Sitting of 7 May 1996

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

    Land Mines
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart on anti-personnel land mines. [26919]
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the use of land mines; and if he will make a statement. [26921]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is today attending the Western European Union Council of Ministers meeting in Birmingham and much regrets that he cannot be here.
    We shall work actively for a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel land mines and keep in close touch with our allies about that issue. We welcome the outcome of the United Nations weaponry convention as an important step in the right direction.
    Mr. Timms: Will the Minister join me in commending the ban introduced by the French Government on the
    2
    production, stockpiling and export of all anti-personnel land mines? Why have the British Government not done the same?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We need to balance the real need to protect our armed forces with the need to move towards reducing the humanitarian dangers posed by land mines. We believe that we have achieved the right balance. We are in close touch with the French and we believe that we are doing things similar to them.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is that not a contradiction: on the one hand, seeking a worldwide ban; while, on the other, seeking to modernise our requirements? Does that not point to a lack of clarity in the Government's view?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: When we seek to achieve a balance between two inherently conflicting aims—both of which are perfectly justified—it is inevitable that we shall not achieve one or the other in totality. There is a real need to protect our armed forces as well as to protect civilians from the increasingly damaging effect of the proliferation of land mines. For that reason, we have supported a total ban on anti-personnel land mines and we shall work hard to achieve that objective. We had hoped that that conclusion would come out of last week's United Nations weaponry convention. Unfortunately, we did not get that far. We would have liked to go further, but we were very pleased to progress as far as we did.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the Minister aware of the recent International Committee of the Red Cross report which says that the military value of anti-personnel land mines is substantially overstated? Does that not give rise to the moral question: should any self-respecting nation deploy weapons that cause human agony to civilians on a scale out of all proportion to their military value?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, I have seen and read that report. I disagree with its conclusions. We must remember also that we are trying to contend with the real issue of those

    3
    countries that proliferate land mines indiscriminately rather than monitoring them and using them carefully in accordance with the rules of law, as this country does.
    Dr. David Clark: Does not the Minister's answer expose the Government's recent announcement that they would ban land mines as a sham of the highest order? The reality is that, at a time when most other countries are seeking to ban land mines altogether, the Government are planning to modernise their stock by purchasing brand new and more effective land mines. Where will the Minister get the new land mines? Does he plan to commission British companies to produce them or will we import them from a third country? Has he no shame in escalating the production of that most deadly and barbaric of weapons?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Some 30 countries, including the United Kingdom, are hoping to ban land mines altogether. At the end of his question, the hon. Gentleman raised an issue that I freely acknowledge to be genuine, and that needs to be addressed, but we have not made a decision to upgrade our land mines. If we do not achieve a worldwide ban on land mines, as we would like, we shall consider at the appropriate time—which is not now—improving our land mines so that they incorporate a self-destruct capacity, which our present land mines do not. It must be sensible to make the land mines that we decide to continue to use—if we are forced into that position—less dangerous to the civilian population whom we are trying to protect.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British arms industry cannot be blamed for the circumstances in some parts of the world, such as Cambodia? More money needs to be spent on those gallant groups that are searching for and destroying land mines and trying to make sure that village paths are clear and people can till their fields. Is there no fund that can be used to make sure those people are able to continue that work?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend raised an extremely important point. I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom has contributed nearly £20 million to the clearance of mines in countries such as Cambodia. That issue is very much to the forefront of our thinking. The mines used by British forces do not pose a threat to civilian populations.

    Army Recruitment
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's ability to recruit personnel to the Army. [26920]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): We have taken and will continue to take decisive and urgent action to ensure that the Army gets the 15,000 high-quality new recruits that it needs each year.
    Mr. Turner: Is it not the height of incompetence that the Conservative Government have cut manpower
    4
    strength in the British Army by 25 per cent. and are failing to recruit new soldiers into the Army despite massive unemployment?
    Mr. Soames: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's spontaneous question. Although it is certainly true that the Army has been cut as a result of the greatly changed strategic setting and that certain sectors are finding recruitment difficult, for a number of different reasons with which the House is entirely familiar, not least of which is the present competitive job market, I am glad that we appear now to have turned the tide. In 1995, we saw a 33 per cent. increase in inquiries and a 25 per cent. increase in enlistment. We are not out of the woods yet, but we are well on the way.
    Mr. Dover: Will the Minister review the policy that removed recruitment centres in high street shops, as that was an effective and cost-effective method of recruitment?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is quite right to say that local recruiting centres are extremely valuable. A number of planned changes have been halted, pending the results of a trial that is proving most successful and involves working with our friends in the jobcentres. I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance and confirm that they are indeed valuable sources of recruits.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister now accept responsibility for the huge waste of public money in spending £500 million on redundancy and £100 million on recruitment in one year alone? Can he explain to the House how handing out compulsory redundancy notices would make recruitment attractive? Will he admit that his Department's handling of Army recruitment has been staggeringly incompetent?
    Mr. Soames: One of the reasons why the Conservative party will win the next election is that it is quite plain that the Opposition do not understand defence or how it is run. It is also quite plain that, during a period of drawdown, services need to recruit at all times. They need to refresh the specialisations and aid structure at all ranks. Quite clearly, during a period of drawdown, the perception is that the forces no longer need to recruit. We have addressed that with vigour and determination and our policies are gaining all the time. The hon. Gentleman's question was a pretty facile attempt at a rather poor soundbite.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the Government were to adopt Labour's policy and reduce defence expenditure of £4.5 billion to the European average, that would have a massive impact on personnel in the Army and other armed services and on equipment procurement, which would place in jeopardy the defence of the realm?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is completely right. Such a policy would not only greatly harm the interests of the United Kingdom, whose armed forces are such a golden asset, but would seriously damage the job security of all the splendid young men and women who serve in our three forces and the interests of British industry, which provides such splendid equipment for our forces.

    RB-44 Army Light Vehicle
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the RB-44 Army light vehicle. [26922]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am pleased that, as a result of the programme to resolve the braking problems that we had with the Reynolds Boughton RB-44 heavy utility truck, the vehicles are now re-entering service with the Army.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister agree that that was a poor answer for someone who has just rushed all the way from Glasgow to receive it? The vehicle's history is a litany of incompetence by the MOD and the private sector builder. Does the Minister agree that the matter would be far better passed to the National Audit Office for investigation?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I do not agree—I thought that it was rather a good answer. Of more than 800 vehicles that we bought, nearly two thirds are back in service with the Army, and the others are awaiting modifications. The modifications are relatively minor and the company is meeting the cost of providing kits to make them.

    Type 23 Frigates
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the advantages to the Royal Navy and to the United Kingdom of the Government's recent order for three type 23 frigates. [26923]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The order will provide a major enhancement to the Royal Navy's escort fleet and show the Government's commitment to first-class equipment for the armed forces. The order is worth around £400 million and will bring work to Yarrow and companies across the UK.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that his answer illustrates two incontrovertible facts—that the UK continues to maintain the most professional, formidable and technologically superior armed forces; and that the great benefits to Scotland of remaining in the UK extend further than the Yarrow shipyard?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree. We have ordered some highly capable ships at a most affordable price, and by placing that order we have ensured the continuation in British industry of a capability that we need to see continued. The order is good news for the UK and for Scotland.

    Procurement Projects
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's major procurement projects have late in-service dates. [26924]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The Ministry of Defence's most recent annual major projects report to the Public Accounts Committee showed that, of the projects covered, 21 were reported as having late actual or planned in-service dates.
    Mr. Hutton: Is it a fact that the last National Audit Office inquiry showed that 90 per cent. of major
    6
    procurement contracts had late in-service dates? Are not there significant delays in placing major new contracts, particularly in respect of the batch 2 Trafalgar class replacement programme? Why should defence industry workers pay the price of the Government's total and complete incompetence in managing the nation's procurement budget?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: It is not a question of incompetence. There is a natural tendency towards delay in a large number of defence contracts. That is partly because trying to match the requirements of different countries to a collaborative project is extremely difficult, and partly the effect of increasing and speedily advancing new technology. Delay can actually bring benefits. If there is delay in acquiring a piece of equipment, it can mean a better piece of equipment, and sometimes one that is cheaper.
    The greatest example of a UK technological project was the Trident system. The hon. Gentleman may agree, although I suggest that he has a word with some of his colleagues on the Opposition Benches, who might not share his views. The Trident system has been an 11-year project that has come in on time and under budget. It has provided a defence of this country beyond all proportion to the amount of money that we have spent on it.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the one way to ensure that all procurement projects do not meet their in-service dates is to carry out a full-scale defence review, as advocated by the Opposition? That would have a devastating effect on jobs in the defence industry, especially in my county of Lancashire, which depends so heavily on defence industries.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. I have always believed that the Opposition want to carry out a major defence review because they lack the courage to say what they really want to do, which is to make deep defence cuts. We know that they want to do that. My hon. Friend raises the point that a defence review would mean that equipment procurement would come to a standstill, and that would be the effect of electing a party that we know we cannot trust on defence.

    Royal Navy
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the strength of the Royal Navy in 1990; and what will be the strength of the Royal Navy under current plans by the end of the decade. [26925]
    Mr. Soames: The total strength of the Royal Navy on 1 April 1990 was 63,000. The estimated strength for 1 April 1999 is some 44,000, including the Royal Marines and personnel undergoing training.
    Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister explain how he reconciles the fact that the Conservative manifesto in 1992 stated that a cut of 27 per cent. in the armed forces would be devastating with the 30 per cent. cut in the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Soames: I know that the hon. Gentleman, living in the wonderful time warp of Midlothian, will not have noticed that there has been an extraordinary change in the

    7
    strategic setting that governs the deployment and support structures of our armed forces. Manpower strength is not the prime determinant of the Navy's military capability. The Navy today is probably better equipped and better manned than it has ever been. It is performing a fantastic job and I pay tribute to its extraordinary professionalism and to the way that the Navy has coped with the changes. Today, there are more than 46 British ships at sea, 25 on Exercise Purple Star, and many others promoting Britain's interests in a professional manner, which is very advantageous to this country.
    Mr. David Martin: Can my hon. Friend confirm that—as I find in Portsmouth—while the Navy is smaller, morale is high and the professionalism with which it goes about its tasks is second to none? Does my hon. Friend know of any proposals from Labour or the Liberal Democrats that would increase the efficiency of the Royal Navy or increase the numbers of people who serve in it?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I know that the Royal Navy is grateful for his support in Portsmouth. He is right to point out that morale in the Royal Navy is high. The personnel of the Royal Navy are working hard and are away from home rather more than we would like, but they do a remarkable job. I know of no such proposals from the other parties and the only proposals that we have heard are those that are likely to harm gravely the Royal Navy and the defence interests of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister know anything about Midlothian? Can he name one town in the county?
    Mr. Soames: What I know about Midlothian, one could write on the back of a very large stamp. I know that it is a marvellous and wonderful place in Scotland and that it is lucky enough to have the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) as one of its Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made Midlothian famous by the Midlothian question, to which we are all waiting to hear the answer.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree, further to his remarks, that it is not manpower alone that is needed for the Navy of the future, but high technology? Does he further agree that our ships are now equipped with the best technology that this country can provide and that we need to have a sense of priorities so that we are fit and capable of fighting into the next century?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right. The Royal Navy is probably technologically better equipped now than it has ever been. As my hon. Friend knows, the acquisition of Tomahawk will greatly expand its opportunities, and the type 23 frigate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has just mentioned, is not only a more sophisticated ship in every way, both technologically and in terms of capability, but requires 30 per cent. fewer crew than its predecessor while being a far more powerful ship. Those are the ways in which we are going and they are inevitably the ways in which technology drives the armed forces. Britain is at the forefront of taking advantage of all those exciting new opportunities.
    Mr. Murphy: How can we take the Minister seriously when he talks about either the geography of Midlothian
    8
    or about defending and preserving our Navy, when it is his Government who have presided over the rundown of the fleet and issued thousands of redundancy notices to Navy personnel? Can he not see that not only the Royal Navy but all three armed services have nothing for which to thank the Government and are as anxious as everyone else in Britain to get rid of them?
    Mr. Soames: My geography may be a bit rusty, but I do not think that West Lothian is that far from Midlothian. However, I apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, and to Mr. Gladstone.
    Again, the hon. Gentleman, like so many of his hon. Friends, is living in a complete time warp. [Interruption.] New Labour is no more new Labour than jump the moon; it is just old Labour in a new suit of clothes. The Royal Navy, unlike the Labour party, has genuinely moved on. It has moved on to embrace new technologies, new equipment and new ways of producing the support that it needs. It has done that with great skill and it has managed the transition extremely effectively. It deserves great credit. The kind of arrant nonsense talked by the Opposition again more than confirms the fact that all Conservative Members know in our hearts that, primarily because the Labour party cannot be trusted with defence, we shall win the next election.

