is binding on the Secretary of State and they were released on 26 January. The discretionary lifer panels did not direct the release of Paul Norney and Brendan Dowd.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Sir David Ramsbotham last visited Holloway prison. [21750]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Sir David Ramsbotham, GCB, CBE visited Holloway prison on 13 and 14 December last year as part of an unannounced inspection of the establishment.

  Boot Camps
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on boot camps for young offenders; and what progress is being made in its implementation. [21752]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our policy is to pilot two tough, disciplined and demanding new regimes for young offenders which are intended to break the cycle of reoffending.

  Last September, my right hon. and learned Friend announced details of the first of these pilots, the high-intensity training regime at Thorn Cross young offender institution in Cheshire which will take its first inmates in the summer.

  High-intensity training will provide the discipline which young offenders need. It will also equip them with skills they must have for the world of work, and it will tackle their anti-social attitudes by making them face up to what they have done and accept responsibility for it.

  I hope shortly to make an announcement about a second pilot regime.

  Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales Sir David Ramsbotham has visited since his appointment; and how many reports, following those visits, have been submitted to the Home Office. [21751]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since his appointment on 1 December 1995, Sir David Ramsbotham, GCB, CBE has visited 22 Prison Service establishments. Seven visits were as part of an inspection and inspection reports on these establishments will be submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many questions were tabled to his Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21143]

  Mr. Howard
  The number of questions tabled to the Home Office in each Session since 1987–88 is:

  Written

  Oral (including supplementaries)

  Total

  1987–88

  3,846

  414

  4,260

  1988–89

  3,549

  274

  3,823

  1989–90

  3,252

  212

  3,464

  1990–91

  2,245

  238

  2,483

  1991–92

  1,351

  134

  1,485

  1992–93

  4,345

  361

  4,706

  1993–94

  3,348

  267

  3,615

  1994–95

  3,187

  278

  3,465

  1995–96

  1,310

  98

  1,408

  The remainder of the information requested by the hon. Member could itself be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited India; at what cost to public funds; which places he visited in India and for what reasons; and if he will list the names of officials who accompanied him. [18575]

  Mr. Howard
  I visited India and Pakistan between 29 December 1995 and 9 January 1996 at a total cost of £34,201. The officers who accompanied me were my private secretary, a press officer and the head of the immigration policy division. The guidelines in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" were followed. The necessary approval was sought in advance of the visit and full official programmes were followed which had been drawn up with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  In India, I visited Jodhpur, at the invitation of the Indian high commissioner for Great Britain, Delhi, Bombay and Amritsar. In Pakistan, I visited Lahore, Peshawar and Islamabad.

  The purpose of my visit was to visit the entry clearance operations run by the Home Office in these countries, to discuss drugs issues with both Governments, to further my understanding of community relations issues and to help improve relations between countries.

  Departmental Gun Clubs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Government Departments have(a) gun clubs and (b) shooting ranges on the premises. [21988]
  406
  Mr. Maclean
  Four Government Departments in Great Britain have gun clubs approved by the Secretary of State under section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 in which members may use firearms for target practice without holding a firearm certificate. Information is not held centrally on gun clubs which do not fall under the section 15 scheme. Information about the number of shooting ranges on Government premises could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Involuntary Manslaughter
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consideration the Law Commission has given to the introduction of prison sentences for involuntary manslaughter; [21878]

  (2) what action he intends to take following the publication of the Law Commission report into involuntary manslaughter. [21771]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Law Commission's final report on involuntary manslaughter was published on 5 March. It recommends reform of the existing law by the creation of two new offences of unintentional killing by individuals, for which a penalty of imprisonment would continue to be available, and a new offence of corporate killing for which a penalty of imprisonment would not be available. We are grateful to the Law Commission for the work which it has carried out in this complex area of the law. We will consider carefully the recommendations contained in its report.

  Police Driver Training
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spent by the Metropolitan police on driver training in 1995; and what is the projected budget for 1996. [22405]

  Mr. Maclean
  Driver training costs incurred by the Metropolitan police in 1995 were £5,410,352. I understand from the Commissioner that projected costs for 1996 are £5,629,832.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are kept of individuals' criminal convictions. [22157]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information about criminal convictions for reportable offences, including all imprisonable and specified other offences, is held on the police national computer and in the record library of the national identification service. Local police forces may also keep this information together with information about convictions for non-reportable offences.

  Prisoners (Drug Testing)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners over the last 12 months have tested positive as a result of mandatory drug testing; and if he will make a statement. [22395]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  407
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Elfin Llwyd, dated 25 March 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the Office, to reply to your recent Question regarding the number of prisoners who have tested positive in the last 12 months as a result of mandatory drug testing.
  Between February 1995 and January 1996 8352 prisoners were tested under the random testing programme with 3073 positive test results. Results for February 1996 are not yet available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in Welsh prisons over the last 12 months have tested positive as a result of mandatory drug testing; and if he will make a statement. [22396]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 25 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 number of prisoners in Welsh prisons who have tested positive in the last 12 months as a result of mandatory drug testing.
  Of the three Welsh establishments, Swansea and Usk/Prescoed began testing in December 1995 and Cardiff in February 1996. Results for February 1996 are not yet available. Of 74 prisoners tested at Swansea and Usk/Prescoed in December and January, 22 were found to be positive for drugs.

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21507]

  Mr. Howard
  Records of the number of hours worked by each employee are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21469]

  Mr. Howard
  Terms and conditions of employment, including wages, are a matter between the contractor or supplier and his employees, subject of course to any relevant legal requirements. Compliance with health and safety regulations is a legal requirement for the contractor or supplier.

  Police (Body Armour)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the British police standard of stab-proof ballistic material for soft body armour. [21532]
  408
  Mr. Maclean
  Standards are set out in publications by the Home Office police scientific development branch entitled "PSDB Ballistic Body Armour Standard (1993)" and "PSDB Stab Resistant Body Armour Test Procedure (1993)". Copies have been placed in the Library. These standards have been agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and are made freely available to manufacturers and other interested bodies.

PRIME MINISTER

  Taiwan
  Sir Nicholas Scott
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to support the application by Taiwan to join the United Nations organisation and to seek support from Commonwealth and EU partners for it. [22219]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Membership of the United Nations is open only to states. Her Majesty's Government do not recognise Taiwan as a state.

  Rathbone Community Furniture
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister what reply he gave to Rathbone Community Furniture, Liverpool, in response to its recent letter to him; and if he will make a statement. [22156]

  The Prime Minister
  My office has forwarded the letter to the Department for Education and Employment which will respond in due course.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 March 1996,Official Report, columns 167–68, to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) if he will list the advantages which will be given to the area by virtue of the creation of an enterprise zone; and how long it has taken from the first proposal for such a zone to the date of coming into effect of such a status. [22382]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1996]: The benefits available to businesses during the 10-year life of an enterprise zone are the following: 100 per cent. allowances for corporation tax purposes for capital expenditure on industrial and commercial buildings: exemption from the national non-domestic rate on industrial and commercial property; a simplified planning regime; speedier administration of residual statutory planning controls; exemption from industrial training levies and from the requirements to supply information to industrial training boards; processing applications for certain customs facilities as a priority, and the relaxation of certain criteria; and the reduction of government requests for statistical information. Enterprise zones can effect economic activity over a wide area through displacement effects and are not the appropriate regeneration measure in most circumstances.

  The Government announced that they would consider the case for new enterprise zones at Easington in County Durham on 29 March 1993; zones in that area were designated on 29 November 1995.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Taiwan
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to reduce the tension between Taiwan and China. [22411]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have repeatedly urged China to show restraint and have called for an early resumption of the cross-straits dialogue. We have made these points to the Chinese directly at prime ministerial level and through the EU. We remain fully supportive of the actions taken by the United States to defuse the situation.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22520]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have made the following settlements, without prejudice, in respect of alleged equal opportunities breaches:(i) in 1995 £5,000 was paid to a former employee. The case did not proceed to a tribunal or court.
  (ii) in 1994 an out-of-court settlement of £25,000 was paid to a former employee. Industrial tribunal proceedings had been initiated.

  In respect of other organisations, a without prejudice settlement for £20,875 was paid in 1995 to a former employee. The case did not proceed to a tribunal or court.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 11, what rents were paid for the various buildings rented by the European Parliament in (a) Strasbourg, (b) Brussels and (c) Luxembourg; and if he will indicate the floor areas of the buildings, the purposes for which they are used, and the nature of any applicable rent reviews. [22360]

  Mr. David Davis
  The information requested is as follows:

  1996 rent (£)

  Floor area

  Luxembourg

  2140,000m

  BAK building

  8,593,930

  NHE building

  679,884

  Schuman building

  3,158,223

  Senningerberg building

  287,417

  Tower building

  1,504,316

  Strasbourg

  2120,000

  Palais de L'Europe

  664,084

  IPE O, IPE I and IPE II

  7,042,439

  IPE III

  4,016,552

  410

  1996 rent (£)

  Floor area

  Brussels

  2175,000m

  Belliard I building

  4,771,102

  Belliard II building

  1,210,748

  Belliard III/IV building

  4,328,590

  Eastman building

  270,054

  Remorqueur building

  251,708

  Remard building

  1,019,901

  Van Maerlant building

  3,232,279

  D2 building

  11,143,704

  The Palais de 1'Europe in Strasbourg and the D2 building in Brussels contain debating chambers for plenary sessions of the European Parliament. Other buildings contain offices and meeting rooms.

  The figures for rent also include property tax. The rentals are calculated over 12 months on the basis of existing leases. They are not subject to periodic review, but the leases provide for indexing to the cost of living, or to construction costs.

  European Union
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will conduct a review of the presentation of Government policy on the European Union. [20683]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have no such plans.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what television satellite services are available in St. Helena; at what cost to the consumer; and if he will make a statement. [22037]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Cable and Wireless receives and re-broadcasts the CNN international satellite television channel. The cost to the consumer consists of an installation charge, which varies according to consumers' particular requirements, and a service charge of £5 per month.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people in St. Helena are(a) employed in the private sector, (b) employed by the Government, (c) unemployed and (d) working on community projects. [22041]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There are(a) 786 people employed in the private sector, (b) 1,282 employed by the Government, (c) 254 unemployed and (d) 122 working on community projects.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British Ministers have visited St. Helena in each of the past 22 years; and on what dates. [22033]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There has been one visit at ministerial level: the late Neil Marten represented the Minister for Overseas Development in January 1984.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the trades, businesses, professions and vocations approved by the
  411
  governor of St. Helena since 1994 which are new to St. Helena, are likely to be continued in St. Helena and which have taken advantage of tax holidays. [22034]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Coffee production—one. Cabinet making—one. They have both taken advantage of tax holidays.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what banking licences have been granted on St. Helena in the past five years. [22038]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No banking licences have been granted on St. Helena in the past five years.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities on St. Helena have been privatised in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [22040]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No activities have been privatised in the past five years. However, the St. Helena Government have recently embarked on a public sector reform programme which they anticipate could lead to the privatisation of various activities and services in due course.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications (Key Escrow)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 229, when he intends to announce the Government's decision on the introduction of a telecommunications key escrow. [22204]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  As I made clear in my previous answer on 6 March, discussions on this important issue are continuing. It would be inappropriate to establish at this stage any artificial time constraints.

  Satellite Dish Sales
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of satellite dish sales in(a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in the last five years. [22235]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Estimated sales of satellite dishes in United Kingdom for each year from 1991 to 1995 are:

  1991: 710,000

  1992: 710,000

  1993: 740,000

  1994: 750,000

  1995: 760,000

  I am not aware of any statistics separately available for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what entitlements to paid leave for(a) part-time employees and (b) full-time employees are specified within the working time directive. [22267]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The directive specifies that every worker should be entitled to paid annual leave of the least four weeks a year in accordance with conditions for 412
  entitlement laid down by national legislation or practice. Member states may reduce this to three weeks for a transitional period of three years. The directive does not distinguish between part-time and full-time employees.

  Employment Insecurity
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the president of the Board of Trade what plans he has to investigate the effect of employment insecurity on productivity in relation to(a) small and medium-sized enterprises and (b) the economy. [22290]

  Mr. Page
  The Department has no plans for research into this topic.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if in considering the Office of Fair Trading review of resale price maintenance on non-prescription medicines, he will take account of the viability of community pharmacies. [22199]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Secretary of State has no statutory role or discretion in relation to the review being undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading. Representations concerning the viability of community pharmacies and other aspects of the review should be made direct to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Recycled material
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions he has had with the glass industry in developing more end-use markets and products for recycled glass; [21738]

  (2) what recent discussions his Department has had with the bottling industry regarding the use of recycled glass. [21743]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has funded an environmental technology innovation scheme project with British Glass to develop alternative uses for green waste glass—cullet. A number of interesting applications have been identified, such as foam glass building blocks, coffee tables, floor tiles and "glasphalt", and British Glass is now pursuing some of the more promising ideas under its own auspices. The environmental technology best practice programme will promote the results of projects aiming to increase the proportion of cullet used in UK glass industry. The Government frequently meet representatives of the glass container-making and using industries in the course of discussions on producer responsibility for packaging waste.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what studies his Department has commissioned to evaluate the enterprise potential of the manufacture of products from recycled material; [21741]

  (2) what research his Department has initiated into the feasibility of expanding markets for products manufactured from recycled material. [21740]

  Mr. Page
  My Department periodically commissions the recycling advisory unit of the national environmental technology centre to carry out and publish studies into the market prospects for a number of recycled materials, including paper, plastics, metals, glass and wood. These
  413
  studies, which include an assessment of the technical and market barriers to increasing the use of material for recycling, are in the process of being brought up to date, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House when they are finalised.

  A number of projects under our ETIS and Euroenviron schemes of assistance had as their objective the development of new products using recycled materials, and the current environmental technology best practice programme will promote the results of projects aimed at increasing the use of waste paper and glass.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many companies are being considered for the purchase of British Coal Enterprise subsidiaries; and what criteria will be used against which to judge the suitability of the bids; [21742]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that workspace is sold to an appropriate purchaser with knowledge of and commitment to the regeneration of former coalfield communities through training and regeneration. [21812]

  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 BCE in the light of its statutory duties and the importance of ensuring continuation of effective assistance to coalfield communities.

  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, and that Birkby plc has been identified as preferred bidder for BCE's workplace portfolio.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has held about the disposal of British Coal Enterprise's property portfolio; who is to acquire it; from what date; what steps have been taken to ensure that the new owners continue to meet the needs of coalfield communities; and if he will make a statement. [22605]

  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 BCE in the light of its statutory duties and the importance of ensuring continuation of effective assistance to coalfield communities.

  The corporation has announced that Birkby plc has been identified as preferred bidder for BCE's workspace activities. The corporation expects that the sales process will be concluded at or shortly after the end of March 1996.

  Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which former public sector research establishments in his Department have been privatised since 1979; and which public sector research establishments in his Department are currently undergoing reviews with a view to placing them in the private sector. [21947]
  414
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The National Engineering Laboratory was privatised by trade sale in October 1995. The National Measurement Accreditation Service—NAMAS—formerly part of the National Physical Laboratory, was merged with the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies—NACCB—formerly part of the British Standards Institution, in August 1995 to form the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, which was established as a non-profit distribution company limited by guarantee. The National Maritime Institute—formerly part of the National Physical Laboratory--was also privatised as a company limited by guarantee in October 1982, changing its name to NMI Ltd. The operation of the National Physical Laboratory was contracted-out in October 1995. Negotiations are currently under way with a preferred bidder for a trade sale of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist.

  No research establishments which fall within the area of responsibility of the research councils for which DTI is responsible have been privatised since 1979. The plant breeding activities of the former plant breeding institute were privatised by trade sale in October 1987, but the establishment itself remains in the pubic sector as part of the Institute of Plant Science Research.

  Commercially oriented research activity has formed. and will continue to form, part of the work of AEA Technology, which is also due to be privatised. This includes the rationalised activities of the Warren Spring Laboratory which were absorbed by AEA Technology in spring 1994.

  In terms of those research establishments currently under review, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 26 January 1996, Official Report, columns 421–23. Each review will address the relationship of establishments to others working in similar or related fields and consider, among other things, the potential for privatisation or rationalisation.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the annul report for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. [22983]

  Mr. Lang
  I am laying the ACAS report for 1995, before both Houses of Parliament today. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that Ministers are aware of the views of the vice-chancellor concerning the use of selective quotations taken from the vice-chancellor's answers given at the press conference on 15 February. [17697]

  Mr. Lang
  The inquiry itself made it clear that Sir Richard Scott's views about selective quotation from his report applied to any summary of his report, whether by Government, Opposition or the media.

  Business Employment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study he has made as to the changes in employment levels in the last year in respect of businesses employing(a) over 20 people and (b) fewer than this figure; and if he will make a statement. [20697]

  Mr. Page
  Estimates of the changes in employment levels during 1995 for businesses of different sizes are not available but it will be possible to derive such figures in future years from information held on the Central Statistical Office's interdepartmental business register.

  Some information is available from the labour force survey, but with respect to workplaces rather than businesses. Changes in employment levels between autumn 1994 and autumn 1995, in workplaces with (a) fewer than 25 and (b) 25 or more people, are given in the table.

  Changes in the number of employees1 by size of workplace Great Britain, not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  Total2

  Less than 25 employees3

  25 or more employees3

  Autumn 1994

  21,632

  7,157

  14,237

  Autumn 1995

  21,977

  7,145

  14,578

  Change

  346

  -12

  342

  Notes:

  1 Figures are for employees only, and excluded the self-employed, unpaid family workers and those on Government programmes.

  2 Includes some people who did not give the number of employees at their workplace.

  3 Excludes those who did not give the number of employees their workplace.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the privatisation of the Insolvency Service. [20684]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 28 February 1996,Official Report, column 589.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have to increase the proportion of bilateral aid spent on meeting basic needs for poor people in poor countries. [20712]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are committed to the goal of poverty eradication in poor countries but we do not set rigid targets about the quantity of aid going to the poor; we are instead most concerned to provide quality, effective aid which makes a lasting impact on basic needs.
  416
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many instances since 1979 aid has ceased because the country was judged no longer to need it. [20713]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have ceased normal bilateral programmes in a number of better-off developing countries such as Korea and Singapore. ODA policy is to continue to concentrate aid further on the poorest countries where it is most needed, and can be used effectively.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the criteria used to allocate overseas aid. [20708]

  Mr. Hanley
  The main criteria for allocating bilateral aid are the needs of the country concerned and the effectiveness with which aid can be used. A number of other factors, including good government, the commitment of recipients to political and economic reform and traditional ties with Britain, are also taken into account. There are also our obligations to multilateral organisations of which we are a member.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid to Rwanda; what were the equivalent figures in the last financial year; what is proposed for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [20714]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1994–95, the United Kingdom spent more than £45 million in bilateral emergency aid in Rwanda. In 1995–96 we have committed more than £7 million in bilateral emergency and rehabilitation assistance. In addition, we have contributed £41.5 million to EU actions since April 1994. Future pledges will reflect needs and the capacity of the Government and implementing partners to deliver assistance.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid devoted to sub-Saharan Africa in 1995–96. [20715]

  Mr. Hanley
  Gross public expenditure on bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa in 1995–96 is expected to total nearly £347 million. Africa is also a major recipient of multilateral assistance, to which Britain makes significant contribution—estimated at over £355 million in 1993.

  Lumle Agricultural Research Station, Nepal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the visit to the office of the Minister for Overseas Development of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow about aid to Nepal, following the Inter-Parliamentary Union visit, what decisions he has arrived at regarding the Lumle agricultural research station. [20851]
  417
  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 29 January,Official Report, column 506, and to the letter he received from my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development dated 8 February 1996.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by value of assistance, the fishing projects being supported by the St. Helena Development Agency. [22035]

  Mr. Hanley
  No fishing projects are being supported by the St. Helena development agency.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been the costs to public funds of supporting the operation of RMS St. Helena in each of the past five years. [22043]

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of the shipping subsidy and associated costs in each of the last five financial years is:

  1991–92: £0.920 million

  1992–93: £1.389 million

  1993–94: £1.071 million

  1994–95: £1.152 million

  1995–96: £1.346 million (estimate)

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many(a) females and (b) males normally resident in St. Helena have commenced higher education courses (i) on the island and (ii) overseas in each academic year since 1990; [22030]

  (2) how many (a) female and (b) males normally resident in St. Helena have commenced higher education courses (i) on the island and (ii) overseas in each of the most recent five years for which figures are available. [22031]

  Mr. Hanley
  All higher education courses have commenced in the United Kingdom. The numbers are:

  Academic year

  Male

  Female

  1990–91

  1

  8

  1991–92

  —

  5

  1992–93

  7

  7

  1993–94

  4

  5

  1994–95

  1

  9

  1995–96

  2

  5

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what constraints have been removed on fisheries under the St. Helena five-year development plan. [22032]

  Mr. Hanley
  The principal constraints to the development of an economically viable local fishery at St. Helena are related to its isolated location and to the limited natural resource base available for exploitation. St. Helena's geographical isolation does not permit easy or rapid access to markets, and the lack of a safe haven with associated vessel maintenance facilities precludes the operation of larger locally based fishing vessels. The Overseas Development Administration has worked closely with the Government of St. Helena, the St. Helena Fisheries Corporation and the island's fishing community 418
  to promote the development of a viable small-scale commercial fishery. To this end, the Administration, since 1978, has invested more than £3 million in a series of technical assistance and development aid projects. The Fisheries Corporation is now considering how best to expand throughput to meet demand and to develop its export marketing strategy further.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the staff employed by the St. Helena development agency who have previously worked with British development agencies, indicating for how long each employee worked for the relevant agency. [22036]

  Mr. Hanley
  No staff employed by the St. Helena development agency have previously worked with British development agencies.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the expert staff for key posts on St. Helena who are provided by the British Government. [22042]

  Mr. Hanley
  The key posts provided by the British Government are:

  Mr. David Smaliman: Governor

  Mr. John G. Penott: Chief Secretary

  Mr. Robert J. Penott: Financial Secretary

  Mr. David Jeremiah: Attorney General

  Mr. Kenneth Jones: Chief Auditor

  Mr. Chris Lomas: Chief Agricultural and Forestry Officer

  Dr. John Sharpe: Chief Medical Officer

  Mr. Keith Jones: Chief Engineer

  ODA is also funding the costs of an additional 13 expatriates working within St. Helena Government Departments.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what budgetary aid by category he is providing to St. Helena during the current financial year. [22044]

  Mr. Hanley
  The budgetary aid provision for St. Helena in 1995–96 is £3.56 million. This is a single grant in aid intended to supplement the St. Helena Government's overall public expenditure budget.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what non-governmental organisations have been established on St. Helena for electricity and water supplies. [22039]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. However, the St. Helena Government are currently considering a consultancy report which may lead to a restructuring of the electricity and water undertakings.

SCOTLAND

  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the procedure for processing complaints from members of the public about procurator fiscal offices. [21215]
  419
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that the Crown Office has recently completed a review of its complaints system. The revised system, which is about to be implemented, involves the introduction of a standard form for noting complaints. This will form the basis of a central record of the types of complaints received by the Department and the outcome of inquiries into those complaints.

  The Crown Office has also produced a leaflet which will be available to members of the public and which will describe the procedure for making complaints and the way in which they will be handled. Complaints will be investigated by or under the supervision of procurators fiscal, regional procurators fiscal or the Crown agent as appropriate.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions disciplinary action was taken against employees of the procurator fiscal service as a result of complaints from members of the public in each of the last five years. [21217]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crown Office has no record of disciplinary action being taken against any member of staff in the last five years as a result of complaints from members of the public.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many complaints about the operation of the Glasgow procurator fiscal office he has received from members of the public in each of the last five years; [21216]

  (2) how many complaints against the operation of procurator fiscal offices in Scotland he received in each of the past five years. [21214]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost as there is no central record of the number of complaints made about the operation of procurator fiscal offices. The procurator fiscal at Glasgow has checked his records for 1995 and 1996 to date. During that period only one written complaint was received from a member of the public about the actions of a member of his staff.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work of the procurator fiscal service in respect of on-going staff training and development. [21218]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service committed to the principles of "Investors in People" in December 1994. A departmental training and development group works with regional groups to take forward the training and development of staff in accordance with a training strategy agreed by senior management which addressed induction, core and development needs of each staff group. The group is currently revising competences which will form the basis of performance appraisal and be a420
  foundation for future training. The link between competences and vocational qualifications is under consideration. The training strategy reflects the overall objectives, values and business requirements of the organisation and includes an objective to provide training on a complaints system which is about to be implemented.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have come before the sheriff courts in each sheriffdom under the small claims procedures in the last three years. [22442]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested in relation to small claims initiated is shown in the table.

  Sheriffdom

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  11,322

  10,401

  10,240

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  12,175

  11,024

  9,149

  Lothian and Borders

  12,733

  12,116

  11,584

  North Strathclyde

  11,430

  8,646

  8,306

  South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

  12,026

  9,966

  8,917

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  13,028

  11,849

  11,481

  Total

  72,714

  64,002

  59,677

  Dental Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been deregistered from their dentist since 1992 in each health board area; and if he will make a statement. [20875]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information supplied by health boards about deregistration is listed in the table:

  Number of patients deregistered from April 1992 to February 1996 by Health Board

  Health Board

  Number of patients de-registered1

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,349

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,817

  Borders

  2,156

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7,033

  Fife

  1,535

  Forth Valley

  576

  Grampian

  3,302

  Greater Glasgow

  2,231

  Highland

  1,448

  Lanarkshire

  903

  Lothian

  4,127

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  —

  Tayside

  21,677

  Western Isles

  53

  Total

  29,207

  1 The total is the number deregistered by dentists for reasons other than the dentist moving, relocating, non-payment of bills etc or because a patient has entered into a private contract with the dentist. The information was supplied for management purposes only and is not statistically validated.

  2 From July 1992.

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21512]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Records of the number of hours worked by each employee are not held centrally and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Amey Construction Ltd.
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list projects in which Amey Construction Ltd. were employed by the Scottish Office as contractors, by subject and by value, in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [22028]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Amey Construction Ltd. is currently employed by the Scottish Office on only one project, a joint venture with Miller Construction to upgrade the A 1 trunk road between Haddington and Tranent.

  The contract was let during financial year 1994–95 and is worth £26.61 million.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Opera House
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the impact of redundancy costs on the Royal Opera House. [18226]

  Mr. Sproat
  Central Government support for the arts in England is channelled through the Arts Council of England. The council works closely with its client bodies, including the Royal Opera House, in assessing the artistic, financial and management implications of forecast budgets and other plans.

HEALTH

  Human Embryos
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos have to date been licensed for creation and storage by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; in how many of those cases the period of maximum storage for which consent was given was less than five years; in how many of those cases in which the authorised storage period has passed the embryos have been(a) implanted, (b) destroyed, (c) used for research purposes and (d) experienced other outcomes; and if he will make a statement on the action the authority takes to ensure that maximum storage periods are not exceeded and that embryos which reach the end of the authorised storage period die in a manner consistent with their status. [19654]

  Mr. Horam
  The records of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority show that the number of embryos created in IVF treatment in the period 1 August 1991 to 1994 inclusive—latest available figures—was 422
  302,156. Of these, the number of embryos placed in store during the same period was 64,161. Information on the number of people who consented to a storage period of fewer than five years and the purpose for which consent was given is not held centrally. This information is contained on the consent forms which are held by patients and the licensed centres.

  The HFEA's code of practice sets out the action necessary in licensed centres to sustain appropriate standards in the storage of embryos. Copies of the code of practice are available in the Library. Licensed centres are held to account for compliance with the code of practice when the HFEA carried out its annual inspection of centres.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 67, how many live babies were born from the human embryos frozen between 1991 and 1994; and what percentage of the number of embryos frozen this represents. [20385]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of embryos used in treatment cycles during the period 1 August 1991 to 1994 inclusive includes embryos frozen prior to 1991. The number of babies born from frozen embryos during the period 1 August 1991 to 1994 inclusive was 1,339.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women had embryos implanted from 1991 to 1994 under the terms of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990; and how much was paid in fees for treatment by these women over the same period. [20386]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of women who had embryos transferred to the uterus in the period 1 August 1991 to 1994 inclusive was 36,867. The Department of Health does not collect information about fees paid for treatment.

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

  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 March 1996, c. 67]: I regret that there was an error in the information provided. The correct reply should read as follows.

  As recorded in the records of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the number of embryos placed in store following in-vitro fertilisation treatment in each year was as follows:

  1991: 4,969 (from 1 August)

  1992: 15,940

  1993: 19,756

  1994: 23,496

  Data for 1995 have not yet been validated.

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

  (2) how many unfrozen human embryos have been experimented on and then destroyed since the practice was first sanctioned by law. [18319]
  423
  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 March 1996, c. 67]: I regret that there were two errors in the information provided.

  The total number of embryos created in in-vitro fertilisation treatment from 1 August 1991 to 1994 inclusive was 302,156, not 498,493. Of these, the number donated for research during the same period was 27,524, not 27,493, as previously stated.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos were used in treatment cycles from 1991 to 1994. [19787]

  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 March 1996, c. 386]: I regret that there was an error in the information provided.

  As recorded in the records of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the number of embryos used in treatment cycles between 1 August 1991 and 1994 inclusive was 139,973, not 140,410, as stated previously. This includes fresh and frozen embryos.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos were destroyed between 1991 and 1994 at the request of their parents. [19788]

  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 March 1996, c. 386]: I regret that there was an error in the information provided.

  The number of embryos created in in-vitro fertilisation treatment that were not frozen or used for treatment or for other purposes during the period in question was 90,491, not 90,756 as stated previously. As required by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, decisions about these embryos would have been taken only with the consent of the couple involved.

  Private Cosmetic Surgery
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the study commissioned by the Department of Health from the British Association of Plastic Surgeons on private cosmetic surgery started in July 1995. [21385]

  Mr. Horam
  We are awaiting a full analysis of the British Association of Plastic Surgeons' survey.

  Health Authorities (Spending Targets)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount by which NHS authorities failed to meet their spending targets in the year 1994–95. [21651]

  Mr. Horam
  The spending of four district health authorities and five family health services authorities exceeded their cash limits by a total of £694,000.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he cancelled at short notice his commitments personally to open the new mental health unit at City and Hackney community services trust. [21732]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend was called to attend a meeting of the Cabinet.

  Blister Packs
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of hospital admissions are due to ailments caused by children ingesting pharmaceutical products they have extracted from blister packs in the last year for which figures are available. [21823]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on which basis the star rating system of triage in accident and emergency departments has been calculated; and what weight is given to(a) the quality and (b) speed of assessment. [21959]

  Mr. Horam
  The basis for star ratings for performance on the patients charter immediate assessment standard is set out in the national health service performance guide. The figure given for each unit is the number of patients seen and assessed by a qualified person within five minutes of arrival at the A and E department, as a percentage of the total number arriving. Star ratings indicate that the Audit Commissions' auditors were satisfied with the data collection systems.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the performance of accident and emergency departments operating triage(a) 24 hours and (b) 12 hours a day. [21953]

  Mr. Horam
  In the first three quarters of the year 1995–96, 93 per cent. of patients were seen and assessed by a nurse or doctor within five minutes of their arrival at the A and E department.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance of patients(a) seen by a triage nurse before being registered and (b) seen after registration in accident and emergency departments. [21957]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected centrally. The organisation of A and E departments is a matter for local decision.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the relationship between performance star rating and the quality of care received by the patient in accident and emergency departments. [21956]

  Mr. Horam
  The patients charter sets out standards on quality of service for the national health service. One such standard is the length of time spent waiting for initial assessment in an A and E department.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the NHS chief executive to review with health authorities their plans for emergency services. This review will examine the scope for developing further standards which are accepted by professional staff as relevant indicators of quality.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sample size was used in the study of triage in accident and emergency departments. [21958]
  425
  Mr. Horam
  I understand that the hon. Lady is referring to the "Study of the Value of Initial Patient Assessment within the Accident and Emergency Department and the Most Effective Way of Achieving this Activity", copies of which have been placed in the Library. This study was commissioned by the patients charter unit of this Department and conducted by Mr. Gary J. Jones, who collected information from 46 hospitals.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement about the future of accident and emergency department services at the royal infirmary, Halifax; [22475]

  (2) if the accident and emergency department of the royal infirmary, Halifax, is meeting patients charter requirements for waiting times in accident and emergency services; [22529]

  (3) in respect of the accident and emergency department at the royal infirmary, Halifax, what vacancies there are for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants. [22474]

  Mr. Horam
  Accident and emergency services in Halifax are a matter for West Yorkshire health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mr. Peter Wood, for details.

  Details of the proportion of patients assessed within five minutes of arrival in accident and emergency departments are contained in the NHS performance guide 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Vacancies for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants at the hospital are a matter for Calderdale Healthcare national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Allan Templeton, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what vacancies there are currently for(a) nurses, (b) junior doctors, (c) middle-range doctors and (d) consultants at the accident and emergency department at Dryburn hospital, Durham; if the department is meeting patients charter requirements for accident and emergency waiting times; and if he will make a statement about the future of accident and emergency services at the hospital. [22224]

  Mr. Horam
  Vacancies for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants at the hospital are a matter for North Durham Acute Hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Colin P. Douglas, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Details of the proportion of patients assessed within five minutes of arrival in accident and emergency departments are contained in the NHS performance guide 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Accident and emergency services in North Durham are a matter for North Durham health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Professor John I. Clarke, for details.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of accident and emergency departments in Greater Manchester with reference to the findings of the Audit Commission report. [22435]
  426
  Mr. Horam
  Accident and emergency services in Greater Manchester are a matter for the six local health authorities: Bury and Rochdale, Manchester, Salford and Trafford, Stockport, West Pennine, and Wigan and Bolton. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the respective health authorities for details.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what vacancies there are for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants in respect of the accident and emergency department at the Homerton hospital, east London; if the department is meeting patients charter requirements for waiting times in accident and emergency; and if he will make a statement about the future of accident and emergency services at the hospital. [22387]

  Mr. Horam
  Vacancies for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants at the hospital are a matter for Homerton Hospital NHS trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Michael Haines, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Details of the proportion of patients assessed with five minutes of arrival in accident and emergency departments are contained in the NHS performance guide 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Accident and emergency services in east London are a matter for the East London and the City health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Frances Heidensohn, for details.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants in respect of the accident and emergency department at North Manchester general hospital; if the department is meeting the patients charter requirements for waiting times; and if he will make a statement about the future of these services at the hospital. [22390]

  Mr. Horam
  Vacancies for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants at North Manchester general hospital are a matter for North Manchester Healthcare NHS trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Wilson, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Details of the proportion of patients assessed within five minutes of arrival in accident and emergency departments are contained in the NHS performance guide 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Accident and emergency services in Manchester are a matter for Manchester health commission. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the commission, Professor R. D. H. Boyd, for details.

  Smoking and Drinking-related Deaths
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what comparison he has made between the number of deaths attributable to smoking and to excessive alcohol consumption; what are the figures for each in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [22105]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 10 January,Official Report, columns 231–32.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional revenue would accrue from limiting free prescriptions to those on income support. [21744]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not possible to make a reliable estimate. The present categories of exemption or remission are not mutually exclusive. Many people qualify under several categories and therefore no reliable estimates can be made of the number of those who would qualify under income support alone and hence the number of people who would no longer qualify for free prescriptions.

  NHS Management (Salaries)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chairmen of health service bodies have salary payments made directly to them; how many receive payments indirectly; and what have been these numbers in each year since 1992. [22749]

  Mr. Malone
  Remuneration should be paid directly to the chairmen of all national health service bodies to comply with Inland Revenue requirements.

  Triazolam
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what powers, from which Acts, the suspension of the product licenses for triazolam referred to in the letter dated 1 October 1991 from the then chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines was made; and on which of the grounds specified in these Acts the Committee on Safety of Medicines based its view that the product licences should be suspended. [20930]

  Mr. Malone
  Product licences for triazolam were suspended on 2 October 1991 in accordance with the powers available in paragraphs 10 and 11 of schedule 2 to the Medicines Act 1968. The grounds were that the products could no longer be regarded as products which could safely be administered for the purposes indicated in the licences.

  Mianserin
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on which dates the adverse reactions group of the subcommittee on efficacy and adverse reactions and the Committee on Safety of Medicines considered safety issues relating to the antidepressant mianserin; what advice was given to the licensing authority; and on what dates that advice was given. [209311

  Mr. Malone
  Safety issues relating to mianserin were considered by these committees on a number of occasions between 1981 and 1990. The advice given to the Licensing Authority is confidential.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Committee on Safety of Medicines took at its meeting on 13 October 1995 to ensure that the apparent association between third generation oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism was not due to chance, confounding or bias. [20932]
  428
  Mr. Malone
  The committee took particular care to examine these issues on the basis of all the evidence available and concluded that the association could not be fully explained by chance, bias or confounding.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the intention of the chief executive of the Medicines Control Agency, as expressed in writing on 18 October 1995, to take regulatory action on third generation oral contraceptives was halted; on whose authority this decision was made; and what was the effect of this decision on the ability of the Licensing Authority to fulfil its statutory duties. [209291]

  Mr. Malone
  Regulatory action is initiated by the Licensing Authority. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1149, in which I made it clear that such matters are confidential until regulatory action has been completed.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who drafted and on what date the "Dear Doctor" letter of 18 October 1995; and if it was agreed by the Committee on Safety of Medicines at its meeting on 13 October 1995. [20935]

  Mr. Malone
  The chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines drafted the letter following the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995, on the basis of the recommendations made by the committee.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations in respect of the Licensing Authority's view of the potential safety concern regarding third generation oral contraceptives the chairman made at the special meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995. [20936]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place within the Medicines Control Agency to monitor the technical competence of staff. [20933]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency ensures that its staff have appropriate professional and technical qualifications to perform effectively through its stringent recruitment and selection procedures; all new staff undergo a probationary period of one year upon joining. The technical competence of staff is maintained through appropriate training and is monitored through annual appraisal of their ability to meet defined objectives; this is subject to sign-off by a senior member of staff.

  The agency is also involved in the development of continuing further education programmes to ensure that all staff remain abreast of developments within their field.

  Toxocariasis and Toxoplasmosis
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) toxocariasis and (b) toxoplasmosis have been recorded in England and Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [22122]
  429
  Mr. Horam
  The numbers of laboratory reports for England and Wales of toxocariasis and toxoplasmosis to the public health laboratory service's communicable disease surveillance centre for each year from 1991 to 1995 are shown in the table.

  Year

  Toxocariasis

  Toxoplasmosis

  1991

  33

  636

  1992

  23

  580

  1993

  25

  454

  1994

  25

  627

  19951

  38

  322

  1 Data for 1995 are provisional,but are unlikely to change significantly.

  From the limited data received in recent years, the CDSC has not noted any significant change in the number of toxocariasis infections reported.

  On toxoplasmosis, the CDSC received an annual average of around 750 laboratory reports between 1982 and 1991, and an average 524 in each year between 1991 and 1995. From 1982, numbers remained fairly constant until 1989. Since 1990, with the exception of an increase in 1994, numbers have continued to decline.

  GP Patients (Transport)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance with transport is provided by his Department to patients who are unable to attend doctors' surgeries but who in the doctor's opinion do not require a home visit. [22250]

  Mr. Malone
  None. It is for general practitioners themselves to determine how best to provide their services, taking into account the needs of their patients.

  Beef Extracts
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent advice he received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee about the implications for human health on the use of foodstuff containing beef extracts; [22675]

  (2) what recent advice he received from the chief medical officer about the implications for human helath on the use of foodstuffs containing beef extracts. [22674]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Helath made an oral statement on 20 March about the advice received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and the chief medical officer,Official Report, columns 375–86. The advice received about beef included beef products.

  Health Care Purchases
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by(a) districts within each region and (b) trusts within each region the costs of purchasing health care from non-NHS bodies in each year from 1991–92. [21538]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: The information will be placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of people claiming incapacity benefit(a) are currently subject to the age ruling and (b) have had income support withdrawn as a result of the age ruling. [16281]

  Mr. Burt
  Entitlement to incapacity benefit ceases when a person reaches state pension age, that is, age 65 for men and age 60 for women, with the exception that a person who had attained SPA and was in receipt of invalidity benefit on 13 April 1995 has the right to retain entitlement for up to five years beyond SPA.

  In the current year, 1995–96, to the end of February, approximately 23,000 claimants, around 1 per cent. of the incapacity benefit case load, had transferred to retirement pension. Information on the income support entitlement of this group is not available. However, the benefit structure is such that a person would not become disentitled to income support solely because of transfer from incapacity benefit to retirement pension.

  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 plus family credit and (b) one-parent benefit plus disability working allowance. [21575]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  As I explained in my written answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 476, it is estimated that the vast majority of the 34,000 lone parents receiving family credit in Scotland are also receiving one-parent benefit.

  It is estimated that there are fewer than 500 recipients of disability working allowance in Scotland who are also receiving one-parent benefit.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will undertake research to establish how many people have had their attendance allowance withdrawn because they were in residential care temporarily paid for by the local authority pending the sale of their houses since the allowance first came into operation. [22015]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  We have no plans to undertake such research. Information is collected about the overall number of cases where payment of attendance allowance has been suspended. It includes cases where payment has been suspended following admission to hospital as well as admission to residential care or nursing homes. The detailed reasons for such suspensions are not recorded.

  Office Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number and (b) the value of items of equipment and furniture that have been (i) stolen and (ii) are otherwise unaccounted for from (1) DSS offices and (2) executive agency offices in each region, for each of the last five years; and if he will list by name those items valued at £5,000 or more. [13088]
  431
  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 February 1996, c. 467]: Further information is as follows.

  The information is not available in the format requested. The Department of Social Security does not separately maintain centralised records of individual items stolen. Losses due to theft, fraud, arson, sabotage or other causes are recorded in a single category. The number of individual losses recorded within this category, and the total value for each of the last five years is in the table:

  Financial year

  Number of individual cases

  Total value £

  1990–91

  364

  89,799

  1991–92

  411

  72,315

  1992–93

  94

  84,500

  1993–94

  192

  222,382

  1994–95

  192

  192,020

  Since 1992–93 the Information Technology Services Agency has conducted annual certification exercises to confirm the value of its fixed asset register. Following the 1992–93 exercise, a total of £5,845,000 was noted on the Department's appropriation account for 1992–93 as being
  "loss arising from discrepancies between the ITSA Asset Register and actual equipment identified".

  Following the 1994–95 exercise, a total of £695,000 was so identified. The fact that the certification exercises in 1993–94 and 1994–95 revealed surplus equipment of over £6 million valued on a comparable basis suggests that these "losses" are not permanent. However, in Government accounting terms the discrepancies identified are categorised as losses.

  The estimated gross value of the Department's tangible fixed assets, excluding land and buildings, is approximately £780 million for 1994–95.

  Travel Grants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an estimate of the annual benefit savings from providing travel grants to families from the former Yugoslavia living on benefit in the United Kingdom to enable them to return home. [21764]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information upon which to base an estimate is not available and could be obtained only at disproportion cost.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the(a) basic salary and (b) bonus paid to the Benefits Agency chief executives in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95. [22680]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The basic salary of the Benefits Agency chief executive was paid at £82,012 for the period 1993–94 and £86,475 for 1994–95. The chief executive's total remuneration is set out in the 1993–94 and 1994–95 Benefits Agency annual report and accounts, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for further changes in the administration of the Child Support Agency. [230671

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I am able to report changes to two significant areas within the administration of the agency.

  First, an independent complaints examiner will be recruited for the Child Support Agency later this year. The agency will be running a pilot scheme during the summer in order to inform the guidelines within which the examiner will operate. My intention is that a full independent complaints service will be in operation shortly after that.

  Secondly, I am pleased to announce the following improvements to the Child Support Agency's compensation scheme, which are to take effect from 1 April 1996.

  The rules under which the agency makes compensation payments for delays in issuing maintenance application forms—which are issued to the parent with care—and maintenance enquiry forms—which are issued to the absent parent—will be changed. Currently, compensation is considered only for delays exceeding three months, where the Child Support Agency is culpable for the delay, which leads to a loss of opportunity to receive child maintenance which would have otherwise been received. For claims where the full maintenance assessment is completed on or after 1 April 1996, however, payments will be made if the delay exceeds one month, unless the agency needs to make further inquiries before issuing a MEF, when the delay period will be two months.

  Additionally, a new type of consolatory payment will be introduced. In cases were the Child Support Agency is culpable of sending a MEF to a person who is not the parent of the child, or children, in question, that person will be entitled to a consolatory payment of £100 to compensate for the upset and inconvenience caused by this error, This new payment will also be introduced on 1 April 1996.

  These changes build on the existing compensation arrangements in the Child Support Agency which cover other losses incurred as a result of maladministration. They should ensure that compensation reaches those who do not receive an acceptable level of service in this area from the Child Support Agency. The changes to the scheme mean the Child Support Agency now has a compensation scheme which has been designed in the light of experience to meet the special circumstances of Child Support Agency responsibilities.

  These improvements, together with the announcement I made last week, Official Report, column 165, on the introduction of interest payments on maintenance that the Child Support Agency has not transferred quickly enough, are a further significant step in securing the kind of service that Parliament intended.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people whose homes were damaged as a result of the Canary wharf bomb and who have been rehoused as a consequence have applied for a social fund
  433
  (a) grant and (b) loan and how many of these in each category have had the application (i) granted and (ii) refused. [22415]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 22 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people whose homes were damaged as a result of the Canary Wharf bomb and have been rehoused as a consequence have applied for a Social Fund (SF) (a) grant and (b) loan and how many of these in each category have had the application (i) granted and (ii) refused.
  The information has been obtained from clerical records kept by the Benefits Agency (BA) District City East, which comprises of the BA offices of City, Poplar and Stepney Nelson Street. The figures provided are provisional and subject to change.
  Total applications to the SF from people rehoused as a result of the Canary Wharf bomb: 8
  Number of people who received a grant: None
  Number of people who received a loan: 8
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many doctors were employed by the Benefits Agency medical services(a) in April 1995 and (b) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [19661]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 22 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many doctors were employed by the Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) (a) in April 1995 and (b) at the most recent date for which figures are available.
  On 1 April 1995 BAMS employed 250 doctors. The latest figures available show that as of 1 February 1996 BAMS employed 313 doctors.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Parlianentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many questions were tabled to her Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21152]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of questions tabled for the Department since 1987 are shown in the following table. The reminder of the information sought could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  434

  Department of Employment

  Department for Education and Science

  Year

  Written

  Oral

  Written

  Oral

  1987–88

  3,145

  390

  2,342

  461

  1988–89

  2,984

  362

  2,029

  318

  1989–90

  2,620

  321

  2,281

  266

  1990–91

  1,496

  312

  1,670

  274

  1991–92

  730

  143

  776

  127

  1992–93

  2,342

  403

  12,289

  1372

  1993–94

  1,636

  273

  11,550

  1278

  1994–95

  1,528

  218

  11,506

  1239

  1995–96

  —

  —

  2962

  2137

  1 Department of Employment.

  2 Department for Education and Employment.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average cost of answering an(a) oral and (b) written parliamentary questions from (i) Opposition and (ii) Conservative hon. Members in each Session since 1989–90. [21792]

  Mr. Squire
  This Department does not collect the information in the form requested.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representatives of Scottish education interests he intends to appoint to the committee of inquiry into higher education in the United Kingdom. [22430]

  Mr. Forth
  My colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I are considering the membership of the committee of inquiry in the light of consultations and expect to make an announcement after Easter.

  Pupil Registration Regulations
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 28 November 1995,Official Report, column 676, what conclusions she has reached on updating the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 1956. [22287]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to amend the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 1995, which replaced the 1956 regulations and came into force on 1 September 1995. Officials are, however, continuing to explore with representatives of local education authorities whether existing guidance and procedures in this area should be revised to take account of issues raised by the West case.

  Pupil Assessnents
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the evidence she has evaluated which shows that the performance of a school pupil in respect of subjects and related grades achieved in the general certificate of secondary education at the age of 16 plus can be predicted on the basis of assessments made at the age of 11 plus. [22768]

  Mr. Paice
  The first year of statutory assessment of 11-year-olds at the end of key stage 2 was 1995. It will be possible to compare these pupils' 1995 key stage 2 national curriculum assessment results with their GCSE results in 1999.
  435
  There are, however, a number of local schemes in existence which compare the value added by schools to pupils' achievements over time. We have asked the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to investigate these and to advise how value added might be calculated nationally and for individual schools. The SCAA is due to report by the end of the year.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the outcome of her Department's consideration of the access to work scheme; [22251]

  (2) what plans she has to alter criteria for inclusion on the access to work scheme. [22252]

  Mr. Paice
  The review of the access to work programme is now complete; an announcement is expected to be made shortly about its future operation.

  Child Care Projects (Merseyside)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason the rules concerning the funding of stand-alone child care projects attempting to gain support under objective 1 status in Merseyside were changed last year; and if she will make a statement. [22425]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The rules concerning the funding of stand-alone child care projects have not changed. Child care cost are only eligible as part of a European social fund vocational training or employment project.

  School Funding
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information she collates about the allocation of funds by local education authorities to different age groups at schools; and what was the average expenditure for children between(a) four and six years old, (b) seven and 11 years old, (c) 13 and 14 years old and (d) 15 and 16 years old plus in the last year for which figures are available. [22447]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the funding allocated by local education authorities to schools in 1995–96 by reference to the number and ages of their pupils is set out at appendix A in the volume "Education Statistics 1995–96 Estimates", published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which is available in the Library. Information on funding allocated by reference to other factors is set out in appendix B. The Department has itself undertaken no collation and analysis which would add usefully to CIPFA' s.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which contracts in respect of which local authority areas for the operation of the careers service have been awarded to Nord Anglia. [22448]
  436
  Mr. Paice
  Nord Anglia has provided the careers service in Stockport and the High Peak since April 1995. It is contracted to provide services in Wiltshire, Brent and Harrow and Bolton, Bury and Rochdale from 1 April 1996. A further contract is expected to be signed before the end of March but details remain commercial in confidence until then.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the salary range for each training and enterprise council chief executive or highest paid director in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95. [22491]

  Mr. Paice
  In line with other private companies, training and enterprise councils are required to report details of salaries paid to their highest paid director in their annual accounts. Copies of the accounts are held in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Southern Education Area Board Building (Armagh)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Southern education area board has(a) to replace the damaged flagpole and (b) repair the public clock at its premises in the Market house in the centre of the Armagh city conservation area. [21196]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Southern education and library board has said that the necessary repairs will be carried out as soon as possible.

  Killylane Reservoir
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the Department of the Environment environmental services sampling regime for discharge points at Killylane reservoir. [21248]

  Mr. Moss
  The environment service commenced monitoring of the discharge of waste water from Killylane water treatment plant in January 1996. Sampling will take place at monthly intervals.

  Mr. Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the aluminium content in samples taken from discharger points at Killylane reservoir between January 1993 and January 1996; and what assessment he has made of the compliance of those discharges with World Health Organisation tolerance levels. [21249]

  Mr. Moss
  A sampling regime for Killylane water treatment plant commenced in January 1996. A sample of the waste water discharge from the plant to the Killylane reservoir was taken by the environment service on 22 January and the aluminium content in the sample was 3.23 mg per litre.

  World Health Organisation guidelines apply to drinking water and are therefore not appropriate in the context of waste water discharges.

  Union Flag (Government Building)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the reason for the removal of the flagpole from the Government building at 2 Newry road, Armagh city; what proposals there are for its replacement; and what arrangements are in place to fly the Union flag at these Government buildings on appropriate dates. [21194]

  Mr. Moss
  An inspection of the flagpole found it to be rotten and it was removed immediately for health and safety reasons. A replacement flagpole is on order and will be wall mounted on arrival. The Union flag will then be flown on appropriate dates.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements he has made to fly the Union flag on Government buildings on St. Patrick's day; and if the five education area boards and four health area boards have been made similar arrangements. [21225]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Each year, all Northern Ireland Government Departments are informed of the prescribed dates on which the Union flag should be flown; the list includes St. Patrick's day. These instructions apply only to central Government office buildings, that is, those buildings, irrespective of ownership, where the civil service is the major occupant. There is no requirement for health and social services boards, health trusts or education and library boards to fly the Union flag on these dates, although they are notified of the dates, should they wish to do so.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fox fur farms there are in each county of Northern Ireland. [21369]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no fox fur farms in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licences were issued for mink farms in each county of Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [21368]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are currently no mink farms in Northern Ireland and no licences to keep mink have been issued by the Department of Agriculture in the last five years.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many grammar schools there are in Northern Ireland; how many of these schools include Latin languages in their curriculum to(a) GCSE level and (b) A-level examinations. [21195]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are 71 grammar schools in Northern Ireland;(a) 26 entered candidates for Latin at GCSE level and (b) 16 entered candidates for Latin at A-level in the 1994–95 academic year.

  Elections
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the format of the proposed elections in Northern Ireland. [21257]
  438
  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 March 1996,Official Report, columns 497–508.

  Traffic Lights (Conlig Main Street)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to erect traffic lights at the junction of Conlig main street with the dual carriageway. [21199]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no plans to erect traffic lights at this junction.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fire brigades failed to meet the statutory minimum standards for their rescue and firefighting role in Northern Ireland in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [21576]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland fire brigade is drawing to the end of implementing a 10-year plan to enable it fully to meet the UK nationally recommended standards of fire cover. However, I am satisfied that in general the brigade is already meeting those standards, with a few localised exceptions which the completion of the 10-year plan will address. Her Majesty's inspectors of fire services, in their annual inspection, draw attention to exceptions and it is for the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland to take the appropriate action in such cases.

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21584]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments, the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21465]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The conditions of contract used by the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office to contract for goods and services specifically require contractors and suppliers to comply with all statutory obligations which may affect the execution of the contract.
  439
  The statutory obligations include those relating to health and safety. In the conditions of contract, contractors' attention is drawn specifically to article 4 of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978—general duties of employers to their employees—and they require contractors to prepare a written policy statement on health and safety, together with the arrangements for carrying out that policy.

  The conditions of contract do not contain any terms in relation to the wages paid by contractors or suppliers. Contracting Departments do not concern themselves with the rates of pay of contractors' employees other than to assist in the tender process of evaluating the quality of service on offer where that service is labour intensive.

  Civil Evidence Act 1995
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when section 1 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 will come into effect in Northern Ireland. [214831

  Sir John Wheeler
  Section 1 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995, which abolishes the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, does not extend to Northern Ireland. However, the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland is in the process of examining the rule against hearsay in Northern Ireland and a report containing its recommendations is expected to be published shortly.

  War Memorials
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to allow relatives of service men and women killed in action since the end of the second world war to have their names placed on war memorials. [21023]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: There are no plans to change the existing legislation. It is similar to that in Great Britain, and allows for the names of those killed in a war to be placed on war memorials.

TREASURY

  Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which former public sector research establishments in his Department have been privatised since 1979; and which public sector research establishments in his Department are currently undergoing reviews with a view to placing them in the private sector. [219491

  Mr. Jack
  HM Treasury is not currently responsible, and has not been since 1979, for any public sector research establishments; the responsibility for the latest series of reviews is with the President of the Board of Trade.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the Customs and Excise consultation exercise on the scope of the lower rate of landfill tax. [23060]
  440
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise has now analysed the replies which it received to the consultation exercise on the scope of the lower rate of landfill tax. On the basis of the information provided and representation made, we have concluded that the lower rate of landfill tax should apply to the wastes listed. Mixtures consisting only of listed wastes will qualify for the lower rate, as will water with suspended solids consisted only of listed wastes.

  In order to be taxable at the lower rate, listed wastes—or mixtures of such wastes—must not contain or be contaminated with any material which is not listed. If they are, the standard rate of tax will apply. But a de minimis level will apply to enable wastes to qualify for the lower rate if they consist wholly of listed wastes, apart from a small quantity of material which is not listed, provided that the material does not lead to any potential for pollution. Where wastes appear on the lower rate list and are also covered by an exemption, the exemption will apply.

  Naturally occurring rocks and soils, including:

  clay, sand, gravel, sandstone, limestone, crushed stone, china clay, clean building or demolition stone such as sandstone, limestone or slate, topsoil, peat, coal, silt and dredgings.

  Ceramic or cemented materials

  Glass.

  Ceramics, including bricks (see below for bricks with plaster). tiles, clay ware, pottery, china, bricks and mortar.

  Concrete, including reinforced concrete, concrete blocks, breeze blocks and thermalite blocks.

  Processed or prepared mineral materials, which have not been used or contaminated

  Moulding sands and clays.

  Clay absorbents, including Fuller's earth and bentonite and other mineral absorbents.

  Man-made mineral fibres, including glass fibre.

  Silica.

  Mica.

  Abrasives.

  Furnace slags

  Certain ash:

  Bottom ash and fly ash from wood or coal combustion (including pulverised fuel ash from coal combustion).

  Low activity inorganic compounds:

  Titanium dioxide.

  Calcium carbonate.

  Magnesium carbonate.

  Magnesium oxide.

  Magnesium hydroxide.

  Fenic oxide.

  Fenic hydroxide.

  Aluminium oxide.

  Gypsum and plaster

  These will be subject to the lower rate only if disposed of in landfill sites licensed only to take inactive or inert waste.

  Other wastes

  There are, in addition to the above, a few wastes on which Custom and Excise is seeking further information before a conclusion is reached as to whether the lower rate is appropriate.

DEFENCE

  Civilian Employees
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian employees of his Department there are at each individual forces base in Scotland. [22714]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have placed a list in the Library of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many questions were tabled to his Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21147]

  Mr. Soames
  The Library of the House has provided the following information on the number of questions tabled to my Department for the relevant years.

  Written Questions

  Oral Questions (including supplementaries)

  1987–88

  3,784

  415

  1988–89

  3,415

  367

  1989–90

  3,244

  333

  1990–91

  2,390

  275

  1991–92

  1,097

  132

  1992–93

  3,623

  385

  1993–94

  2,849

  302

  1994–95

  3,580

  276

  1995–96

  1,081

  133

  The other information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ridgewood Group of Companies
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what departmental investigations have been(a) initiated and (b) completed by his Department into the Ridgewood group of companies; and if will publish his conclusions. [211821]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 18 March 1996]: Inquiries have been made within the Ministry of Defence to establish whether there are any departmental investigations into the Ridgewood group of companies; none are known to be current. Any in the past have been concluded satisfactorily and their conclusions will not be published.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from representatives of the building industry, the mortgage lenders and estate agents about the consequences for the English housing market of the sale of Ministry of Defence married quarters. [21383]
  442
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have received no such representations on behalf of these groups.

  Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which former public sector research establishments in his Department have been privatised since 1979; and which public sector research establishments in his Department are currently undergoing reviews with a view to placing them in the private sector. [21937]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No MOD research establishments have been privatised since 1979, and no such establishment is currently undergoing review for this purpose.

  Decommissioned Submarines
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the removal of decommissioned submarines from Rosyth royal dockyard and (b) the disposal and transportation of radioactive waste from the decommissioned submarines. [22099]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government's policy is that decommissioned nuclear submarines should be stored safely afloat at the location where they are decommissioned. This policy is kept under review. There are no current plans to remove these decommissioned submarines stored afloat at Rosyth royal dockyard. Radioactive waste produced during the decommissioning process is handled in accordance with current national legislation. There is no transportation of radioactive waste following decommissioning.

  Tornado Crews (Training)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the average air crew flying training hours for Tornado aircraft in each of the last five years. [21884]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: The monthly average Tornado air crew flying training hours for each of the last five years are as follows:

  Financial year

  Tornado F3

  Tornado GR1

  1991–92

  17 hours 45 minutes

  17 hours 45 minutes

  1992–93

  18 hours 55 minutes

  16 hours 50 minutes

  1993–94

  15 hours 45 minutes

  15 hours 35 minutes

  1994–95

  14 hours 30 minutes

  16 hours 45 minutes

  1995–96

  13 hours 55 minutes

  13 hours 25 minutes

  The figures shown exclude operational flying in support of the Iraq no-fly zone and UN-NATO operations in Bosnia, in which the Tornado F3 has been involved since April 1993 and the Tornado GR to varying degrees throughout the period. Such flying includes an element of continuation training. The figures for 1995–96 are the monthly average up to and including January 1996.

  Service Strength
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the strength of(a) the RAF, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Navy by the end of the decade. [21883]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: The estimated strengths for the services at 1 April 1999 are as follows:

  (a) Royal Air Force: 55,500

  (b) Army: 114,000

  (c) Royal Navy: 44,000

  The Army estimate includes Gurkha strengths, but excludes the Royal Irish Regiment—home service force. The Royal Navy estimate includes the Royal Marines and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service. All the figures include an element for personnel undergoing training.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunal or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22514]

  Mr. Soames
  The handling of civilian equal opportunities cases has been delegated to budget holders and agencies. Details of amounts paid and numbers of cases are not all readily available centrally. Information is however available on six cases over the past few years, for which the average payment was about £7,500.

  For service personnel, the great majority of such payments relate to compensation for those dismissed on the ground of pregnancy before the services introduced maternity leave in 1990. An average of about £10,000 has been paid to each of 4,615 cases which did not proceed to tribunals, and about £30,000 to each of 320 cases which proceeded to tribunal. Most of this expenditure was made in 1994–95. On service cases other than pregnancy dismissal, not all details are available in the form requested but an average of about £7,000 has been paid in each of about 60 cases, of which three proceeded to tribunal.

  HMY Britannia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual running costs for HMY Britannia; and from which subheads of which votes these funds are taken. [22409]

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated total operating costs of HMY Britannia for the financial year 1995–96 are £8,933,000. Provision for this expenditure is currently made in class I, vote 1, subheads Al and F1 and in class I, vote 2, subheads Al and A2.
  444
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department is carrying out into the replacement of HMY Britannia; what has been the cost of these studies to date; and what is the estimated cost of a replacement for HMY Britannia. [22408]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The possible replacement of HMY Britannia, together with other options for meeting the tasks she presently fulfils, is being examined by an interdepartmental working group. The main cost of this work, which has been confined to a small proportion of the salaries of the officials involved, has not been collected centrally and could not be estimated without disproportionate effort. The cost of any replacement would depend entirely on its design and role.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average daily cost of crewing HMY Britannia(a) with and (b) without the royal family embarked. [22824]

  Mr. Soames
  In the current financial year, the present estimated average daily cost of crewing HMY Britannia is about £16,000. The presence, or absence, on board of members of the royal family does not affect crewing levels.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the daily running cost, excluding maintenance and refitting, of HMY Britannia(a) in harbour and (b) at sea with and without the royal family embarked. [22825]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available in the form requested. In the current financial year, however, the present estimated daily total operating costs of HMY Britannia are about £21,000, excluding repair and refit.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his Department's outstanding liabilities for future decommissioning of nuclear facilities at(a) Calder Hall, (b) Chapelcross and (c) Capenhurst. [22350]

  Mr. Soames
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. is responsible for assessing the costs of decommissioning facilities at its sites. My Department's share of these costs is either subsumed in prices paid on supply contracts or met when the costs are actually incurred, which in most cases will not be for some considerable time. It is not possible accurately to determine the costs of these liabilities as they will depend on a number of factors including future usage of the facilities by other customers.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the A91 building at AWE Aldermaston; and on what date it is expected that this building will become fully operational. [22365]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Work to rectify the problems in the A91 building at AWE Aldermaston is progressing. The building is expected to become fully operational in 1997.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total estimated cost of the new capital works projects at AWE Aldermaston. [22364]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The projects in question are largely complete and the estimate of their total cost remains £1.2 billion.
  445
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the A90 building at AWE Aldermaston; and on what date it is expected that this building will become fully operational. [22349]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The phased radioactive commissioning of the A90 building is in progress. The building is expected to come into full operation by the end of this year, with the completion of the progressive transfer of plutonium processing from existing facilities.

  Pindar Facility
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the Pindar bunker. [22351]

  Mr. Soames
  The Pindar facility is fully operational.

  51 Squadron
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of aircraft from 51 Squadron, Royal Air Force, in operations over Bosnia. [22356]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to comment on such matters.

  Exercise Arid Thunder
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) of 12 March,Official Report, column 510, which sub-munitions were used during the expending of BL755 cluster bombs during Exercise Arid Thunder. [22362]

  Mr. Soames
  The sub-munitions used were piercing—fragmentation bomblets.

  RAF Bases
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF bases in the United Kingdom have no(a) runways, (b) jets and (c) other aeroplanes; how many United States personnel are stationed at each; and how much each base cost in the last year for which figures are available. [20642]

  Mr. Soames
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 March 1996, c. 64–65]: I regret that there was an omission from the list of RAF bases where there is a US presence but where there is no operational runway or aircraft. This is RAF Feltwell where there are approximately 400 US personnel.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Deregulation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new regulations have been introduced by the Government since April 1992; and how many regulations have been removed as a result of the Government's deregulation procedures. [20690]

  Mr. Willetts
  We have repealed or amended over 500 of the 1,000 regulations which we identified as unnecessary burdens on business. Of 3,334 new statutory instruments in 1994, nearly 2,000 were for road closures 446
  and other local measures. Two thirds of the remainder either were specifically to help businesses or had no impact on them.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new deregulation initiatives his Department is examining; and if he will make a statement. [20705]

  Mr. Willetts
  A number of new deregulation initiatives were announced at the "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March. We also announced plans for a programme of deregulation seminars, covering sectors from tourism to financial services, to enable business to put forward their own ideas for further deregulation.

  Charter Mark
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Labour-held councils were recently awarded the charter mark; and what are the categories of the awards and the factors underlying their issue. [20694]

  Mr. Willetts
  There were 41 charter mark winners from within Labour-controlled local authorities in 1995.

  There is one category of award. All winners must demonstrate excellence against the nine criteria.

  Government Policy
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy on the co-ordination of Government policy. [20695]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  We are pursuing economic prosperity and security for all, based on an enterprise economy; creating a nation of opportunity, reflecting the Government's values of choice, ownership and reward; upholding decent common-sense values in the pursuit of law, order and justice; providing the people of Britain with first-class public services; and reflecting pride in the nation and its place in the world.

  Referendums
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will commission a study into the use of referendums in respect of Government policies. [20696]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  No; the Government have access to sufficient information and advice on the subject.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contribution his Department made to the Government initiative on small businesses. [20698]

  Mr. Freeman
  A package of new deregulation measures for small businesses was announced at the "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March. These measures, which include new rights for business in enforcement actions and a prototype IT system to provide information about forms and regulations, have been widely welcomed by business.
  447
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to co-ordinate more effectively the presentation of Government policy towards small businesses. [20699]

  Mr. Willetts
  Last year, the Prime Minister asked the Institute of Directors and other business organisations to organise a series of small business conferences, so that small businesses could give their views on Government policies and their presentation. At the final conference on 11 March, the Prime Minister announced further measures to help small firms and said that the Government would respond in full to these conferences in the third White Paper on competitiveness in the summer.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his division of responsibilities with other Cabinet Ministers. [20700]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are(a) his responsibility and (b) his authority in respect of (i) the Department of Trade and Industry and (ii) the Department for Education and Employment. [20704]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Ministerial responsibilities are a matter of public record, set out in my Department's publication, the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities".

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes have taken place in his responsibilities since he was appointed. [20703]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  As previously announced, the Prime Minister has this year invited me to chair ministerial groups on information technology and on the Millennium festival. In other respects, my role is unchanged.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made following the Government's planned White Paper on competitiveness. [20701]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Government will report on the progress made since last year's White Paper on competitiveness in a third competitiveness White Paper in the summer.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff there are in his Department. [20702]
  448
  Mr. Willetts
  By convention, the Office of Public Service, the Cabinet Office and CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, are treated as one group, and staff currently number 1,332.

  Research Establishments
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which former public sector research establishments in his Department have been privatised since 1979; and which public sector research establishments in his Department are currently undergoing reviews with a view to placing them in the private sector. [21936]

  Mr. Willetts
  There are no such research establishments in the Department and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contractual obligations to protect the jobs of existing employees of HMSO at its plants in Norwich, London and Oldham the prospective purchasers of the organisation will be required to meet. [22268]

  Mr. Freeman
  The level of HMSO staffing now, in all locations, largely depends on the amount of business it wins in competition with other suppliers. That will not change after privatisation, and I can offer no guarantees as to the future staffing levels. The hon. Member will note the recent high level of redundancies across HMSO, which reflect the need for it to streamline itself to remain competitive.

  HMSO has a major presence in Norwich, and to a lesser extent elsewhere in the country. Relocation is a very expensive process, and as I made clear during the 18 March debate, Official Report, column 89, I cannot envisage circumstances in which the new owner would wish to move significant numbers of staff away from their current locations. This is especially true in locations such as Oldham, where current facilities include a large amount of specialised plant. Bidders will be required to submit their plans for the development of the business, and an assessment of their overall plans will assist us in selecting the winning bid.

  However, I would not wish to pre-empt the commercial judgment of the new owner to reorganise the business in the future if circumstances dictated. That would cut across the whole purpose of the sale, which is to give the business the freedom necessary for it to prosper.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the number of charter marks which have been awarded to the Driving Standards Agency. [20692]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Driving Standards Agency was awarded a charter mark in 1992. This expired in 1995.

  Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to lay an order specifying the principal civil service pension scheme administration as a function which contractors may be authorised to carry out; and if he will make a statement. [22986]

  Mr. Freeman
  An order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was laid today before Parliament in draft, and will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses.

  Approval of the order by Parliament will enable Departments to market test their day-to-day administration of the principal civil service pension scheme, and associated schemes. Occupational pension arrangements for civil servants will continue to be provided through the PCSPS. Market testing of the administration function will not affect pension benefits in any way. Competition will ensure value for money and the focus on performance outputs will help to raise the quality of service to scheme members. Decisions on the timing and method of competitive tendering will be for each employing Department to take. It will be open to existing service providers, such as the Paymaster agency, to compete on a value-for-money basis. Such bids will be at full cost and will be considered rigorously. The unions will be consulted on individual market tests as they arise.

  Responsibility for management of the PCSPS—and associated schemes—including setting the rules, will remain within government. This function transferred from HM Treasury to the Office of Public Service and Science on 1 April 1995. Expenditure on civil service pension benefits will continue to be met from the civil superannuation vote, responsibility for which also transferred to the Office of Public Service.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21510]

  Mr. Newton
  Within the last 52 weeks, 10 Privy Council Office staff worked paid overtime which took their hours above 48 in a week, and two more received payments in recognition of hours worked on a similar scale. In aggregate, they constituted just over 30 per cent. of the Department's total staff. The hours worked by Ministers and senior staff not eligible for paid overtime are not recorded, nor are records kept of the hours worked in individual weeks by staff on flexible working schemes.

  Departmental Contractors and Suppliers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what measures his Department is taking to ensure that its contractors and suppliers(a) pay their employees a wage which ensures such employees do not need supplementary welfare payments via various state benefits and (b) meet workplace health and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement. [21468]

  Mr. Newton
  Terms and conditions of employment, including wages, are a matter between the contractor or supplier and his employees, subject to any relevant legal requirements. Compliance with health and safety regulations is a legal requirement for the contractor or supplier.

WALES

  Welsh National Opera
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 171, what were the dates of the meetings relating to the permanent home for the Welsh National Opera company; and if he will indicate the positions held by those present. [22410]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Friday 22 March,Official Report, column 356.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 14 March 1996,Official Report, column 745, relating to inward investment company visits, how many of these included visits to (a) Gwynedd and (b) Dyfed. [22218]

  Mr. Hague
  Of the 13 inward visits brought to Wales over the past 12 months by the Invest in Britain Bureau, one visited Dyfed.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent the £1,100 per four-year-old child currently in school which will be withdrawn from local education authorities in April 1997 under the nursery voucher scheme is funded through the revenue support grant for local authorities. [22237]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 22 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 11 March, Official Report, column 495.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been deregistered from their dentist since 1992 in each health authority area; and if he will make a statement. [20890]

  Mr. Richards
  From the information supplied by family health services authorities the number of patients in Wales who have been deregistered since August 1992 is as follows:

  FHSA

  Adult patients

  Child patients

  Total patients

  Clwyd

  12,363

  145

  12,508

  Dyfed

  4,585

  14

  4,599

  Gwent

  11,386

  0

  11,386

  Gwynedd

  19,928

  0

  19,928

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,142

  0

  2,142

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  6,565

  59

  6,624

  West Glamorgan

  44

  0

  44

  Totals

  57,013

  218

  57,231

  This information was supplied for management purposes only and is not statistically validated.
  452
  These are cumulative figures and do not indicate how many of those patients subsequently registered with another dentist.