    Forces in Europe (Deployment)
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent of deployment of Her Majesty's forces in Europe. [26926]
    Mr. Soames: British forces are currently deployed in Germany, Cyprus, Italy, Gibraltar, the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, and they make a significant contribution to the peace implementation force in Bosnia.
    Mr. Booth: Will my hon. Friend congratulate our forces serving in IFOR? Does not the success of their deployment there show that the proposal to put them under the European Union command is not only unwanted, but unnecessary?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I join him in warmly congratulating the performance of the 10,500 British troops on the ground in Bosnia and the further 1,200 Royal Navy and Royal Air Force troops offshore and in Italy. They have performed outstandingly well and done great credit to this country. It is plain, when NATO had to go in, that it was the only organisation in Europe that could possibly have run such an operation because it has the command and control structures and the necessary equipment, kit and experience to undertake such an operation. It certainly would not be an operation for the Western European Union or for the European Union.
    Dr. Reid: We welcome the decision to deploy four squadrons of Tornado from RAF Brüggen and its associated facilities. It is sensible on operational and financial grounds. We also welcome the reports at the weekend that the most fundamental strategic review of doctrine since the second world war is currently being carried out within the Ministry of Defence. We are glad that, despite the shouting from the Government Benches,

    9
    the Government are doing exactly what we suggested. We are happy on this occasion that they should keep shouting one thing and doing another. It will make it so much easier for the next Labour Government.
    Mr. Soames: I thought for a second that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the Labour party's policy on homosexuals, but clearly not. I must disabuse the hon. Gentleman of one illusion. There is nothing fundamental about the review. It is a drawing together of strategic doctrine to reflect the new joint operational structure of the Ministry of Defence, the establishment of the new permanent joint headquarters and the creation of the joint rapid deployment force, all of which I know will have passed the hon. Gentleman by.
    There is nothing secret about it. Consultation will take place not only within the Ministry of Defence and across all three services, but with academics and many others. That is a serious and sensible response to a strategic doctrine which the country has been putting into practice for a long time; but, following the creation of the joint rapid deployment force and the permanent joint headquarters, the elements of that response need to be drawn together.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Brüggen. We believe that we are taking a sensible step. Although I regret the fact that there will no longer be an RAF presence in Germany after a long and glorious history, there is no doubt that that is right not only for all the people concerned, but for the aircraft.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I, too, greatly welcome the Government's decision to bring the RAF back from Germany: following the disbanding of the Warsaw pact, it makes evident sense. May I. however, urge the Government to bring the squadrons back from Laarbruch before 1999 and from Brüggen before 2002? It would make sense to have aircraft flying from RAF Honington again, and to have RAF Scampton open again, thus providing jobs for British people.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and acknowledge his expertise. He will appreciate that we have consulted our allies closely, and have assured them that our commitment to NATO remains unaffected. The four Tornado GR1 squadrons will be returned to existing United Kingdom bases.
    I note what my hon. Friend said about Honington and Scampton, and I have no doubt that we shall consider carefully what to do. As a matter of fact, we believe that the redeployment of the aircraft in the United Kingdom will potentially increase their operational effectiveness. We hope that we shall soon be able to announce where they will be based, but I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

    Trident Missiles
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trident missiles are to be ordered in each year from 1997 under present orders; and what will be the total number bought when all orders are acquired. [26927]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: So far, the UK has purchased 44 Trident missiles from the United States. No UK missiles are on order, but remaining orders are likely to be placed within the next three years in line with the UK's
    10
    programme and the US's overall procurement strategy. Some initial financial commitment to that end has been made.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Minister noted that, according to the United States strategic command report to Congress, the number of missiles on order from the United Kingdom will be seven in 1997, seven in the following year and seven in the year after that—a total of 21, in addition to the existing 44? Can the Minister tell us the reason for that huge escalation?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The figures that have emerged in the United States amount to no more than the assessment of our current financial plans. We have not made a final decision on the figures, but they reflect our current plans, and they do not represent an escalation in relation to our Polaris firepower.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that nuclear threats in the world, potential and actual, are expanding, despite the fall of the Berlin wall? Two, or possibly three, ex-Soviet countries still have nuclear weapons, and nuclear technology is proliferating in the middle east. Is it not essential that we in the Conservative party are seen to uphold Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. As is so often the case, my hon. Friend has made a valid point. The Labour party aspires to power, but many Labour Members would like Trident to be abolished. We are faced with questions on Trident with which we would not be faced if Labour had won the last general election, or the one before that, or the one before that—because we would not have a nuclear missile at all.

    Cadet Forces
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the educational advantages that membership of the cadet forces gives to its members. [26928]
    Mr. Soames: My colleagues and I are very much aware of the splendid benefit that the cadet force organisations can bring to the education and well being of young people in this country. It is important that parents and teachers alike recognise the wonderful opportunities that membership brings to the broad education of the young.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are active squadrons of the air training corps in Holmfirth and Huddersfield in my constituency and that they both play a valuable role in local community service? Does he agree that the education of those youngsters should include the facts about the Labour party's natural aspirations to cut defence spending by billions of pounds, so that the country's young people are aware that the nation's defences would not be safe under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is completely right, of course. I join him in paying tribute to the air training corps in Huddersfield, which on average parades 60 cadets, and in Holmfirth, which on average parades 30 cadets. They have an exceptional record in the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and an excellent commitment to

    11
    community service. I also pay tribute to those who take part in the cadet forces, especially all the adults who give up their time to help and provide leadership. Frankly, the less the young know about Labour party policies the better.
    Ms Walley: Will the Minister also pay tribute to the air training corps in my constituency? Does he share my concern, having read page 11 of today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, that the future of RAF flying teachers might be in jeopardy? Where will that leave the ATC? The Government have cut costs so much that they have effectively done away with the RAF flying instructors on which the ATC depends.
    Mr. Soames: I certainly pay tribute to the air training corps in the hon. Lady's constituency. I am sure that there, as in all hon. Members' constituencies, it does a marvellous job and stands as a beacon in the communities in which it serves. On flying training, the hon. Lady, not for the first time, has got the wrong end of the stick. I can assure her without any diffidence that the air cadets will get all the flying to which they are entitled. Indeed, it is the MoD's aspiration to provide more and not less flying.

    Joint and Combined Exercises
    Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what joint and combined exercises are planned in the near future. [26929]
    Mr. Soames: Exercise Purple Star, the largest joint and combined operation for a number of years, involving about 12,000 UK forces, began at the end of last month and continues until 19 May. The House will be pleased to know that that combined UK-US exercise includes key elements of the planned joint rapid deployment force.
    Mr. Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's support for that very important exercise. May I express the hope that the Government will continue to attach a very high priority to the value of exercises in general, and to combined and joint exercises in particular since, as I am sure he would agree, they are essential to the maintenance of our military preparedness and therefore our capability?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting one of the great difficulties facing modern defence management—the ability to provide the kind of high level, high intensity warfare training, which is so essential to keeping our troops prepared for the extraordinary range of operations that may be required of them. The key elements of the JRDF—the Third Commando Brigade and the Fifth Airborne Brigade—are taking part. It is a major exercise and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do everything in our power, whether in America, in this country or in the new training areas that are opening up in Hungary and Poland where we hope to have a brigade exercise in September, to ensure that as many of our troops as possible receive the benefit of those very important exercises. We seriously acknowledge the point he makes; it is crucial.
    Mr. Cohen: Is it a joint exercise between the hon. Gentleman's Department and the Foreign Office to run
    12
    spies in Russia? Are they carrying on at cold war levels and expense? Is it not time to stop such James Bond silliness and apologise to President Yeltsin?
    Mr. Soames: Certainly not.

    Defence Contracts
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British jobs are sustained by his Department's contracts; and if he will make a statement. [26930]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The most recent available figures are for 1993–94, when an estimated 395,000 jobs in the UK were sustained by the defence industry, including 315,000 sustained directly by my Department's spending on equipment and non-equipment items.
    Mr. Greenway: In an ever-changing and uncertain world, does my hon. Friend agree that a credible defence policy demands a substantial home-based defence industry? Will he assure the House that, after all the upheaval of "Options for Change" and defence cost studies the Government have no intention of seeking further substantial reductions in defence expenditure, which could only have a catastrophic effect on jobs in the defence procurement industry?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: A credible defence policy depends on the election of a party which believes in defence, and my hon. Friend has established that our party does. The Labour party, sadly, does not. It has called for reductions in defence spending which would reduce our capability out of all recognition. The Transport and General Workers Union at its conference called for a cut of £18 billion. That would leave the defence of this country in the hands of civilians, because we would not be able to afford any armed forces or any equipment. Either that, or we would be able to afford about half our equipment, but we would not be able to afford the civilians or the armed forces to run it.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What is the status of the future large aircraft project? Have the French sorted out their problems? My constituents would like a positive answer.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his assiduity in working for his constituents. He brought a delegation to see me only two weeks ago. I have spoken to the French about this matter. They have yet to decide their law of programmation. As soon as they do, we shall be clearer about precisely what the French position is. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman brought a delegation to see me about this very matter.