  Statistics published by the Dental Practice Board indicate that, at the end of December 1995, the number of registered patients in Wales was 38,194 higher than it was at the end of June 1992.

  Planning
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what the planning status of technical advice notes will be; if they will be subject to consultation; and if he will make a statement; [22052]

  (2) when he plans to publish the single planning policy guidance (Wales); and if he will make a statement; [22054]

  (3) if the technical advice notes will be released at the same time as the planning policy guidance (Wales); and if he will make a statement; [22053]

  (4) what plans he has to prepare technical advice notes on nature conservation; and if he will make a statement. [22055]

  Mr. Hague
  A final decision on planning policy guidance in Wales has not yet been taken, but I shall be making an announcement shortly. If I decide to go ahead with a single planning policy guidance (Wales) document it would be issued in advance of the series of technical advice notes. The intention would be to cancel the current PPG series but leave the technical guidance contained in the notes extant until the TANs were issued in their formal form.

  Full consultation would take place on any draft TANs, one of which would relate to nature conservation, produced by my Department. The status of the TANs would be made clear at the time of issue.

  Amey Construction Ltd.
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list projects in which Amey Construction Ltd. were employed by the Welsh Office as contractors, by subject and by value, in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [22027]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1994–95 and 1995–96 Amey Construction has been employed on one road project. The project was M4 Brynglas tunnels—A4042 Malpas road relief scheme, and the accepted tender price was £38 million.

  Bird Reserve, Gwent
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 1996,Official Report, column 629, what assessment he has made of the additional time taken to establish the Gwent bird reserve by the Land Authority for Wales and the Cardiff Bay development corporation on the basis of using the private finance initiative compared with the conventional public sector route. [22805]
  453
  Mr. Hague
  It is Government policy to consider private finance initiative options for all capital schemes and the aim to complete engineering works before impoundment of the waters within Cardiff bay took account of this.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 1996,Official Report, column 629, what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the leaders of the Cardiff and Vale councils concerning the exit strategy for the development corporation; and if he will chair the first exit strategy joint meeting. [22817]

  Mr. Hague
  I have asked the board of the Cardiff Bay development corporation to prepare a draft plan for winding up the corporation. The draft plan will be put out to consultation with the relevant local authorities and other interested bodies by July 1996 or sooner if possible.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the shadow unitary authorities which submitted their proposals for local management of schools schemes by the stated deadline, indicating(a) which have been the subject of requests for further information, the length of time and deadline for the return of this information and (b) which have had their local management of schools schemes approved and the estimated latest date on which approval can be given to county borough local management of schools schemes to enable them to inform the schools of their budgets for April 1996 to March 1997. [22544]

  Mr. Richards
  The 22 unitary authorities were asked to submit their draft schemes by 1 December, with subsequent amendments by 12 January this year. Thirteen authorities met the first deadline, all the second, although many of the schemes submitted were considered incomplete. It has been necessary to request far more information than anticipated in respect of all draft schemes submitted. The deadline set for the additional information has varied between authorities, in whose interests it is to provide the information as soon as possible. Additional information is still outstanding from four authorities.

  Thirteen schemes have been approved so far. Subject to the timely provision of all the additional information requested, I would hope that all schemes can be approved by 1 April. I understand that many authorities have already given their schools an indication of their budget for 1996–97.

  East Glamorgan General Hospital
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the future of accident and emergency services at the East Glamorgan General Hospital, Pontypridd. [22574]

  Mr. Richards
  The new district general hospital at Ynys-y-Plwm is scheduled to open in December 1998 and will offer a full accident and emergency service. Until then this service will continue to be available at East Glamorgan general hospital.
  454
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the accident and emergency unit at East Glamorgan general hospital, Pontypridd, is meeting patients charter requirements for waiting times in accident and emergency. [22599]

  Mr. Richards
  At 31 December 1995, 76 per cent. of patients were assessed within five minutes of arrival at the hospital's accident and emergency department. Over 90 per cent. of casualty patients were found a hospital bed within two hours of the decision to admit them.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimated date for the opening of the East Glamorgan general hospital at its new Llantrisant site. [22601]

  Mr. Richards
  The hospital is due to open in December 1998 following six months' commissioning after the contract completion date in May 1998.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that, as part of the transfer of services from its present, Church village, site to its new site at Llantrisant, the East Glamorgan general hospital will be required by the Welsh Office to provide a full and continuing accident and emergency service at the new site. [22603]

  Mr. Richards
  Yes, the East Glamorgan NHS trust will provide a full accident and emergency service from the new site.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what vacancies there are for nurses, junior doctors, middle-range doctors and consultants at the accident and emergency department at East Glamorgan general hospital, Pontypridd. [22600]

  Mr. Richards
  There is currently one vacancy for a staff grade doctor. This will be filled as soon as a work permit has been received in respect of an overseas doctor recently interviewed for the post.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) latest projected cost for completion of the East Glamorgan general hospital at its new Llantrisant site and (b) the number of beds to be included in that hospital. [22602]

  Mr. Richards
  The latest projected costs including works, equipment, fees and VAT is £82 million and the hospital will include 513 beds.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil service jobs have been relocated out of Wales since the process of market testing and contractorisation began. [22810]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not collected.

TRANSPORT

  Road Schemes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cost overrun for major road schemes
  455
  constructed by his Department in each of the last 10 years; and if he will list the 10 schemes with the largest cost overrun during the last 10 years. [20777]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Clare Short, dated 25 March 1996:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the average cost overrun of road schemes. You asked what was the average cost ovenun of major road schemes constructed in each of the last ten years, and requested a list of the ten schemes with the largest cost ovenun during that period.
  A report entitled "Department of Transport: Contracting for Roads" was published by the National Audit Office in October 1992, and provided detailed information on this matter. In addition, I wrote to Mrs. Joan Walley MP on 3 October 1995 in response to a Parliamentary Question enclosing some information for schemes completed between March 1990 and March 1995, I enclose copies of these documents for your ease of reference.

  Highways Agency
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of the restructuring of the Highways Agency announced in March 1995. [20775]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Clare Short, dated 25 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the cost of the restructuring of the Highways Agency announced in March 1995.
  My assessment of the cost is £14,060,000.

  Chinese Military Manoeuvres
  Sir Nicholas Scott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about recent interference in recognised international sea and air routes by China in respect of launching missiles, firing munitions and conducting manoeuvres; and to what extent Chinese notification of these accorded with acceptable international practice. [22211]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 8 March, the Chinese navy and air force have been conducting military exercises in the Taiwan straits. For this purpose, they have established and duly notified a series of maritime and air exclusion zones. While diversions by ships and aircraft may have been necessary, the Chinese exercises have not prevented transit passage through the straits.

  Although China is not yet a state party to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, her actions, including notification procedures, appear to be in general conformity with international practice.

  Royal Family (Official Cars)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who(a) owns and (b) has responsibility for operating the official cars used by the royal family for their public duties. [21476]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.
  456
  The costs of cars used for official purposes by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are met from the Queen's civil list and from His Royal Highness's parliamentary annuity respectively. They may be owned or leased and are operated by the Royal Mews. The costs of cars used for official purposes by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother are met from Her Majesty's parliamentary annuity. They are the responsibility of her staff and may be owned or leased. Cars are also owned privately for private use.

  Costs for other members of the royal family are not paid for from public funds.

  Aircraft (Ice Falls)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 1996,Official Report, column 215, if he will make a statement on the action his Department is taking to reduce the incidence of ice balls falling from aircraft. [21364]

  Mr. Norris
  The aviation industry and the Civil Aviation Authority are aware of public concerns and practical steps are being taken to reduce the number of occurrences of ice falling from aircraft. These steps include:the fitting of manufacturers' modification kits to improve resistance to water leaks at servicing points;
  enhanced maintenance requirements to ensure the continued integrity of water sealing systems in service;
  routine visual inspections of aircraft after landing, by airline engineers checking for evidence of ice accretion;
  unannounced inspections by CAA surveyors checking airworthiness standards which include evidence of ice accretion/water leakage; and
  recording of occurrences by the CAA and investigation of serious events by the air accidents investigation branch.

  Freightliner
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has entered into an agreement under section 137 of the Railways Act 1993 in connection with the proposed sale of Freightliner. [21719]

  Mr. Watts
  I expect to do so shortly.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the sources of legal advice obtained by the Vehicle Inspectorate; [21772]

  (2) how many vehicles were found not to be displaying a valid operator's licence in each spot check undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate in the last year; [21961]

  (3) how many vehicle spot checks were undertaken by the police or the Vehicle Inspectorate on tankers used to transport oil from south Pembrokeshire beaches to oil refineries in Milford Haven in the last year; and how many prohibition notices were issued; [21960]

  (4) if he will place in the Library the results of the Vehicle Inspectorate staff attitude survey. [21775]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate to write to the hon. Member.
  457
  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 25 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions concerning:
  (1) the sources of legal advice obtained by the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI);
  (2) the number of vehicles found not to be displaying a valid operator's licence in each spot check undertaken by the VI in the last year;
  (3) the number of vehicle spot checks undertaken by the police or the VI on tankers used to transport oil from South Pembrokeshire beaches to oil refineries in Milford Haven in the last year, and the number of prohibition notices issued; and
  (4) the Vehicle Inspectorate's Staff Attitude Survey.
  The Vehicle Inspectorate seeks legal advice from one of three sources: the Department of Transport's own Legal Branch, the Treasury Solicitors and from contracted solicitors. Contracted solicitors are based around the country to deal with regional prosecution cases.
  With regard to (2), this information is not collected as the non-display of a disc does not necessarily indicate an operator operating outside the "O" licence system.
  Four tankers have been examined, three by our Traffic Examiners and one by Vehicle Examiners, at normal roadside checks. None of the vehicles were issued with prohibition notices.
  A copy of the Survey has been forwarded to the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of additional enforcement staff employed as a result of the recent £495,000 increase in the Vehicle Inspectorate's budget. [22348]

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 25 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question concerning the number of additional enforcement staff employed as a result of the increase in the Vehicle Inspectorate's budget.
  The additional £495,000 funding will allow the Inspectorate to maintain frontline staff numbers in 1996/97 including the additional 14 posts created in 1995/96.

  Railway Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sums were spent on measures to improve access for disabled people within local railway stations in Wales in the last three years. [22231]

  Mr. Watts
  No central record is maintained of amounts spent on facilities for disabled people at individual stations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures Railtrack is taking to address the needs of wheelchair users and other disabled persons in local railway stations in Wales. [22233]

  Mr. Watts
  It is for each train operating company providing train services in Wales to produce its own plans as to how it will improve access facilities for disabled people on trains and at the stations operated by it. These plans will be set out in its disabled persons protection policy which each TOC has to have approved by the Rail Regulator.
  458
  Of the seven TOCs operating in Wales, Great Western Trains Co. Ltd, which is now a private sector company, has received approval for its DPPP from the Rail Regulator. The remaining TOCs involved are all at an advanced stage in obtaining approval from the Rail Regulator for their own DPPPs.

  Railfreight (Sale)
  Mr. Willian O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the units, goods depots and land in the care and ownership of Railfreight that will not be included in the sale of Railfreight; [22215]

  (2) if Europort's rail freight terminals are included in the privatisation of Railfreight; [22217]

  (3) what estimate he has made of income to the Government from the sale of Railfreight; [22205]

  (4) how many bids have been made by potential purchasers for Railfreight. [22216]

  Mr. Watts
  Railfreight Distribution has not yet been offered for sale. The Government and the British Railways Board are currently considering the options for its privatisation.

  Railway Companies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that hon. Members are informed of all track, renewal, maintenance, operating freight and other non-British Rail companies that are operating in, or serving, their constituencies and that this information is issued with regular revisions. [22555]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetables have been agreed for ferries operating in(a) British waters and (b) Norwegian waters to comply with the new 50 cm limit for flooding of the car decks. [22807]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the time tables for implementation of the new 50 centimetre limit for flooding on the car decks of ferries operating in (a) British waters and (b) Norwegian waters.
  The agreement concluded in Stockholm last month establishes a timetable for the application of the new standard to all ferries operating on international voyages in the waters of any country. within the specified geographical area, including the UK and Norway and wishing to apply the agreement. Such ferries are required to comply not later than the first yearly inspection following the date of compliance prescribed below according to the vessel's value of A/Amax:

  Value of A/Amax

  Date of Compliance

  Less than 85 per cent.

  1 April 1997

  Less than 90 per cent.

  31 December 1998

  Less than 95 per cent.

  31 December 1999

  459

  Value of A/Amax

  Date of Compliance

  Less than 97.5 per cent.

  31 December 2000

  97.5 per cent. or higher

  31 December 2001—but in any case not later than 1 October 2002.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the energy consumption per mile for(a) aircraft, (b) car, (c) rail and (d) water transport. [22815]

  Mr. Norris
  Estimates of energy consumption per mile are not made in the form requested.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the second Severn crossing will be officially opened for traffic. [22813]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 25 March 1996:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the Second Severn Crossing will be officially opened for traffic.
  The Concessionaire, Severn River Crossing Plc, have announced that the official opening ceremony will take place on 5 June 1996. It is expected that the crossing will be open to traffic on the following day.

  M25 (Speed Limits)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the working of the variable speed limits on the M25 and on his plans to extend the lengths of the motorway covered by these regulations. [20928]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Wilshire, dated 25 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about variable speed limits on the M25.
  Variable speed limits have been operating since the end of August 1995. We have been able to show that the system is capable of effectively controlling vehicle speeds during peak conditions, and the vast majority of drivers appear to appreciate that the system will ease conditions for them.
  More data is needed about the precise effect on the traffic flows, traffic safety and possible changes to driving patterns before we can determine the extent to which the system can be used elsewhere on the network.

  Traffic Violations
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of traffic violations involving Department of Transport vehicles, the nature of the violation, and the total amount of any fines arising from those violations, in each year since 1986. [22242]
  460
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 22 March 1996]: The available records on traffic violations for 1986 to date are as follows:

  Year

  Violation

  Fine £

  1986

  Nil

  Nil

  1987

  Nil

  Nil

  1988

  Nil

  Nil

  1989

  Nil

  Nil

  1990

  Nil

  Nil

  1991

  Nil

  Nil

  1992

  Nil

  Nil

  1993

  Nil

  Nil

  1994

  Nil

  Nil

  1995

  2 x speeding

  80.00

  1 x parking

  30.00

  1996

  Nil to date

  Nil to date

  Total

  110.00

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farming Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of tons of waste material produced by the farming industry each year. [21389]

  Mr. Boswell
  It is estimated that approximately 80 million tons of animal manure is produced each year on farms in the United Kingdom, most of which is recycled back to agricultural land. Estimates for other waste materials generated on farms are not available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department provides to farmers on the safe removal or recycling of waste material from farm processes. [21388]

  Mr. Boswell
  Detailed guidance for farmers on the safe disposal or recycling of agricultural wastes is contained in the Ministry's codes of good agricultural practice for the protection of water, air and soil which are available free of charge to all farmers and growers. In addition, the Ministry funds ADAS—the agricultural development advisory service—to provide free advice to farmers in the form of a general pollution risk assessment or assistance in the preparation of a farm waste management plan.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he will provide to farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones who are to face restrictions on the spreading of manures. [22996]

  Mr. Boswell
  I am very pleased to announce a new grant scheme which will be open to farmers in England and Wales who have land in a nitrate vulnerable zone. The scheme will help those farmers who need to improve their farm waste facilities as a result of limits to be set on the spreading of livestock manures in the zones. The necessary statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament today and will be debated in both Houses of Parliament.
  461
  The scheme, which offers a 25 per cent. rate of grant on eligible waste storage and handling facilities, will come into force on 17 April. For the first time, grant will be available on facilities for the separation of clean and dirty water, other than roofing, where this will reduce the need for storage. In addition, farmers will be able to call on ADAS for free advice to help them decide on the waste facilities needed to comply with the NVZ measures.

  Agricultural and Rural Development
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fishers and Food what discussions he has held with his ministerial counterpart in the Northern Ireland Office concerning the resumption of the special programme for agricultural and rural development. [21652]

  Mr. Boswell
  None.

  Departmental Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of the staff employed this represents. [21514]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of staff recorded as being paid for overtime work which took their hours worked to over 48 hours net in any one week in the 12 months to February 1996 is 1,611, which represents 23.9 per cent. of this Department's staff.

  No records are held centrally of the hours worked either by senior staff not eligible for paid overtime or by those on flexible working schemes.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average cost of answering an(a) oral and (b) written parliamentary question from (i) Opposition and (ii) Conservative hon. Members in each Session since 1989–90. [21794]

  Mr. Boswell
  This Department does not collect the information in the form requested.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 March 1996,Official Report, column 728, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the local veterinary inspectors, conditions of appointment in respect of recording the time taken for each inspection; and if he will make a statement. [22079]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: The conditions of appointment of local veterinary inspectors are kept under review. I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer that I gave him on 30 January 1996, Official Report, columns 696–97, which outlined the safeguards to ensure that high standards of veterinary certification are maintained. I have no immediate plans to change the conditions of appointment of LVIs.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration is being given by the Codex 462
  Alimentarius Committee to the availability of and trade in dietary supplements; what is the role and purpose of that committee; through what mechanism the United Kingdom contributes to the committee; through what procedures it reaches conclusions; upon whom and with what authority those decisions are binding; and if he will make a statement. [22045]

  Mrs. Browning
  The purpose of the Codex Alimentarius is"to guide and promote the elaboration and establishment of definitions and requirements for foods, to assist in their harmonisation and, in doing so, facilitate international trade".

  The discussions bring together scientist, technical experts, government regulators, consumer organisations and industry representatives in order to develop Codex guidelines and standards by consensus. The UK is a member of the committee and participates fully. The Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses is at a preliminary stage in developing a Codex guideline on dietary supplements. The committee develops guidelines by consensus, and the Codex guidelines are advisory instruments only.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department received copies of the minutes of the meetings of the Codex Alimentarius Committee at which dietary supplements have been considered; and if he will make such minutes available(a) in the Library and (b) to the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy. [22046]

  Mrs. Browning
  The final report of the last meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, which considered dietary supplements, was received by my Department on 12 June 1995. Interested parties were informed about this and the report is available to them on request. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Codex Alimentarius Committee to meet next; if dietary supplements will be discussed at that meeting; and if he will make a statement setting out the timetable for future meetings of and decisions by that committee in relation to dietary supplements. [22047]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses will next meet from 7 to 11 October 1996. Dietary supplements will be on the agenda of the meeting. The timetable for future meetings and decisions by this committee is a matter for the committee to decide.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the proposals submitted by Germany to the Codex Alimentarius Committee in relation to dietary supplements; and what response he has made to those proposals. [22048]

  Mrs. Browning
  A paper was tabled by Germany at the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses from 27 to 31 March 1995. The United Kingdom delegation made a preliminary evaluation of the paper prior to the meeting in consultation with both industry and consumer representatives, and at the meeting expressed the view that Codex guidelines were not necessary.
  463
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to promote at meetings of the Codex Alimentarius Committee and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the continued availability to consumers of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements. [22049]

  Mrs. Browning
  Yes.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has received from(a) the Codex Alimentarius Committee and (b) other bodies associated with GATT to restrict (i) the potency, (ii) the availability and (iii) the trade in vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements for (1) prophylactic and (2) other use; and if he will make a statement. [22050]

  Mrs. Browning
  The paper tabled by Germany at the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses from 27 to 31 March 1995, which contained these points, was not a formal proposal, but an early draft for a revised draft guideline for dietary supplements.

  No proposals concerning dietary supplements have been received from any of the other international standards-setting bodies referred to in the GATT agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the competence of GATT structures for addressing(a) the potency, (b) the availability and (c) the trade in vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements for (i) prophylactic and (ii) other use; and if he will make a statement. [22051]

  Mrs. Browning
  The rules of the World Trade Organisation—the successor body to GATT—would be relevant to the availability or use of dietary supplements only if situation arose in which one WTO member country restricted imports of such substances and another wished to challenge that restriction. Such a situation would be likely to arise only if there were any evidence that dietary supplements posed a danger to human health.

  Rabies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the Council of Ministers discussed the report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee on various aspects of rabies, paper VI/1533/92-EN-REI-I (PVET/EN/1268). [22026]

  Mrs. Browning
  We do not have any record of this working paper itself being discussed at the Council of Ministers. However, discussions on the Balai directive—EC directive 92/65—were held at the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting on 15 June 1992. The rabies provisions of this directive, particularly those relating to dogs and cats, were based on the Scientific Veterinary Committee recommendations in this paper.

  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a system of compensation for farmers suffering from 464
  organophosphate poisoning who cannot obtain legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [22371]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have no plans to introduce such a system. Questions of compensation are a matter between the individual and the company concerned.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the discrepancy in the size of the British registered fishing fleet and the figures quoted by the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Emma Bonino, on her recent visit to the United Kingdom. [22253]

  Mr. Baldry
  The figures which the Fisheries Commissioner was reported as using apparently showed a doubling of the UK fleet from 116,000 GRT—gross registered tonnage—in 1986 to 239,000 GRT now.

  This is not so. The 1986 figure comes from a statistical series recording only certain significantly active vessels and is not comparable with later figures which give the total registered fleet. Moreover, the supposed figure for current tonnage is wrong and does not come from any published UK source.

  Our own figures show that there has in fact been a net reduction in registered tonnage over the last 10 years to the present position of 207,000 GRT.

  I have written to Mrs. Bonino drawing her attention to this.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the Environment Agency will from 1 April prepare, operate and maintain a programme for sea defence and coast protection; what will be its policy by region on managed retreat and artificial defences; and if he will make a statement. [22254]

  Mr. Boswell
  From 1 April the Environment Agency will assume the operational powers of the National Rivers Authority on flood defence. The EA will exercise general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence in England and Wales. It will also undertake measures to reduce flooding from main rivers and the sea.

  These functions will continue to be carried out through regional flood defence committees. Maritime local authorities will retain responsibility for coast protection against erosion.

  The EA will operate within the Ministry's comprehensive policy framework for flood and coastal defence which inter alia encourages the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defences. There is no presumption in favour of "managed retreat", or "managed setback" as it is better described. Setting back the line of defence is simply one of a range of options that regions of the EA can be expected to consider. All capital schemes, including artificial defences, should be based on an understanding of natural processes and, as far as possible, be compatible with those processes. The development of catchment

  465
  plans and shoreline management plans will enable the EA to ensure that schemes are considered in a strategic context.

  Avoparcin
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise the animal welfare aspect of the Danish ban and German suspension of Avoparcin at the intergovernmental conference in Italy; if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the use of Avoparcin; and what actions the United Kingdom Government plan to take at the IGC on this issue. [22543]
  466
  Mrs. Browning
  The availability of Avoparcin is controlled under directive 70/524/EEC. The Danish ban and German suspension have been taken in accordance with article 11 of the directive, and the data submitted by both member states are under urgent consideration by the European Commission's Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition. On the basis of the currently available scientific information, we do not believe that such prohibition action is justified, but the position will be reviewed in the light of the committee's scientific advice, which is expected in April. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to raise this issue at the intergovernmental conference.

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

Prisoners in Hospital
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the right balance between security and humanity, referred to by the Home Secretary in the Statement on prisoners in hospital made on 18th January (H.L. Deb. col. 724), was achieved in the case of a woman prisoner shackled at her baby's funeral in the chapel of Great Ormond Street Hospital.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Statement of 18th January of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary modified the arrangements for pregnant women prisoners visiting hospital. In the case to which this Question refers, the balance between security and humanity appears to have been struck. However, I understand from the Director General of the Prison Service that he has asked the area manager for Holloway to investigate the matter, and I shall write to the noble Baroness when that investigation has been completed.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does she accept that the funeral of a child is so awful an occasion that it should not be made worse by handcuffing the parent unless there are overwhelming security reasons? As this mother was not adjudged to be such a security risk that she had to be handcuffed when visiting the child in intensive care, is it not clear that a misjudgment was made? Can the Minister assure us that in future common sense and common decency will prevail in such situations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in that this lady visited her baby each day, and that was because the room the baby was in was secure. Consideration was given to her application to attend the funeral of her baby but her attitude, her behaviour, her threats and an assault on a member of staff, coupled with her aggressive and emotional state, meant that she was too great a risk to attend without handcuffs. She assaulted staff while in hospital. The chapel at the hospital was not considered to be secure. The staff of the Prison Service have a difficult job in balancing security considerations against those of humanity and dignity.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, was the child 10 days' old when it died? Did the minister of religion in the chapel ask for the shackles to be removed? Can there really be any justification for such barbaric conduct?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the baby was 10 days' old and I believe someone did ask for the shackles to be removed. The father was allowed temporary release from prison to attend the funeral of his child. He was considered not to be a risk. A proper risk assessment was carried out and the woman was considered to be a risk as her behaviour was abusive, she assaulted a member of the prison staff and she was in a highly emotional and aggressive state. It was not considered suitable to remove the shackles. A decision could have been taken not to allow her to attend her child's funeral, but it was considered that she should attend the funeral and be handcuffed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in reply to the previous supplementary question, did my noble friend say that the father was also a prisoner but was not shackled when he attended the funeral?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, I did say that. He was considered suitable for temporary release, but the mother was considered unsuitable for temporary release.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, will a copy of the reply to the noble Baroness be put in the Library of the House as a number of us would be interested to see it?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, of course, my Lords.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is it not correct that at the time this incident occurred after the Parkhurst breakout last year, there was such overwhelming concern as regards blanket impositions of high security on prisoners that misjudgments were made across a range of cases involving women prisoners? That was admitted in the case of pregnant women prisoners and women prisoners who were in labour. Is it not true that four members of the staff at Great Ormond Street complained to the Prison Service after this incident? Those who know the chapel at Great Ormond Street know that it is easy to keep secure.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if a misjudgment has occurred in this case, that will be revealed as part of the investigation. However, I should add that since 1988 there have been 26 escapes from funeral escorts, 23 escapes from hospital visits while handcuffed, and 150 escapes from hospital visits while escorted but without being handcuffed. This is a difficult matter for the Prison Service staff. At the end of the day they have to consider the security of the public, the security of the staff, and sometimes even the security of the prisoners themselves. In the case of the lady we are discussing, she had a record of being abusive to, and assaulting, staff.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, were the allegations which have been made against the prisoner this afternoon the subject of adjudications? If so, could the record of those adjudications be placed in the Library with the letter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I have said is a matter of record. Those events are noted as part of the daily record in the prison.
There was an appeal against an extra sentence that the lady was given. I do not have the result of the appeal, but I shall ensure that it is part of the information that I give to the noble Baroness.

Mr. Humphrey Errington
2.43 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will place in the Library of the House copies of the judgments by Sheriff Allan on the application by the Clydesdale District Council against Mr. Humphrey Errington delivered on 5th December 1995 and 28th February 1996.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I have arranged for copies of both Sheriff Allan's judgments on the application by the Clydesdale District Council against Mr. Humphrey Errington to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the second judgment is still on the missing list? It is not yet in the Library. I am sure that the noble Earl has read the judgments. Has he noted in particular the reference made by the sheriff to the litigious pugnacity demonstrated by the council and the fact that the council had not been able to adduce any evidence whatever of a related illness? Is my noble friend aware that, as a result of this bullying, Mr. Errington has been obliged to spend £150,000 in his own defence and that despite those two cogent and devastating judgments he has not yet received a penny piece from the council?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for letting me know that he visited the Library just before lunch and that the second judgment was not available. I had arranged for it to be in the Library last week; perhaps it has gone missing. My noble friend commented on certain aspects of the judgment. To say the least, it makes interesting reading. However, we must be clear on one point. Sheriff Allan concluded in his judgment that it was reasonable for the applicants to take the initial steps with a view to bringing the matter before the justice of the peace, or the sheriff, essentially as regards safety, and to obtain appropriate advice. I understand what the noble Lord added. As regards payment of fees, I understand that at present the final figure is being negotiated between the two parties—the legal adviser to Clydesdale District Council and Mr. Humphrey Errington's legal
1466
adviser. If they cannot come to an agreement on those figures, I believe that the auditor of court will make a decision.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree, to quote an elegant variation of the sheriff's judgment from that cited by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that this litigiously pugnacious approach by the district council shows that its zeal for a conviction outran its zeal to establish the facts? Does he further agree that it is faintly reprehensible for a district council to let it be known on the wireless that it is determined to continue to pour out public money in order to secure a conviction against Mr. Errington?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, many questions need to be asked concerning the judgment. The issue will be taken into account when we consider the statutory codes of practice which are being reviewed at present.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the circumstances of the case? Not all Members of your Lordships' House will understand what is being talked about. Can he confirm that it is right in the present circumstances for a district council to pursue the subject of food hygiene and safety with the utmost zeal?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting second point. It is quite right that environmental health departments have best views in mind for their council tax payers when they consider such problems. We would need a considerable time to go through all the facts of the case. When the judgments are available in the Library—as I hope they now are—I suggest that the noble Lord reads them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for his efforts to explain. Perhaps my noble friend will advise the noble Lord to take the opportunity to read the judgments before he enters into the matter further. Does my noble friend appreciate that I completely follow the sheriff's judgment in saying that it was perfectly reasonable for the council to bring this matter before the court? What was grossly improper—I hope that my noble friend will agree—was to exhibit the litigious pugnacity which the sheriff attributed to the council.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as I said, I have read the judgment. It is quite graphic in its description in various areas. I believe I suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, might read the judgment. However, one other point has not been made. In his supplementary question, my noble friend Lord Peyton asked why the accounts between the legal advisers had not yet been settled. He stated that Mr. Errington was out of pocket by whatever the amount of his costs. I do not believe that that is true. The accounts will be settled

1467
direct between the local authority, its legal adviser and the legal adviser acting for Mr. Errington. Mr. Errington will not have to be out of pocket on his legal fees.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if Clydesdale District Council is shown to have acted improperly, will the people who acted improperly be liable to surcharge?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I read the noble Lord's supplementary question when the matter last came before the House. I am by no means an expert on the subject but I understand that to be liable for surcharge someone must have acted ultra vires. I believe that nothing has been said in the judgments to suggest that anyone is outside the law.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how much the local authority has spent of council tax payers' money in prosecuting Mr. Errington?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the figures have not been finalised.

Iraq: Ministerial Replies
2.50 p.m
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of their recast first paragraph of Questions of procedure for Ministers, they will review all replies given on the subject of exports to Iraq since January 1989, and whether they will issue a statement correcting errors in accordance with the background note Ministerial Accountability and the Release of Information on Defence Related Exports issued by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government take the view that the Howe Guidelines were not changed and do not consider that a statement on replies to questions on exports to Iraq is necessary.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that paragraphs E6 and E7 of the Scott Report, Volume II, reveal that the Government appear to have used Saudi Arabia as a conduit country for licensing prohibited lethal defence exports to Iraq; and Portugal as a conduit country for Iran? In a Written Answer to my Question of 24th May 1993 at col. WA1 of Hansard, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said:
"No lethal defence equipment has been supplied from the UK to Iran since 1979".
Will the Government agree that they must have known that that was not the case and that a huge quantity of ammunition was, for example, being exported to Portugal under licence, greatly in excess of what the Portuguese military could possibly have used? It was actually en route to Iran. For accuracy, I quote—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: One can, according to the Companion, quote in such circumstances. Was the information known to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, or was it retained at Cabinet level, thus making a junior Minister an innocent party to the deception? May I say—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the House aware that I have informed the noble Baroness of my intention to mention the matter this afternoon?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I reject the noble Lord's suggestions. There would have been no difficulty about amending ministerial letters or Written Answers had such. changes been warranted. However, we have checked all the replies on the topic. We still believe that they are fair and accurate, and we therefore see no need for corrections.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that since it was the consensus of all the senior lawyers in this House that Sir Richard Scott did not understand the law, which is his speciality, it is pretty unlikely that he could get right matters of administration, which are not his speciality?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is not for me to criticise Sir Richard Scott's working methods, but my noble friend makes a powerful point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it will do the history of the Government and Parliament no good if continued efforts are made to bury the matter without thorough corrections being made? Has not a deliberate effort been made to rubbish Sir Richard Scott's findings? It will not do. Sooner or later the records will have to be corrected, if only for the recovery of the Government's honour in the matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, to suggest that we have tried to rubbish Sir Richard Scott's report is absolute nonsense. We have accepted the criticism levelled by Sir Richard Scott on the distribution of intelligence material. We have accepted his criticism about export controls and licensing procedures. We accept the principle of the need for greater supervision, by the office of the Attorney-General, of Customs and Excise prosecutions and many of Sir Richard's other recommendations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even the greatest top lawyers sometimes disagree?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister claims that he has not rubbished Scott but he is happy to accept the rubbishings of Scott by persons on the Benches behind him. Is it not the practice not to attack judges, except by means of substantive resolutions? Does that not

1469
equally apply to judges who are appointed to conduct inquiries on behalf of the Government, such as Sir Richard Scott?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I made a particular point not to rubbish Sir Richard Scott in response to my noble friend's question. I reject what the noble Lord says.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I do not understand the Answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Jenkins? This has nothing to do with the Howe Guidelines; it is to do with Questions of procedure for Ministers. The Question was directed at that. Sir Richard Scott examines the procedure in relation to Ministers answering Questions in Parliament and reaches certain conclusions. One conclusion was:
"The justification for a refusal to answer Parliamentary Questions on sales of arms or defence-related equipment to other countries requires, in my opinion, to be re-examined".
Do the Government accept that? Are they re-examining the matter? If so, when will we know the result?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government have prepared a memorandum setting out their understanding of ministerial accountability and the conventions governing the provision of information by government to Parliament. That document has been placed in the Library. As indicated in the debate on 26th February, the Government are willing to consider the matter positively and hope that the memorandum will provide the basis for a constructive discussion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question I put to him? Do the Government accept Sir Richard Scott's statement:
"The justification for a refusal to answer Parliamentary Questions on sales of arms or defence-related equipment to other countries requires, in my opinion, to be re-examined"?
For ease of reference, that is taken from page 1803, K8.8. Do the Government accept that or not?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I had hoped that my reply just now would have answered the noble Lord's question directly. It was intended to do so. The position is that the Public Service Committee is currently looking at questions of ministerial accountability and openness. The Government are co-operating fully. That speaks for itself.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is that not a case, not only of a refusal to answer, but of giving an answer which was inaccurate when, according to Scott, an accurate answer should have been given? Is it not in accordance with the Government's statement in the background note from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Government intend to correct any mis-statements of that kind? Is the noble Earl saying that they are not now doing what they agreed to do in the statement?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is fair to say that this Government have done more than any other to improve transparency and openness. There will always be accepted reasons why, in some areas, full information
1470
cannot be made public. That has been a convention of successive governments. However, we have said that we will look positively at Sir Richard Scott's views on ministerial accountability. We are doing just that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is failing to draw the fundamental distinction between the supply of lethal equipment and non-lethal equipment? Will he further agree that no lethal equipment was supplied and that the non-lethal equipment was supplied under Guideline 3 which had an in-built discretion?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He highlights a point that is often glossed over in the debate. The Government at no time licensed the export of lethal weapons to Iraq. No arms were exported to that country from the UK from 1980 onwards.

Privatisation of Parliamentary Operations
3 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What other aspects of the operations, staffing or property of Parliament or of the Palace of Westminster may be affected by further steps towards privatisation, beyond the printing of parliamentary papers through HMSO and the recruitment of Clerks and other staff through Recruitment and Assessment Services.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the only other service currently provided to Parliament by OPS bodies in the course of privatisation is the supply of stationery and office equipment by HMSO. There are currently no plans to privatise other OPS agencies having a direct bearing on services to Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I note that he says "currently". Will he give a categorical assurance that, if the Government consider further steps towards privatisation, there will be the earliest possible consultation with the House? Will he agree that it was constitutionally improper to set towards privatisation areas that are covered by the Palace of Westminster and its operations? Does he accept it as incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutionally subversive of the proper balance between Parliament and government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it would be impossible for me to commit the Government, or successive governments, indefinitely. As I acknowledged during our debate the other day on Recruitment and Assessment Services, it was indeed unfortunate that the Answer given in another place was not also repeated in this House. Parliamentary scrutiny of any privatisation is possible, as recent debates in this House and in another place proved. But it is equally important that Parliament should be consulted in its role as customer. The privatisation of

1471
HMSO depends on the House authorities agreeing a satisfactory contract. That in itself may involve a debate and a vote. I suggest to the noble Lord that the legitimate interests of Parliament are fully protected.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl give the House an assurance, in the light of the debate that took place in this House comparatively recently, that the Government will now abandon any question of the privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware that terms of reference have been recommended for a Select Committee on the public service, and that it has been suggested that such a committee might first report on the Government's plans for the future of Recruitment and Assessment Services. The Government will wish to consider further their response to the opinion expressed by the House on this matter in the light of that. We have undertaken to come back to the House with that response and we expect to do so shortly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, given the interest expressed in leasing various palaces and various sales of government property, will the Minister assure the House that any proposals from companies interested in the purchase, or even the lease, of property of the Palace of Westminster itself will be dismissed out of court?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.45 p.m., my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the health aspects of BSE. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Lindsay, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the agricultural aspects of BSE.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of 21st March be now considered; and that, notwithstanding anything in the Private Business Standing Orders or practice of the House, the promoters of the Bill, which originated in this House in Session 1993–94, and which has passed all its stages in this House but not in the Commons, may proceed with the Bill in the present Session;
That the Petition for the Bill be deemed to have been deposited;
That all Standing Orders applicable be deemed to have been complied with;
1472
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on Thursday 28th March next with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill passed by this House;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the present Session be pro forma and that no new fees be charged.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Subsidy in respect of private sector student loans]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 1(3) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the debate that we had in Committee on similar points to those to be raised today was rather lost in the wash of a Statement. I think that not all noble Lords who were present that evening had the opportunity to hear any explanation of what it was about.
To begin on a friendly note, my noble friend has earned the gratitude of the House, and certainly my own, on two particular points. First, he provided us with a print-out of the 1990 Act as it would be with the present Bill superimposed upon it. Secondly, he gave the appearance of taking very seriously the points that were raised about parliamentary control. With private sector institutions taking part for the first time, Parliament ought at least to know the quantity of public money that those institutions will be handling in any one year, subject to what general terms funds will be made available to students, and what arrangements will he made for repayment.
As my noble friend has said on a number of occasions, the Bill is enabling legislation. It is therefore bound to attract—and ought to attract—some measure of critical examination, and particularly in this respect. As I understand it, the Bill enables the Government to make such arrangements as they think fit—and so far as I can see they have made few, if any, arrangements for telling Parliament what they have done.
I accept—or rather, I think I accept (I should like my noble friend's advice on this point)—that the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Park and myself could have the effect of making it very difficult, if not impossible, either for the Government to finalise arrangements with those private sector institutions that are showing an interest, if there are any, or even for arrangements to be reached with individual students. It is no part of our purpose either to frustrate those negotiations or even to make them difficult. What we should like is an opportunity for Parliament to be told precisely what those arrangements are.
I do not particularly want to press this amendment to a vote. I did not want to press the amendments to a vote the other day in Committee. It was partly due to my increasing awareness that the department was not taking this point at all seriously. Then, if I may weary the House with one brief quotation, we reached the stage when my noble friend used these words:
"I mentioned the detailed information that will be available in the department's annual report. That, as I understand it, is always published and made available to Parliament. Parliament has a chance to scrutinise that annual report and"—
mark the words—
"certainly can find time to do so".—[Official Report, 12/3/96; col. 784.]
If I were seeking safe custody for some piece of sensitive information, I could not think of any more intelligent thing to do than to include it in a departmental annual report. It would be safe from reading by anyone, save perhaps a few eccentrics or those of unsound mind. There is no way that Parliament can be satisfied with facts which should be made available to it being made available solely through the medium of a departmental annual report.
I am most grateful to my noble friend in that since the vote the other day he has moved his position. He was kind enough to write me a letter promising a separate Statement to Parliament. He has not yet said precisely what that Statement would contain, but I take it that at the top of the list would be a clear indication of the total cost of the moneys spent during a financial year.
Let me again make it absolutely clear to my noble friend that I do not want in any way to add to his difficulties. We have no desire to frustrate the Government in achieving the purposes which Parliament has given it the authority to pursue. We want to be told in general terms what the Government are up to. Am I right in thinking that, with the Bill as drafted, there will be no need for further regulations and that therefore any reference to affirmative resolution is by the way? There is no point in it. That is one of the reasons why I am a little unenthusiastic about my amendments.
I want to make it abundantly clear to my noble friend, whose courtesy and attention I greatly appreciate, that in my view, at a time when the Government are to provide private sector institutions with substantial sums of money to enable them to grant loans on favourable terms to students, we need to know how much money is involved and for what period in general it is being given. In his letter to me my noble friend said that he is perfectly prepared to let us have sight of the general contract but not of particular cases. That we accept totally. But I believe that Parliament has every right to know the sums of money that are being made available, on what general conditions and what arrangements will be made for their repayment.
As I said, I am not at all anxious to divide the House this afternoon. I very much hope that, as a minimum, my noble friend will take back this matter—I do not expect him to accept the amendments—and give it serious thought before Third Reading. I hope he will then bring forward some alternative arrangement for
1474
giving to Parliament the information for which it is entitled to ask and set out the form of the Statement which he would make to Parliament in pursuance of that new arrangement. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I support the amendments. I recognise that the Minister is trying very hard to move in our direction and allay some of our concerns about what will still be a blank cheque. Also, because we are not dealing with regulations, the application of the affirmative resolution procedure is not appropriate. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very helpful text showing what the full, amended Bill looks like. Nevertheless, I believe it proper and necessary to reiterate in this debate the provision already contained in the 1990 Act and repeated in our amendment.
I recognise that in this Bill there are genuine problems about commercial confidentiality, once we are talking about private money secured by competitive tender. But I want to know from the Minister when and in what way Parliament will be told once the contracts are signed; who is doing the lending, if anyone; what the total administrative and other costs will be compared with the costs of the existing system of the public borrowing facility through the Student Loans Company; and what is the length of the contract. Maybe we cannot be told all that but I certainly should like to know most of it. My right honourable friend the Minister said in another place on at least one occasion that in due course the Student Loans Company would probably fade away, presumably meaning that all loans would be paid through the private sector. That makes my curiosity even greater.
In the debates on the original 1990 Act, the Government spoke about top-up loans. The White Paper made a commitment that the maximum top-up loan would be 50 per cent. of the original maintenance grant. Is that still the policy? Will that policy apply to loans from the private sector? I continue to be unhappy also about the permissive nature of the provision for making payments to governing bodies. Will those be negotiated directly by the private institutions? It is already a scandal that the universities are paid only £4 for each student application processed instead of the £8 which it costs them, and they are thus subsidising the student loans system to the tune of £2 million per annum. That is a fact that has caused considerable concern in the Public Accounts Committee, which rightly points out that the money is being paid out at the expense of higher education priorities.
Thus, I believe that it is absolutely essential for; the Government, once the contracts have been concluded, to make an early Statement to Parliament saying what the scheme is to cost in the round so that it can be compared with the cost of the existing public sector arrangements; telling us which institutions are participating—after all, students themselves will need to know that in good time; the duration of the initial scheme—for instance, is it to be reviewed after an initial period of five or 10 years; and the arrangements, as they are called, as they affect the universities—indeed, I hope

1475
that, having failed utterly to consult the CVCP when the Bill was first brought forward, the Government will talk to it now at least about the financial and administrative implications of the scheme for it. After all, it is one more task being placed on its already overloaded and underfunded administration.
In view of all that, I should not be at all happy—any more than the House was happy in 1990—unless a method of informing Parliament which offers a proper opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House is envisaged. For that reason I should have wished to make the debate on the report of the first year of operation of the scheme subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. But, as they are not regulations but presumably orders, that cannot be. I do not believe that a technicality of that kind should be allowed to negate Parliament's power to consider properly the cost and effectiveness of the new arrangements once the requirements of commercial confidentiality have been satisfied and the contracts signed and respected.
I wait with interest to hear from my noble friend the Minister how it is proposed to ensure that the necessary information on which to base a judgment of the value and propriety of the new arrangements can be obtained and the blank cheque justified.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is a pleasure to support Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which have been grouped together, so cogently and felicitously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, to whom it is always as delightful as it is improving to listen.
After reading with care and with profit our exchanges on this subject at Committee stage, and hearing again today the eloquent and persuasive pleas of noble Lords opposite, and after scrupulously reconsidering the Minister's words throughout the Committee stage, especially his final reply to his noble friend—given after some considerable pressure—I can only say, with the poet George Meredith, in his poem "Modern Love", stanza 50,
"Ah, What a dusty answer gets the soul
When hot for certainties in this our life".
It is the uncertainty of all this that lies behind so much of our unease with the whole of this unnecessary little Bill. Phrases like, "the blank cheque" and "no payee, no date, no amount", run like a gay refrain through all of our discussions. I am bound to say that, so far, we have been given remarkably little reassurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made our concerns pellucidly clear when she said at Committee stage, and I quote her with pleasure,
"the Government will not know who has tendered and on what terms until at least after Easter. Nor, we understand, will the private institutions know until then what will be the cost of rejigging their computer technology and training their staff. Nor will the Government be able, until then, to cost the relationship between the universities, which must still do all the paperwork, and two funding mechanisms rather than one".—[Official Report, 12/3/96; col. 778.]
I could not have put that better myself, and I wish I had. It is only when we are certain what the arcane arrangements are to be that we shall be able properly to exercise the powers of your Lordships' House. It is our
1476
duty to do that and, until we have that information, we are unable to do so. The Minister, in his carefully worded reply, could offer us only,
"the normal channels of the appropriation accounts, and … the department's annual report".—[col. 784.]
I shall treasure the description of "the department's annual report" given by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and I can echo it having been, through the courtesy of the Minister, presented with a copy of it just before last weekend. I forgot to weigh it. All I can say is that the report which has just been issued feels as though it is heavier than the one it replaced. But it is still the departmental annual report. That is hardly consistent with what we heard earlier this afternoon—minutes ago—about this Government's commitment to open and transparent transactions. Few things are less transparent than a departmental annual report. All that the Minister could offer us therefore was cold comfort, too little and too late.
The appropriation accounts and the departmental annual report are retrospective documents. They simply describe how money has been spent and we, when we receive them, may approve or loudly disapprove. But there is nothing whatever we can do about them. They do not provide a means of prior approval.
It is extremely difficult to see why the Government are so violently resisting that approach when they conceded it in the 1990 Education (Student Loans) Bill. That, surely, is a good, apposite and relevant precedent, and the Government should follow it by accepting the amendment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I had not expected to be in the House this afternoon but it seemed a pity to leave before the Statements after Question Time, and therefore I find myself in the curious position of retrogressing in time. In 1990, as has been referred to, we had the original Education (Student Loans) Act. I ventured to tell your Lordships that it would not work; that it would be a source of major inconvenience to students and to universities. The fact that it is now being amended proves, if proof were necessary, that my prophecy was entirely correct.
I mentally made another prophecy, which was the reason I did not intend to take part in today's proceedings any more than in the preceding stage of the Bill. I privately prophesied that all argument about this Bill was quite unnecessary, a taking up of your Lordships' time, because it will never happen. There is no reasonable possibility of any private institution, unless run by people demonstrably unfit to run such an institution, taking on this burden. We cannot make private people do things, even by bribes, unless, on the whole, they believe that there is something in it for them. Apart from discouraging any student from banking with them in their future careers, it is difficult to see what effect the Bill could have.
There is another, more important, point. It is perfectly clear—the Minister is as well aware of this as any other Member of this House—that the whole question of financing universities and students is now in the melting pot. The Dearing Committee is seeking to find an appropriate new method of funding higher

1477
education. To my mind it is unthinkable that any government would rush into another complicated mechanism of this kind when the whole idea of student loans in their original form may be jettisoned as a result of the Dearing Report.
I cannot understand why, when we are always told how little time this House has for important discussions—for instance, we are told that we cannot have two or three days of debate on the IGC, which is an important event—time can be found for a Bill which has no dignity of ancestry and no hope of progeny.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I follow that intervention with some trepidation and mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says about the unnecessary taking up of your Lordships' time. As I made clear at Second Reading, I share his view that this Bill should never have been born in the first place and, with the announcement of the Dearing review, should have been withdrawn. Nevertheless, it is before us and I rise briefly to put on record the support of myself and my colleagues for the intentions of the amendments before us.
I cannot speak as eloquently as the movers of the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris; nevertheless, we wish to echo all the comments made on the amendment. It has been said many times that the Government are seeking, through this Bill, a blank cheque; we do not know the payee nor any of the details. It was suggested at an earlier stage that it was a rather novel approach to be conducting our sensitive commercial negotiations through Parliament. That is not what is proposed. We are requesting the opportunity for Parliament at least to exercise its authority to express its view and judgment on the negotiations when they are completed, but not when they are a fait accompli.
Others are much more familiar than I am with departmental reports. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, described them at an earlier stage of the Bill as being totally indecipherable and in a boring form. If he says so, it must be true. Nevertheless, they are an extremely difficult and belated way for your Lordships to find out what has been agreed by the arrangements. The amendment therefore is right in seeking some form of parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements that are reached with such institutions as may be entering into agreements, if and when they do. I hope that we are about to hear from the Minister how he proposes to meet the wishes that are widely held in this House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I support the amendments and ask the Minister to give an assurance that the total cost of the loan under these proposals will be no greater than the total cost of a similar loan through the Student Loans Company. I appreciate that the Government may wish to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, but surely any responsible government would want to give an indication—for example, to the Chancellor—that the students in question will not be paying a total cost per loan that is greater as a result of this legislation. Whether the student loan in question is classified as a
1478
public sector loan or a private sector loan, that, plus the proposed subsidy, should not put a greater burden on the general public, including those students who repay.
Are we really to understand that the Government have decided that this legislation should go through whatever the cost to the public purse? I find it hard to believe that the Chancellor takes that approach. Can the Minister remind the House why the Government are proposing in the Bill to subsidise the private sector at all? Surely the private sector is there to provide loans. If the Government's view is that students should be able to get loans from the private sector, why should the public subsidise? Is it that the private sector is not prepared to embark on this scheme without some form of carrot?
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness's last point first. The simple reason is to allow the private sector to offer loans on the same basis as the Student Loans Company will also be offering them. We made that clear on a number of occasions at earlier stages of the Bill.
I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, when he paid tribute to the eloquence of my two noble friends. I hope and trust that he always takes such notice of what they have to say. However, he seemed to be moving on from their amendment. My noble friends, I think rightly, following the decision in Committee, have amended their amendment, moving away from the prior approval for which their earlier amendment seemed to be looking. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, it seems, is still looking for prior approval by Parliament of the contract. That, as I have made clear, is not acceptable to the Government and would be a constitutional innovation of a rather extraordinary kind.
Perhaps I may explain why we do not think that the amendment is the right way forward and try to allay some of my noble friends' fears. I shall describe how we hope to get the appropriate information to Parliament in order to meet the concern of both my noble friends that this should be forthcoming. Our first objective is to get for the student and the taxpayer the benefits of what the private sector does best, not only in personal lending generally but in the service, marketing and product standards that choice and competition bring. It would be futile to involve the private sector and then regulate away the advantages that that brings. The operation of choice in a competitive and diverse market is a far better safeguard than a raft of regulations.
Secondly, as made clear at an earlier stage, we could not possibly negotiate with the private sector tenderers within a straitjacket which an amendment like this could impose. I think my noble friend accepts that. I think he accepts that it could make the negotiations themselves inflexible, unwieldy and somewhat time consuming. Thirdly, we understand and accept noble Lords' concerns about the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the private loans scheme but we believe that the steps we are proposing to take will be appropriate for such scrutiny. A draft of the invitation to tender documents, as the House well knows, has been placed in the Library

1479
of the House. Those documents set out in some detail how the scheme will work. We have also made clear that we shall announce the names of the successful tenderers and do so to Parliament when the contracts are signed. I believe I made clear to my noble friend in the letter I wrote to him on 21st March that that could be by means of a separate statement to Parliament.
I appreciate that my noble friend has considerable concerns about what form that statement takes—whether it would be appropriate to make an oral statement or whatever. I have a sneaking feeling that an oral statement would be somewhat over-egging the pudding. Whether we respond by means of answering a Question put by my noble friend or someone else might be something we could address. I want to make clear that we intend that the statement to the House—to Parliament—will include broad details of the agreement we have reached with the tenderers. We shall give information on the financial institutions involved, the total value of the subsidies and the number of loans, the general nature of the arrangements, and the general details of repayment arrangements. However, the House will accept, I believe, that commercially sensitive information cannot be included. We shall ensure that the benefits of the private sector involvement will be realised as cost effectively as possible.
Although it is possible to give some sort of figure as to what the total cost will be after we have signed the contract, I think, again, that it would be wrong for me to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, by giving a top figure in advance. Parliament will have its opportunity in due course to scrutinise and to check when it considers the annual appropriation accounts. The National Audit Office will be following in our footsteps. Not only will it have access to our books; it will also have access to the private lenders' books. I believe that parliamentary scrutiny is safeguarded at an appropriate level. I do not believe that the amendment adds anything; it would possibly make the negotiations somewhat harder.
My noble friend Lady Park ranged more widely and talked about going beyond 50 per cent. of students' maintenance as currently allowed for by the 1990 Act. I can give an assurance that if we wanted to go beyond 50 per cent. an affirmative resolution of both Houses would be required. That is not a matter to consider now but certainly the Dearing committee of inquiry will address it in its study beginning some time after Easter and continuing over the coming months.
I hope that I have given my noble friend sufficient cause to feel that his pressure has been successful. I hope that I have moved a reasonable degree and that my noble friend accepts that I speak in good faith when I say that we shall make sure that information, in whatever appropriate form, is made available to the House.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his courtesy and for the genuine attempt he has made to understand our difficulties. I was deeply touched by the moving tribute paid to me by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. To say that I had improved him was indeed
1480
attributing to me almost miraculous powers. Persuaded, as I partially am, that I possess them, I shall certainly endeavour to pursue this high purpose in the future. I hope that the noble Lord will benefit from my efforts.
Our problem today is that there is a trebly blank cheque: payee, amount and date are left open. There will, I understand, be no new regulations called for. Therefore, there will be no opportunities under laid-down procedures for Parliament to scrutinise what has occurred.
My noble friend Lord Beloff, in one of those splendid interventions which are always so welcome, declared that we were all wasting our time because it will never happen. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that, if because a thing was unlikely to happen we did not take due precautions against the event, that would be to let governments loose in a way which I am sure that he would be the first to deplore. He said that it will never happen and that it has no "dignity of ancestry". What a splendid phrase! I am grateful to my noble friend for not inquiring into the dreadful possibilities of what that ancestry may be if it were revealed.
I made it quite clear to your Lordships the other day that I divided the House in anger and protest because the Government did not seem to understand the point at which the amendments were aimed. Today my noble friend has shown that he has moved quite a long way and that he understands the need for parliamentary scrutiny. I am not quite clear whether he understands that parliamentary scrutiny does not just involve being told; it also involves the opportunity to express an opinion. Therefore, I am still much concerned about the form that this special statement will take. An entry in the appropriation accounts does not have a deep or sufficient appeal to move me all that much.
What worries me very much is that Parliament will have less scrutiny when we have possibly new arrangements coming into being than it had when the old Student Loans Company had the handling of the matter. As I said to my noble friend, I have no desire to divide the House this afternoon. But I ask him, as a reward for my restraint, for an undertaking to take this matter away, look at it again and have sensible discussions with us as to the form that the arrangements which he has in mind might take. I hope that he will regard that as free from any aggressive intent.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and this being Report stage, I give an undertaking that the noble Lord and myself can have further discussions between now and next Monday.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of seeing my noble friend so soon. As regards free and meaningful discussions, I ask him to give a clear undertaking that they will have as a firm objective finding some acceptable form in which the special announcement can be made. We have had discussions before.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I do not believe that my noble friend will expect me to set out my negotiating position in advance of

1481
those discussions. I made a promise to my noble friend and the House that we shall find some way of making a statement to the House after we have made the contracts. I gave some indication as to what information I believe could be available in that. I do not believe that I can go much further than that, other than to say that I am prepared to have discussions with my noble friend, should he so wish, between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am the first to sympathise with my noble friend for the shackles imposed on him from elsewhere which restrain him from doing what he would obviously accept is the right thing to do. In the circumstances I do not wish to divide the House because I have some burgeoning confidence—I may yet be proved an idiot—that in the course of the week we may be able to shift the Government into a more acceptable position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No!
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is, That this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Chairman of Committees: To the contrary, "Not-content"?
Noble Lords: Not-content.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I believe that the "Not-contents" have it.
Noble Lords: Content.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No 1

contents

Ackner, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Diamond, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Donoughue, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beloff, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Blease, L.

Ezra, L.

Blyth, L.

Falkender, B.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Grey, E.

Chalfont, L.

Hanworth, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

David, B.

Healey, L.

1482

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Nicol, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ilchester, E

Peston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rea, L.

Kirkwood, L

Redesdale, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Richard, L.

Lauderdale, E

Sainsbury, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sharples, B.

McCarthy, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNair, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Taverne, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mayhew, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Monkswell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Nelson, E.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gerard, L.

Addison, V.

Goschen, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Granard, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Haig, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Blaker, L.

Halsbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Boardman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hayter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cadman, L.

Howe, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Carnock, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Chorley, L

Kintore, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Kitchener, E.

Cockfield, L.

Knollys, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Courtown, E.

Lindsay, E

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Long, V. [Teller.]

Crawshaw, L.

Lucas, L.

Cuckney, L.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McConnell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Davidson, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

De Freyne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Denham, L

Manton, L.

Derwent, L.

Mersey, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elibank, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elles, B.

Moyne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, E.

Forbes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gage, V.

Norrie, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Cathain, B.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

BSE (Health)
3.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. Before doing so, I should like to declare an interest: my husband manages a dairy and beef-producing farm; there have been cases of BSE; we have no share in the farm's assets.
The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a further Statement about the advice which the Government have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.
"I begin by reminding the House briefly of the background. The advisory committee brings together leading experts in neurology, epidemiology and microbiology to provide scientifically based advice on the implications for animal and human health of different forms of spongiform encephalopathy. As I have repeatedly stressed, its members are not government scientists; they are leading practitioners in their field, and it is the function of the advisory committee to allow them to pool their expertise to assess the latest scientific evidence that is available.
"Both the Opposition health spokesman and the Leader of the Opposition stressed last week the importance of reaching decisions on the basis of the scientific evidence. I agree with them. I also agree that it is important that both the evidence on which the committee reaches its recommendations and the recommendations themselves should be made public as soon as practicable. That is why I published the committee's recommendations last Wednesday and it is why I have today put copies of its latest recommendations, accompanied by a statement from the Chief Medical Officer, in the Vote Office. I can confirm to the House that arrangements are in hand
1484
to ensure that the evidence on which these recommendations are based will be published in the scientific journals within the next four to six weeks.
"Science is not a substitute for political or personal choice—but it is the only basis on which an informed judgment about these issues can be reached.
"Last Wednesday I informed the House of the advisory committee's conclusions about 10 new cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The statement which the committee approved at its weekend meeting emphasises that there are only 10 cases of this previously unrecognised variant of CJD that have yet been identified, and that the committee is not in a position to confirm whether or not there is a causal link between BSE and the human disease. The committee did however repeat its view that the most likely explanation at present of this new form of CJD is that these cases are linked to exposure to BSE before the introduction of the specified offals ban in 1989.
"Following receipt of its advice last week, I asked the committee to consider as a matter of urgency the implications of its findings for children. In considering this question the committee was joined by three leading experts in the field of paediatrics, gastroenterology, and immunology. The committee considered carefully its knowledge of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and considered the evidence available from the 10 identified cases. Taking all that into account, the committee concluded,
'if human infection with the BSE agent occurs, infants and children are not likely to be more susceptible to that infection than are adults'.
"The committee also considered the possibility of increased susceptibility among patients in hospital, pregnant women and people who are taking immunosuppressive drugs. Once again it concluded that
'if human infection with a BSE agent occurs, none of these groups is likely to have any increased susceptibility to infection'.
"The statement issued by the committee goes on:
'Parents are naturally concerned about the risks to their own children. No human activity is without some risk; if the Government rigorously enforces the current and newly recommended controls we believe that this risk is likely to be extremely small; however the Committee recognises that parents will often chose to reduce risk to their children beyond that which they are prepared to accept for themselves.
'It is important to be aware that many foods are associated with health risks and that changing from beef to non-beef products is not necessarily without risk'.
"In the light of the scientific evidence, there is clearly no reason for the Government to advise local education authorities to withdraw beef from school menus. I understand however from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that it is customary for schools to provide a choice of menu to accommodate different dietary and cultural preferences. The Government believe this choice should continue. Local education authorities will be sent copies of the advisory committee's statement so that they can be aware of the precise terms of its findings.

1485
"The committee reconfirmed the recommendations which were published last Wednesday concerning the deboning of cattle carcasses aged over 30 months, and has made a number of other relatively minor recommendations concerning the treatment of specified bovine offal. My right honourable and learned friend the Minister of Agriculture will deal with these questions in his Statement.
"The committee also made two recommendations concerning research. First, it recommended the reinforcement of the CJD Surveillance Unit at Edinburgh University, and, secondly, it recommended the commitment of substantial additional resources to long-term basic and applied research to improve our understanding of these diseases. The Government accept these recommendations. We already have plans in hand to strengthen the CJD Surveillance Unit. In addition I have today instructed Professor John Swales, the NHS Director of Research and Development, to prepare a directed programme of research in this field involving the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
"Against the background of these findings the Advisory Committee reports two central conclusions. First, it reasserts that, provided the restrictions which it recommends are fully implemented and sustained, any BSE-related risk from eating beef or beef products is likely to be extremely small. Secondly, the committee's statement concludes with the words,
'the Committee does not believe that additional measures are justified at this stage but the situation needs to be kept under careful review so that additional significant information can be taken into account as soon as it becomes available'.'
"Throughout their consideration of these questions the Government have made it clear that it is their policy to base their decisions on an up-to-date assessment of the scientific evidence. We have also made clear our commitment to making that evidence public. That remains the position. In that connection I am authorised by my right honourable friend the Lord President to inform the House that it is the Government's intention to arrange for a debate on these matters on a Motion for the Adjournment on Thursday 28th March at 7 p.m.
"The statement of the advisory committee which I am publishing this afternoon makes clear recommendations both to the Government and to the public. The Chief Medical Officer is taking steps today to communicate this new advice to all doctors. The Government accept the recommendations and will act upon them."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, these Benches welcome the Statement from the Department of Health. It is a step forward from the somewhat inconclusive views offered in last Wednesday's
1486
Statements. Perhaps it would have been better for everyone—parents, school authorities, farmers and the meat trade—if this position had been reached and this guidance had been available before the Government decided to go public on the advice that it had last week. In spite of Ministers' assurances last week that all would be well—the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, said in reply to my noble friend Lord Carter that there was a large and healthy degree of optimism in the Statement—there has been obvious and destructive turmoil in the past few days. However, these Benches welcome what is now said, even though we and, I suspect, the general public are bound to treat some of the pronouncements on this issue with a degree of scepticism. We welcome the CMO's statement and the publication of the report from SEAC. We are particularly pleased that these have been available at the same time as the Statement has been made.
It is important that children, pregnant women, patients and those who are immuno-compromised are judged not to have increased susceptibility to this infection. In the case of children, the issue may not simply be the setting of an absolute average age to measure vulnerability or to establish absolute risk. Surely, increased or decreased sensitivity to infections at a certain age is not the point when one is talking about children. It is the long-term incubation that perhaps makes children more vulnerable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, put it so gracefully last week, for many elderly people there might be little threat, because with a 10 or 15-year incubation period for CJD the elderly perhaps would be unlikely to survive to suffer the effects. But for children it is totally different. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that issue in her response. As the Minister has said and the SEAC statement recognises, parents will often choose to reduce the risk to their children beyond that which they are themselves prepared to accept.
I should like to return to some of the questions that remain relevant which were raised by me and other noble Lords last week. The Minister did not answer them then, and they are not answered by this new Statement. First, are there any specific foodstuffs, particularly those that contain beef products rather than pure beef, which families with children should now avoid? Are there particular methods of preparation that make those products more or less risky? For example, it has been suggested by the media over the weekend that the preparation of some products in microwave ovens may increase vulnerability. Very importantly, noble Lords in all parts of the House last week during the Statement asked whether it was clear what the relative risks were of eating offal products and products derived from offal products. I understand that these can extend to such products as gelatine and jelly babies. Is that risk quantifiable? What is the relative risk of eating such products as against eating what may be described as obvious beef cuts? In addition, what specific guidance is given by the Department of Health to general practitioners and family doctors, who will be inundated with requests for guidance from anxious families, about the early signs of CJD and how they should be dealt with?

1487
My noble friend Lord Winston last week raised a very precise question about the pattern of disease in the relevant suspect 10 cases and how it had been established. What is it about these cases that makes them of particular concern to the scientific body? What is the evidence to suggest that they, and they alone, may have a link with BSE? I understand that that may be published in the learned journals, but it will be useful to have some guidance now.
As we gradually learn more about the situation it becomes apparent that mistakes have been made by people in authority. Though it is not primarily a matter for the Department of Health—I know that my noble friend Lord Carter will wish to return to it—there is particular concern about the inadequate compensation offered to farmers for infected cattle during the crucial period between the time when BSE was diagnosed and when the abattoir regulations came in. There is also concern about the food safety regulations and the separate MAFF regulations. It is always easy to be wise with hindsight. However, if, as the Labour Party had suggested, a separate food standards organisation entirely independent of MAFF had been established some of these problems might never have arisen. There is also a question about whether all of these issues should be seen in the context of the dogmatic drive towards deregulation in every aspect of our lives which has been conducted by the Government.
In the past few days we have heard repeatedly that the Government rely on the expert advisory committee and the scientists to tell them what to do next. Surely, this is a failure of political leadership. I am glad that the Secretary of State has said that science is not a substitute for personal or political choice, but if there has been a failure surely the failure to distinguish between scientific evidence and political judgment is culpable. If in the past Ministers had made the political judgment that public health was of paramount importance the story might have been different. It would then have been possible to deal with the recognition of the threat of BSE without loss of public confidence and the potential agricultural disaster that we all face today, which I believe the Statement will do little to alleviate.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness for having repeated the Statement. I received a copy of the Statement after her right honourable friend rose to his feet in the House of Commons. She will be aware that there are long-standing arrangements for making Statements available to representatives of the Opposition. That did not happen in this case. I hope that complaints of this kind will not have to be repeated in future, particularly on a matter as important as this. We are faced with an almost complete collapse of public confidence in British-produced beef.
I should like to put the following question, to which I know the noble Baroness will reply that it is a matter for the usual channels. First, if there is a debate on this matter in the House of Commons on Thursday of this week, I ask that there should he a similar opportunity for an early debate in this House to discuss these
1488
questions of great public importance. I believe that the House will welcome the opportunity to have such a debate.
Secondly, is the Minister aware that SEAC's statement makes two points of considerable importance? One is the assertion of the need for medium and long-term research which will require substantial additional resources. The Minister indicated that there will be such improvement in financial allocations to those concerned. The committee adds that there should be no delay due to difficulty in obtaining resources. Can the House assume therefore that adequate resources will be made available and that SEAC itself will pronounce judgment as to whether the additional resources made available are adequate?
Is the Minister aware that SEAC's recommendation is that it is necessary to ensure that all the restrictions proposed on 20th March and those in this document are implemented fully and are sustained? Is she aware that there is some public concern that a number of the recommendations have not yet been implemented? The concern is widespread. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when those recommendations will be implemented fully.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome for the Statement. I am sorry that she felt that last week we went public too early. The whole tenor of the Government is to be as open and frank as possible with the public. We felt that as soon as the research became available it was right that it should be made known to the general public.
Regarding the risk to children, SEAC is firm about that. In its report, taking all the above into account, it concludes:
"If human infection with the BSE agent occurs, infants and children are not likely to be more susceptible to that infection than are adults".
I do not believe there is anything I can add. SEAC's statement is clear.
The noble Baroness asked whether certain foodstuffs should be avoided. Again, SEAC has addressed the issues of milk and gelatine. It comes out with clear statements that there is no reason to avoid eating those products. The committee also concludes that it does not believe that additional measures are justified at this stage but the situation needs to be kept under careful review so that additional significant information can be taken into account as soon as it becomes available. I want to stress that at this time it does not feel that additional measures are justified.
The noble Baroness asked about advice to doctors. That is contained in the letter issued last week to all doctors by the Chief Medical Officer. Today he has issued an additional statement which picks up the information that SEAC has addressed concerning children and those groups which are thought to be vulnerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked why he had not received the Statement earlier. I apologise for that. I understand the frustration which was felt last week also. I shall take up the matter.