    Fisheries Protection Fleet
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Naval vessels are contracted to MAFF as part of the fisheries protection fleet. [26931]
    Mr. Soames: Nine vessels currently comprise the fisheries protection squadron. Four or five are routinely at sea on behalf of MAFF and one for the Scottish Fishery Protection Agency at any one time.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend confirm what his office has told me today—that 17 vessels are contracted

    13
    out to MAFF from the defence forces and that they are engaged in policing the quota of fish caught by our fishing vessels, including Mr. Trevor Mole from Essex, who has been fined unreasonably for taking a little more than his quota out of the seas? At the same time, the Spanish, who are busily scooping up our fish, have only nine vessels in action, but as a nation we can do nothing about the situation while we remain within the European Union. Is it not time we gave people a chance to decide whether they want to continue being part of the EU or not?
    Mr. Soames: I think that that goes a little wide of the question. I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that all the fishing vessels operating in United Kingdom waters are liable to fair and rigorous inspection by the Royal Navy, regardless of their nationality. As my hon. Friend knows, because she has done a great deal of work on the matter, the role of the fisheries protection squadron is to enforce fisheries protection and to ensure that all vessels can go safely about their lawful business. The role of the squadron is one that it discharges with scrupulous fairness. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to it for doing what is often a difficult and dangerous job.
    Dr. Godman: I sometimes think that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) would like to deploy the fleet against the European Union.
    Mrs. Gorman indicated assent.
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Lady nods.
    The officers and crews of the fisheries protection vessels do a good job in protecting our stocks. Does the Minister agree that they need the most modern ships possible to deal with those guilty of illegal fishing? What vessels does he intend to order to bring the fleet up to date?
    Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about the fishing community, I know that he will join me in saying how much the fishermen value the efforts made on their behalf by the Royal Navy. They are truly fortunate to have such excellent protection. As the hon. Gentleman knows and I know, the squadron enjoys the most excellent relations with the fishing industry and fishermen alike. There are currently nine vessels in the squadron. Six are purpose-built Island class offshore patrol vessels, which do the job extremely well, and three are Hunt class mine counter-measures vessels seconded from their parent MCM squadron. We believe that they do the job very well indeed. If there are plans to change the deployment of any of the vessels, we shall, of course, talk to the hon. Gentleman about it. I know of no plans to replace any of them.

    Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threat
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the nuclear, biological and chemical threat to the United Kingdom. [26932]
    Mr. Soames: The nuclear, biological and chemical threat to the United Kingdom is assessed at present as extremely low, although we remain anxious for the future.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of all the proliferation that is happening and is
    14
    likely to happen, and the evidence of Libya's underground chemical and biological plant, the nature of the developing threat necessitates a powerful deterrent and that a deterrent is no use if the Government who hold it are not prepared to use it?
    Mr. Soames: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would be folly to be complacent. We take very seriously the possible threat of nuclear, biological or chemical attack on the United Kingdom. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery remain a major source of concern for the United Kingdom and our NATO partners and is, as my hon. Friend rightly said, another essential reason why we need to retain our independent deterrent. I wholeheartedly share his concerns about the construction of the new facility in Libya, which we are monitoring closely with our American friends.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May. [26949]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the strong support that I have given to those in Southport who have sought to raise teaching standards in our schools. In the light of today's Ofsted report on reading, will he spare a thought for parents in Islington and Southwark whose children, according to the report, have been failed by weak and mediocre teaching methods? Does he agree that, if we are to improve standards in our schools, improved teaching methods must be the cornerstone of the Government's education policy?
    The Prime Minister: I do feel for those parents, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced new measures today to root out and shine the light on those bad, Labour-controlled local authorities whose record was shown up so sadly in the report from Ofsted over the weekend. The Labour party's only response to that is to threaten to give more powers to those very same councils to which its Front-Bench spokesmen will not entrust their own children.
    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister confirm today's reports that, in the next Conservative manifesto, he will pledge to privatise the Post Office? Is he aware of the enormous concern of many people in rural areas who fear for the future of their post offices and postal services?
    The Prime Minister: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that many rural post offices—a very important part of local communities—are already in private hands. It is astonishing that he does not seem to know that.
    Mr. Blair: It is completely astonishing that the Prime Minister does not understand the concern of those people

    15
    that the post offices will be sold off. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, over the next few years, the Treasury intends taking an extra £400 million out of Post Office profits and that that money will simply be another back-door Tory tax? Is that right or not?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking to make sure that the Post Office gives customers the efficient and effective service that they deserve. I repeat to him, since he clearly still does not understand it, that the rural post offices that he is concerned about are in private hands and that they are efficient and effective. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that.
    Mr. Blair: I have asked the Prime Minister twice whether that will be in the Conservative manifesto. If he is so confident about it, perhaps he can tell us whether it will be. As for a better service, let him tell that to the water customers whose prices have risen by 40 per cent. Perhaps he does not understand that the Conservatives' obsession with privatising our public services is one reason among many others for their humiliation last Thursday. Would it not be better in future if he paid less attention to the factions in his own party and more to the voice of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: I was wondering how the right hon. Gentleman would manage to get around to that from privatisation, but I suppose that I should have known from precedent that it does not matter what the first two questions are, the soundbite is always prepared. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We cannot hear hon. Members.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May. [26950]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Reverting to education, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Conservative Government will not take away the £560 per annum of child benefit for the over-16s on which so many families rely to get their children through A-levels? Does he agree that the scrapping of child benefit at that level would be devastating for many families and would prevent many youngsters from going on to further education?
    The Prime Minister: I can of course confirm that. Since the leader of the Labour party is so interested in what will be in manifestos, perhaps he can confirm that the scrapping of child benefit for youngsters of 16 and 17, as proposed by the shadow Chancellor and objected to by the shadow Foreign Secretary, will be in Labour's manifesto, at a time when child benefit is being supported by Labour's official spokesman on social security. Perhaps he would care to make that clear speedily. On the merits of the case, there is no doubt that that would be a severe disadvantage—[Interruption.] You can tell when the right hon. Gentleman does not want to answer: he chats to his hon. Friends. That policy would be a severe
    16
    disadvantage to many families on low incomes who want their children to have a better start in education than they themselves had.
    Mr. Ashdown: On the first day of the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, does the Prime Minister recognise that peace in Bosnia is more at risk through the ambitions to create a greater Croatia than through any threat from a greater Serbia? Does he at least recognise that the withdrawal of IFOR without replacement in November would mean that there would be no chance of an unchaperoned peace persisting? Does he recognise that the west must now insist on the inviolability of Bosnia's borders and must halt Croatia's quietly annexing Bosnian territory?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the peace is uneasy across the former Yugoslavia. That is undoubtedly the case. At this stage, it is too early to judge what will be necessary at the time when IFOR withdraws. There is a great deal to be done. Thus far, the military work has been immensely successful. There is quite a lot still to be done on the civilian side. We shall need to make the judgment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred at a later stage.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May. [26951]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend share the deep concern of the British people and all of us—[Interruption.] I am quoting the Leader of the Opposition, who loves to talk about the British people. We represent the British people here. [Interruption.] Yes, we do, and we always will and the Opposition had better learn that. Does my right hon. Friend share the deep concern of the British people and myself at Ofsted's report today of appallingly low reading standards in three Labour-controlled local authorities? Does he agree that generations of children have been let down educationally and in other ways by the Labour and Liberal parties while the leader of the Labour party and others in that party have rescued their children into Conservative authorities and selective schools but would deny those opportunities to others? [Interruption.] Yes, they would.
    The Prime Minister: I do not blame anyone, whoever he or she may be, for taking advantage of Conservative Government reforms on education or on anything else. It is certainly true that Labour Front-Bench Members know an awful lot about schools in Islington and Southwark—sufficient, certainly, to send their children elsewhere.
    Mr. David Marshall: Following last Thursday's election results, has the Prime Minister given any thought to how his premiership is perceived by the great British

    17
    population? Does he not realise that, far from giving an Oscar-winning performance, he is regarded politically as a dead man walking?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I can tell him quite sincerely that it is not reciprocated.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May. [26952]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will grant export licences for any orders for British beef received from countries outside the European Union? Is it not time for the British Government actively to promote the sale of British beef to countries all over the world, as a clear demonstration to the British public and to British farmers that we will not stand idly by while European farm Ministers destroy this country's beef industry to the benefit of their own?
    The Prime Minister: I share the concern and frustration expressed by my hon. Friend. We continue to believe that the ban on British beef products is unjustified and disproportionate. The European Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner have now accepted that British beef is safe. On that basis, there is no justification for member states retaining the ban. We continue to press the Commission and other member states for a comprehensive framework for the speedy relaxation and complete removal of the ban.
    Mr. Faulds: To placate the loony Little Englanders behind him, why does not the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] You will hear me in the end. Why does not the Prime Minister send an expeditionary force under Field Marshal Cash and a gunboat under the lunatically immature Redwood to teach the bloody foreigners a lesson?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that the view right across my party is that we are better off remaining in the European Union, and I have expressed that view on many occasions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware of who it was who once said:
    18
    "Many voters, including myself, are still unconvinced it was a good idea to join the Common Market in the first place."
    In case he does not know, it was the shadow Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May. [26953]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sweeney: Could my right hon. Friend find time to visit the Vale of Glamorgan in the next few months, where on Thursday there was a local government by-election with a 10 per cent. swing to the Conservatives? Does he agree that that swing shows that the Conservative fight back has started well and truly in the most marginal seats in Britain? Does he agree that the fact that the Labour-controlled Vale of Glamorgan council has just raised council tax by 22 per cent. demonstrates that Labour government, whether locally or nationally, is bad for our pockets?
    The Prime Minister: I think that history certainly supports my hon. Friend's claim, and so do current events. The Labour leader and the shadow Transport Secretary both want a higher rate for middle income earners and the deputy leader—alas, missing today—wants a higher top rate of tax. They are in complete turmoil over their plans for child benefit, which amount to an extra 5p on income tax for a family on average earnings. The fact is that raising taxes is the Labour instinct—it is in Labour's blood, and nothing will stop it.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware of figures published last month which show that, for the first time, gross domestic product per head in the Irish Republic has now passed that of Wales? Does he believe that that is because of the very strong voice that the Irish Republic has in the European Union and the benefits that it receives from that, or is it because of his Government's failure to develop a good spread of well-paid jobs throughout Wales?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at some of the jobs in Wales which are the result of inward investment and which would not be there but for the Government. As for the GDP figure, the hon. Gentleman might bear in mind the fact that a substantial amount of the Irish Republic's GDP—5 per cent. or 7 per cent.—is a direct subvention from the European Union.