1489
I understand too the noble Lord's wish for a debate. I will convey that wish to the appropriate channels. He asked questions about research. I have said that the Government accept all the SEAC recommendations. That includes those regarding resources for research.
Finally, I should like to address one comment made by the noble Baroness. She felt that the Government were hiding behind research. I find that a very, very strange statement. I believe that it is up to governments to put forward the facts. In these sensitive situations it is not up to governments to hypothesise or put forward their views, which may be erroneous. We have to base all our information on research facts.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will go further than she did just now in response to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for your Lordships' House to have an opportunity to debate this immensely important matter. For your Lordships' House not to debate it will almost sign off its being part of Parliament. To say that the request will go to the usual channels, does not necessarily convey very much. As many of us realise, the usual channels often become blocked.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I take into account what my noble and distinguished friend says. I am sure that the channels will listen, read Hansard, and take note of his view. Whatever aspirations I have, clearly I cannot put them into action. The matter has to go through the usual channels.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement. Perhaps I may point out that as a registered practitioner, I still have not received the letter which has been promised. Six days have elapsed. There is considerable anxiety: we are being approached continually by all sorts of people. We should be informed as a matter of urgency. I accept that my question may need an answer in writing. Can the Minister tell us what research has been funded in the past by the Medical Research Council or within agricultural research on prions, the protein particle which causes this and related disorders? It was basic research before; it is now applied research. I think the Minister can understand why we see the need for this type of basic research to continue.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am surprised by what the noble Lord says about not receiving the letter because I met some consultants that evening and they had already received the Chief Medical Officer's letter through the EPINET system. I wonder whether the problem lies in the internal channels within his hospital. The noble Lord was free to request the information if he was so anxious to obtain it. With regard to the division of research moneys between the MRC and the agricultural research, I am afraid that I do not have that information. I shall gladly write to the noble Lord about it.
Lord Winston: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I telephoned my office to confirm that it had not received
1490
anything as recently as 15 minutes ago. I received this morning's post at home. There has been nothing in the post to date.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Minister referred to 10 cases. Can she identify how many cases there are on the Continent?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the prevalence rate in this country is about the same as that on the Continent. It is one in 1 million. However, we also know that on the Continent, although there are no instances of BSE, there are cases of CJD, which is interesting.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend's Statement. I hope that it does something to restore confidence in the beef industry. I speak as a beef producer. Does her, or SEAC's, advice to doctors underline the importance of protein in the diet of children? The advice of the Government's advisers is that parents should have the choice of whether or not they feed beef to their children. Beef represents an extremely valuable and important source of protein. With people taking to living on lettuce and green vegetables, there are already signs of rickets reappearing in children. The danger of the panic is the bad effect it will have on children's health because they are not eating enough good meat.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have to concur personally. I think a great deal of what my noble friend says is absolutely right. But the Government feel that it is not for them to tell people what to eat or to tell parents what to give their children to eat. We try to give the public information and firm facts; it is then for people to make their own-decisions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, for the sake of clarification, will the Minister confirm that she is saying that her department sees no objection to people of all ages in this country eating beef without exceptions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we go back to the information and advice we have received from SEAC. It states at this moment that there is a very minimal risk. The words that it uses are "an extremely small risk". At the moment we know that the link is theoretical; it has not been proved. However, bearing in mind the 10 cases, SEAC felt that there could possibly be some kind of a link. At the moment it states that it is not in a position to confirm whether there is a causal link between BSE and the human disease and it suggests that eating beef carries a very, very small risk.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the criticism made of the Government and, by implication, of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is not at all well conceived? Does she agree that politically a Statement should have been made and was made when concern arose and that that was a courageous and correct decision and in no way open to political criticism?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support. Reading one of the many editorials

1491
written about the matter, I was pleased to see that The Times described the Government in this instance as honourable.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of a school of thought which links organophosphates with BSE and other spongiform encephalopathies. I am aware of work carried out by the Medical Research Council on the effects of organophosphates directly on prime protein. However, as Burkitt's lymphoma relies on the mosquito before it erupts, will the Government ask the researchers to look at a possible catalystic connection between OPs and the spongiform encephalopathies because there could well be a connection in some way or another?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Countess will be aware, research is initiated by protocols and by submissions from different researchers who believe that a matter needs probing and exploring. They must put forward their submissions. It would be totally wrong of me to pre-empt that process. It has held good for a very long time. I have no doubt that if a suitable protocol receives priority from the MRC or the body judging the different research submissions it will not be ruled out.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the funds of the MRC are very tight, if not limited, and that therefore flexibility to undertake a major form of research would prove nearly impossible unless new resources were made available? Will she consider perhaps with the MRC what funds would be necessary if such research were to be undertaken by it on behalf of her department?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, last Wednesday in this House and in another place Statements were made by myself and by my right honourable friend indicating that new money would be coming forward for research into this matter. The figure mentioned was £4.5 million. Today SEAC made specific recommendations as regards research and we have accepted those recommendations. They deal with the question of resources and the fact that there should be sufficient resources for research into this matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, arising from that question, is my noble friend aware that a notable research effort is being conducted at St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, under the auspices of Imperial College?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I would hate your Lordships to believe that research is not being carried out. Indeed, research into this matter is taking place in different parts of the country. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recognises the concern that exists and in no way would he wish to stand in the way of suitable, tested further research schemes.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The Government have laid great stress on their obtaining advice from the scientific community. I hope that they are aware that some members of that community have disagreed with their colleagues
1492
about this situation. Can we be assured that the scientific research suggested by those in the scientific community who have disagreed with the consensus will now receive government support?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware that the scientific community is composed of extremely intelligent, bright people—perhaps the cream in the land. Naturally, they have different opinions and views which are widely debated and discussed. We must go back to peer review. Where protocols are coming forward it is up to the experts in the field to decide whether a protocol warrants resources and whether the research is pertinent and appropriate and should go forward. As I said, my right honourable friend stated that he will ensure that the question of resources will not stand in the way if appropriate research is mooted.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, is she aware that today two cases of BSE have been reported in France, which was one of the first countries to ban the import of British beef? Does France have the same stringent controls on matters BSE and does it take the same kind of notice of the scientific community and the scientific advice that it receives as do we in this country?
My second question relates to the attitude of the Secretary of State for Health over the weekend. He said that if the scientific community made any recommendation the Government would accept it straightaway. In that case, I wonder why on earth we have Secretaries of State. Secondly, he said that if the advice that he received was to destroy all British cattle—there are 11 million—the Government would act on that advice. Before he made that statement did he seek advice from all other Ministers, from the Cabinet and, in particular, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer who on behalf of taxpayers must meet the enormous costs, both internal and external, that that will bring about?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has acted with extreme integrity and has come over very strongly. He has taken scientific advice on which he has based all his facts. That is absolutely right and proper. However, he has also said that if options are open, quite properly the Government will consider them all.
As regards cattle, the beef industry, and those issues, I do not believe that I should answer but that my noble friend who is representing the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this afternoon should take on those issues.

BSE (Agriculture)
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on

1493
the beef industry which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the beef industry.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has informed the House of the advice we have received from SEAC earlier today. I hope that this will help to reassure consumers as to the safety of British beef and that this in turn will lead to an improvement in market conditions.
"Some of the SEAC recommendations are for the agriculture departments to take forward. In particular, SEAC has given advice on the treatment of trimmings from cattle over 30 months of age, on meat and bonemeal; and on the status of heads from animals over six months of age. The Government have accepted these recommendations in full and I will bring orders before the House as soon as possible. Because of the nature of the advice given by SEAC, these require consultation with the interests concerned. However, I propose to proceed as expeditiously as possible.
"The House will appreciate that the orders will be complicated since, in particular, a new system of licensing for plants authorised to bone out animals over 30 months of age will be required.
"However, the House will also be concerned about the effect of recent alarm on the beef market and on the livelihoods of the many thousands employed in the several industries connected with it. As I made clear to the House last week, a number of mechanisms exist within the common agricultural policy to support the beef market. These include intervention on young male animals, including safety net intervention if prices fall to particularly low levels, export refunds, and other measures such as aids to private storage, and aid for the slaughter of young male calves from dairy herds.
"Obviously the precise use we wish to make of these, or other, mechanisms will depend upon the extent of the market reaction. It is too early to judge this with confidence, but I am in touch with the Commission so that measures can be put in place as soon as it is clear that they are justified.
"Madam Speaker, I believe that, second to putting in place the necessary measures recommended by SEAC, the most important task is to rebuild consumer and market confidence, a process helped by today's Statement from SEAC. However, confidence is fragile. I shall monitor it with scrupulous care and I shall not hesitate to come before the House with further measures if it is clear that they are justified by the circumstances".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place by his right honourable friend the Minister for
1494
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should also declare an interest as a director and shareholder of a farming company which has dairy cattle.
As we said last week, this is a very serious matter. Despite all the problems of the agriculture industry, public health must come first. However, if we are in the situation in which agriculture in this country faces what is potentially the worst crisis in its post-war history, a combination of complacency and hand-wringing will just not do. There has been a catalogue of incompetence, misjudgment and inertia. But that can be dealt with on another occasion and I hope that time will be given for a debate on that. But I trust that all of us who must deal with this matter will act responsibly and do our utmost to allay public alarm.
I start with a simple question. Will the research findings, when they are finally published, explain why the incidence of BSE in this country is 422 times the incidence in the rest of the world put together? Can we have an answer to that?
Last week I referred to the fact that I am sure that a contributory factor to the introduction of animals into the food chain is the obstinate refusal of the Government to pay full compensation on animals—only 50 per cent. compensation was paid—for over three years. The saving to public funds was £4 million. That may be the most expensive £4 million that any government have ever saved. Even in January 1994, there was a further reduction in the compensation paid on affected animals.
Perhaps I may give an example of the seriousness with which the Government took the situation in 1990. When the announcement was made that compensation would be increased to 100 per cent., it was carefully timed by the Minister at the time, Mr. John Gummer, to be released on the afternoon of the evening on which Mr. Neil Kinnock was to make his speech to the annual dinner of the National Farmers Union. If Ministers spent less time in childish headline massaging and more time in responding to their responsibilities for the safety of public health, we might not be in this situation today. By refusing to pay full compensation, the Government gave a perverse incentive against eradication from the food chain.
We must have the strictest controls in our slaughterhouses. We know that the random investigation by the State Veterinary Service last year revealed a worrying state in which controls were not being enforced. Perhaps I may refer to the statement from the SEAC which states:
"Other bones do not need to be treated as SBO"—
that is, specified bovine offal—
"if they can be separated from the vertebral column, without cross contamination.
"It is also recommended that the whole head of animals aged over 6 months of age, except for the tongue (provided that it is removed without contamination), should be treated as specified".
Have those people ever been anywhere near an abattoir? Who is supposed to exercise and enforce those controls?
We entirely agree with the banning of the use of offals in meat and bonemeal but there will be a major problem of waste disposal of those offals. What plans do the Government have to deal with that?

1495
The Statement refers to intervention but I understand that, for intervention to apply, meat has to be saleable. Is there an undertaking that if the meat cannot be sold, it will be accepted into intervention? I was told only this morning of a major slaughterhouse which is losing £100,000 per day at present because of lack of sales. It is having to stockpile everything. If there is to be compensation, who pays? Will it be the British taxpayer, the European Commission or both?
The Statement refers to export refunds. What exports are the refunds to be paid on? Will the Government now accept the argument which we have made since the mid-1980s that there should be an independent food standards agency which is responsible for the quality and safety of the nation's food, whether imported or home produced? Every time these matters are discussed, there is divided responsibility. There is always this unique situation of a joint statement by the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. This shows that divided responsibility must be ended. Consumer safety must be separated from producer protection.
Perhaps I may refer to the health Statement which speaks of:
"other relatively minor recommendations concerning the treatment of specified bovine offal".
We do not want "relatively minor recommendations". We want serious recommendations to deal with the problem which faces us.
The statement from the Chief Medical Officer states that:
"The term safe is not the same as zero-risk".
That will do for a degree in philosophy but how will that run in McDonald's and Burger King?
Will the Minister undertake to ban from human and animal food the specified offal of calves? We do not accept that it is wise to continue to allow offal from cattle under the age of six months into the food chain. The Minister made much of the fact that the Government have listened to the outcome of research by scientists. Will the Government consider random testing for BSE in the brains of cattle routinely sent for slaughter, as recommended by the Tyrrell Committee in 1989? Will he reconsider the safety of MRM— mechanically recovered meat—in the light of the new concerns?
For the sake of both farmers and consumers alike, I make it clear to the Minister that only when consumers are satisfied that they are protected by rigorous regulations which are properly enforced will there be confidence that our beef is as safe as any other beef in Europe.
The enforcement of all the BSE controls and legislation is crucial. I remind the Minister that as recently as last summer the State Veterinary Service found that BSE control rules in abattoirs were being flouted. Will the Minister give the House an assurance today that the State Veterinary Service and the Meat Hygiene Service will be given all the resources and all the statutory authority that they require to execute their duties?
1496
As regards the new steps that the Minister has announced today, will he confirm that if a carcass, or part of a carcass, is believed to have been contaminated in the slaughterhouse, or in any other part of the chain, with specified offal, that carcass, or part of a carcass, is to be prohibited from entering the human or the animal food chain? Can the Minister tell us who will be responsible for taking the decision that this action is necessary, and who will be responsible for enforcing it? Will the Minister consider ensuring that all cull cows are slaughtered and destroyed? Does the Minister agree with the statement of the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that advisers advise but Ministers decide?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in that he has specified a great many matters that are wrong. I believe that great harm was clone because the Government were not sure what the advice was from SEAC. They then set it to work for a weekend, after making the announcement which destroyed our beef trade in Europe, and they then make this Statement now which could have reassured a great number of people if they had not been totally upset and terrified by statements, such as that which emanated from the Minister of Agriculture when he said that, if necessary, he would kill every cow in Britain. It appears to everyone that great harm has been done to the industry by the handling of the announcement which the Government made last week.
As regards the Statement made today, I was going to urge that the Government do nothing for publicity's sake, such as slaughtering large numbers of animals, but the Statement now includes such phrases as proposing to proceed as expeditiously as possible. That is hardly likely to do immense good on the Continent where people are waiting to see what energetic steps the Government are to take. Will the Minister assure us that instructions have already been issued to every slaughterhouse to ensure that they tighten up, and that inspectors are working overtime to ensure that they do so? That is an absolute necessity at the present time. Will the Minister also assure us that every cattle beast which has been found to have BSE is slaughtered and destroyed and does not enter the meat chain at all? Will the Minister tell us how soon he thinks licences can be issued to slaughterhouses to bone out completely, and does he think that any interim steps should be taken before that is done? There might well be a case for slaughter and destruction until the slaughterhouse is ready to carry out the instructions and the recommendations of SEAC.
Will the Minister also assure us that all the necessary staff will be put in place to carry out these stiff recommendations? Will he make a statement to assure the public at large that milk has never had any connection with any infection put forward? Finally, can he tell us what exactly is the position in Europe, not as regards the number of BSE cases but as regards the precautions that they are taking? That might do something to help. The damage has already been done. There is reference in the Statement to the measures that could be taken if prices fall to particularly low

1497
levels. If the Minister had read the agricultural papers, he would know that the prices in Aberdeen have fallen by £100 per head. I hope that that fact will be taken into consideration and will not be regarded as a necessary sacrifice by the farming community.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I was grateful when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, acknowledged the fact that public health is being put first. However, the other allegations he made were wide of the mark and were somewhat extraordinary at times given his knowledge of the industry and of some of the complexities of the industry. There has been no complacency in the handling of this matter. We have been guided for the best part of a decade now by the leading experts on this subject. We introduced orders in 1989 and in 1990. We have tightened those controls since. All the time we have sought to reduce a small risk. We have increased the research. We have researched both CJD and BSE. The arrangements, the restrictions and the controls we have had in this country to date have been approved both by European veterinary experts and indeed by the World Health Organisation. They have led to the comment that they go beyond the controls that those bodies might otherwise have expected of us. Therefore, according to those bodies, we have exceeded the minimum threshold.
As regards why the incidence of BSE in the UK is so much higher, there are a number of factors which occur together uniquely in the UK which has meant that BSE has entered the cattle food chain. However, as the noble Lord will know as well as I, there are still more unanswered questions about BSE's pathway than there are answers. I remind the House that there is still no direct evidence that there is a connection between BSE as it is found in bovine offals and human diseases such as CJD.
The noble Lord returned to a favourite subject of his—compensation. I remind him that the Select Committee in another place did not find evidence that paying less than 100 per cent. compensation led to under-reporting. The history of notifiable cattle diseases is that less than 100 per cent. compensation was paid in such instances. The House may be interested to know that when the Government raised the compensation level from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. the number of reported cases of BSE per annum levelled off. It did not continue to rise as it had under the 50 per cent. compensation level.
We have, and want, the strictest controls on slaughterhouses. Where the Meat and Hygiene Service has direct responsibility for administering those controls, and where the State Veterinary Service checks the MHS's control of the orders, there is, as it were, a belt and braces approach. I can assure the noble Lord that the disposal of SBOs involves incineration. It would be premature to go into the details of intervention at the moment should that be triggered. After just a few days the market is still fluid and to establish a rescue package when the market is still unstable would be premature.
1498
The noble Lord returned to a subject which he raised last week; namely, that of calves. The SEAC experts are convinced that calves up to the age of six months remain safe. The research it has undertaken involves contaminating calves and then checking them after a 12-month period. It found that the brain of a calf at 18 months has still not become infected, despite the calf being infected with BSE at an earlier age. It is the experts who advise us on these matters. If they had any doubts about this, they would have told us.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. Perhaps I may make this basic point. The first interim report of SEAC involved some vital information. Considerable extra scrutiny was required to come up with the recommendations on that information. But to have had that information spill into the public domain, as it were through informal means, in the middle of last week without the Government presenting the information formally would have been grossly irresponsible. Speculation resulting from such informal leaking of information would have done incalculable damage. It was better in every way that we were absolutely open about the fact that the information had been presented to us in an interim format and that SEAC would make specific recommendations as soon as they had been finalised.
The speed at which we shall introduce the new regulations is laid down in the Food Safety Act. It requires consultation. The consultation will be immediate and it will be quick. The Food Safety Act specifies that that initial consultation must take place, however brief. There are emergency procedures. But again it is worth the House keeping matters in perspective. We are not looking at an emergency threat to human health. We are looking at a focus that the SEAC experts have adopted of a temporary exposure during the 1980s. They are not doubting current beef and beef-related products. Their focus has been on an historic and not a current exposure.
I reiterate, as I did last week, that milk is absolutely safe.
The noble Lord also asked about Europe. I believe—I shall need to double check the fact—that Denmark and Ireland have not banned our products, but many other European member states have banned our products. There is no scientific basis for that ban. It is unnecessary. It is, therefore, an overreaction; and because of the lack of justice in that ban we have taken up the matter with the Commission.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, 27 years ago I had the responsibility of dealing with two outbreaks; namely, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease and of rabies. I know and appreciate how difficult these days are for Ministers in charge of this matter.
This is a more serious outbreak, with all its implications, and I welcome the steps that the Government are taking. However, I have a certain doubt about whether or not the Government are going far enough in dealing with the matter. The implications of a further major outbreak would he disastrous not only

1499
for the farming industry but for the community in general. There has been advice in newspapers from other experts in this field. One of them thought that cattle over the age of two and a half years should be slaughtered; that that would give security from the possibility of a major outbreak. Has that proposal been considered? What was the reaction of the Government? What was the advice of their experts on the proposal?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the memories of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on issues with which he had to deal in the same area of policy.
I stress to the House that this is not an outbreak. We have 10 cases of a new variant of CJD. There is no direct evidence linking this new variant of CJD, or indeed any CJD, with BSE, bovine offal and, least of all, beef flesh or beef meat. We do not have an outbreak. It is also not infectious in any way. That may further reassure the noble Lord.
Have we gone far enough? Should we be slaughtering all cattle over the age of two and a half years? The SEAC experts, and the experts they commissioned to cover different angles, have the option to recommend to us whatever they think will be necessary in order to tackle the problem, as they see it, which relates to a brief period of exposure during the 1980s. They see no scientific justification whatsoever for slaughtering any cattle except those which are currently slaughtered. At present, we slaughter any cattle that are suspected of having BSE. But there is no scientific justification for slaughtering any other age range or type of cattle.
Lord Moran: My Lords, how soon will the measures to which the Government are now committed be brought in? The Minister of Agriculture said over the weekend that some of them would require under statute a period of consultation. It would be helpful to know how long it will be before those measures are in force.
I think that all noble Lords will have welcomed the immense thoroughness with which SEAC, and those it brought in for consultation, have addressed the problem. They will have paid particular attention to the conclusion that those experts did not believe that additional measures are justified at this stage. If it is decided at any future period that we need to go further and to have a slaughter policy, will the Government be clear that that slaughter policy should apply only to herds which have BSE and should not be, as has been suggested, indiscriminate, applying to herds which have never had BSE and cattle fed entirely on grass, hay and silage?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord asks how soon the new measures will be introduced. As I believe I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, we shall consult immediately; we shall consult briefly. The industry has a vested interest in seeing these measures installed as fast as possible. As soon as the necessary legislation can be brought before the House at the end of the short consultation, it will become law. I would guess—everyone involved hopes—that we are talking of a matter of weeks and no longer.
1500
If and when a wider slaughter policy becomes necessary—as I said, the experts in this area see absolutely no justification for that at present—we would be guided by the evidence behind such a recommendation on how that slaughter policy should operate. I cannot speculate on that point at the moment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm or deny a report in a newspaper on Saturday that a microbiologist, Dr. Narash Harang, who is an expert on spongiform encephalopathies, working with the public health laboratory service in Newcastle, was in the process in the early 1990s of developing a test which could detect BSE in infected cattle before the disease manifested itself, and that his research was not further funded? The speculation is that the discovery of such a test would have been awkward. It would have been expensive to have slaughtered and incinerated all the cases, and potential cases, of BSE that the test would have detected.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am familiar with the work of Dr. Harang and am aware of the claims that he has made. I am also aware that no details of the tests that he has carried out have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals, which is one of the usual pathways towards validation of such tests.
The SEAC experts are also aware of the work that the doctor is carrying out. They have access to all thinking and researches in the field. MAFF is also working to develop a test to detect BSE in live cattle. There is some promising progress in that area, but it will take time to develop and to put into practice effectively in the field.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as British animal husbandry has been singled out for attack, can the noble Earl say whether we are meant seriously to believe that all beef produced on the continent of Europe is automatically safe for human consumption? As has been mentioned, a number of continental herds have suffered from BSE. Can the noble Earl confirm reports in the weekend press to the effect that one-third of Belgian cattle have been fed or injected with illegal growth hormones which pose a danger to human health?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I cannot immediately confirm the extent to which hormones are used, legally or illegally. I can confirm that there is BSE in other countries but not to nearly the same extent as we have it in this country. In some of those other countries—for example, France—there are no specified bovine offal restrictions or controls, unlike this country.
All that lends weight to the fact that the experts reckon that beef is safe to eat as long as it has been processed subject to the regulations and controls. The only speculation in which scientists are indulging is on the possible link between offal and human diseases such as CJD, not between beef meat, beef muscle and CJD. Two pieces of common sense came out in the SEAC statement this morning, from the scientists. One was the remark that,
"no human activity is without some risk".

1501
That may help put into perspective the 10 people who suffered from a disease which may or may not be connected with beef. The second piece of common sense from the SEAC statement is the following:
"It is important to be aware that many foods are associated with health risks, and that changing from beef to non-beef products is not necessarily without risk".
That underlines the point that there is a small, defined area of concern. I regret that the way in which the matter has been handled by some of the media has blown it up into proportions that are not justified by the facts.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister expand on his statement that there is no evidence or no ground for thinking that failure to pay full compensation from the beginning affected the attitude of farmers? Many people, particularly those of us from areas where hill farmers are struggling to make a living, would find that statement hard to believe. If the Government feel that there is no connection between failure to pay full compensation and the desperation of farmers in those circumstances, is it likely to affect the Government's policy?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised that important issue again. I repeat that not only did the Select Committee in another place not find any evidence that the 50 per cent. compensation paid between 1988 and 1990 led to under-reporting; but also in retrospect we have no belief that that was the case. It is based largely on the fact that the reported figures rose each year with the 50 per cent. compensation. In February 1990, 100 per cent. compensation was introduced. That was over six years ago. The number of reported cases suddenly levelled off. Then the SBO regulations, brought in in 1989, began to take effect and since then the levels of BSE have been falling.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I was grateful for what the Minister said about taking the matter up with the European Commission. It is extremely important for our industry that we should re-establish our export markets and also prevent imports pouring in. They may well include meat which is less safe than ours in this country.
There is general agreement in this shady area that the disease was promoted by feeding animal compounds to cattle. The compounders who put animal products in the feed refused to tell the farming industry that they had done so because of commercial confidentiality in a highly competitive market. I cannot believe that, since we are in such a highly competitive market and the single market, the compounds were only fed to British cattle. Has my noble friend at his fingertips or can he discover how many compounders are international companies and what were the imports and exports of compounds during the relevant period? From that we may establish that British beef is still the best.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I feel certain that British beef is still the best. However, I do not have with me the final batch of statistics which my noble friend Lord Hamilton requested. He raised serious issues but
1502
ones which cannot be defined with speed or certainty. In world export markets the level of competition may tempt some of our competitors to use scientific or other public health claims in order to disrupt our access to those markets. I am certain that many in such countries which have temporarily suspended the import of British beef have genuine cause for concern about their consumers. But if they examine the facts produced by SEAC and acknowledge the clean bill of health that both the World Health Organisation and European vets have given to our controls, there is no need for them to remain concerned. There may well be others in those countries with commercial interests in maintaining a ban on our products, underneath a scientific guise.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister say what has happened to the price of beef in countries banning our exports? It could be profitable for them to ban our exports. I entirely agree that in normal circumstances and under normal policies it is right that experts advise and Ministers decide. However, in this matter I agree with the Secretary of State who said that the Government rely entirely on what the scientists say. The last thing I wish is for non-scientific, ignorant Ministers to make decisions without scientific backing. That also goes for unscientific, ignorant members of the media.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises two extremely good points on which noble Lords could ponder with merit. The soundbite which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, carefully built into the end of his speech about experts advising and Ministers deciding was erroneous and misleading. In such a complex area of science and knowledge, it is much better that the experts advise Ministers and tell them what they recommend be done. The consequences of erroneous policy making, with political considerations upsetting scientific recommendations, could be dangerous. To an extent, the media made a lamentable effort to look at the calm language of the chief medical officers north and south of the Border and the SEAC statements last week. One or two newspapers saw the real reassurances which came through in the statements, but for most, the opportunity to grab short headlines on a scaremongering basis was regrettable. It will have long-term consequences, unless the media desist soon.
The price of beef in other countries where British beef has been banned is a question which I cannot answer immediately. Last week I promised that I would write to the noble Baroness on a matter which she raised and I will write to her on both questions.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, my noble Friend said that we are dealing with a historical event, that arrangements put in place at the time have been effective and British beef is safe. The only declaration of interest that I have to make is that I am too old to care. Did not the problem originate from intensive systems of farming which have been nurtured by the common agricultural policy? Is it not time to encourage more extensive methods of farming in the British community?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam touches on extensive farming. A number of schemes and incentives are available to land managers and farmers of all types to take up more extensive methods of farming. The effort and prominence which the Government attach to the schemes are growing every year and I hope that the noble Earl will take comfort from that. Noble Lords and others outside the House of all ages are justified in taking the issue seriously, but at the same time whether one is a father, grandfather or whatever, the reassurances which the experts are able to give us are solid.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, we are very grateful that the incidence of this disease is definitely now on the wane. From my own experience I have figures to support that. If, in the end, some form of slaughter policy is decided upon, If wonder whether the Minister will agree that the right approach would be to look at the dairy herd in general, particularly the older cattle in the dairy herd, and see that somehow, when their useful life had finished, they were disposed of through the ministry and did not somehow get into the food chain. By doing that we could avoid mass slaughter, which could do the country's health a great deal more harm than BSE itself. On those grounds I very much support the restrained and responsible approach that the Minister and the ministry showed both yesterday on television and this afternoon. I congratulate them on that approach.
I hope also that we can avoid the sort of situation that we got into with eggs and salmonella a few years ago. Quite honestly, that did not help anybody, and put 4,000 small egg producers out of business.
Finally, will the Minister agree that in one sense we have time on our side? We now face the seven easiest months of the year in terms of feeding and managing the herds of cattle. We should make use of that time to best possible advantage.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we will waste no time in establishing what needs to be established, acting on the recommendations and carrying out that which needs to be done. We will not waste time.
The policy on slaughter, which I partly explained to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is that until the experts tell us there is a reason to extend our slaughter policy, it is hard to know or to speculate as to the exact detail of such a policy. We should be reluctant to do it unless it were justified. I reassure the noble Lord that the exact details of any such policy will be worked out very carefully indeed with all those who are expert in such matters.
Incineration is the approved method of disposal. From one end of the industry to the other there is a vested interest in ensuring very high compliance. That will continue to be the final disposal route of all contaminated matter. I will pass on the congratulations of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend the Minister on the way he has handled this matter.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
5.13 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) This section is subject to section (Commencement) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I will speak also, if I may, to Amendment No. 9, if only to cover the inevitable susurrus of the exiters.
I am sorry to have to revisit this issue, which we debated (albeit briefly) in Committee. At Committee stage I promised the noble Lord the Minister that I would read most carefully what he had said in his characteristically brisk and efficient fashion. I have done so; and I have to say that in the cold light of a Peak District Saturday morning and in the pristine print of the official record, his arguments seem to me slightly less convincing than when he performed them orally.
He began by saying:
"we are not here to discuss Dearing this evening".—[Official Report, 12/3/96; col. 829.]
That was true, but utterly irrelevant, because no one had offered to discuss Dearing's recommendations since there are none to discuss. But it is relevant and important to acknowledge the imminent existence of the Dearing Committee and its terms of reference. We cannot ignore it; and we would be wise to plan in advance to make its work easier rather than harder. Why should we not?
The Minister went on to take up my point about the constituency to which the Bill would apply, and the difficulties faced by part-time, postgraduate and FE students. He agreed that the Bill does not address them, and added that,
"the 1990 Act does just that".—[col. 829.]
He added:
"we could extend provisions for student loans … However … it would have major implications for public expenditure".—[col. 829]
We—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wonder if I might just assist the noble Lord. I think I misled the House briefly on the last occasion, and then corrected myself later on. We could not extend it to FE students by means of the 1990 Act. We could cover the other groups that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that correction. He did in fact say both of those things, one a little later than the other.
We had taken on board the assurances he gave about those groups of students. Indeed, we had realised it; it had occurred to us. But it does not answer our questions as to why the Bill should not allow some or all of those students to take out private sector loans. How much

1505
would it cost? Would not postgraduates be a much better bet for banks than undergraduates? I hope the Minister may be able to elucidate this problem a little.
He then asserted confidently that the Dearing Committee will need,
"to take into account … our intention"—
(by that I take it that he means the Government's intention) —
"to introduce private finance into the loans scheme".—[Official Report, 12/3/96; col. 830.]
Indeed, it will. But will it not also need to take into account the Opposition's implacable opposition to this Bill as it stands? Looking at the opinion polls, will the Dearing Committee not need to give at least as much weight to the Opposition's case as to the Government's?
I am quite unable to accept the Minister's statement:
"I do not believe that it would be in the students' interests to delay implementation of the Bill".—[col. 830.]
By what right is he a better judge of the students' interests than they themselves are? They approve of the delay. They would prefer to see the Bill withdrawn. They would like the Government to scrap it. They have said so; and they have threatened to boycott any bank that goes along with it. Is the Minister really saying that they do not know what is best for them and that, "Daddy knows best what is good for you, my child. Just sit there and accept it quietly"? It is to give the Minister a final chance to think again about these matters that we bring this amendment back today. I hope he will take the opportunity. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, briefly, I support these amendments. The case was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in speaking to an earlier amendment. It may well be that the Bill itself should not have come forward. But, as it happens, the announcement of the Dearing inquiry coincided with the Second Reading debate in this House.
I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, just said, that now the Minister has had time to reflect he will recognise that it seems quite absurd to be setting up a far-reaching inquiry such as the Dearing inquiry, and at the same time extending a scheme which many on all sides of this House, and certainly very many in the student world, believe to he deeply flawed.
The very least we should do is allow Dearing to carry out his investigations and make his recommendations to us. Then we should be given time to consider those recommendations in so far as they apply to the financing of students. Only then should we consider whether or not it is appropriate to go ahead with the provisions of the Bill. We made clear earlier our view on whether or not it is ever likely to be appropriate to go ahead with the provisions of the Bill. But at the very least, we should await the outcome of the Dearing recommendations, and not extend the present scheme at the very time when Dearing is looking into just these matters.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the amendment offers nothing more than further delay to the benefits of the
1506
Bill to both students and taxpayers. It has nothing—dare I say it to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris?—to do with extensions to part-time students, postgraduates or whatever. I shall say a word or two about that towards the end of my remarks. Quite simply, the amendment prevents students and the taxpayer from receiving these benefits until at least 1998–99. That cannot be justified.
I made our position clear at Committee stage on a similar amendment. That was read in the cold light of a Peak District morning by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I take more interesting reading, I am afraid, to the cold light of the Peak District. But let us leave the matter there. As I said on that occasion, the Dearing inquiry into higher education will need to take account, as we made clear, of our intention to introduce private financing of loans. But I do not believe that there is any case for delaying the Bill while the inquiry proceeds. Our proposals were first put forward when the review of higher education was already under way and already under way within our department. To that extent the announcement of the committee of inquiry does not change our position.
The inquiry's conclusions will inevitably take some time to implement, particularly if legislation is required. I do not believe that it would be in students' interests—I add that, following the Bill, those students will have a choice between the private sector and the Student Loans Company—to delay the implementation until the end of the inquiry.
As noble Lords are aware, the Bill has a very limited effect. It will not alter the eligibility criteria or broaden the scope of the 1990 Act. But neither will it prevent the Dearing inquiry from looking at those issues. Indeed, the department looks afresh at relevant issues each year in considering whether to make changes to the Education (Student Loans) Regulations, changes that could bring in coverage of more people, delay repayments or whatever.
We have not yet signed any contracts. I expect that the inquiry will be a matter of interest to those with whom we shall negotiate—the private lenders. Before any contracts are signed there will be detailed discussions with them. Whatever happens, we shall meet our obligations in full.
During Committee stage in another place, we announced that the implementation of the twin-track was to be delayed until 1997. We did that because the banks and building societies were concerned that they would be unable to get schemes up and running by the next academic year. I believe that further delay could not possibly be justified.
The noble Lord spoke about extending the benefits of the student loans Act to part-timers, postgraduates or whatever. As he made clear, we could do that by means of the 1990 Act. He asked whether I could quantify the cost of extending those benefits of the 1990 Act, should we extend them, to this particular Bill, which in due course will, I hope, become the 1996 Act. I find it rather difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the cost. It would depend very much on the assumptions about which postgraduates took out loans, for how much and for how

1507
long. Obviously they would be significant. We already have various means of support for postgraduates, for example, career development loans and other assistance can be provided for others.
The basic point is that the powers are there in the 1990 Act to extend to those classes that I mentioned earlier. Obviously, should it be necessary we could do so, just as we could make alterations to the length of the repayment period or whatever. I hope that that explanation—I appreciate, not in the cold light of a Peak District morning—is sufficient for the noble Lord. I hope that on this occasion he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I was fortified and convinced by the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, especially when he prayed in aid the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I am sorry not to see the noble Lord in his place because I wish to say how, on this occasion as on many others, I find myself totally in agreement with what he said about universities and students and all that is therein.
Sadly, I am unimpressed by the reply that the Minister was able to give. It is simply a fact that the banks are not and have not been interested in the Bill and students are not in any ugly rush to demand the minimum piece of choice which this would force before them. On this occasion, the Minister was not able to offer us a single crumb of comfort or indeed to move any way towards the purpose of the amendment. So I have no alternative but to ask the House to express an opinion on it.
5.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No 1

contents

Ackner, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Diamond, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Donoughue, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beloff, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Blease, L.

Ezra, L.

Blyth, L.

Falkender, B.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Grey, E.

Chalfont, L.

Hanworth, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

David, B.

Healey, L.

1482

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Nicol, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ilchester, E

Peston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rea, L.

Kirkwood, L

Redesdale, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Richard, L.

Lauderdale, E

Sainsbury, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sharples, B.

McCarthy, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNair, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Taverne, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mayhew, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Monkswell, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Nelson, E.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gerard, L.

Addison, V.

Goschen, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Granard, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Haig, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Blaker, L.

Halsbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Boardman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hayter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cadman, L.

Howe, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Carnock, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Chorley, L

Kintore, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Kitchener, E.

Cockfield, L.

Knollys, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Courtown, E.

Lindsay, E

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Long, V. [Teller.]

Crawshaw, L.

Lucas, L.

Cuckney, L.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McConnell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Davidson, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

De Freyne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Denham, L

Manton, L.

Derwent, L.

Mersey, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elibank, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elles, B.

Moyne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, E.

Forbes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gage, V.

Norrie, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strange, B.

Orkney, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Sudeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Tebbit, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Terrington, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rawlings, B.

Tollemache, L.

Rees, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Romney, E.

Vivian, L.

St. Davids, V.

Westbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Wise, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Berkeley, L.

Haskel, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Blease, L.

Healey, L.

Borrie, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hughes, L.

David, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Diamond, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kennet, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Dubs, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Falkender, B.

Lockwood, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Longford, E.

Fitt, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Gallacher, L.

McCarthy, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gregson, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Grey, E.

McNair, L.

1508

Mallalieu, B.

Seear, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Serota, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mishcon, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rea, L.

White, B.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L

HolmPatrick, L.

Addison, V.

Inglewood, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Blaker, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Blatch, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bowness, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Leigh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay, E

Brigstocke, B.

Lucas, L.

Brookes, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lytton, E.

Butterworth, L.

McConnell, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Marlesford, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Merrivale, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mountevans, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Moyne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dundonald, E.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Goschen, V.

Rennell, L.

Granard, E.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Romney, E.

Haig, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sharples, B.

Harlech, L

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strange, B.

Harrowby, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hayhoe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hertford, M.

Teviot, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

1509

Trumpington, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Ullswater, V.