Cattle Disposal Scheme
3.30 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler(by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on what progress has been made in giving effect to the 30-month cattle disposal scheme.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): Slaughtering started in Scotland on Friday and elsewhere in the United Kingdom today. Some 104 livestock markets and some 72 abattoirs have been approved as collection centres. I anticipate substantially increasing activity as the week proceeds and see no reason why the scheme should not be fully operational by the end of this week.
I have made it clear that all operators in the meat business will have to work together to make the 30-month cattle scheme a success. I met representatives of livestock markets and a number of abattoir representatives this morning and I am seeing the renderers tomorrow. They represent the crucial steps in the chain.
Large numbers of animals have to be processed, and I will need to ensure that this is done as speedily as possible so that farmers can have surplus stock removed from their fields and, quite reasonably, be paid compensation as quickly as possible.
We have at all times to have regard to the welfare of the animals involved and the need to restore consumer confidence. The scheme is being put in place as one of a number of measures to restore confidence in British beef. It is a novel scheme without precedent, and we have sought to set it up with all possible speed.
Farmers, livestock markets, abattoirs and renderers have to work together. They do so usually and they have to do so now. Every day I intend to see representatives of all the main interests to deal with any problems that might arise, but I hope that it is not long before the scheme no longer requires daily ministerial involvement.
Farmers will, I am sure, recognise that large numbers of animals have to be culled and that they cannot all be culled immediately. As the House knows, there is finite rendering capacity, so I am examining with all speed whether and what possible further cold store capacity can be brought into play to help accelerate the scheme.
I well appreciate the concern of every hon. Member that the scheme should operate fully and efficiently without delay. I promise to keep hon. Members updated regularly on progress and am determined that the scheme will make a positive contribution to our wider aim of restoring confidence in the British beef as speedily as possible.
Mr. Tyler: I thank the Minister of State for his extensive statement. Does he now accept the assessment of this week's Farmers Weekly that the Government's scheme is still in complete chaos? Does he also accept that the statement made by the Minister last week that this has absolutely nothing to do with the removal of the export ban pins the responsibility here with his Ministry in London? Does he further accept the report of the Environmental Health News that the Meat Hygiene Service does not have enough qualified staff to undertake the cull programme and that the abattoirs have reasonable
20
cause for concern? How many cattle are in the chain awaiting slaughter as of today? How will the blockage be removed by the steps that the Minister has announced? Is it not clear that a great industry in our rural areas is being held at gunpoint by the dither and delay of his Department?
Mr. Baldry: I am driving the scheme and I accept full responsibility for it. The hon. Gentleman has to accept that this is a novel and fairly complex scheme. It also involves our European Community partners who, in large part, are paying for it. We need to ensure that what happens in the slaughterhouses is properly monitored. We also need to ensure that there is no scintilla of risk that any of this beef ends up in the human food chain, and there are more than enough Meat Hygiene Service staff to ensure that that is done. We need to ensure a proper geographical coverage of collection centres—both slaughterhouses and livestock markets. We also need to ensure that the sectoral interests start to work together, as they do normally, to ensure that the scheme is a success.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a backlog. I am aware that farmers want the backlog cleared off their fields as speedily as possible—not least, quite reasonably, because they want to receive their compensation cheques. There are approximately 120,000 cattle in the backlog and they need to be processed as speedily as possible. I hope that I have made it clear to hon. Members that I will take all possible measures to ensure that that is done. I hope that everyone who is involved will settle down and co-operate to ensure that the scheme is a success.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House was somewhat noisy when the hon. Gentleman put his original question. Therefore, I draw the attention of all hon. Members to the specific question, which relates to the 30-month cattle disposal scheme. This is not a private notice question that should be used as an opportunity to raise other issues related to BSE. The question is very specific.
Mr. Michael Alison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 30-month cattle scheme is very welcome—even if, like a heavy aircraft, it is trundling along the runway before becoming fully airborne? Is my hon. Friend conscious of the fact that considerable costs arise for some farmers in getting their cattle to the collecting points? Will those costs be debited from the compensation payable in respect of each cow or will they be borne by the scheme?
Mr. Baldry: Farmers have always met the costs of transporting livestock to livestock markets and of transporting livestock direct to abattoirs when they have chosen to do that. The only issue that arises is whether farmers should bear the cost of transporting livestock from livestock markets to abattoirs if they choose to go through the live weight option. It seems not unreasonable in this scheme that farmers should do so, not least—as I made clear on Friday in a letter that I sent to all hon. Members—because they are being relieved of the obligation to pay the Meat and Livestock Commission levy. I hope that farmers will see this as a fair scheme, under which they are receiving fair compensation. It is not unreasonable for farmers to meet the transport costs.
Dr. Gavin Strang: I remind the Minister that last Thursday the Prime Minister told the

21
Leader of the Opposition that the confusion surrounding the scheme was being examined and investigated and that he hoped that it would be resolved speedily. Is it not becoming clear that last week's confusion is developing into this week's chaos? It is vital that we eliminate BSE at source. We therefore need to investigate why it is that 67 per cent. of new cases—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have made clear the narrow scope of questions relating to the private notice question, so the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that. He must relate his question to the 30-month cattle disposal scheme only and not to wider issues. If he has a further question to put on that specific scheme, I will, of course, hear it.
Dr. Strang: I certainly have. If that is your ruling on the private notice question—
Madam Speaker: It is not only my ruling: the question itself demands it.
Dr. Strang: I accept that, but can I put it to you, Madam Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It relates to a different point. Because we may kill hundreds of thousands of cattle under the scheme it is all the more vital that we attach priority to devising a live test to avoid the need for killing in the long term. It would be unforgivable if the Ministry was in any way involved in delaying the establishment of such a live test.
Since it has been decided to have a live weight and a dead weight option for the 30-month rule, Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that compensation is not only fair to farmers but fair to all sections of the livestock industry and the taxpayer. I put it to the Minister that the entire industry wants to tackle the problem but that it is the Government who must give the leadership.
Mr. Baldry: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I had hoped that rather than using words like "chaos", he too would encourage slaughterhouses, renderers, livestock marts and everyone else in the industrial chain to work together.
The hon. Gentleman has close contacts with the industry and I am sure he is aware of some of the sectoral interests at play. It is important that they all appreciate that it is in their long-term interests to work together because it is in their long-term interest to restore confidence in British beef.
I do not think there has ever been a scintilla of a suggestion that we want anything other than to develop a live test as speedily as possible. For that reason we are helping to fund considerable amounts of research on it. If we can develop a live test, no one would be more delighted than us.
The dead weight option was introduced because, as a common pattern of trading, many farmers do not take their cattle to livestock marts but go straight to the abattoirs. It was the earnest request of members of the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and others that there should be a dead weight option. We have listened to their requests and, despite stiff opposition from some of our European colleagues, who were suspicious of that option, we have succeeded in introducing it. I would very much hope that hon. Members
22
would applaud that because it demonstrates that we are seeking to listen to the concerns of those involved and, wherever possible, to respond to them.
Mr. John Greenway: May I report to my hon. Friend that beef farmers in north Yorkshire are finding it extremely difficult to get abattoirs to take cattle? They recognise, however, that my hon. Friend is aware of the urgency of the situation and they welcome his decision to get all parts of the industry together to provide a daily solution to the problem.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it sits ill on Opposition parties to criticise the 30-month slaughter scheme when they called for it, as did farmers, in the first place? Everyone knew that it would be complicated and that it will work only when everyone in the industry works together for the greater good of our beef industry.
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. The scheme was introduced with the support of all Conservative Members after the fervent request of retailers, producers and everyone involved in the food chain. They believed that it would prove to be a substantial measure in helping to restore confidence in United Kingdom beef. Everyone must work together to ensure its success.
My hon. Friend takes a close interest in the issue and he will know only too well that one of the difficulties is that this country has a finite amount of rendering capacity, but renderers must be prepared to work with a number of abattoirs. They cannot just believe that they can work with a favoured abattoir or a couple of favoured abattoirs. That would cause considerable resentment in different parts of the country.
I have sought to ensure that the abattoirs involved in the scheme represent a wide geographical cross-section, ensuring that, if need be, farmers can take their livestock to abattoirs in a convenient location. Co-operation is needed between farmers and livestock marts on the one hand and renderers and abattoirs on the other. No Minister of any Government at any time can wet-nurse every slaughterhouse, renderer and livestock mart in the country. They must co-operate and work together to make the scheme a success.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the issue of representations by the Highland Cattle Society, is there any special dispensation because highland cattle take longer than 30 months to mature? When the Minister meets the renderers tomorrow, will he ask them about the temperatures of the heating of food in relation to prions, which may be the root cause of the whole problem?
Mr. Baldry: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he may well be aware that, last Friday, we issued a consultation paper on exemption schemes for breeds of cattle—such as highland and Dexter cattle—that tend to mature after 30 months. I will ensure that a copy is sent direct to the hon. Gentleman.
On the rest of the process, of course we shall ensure that rendering and every other process complies with the objectives of best science. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I would agree that it is imperative that we, and everyone in Europe, apply best science to what we

23
do, because, if we do not work and take our decisions on the basis of best science, we might as well return to the Copernican theory of the universe.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I compliment my hon. Friend on the way in which he communicated the details of the scheme today, but does he agree that those animals are being slaughtered—and therefore disposed of—not for any scientific reason, but apparently to restore confidence among the Europeans? Does he therefore agree that any extended scheme that might be introduced to dispose of more animals in the same way could be introduced only on the basis that the ban would be lifted? Such schemes cannot be advanced without a copper-bottomed guarantee to lift the ban that has been wrongly imposed on our products.
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend always makes some very good points. In fairness, this scheme was instituted because retailers, the National Farmers Union and everyone in the food chain joined together and made representations to us and expressed the view that implementing the scheme would help restore confidence in the domestic market in British beef and consequently help restore confidence in UK beef elsewhere in the world.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has told the House several times that there is no suggestion of proposing any further selective cull unless it is based on best science and commands the support of the House. As I believe became clear at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and European Community vets recognise and acknowledge that the scheme that my right hon. and learned Friend proposed is the best that can be devised—in other words, no one yet has been able to suggest a better scheme for a selective cull, although of course we are always prepared to listen to any further suggestions and comments that might be made.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Minister be flexible in his attitude towards the various abattoirs? There is already controversy in south Cheshire about some of the choices. Is he aware that, far from the information system working efficiently, it took me nearly 24 hours on Thursday and Friday to obtain accurate information about the working of the scheme? Will he please ensure that detailed information is easily available to the people affected?
Mr. Baldry: I have sought to ensure that there is a proper coverage of abattoirs throughout the country; there is certainly adequate slaughterhouse capacity in Cheshire. If too many abattoirs are involved in the scheme, there is a danger that we may start to involve abattoirs that have been mothballed or have not had money invested in them to bring them up to EC standards, and we also increase the difficulties of marrying up abattoirs and renderers.
If, as the scheme develops, it appears that we can take on more slaughtering capacity, I am willing to consider doing so, but I am advised by the vets and many others that the current spread of abattoirs is adequate.
On the hon. Lady requiring information, I very much hope that if the hon. Lady or any other hon. Member has a problem or query in relation to the scheme, they will
24
telephone my private office; that is what private offices are for. Otherwise I very much hope that farmers and producers will telephone the intervention board to receive assistance.
I have written to all farmers setting out the initial details of the scheme, and I am closely monitoring calls to the intervention board. If the same queries are made time and again, I shall send further information to farmers in order to deal with those persistent queries. If hon. Members have a problem or a difficult constituency case, I hope that they will contact my office immediately,
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my hon. Friend aware that in Maidstone we have probably the most modern, and certainly one of the most accessible, livestock markets in the country? It is outraged that it has been left out of the scheme so far. Can my hon. Friend offer any hope that, as the scheme develops, Maidstone will become a collecting point?
Mr. Baldry: The criteria for including livestock marts was that last year they dealt with either 2,000 cull cows or 2,000 clean beef cows—on average, that is 40 cows per week. If a market does not deal with at least 40 cows per week, one must question whether it is a serious player. I have said that I will re-examine the coverage of both abattoirs and livestock marts. However, I would need to be persuaded to increase the number of livestock marts, given the existing extensive coverage of collection centres.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Minister will be aware that there is concern, particularly in areas of large geographical spread such as north and mid-Wales, that his strict criteria for collection points might not always be met. It might be in the interests of the industry if the Minister were to look at specific problems in certain areas.
Abattoirs in north-west and west Wales have difficulty obtaining any support from the rendering industry. The Minister has said that he will talk to the industry immediately in the hope of reaching an agreement. If it does not agree and if no rendering facilities are available, does the Minister accept that it is purely academic to appoint abattoirs in the first place?
Mr. Baldry: Ten abattoirs in Wales are approved under the scheme and they are spread from the north to the south of the Principality. There is a fair coverage of abattoirs in Wales. It is essential that the renderers co-operate with the abattoirs in order to carry out the maximum amount of rendering. Clearly, the process is dependent upon the rendering. If the renderers do not co-operate, they may be assured that I shall be on their backs until they do. Their co-operation is essential. It is their industry as much as anyone else's, and they must have an interest in restoring long-term confidence in United Kingdom beef.
I hope that the renderers will start to co-operate fully with slaughterhouses up and down the country in order to maximise the scheme's throughput as speedily as possible. That is already occurring in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that the renderers and other sectoral interests south of the border and in Wales will see that and follow their example.
Mr. David Harris: I thank my hon. Friend for responding quickly to the representations made by

25
hon. Members last week in the House and outside it about increasing the number of collection centres at markets. I am grateful that Helston has been included, but I am sorry that Penzance has not been selected so far.
By limiting the number of abattoirs to 44, Her Majesty's Government are concentrating still further the business in the hands of a few large abattoirs around the country. Will my hon. Friend re-examine the situation, as the scheme should not be used to bring about a drastic reorganisation of the slaughtering industry?
Mr. Baldry: I have received representations from those, such as vets, who argue that we should restrict abattoirs to a very small number—perhaps 20 or so—which could then be tied to individual renderers. About 200 abattoirs across the country—many of which had been in mothballs for some time—applied to join the scheme. I am seeking to ensure the maximum throughput under the scheme, having regard to the rendering capacity we have. I believe that we have achieved that, but if it transpires that we can take on further slaughter capacity, of course we shall seek to do so. I am keen that we should clear the backlog and get the maximum amount of beef processed through the scheme, not least because I want to ensure that farmers receive their compensation cheques as speedily as possible.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister mentioned animal welfare, which concerns me. Will he take us through the process from farm to furnace that the poor dumb creatures will have to undergo? Will he cut out the euphemisms so that we know exactly what it means? As it is pretty obvious from the past that the owners and controllers of slaughterhouses do not abide by the rules, and as the animals are not bound to the food chain, what checks will he make to ensure the highest possible standard of animal welfare? Will his vets be present and will he allow animal welfare organisations to monitor the process?
Mr. Baldry: The Meat Hygiene Service and the Government veterinary service are present throughout the slaughtering process. It goes without saying that we always want to ensure the best possible animal welfare throughout the transactions. We have to bear that in mind when we are considering how fast the 30-month scheme can work. There is no dissembling on that and, as I have made clear today to the livestock marts and the abattoirs, if at any stage there is any suggestion that livestock markets or abattoirs are failing to comply with all the regulations, they will be suspended from the scheme.
The scheme should work properly and effectively in respect of animal welfare, consumer confidence and ensuring that the rules are complied with in terms of public finance. I do not want to open a Sunday newspaper in a couple of months' time to find allegations of animal abuse or financial abuse. The scintilla of a suggestion that anyone is abusing the scheme will lead to suspension.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to the plight of those who were previously involved in head-boning, whose business has been wiped out overnight? Can the scheme provide any help to that part of the industry?
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It is not and never has been possible to give
26
compensation to everyone who has suffered financially, either directly or indirectly, as a consequence of the announcement by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. The money that we have paid and are paying to abattoirs, renderers and others has been by way of market support. There is no longer a market to support in head-boning and for that reason that industry has not received and will not receive a penny in compensation. That has been made clear. I hope that others involved in the process, who sometimes feel that they may not be receiving as much money as they would like, will have regard to the fact that many elsewhere in the industry have suffered more dramatically.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister clarify what happens to the cattle after slaughter and explain how the carcases are disposed of? He talks about rendering and incineration, but what does he mean by rendering? We all thought that, once the cattle had been slaughtered, they would then be incinerated.
Mr. Baldry: If any hon. Members do not understand the rendering process and genuinely seek a further understanding of it, of course I shall arrange for them to be given a further detailed briefing and perhaps the opportunity to visit a slaughterhouse. It is important there is a full understanding. Once the animals are rendered, they have to be disposed of and, given the scale of the exercise, we are examining means of ensuring that the carcases are disposed of in an environmentally proper and efficient way. That may well require a number of solutions that we are examining in conjunction with the Environment Agency, the Department of the Environment and others. Hon. Members can rest assured that any disposal will be to the best and highest environmental standards.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Can the Minister estimate the cost to public funds of the scheme, which is based on 120,000 cattle, and of the attached abolition of the Meat and Livestock Commission levy? Once those 120,000 slaughters have been completed, will that mean the possible elimination of BSE?
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend can do the calculation himself. I circulated to my hon. Friend and to every other right hon. and hon. Member on Friday the details of the exact compensation being paid. We have not set a fixed time limit for the scheme, which will operate as long as necessary to continue to restore confidence in UK beef. The scheme will certainly have to operate for some considerable time. Market adjustments will be made as the scheme is introduced—not least because many farmers who may have run their clean beef on to more than 30 months will now rear and sell their beef in less than 30 months. Clearly there will now be a premium price for beef of below 30 months.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Minister mentioned compensation to farmers. Will the Government compensate slaughterhouses for additional lairage costs, the expense of tending animals overnight and extra slaughtering costs?
Mr. Baldry: I am not sure which details the hon. Gentleman has read. Abattoirs will receive funds for

27
acting as a collection centre and a payment for each animal that they slaughter, which we will negotiate. Slaughterhouses will receive a perfectly fair payment for the work they do, and the throughput of cull cows will be little different from that previous to the scheme's operation. The only change will be that, instead of slaughtered animals going into the human food chain, they will be disposed of otherwise.
I see no reason for slaughterhouses involved in the scheme to be concerned about the payments made to them. I have received no specific representations from any slaughterhouse that the payments are unfair. Abattoirs recognise that the funds that they are receiving from the public purse are perfectly fair.
Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend expect that the 30-month rule will be inviolate? Surely the period will be ratched up to 31, 32 and 33 months, as scientific knowledge moves on.
Mr. Baldry: The 30-month rule was chosen because SEAC thought that the time limit was important, which was why the National Farmers Union, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and others unanimously recommended to the Government that the 30-month cull scheme would make a substantial contribution to restoring consumer confidence in UK beef here and overseas—and we have implemented one.
Mrs. Ray Michie: The National Farmers Union of Scotland sent me a list of live weight collection centres serving remote locations in Scotland, but it does not include the island of Islay or Campbeltown in my constituency. Will the Minister give serious consideration to including those remote places?
Mr. Baldry: As I made clear to the livestock marts this morning, I do not pretend to have perfect wisdom or to offer perfect coverage. If any right hon. or hon. Member feels that there are particular geographical reasons for including another livestock mart, of course I will consider them. Marts must be able to find adequate and proper slaughtering capacity. I am loth to increase substantially the number of livestock marts because the greater the number involved, the bigger is the danger that the scheme will become complicated in respect of the number of abattoirs. It seems to me, as a general rule, that if a livestock mart was not processing 40 cull cows a week before the scheme's general introduction, it was not a serious player.
Sir Michael Spicer: Why will the European Union's financial contribution to the scheme be set against the general rebate that we receive from the European Union when the two issues are completely separate?
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend knows that the rules on European finance apply to this scheme and to every other scheme under which the United Kingdom is a beneficiary of the European Community budget. This scheme is no different from any other under which we receive money from the European Union.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Minister accept that his statement leaves in limbo those farmers
28
who produce slower maturing cattle? Can the Minister clearly say today that, in principle, those slower maturing breeds will get an extension beyond 30 months and that the consultation is merely about practicalities, not about principle? We do not know how long the consultation period will be, and perhaps the Minister can tell us. Otherwise, those farmers will not know whether to put their beasts into the scheme now or to wait for the final announcement.
Mr. Baldry: Again, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy of the consultation paper. If his constituents who are concerned read the criteria in the consultation paper, they will get a clear indication. The consultation period is as short as we can humanly make it. It is 14 days, and I hope that the industry will respond during that time and that decisions can be made speedily afterwards. It is important to have a consultation period, not least because we have to persuade our Community partners and others that the exemptions should be allowed and should stick.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does not the Minister realise that the farmers, certainly those to whom I have spoken in my constituency over the weekend, are criticising not the scheme but the failure of the Government to have in place anything to implement that scheme when it was supposed to start? That is typical of the lack of a coherent strategy from or any assessment of the implications by the Government, as we saw when the Secretary of State for Health made the original announcement and as we see in the negotiations in Brussels.
Has the Minister made any assessment of the implications of the scheme that he has announced on the displacement of cattle that might otherwise have been slaughtered in the slaughterhouses? Has he made any general assessment of whether the scheme will ensure that some of the people who have lost their jobs in the past six weeks will return to employment and receive an income, which they have not had for six weeks?
Mr. Baldry: It is self-evident to all of us—every hon. Member who has a farming constituency is in touch with farmers—that farmers are concerned to know when their cattle can be taken and culled, not least—and quite reasonably—because they want their compensation cheques. The farmers, like everyone, have to recognise that there is a backlog of around 150,000 cattle and that not all of those can be culled tomorrow or this coming week. There will have to be some forbearance as renderers, slaughterhouses and livestock marts work together with the farmers to bring forward livestock on an orderly basis.
As the scheme moves forward, clearly the number of cull cows will be the same as always. They will be slaughtered and, instead of entering the human food chain, they will be disposed of otherwise. The amount of clean beef will not be significantly reduced, so the volume of work carried out by the slaughterhouses will not be different from that carried out previously. The work will just be done in different ways. I see no reason why, in some slaughterhouses, there will not be more jobs as a consequence. I suspect that we will also see renderers taking on extra employees. In Scotland, there is only one renderer and I am sure it will take on extra staff to cope with the extra demand from the industry.