Wilcox, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Vivian, L.

Wise, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
LEVEL OF SUBSIDY
(". The subsidy paid in respect of each private sector student loan to any person in pursuance of arrangements under this Act shall not exceed the amount required by that person to reimburse the cost of—

(a) any administration relating to the loan; and

(b) the difference between the interest rate agreed with the eligible student receiving the loan and the rate of interest which the bank would otherwise have charged.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if there is one thing in this Bill on which we are all agreed it is that the subsidy is at the heart and centre of the Bill—indeed, it is probably the only thing on which we agree. I need not apologise unduly therefore for returning to it with a fresh suggestion for improving the Bill's vagueness on the subject and making it a bit more comprehensible to the students who may be affected and the banks who still could, theoretically, be induced to compete for it—though as the days go by that seems to be an increasingly unlikely possibility.
The Minister was correct in saying in his reply at Committee stage that the 10 per cent. figure we then proposed was more of a "probe" than a "proposition". However, it failed to elicit much useful information from the Minister and the whole matter remains shrouded in what seems to us to be unnecessary secrecy. The Minister failed completely to answer several points made by my noble friend Lord Desai. I should like to give him the opportunity today to repair that omission and I shall speak for a little longer than may otherwise be tolerable in order to give him time to make a few notes and, if necessary, refresh his memory on what my noble friend said.
In an attempt to help him in that respect, I can tell him that my noble friend asked why the Government were not proposing long-term loans so that insurance companies and others who made actuarial calculations would be the more willing to participate. There was no reply. My noble friend pointed out that the banks,
"would like a high subsidy but I reiterate that there is no economic case for such a subsidy".—[Official Report, 12/3/96; col. 742.]
Can the Minister explain to us now the economic case for whatever subsidy is agreed? Further, my noble friend suggested the merits of a long-term loan which could be deductible from the national insurance surcharge. Why is that not a preferable option to one which requires so substantial a subsidy to succeed, even though we have no idea what that subsidy will look like?
The Minister has been kind enough to write to me on the subject of a subsidy since the Committee stage. I am grateful for his attempt to clarify the concept and its
1510
workings. Unfortunately, his letter—which I read most carefully—raises more new problems than it solves of the old ones. He begins by saying that,
"The purpose of the subsidy is not to persuade private lenders to lend money".
When I read that, I felt like Macbeth as he entered after discovering the body of Duncan and said:
"Confusion now hath made his masterpiece".
"The purpose of the subsidy is not to persuade private lenders to lend money",
In the most obvious sense of those words it is. The subsidy is there to persuade them to lend money because, if they were not provided with a subsidy, they would be unlikely to lend any money. But, as I thought about it, revolved it, turned the sentence over in my mind and considered it in relation to the next sentence, I began to see a glimmer of light on what may be in the Minister's mind. He went on:
"It is to enable them to lend their own money"—
"their own money"; I do not see how they can lend anybody else's money—
"on the preferential terms which are central to the loans scheme, whether public or private, to student borrowers with little credit history".
There at least we surface and light shines. On these Benches we have been concerned to protect the creditworthiness of students, though so far with little success. The letter goes on to state,
"the subsidy level which the financial institutions will set out in their tenders to reflect the benefits to them of getting privileged access to this market".
If we ask the question, "What is in it for the banks?", the answer is the benefits of,
"privileged access to this market".
I should like the Minister even now to explain to us what exactly those "benefits" are which by this subsidy may be obtained and which would not be obtainable without the subsidy. Banks have been lending to students for a long time. Why should this subsidy, whatever its level may be, make such an enormous difference that banks or anybody else will want to take it up?
A few more difficult terms are introduced in that paragraph. The Minister says:
"Obviously, the form and level of subsidy which we offer to the private lenders may differ from the resources which we currently provide for the Student Loans Company".
I do not understand what is meant by the distinction between "form" and "level". What does it mean? A subsidy is a subsidy. It can only, so far as I know, mean money. But the noble Lord talks here of the "form and level" of the subsidy. I should be grateful for an explanation of the difference between "form" and "level" in terms of subsidy and how those two terms relate to the resources which we currently provide for the Student Loans Company. What are those resources apart from financial resources—apart from money?
The noble Lord then says one thing which I found very helpful:
"We are in the process of testing the market and if none of the bids are acceptable we shall not proceed".

1511
The word "are" might be replaced in that sentence by "is" since the subject is singular and that might add a pleasing touch of literacy to it. But I get the point. It is a welcome reassurance. Not so the next sentence:
"But we have no intention of setting out our reserve price".
We have never asked anyone to set out a reserve price. We would be perfectly satisfied with some indication of an order of magnitude. What kind of sum are we talking about? I find it difficult to believe that that is too much to ask.
I was grateful for the clear description in the letter of the flexibility permitted to the banks or other financial houses, though I do not approve of it, for the letter says:
"The private lenders will have the flexibility, with the agreement of the borrower, to charge interest at a rate below that set out in the regulations governing public loans, with a corresponding reduction in the repayment period".
Good; I understand that. It is what we have all believed along the way in any case. But it is good to have it thus set down and spoken out. It does, of course, favour the rich against the poor and to that extent we find it less than totally acceptable. But I am at least grateful for the clarity.
Apart from that, the Minister's letter obfuscated as much as it clarified to my grammarian's mind and so I felt that we were obliged to come back with this amendment which seeks to establish a clear and fair basis for the subsidy and to remove the totally unacceptable element of latitancy and secrecy from it. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, for upsetting the distinguished grammarian I can only unreservedly apologise to the House. It is one of the dangers of serving in the Department for Education and Employment that one has to examine one's letters and one's speeches with much greater care than is perhaps the case with the slightly more robust approach taken, for example, in the Ministry of Defence or other departments I could mention.
I have a degree of sympathy for the principle behind the amendment, not that I think the noble Lord specifically spoke to the amendment as such. I suspect that to some extent it was a further probing amendment. As I made clear in my letter—I hope that this will not cause the noble Lord the confusion that he said it caused him—we shall not be paying subsidy to the private lenders simply in order that they may lend money. They can do that perfectly well without our help. We are paying subsidy to the private lenders—those private lenders who sign up—so that they can offer loans on similar preferential terms to those offered by the Student Loans Company. It is as simple as that.
They are already in the position where they can lend money to students or to whomsoever they so wish. We are paying subsidy so that they can do it on similar terms to those offered by the SLC. They are like the fishmongers, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beloff on a number of occasions, who are not just selling fish but are selling it at special offer prices. I am concerned, just as this amendment is concerned, to ensure that the benefits of subsidy will go to the student borrowers
1512
themselves. But those same special terms mean that the subsidy arrangements will be somewhat more complicated than the amendment envisages.
The subsidy will need to take into account the fact that owing to the special deferment arrangements lenders will be expected to service unprofitable loans for long periods. Lenders may have to wait a long time for loans to be paid off and they can begin to treat borrowers as ordinary profitable customers. There is also a risk attached to lending, not least where the lending is to students with very little credit history. Those are all factors which may be taken into account when the financial institutions are putting together their bids.
As to the noble Lord's worries about "form" and "level" of subsidy, I should have thought that the words there are perfectly clear. The "level" of subsidy the noble Lord understands; "form" might mean, for example, the manner in which it was paid—whether it was paid all at once or spread out over the year, or whatever. But it is up to the financial institutions themselves to put together fair bids and then to negotiate with the department. But I can reassure the noble Lord, as I think I have done on a number of occasions, that we will only accept bids which offer a cost-effective deal for the taxpayer and which offer real choice for the student.
The noble Lord also asked whether we might not consider making use of the national insurance scheme to repay student loans. Others have suggested making use of the tax system. These matters have been considered on a number of occasions and other countries have pursued similar lines. However, I have to say that there are considerable complications in making use of the national insurance system that would not necessarily bring about the simplicities which the noble Lord desires. The Student Loans Company and what we are suggesting—the extension to the banks—keep matters relatively simple. But, as always, I can give an assurance that Dearing—Dearing Mark III, if we can call it that—will be addressing or can address these matters as the inquiry feels fit.
The private lenders will naturally want a return on their money and that will be reflected in their tenders. As I have emphasised, we shall not sign any contracts unless we are convinced that they will realise the full benefits to the students and the full benefits to the taxpayer of private sector involvement, and those full benefits cost effectively. Again I repeat—the noble Lord repeated it for me but I repeat it again—that if we are not convinced of this we shall not sign contracts. The private lender subsidies will be settled on the basis of competitive tenders. We have, as noble Lords will know, a number of financial institutions which are interested. I expect those tenders to take into account the long-term benefits to them as financial institutions of being selected for subsidised loans to the students.
I hope I have dealt with most of the points put by the noble Lord but I shall certainly look carefully at what he has had to say and particularly at some of the points made in my letter of 19th March to which he referred.
Certainly, I should be more than happy to have a further

1513
discussion with the noble Lord on these matters between now and Third Reading should he so wish. However, as regards the amendment itself, I do not believe it is necessarily a practical way forward and I hope therefore that he will withdraw it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and for answering a selection of my questions. The distinction which he draws between "form" and "level" in his letter still puzzles me and I find the distinction which the Minister makes between the two terms pleasingly poetic. We shall come to the question of the repayment mechanism later but I am grateful to him for opening it out at this stage. I shall ponder what he says when other noble Lords are speaking to other amendments and return to it in its proper place. His offer of discussions is a welcome one to me. If, after I have had the opportunity tomorrow to read in Hansard what everyone has said, I feel it is necessary to ask for a half hour of his time, I am grateful that I shall not be turned away. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause—
REFUSAL OF STUDENT LOAN NOT REFUSAL OF CREDIT
(". A refusal to an eligible student of a private sector student loan shall not be regarded as a refusal of credit for any purpose and may not be required to be declared in any other application for credit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed the whole matter of creditworthiness in relation to this Bill at Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn (whose forensic skills have no superior and few rivals) succeeded in eliciting from the Minister clarifications and concessions which we found helpful. Chief among them was the answer to my noble friend's question as to whether a student who had been refused a private loan and then applied for a Student Loans Company loan would be obliged to report the refusal in his SLC application. The Minister said:
"I do not see that there would be any obligation to report to the Student Loans Company the fact that the student had been refused a loan elsewhere".
That is clear, unequivocal, welcome, helpful and, indeed, goes a little beyond what was requested.
I hope that the Minister will not be offended by our seemingly insatiable appetite for further and further concessions over and above what he has already given, but the words of this amendment are precise:
"may not be required to be declared in any other application for credit".
That is not just to the Student Loans Company but "any other application for credit".
We are pursuing this because students must now apply for loans and any refusal of credit is an extremely serious and continuous handicap long after they have ceased to be students. It can last for the rest of their lives. The student refused credit may find that the
1514
remembrance of it is grievous unto him or her and that the burden of it is intolerable. Once to be refused credit may be to carry that for the rest of one's financial life. The student may well say, with Coleridge's Ancient Mariner,
"Instead of a Cross the Albatross
About my neck was hung".
I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may simply add a syllable or two. The real mischief here—and putting one's eye to Amendment No. 7—is that if there is no obligation to give a reason for refusal, serious unfairness may result which has in effect a financial penal consequence for the rest of the student's adult life. A refusal of a loan may well be made on non-financial grounds. If that were so, without the obligation for giving a reason for refusal, injustice could creep in. The loan might be refused, for instance, because the lending institution does not seek to support a particular discipline. It might come to the reasoned view that there was a superabundance of professors of English literature around and about the place and it might not want to fund any more. It might think, for instance, that the wage levels in the intended profession were too low, and the institution did not want to lend on that basis. It might ask someone what they have in mind as regards future employment. The institution might think that the prospects are very poor. A student who said, for instance, that he was hoping to become a Conservative Member of Parliament might well be refused a loan on the basis that his employment prospects were dismal in the extreme for the next 10 years or so.
It is important that a student who is obliged, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, to look for loan facilities should not be penalised in later life and particularly—if I may repeat again at the risk of tedium—if no reason is required to be given. Therefore, there cannot be a safeguard for the student, and that is capable of doing him or her an injustice for a very long time.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the case for this amendment has been well made. Anxiety was expressed at earlier stages in the consideration of the Bill about the probable, certainly possible, effect on creditworthiness of students in their future life. This amendment addresses the point very well, particularly the proposal that it:
"may not be required to be declared in any other application for credit".
That is the nub of it. On that basis I am happy to support this amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is one further point that I would like to put to the Minister for his consideration and that is the fact that at the end of the course the student may be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. If the student is unable to ascertain why a loan has been refused, or if the reason has nothing to do with his or her personal creditworthiness but rather the course, as has been said, were the student to fail to declare that fact, unless he is legally exempt from having to do so, on some future

1515
occasion the student could be accused of fraud. For example, I think of someone joining the police force who takes a degree in a subject such as philosophy which the private sector loan arrangement authority decides is not relevant to a career. The student then applies to join the police. Such a student should be exempt from having to declare that a loan has been refused because there is no doubt that a lack of creditworthiness may influence the opportunity to get a job, let alone the ability to raise credit, for example, for a mortgage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the House will recall, I resisted a similar amendment at Committee stage, putting forward what I believed to be very good reasons. I am still not persuaded of the need for such an amendment.
It would have serious and, I believe, impractical implications beyond the student loans scheme. The proposal seeks to regulate not only the private lenders of student loans but private lenders of every kind. They would obviously be affected by the first part of the amendment; namely,
"A refusal to an eligible student of a private sector student loan shall not be regarded as a refusal of credit".
In other words, it would have to be taken into account. The amendment seeks to allow a student who has been turned down for a loan from a private lender to withhold that information whenever he applies for a loan in future. I understand the concern put forward by various noble Lords about students who may be turned down, for whatever reason, for loans from private lenders that they may find it hard to get badly needed credit in future to buy a house, a car or whatever. However, financial institutions, whether lending money to students or house buyers, must be allowed commercial freedom in their decisions. We could not possibly require a bank or a building society, when considering an application for a mortgage, to make a special exemption for an applicant because he was refused a student loan by another institution.
Further, I do not believe that we should assume that future prospective lenders will be greatly interested in knowing that an applicant was refused a student loan in the past—perhaps many years in the past—and perhaps for a reason which, as noble Lords have said, is not a good one. They all have their own methods of assessing applications and their own different, commercial preferences. It is misleading to attribute too much weight to past information. I do not believe that the banks or building societies themselves are that short-sighted.
Further, I remind the House that the refusal of a student loan from a private sector institution is not the last word. There is always the absolute right, which I have mentioned on a number of occasions and which I repeat today, for that individual student to go to the Student Loans Company. Therefore, there will always be the availability of a loan for the student if he or she complies in all other ways. Therefore,
1516
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is not necessary and will withdraw it on this occasion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we know full well that the private sector loan is not the position of last resort and that a student can always go to the SLC to get his or her loan. But that is surely not the point. Here we are talking not about that question but about what happens if a student is refused a loan. Does that count as credit and, if so, is that going to appear on every computer in the land and work against that student for the rest of his or her life? The proposed new clause would cost nothing. It would encourage students to apply and it would give them a bit more hope if they were applying to a bank, knowing that if they were turned down that would be an end of it and it would not be a permanent stain on their character, as it were.
We put this amendment forward in no destructive sense whatever; we genuinely believe that it will improve the Bill. But it appears that the Minister is still not persuaded. I find his arguments on thus amendment even weaker than those on most of the matters that he has opposed so far. Nevertheless, much though I would welcome the opportunity to divide the House on this amendment, I am unlikely to command a vast amount of support. Therefore, at this time, and without any prejudice towards bringing the matter back at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
INDEPENDENT ASSESSOR
(". The Secretary of State shall establish an independent assessor to investigate and adjudicate upon disputes between an eligible student and any person by whom private sector student loans are made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the power of an independent assessor to the private loans company which is now proposed. In Schedule 2(3)(5), the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 provided for an independent person, the assessor, to investigate and report on disputes between borrowers or intending borrowers and the body making the loans. Only complaints which are not resolved by the Students Loans Company or which are not replied to within three months can be referred to the assessor.
The Bill as it stands will not, as far as I can see, extend that provision to the new private loans scheme. There will be no independent mechanism for resolving disputes in the new scheme. That may well deter students from applying and it gives the lender what we consider to be an unnecessary power. The amendment would therefore work to the benefit of the Government because it would not deter students from at least attempting to get a loan from a bank or whatever body they are dealing with.
It is important that there should be an independent mechanism for dealing with disputes that cannot be resolved through the usual complaints procedures, because students may very well be in their final year at school when they have to go through the process of starting negotiations about a loan. It means that young persons of the age of 17 or thereabouts will be involved in negotiating what for them will probably be the first step of their financial lives and to say to them, "caveat emptor" seems to us to be rather more harsh than is necessary.
The Bill would be improved by the appointment of an independent assessor to give aid and comfort in such situations. The role of the assessor will be particularly important in the new private scheme in disputes between intending borrowers and lenders. Students who, for one reason or another, are refused loans by private sector lenders will benefit from an independent mechanism for complaint if they feel that they have been unfairly treated. At Report stage in another place, Mr. Stephen Byers argued that although there is a banking ombudsman, his terms of reference prevent him being involved in commenting on a bank's commercial judgment about lending. We have taken on board what the Minister said at previous stages about what the ombudsman can and cannot do, but I think that it is still true to say that he cannot comment on a bank's commercial judgment when lending. We feel that someone should have that power. Surely the lack of such a power disables the ombudsman and seriously weakens his powers.
It is true that the number of complaints not resolved by the Students Loans Company and referred to the assessor has been relatively small. In 1993 a customer survey commissioned by the Student Loans Company found that less than 5 per cent. were aware of the company's complaints procedure. In response to those findings the company took steps to publicise its complaints procedure in its customer service policy and annual report.
However, there has come into my possession—I found it on my desk; I do not know how it got there but I do not think that the Minister kindly placed it on my desk—the 13th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, entitled The Operations of the Student Loans Company Ltd. Browsing quietly through it, I find these words in subsection (vii) of paragraph 4 on the main conclusions and recommendations:
"We are surprised that up to the end of the 1994/95 academic year, only eight complaints had been referred to the independent Assessor, despite the widespread difficulties experienced by students. We note that a customer survey has suggested that there is only a limited awareness by borrowers of the Company's complaints procedure. We recommend that efforts should continue to publicise the complaints procedure more widely".
Surely students opting for the new private scheme—if it ever comes into being and if there ever are any—should receive the same protection as already exists for students and graduates who have loans from the public sector scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, I believe that this is an unnecessary amendment. I assume that the noble
1518
Lord is seeking to create another independent assessor, similar to the independent assessor for the Student Loans Company, to offer assistance with loans taken out with private sector institutions.
I think that I have made it clear, in speaking to a similar amendment at an earlier stage—colleagues have made it clear in another place when dealing with other amendments—that there is no need for the establishment of an additional complaints procedure to cover private sector lenders. The Banking and Building Societies Ombudsmen are already there to do just that job. I see no point in wasting the taxpayer's money simply to duplicate them.
Officials in my department have spoken to the Banking Ombudsman. They have learnt first-hand, and reported to me, what powers he does and does not have. He has emphasised to my officials that he sees absolutely no reason why complaints about loans from banks under the twin-track scheme should not be within his remit.
The ombudsman will look into any personal complaint of substance about a bank's business. That is how wide-ranging his powers are. In particular, he has assured us that he will always look into a complaint about a loan rejection if the complainant has some evidence to back up his complaint. Any student with a genuine complaint will have that evidence. The ombudsman can demand from a lender whatever information he needs in order to make a decision about the complaint, including, in the case of a loan rejection, supporting evidence for the lender's original refusal. If the lender refuses to give him any of this information, he is forced to assume that they had insufficient evidence to refuse the loan in the first place and his recommendation would thus be in the customer's favour.
I believe that the ombudsman will offer an independent safeguard of exactly the sort which the noble Lord requires for private sector applicants and borrowers, and one which all the major high street banks and building societies, which fund the ombudsman schemes, are fully signed up to. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, yes, I shall. That is the best reply that I have had from the Minister during our several hours of debate. The Minister has given us some information. He has taken the trouble to rouse his officials and to get them out, asking the ombudsman exactly what he does. The Minister has put on the record exactly what we have been asking for all along. I would have been happy to be assured that we could have either a new assessor or the extended powers of the assessors of the Student Loans Company. As far as I was able to jot them down, the Minister's words that the ombudsman will look into any complaint, that he can demand information from any lender, and that he can take action if he is not satisfied go a very long way towards giving me what I want. I cannot think that I could want any more. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
STATEMENT OF REASONS
(". The Secretary of State shall require any person to whom subsidy is to be paid who refuses to make a private sector student loan to an eligible student to provide the student with a statement of reasons for the refusal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the statement which the Minister has just made helps considerably with this amendment, but I should like to press and probe him a little further. The amendment seeks to provide that the student, the borrower, should be given the reasons for the refusal. A similar amendment was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in response to which the Minister said:
"It would be quite wrong to impose particular rules on how private companies should deal with loan applications … They must be free to reject applications; and they must be free to decide what to tell such applicants".—[Official Report, 12/3/96; cols. 791–2.]
I am not sure that I accept that such companies "must be free". We have talked much in previous debates and in this debate about possible effects on creditworthiness. I think that it is desirable to require lenders to give to applicants a simple statement of their reasons for refusal. I do not think that request would be too onerous for the lenders.
I turn now to the position of the ombudsman, which the Minister helpfully clarified and elucidated. I believe that I heard him say just now—perhaps he will clarify this when he replies—and he said in Committee that the ombudsman will look into complaints about an institution's refusal to offer a loan provided that the complainant has a piece of evidence of substance that the institution acted unfairly or illegally with regard to the granting of a loan. I believe that the Minister referred just now to a complaint having to be one "of substance". While one does not wish to encourage frivolous complaints, one is bound to ask how a complainant can establish whether or not his complaint has substance if he has been given no reason for the refusal of his application.
I believe that it would be entirely consistent if the Minister went a little further in the assurances just given and agreed that in the first place applicants, not just the ombudsman, should be given such a statement so that before they made their complaints to the ombudsman they could judge whether or not they had complaints of substance. The ombudsman could then decide whether or not to take the matter on from there.
In moving the amendment, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that this matter can be taken just a little further. One can ask for a little more. I look forward to receiving the Minister's assurances. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tope's, arguments are correct. There is no reason in principle why commercial lenders should not be subject to some discipline other than that of the bare marketplace. In a large number of different activities commercial organisations have to do just
1520
that—for instance, in terms of how they treat the disabled who apply for employment or who work for them.
More fundamentally, this money comes in part from public funds. If the Government are committed to openness and transparency, there can be no sensible reason why, if a student has the bitter blow of a refusal of a private sector student loan, he or she should not know the reason for it. There are many reasons for that. First, if the lender who has to come to a decision is obliged to give reasons, the mere fact that reasons have to be given normally improves the decision-making process. Secondly, since this is in part public money (by virtue of the subsidy component) it should be seen to be dealt with in an open and appropriate way. Thirdly, a student is entitled as of right to know why he or she has been turned down. Fourthly, to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said, without knowing the reason for the refusal the student is wholly disabled from mounting a sensible appeal.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment. I should like to ask the Minister how the Government seek to resolve the conflict between their replies on many occasions, which indicate that commercial judgment is at the heart of this legislation, and the oft repeated reply that it is a matter of student choice. This amendment will ensure that, where students are deprived of that choice by a decision, the reason for it is open and clear to those students concerned.
I should also like the Minister to explain how students may defend themselves on a future occasion. Given that the Government have refused to allow students to refrain from giving information on future occasions when they apply for jobs, mortgages or further credit at other stages in their careers, how can they defend themselves if they are not given details of the reasons for the refusal? That would be the only defence that students would have to protect them from a lifetime of possible discrimination by other credit facilitators, and those other fields as well.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I deal first with the question of student choice. I do not accept the argument of the noble Baroness that there is any discrepancy in the case that we have put forward. I take a similar situation. Students have a choice about which university they go to. That is obviously dependent on the choice that the universities or institutions make about the students. The choice can never be total. Similarly, the student has a choice about going to one or more private sector institutions for a student loan. If he or she fails there, as a last resort there will be the choice of going hack to the Student Loans Company.
I should like to deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made about the ombudsman and his worries, echoed to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that students had to produce evidence for their complaints. The noble Lord quoted my words at Committee stage. I cannot remember my precise words, but this afternoon the words that I have used are "the complainant has some evidence to hack up his complaint". The noble Lord, Lord Williams, says that if

1521
no reason is given the student can have no evidence. I do not accept that that is the case. For instance, there may be evidence of the application being treated in a frivolous manner by the institution. The mere lack of written reasons provided by the bank does not mean that it is impossible for the individual to produce any evidence to make his case to the ombudsman. Having said that, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, recognises the advantages of the banking ombudsman's writ running here and the fact that it deals with the earlier problem.
The case advanced by noble Lords opposite as to our reasons why student applicants should not be given this information is not valid. That is not our argument. We say that this must be very much a matter for private lenders to decide. They are the ones who, in the main, risk their own money. They must be free to reject applications and decide what to tell such applicants. What we want is the normal lending arrangement between the lender and borrower. That, rather than extensive regulation, is the best way to get the benefits of the improved service standards that will flow from private sector involvement. I said that in the main they were lending their own money. Noble Lords opposite have said that we are talking about public money in subsidy. But the money risked on loan will be largely that of private lenders. The best safeguards for students lie in the operation of choice in a diverse and competitive market. Student borrowers will have a choice. If they have concerns similar to those of the noble Lords, they can always take out public loans through the Student Loans Company.
Lastly, I reiterate that private lenders will not commit themselves to the twin-track approach unless they are keen to be major lenders to students. Therefore, they will be committed to ensuring that they get a large share of that market. I do not believe that they will achieve that by being over-selective or secretive in their dealings with student applicants. Therefore, I believe that it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to place on private lenders the restrictions in the new clause. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister explain how a student can go to the ombudsman with a complaint if he does not know why his loan has been refused?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I made that perfectly clear. I do not believe that it is absolutely necessary to have written evidence from the institution to make that complaint. There are other forms of evidence which will be available, such as the attitude of the institution. That evidence may be sufficient for the student to take the complaint to the ombudsman.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the Minister said that lenders must be free to decide whether to accept or reject loan applications. Nobody disputes that. What we are saying is that they must give a reason if they reject the application. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams
1522
of Mostyn, is right. Usually, decisions are better made if those who make them know that they will have to justify them in public. Therefore, the fact that they have to give a simple statement of reasons for refusal is likely to lead to better considered decisions.
I return to the point that noble Lords have been pressing. How does an applicant apply to the ombudsman and prove that he has a substantial case? It may be that the bank manager was rude to the applicant when he went to see him; it may be that he had to stand in a queue for a long time; it may be any number of those reasons, but, as the Minister said, if the institutions are keen to make loans, that is probably unlikely, and, frankly, rather frivolous. If we are asking people to feel that they may put a case to the ombudsman, to say that they will have no written reason and will need no written reason, is not good enough. We have not had a sufficient answer to this. The Minister has not justified why there should not be a written reason. Indeed the case for having a written reason when making a submission to the ombudsman is overpowering. We shall need to consider this matter further, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
(". No subsidy may be paid by the Secretary of State under subsection 1(1A) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person by whom the private sector student loan will be made has ensured that the assessment criteria to be used in assessing applications by eligible students do not include consideration of the applicant's course of study or the institution he attends.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another what is termed "cherry picking" amendment. It bears some resemblance to an amendment with which we dealt in Committee. We are trying to ensure that, when choosing a course and an institution at which to take that course, a student should determine that solely upon academic merit, individual choice, and vocational merit, and should not be put into the position of having to give any consideration as to whether the course or institution would prove creditworthy for a private sector student loan. That is the essence of the amendment.
In Committee, and previously, the Minister has said that the tender document seeks from prospective private lenders details of their policies and processes for considering applications, and asks for an estimate of the proportion of applicants they might reject.
I hope that the Minister will assure us today that when they look seriously at those tender documents, as he has assured us they will, and we accept that they will, they will ensure that there is no possibility of any discrimination or decisions being based upon disapproval of a type of course or upon a judgment about the merits or otherwise of a particular learning institution. That is what the amendment seeks to address. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in the

1523
amendment, especially as he has supported me so stoutly in many another I trust that he will feel able to do so for the rest of the Bill, and, indeed, many a Bill hereafter.
I have read and re-read what the Minister had to say on this question when we discussed it in Committee in—I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope—very much the same terms as those in which we have brought it back. The Minister spoke at 8.45 p.m. Perhaps he, and we, and all of us, were becoming rather tired, but I am bound to say that sadly it was not, in my view, the very best reply that he gave in Committee. I hope that he will be able to improve on his performance today. He said—I paraphrase—that there was little that he could add to his previous responses. He said that bank managers were honourable persons; that lawyers were also good fellows; and that the Dearing terms of reference were a matter for a another occasion; and, then, getting to the point, that the Government had asked prospective private lenders for—both the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I seem to have noticed this—details of their policies and processes for considering applications and an estimate of what proportion of applicants they thought that they might reject. That is not good enough, nor is it true.
Bankers are in a tough, harsh, unforgiving, competitive business these days. No longer is your typical bank manager a wise, experienced, mellow and beneficent pipe-smoking patriarchal sort of a fellow. She is more likely to be a smart and street-wise lady under stern instructions from head office to jerk up the percentage profit this year, otherwise she will be out on her ear. Banks have changed. So far as I can see, they seem to have changed a great deal since the Minister last went into one.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who has the advantage of being younger than most Of us, exemplified that point, and the point that the amendment strives to make, when he told us that when he was taking his postgraduate degree in petroleum engineering he was regularly harassed—he used the word "harassed"—by his bank with offers of more and more complicated loans: "Take out another loan—any kind of conditions you like. Petroleum engineers are bound to be important fellows before very long, and these people are worth having on our books". He said in Committee that banks make such calculations, and I believe him. He is right. They have to.
A student of fine art, or a student from a former polytechnic whose excellence has not yet been fully established—I have chosen that phrase with great care to avoid trouble from half the country's universities—may well seem less attractive a prospect than my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for a wide variety of reasons.
Private institutions need no protection or defence. The private individual (the young student) needs both. That is why I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, first, perhaps I may ask the House to note that in my experience the most usual bank manager is still male,
1524
and not female. I can only assume that female bank managers have all gone to the Principality, and that circumstances there are different.
There is a great deal of prejudice about the types of course that students take at university. The employment potential of people on arts courses may be misunderstood. It is unlikely that a bank manager in a part of the country where a particular course is not available will know the details, for example, of courses in technical illustration and the possibility of a 100 per cent. placement in employment.
The second point upon which I would ask the Minister to comment is that one of his government's Secretaries of State in the early 1980s—a person for whom I had great respect on many occasions—once made a statement about there being no need to provide so many sociology and psychology courses. The Secretary of State had to correct that misunderstanding when it was explained to him that psychology was essential if people wanted to become the educational psychologists who would be needed in ever-increasing numbers to implement the Government's special educational needs legislation. That is a type of prejudice.
Can the Minister say that a uniform policy will be applied by institutions, if they change their minds and bid for this type of work; that a student applying in Aberdeen for a psychology course will be treated in the same way as a student applying in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Lancashire? It is important that the policy is clear. Before the Minister says that this is a matter purely of commercial judgment, perhaps I may remind him that, throughout, the Government's statements have been about student choice. What choice is there if, from a basis of ignorance, lack of knowledge or prejudice, someone precludes certain students from access to loans merely because of the type of course they are taking?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I received 10 out of 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for one of my earlier answers. However, I expect that the response I gave in Committee at 8.45 p.m. did not receive 10 out of 10 from him but possibly only one or two out of 10. We shall see whether I can improve on that. However, in speaking to the amendment in Committee I had addressed a number of similar amendments and I believed that I should be wasting the Committee's time if I spoke at great length. That is why I opened my innings by saying that I was not sure that there was much more I could add to what I had said earlier in response to other similar amendments. On this occasion I shall try to respond at greater length, this being the only amendment in that group to return.
Perhaps I may make it clear that we neither want nor expect the private lenders to assess applications in the way noble Lords fear. On the contrary, we want to involve the private sector so that all students have opportunities to get the benefits of its expertise in personal lending. But to get these benefits we need to put in place a system which allows the banks and building societies to operate efficiently along normal commercial lines. The instinct of noble Lords opposite to regulate would prevent that.