Elderly (Long-term Care)
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the consultation document, which I am publishing today, setting out the Government's proposals to improve our arrangements for care in old age.
Older people represent the fastest growing section of the community. The proportion of the population aged 75 and over has risen from 4.7 per cent. 25 years ago to 7.1 per cent. today. The figures for those over 85 are even more dramatic: the proportion has doubled from 0.9 per cent. 25 years ago to 1.8 per cent. of the population today.
It is fashionable to regard those trends as a problem that requires a solution. The Government are more optimistic. We unreservedly welcome the fact that medical and social advance allows us to live longer and fitter lives. It requires a particularly perverse nature to regard the prospect of improved life expectancy and improved quality of life as anything other than good news.
But even good news has to be planned for. As life expectancy increases, it becomes progressively more important to ensure that sufficient provision is made to enable retired people to enjoy a comfortable and fulfilling retirement.
The Government believe that the principal responsibility for making that provision must rest with the individual citizen. That is why we have developed a wide range of incentives to encourage people to save for their needs in later life. New rights and flexibilities have been introduced into pension schemes. Savings products, such as tax-exempt special savings accounts and pensioner income bonds, have been developed or made more attractive to encourage people to save during their working lives and provide for their needs during retirement.
There is, however, one cost that can have a dramatic effect on the finances of elderly people, and for which they have often not made specific provision. It is estimated that roughly one in five people who reach retirement age will eventually need long-term residential care, which can cost up to £20,000 per annum or, in some cases, even more. Costs on that scale cause real concern to elderly people and to their families. Furthermore, that worry is compounded by uncertainty, as no individual can be certain either whether they will need residential care or for how long they will need it. The open-ended nature of the potential commitment is a particular source of concern.
Against that background, the Government believe that it is important to provide a framework of support to allow individual citizens to plan their affairs against a more stable background. That framework must balance two objectives.
First, it must continue to offer targeted support to those elderly people who are not able to meet the full cost of their care for themselves. Secondly, it must recognise the contribution of those who do make provision specifically to meet their own needs and ensure that those people secure proper reward for their thrift and responsibility.
30
The existing arrangements have made possible an unprecedented improvement in provision for the care of elderly people, but they are widely perceived to impose an unfairly onerous burden on those elderly people who do make a contribution to their own care costs.
The Government are determined to address that concern. Last month we changed the rules of the means test, which is used by local authorities to determine entitlement to assistance with residential care costs. We increased from £3,000 to £10,000 the amount of capital that is fully disregarded, and provided for half a resident's occupational pension to be disregarded when he or she has a spouse at home. But we want to do more. The consultation document that I am publishing today therefore offers three new elements in the framework of support.
My first proposal concerns those still in work. Almost 11 million people of working age are members of occupational pension schemes and about 10 million people belong to personal pension schemes. Funded pension provision in Britain is more advanced than in any other European Union country, and it is the financial strength of the United Kingdom pension sector that provides the best assurance to the working population that their financial needs in retirement will be met. The Government believe that there are some significant ways in which pension schemes can help individual citizens to meet their long-term care needs. The Government are therefore seeking views on the possibility that pension schemes could offer variable pensions that involve a smaller initial payment in return for a larger payment later on. We believe that that change would be of considerable benefit to elderly people using their pension funds to help with the cost of long-term care.
My second proposal involves those who are at the end of their working lives and are planning their financial arrangements during retirement. In making their plans they need to make provision for the possibility that they will need residential care, but they will be anxious to safeguard their savings, and often the value of their family home as well. The Government therefore believe that it makes sense both to the individual and to the taxpayer to offer those people a partnership. To the extent that the retired person insures the risk that they will need long-term care, the taxpayer will give extra protection to the assets of the retired person. The consultation document offers two alternative formulations, both of which would have the effect of protecting the assets of those in residential care by an amount related to the value of the insurance policy that they take out.
My third proposal concerns those who are at the point of entering long-term residential care, or are already receiving it. At that point in their lives, it is either certain or very likely that they will need long-term care, but a substantial question mark remains over how long they will need it for. Again, it makes sense to both the individual and the taxpayer to offer a partnership that protects the assets of retired people by an amount that is related to the value of an annuity that they purchase on entering care. The annuity offers the elderly person certainty by providing a commitment to pay a stated amount for as long as he or she needs to fund his or her own care. The consultation document invites views about the level of asset protection that should be available to holders of that type of immediate-needs annuity.

31
In considering both insurance and annuity products, the Government think it important for the value of the asset protection available to retired people to be related to the value of the policy that they buy. The consultation document sets out more than one option for establishing the relationship, but it does not suggest that purchase of a policy should exempt a retired person from the means test. The reason for that is important. Total exemption could be linked only to an insurance policy or annuity that passed a minimum threshold of value. The result would be to remove any incentive to provide for themselves from those who were not able to afford total exemption. The Government think it important to provide encouragement to save for old age right across the income scale; we are therefore not attracted to a scheme that we believe would discriminate against less-well-off people.
Expenditure by social services departments on the care of elderly people has been one of the fastest-growing commitments of the taxpayer over the past 17 years. In 1979, the figure stood at approximately £1.5 billion in today's values. Expenditure last year was approximately £3.4 billion, to which must be added £1.5 billion of expenditure by the DSS on residential care for the elderly. That makes a total of £4.9 billion—an average annual increase in real terms of more than 7 per cent. every year for the last 17 years. No one can say that this Government are not committed to providing proper social care for elderly people.
Today's announcements make it clear that that commitment continues. We offer a partnership to elderly people and their families. We shall continue to provide a safety net. In addition, we shall ensure that a proper framework is in place to encourage people to provide for themselves, and protect the interests of those who do. That is the proper basis for a free society, and I commend it to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman: The consultation document claims to be about partnership, but is it not clear from the statement that it is about the individual taking over responsibility? The Secretary of State says that
"the principal responsibility for making … provision"
for care in old age
"must rest with the individual".
He says that the Government's role is now nothing more than "a safety net". That is a betrayal. No one told today's elderly that their care was to be their responsibility. No one told them that the welfare state would be only a safety net for them. They were promised care from the cradle to the grave, and that promise has now been broken.
The consultation paper fails to provide the solution to a problem that the Government have created. Will the Secretary of State admit that the lack of proper provision for long-term care has caused an epidemic of insecurity among old people, and that 40,000 people every year must sell the family home to pay for nursing care? Will the Secretary of State also admit that the problem has not been caused by the growing number of elderly people? That steady increase has been known about for many years. The problem is the Government's failure to make proper plans for the care of the elderly. In fact, far from planning for their care, the Government have cut NHS nursing care for the elderly.
32
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since 1988, the number of people aged over 75 has remained steady? Will he also confirm that, over that period, the Government have cut the number of NHS continuing care beds by a third from 51,000 to 34,000? Is that not where the care gap has come from? Elderly people have been asked to pay for that care gap, and today they are being asked to pay more—a minimum of £10,000 a pensioner couple when they retire, according to the Government's figures. Today's announcement will be seen as a new Tory tax—a tax on the elderly and a tax on home owners. The Government are saying to elderly couples, "Pay up £10,000 or more or lose your home if you need long-term nursing care."
The £10,000 plan will not solve the problem. Will the Secretary of State admit that, even in America. where people are used to insuring themselves for health and social care, very few people take out insurance for long-term nursing care because it asks them to pay most when they can least afford it—when they are retiring?
What about those who own their own home but do not have £10,000 to spare? What about people who do not own their own home? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, according to the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd., only a minority of people who have an occupational pension would be able to afford to reduce their annual pension to pay for long-term care? Do we not need to pay much more attention to people who need nursing care but who could, with a little extra help, stay in their own homes? What about people in hospital who need short-term residential nursing care to help them get better, not long-term care for the rest of their lives? The right hon. Gentleman's proposals do not provide answers to those questions.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Government's short-term, piecemeal approach, in which the consultation document is another step, will not work? We need a royal commission to involve all those concerned in the broad range of social security and health service issues. What people want is the ability to sit down together as a family and plan. They cannot do that now. They want a choice of options for care in their old age. They do not have that now. Above all, they want security. Thanks to the Government, they certainly do not have that now.
Will the Secretary of State act on the Health Select Committee's call for national eligibility criteria for continuing care to end the current lottery, whereby the care that people receive and the price that they pay depends on where they live? Will he admit that the shortage of convalescent and rehabilitation care means that too many people are denied the chance of independence? The reason why today's announcement fails to address the real issues about reforming long-term care is that it is not a serious attempt to rescue the elderly from fear and insecurity—it is merely the Government's attempt to rescue themselves from electoral defeat.
Mr. Dorrell: This is an extraordinary example—the second in a week—of Labour's Front-Bench team not being able to work out its own line. On the lunchtime television news, an argument was going on between the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). In the House this afternoon, the hon. Lady has again described the proposals as a betrayal. On the lunchtime television news, the hon. Gentleman said:

33
"Well, I have no particular objection to the basic idea."
The hon. Lady said at lunchtime that the proposals were a tax on being old and on being a home owner; the hon. Gentleman had no particular objection to the basic idea.
Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen really should work out their lines before they go public on a television screen or in the House of Commons. When the hon. Gentleman goes to see his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), perhaps he will explain to her the difference that she glossed over this afternoon between social care and health care. She led the House to believe that she does not understand that, since 1948, there has been a difference in the funding arrangements for social care, under which support has been means-tested since 1948, and the funding arrangements for health care, which have been a universal, largely free service since 1948. They remain exactly that.
The hon. Member for Peckham talked about the decline in bed space in the national health service. She is right. The House will be interested in the figures. The figures that she quoted are not precisely the ones that I have in front of me, but they are near enough. The number of NHS beds for care of the elderly fell from 55,000 in 1979 to 37,000 in 1995—a reduction of about 18,000. What she did not tell the House was that, in the same period, spaces in residential homes—75 per cent. of which are supported out of public funds—increased from 32,000 to 167,000, or that nursing home spaces increased from fewer than 20,000 to 155,000.
The hon. Lady did not mention the fact that, as I said in my statement, there had been a 7 per cent. per annum real terms growth in public funding for care of the elderly since 1979. It is simply a travesty of the truth to represent that policy as undermining care of the elderly. In the past 17 years there has been an unprecedented growth in the public funds available to support elderly people.
The hon. Member for Peckham went on to peddle the myth—here the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was just as guilty as she was—that the Government's proposals were linked to a £10,000 charge to elderly people. She might like to turn to example 1 at paragraph 9.22 of the document. I do not ask her to go through all the examples, but simply to look at example 1, which makes it clear that the charge is £5,000 to protect a £60,000 house—£5,000, not £10,000. The more important point is that, as I said clearly in my statement, there is no minimum qualifying amount. Any couples or individuals who have savings or assets that they want to protect can benefit from the scheme. It is simply not true to say that there is a minimum qualifying amount.
Anyone listening to the response of the hon. Member for Peckham would have been hard put to recognise the proposition that in this paper the Government are offering the terms on which the means test will be made more generous to allow more public support to go to those who have provided for themselves in old age. The core idea in the statement is that, in addition to continuing to provide the safety net that has been available and has been developed since 1979, we shall also provide support to those who provide for their own needs. I believe that that is right.
The hon. Member for Peckham concluded with a commitment to a royal commission. It is the saying of a politician who has no ideas. It is one of those great
34
sayings of history: "The cheque is in the post, leave it to a royal commission." That is the hon. Lady's standard of policy-making.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: May we now have brief exchanges—brief questions and brief answers? A number of hon. Members want to ask questions.
Mr. Nigel Forman: The three proposals in my right hon. Friend's statement are significant steps forward in a difficult area and I congratulate him on that. In financing them, does he recognise that there is bound to a partnership between the general taxpayer and the families of those who need the care? Will explain a little more fully how that can be carried forward?
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the document, and I agree about the need for partnership. As I have stressed, the key concern must be to continue to provide the safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves while offering a fair arrangement of partnership between public and private sector for those who can and do save for their old age. Those people have been disadvantaged by the system over the past few years and we offer them targeted assistance in the document.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is welcome that the Government have made some proposals because there is much uncertainty and concern about future provision, but I am nervous about the timetable because important work, such as the Select Committee's report and some valuable work by the Rowntree Foundation, will become available in the next few months. The consultation period is only four or five weeks, which is too short. I am concerned about the amount of money involved and whether the scheme will effectively be available to people on ordinary incomes. Example 1 on page 35, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred a moment ago, talks about insurance that would pay out £7,500 a year. What premium would have to be paid to get such a return?
Mr. Dorrell: The example in paragraph 9.21 that I cited would involve a cost of £7,500 to provide cover for the rest of the life of the individual. If that person wanted only to protect a £60,000 house—the detail is set out in paragraph 9.22—the single premium would be £5,000. However, the important point is that people who want to protect smaller sums, either because—as the hon. Member for Peckham rightly said—they are not home owners and want to protect a cash nest-egg or because their houses are not worth £60,000, have that option under the proposals. There is no minimum qualifying amount and nor should there be, because it is my purpose to encourage all sections of the community to save to provide something to help them in their old age and to give people a reward when they do so.
Mr. Warren Hawksley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his consultation document—it is a move in the right direction and it is right that the problems of financing care should be tackled. I have two points. First, will he develop the further stages of the process and the timing of that?

35
Secondly, I hope that he will be able to give my constituents an assurance that they will have a choice between council and private facilities in spending the money. Dudley's Labour council claims to be under financial restrictions under care in the community and blames the Government. It has decided to fill its own homes rather than to give the private sector a chance to provide the service. Private homes are often better and cheaper for the taxpayer. Will he assure us that it is a bad use of taxpayers' money to spend more for worse homes, and will he say what he is going to do about it?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend's second point is important and runs much wider than this issue. It is important to encourage social service departments that are responsible for making decisions about where people go into care to consider honestly the costs and benefits of particular forms of care and not to bias their decisions in favour of their own protected public authority sector. I agree about that, and I give him a complete assurance that, because the money paid out of the insurance and annuity schemes will be the insured person's money, people will be free to use those resources in the home of their choice.
On my hon. Friend's first question about the timetable, the document makes it clear that we intend to make it possible for people to take advantage of the schemes during 1997. As primary legislation is required, he can draw his own conclusions from that commitment.
Mr. Frank Field: As the introduction of a new national insurance care pension would have rewarded everyone who works hard and saves, will the Secretary of State say what consideration he gave to that proposal, as opposed to the partial proposals that he has talked about today?
Mr. Dorrell: I prefer to encourage voluntary contributions—encouraging people to recognise their responsibilities without the use of compulsion, which makes the contributions largely indistinguishable from a form of taxation. I prefer the voluntary approach, and the document makes it abundantly clear that that is the Government's policy. We considered both approaches and opted, as a matter of conscious choice, for the voluntary one.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents will welcome the proposals, particularly his assurance that they will be introduced during 1997? Does he also accept that a number of them will not be able to avail themselves of the proposals and will therefore suffer the problems with social services that have been described? When does he expect to break the hegemony of social services by breaking up their role as judge, jury, prosecutor and inspector?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I announced 10 days ago a series of reviews into the value for money being secured by social service departments. The social service sector is the fourth and often not commented on arm of the welfare state. It is responsible for substantial public expenditure and it is
36
right that the manner and value of that decision-making process should be subject to proper public audit. I announced a series of proposals to secure that in a speech to the Association of Directors of Social Services roughly 10 days ago.
Mr. Alfred Morris: What can the proposals do for the more than 40,000 elderly people who have had their homes sold over the heads, in the last year alone, to pay for long-term care? What will they do for their caring relatives, mainly women, again in their tens of thousands, who, after many years of caring for an elderly parent, now find that they have lost their inheritance? Does the Secretary of State recall that it was the plight of caring relatives and their deep sense of injustice that brought this issue to the boil, not only across middle England but all across this country?
Mr. Dorrell: I share the right hon. Gentleman's impatience to get these proposals in place so that we can prevent that process from continuing. I simply invite him to address his comments to Labour Front Benchers, who are prepared to appoint a royal commission to examine the subject further before they will tell us what they would do about it.
Mr. Douglas French: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on these creative and positive proposals. They will be a great comfort to the elderly and are not at all as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), portrayed them. Does he recognise, however, that insurance companies will need to respond positively and helpfully, which I am sure they stand ready to do, to introduce new products and compliance procedures and to ensure that their product design is correct and produces for purchasers what they believe they will get? Will he give as much attention as possible to the consultation process and consider the publication of draft clauses before the legislation comes before the House to ensure that all the details are properly ironed out?
Mr. Dorrell: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that we shall work closely with the industry and other interested parties to ensure that the issues are fully thought through and ironed out before the legislation is introduced. I will think about my hon. Friend's suggestion on draft clauses. We have already had informal contact with the industry, and we shall continue that with it and other interested parties. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and entirely agree with the stress that he places on the need to ensure that we proceed in a proper and open consultative way.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth that what the Secretary of State is up to is a big confidence trick on the elderly? On the one hand is someone with emphysema, who is riddled with disease and has to go to hospital incessantly for perhaps five or 10 years in the latter period of his life and, on the other, those with Alzheimer's disease who see their homes being taken away from them. Under this scheme, all those people who are affected will not get a penny piece. As for this insurance scam, the only people who will make big profits are the friends of the Tory party among the insurance companies. One thing is certain and I do not know

37
whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever thought about this, but people ought to understand it—do not buy your council house under the Tories, or you might lose it.
Mr. Dorrell: That was yet another example of the catholic views of the modern Labour party. While Labour Front Benchers are busy trying to reassure those who operate in the market that they understand how the market works and that they benefit from the free-enterprise system, the hon. Gentleman remains the authentic voice of the traditional Labour party—which, whenever a public-private partnership is proposed, can think only of the profits of the private partner. The vast majority of elderly people will feel that, at last, there is a clear route forward. They will draw a sharp contrast between that clear route forward and the fog on offer from the hon. Gentleman and from his hon. Friend—if he is happy to call her that—the Member for Peckham.
Mr. David Martin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's imaginative proposals, in particular his highlighting of the contribution made by private rest and nursing homes to the long-term care of the elderly in Portsmouth and elsewhere—the same nursing homes against which the Labour party continues to have a vendetta. Will he, please, state specifically that he intends that there should be legislation in this year's Queen's Speech so that the proposals produced at the end of the consultation period can be put into legislation as soon as possible?
Mr. Dorrell: There are niceties to the specific commitment in the terms that my hon. Friend asks for, but I have given the clear commitment to introduce legislation during 1997. I invite him to draw the same conclusions about the implications of that commitment as I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) to draw a moment or two ago.
Dr. Lynne Jones: The distinction between social and health care is entirely artificial for my constituents, who are having to sell their homes to pay for long-term nursing care. It has, sadly, become the accepted wisdom that the taxpayer can no longer afford the welfare state from cradle to grave, yet as citizens we are told that we can afford premiums of up to £10,000, or—according to Private Patients' Plan, which has operated the blueprint for this consultation—monthly premiums of £70. In the wings, of course, we have the insurance companies, waiting to cream the profits. This week in The Independent on Sunday, insurance companies told us that they pay out only 70p for every pound that they collect.
Why does not the Secretary of State offer the people of this country the choice that a majority of them want: to pay for their health care through national insurance or the tax system? In the end, the premiums will be a damn sight cheaper than the costs listed in these booklets or in his consultation document.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady and her colleagues on the Labour Front Bench have to come clean. If they are in favour of universal provision of social care, they should say that that is their policy—it is the policy of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—which will cost an
38
extra £4 billion of public expenditure. Is that their policy? If it is not, they must not mislead the public that that is the direction in which they are going.
Mr. John Butcher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend. May I warn him—perhaps he does not need any warning—that he is dealing here with a very emotional issue, which, if misrepresented or distorted, could cause a great deal of distress? Will he therefore spend a great deal of time on television and radio over the next three to four hours? If the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) runs true to form, she will spend that time frightening the daylights out of elderly people.
I also tell my right hon. Friend that, in addition to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), many of us are curious about the cost-effectiveness and quality of life implications of offering incentives, either through the taxation system or through cash, to relatives who wish to care for their elderly relatives up until the very last moment—the point at which 100 per cent. nursing care is required. That may save money and help the elderly to stay in their homes for longer.
Has my right hon. Friend seen the very interesting and somewhat destabilising research that shows that nicotine, as a drug, can prevent the onset of senile dementia? Does that not raise some rather interesting ethical and life style questions for the elderly?
Mr. Dorrell: I am not proposing to offer any scientific advice on any subject today. The advice is clear: smoking is bad for health. That advice appears in different forms on every cigarette packet. The hon. Member for Peckham can relax about that. I shall be interested to examine evidence that my hon. Friend may wish to send, but, for the moment, scientists' advice is very clear about the health effects of smoking.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, if the hon. Member for Peckham runs true to form, she will be looking for means of scaring people. She thinks that she has already found that means because she has latched on to the idea that this is a £10,000 bill, but the proposals make it explicitly clear that there is no minimum amount and that any family with any amount of savings that they wish to protect can benefit from the provisions of this scheme. She will be misleading the public if she continues to return to that figure.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister realise that a large proportion of the widows in my constituency do not have £5,000 with which to buy an annuity? Will he clarify one point that has not been touched on—the position of those who are under 65 but who have been hit by strokes or by other disabling conditions? Are they brought into the provisions or not? There does not appear to be very much reference to them.
Mr. Dorrell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is yes, there is no age-qualification bar to the proposals.
On his first point, he is precisely right. That is why I have set my face against proposals that offer partnership only to those who can afford to buy total exemption. I am determined that that product should be available to all

39
people with savings that they want to protect, however small. Any attempt by any politician to mislead the public about that matter is blatantly dishonest.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State for Health agree that health care for the frail aged, whether in home or at home, is but a section of the much broader post-war solution that we thought we had for social security as a whole? Does he agree that his Government cannot deliver that security when their policies are, unfortunately, delivering greater insecurity of employment, greater insecurity of income and even greater insecurities for existing homes for the frail and elderly, such as the Sally Sherman home in Newham? How can we place confidence in a scheme for old age that increases the participation of the City and the use of premiums when, in fact, the Government cannot deliver security now?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has asked a very wide-ranging question. I pause simply to observe that security of employment and job prospects are better here than they are in any other major European Union country, because our economy is working more efficiently than most comparators elsewhere in Europe. As for his point about the welfare state and its structure, he must recognise that there is a difference between health and education—the two elements of the post-war welfare state—which are provided on a universal basis to a high standard and are largely free to those who need them. That is the commitment that this Government honour on health and education.
In the rest of the welfare state—through social security, social services and housing—ever since the war the commitment has been different. The commitment has been to a safety net to ensure that no one has an unacceptably low standard, but to encourage the individual to improve on that minimum. That is the basis of the post-war welfare state, which is respected by these proposals but which is called into question by some of the questions from Opposition Members.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: There is a well-known reluctance among people to plan for strokes, for the onset of Parkinson's disease or for other such
40
illnesses. We will all get old, but most people do not expect those illnesses to happen to them. Ordinary, normal, rational and logical people sometimes refuse even to make a will for that reason, later landing their loved ones with horrendous problems. It is a major difficulty.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider how the House legislated in the past to force on people one of two pensions—the state earnings-related pension scheme or an occupational pension—on top of the state pension, because people are reluctant to plan and save for a pension. The House had to do that, with a degree of consensus, because it was the only way in which we could ensure that people avoided dropping through the safety net. There should be an element of that in this scheme, because some people will refuse to take up such a scheme on the basis that it will never happen to them—or they refuse to think about it at all.
Does the Secretary of State maintain that there was a golden age of NHS long-term care? There was not. There were long-stay geriatric wards—with 20 to 30 beds in a ward—where families, if they could, dumped their elderly relatives so that they could get their hands on their relative's house. The quality of care for our constituents' parents was abysmal. Now, the majority of people can, if they wish, stay in small wards, and the majority stay in single rooms. The quality of care is now vastly superior to what it was. I do not make a distinction between the public and private sector when I say that, but we must not lead people to believe that there was a golden age of long-term NHS care as opposed to other forms of care—that would be to set out a false prospectus.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is powerfully right, and I refer his colleagues to his final remark. I should like to add one further element to what he said about the supposed golden age on which people look back. In addition to the people who received poor care in NHS geriatric hospitals, many tens of thousands could not find care either in such hospitals or in part III accommodation run by local authorities. That waiting list has been abolished by the changes introduced over the past 17 years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on; I am sure that we shall return to this matter.