1525
Secondly, as I said on a number of occasions, the financial institutions will be lending their own money and bearing most of the risk in so doing. In these circumstances, decisions on whether to lend to a particular applicant must be left to them.
We could, of course, require that private lenders accept any application from an eligible student. But that kind of provision would work against the grain of the private sector's approach. It is doubtful whether it would be acceptable to the banks and building societies. And, frankly, we see nothing to be gained by compelling first their involvement and then their acceptance of any eligible application.
Thirdly, while I understand noble Lords' concerns that some students might suffer rejection because of their course or institution, I believe that possibility to be exaggerated. If the banks and building societies tender for the right to offer subsidised loans, they will do so because of the advantages of being in this market in a substantial way. Once in, why should they take a restrictive view of applicants' credit-worthiness? The incentive will be to maximise their share of the market. There will be strong competition. They will be competing against other private lenders. They will also be competing against the Student Loans Company, which will also have a substantial share of the market. The private lenders will have market share to build up and reputations to protect. Why should they want to get involved in this scheme and then court adverse publicity by rejecting a large number of applicants?
As I made clear in Committee, we have asked prospective private lenders to include in their tenders details of their policies and processes for considering applications. We have also asked for an estimate of what proportion of applicants they might reject. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that in evaluation of the tenders we shall look carefully at their responses. I can give an assurance that we shall take into account any tenders which appear to be designed to exclude large classes for peculiar reasons. If we are not satisfied that will be a factor in our decision on which tenders to accept.
However, I do not believe that it would be right to follow the policy advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, of insisting on a uniform policy for all banks and institutions wherever they are in the country. As I said earlier, that must be a matter for them.
I accept that the amendment is well intentioned but it goes against the grain of what we are trying to achieve with the private sector. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurance, which was welcome. I am not sure that I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in awarding marks, but perhaps six out of 10 would be high. Perhaps the Minister should be awarded five out of 10.
It is not our purpose to regulate the private sector for the sake of doing so or to restrict its responsibilities. In moving the amendments our purpose is to protect
1526
students who must find themselves in increasingly vulnerable positions as some form of loan becomes a way of life in higher education.
I am sorry that the Minister did not feel able to go further. I continue to be concerned that if we have no obvious assurance that there will not be discrimination on the basis of course or institution, and if students are given no reason for refusal of an application, we could be heading into a situation in which students are treated unfairly. However, I am grateful for the assurance that the Minister gave in response to my opening comments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Schedule [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 21, after ("student",") insert—
("(aa) after sub-paragraph (1)(c) insert—
"(d) make provision for the level of sums paid by the person borrowing in respect of repayment of a loan to be linked to the income of the person borrowing",").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Desai attempted to encourage discussion about long-term loans versus short-term loans. We have not yet had that discussion. The idea did not commend itself to the Minister nor to his colleagues in government, but it will not go away because it can so easily and often cause hardship. The mortgage style repayments provided for in the Bill mean that graduates must repay loans within a short period at a time when their income will be at its lowest level. Loans from the Student Loans Company must be repaid over 60 months once the student's earnings reach 85 per cent. of the national average. Private sector loans will not differ vastly.
On Second Reading in the other place the Minister of State claimed that the average repayment was £18 a month (Official Report, Commons, 27/11/95; col. 945.). That is based on the repayments being made now by students who took out loans in the early years of the scheme's operation when loans made up a smaller percentage of the total support package. As the loan becomes half of the package in 1996–97 debts and the size of repayments will increase.
Researchers at the University of Northumbria—a university which has established its excellence in many areas and upon whose work we can certainly rely—has estimated that the growth of student loan debt based on the current five-year repayment period will mean that students graduating after a three-year course in 1997 must pay £75 a month. After a four-year course the estimated figure is £100 a month.
That seems to us to be an unnecessarily heavy burden on young people at a crucial period of their financial lives. Can the Minister give us an idea of how much it would cost to ease the burden for people in that position, as described by researchers at the University of Northumbria? If debt is too onerous it brings default. As I said earlier, it is difficult for young people in their final year at school, or in their first year at university

1527
when they are probably scared out of their wits that they will fail their first year examinations, to work out what they will honestly be able to afford to repay in several years' time. They have no experience on which to base that estimate. The people whom they will be consulting will be people in the private sector who are legitimately in that business for the sordid motive of private profit. They are not there to help the students in the first instance. They are there to satisfy their shareholders; to do a decent job for the banks; and to make money. The bottom line is private profit. Those people are not giving disinterested advice; and disinterested advice for students in that position is not easily come by.
Default is a real possibility. As at 31st July 1995, 435,000 borrowers were due to make loan repayments, of which 187,000 were granted deferment for a year, and of the 248,000 liable to make payments, 9,000 were in arrears and 35,000 were in default. That is not a brilliant record.
The problems caused by the current mortgage-style repayment scheme are widely recognised, and not simply by noble Lords on all of these Benches on this side of the House. The Minister cannot brush under the carpet the fact that the Conservative Political Centre National Policy Group on Higher Education, to which I referred earlier and on which he congratulated me on having got its statements right and on reading—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was wondering whether the noble Lord was going to refer to his colleague, Mr. Field.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, no, but I could do. However, the Conservative Political Centre National Policy Group has identified a number of disadvantages with the mortgage loan scheme and has found advantages in an income-contingent loan scheme where repayments can be collected through the national insurance and income tax system. The Minister must realise that one of his principal advisers is very much on our side in this regard. We are not making a party-political point. It just seems simple common sense.
In Committee the Minister said that he had no wish to pre-empt the Dearing inquiry on that issue. But regulations for the existing scheme could easily be changed to allow income-related payments. He does not have to defer the decision to or beyond Dearing, and in any event he cannot have Dearing both ways.
The DFEE has written to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals listing reasons why alternative repayment schemes are absolutely out of the question, beyond the pale and not possible. I have seen that letter and I am deeply unimpressed by its arguments. They are redolent of a fixed determination not to find a way out of this and not to find any way in which change could be considered.
If the Minister does nothing else as a result of today's discussions, I invite him to think again about this problem and to find a way to meet us on the question of repayment methods, about which students are deeply
1528
concerned. If it can be done in other countries, there is no reason why, if the will is there, it cannot be done in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I spoke on Second Reading about repayments and I support this amendment. We should be and need to be looking at some form of income-contingent repayment scheme. As I understand it, that is what this amendment seeks to achieve. I commend it to the Minister in the terms in which it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to repeat what I have said many times, including on Second Reading, about the sound common sense of having an income-contingent repayment system. Among other things, it might actually get back some money for the Treasury, and I sorely doubt whether the present system will achieve that within the next 10 years. That is one point.
I hope that at the very least, when the Minister returns to the department he will ensure that when the question of support for students is considered by the Dearing Committee, that letter is not taken as the only briefing to the committee on the line to take. I hope that there will be serious examination of all options by the Dearing Committee.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are going somewhat beyond the Bill in debating income-contingent schemes. As I made clear on another occasion, these are matters which should properly be left to the Dearing Committee.
The system that we have at present is in part income-contingent. It does not begin to bite, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, put it, until earnings reach 85 per cent. of average earnings, currently £15,204. That figure can be changed by means of order under the 1990 Act. That 85 per cent. figure can be changed by means of regulation under the 1990 Act, as can the time taken to repay. A great deal can be done under the powers provided by the 1990 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, quoted my honourable friend in another place as saying that the current average repayment is only some £18. I should have to look at the figures given by the University of Northumbria to see whether that is right. That figure will increase over the years and each year, as the necessary regulations are brought forward, Ministers will have to consider whether the repayment period should be lengthened or whether the level of average earnings should be adjusted upwards and so on. But those matters can be addressed each year.
Introducing a greater degree of income-contingency would introduce unnecessary complexity into the scheme. Having said that, I hope that that is a matter which Sir Ron will look at as part of his inquiry. But it could be time-consuming and labour intensive to check the income of all borrowers. It would also he costly. Either students or taxpayers would have to pay for that.

1529
I should like to pose one or two questions to the noble Lord about his amendment. I should like to know whether noble Lords opposite intend that the amount collected by the scheme should be increased by charging students more or whether they intend that repayments should be reduced and that the taxpayer should pay more. They certainly cannot have both. It is not possible both to reduce the financial burden on students and to increase the amount of money collected by the scheme.
Perhaps the noble Lord intends, as the amendment would allow, that students should pay more than they actually borrowed by means of a graduate tax. I am sure that students would wish to know whether that is the intention of the amendment. Whatever is the case, if noble Lords are advocating a more generous scheme, I should like to know how they propose to fund that and whether that has been included in their spending plans.
I believe that the present scheme achieves an extremely good balance between the costs of higher education both for the taxpayer and the student. Therefore, we intend that the current repayment arrangements will apply to private sector loans. But, as I said, if we believe that the burden on the students is increasing unnecessarily, we have the means to address that problem.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He referred once again to the 1990 Act and said that the time taken to repay can be varied by that Act. He has said that before, and I agree with him; it could. Why then is it not varied? Here is an opportunity. Why does the Minister not take that opportunity? The least that I should like him to do this evening is to accept the principle that an income-contingent loan is better than the mortgage repayment scheme and to take away the idea and think about it hard. I ask him to consult the officials who advise him so well and come back on Third Reading with further and better particulars and a better idea than the one we have at present.
The Minister asked me what we should do. My answer is the regular one, that we should not be here in the first place. We should not have got ourselves into this fix. If we had been discussing the matter of loans over a period of years, we should not have found ourselves in the position in which the student bodies are entirely against us and where there does not seem to be a bank, building society, finance house or even Shylock the moneylender who will take us seriously and come to our aid.
Repayments could be over a longer period. This is something that we would certainly want to discuss with student bodies and with the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals. I notice that the Minister has still not said anything whatever about the virtue of long-term loans versus short-term loans; I can only conclude that it is something he is determined not to have anything to do with. Our point is that a student should be given a choice about the kind of repayment structure he prefers. That is what we would build into any plans we might have for student loans if it appeals to us, and if and when—and especially when, and may
1530
it be soon—we come into power. I hope that that will convince the Minister that we on these Benches certainly take the matter extremely seriously and that we have our plans which I am not prepared to divulge in detail at this stage, or over this Dispatch Box, as he will readily understand. He can look forward, concealing his curiosity and his impatience as best he can, to reading what is put forward on these matters by my noble friends and my right honourable friend in the Labour Party's manifesto for the next general election which cannot come too soon. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("above") to ("steps") in line 32 and insert ("shall include provision for defraying in full expenses incurred by institutions at which eligible students are attending courses in respect of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I, or we, or all of us, got into a state of mild confusion about this amendment at Committee stage, for which I apologise. I have returned to the matter with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals between then and now and I hope that I have the facts correctly listed. My understanding is that as originally drafted there was no provision in the Bill for the reimbursement of universities' costs in processing the new private sector loans. In response to CVCP pressure a government amendment was tabled at Committee stage which allowed reimbursement of universities' costs in processing both public and private student loans. That, so far as it went, was welcome.
The amendment before us is designed to ensure that universities are fully reimbursed. Under the existing public sector scheme universities are only partially recompensed for processing loans. The point was powerfully put by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, whom I seem to be complimenting all through the proceedings this evening. However, she seemed to me to make such splendid contributions at Committee stage that I cannot resist doing so. Universities want the duty to reimburse them in full to cover the full costs of processing loans made mandatory rather than permissive. Universities would like to see the Bill amended so that there is, first, a firm duty to meet administration costs and, secondly, an agreement that those costs have to be met in full.
Universities are subsidising the Student Loans Company at present to the tune of some £2 million. As we know from the debate that we had on the capital funding of universities and the cut made in it last year, universities are in no position to do this, and there is no reason why they should. It is entirely unjust and unfair that universities, out of money which comes to them from the Treasury, should be handing money back to the Treasury to do something which the Treasury has compelled them to do in the first place. This is economics gone crazy. They should not have to subsidise private sector financial institutions at all. In

1531
their current financial state they simply cannot afford to do so. It would be absolutely the last straw. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to meet the full administrative costs of the higher education institutions which are responsible for the certification of eligibility for student loans. However, the duty to reimburse an institution for expenses incurred would not allow for the payment of a fixed fee which might well exceed the level of a purely compensatory payment. Institutions would also need to justify their claim for expenses, particularly in the manner proposed in the amendment. The system which the provision in the Bill is designed to preserve is potentially more generous than the one proposed by the amendment.
However, I understand the noble Lord's concern. It was one raised in another place and one which gave rise to government amendments which were accepted during Committee stage. We made clear that it is our intention that higher education institutions should be paid for the work they do certifying eligibility for both public sector and private sector loans. The level of the current fee for the certification of eligibility is a matter for the higher education institutions and the Student Loans Company to determine. It is for the higher education institutions to put their case forward if they think the fee they receive is not sufficient. The HEIs' role in relation to public sector loans will not change; they will continue to be reimbursed by the Student Loans Company. I see no reason to change the fee setting arrangements. I believe that the arrangements ensure a good deal for the taxpayer and a quality service for students.
As far as private sector loans are concerned, it is our intention that higher education institutions should agree with private lenders the terms and fees of any certification work they do. However, we hope that most applications will be handled without specific reference to the higher education institutions. This will mean that the Bill does not create any additional work for them; indeed we expect their workload to decrease. Where such work is required by regulation, we shall ensure that the regulations provide for the payment of fees. That was the reason behind the amendments I brought forward at Committee stage. I believe that these arrangements will complement and enhance the current arrangements for the determination of fees and will ensure that the loans scheme continues to deliver a good deal for both students and the taxpayer.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am delighted by part of what he said. He said at the very end that where private sector loans involved higher education institutions the latter would receive payment of fees. Does that mean full payment of fees?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is defective in the way it refers to expenses. That would create more trouble for the institutions because they would have to itemise the expenses and then justify them. We believe that a fee system is much better. Under the arrangements
1532
for the Student Loans Company it is for the higher education institutions and the SLC to negotiate an appropriate level of fees. Where fees are necessary in relation to the private sector, we believe that regulations will be the appropriate way to provide for payment of fees. Fees are the better way forward rather than expenses, which is what the noble Lord's amendment is asking for if he can accept the distinction between the two. Expenses would create a major problem for the higher education institutions, and one I think they would come to regret.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The distinction between expenses and fees is one which I shall have to consider, but in so far as the payment of fees means the full payment of fees I am content with what he said which seems to be more or less "yes", or at least a categorical "may be". It is important that we should be as clear as possible and as we are juggling several terms together I reserve the right to come back to the matter at Third Reading when I have read our exchanges carefully in the cold light of dawn. It is rather wet in the Derbyshire Peak District at the moment. I need to be satisfied on this point. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [General powers of trustees]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (2) is subject to the restrictions imposed by the Trustee Act 1925 on the number of trustees and where there are more than foul beneficiaries entitled as mentioned in subsection (2) any conveyance pursuant to that subsection shall be to such of the beneficiaries as the beneficiaries may unanimously request, failing which to such of them as the trustees may think fit, and in either case in trust for all the beneficiaries.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may make a few remarks before dealing with the amendment. First, I believe that the Lord Chancellor's Department has been assisted, as I hope it always will be, by the Law Society in dealing with the technical matters relating to this otherwise uncontroversial Bill. I personally should like to pay my tribute to the Land Law and Succession Committee of the Law Society, and in particular to my

1533
colleagues, Mr. Donald Lockhart and Mr. C.M. Jarman, who are responsible for whatever learning I may show in the course of the amendments that I shall move.
Secondly, I do not have the slightest intention, despite the House being so full, of pressing any of the amendments that I shall move. The intent of them is to help. If the Lord Chancellor, with his usual courtesy, would care to give his views on them tonight, possibly accepting some of them, or, if he sees fit, between now and Report stage, we can have a useful Report stage if that be necessary. Some amendments may be carried over. On the other hand, we may find that we have reached agreement and that the Report stage can, therefore, be properly brief.
I turn to Amendment No. 1. Clause 6(6) and 6(8) appear to apply the general rule that in a private trust there shall be no more than four trustees of land. The amendment states that in clear terms and provides how the four are to be identified since, if the land is to be conveyed to the beneficiaries, they will hold as trustees for themselves, and if they are more than four in number a selection will be necessary. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: So far as it is within my power, perhaps I may match the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and thank the committee of the Law Society which has been extremely helpful in this technical area of the law. My officials have found it extremely useful to discuss these matters with it.
On the amendments that the noble Lord proposes tonight, my attitude will be that all of them require to be considered carefully. We can put on record the matters which require to be considered in the hope that by the next stage we shall have resolved them.
It is difficult to see why Amendment No. 1 is considered necessary. The principal provision is Clause 6(1), which confers on trustees of land for the purpose of exercising their functions as trustees all the powers of an absolute owner in relation to the land. There is nothing in Clause 6(2) to suggest that a power is being conferred on trustees of land to create a trust of land with more trustees than an absolute owner could appoint.
There is also nothing in Clause 6(2) to suggest that that is not subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Law of Property Act 1925 as amended by the Bill, which provides, among other things, for a conveyance of land to more than four persons in undivided shares to operate as a conveyance to the first four named in the conveyance on trust for all of them. That already enables the trustees to exercise a degree of control, by selecting the first four names and, given that the power in Clause 6(2) is not dependent on the beneficiaries asking for it to be exercised, it is questionable what benefit is to be gained by empowering the beneficiaries to specify which four of them shall be trustees for the others.
1534
There may, however, be further points to be taken into account and, therefore, I am willing to consider the matter further. But at the moment, the amendment appears in my humble view not to be necessary.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Together with others, I shall consider what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Exclusion and restriction of powers]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("trust") to end of line 10 and insert ("makes provision requiring any consent to be obtained to the exercise of any power conferred by section 6 or 7, the power may not be exercised without that consent.
( ) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to any enactment which prohibits or restricts the effect of provision of the description mentioned in them.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 2 arose out of concern that a particular provision concerning occupational pension schemes should not inadvertently be thwarted, but it has been drafted in more general terms so as to ensure that similar provisions which may exist in other fields are also not adversely affected. Clause 8 allows the powers of trustees of land to be restricted, excluded or made subject to consent by the disposition creating the trust. Section 35(4) of the Pensions Act 1995, however, prevents the powers of occupational pension scheme trustees being fettered by reference to requirements to obtain the consent of the employer, and it is right that this specific provision, aimed at a particular need in defined circumstances, should not be overridden by the general provisions of Clause 8. The same principle is applicable to specific provisions in other enactments which prohibit restriction on trustees' powers in certain circumstances, and the provision inserted into Clause 8 by Amendment No. 2 has been drafted so as to apply to all such provisions, not just the pensions legislation.
I think I should add at this point that my officials have been considering with others what amendments might be necessary elsewhere in the Bill to ensure that it does not cut across the scheme of the Pensions Act 1995. The greatest cause for concern, I believe, was Part II of the Bill, concerning appointment of trustees, but I hope that the amendments already tabled to that part of the Bill will ensure that the provisions of Part II will not affect pension schemes.
There is also concern that Clause 9 and Clauses 11 to 13 are inappropriate for pension schemes, and that argument has some force. There is some difficulty, however, in seeing how those clauses would apply to pension schemes, since they apply only in relation to beneficiaries who are beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in land subject to the trust, and it is not easy to see how pension beneficiaries can be said clearly to have such an interest. It is for that reason that I have not tabled amendments to exclude pension schemes specifically from the ambit of those clauses, but I should

1535
be happy to bring forward such amendments if satisfied that the clauses, as presently drafted, apply to pension scheme beneficiaries. I think it right to raise the point at this stage in case on reading these proceedings your Lordships or others may think that there is room for further improvement. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I have noted what the noble and learned Lord said. As he well knows, his remarks will be of great interest to those who are concerned about pension schemes and generally in regard to the matters of which he spoke.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Delegation by trustees]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new Clause—
DELEGATION BY TRUSTEES
(" .—(1) The trustees of land may, by power of attorney, delegate to any beneficiary or beneficiaries of full age and beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in land subject to the trust any of their functions as trustees which relate to the land.
(2) A power of attorney under subsection (1) shall be given by all the trustees jointly and may be revoked by any one or more of them.
(3) Where a function is delegated to a beneficiary by a power of attorney under subsection (1), it is revoked if he ceases to be beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in land subject to the trust; but where a function is delegated by such a power to a number of beneficiaries jointly it is not revoked in accordance with this subsection unless each ceases to be beneficially entitled to such an interest.
(4) A delegation under subsection (1) may be for any period or indefinite.
(5) A power of attorney under subsection (1) cannot be an enduring power within the meaning of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985.
(6) Beneficiaries to whom functions have been delegated under subsection (1) are, in relation to the exercise of the functions, in the same position as trustees (with the same duties and liabilities); but such beneficiaries shall not be regarded as trustees for any other purposes (including, in particular, the purposes of any enactment permitting the delegation of functions by trustees or imposing requirements relating to the payment of capital money).
(7) Where any function has been delegated to a beneficiary or beneficiaries under subsection (1), the trustees are jointly and severally liable for any act or default of the beneficiary, or any of the beneficiaries, in the exercise of the function if, and only if, it was not reasonable for the trustees to delegate the function to the beneficiary or beneficiaries.
(8) Neither this section nor the repeal by this Act of section 29 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (which is superseded by this section) affects the operation after the commencement of this Act of any delegation effected before that commencement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 9 is an important part of the new trusts of land scheme. It allows a degree of flexibility which will enable those who think it appropriate to do so to reproduce the functional equivalent of a strict settlement, but without the attendant complexity of the Settled Land Act scheme, by delegating as appropriate their functions as trustees in relation to land subject to the trust to a beneficiary who is beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in that land. A number of points of concern
1536
have arisen during the process of considering the Bill, however, and in order to deal with those points it seemed that the most satisfactory approach would be, instead of tabling numerous amendments to the existing Clause 9, to replace it with a redrafted version taking all the necessary changes on board and refining the drafting into the bargain.
The major area of concern about the clause as it stands is in relation to the liability of trustees for the acts and defaults of a beneficiary to whom they have delegated any of their functions. Subsection (7) presently makes the trustees strictly liable, on a joint and several basis. While this accords with the position under Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925 allowing temporary delegation in a trustee's absence abroad, and would give the trustees a clear incentive to adopt a supervisory role, it has been criticised on three main grounds.
The first is that the stringent liability, while reasonable in the exceptional circumstances of Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925, would discourage the use of the power to delegate indefinitely conferred by Clause 9, making the clause a white elephant. The second is that the Law Commission's report envisaged the possibility of a settlor who wishes to get as close as possible to the philosophy of the Settled Land Act actually obliging the trustees to delegate to the income beneficiary, and that this would make it much less likely that anyone would accept a trusteeship in such circumstances (where he could be made liable for the conduct of someone he might have no right to control). The third is that trustees might be forced by a court order to delegate to a beneficiary in the event of dispute, and to hold the trustees liable for a subsequent default by the beneficiary-delegate in those circumstances would be inequitable.
These points have been cogently argued by a variety of commentators both academic and professional, and subsection (7) of the new version of Clause 9 seeks to meet them. The new subsection limits the liability of trustees who delegate to circumstances where it was not reasonable for them to delegate to the beneficiary or beneficiaries in question, requiring them to consider whether they should in fact delegate, but freeing them from liability if they are obliged by settlor or court to do so. This narrowing of the liability of trustees is balanced, in the interests of other beneficiaries, by provision in the new subsection (6) for the beneficiary-delegate to be in the position of a trustee, with the concomitant duties and liabilities, in relation to the functions delegated.
A related point of concern is that delegation to a beneficiary should not affect the statutory machinery for overreaching, so that capital money must still be paid to or by the direction of two trustees or one trustee being a trust corporation, and the beneficiary is not to be taken as a trustee, or acting by the direction of trustees, for these purposes simply by reason of having had functions delegated to him. Subsection (6) of the new version of Clause 9 accordingly provides for a beneficiary not to be regarded as a trustee for the purposes of any enactment imposing requirements relating to the payment of capital money. It also ensures that a beneficiary cannot

1537
sub-delegate functions delegated to him, by providing that he is not to be regarded as a trustee for those purposes either, which closes off, for example, the possibility of sub-delegation by an enduring power of attorney.
Finally, the new version of Clause 9 limits the circumstances in which delegation of functions by trustees to a beneficiary will automatically be revoked. By virtue of subsection (3) of the new version of Clause 9, this will now happen only if the beneficiary in question ceases to have the requisite interest in the land subject to the trust, and where the delegation was made jointly and severally to more than one beneficiary, the delegation will remain effective in relation to the others as long as they retain their qualifying interest. Where there is a change in trustees, this will revoke the delegation only if it results in their ceasing to be unanimous that the delegation should continue. These changes will prevent delegations being revoked unnecessarily and having to be re-effected with the attendant risk both to beneficiaries and to third parties acting in reliance on the delegation. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I apologise in advance if what I have to say, respectfully, to the noble and learned Lord, about the clause is somewhat lengthy. I shall not cover the points that he has raised which have led to the new clause, on which representations have been made which have been listened to carefully by his department. One can see the result of them in the clause. I hope that I shall only refer to matters that have not been covered by the noble and learned Lord.
The new version of the clause meets a number of concerns that have been expressed by the Law Society, but some points have not quite been covered. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, in regard to the arrangement which exists between us on this occasion, could give his views or ensure that his department gives its views on those matters before Report stage.
The principle seems to be that if a beneficiary is appointed as attorney for the trustees under the clause, his appointment should automatically terminate if he ceases to have a beneficial interest sufficient to qualify him for appointment under the clause. That is quite straightforward, where only one beneficiary is appointed.
I am not sure that the next point that I make, arising out of that, was covered by the noble and learned Lord's remarks, but he will correct me if I am wrong. Where more than one is appointed, the appointment could be either joint or joint and several. Where it is joint, one appreciates that the attorneys can only act if all of them join in doing so. In those circumstances, the government amendment provides that the appointment is only revoked if all the beneficiaries concerned cease to have the relevant beneficial interests.
What is the position where there is a joint and several arrangement by way of appointment? Any one of the attorneys is able in those circumstances to act alone,
1538
without the concurrence or necessarily even the knowledge of the other beneficiary attorneys. The clause makes no provision for that situation, as I see it, but in principle if a beneficiary has ceased to hold his interest he ought not to be able to act on his own under the power of attorney. I pose the question and I ask for an answer, not now necessarily, but between now and Report stage, if that is deemed to be a valid point.
I turn to subsection (2). The principle of the subsection is that all the trustees must at all times be happy with the delegation. A power of attorney must be given by all of them and any one of them can at any time revoke the power under subsection (2). If a new trustee is appointed to the trust, title to the land will become vested in him jointly with the continuing trustees. Any transaction with third parties will therefore show his name as a party along with his co-trustees. In order for a purchaser to be satisfied that the beneficiary purporting to act on the trustees' behalf is empowered to do so, it will be necessary to show that he was appointed by all the current trustees. That will require either an additional provision in the Bill, as I see it, deeming the existing power of attorney to be adopted by a new trustee automatically by virtue of the appointment; or else that the new and continuing trustees grant a renewed power of attorney at or after the time when the appointment of the new trustee takes effect.
Bearing in mind the principle underlying subsection (2) to which I referred, I respectfully suggest that it is the latter alternative that would be more appropriate, in order that the matter is not overlooked by the new trustee. Could we have clarification that a power of attorney under Clause 9 automatically loses its effect on the appointment of any new or additional trustee? For my part, I would be quite content that the power of attorney will retain its validity if a trustee simply dies or retires from the trust, because in those circumstances there is no reason to suppose that the continuing trustees will necessarily wish the power to terminate at that time, which seems to be implicit in the amended clause. However, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord if he can confirm that the Government regard that as being the effect.
I turn to subsection (7), to which the noble and learned Lord referred specifically in his remarks. Subsection (7) of the original version of Clause 9 would have made the trustees answerable to the beneficiaries for the acts of the life tenant to whom they had delegated their powers. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, that would reverse both the existing rule in Section 29(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925 and the practical position of Settled Laud Act trustees. The prospect of vicarious liability would have created a major barrier to the use of the power. I am informed that this point was put to the noble and learned Lord's department on behalf of the Law Society with the suggestion that it would be preferable to replicate Section 29(3) of the Law of Property Act and that a trustee making a delegation should not be liable for the acts or defaults of the person to whom the power was delegated, but that

1539
the person to whom a delegation was made would be deemed to be in the position and to have the duties and liabilities of a trustee.
The amendment now put forward by the Government will, in subsection (6), make the delegate liable as a trustee, thus meeting one of the concerns expressed on behalf of the Law Society, and will partly meet the other concern in that, under subsection (7), the delegated trustees will be liable for the act or default of the delegate beneficiary (or beneficiaries), but now,
"if, and only if, it was not reasonable for the trustees to delegate",
the function in question to the beneficiary or beneficiaries.
I submit that that will leave the trustees in a very unsatisfactory position, and there will therefore still be a disincentive to trustees to use these new powers. Although the burden of proving that a trustee acted unreasonably will be on those who allege it, the amendment would nevertheless lead to uncertainty and increase the possibility of litigation. What is to be regarded as "reasonable"? Do the trustees have to consider whether delegation per se is reasonable—surely the clause assumes that it must be, even for a general delegation of all the trustees' functions regarding the land—or do they have to consider narrower issues, such as whether it is reasonable to delegate that power to that particular beneficiary at that particular time? Does the test apply only at the time of delegation, or over the entire period of delegation?
As the noble and learned Lord appreciates, trustees are not normally subject to a statutory obligation to act "reasonably"; the general law requires a very high standard of conduct by trustees in any event. This amendment contains a nebulous test, and while the burden of proof may be on the person making the allegation, the proposed test will significantly increase the risk of acrimonious dispute between beneficiaries and trustees—probably at the expense of the trust fund—while at the same time opening the trustees to personal risk of having to meet costs if the court holds against them. Is that a position which any trustee would find satisfactory?
Is it not possible simply to rely on the duties of trustees under the general law as to how they exercise their powers (in this case the power to delegate under this clause), without an express provision which may serve to confuse the extent of the trustees' responsibility? I ask this question not entirely rhetorically. Do the Government consider that Section 29(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925, which does not incorporate an equivalent to this subsection (7), has failed to protect beneficiaries?
The Lord Chancellor: I say at once that I wish to consider carefully all the matters that the noble Lord mentioned. Perhaps I may very briefly give my initial reactions to some of the points he made.
The first question was: what happens where the delegation is a several one? In that case I should have said that the first part of subsection (3) means that the beneficiary in question is no longer subject to the power of attorney in subsection (1). It is revoked if he ceases
1540
to be beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in land subject to the trust. That is his position. So far as the others are concerned, they are not affected.
On the other hand, in so far as it is a joint provision, the second part of subsection (3) operates to affect it. On rather a brief examination, I believe that the point the noble Lord made is met in that way. But my officials will look further at the question with those who are interested in these matters.
Turning to the noble Lord's second question, my impression is that the clause as drafted would have the effect that retirement or death of a trustee should not revoke automatically the delegation that the trustee has made. That would seem to be the right answer. Again, I will take advice on whether that desirable objective is attained by the present drafting.
Thirdly, the question is raised as to whether subsection (7) gives the desirable test. It was thought wise to have some possibility of the trustees being called to account if they were to exercise the power to delegate in a way that might cause damage to the subject matter of the trust; for example, by delegating to a beneficiary who was weak or feckless. The idea was that the test in Speight v. Gaunt, that trustees should exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent map of business, should apply to this. We will certainly consider carefully what the noble Lord said, and see whether further provision is required. In the meantime, perhaps in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. In the circumstances he mentions, I certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Consultation with beneficiaries]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("if provision to the effect that it is not") and insert ("unless provision to the effect that it is").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8, which are relevant to it.
Amendment No. 4 is the first of a group of amendments affecting the transitional provisions of Clause 11. Clause 11 presently provides for trustees of land so far as possible to consult the beneficiaries of full age and capacity and beneficially entitled to an interest in possession in land subject to the trust, and so far as consistent with the general interest of the trust to give effect to the wishes of those beneficiaries or the majority of them. This carries through the present effect of Section 26(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925, with the difference that the new provision applies unless a contrary intention is expressed, whereas Section 26(3) does not apply to an express trust for sale unless specific provision to that effect is made in the disposition. The original draft Bill made no transitional provision, but subsections (3)and (4) of Clause 11 allow for the person or persons who created the trust, or such of them as are

1541
alive and of full capacity, to "opt out" by a deed during the transitional period of one year beginning with the date of commencement, and for beneficiaries who do not want to be consulted to opt themselves out (and bind their successors) in the same way.
These provisions have been reconsidered in the light of representations from the legal profession, pointing out that a trust cannot be "opted out" if there is at commencement no settlor living and of full capacity. A settlor who has died or lost capacity might well have set up the trust in the knowledge that beneficiaries would not have the opportunity to control trustees' decisions in this way unless he spelt out the intention that they should have it; and it is therefore argued that the present transitional provisions will have the effect of changing the terms of some trusts but not others on a capricious basis. There has also been criticism of the provision for opting out for beneficiaries on the basis that it adds complication for little benefit. No one would wish to do that. These arguments were echoed to an extent by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at Second Reading, and in my view they have considerable force.
This group of amendments accordingly replaces the provisions for opting out for existing express trusts of land, offering instead the possibility to opt in, on the same conditions as are already provided for in subsection (3), so that the consultation requirement of subsection (1) does not apply to an existing express trust of land unless provision to the effect that it is to apply is made by a deed executed during the transitional period by the person or persons who created the trust or such as are still alive and of full capacity. This will reduce to the minimum the number of cases in which the provision could be said to be changing the terms of any trust. As a consequence, the provision for beneficiaries to opt out in subsection (4) will become superfluous, and so it is deleted. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord Mishcon: I appreciate very much the noble and learned Lord's courteous reference to what I said at Second Reading. I say at once that I agree with the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (3)")
The noble and learned Lord said: With leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. I have already spoken to them with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I should point out that there is a printing error in Amendment No. 7, which should read:
"Page 5, leave out line 41, and insert".
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, leave out line 41, and insert—

("(i) before the commencement of this Act by disposition, or

(ii) by a will made before the commencement of this Act even if the testator dies after the commencement of this Act (unless the will is republished by a codicil made after such commencement which expressly provides that subsection (1) shall apply) or by an assent under such a will; and").

The noble Lord said: I move the amendment as amended. The effect of the clause, as amended by the Government, is that the new rule in subsection (1) (which extends Section 26(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925) applies to trusts of land created by a disposition after commencement of the Act, subject to a right for the settlor to opt out for the trust; to "existing express trusts of land" created by a disposition before commencement of the Act only if the settlor is living and of full capacity and opts in for his trust during a one-year transitional period; and automatically to all trusts not created by a disposition, whether they arise before or after commencement of the Act.
The suggested amendment is concerned with the definition of what is an "existing express trust of land" in the context of trusts created by someone's will. Because wills are frequently made long before the testator's death, the amendment proposes that a trust created by a will of a person dying after commencement of the Act should count for this purpose as an existing trust unless the will itself was made after commencement or republished after commencement by a codicil which expressly adopts the new rules. This avoids an inadvertent application of the rules simply because, for example, a testator has made a short codicil altering the amount of one legacy. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment obviously requires careful consideration. I undertake to give it that consideration between now and Report stage.
Lord Mishcon: I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord said. In view of his remarks, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 44, leave out ("or (4)")
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Applications for order]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("a beneficiary under") and insert ("has an interest in property subject to").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
Amendment No. 9 is the first of a small group which together correct a problem with the description in Clause 14(1) of persons who may apply for an order. The problem that these amendments address is that the wording of Clause 14(1) presently appears to exclude a secured creditor of a beneficiary (notwithstanding the express reference to such persons in Clause 15(1)(d)) since such a person's interest does not arise "under the trust" as required by the definition of "beneficiary" in Clause 23(1).
The present provision of Section 30 of the Law of Property Act which Clauses 14 and 15 replace and which refers to "any person interested" certainly covers persons with charging orders, and it seems the apparent narrowing of the range of applicants came about because of the desire to ensure a wider range by including those interested in personalty under a mixed trust changing the reference to an interest in land to a reference to an interest under the trust.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 accordingly substitute for the references in Clause 14 to a beneficiary or a beneficiary's interest under the trust references to a person interested in the property subject to the trust and a person's interest in property subject to the trust.
Amendment No. 17 does the same for the reference to a beneficiary in Clause 17(2) which deals with the application of Clause 14 to trusts of the proceeds of sale of land. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("beneficiary's interest under") and insert ("person's interest in property subject to")
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Application of provisions to trusts of proceeds of sale]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 37, leave out from ("to") to ("of") in line 40 and insert ("a trust of proceeds of sale of land and trustees of such a trust as in relation to a trust of land and trustees")
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Notice to beneficiaries of proposed appointment of trustee]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, leave out line 37 and insert ("in a case where the beneficiaries are of full age and capacity and are absolutely entitled to the property subject to the trust.")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 12 is the first of a group of amendments which together limit the application of Part II of the Bill in response to concerns expressed at Second Reading, in particular by
1544
the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. With the Committee's leave, therefore, I think it is appropriate for me to speak to that whole group, Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 18 together.
Part II of the Bill has been seen as a source of difficulty, occasioned mainly by the fact that, as presently drafted, it applies very widely, and will accordingly apply to trusts with large numbers of beneficiaries as it does to small trusts where the beneficiaries are co-owners, with no provision for trusts to opt out. The Law Commission's original intention, evidenced by very early instructions, was that these provisions, giving a priority right to the beneficiaries to direct the trustees to appoint trustees of the beneficiaries' own choosing in certain circumstances, were intended to apply not to all trusts but only where the beneficiaries are all of full age and capacity and together absolutely entitled to the whole beneficial interest under the trust so as to be able to bring the trust to an end in any event.
Ensuring that Part II of the Bill applies only in that situation seems apt to deal with the principal area of concern and so Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 18 each replace the present qualifying condition that the beneficiaries are ascertained as being of full age and capacity with the condition that they must be of full age and capacity and that together they are absolutely entitled to the whole beneficial interest under the trust. Amendment No. 12 does that in the case of Clause 19, Amendment No. 14 for Clause 20 and Amendment No. 18 for Clause 21. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I hope the noble and learned Lord will not regard my comments as anything other than gratitude for what has been done. They are an attempt to point out something that may have been overlooked.
The wording requiring that the beneficiaries,
"are of full age and capacity and are absolutely entitled to",
the trust property is, in substance, identical to wording in Clause 6(2). It is believed that the intention in Clause 6(2) is that each of the beneficiaries in question must be absolutely entitled, so that if there are several beneficiaries it must be on the basis of concurrent interests; that is, as joint tenants or tenants in common. But in Clauses 19, 20 and 21—I am assuming for this purpose that my next attendance at the Dispatch Box fails to cut out Clause 19 from the Bill—the beneficiaries' interests need not be concurrent so long as together they account for the entire beneficial interest, with no other parties being actually or potentially interested.
If that is correct, the noble and learned Lord may on consideration feel that it is unsatisfactory that effectively the same expression should be used in two places in the Bill with different meanings. I respectfully ask that the Government consider coming forward on Report with an amendment to clarify that matter; for example, inserting the word "together" before the words "absolutely entitled" into the amended wording now proposed.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for those comments and will obviously wish to consider them

1545
carefully. I am particularly grateful for the drafting suggestion, which I shall commend to those advising me. In the meantime, I believe the noble Lord is agreeable that the amendment should be made part of the Bill, subject to further consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: As I understand the intention behind Part II of the Bill, which we have now reached, it is to reverse a 1948 court decision—Re Brockbank, Ward v. Bates [1948] Ch206—that, even if beneficiaries are together absolutely entitled to trust property and therefore able to put an end to the trust, they cannot control the appointment of trustees without bringing the trust to an end. The problem is that the bringing of the trust to an end may have adverse tax consequences and thus be a high price for the beneficiaries to pay for securing a change in the trusteeship.
The Bill, as clarified by the government amendments to Clauses 19, 20 and 21—if I may look ahead a little—seeks to address that situation by allowing the beneficiaries in those circumstances to direct the trustees whom to appoint where a vacancy exists or where there is power to appoint additional trustees. I interpose here to say that the Law Commission rightly points out that the right needs to be expressed in that way rather than as a direct power to appoint trustees; otherwise third parties will have to inquire into the circumstances of the trust in order to establish whether they are dealing with properly appointed trustees.
Curiously, that proposal would not go all the way to meet the difficulty arising from the 1948 case, as it would arise only if there was a vacancy and would only secure the appointment of one or more new trustees without necessarily involving the departure of those with whom the beneficiaries do not see eye to eye. One remembers, of course, that trustees of a private trust cannot act by a majority.
The proposals in the Bill are confined by two requirements which I am happy to support. The first is that they will not apply where the power to appoint trustees is vested in someone nominated for that purpose in the trust instrument. It would be wrong to apply those rules, for example, where the settlor had reserved to himself the power to appoint trustees, as that would involve potentially defeating the settlor's intention for his trust.
Secondly, the beneficiaries must all be of age and between them absolutely entitled to the trust property so as to be able to terminate the trust by unanimous agreement if they so choose. Similarly, the right to act under the proposed new provisions is, rightly, given only where the beneficiaries are unanimous.
The central concern with the proposals in the Bill relates to the insistence in Clause 19 that, where the two requirements to which I have just referred exist, the
1546
trustees cannot make an appointment without giving written notice to all the beneficiaries. The sanction for getting it wrong, even inadvertently, is the invalidity of an appointment of trustees. That could have serious implications for the actual or purported trustees and, indeed, for third parties dealing with them. Even without that section, the notice system would create all manner of problems for practitioners and potential expense in a wide variety of trust situations without necessarily achieving any benefit at all.
Perhaps I may give some examples. First, it is not clear to whom notice should be given if a beneficiary has died but no grant of probate or letters of administration have yet been made. That is addressed by government Amendment No. 21, but that may not necessarily assist—again if I may look ahead—if the beneficiary is domiciled abroad and a foreign law governs the devolution of his estate.
Secondly, the provisions depend heavily on the dates when different notices are given, yet nothing is said to fix those dates where, for example, notices are sent by post. Thirdly, the trustees may not have been notified of some disposition of a beneficiary's interest or of his death, thus invalidating any notice sent to the original beneficiary and with it anything done in reliance on the notice.
Fourthly, if a beneficiary cannot be traced or if it is not known whether he is still alive, the power to appoint trustees could become inoperable. Fifthly, the trustees may already know full well that the beneficiaries could not achieve unanimity; for example, where one of the trustees is himself a beneficiary. But the Bill would nonetheless require the expense of serving notices to be incurred anyway.
Sixthly—and the Committee will be pleased to know that this is my last example—the provision for protection of third parties dealing with the trustees is defective as it is confined to transactions with trust land so that under the Bill as drafted all manner of outsiders would have to inquire in detail into whether the circumstances of the trust were such as to fall within these rules; and if so, as to the steps taken to comply with them.
All these difficulties, I respectfully submit, go away if the notice procedure as set out in Clause 19 is removed, and provisions depending on it are removed. The government amendment—Amendment No. 21—meets at most only the first two of the problems I have described. Our three amendments therefore set out to remove the notice procedure and its attendant provisions. Even if my Amendment No. 16 is not adopted, the only situation in which beneficiaries, assuming them to be unhappy with the existing state of affairs and unanimous as to what to do about it, might be unable to require a new trustee to be appointed, if not given notice of the position by the trustees, would be if there were only four trustees or fewer than four but including a trust corporation—that is the maximum allowed—and one of them was proposing to retire with a new appointment being made in his place without the

1547
beneficiaries necessarily being aware of this. If Amendment No. 16 is adopted, there is no need for notice provisions in any event.
I have given as clearly as possible my main reason for saying that Clause 19 as it now stands should not be adopted and hope that the matter may have some consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord has explained clearly the position that he suggests that we should adopt. The present scheme of Part II does not go as far as the noble Lord's and it is true that, if one were going to go the whole distance of getting rid of the effects of Brockbank v. Bates, one would go this length. We had taken a rather less radical approach and one of the consequences of that approach is the need for notices to which the noble Lord has referred.
My impression of this is that there is a good deal to be said for the view that if the right to direct appointment or retirement would be exercisable at the beneficiaries' instigation—that is, qualified as a whole—there would be no need for the trustees to serve notice on the beneficiaries of their intention to appoint a new trustee and therefore Clause 19 would become superfluous with certain other advantages as well.
This is a fairly substantial change in the underlying proposals of this part of the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised that I would wish an opportunity to consider these proposals, which are affected not only by this Motion but also by later amendments. In the meantime, I wish to propose the amendments, which have the effect of making our own proposals better than they have been, but reserving to the noble Lord the result of consideration of his more radical proposal, which would have quite considerable effects on the wording of Part II.
Lord Mishcon: In the light of those remarks, it is with considerable pleasure that I say that I have no intention of moving that Clause 19 shall not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Appointment of trustee at instance of beneficiaries]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
("(a) there is no person (living and ascertained) nominated for the purpose of appointing new or additional trustees by the instrument, if any, creating the trust, and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment sets out to express, if I may say so respectfully, more clearly than in the existing paragraph (a) the circumstances in which the beneficiaries' power is to exist. I say that with very great deference because I believe that the noble and learned Lord, in view of his general remarks on other occasions, might agree with what I am now going to say. The referential drafting of the paragraph in the Bill is not helpful to the reader, the practitioner or indeed a member of the public who belongs to neither category. One aspect of the existing
1548
drafting which is not covered by the amendment is the fact that an additional, as opposed to a replacement, trustee may not be appointed where a trust corporation is in office. But that is covered, I suggest, by part of Amendment No. 16. I refer to it at this stage because it may abbreviate the discussion.
As your Lordships will see, instead of the reference as made in the Bill and in the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, we are asking that the matter be clarified, without a reference to another Act, by the clear wording of the clause. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am very happy to consider this matter.
Lord Meston: I rise only to say that, in case this becomes an entirely private dialogue, I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sure that that will make my consideration of it even more careful.
Lord Mishcon: I am delighted to have the assistance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and equally—he is, if I may say so, entitled to the description of learned—of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, leave out line 16 and insert—
("(b) the beneficiaries are of full age and capacity and are absolutely entitled to the property subject to the trust.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 124, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The beneficiaries may give either or both of the following written directions—

(a) a direction to the person of persons entitled to exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) or (where none of the trustees is a trust corporation) subsection (6) of section 36 of the Trustees Act 192.5 to exercise the power by appointing the person or persons specified in the direction;

(b) a direction to one or more of the existing trustees to retire from the trust.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment extends the proposal in Clause 20(2) by giving the beneficiaries not just power to direct the appointment of trustees where circumstances allow but also in the same defined circumstances, and acting unanimously, to require one or more of the existing trustees to resign. Although this is a little more radical than the Bill as drafted would seem to be, it meets the 1948 court decision of Brockbank v. Bates, to which I referred previously, more directly. It is to be remembered that

1549
the right only arises where the beneficiaries could instead anyway insist on the trust being wound up and distributed at their direction. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that there are two printing errors in the amendment. Line 3 of the amendment should read,
"a direction to the person or persons",
and line 5 should end,
"section 36 of the Trustee Act".
8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: This is a fundamental amendment of the scheme to which the noble Lord referred in connection with the Question of Clause 19 standing part of the Bill. I have certainly undertaken to consider it. It is more radical than the basic proposals under Part II of the Bill, but it has certain advantages, as the noble Lord explained, in relation to the giving of notice. I would like to have the opportunity of considering that further.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Subject to sections 22(3) and 22(5), any person to whom the direction is given shall join in executing any necessary deeds to comply with it unless before he has done so one or more of the beneficiaries by whom it is given gives to that person a written retraction of his direction or of his participation in a joint direction.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment allows for a retraction of the direction by any of the beneficiaries who joined in giving it, whereupon, since a direction must be unanimous, it would cease to be effective. The point stems from concern as to the risk of undue influence, which could easily arise if beneficiaries are indeed to be given the right to require trustees to resign. An example could be where there is one dominant beneficiary who, perhaps by misrepresenting the history, induces the others—perhaps his children who have recently come of ageߞto sign a direction requiring the resignation of a trustee and perhaps the replacement of that trustee by the dominant beneficiary himself, when that trustee has in fact been resolutely standing up for their interests against the unreasonable demands of the dominant beneficiary.
Having given that example, I considered with my colleagues whether one should have a direct reference in this part of the Bill to potential, undue influence. I decided, with my colleagues, against that. That would implicitly put trustees on inquiry on this issue in all cases even where it is not suspected in fact. If a trustee suspects that one or more of the beneficiaries may not be well served by the change to which they had put their signatures, he will wish to explore the matter with them and perhaps encourage them to take fully independent advice on it. A mechanism to allow them to retract is important to avoid claims by other dominant
1550
beneficiaries that once the direction is given it is binding and the recipient is irrevocably bound to act on it. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: No solution proposed to the problems sought to be addressed in Part II of the Bill is completely free from some degree of concern. The concern that underlies this amendment is something that we would want to consider carefully in considering whether this more radical solution should be adopted. With these perhaps slightly less encouraging words than some I have used earlier, the noble Lord may feel able to leave this matter with us for further consideration.
Lord Mishcon: I have found the words sufficiently encouraging to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 20, leave out subsections (3) and (4)
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows from what I said about Clause 19. In the circumstances I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Appointment of substitute for incapable trustee]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 10, leave out line 34 and insert—
("(c) the beneficiaries are of full age and capacity and are absolutely entitled to the property subject to the trust.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 1, after ("(4)") insert ("and sections 22(3) and 22(5)")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is really consequential, despite being separate, to my Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. In the circumstances I believe that it is appropriate for me not to speak to the amendment now but to wait until Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are reached.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Appointments: supplementary]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 11, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) A notice under section 19 shall be taken to have been given to a person by having been left at, or sent by registered post to, his last known place of residence or business in the United Kingdom; and sections 17 and 18 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 (provisions about notices where intended recipient is dead) apply to the giving of such a notice as they apply to the service of a notice affecting land.
(2B) A direction under section 20 or 21 shall be taken to have been given to a person by having been left or sent as specified in subsection (2A) unless he proves that he did not receive it.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 20 is the first of a series of amendments which deal with points concerning the practical operation of the provisions of Part II of the Bill. With the leave of the Committee, I believe it appropriate to speak to that group of amendments together; namely, Amendments Nos. 20, 23 and 25.
Amendment No. 20 makes provision as to the service of the notice which the trustees must give the beneficiaries under Clause 19 so that they have the opportunity to direct appointment of a trustee of their choice, and of the beneficiaries' direction to the trustees under Clause 20 or 21.
The trustees' notice may be given by leaving it at, or sending it by registered post to, each beneficiary's last known place of residence or business, and advantage is taken of the provisions of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 so that service is not invalidated where a beneficiary has died but the trustees are not aware of the death. In the case of the beneficiaries' direction, leaving or posting the direction is not conclusive, but rather, in line with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and similar provisions, raises a rebuttable presumption of proper service. This difference is justified by the fact that in one case the donor of the notice is under a duty to give it, and in the other that the recipient of the direction is under a duty to act on it.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, taken together, make provision to similar effect as is now made in respect of Clause 11. They ensure that Part II will not apply if the disposition creating the trust indicates a contrary intention, and that it does not apply to existing trusts unless steps to ensure that it applies are taken by the set law within a year of the commencement of the Act. Therefore, wherever Part II would be inappropriate, even though the trust would qualify, it will be possible to ensure that it does not apply. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: The remarks I ventured to make as regards Clause 19 are pertinent to this amendment and to other amendments which the noble and learned Lord mentioned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert ("or in contravention of the restrictions imposed by the Trustee Act 1925 on the number of trustees")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is merely intended to make clear that the restrictions imposed by the Trustee Act 1925 on the number of trustees are to apply and will not be overridden by the provisions of the Bill. The provision of Clause 20(4) and Clause 21(3), as originally drafted, could otherwise be argued to produce an exception to the normal rules in that regard. I respectfully refer that to the noble and learned Lord to see whether, on consideration, he agrees with the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The advice I have from parliamentary counsel at present is that the provisions of Part II of the Bill, as presently drafted, cannot
1552
properly be said to override the general restrictions on the number of trustees since those restrictions are set out on the face of the power which the trustees are directed by the beneficiaries to exercise in Section 36 of the Trustee Act 1925. One sees these expressly in Section 36(1) just before paragraph (a) and again clearly set out in the concluding words of subsection (6). However, I am happy to reconsider the objection to that advice before Report stage. In the meantime it is my advice that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Mishcon: I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said. He was kind enough to say that he will look at the amendment in the intervening period before Report stage. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22:
>Page 11, line 20, leave out subsection (4)
The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment too is covered by my observations on Clause 19. In the circumstances I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 11, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) This Part does not apply in relation to a trust created by a disposition in so far as provision that it does not apply is made by the disposition.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 11, line 23, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) No appointment pursuant to a direction under section 20 or 21 shall prejudice any proper lien or other rights of any person in relation to property subject to the trust or interests under the trust nor, if to do so would prejudice any such lien or rights of his, shall any person to whom a direction to retire is given under section 20(2)(b) be obliged to comply with it until reasonable arrangements have been made for the preservation of his lien or otherwise for the protection of his rights.").
The noble Lord said: I venture to suggest that this is rather an important amendment. Its purpose is to protect the proper rights of existing trustees who may have taxation liabilities in connection with the trust fund or who may quite properly have incurred contractual liabilities to third parties in dealing with the trust property. The point is even stronger, I suggest, if the direction is to appoint non-resident trustees, which action would trigger a capital gains tax disposal of the entire trust fund. The amendment makes it clear that they retain any proper lien and are not bound to join in complying with the beneficiary's direction until they are reasonably protected. That could be relevant where trust investments are held in a nominee name such that as soon as a trustee retires the trust assets, to which

1553
otherwise he might have legitimate recourse to satisfy his liabilities, are entirely outside his control. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 24 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 25 on the pre-emption rule.
The Lord Chancellor: The object of Amendment No. 24 is desirable in principle. Our doubt is about whether it is necessary in all the circumstances of Part II. However, as we are to reconsider Part II in any event, I shall reconsider this amendment also.
Lord Mishcon: Not only because of what the noble and learned Lord has said, but also because of what the Chairman has said—or have I to say "Chair"?>
Baroness Trumpington: Never!
Lord Mishcon: I am so glad not to have to say that. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 23, leave out from ("Part") to end of line 24 and insert ("does not apply in relation to an existing express trust unless provision to the effect that it is to apply is made by a deed executed during the transitional period—

(a) in a case in which the trust was created by one person and he is of full capacity, by that person, or

(b) in a case in which the trust was created by more than one person, by such of the persons who created the trust as are alive and of full capacity.

( ) In subsection (5)—

(a) "an existing express trust" means a trust created before the commencement of this Act by a disposition, and

(b) "the transitional period" means the period of one year beginning with the commencement of this Act.

( ) A deed executed for the purposes of subsection (5) is irrevocable.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 25, Amendment No. 26:
Line 12, after ("disposition,") insert ("or
("(ii) by a will made before the commencement of this Act even if the testator dies after the commencement of this Act (unless the will is republished by a codicil made after such commencement which expressly provides that subsection (1) shall apply) or by an assent under such a will;").
The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 introduce the right to opt out of the Part II rules in new trusts created after the Bill comes into effect and exclude the operation of those rules for existing trusts unless their settlor opts in within a one-year transitional period. As with Clause 11, I venture to propose that a trust created by a will of a person dying after commencement should count for that purpose as an existing trust unless the will itself was made after commencement or republished after
1554
commencement by a codicil which expressly adopts the new rules. That would avoid an inadvertent application of the rules simply because, for example, the testator made a short codicil—I have used those words before—altering the amount of just one legacy. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am as content to consider this amendment as I was to reconsider the earlier amendment which it substantially replicates, but in a different connection.
Lord Mishcon: I am trying to find new words to say that I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I cannot think of any for the moment, so perhaps I may use the same words again and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 26, as an amendment to Amendment No. 25, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 25 agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
Page 11, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) This part does not apply to any trust scheme within the meaning of Part I of the Pensions Act 1995.").
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord referred earlier to consideration that he was giving to the Pensions Act 1995 and generally in regard to pension matters. I tabled this amendment to meet concerns expressed during our Second Reading debate, as the noble and learned Lord knows. In the circumstances and in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I do not intend to move Amendment No. 27.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 28 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions consequential on section 2]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 14, line 34, leave out ("the chargee") and insert ("giving effect to the charge")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 effect technical changes to the provisions of Schedule 1, and I propose to speak to all three amendments together. Schedule 1, which is consequential on Clause 2, makes provision for cases which presently result in a strict settlement being imposed under the Settled Land Act and provides that after commencement those cases will instead result in a trust of land under the new regime. Amendment No. 28 clarifies paragraph 3, which deals with family charges; that is, cases where land is charged in consideration of marriage or by way of family arrangement with a rentcharge for a person's life or with capital, annual or periodical sums for any person. Any such charge made by an instrument coming into effect after commencement of the Act will have effect as a declaration of trust in favour of the chargee.

1555
Amendment No. 28 makes it clear that the land is held on trust, not for the chargee as such, but rather so that effect may be given to the charge.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 clarify the position where, after commencement of the Act, a person purports to create an entailed interest. It will not be possible under the new regime to create entailed interests, and paragraph 5 provides for the attempt to grant such an interest to any person to take effect as a declaration that the property is held in trust for that person. Amendment No. 29 makes it clear that the property is to be held in trust absolutely for that person absolutely, so that he or she, if of full age and capacity, can have the property transferred to him or her. Amendment No. 30 closes a possible loophole; namely, where a person attempts to create an entailed interest not by granting it direct to another but by declaring himself a trustee in tail. In that case, the declaration of trust in tail is simply ineffective, and the effect may be illustrated by an example. If A purports to declare himself trustee in tail for B, he will simply remain the owner; and if he purports to declare himself trustee for B for life and C in tail thereafter, B's life interest will not be affected, but the property will simply revert to A, or his estate, when that life interest ceases. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I am slightly concerned about the drafting, if not the result, of Amendment No. 28. As presently drafted, the last line of paragraph 3 reads:
"the instrument operates as a declaration that the land is held in trust for the chargee".
As amended, it would read, "the instrument operates as a declaration that the land is held in trust for giving effect to the charge". In other words, the provision would refer to the purpose of the trust rather than to the individual beneficiary. I find that clumsy and I am not sure that I understand it. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is intended that the instrument shall be treated as operating as a declaration that the land is held in trust solely to give effect to the charge? If that is the intention, I wonder whether the wording can be reconsidered.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention is that the land should be held so that effect may be given to the charge. However, I am happy to reconsider the wording.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:
Page 15, line 6, after ("trust") insert ("absolutely").
Page 15, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Where a person purports by an instrument coming into operation after the commencement of this Act to declare himself a tenant in tail of real or personal property, the instrument is not effective to create an entailed interest.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 28 and, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of statutory provisions imposing trust for sale]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 17, line 15, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 20 and insert ("(2)—

(a) after "a trust" insert "for the persons who (but for this Act) would from time to time be entitled to the ownership of the land by virtue of its reverter with a power, without consulting them,", and

(b) for the words "upon trust" onwards substitute "in trust for those persons; but they shall not be entitled by reason of their interest to occupy the land.").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 31 is part of a group, comprising also Amendments Nos. 32 and 37, which seeks to minimise the possibility of practical problems in the peculiar circumstances of cases arising under the Reverter of Sites Act 1987. With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak to all three amendments together.
Section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 concerns any enactment (such as the School Sites Act) which provides for land to revert to the ownership of a particular person where that land was made available for particular purposes and has ceased to be used for those purposes. The land, instead of reverting, vests on trust in the persons in whom it was vested before the particular use ceased; and the trust in question is an express trust to sell the land and hold the net profits until sale and the net proceeds after costs and expenses on trust for the people who would, but for these provisions, be entitled to the land on reverter. The present amendments in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 substitute for this trust for sale a trust of land, with a power to sell and to retain, and a duty to consult certain beneficiaries. Practitioners in this specialised area—as undoubtedly it is—have, however, alerted my department to possible practical problems with this approach which the present group of amendments sets out to rectify.
The great advantage of the present provisions of Section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 is that they make the position of the trustees very clear and simple in cases where there are often no beneficiaries, only people claiming to be beneficiaries whose entitlement may be difficult to sort out. Irrespective of the identity of the beneficiaries, the trustees can sell the land and, out of the proceeds of sale, deduct all their costs and expenses and meet the capital gains tax liability which they have as trustees. They can sort out the difficult question of entitlement later, if necessary going to court for directions with the proceeds of sale available to cover their costs of doing so in good faith. Under the Reverter of Sites Act, as amended by the Bill at present, however, the question of sale is neutral and there is a duty to consult.
The difficulty which has been identified is that the trustees are put at risk if they sell against the wishes of a claimant who asks for the land to be conveyed to him in specie but whose entitlement is in doubt. If that claimant's entitlement is subsequently established in court proceedings, he may sue for loss as a result of the land being sold rather than conveyed to him in specie. Trustees will also be faced with the difficulty that if

1557
claimants do not wish them to sell and there are difficult issues which need the directions of the court, they may have to incur the costs out of their own resources before they have any proceeds of sale out of which they can be paid.
In view of the fact that the trustees in reverter of sites cases have the trust thrust upon them and will often be such persons as the incumbent and churchwardens (particularly in the case of school sites), there appears to be a strong case for treating this as a special case, rather analogous to the position of personal representatives of a person who dies intestate. Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 37 accordingly change the existing amendments which the Bill makes to the Reverter of Sites Act so as to ensure that the trust imposed permits the trustees to sell the land and hold the proceeds for the putative beneficiaries without being required to consult them or allow them to occupy the land, and with provision for meeting necessary costs, expenses and taxes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 17, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) In accordance with the amendments made by this paragraph, in the sidenote, for "trust for sale" substitute "trust".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 19, line 28, leave out from ("section") to second ("the") in line 29 and insert ("does not apply to capital money arising under").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 33 seeks to correct a mistake that appears to have come about by an oversight in the process of updating the minor and consequential amendments made by the Bill to other enactments. That has the inadvertent effect of narrowing the power of advancement in Section 32(2) of the Trustee Act 1925. The amendment changes the provisions in the Bill so that the power of advancement will continue to be available in respect of property other than capital money under the Settled Land Act, including interests under a trust of land. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: The noble and learned Lord has already explained how this amendment comes about. I add one comment in the hope that it will be of assistance. The amendment appears to those learned in these matters to be adequate so far as it protects the existing position of Settled Land Act trusts. The question that arises is whether it is wholly adequate in respect of new trusts of land. As I understand it, the argument is that where land is involved the availability of Section 32 of the Trustee Act 1925 depends upon the words of Section 32(1). In that connection, I believe that there is a decided case which is relevant here, Re Collard's Will Trusts [1961] Ch. 293, the words of which will not be amended by the Bill. Accordingly, the proposed amendment to Section 32(2) has the desired
1558
effect of maintaining the availability of the statutory power of advancement in respect of trusts of land. I know that practitioners will regard it as very helpful to have the assurance that that is the intended effect of the amendment and that the effect is there.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that it is right for me to consider the matter and give an answer with deliberation. My impression is that the effect is as stated, but I believe that it is wise for me to look at it as part of the consideration of these matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 19, line 50, at end insert—
("( ) In section 36(1)—

(a) after "trusts or powers reposed in or conferred on him" insert "or declares that he has been directed to retire therefrom under section 20 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996", and

(b) after "desiring to be discharged," insert "declaring that he has been directed to retire".

( ) In section 39(1)—

(a) after "is desirous of being discharged from the trust" in both places where these words occur insert "or has been directed to retire therefrom under section 20 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996", and

(b) after "the trustee desirous of being discharged" insert "or directed to retire.".").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 makes minor changes to the Trustee Act 1925 which are consequential upon what I have said in regard to Amendment No. 15 to give the beneficiaries a right in certain circumstances to direct a trustee to retire. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I will consider the amendment, which is consequential upon the noble Lord's other amendment, along with the main thrust of the amendments.
Lord Mishcon: I still cannot find an alternative way of putting it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 25, leave out lines 28 to 31.
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 together correct an unintended effect of the present consequential amendment and repeal effected by the Bill in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak to them together. The amended provision concerns the Revenue's charge over certain assets for the purpose of recovering unpaid tax. At present, interests under a trust for sale are excluded from the charge, and the consequential amendment substitutes for the reference to interests under a trust for sale a reference to interests under a trust of land. That has the effect of significantly reducing the range of assets to which the charge may attach and is inconsistent with the intention underlying Section 237(3), which was to exclude interests in personalty from the charge, the reference to interests under trusts for sale being included because such

1559
interests are presently regarded as personalty by virtue of the doctrine of conversion. Since the Bill abolishes the doctrine of conversion, an interest under a trust of land will be an interest in land, not personalty, and should not come within the exclusion in Section 237(3). Amendment No. 35 accordingly removes the substituted reference to trust of land, while Amendment No. 36 adds to the consequential repeal some words in Section 237(3) which have no meaning once the reference to trusts for sale has gone but which were missed first time around. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 32, line 34, column 3, at end insert—
(", whether statutory or not,"")
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this with the previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 32, leave out lines 44 to 48.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Deregulation (Special Hours Certificates) Order 1996
8.32 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order is to be made under the powers provided in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It relates to two aspects of the provision of facilities for drinking alcohol at late night dances.
The order makes two substantive changes to existing laws. First, it provides for the reinstatement of the hour which would otherwise be lost to both operators and patrons of establishments which are authorised under the licensing laws to open into the small hours when the clocks go forward at 1 a.m. at the start of summer time. Secondly, it introduces a new arrangement, that of granting these special hours certificates on a provisional basis. This provision will provide a parallel with existing arrangements for the grant of standard liquor licences.
The order has received the usual comprehensive examination since it was first laid before Parliament in draft form in November. No changes to the order have been proposed, and it has been reported by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee as in a form satisfactory to be submitted to this House for affirmative resolution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord Haskel: My Lords, we on this side of the House have no objection to the order and give it our support. We have just one question. What happens when the clocks go back in the autumn?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, when the clocks go back in the autumn, the Government have decided not to attempt to extract a quid pro quo. The hour which is presently gained when summer time ends will not be taken away from those wanting to dance into the early hours.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is not our wish to be killjoys. We have no objection to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish and Plants) Order 1996
8.34 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [I2th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order prohibits all fishing activities in the area designated in it which are or may be affected by oil and other chemical pollutants as a result of the grounding of the oil tanker "Sea Empress". The order also prohibits the harvesting of edible seaweed—laver, dulse and caragheen—and a plant commonly known as samphire or glasswort. It is important that we are clear about the purpose of the order. It is made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and its purpose is to protect the consumer from potential danger from eating contaminated seafood.
I recognise that fishermen welcome the order because they believe that a statutory ban strengthens their case for compensation. But the legislation does not permit us to impose the order for that purpose and the extent of the area affected is dictated by the needs of consumer safety.
With that in mind, I am extremely grateful to the local fishermen for their responsible attitude in imposing a voluntary ban on fishing as soon as the incident occurred. That gave us the time to designate the area on the basis of scientific analysis of samples of fish and shellfish from the area and on computer modelling of the likely spread of the oil. Had we not been given that

1561
time for study and analysis, the area of the ban would have been much more indiscriminate. The designated area covers about 810 square miles and extends from St David's Head to Port Eynon Point.
Your Lordships may also be aware that we made a separate order on 20th March banning fishing for salmon and migratory trout in all rivers discharging into the area. It proved too complicated to negotiate a voluntary ban and consumer safety demands that we ensure that no contaminated fish enter the food chain. That order will be debated in this House on a later occasion.
We are continuing to monitor levels of hydrocarbons in fish and shellfish both inside and outside the area of the current ban. The analysis of total hydrocarbons is being undertaken by the Directorate of Fisheries Research at Burnham on Crouch. It is using samples collected under the guidance of the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate at Milford Haven.
The inspectors have been closely involved from the start, both in liaison with local fishermen on behalf of the Government and in the co-ordinated response to the incident by all agencies. I am grateful to them and to all those involved in the Joint Response Centre for their hard and effective work.
Enforcement of this order is being undertaken by environmental health officers from the local authorities, by the Milford Haven Port Health Authority and by officials of the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee. All those have been issued with the appropriate authorisation to supplement the role of the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate. I pay tribute to their efficiency and willingness to undertake this work. We have also increased the number of surveillance flights over the affected area and sea fisheries protection vessels have increased the frequency of their visits.
Your Lordships will wish to know how long we expect the order to stay in place. I cannot yet answer that question. As I have said, we are continuing to monitor levels of contamination both inside and outside the area. We will use those results to determine whether the area should be amended or whether the ban should be lifted on certain species.
At present, levels of total hydrocarbons in fin-fish and crustacea are comparatively low. However, the water is cold and feeding activity is probably low. We need to check whether the levels rise as the water warms up. There also remains a possibility of further contamination from the large quantities of dispersed oil in the water column. In addition, the beached and landed oil is being remobilised. The order must remain in force until it is clear how these situations are developing. It seems likely, however, that it will be possible to lift the ban on fishing for fin-fish and crustacea first. We will have to consider whether that needs to be confined to specific areas in the light of the scientific analysis.
That analysis does not only include testing total hydrocarbons; we are also looking for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). That is a more complicated and time-consuming procedure, but as
1562
some of these substances are known or suspected human carcinogens, it is vital that we determine their concentrations before the ban is lifted.
I well recognise the effect that this ban is having on both commercial and leisure fishing. When the effect is fully known, the insurers of the "Sea Empress" and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund will meet all valid claims for economic loss. Meanwhile the insurers are paying hardship cases immediately; I understand that cheques have already been issued to seven of the nine fishermen who have submitted claims. I am grateful to the insurers for their willingness to help in this way.
In the longer term, of course, we need to ensure that consumers are confident that fish from Wales is of high quality and good to eat. We will be exploring how to do that with the industry and with relevant promotion bodies.
The order is designed to ensure the safety of consumers. I appreciate that many leisure and sport fishermen return their catch to the sea and that it does not enter the human food chain. Nevertheless, I make no apology for our caution over this or over the order in general; we are not prepared to take risks with consumer safety. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 29th February be approved.—[12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the difficult circumstances which obtain. He has already answered some of the questions that I had intended to ask. The situation is disastrous, as he indicated. An area of no less than 810 square miles is subject to a prohibition order for an indefinite period.
One tends to forget the effect that the disaster has had on west Wales. The order extends the prohibition from St. David's in the west to the Gower Peninsula at Port Eynon Point. The loss affects not only sea fishermen—because the Minister mentioned consequential prohibitions on salmon and sewin fishing. For instance, the coracle fishermen in Carmarthen have had to stop. I endorse his comment that the fishermen have behaved with extraordinary fortitude and generosity of heart. However, I am bound to say that many of them believe that the Government might have reciprocated with a full public inquiry along the lines of that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, into the "Braer" disaster. It appears that the consequences of this catastrophe will be greater than those of the "Braer".
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that, with the assistance of his persuasive powers, the insurers have behaved in a more flexible way than many insurers behave. It is most heartening to hear that seven of the nine claims have already been paid. However, that is limited to fishermen. There will be a colossal knock-on effect on the tourist industry. Will those claims also be paid by the insurers? Has any

1563
estimate yet been put on the number of people who will be affected economically, either directly or indirectly? Has any estimate been made of the likely financial loss which will arise out of the imposition of this order? I understand that the Minister might legitimately say that it is too early to comment. However, I should like as much precision as he can give, not for my own specific purposes but because of the deep worries of many people I know in the area. I have known the area well for many years and I know that people are seriously worried about the future of their lives and their livelihoods in that beautiful part of Wales.
Of course, the order, or something like it, is necessary and there will be no objection from us. However, alas, one hears the clang of the stable door banging shut long after the horse has galloped away over the horizon.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for what thanks were contained in the noble Lord's remarks. I share the tributes that he paid to all those involved locally who have helped so much in making the best of a very unfortunate incident, to put it mildly. I can confirm that the compensation fund is open to those other than fishermen. Indeed, I believe that the first person to claim ran a windsurfing school. However, the immediate fund of £2 million is restricted to the hardship which people suffer rather than to the extent of their economic loss. As yet we have no current estimate of the eventual economic loss. We have yet to see the opening of the tourist season. It is confidently predicted that the beaches will be clear by Easter, but the effect of the scare on tourism has yet to be seen.
We hope that fishing will return to normal reasonably rapidly but, drawing analogies from the "Braer" disaster, the shellfish fisheries may be affected for many years. Shellfish do not metabolise hydrocarbons—they do not expel them from their bodies—and one must wait until the shellfish which have ingested them die.
There is nothing that I can add in answer to the noble Lord. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am grateful for the assistance that he has given and I recognise that there are limits. However, he said that it was hoped that the beaches would be clear by Easter, which is only a couple of weeks away. I should declare a limited interest, having attempted to catch fish on the River Towy for some years. Is there any indication of when the river fishing might return to normal, including coracle fishing?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in order to establish that the sewin and the salmon are not polluted we must first catch some. We are trying to do so through the use of established nets near the river mouths. As yet, none has been caught because the fish do not appear to have returned. It will be a matter of, it is to be
1564
hoped, as few weeks as possible before we can establish that they are free from pollution. We will then open the fisheries immediately.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Friendly Societies Act 1992) Order 1996
8.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. I shall speak also to the Deregulation (Credit Unions) Order 1996. I am pleased to commend both orders to your Lordships tonight.
As your Lordships might recall, the Deregulation (Building Societies) Order 1995 was debated in this House last November. The draft orders presently before the House continue the theme of promoting economic growth, widening competition and enhancing the future of mutual institutions by removing rules and regulations which place unnecessary burdens on them.
Under the Deregulation (Friendly Societies Act 1992) Order, friendly societies will benefit, in particular, from more flexible regulatory and accounting requirements. Other changes include extending the activities of branches of incorporated societies; removing the need for societies to draw up a statement of life assurance business every five years if they carry out an annual valuation; and making it easier and quicker for societies to apply for confirmation of amalgamation, transfer or conversion.
The Deregulation (Credit Unions) Order will provide a new opportunity for growth in the movement by extending the possible scope of their activities and introducing a new qualification for membership. The maximum shareholding is also increased. It will allow those credit unions which can demonstrate satisfactory management and systems greater flexibility in the use of their funds by increasing the limits on loans to members and the maximum allowable repayment periods.
The credit unions themselves have asked for the changes that this order will give them. They find that they are operating under far too many restrictions at the moment and this order goes a long way to freeing them from bureaucracy while keeping in place the necessary protection for members. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and succinct summary of the two orders. We

1565
debated the deregulation of building societies a few months ago and I was able to say that we on this side of the House very much wish to encourage the widest possible range of legal structures for businesses and other enterprises, subject to best management and governance practice.
We therefore welcome the measures contained in both orders. They will enable friendly societies and credit unions to widen and improve their services to their policy holders and other customers and to strengthen their competitive position vis-à-vis limited companies while still maintaining the paramount protection of consumer interests. I believe that the proposals have those objectives and I commend them to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Credit Unions) Order 1996
8.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before nine o'clock.

  Gibraltar: Pensions
  Gibraltar: Pensions
  Lithuanian-US Military Exercises
  Lithuanian-US Military Exercises
  Red Arrows: Performance in Indonesia
  Red Arrows: Performance in Indonesia
  Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Designations
  Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Designations
  Stratospheric Ozone Monitoring
  Stratospheric Ozone Monitoring
  Sustainable Development
  Sustainable Development
  Child Road Deaths
  Child Road Deaths
  Rail Passenger Deaths
  Rail Passenger Deaths