Representation of the People (Amendment)
4.50 pm
Mr. Spencer Batiste: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to fix the maximum number of Members of the House of Commons at five hundred.
For years, we politicians have been exhorting British industry to increase its productivity, which it has done with spectacular success. We are reducing the size of the civil service to cut the cost of the state to the taxpayer; we have cut whole tiers from local government and the national health service; and we are pressing councils and schools to make themselves more cost-effective. We were absolutely right in all that, but there comes a time when we also have to lead by example.
We all know that there are far more Members of Parliament than is necessary or desirable and, as a consequence, there are more Ministers, more parliamentary private secretaries and more Opposition Front Benchers than we really need. We should have the courage of our convictions and commit ourselves to a substantial reduction in our own numbers.
Before the war, membership of the House was stable at 615, but since 1950 there has been a slow but inexorable rise in the number of Members of Parliament, from 625 to 630 to 635 to the current 651. Indeed, as a result of the current boundary review, our numbers after the next general election will be swelled by a further eight Members, making a total of 659. Rules 5 and 6 of the Boundary Commission permit such increases for geographical or demographic reasons and, by their very nature, encourage continued expansion. We have accepted this conventional wisdom without asking whether it is necessary or whether there are better alternatives. As a consequence, an already oversized House of Commons is growing without contemporary strategic judgment ever further beyond its already overstretched capacity.
Of course, new buildings can be provided for Members of Parliament and their staffs, although being in Westminster they are inevitably very expensive. However, if we reduce the number of Members of Parliament to 500, as I propose, we shall not need new buildings—indeed, we could probably sell some, as well as saving the cost of 159 Members, their staffs and their support infrastructure. That could mean the saving of millions of pounds in revenue and capital. A substantial saving could be made to the public purse, with an increase in the resources available to support the remaining Members of Parliament in the better performance of their jobs. That is what productivity and value for money are all about. We at Westminster should be no more immune to that process than industry, the civil service or local government.
Some journalists and Opposition Members clearly find my proposal strange. With a cynicism that is, sadly, as familiar as it is misplaced, they argue that turkeys would not vote for Christmas. Certainly, when I proposed a similar Bill last year, the Labour party spoke against it and defeated it. This year, we shall see.
In a recent Harris poll, 60 per cent. of those Members of Parliament who were asked said that they considered 659 to be too many, and a reduction to between 450 and 550 was the most popular solution. In a debate last summer on the Boundary Commission, Members from all
42
parties called for a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. The former Speaker, now Lord Weatherill, has argued in the media for large reductions, and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is, as ever, more radical than most and suggested only a few weeks ago that the number should be halved.
Such support for change is not surprising when we consider the overwhelming evidence in favour of it. Let us compare the House of Commons with comparable overseas legislatures. The United States, with a population five times our own, manages with 100 Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives. Japan, with more than twice our population, has only 511 Members of Parliament. In Europe, only Germany has more Members of Parliament than we have—and then only three more—although its population is 23 million greater than ours. France, whose population is nearly identical to ours, has 82 fewer Members of Parliament. Surely we can manage with fewer than 659—there is no magic in that number.
What would be the advantages of reducing our numbers? The first and most apparent advantage is that we would send a signal to people across the country that we are committed to productivity and an example of how to achieve it. The second is that we can save money for the taxpayer. The amount saved may not be enormous, but its impact on public attitudes would be.
The third advantage is that there would be more space for Members of Parliament to do their job, by which I mean not only physical space in the House but the opportunity to participate more in prime time parliamentary proceedings. How often do we try to speak in a debate or ask a question that we believe is of great importance to our constituents but are not called? Indeed, how many Members now in the Chamber tried unsuccessfully to ask a question on the statement a few moments ago? If there were fewer Members of Parliament, we would have a greater opportunity to represent our constituents in that way.
The fourth advantage is that, even after making savings in public expenditure, there would still be enough money to provide more resources for the support of Members in their constituencies and at Westminster and to develop our information technology systems more rapidly.
Last, but by no means least, the electorate might be a little less cynical about our pay if we accepted for ourselves the redundancies that elsewhere have underpinned non-inflationary pay increases.
Some Members may feel that their work load is heavy enough, with an average of just over 69,000 constituents. Adding the demands of 19,000 voters may seem excessive but, with extra staff, an average constituency of nearly 88,000 can be as well and possibly better serviced. After all, 19 of our colleagues already have constituencies that are larger than that and have coped even without extra staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has 101,391 constituents and wants to keep them all.
Another important by-product and beneficial consequence of the Bill is that it would address and correct an unfair imbalance in the size of constituencies across the United Kingdom. I have raised this matter in the House before. It cannot be right that the average constituency in England contains 69,534 electors, while

43
the average constituency in Scotland has only 54,571. That situation has arisen because of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958 which, for no obvious reason, provided a minimum number of seats for Scotland and Wales, irrespective of subsequent population changes. That democratic deficit means that Glasgow has 11 Members of Parliament while Leeds only eight even though Leeds has a larger electorate.
The simple solution is to return to the pre-1958 position of a common electoral quota for the whole of the United Kingdom. Combined with that, the reduction to 500 Members of Parliament would produce an average constituency with an electoral quota of 87,792 voters which, I believe, is perfectly viable. Leeds and Glasgow would then have six Members of Parliament each, which would be fair. The existing rules on community of interest in setting precise boundaries should be retained in full, and I propose to allow extra flexibility to assist that. I believe that an allowance of plus or minus 10 per cent. of the electoral quota will be more than adequate.
I accept that there may be a need for some exceptions. I recognise that in some sparsely populated areas of the country there would be enormous physical constituencies if they had to accommodate the full quota of constituents. There are also areas with large and cohesive communities that are not big enough for two constituencies and do not want to be split—for example, the Isle of Wight. In exceptional circumstances, I would allow the Boundary Commission discretion to create up to 10 constituencies outside the permitted range.
Clearly, my Bill will have a powerful impact on hon. Members—I am, after all, proposing a reduction of almost 30 per cent. in the number of Members of Parliament. Even after allowing for the normal retirements at elections, there will inevitably be redundancies. I believe that this change is vital for the health of the mother of Parliaments, for our country and for the restoration of public confidence in our national institutions. There is a need for constitutional reform and it should start in the House of Commons. I commend my Bill to the House.
5 pm
Mr. John Butcher: I oppose the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on the grounds that it does not go far enough. I believe that Members of Parliament should have wider responsibilities, but that we should be less productive of clutter. I declare some form of interest in that 18 months ago I signalled that I will be retiring from the House. Therefore, any comments that I make in relation to the number of Members of Parliament or their salaries will be of a somewhat more distant nature than they might have been. I would, however, be a recipient of the side benefits in the form of an increased pension.
Having cleared that issue with hon. Members, I argue—as animal rights activists sometimes do—that when free-roaming mammals are crowded together in artificial and crowded circumstances it often produces some pretty unhealthy by-products. It is my judgment that the House is getting more and more fevered and therefore demands a culling programme.
I believe that it would be appropriate for there to be 300 Members of Parliament. This raises serious questions. There is an intimate relationship—indeed, a unique
44
relationship—between a Member of Parliament and his constituents, and it is beneficial to the workings of the House. I believe that Members of Parliament could represent 140,000 voters—which would mean approximately 180,000 souls. Members of Parliament would need to spend far more time in their constituencies in surgery work, but they now have the back-up to do so.
As things stand, we are productive of clutter in the House and we tend to generate ephemera far more than we should. One has only to look at the Order Paper to see the immense cost of the wide variety of hobby horses being ridden by hon. Members. I oppose the Bill because I want to increase the status of Members of Parliament. It is our job to represent our constituencies in Westminster, just as much as it is to represent Westminster in our constituencies. However, we should focus on the broader issues where possible—the issues that affect millions of people when it comes to policy formulation and criticism.
Larger constituencies would mean more balanced constituencies—they would probably have a wider cross-section of income and socio-economic groups. In my view, Members of Parliament would regain some of the status that we appear to have lost over recent years. I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind my opposing his Bill—on grounds that I hope he finds more positive than negative.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and negatived.
Mr. Batiste: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sought to persuade the House of the need for a Division on my Bill. I believe that I shouted "Aye" to the limit of my voice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The Chair has to make a judgment as to the overwhelming preponderance of the view of the House. There was no need for a Division.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Register of Members' Interests has been published today. I have perused it and noted that many hon. Members have registered remunerated interests without providing the detail of how much money they are being paid. Does this not frustrate the decision of the House that any such payments made shall be detailed in the Register?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Any views on the matter must be referred directly to the Commissioner.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is to wind up the debate on the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill for the Opposition. I see that in the Register of Members' Interests, which was published today, the hon. Member has—quite properly—declared a fee received from chartered surveyors and a research assistant provided by the Building Employers Confederation. May we have your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to the hon. Member's participation in the debate after making those declarations of interest?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is quite improper for the Chair to anticipate in that way.

Orders of the Day

  Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.5 pm
  The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill underlines the Government's commitment to the construction industry, and I hope that it will be widely welcomed. For the assistance of hon. Members, I shall list the main purposes of the Bill. First, the Bill reinforces the moves of the construction industry to make itself more competitive in an increasingly international market and to deal with abuses of payment procedure. Secondly, it gives more flexibility to local authorities in the payment of grants for private sector renewal.
  Thirdly, the Bill reforms the Architects Registration Council to ensure a greater degree of independence and more manageable arrangements. Fourthly, it builds on the success of the single regeneration budget and it brings together the grant-making powers for the budget. Finally, it introduces more flexibility into the home energy efficiency scheme to recognise the pace of technological change in the insulation industry. There are, of course, many other provisions.
  The Bill has been considered in another place and it comes to the House much improved as a result of their Lordships' deliberations.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Am I mistaken in believing that the Bill says nothing about extending the building regulations to ensure that, from the beginning, the houses that are built are capable of housing people from every generation and people with varying degrees of disability? If so, is there scope to introduce such a measure into the Bill?
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is correct: that is not covered by the Bill. However, it has been raised in debates in the other place, and I assume that that is why he intervened. We have had an enormous response to our consultation about part M of the building regulations, which we are now digesting and analysing. We hope to produce revised part M regulations in due course.
  I shall refer to the proposals in the Bill that affect the construction industry. The Bill is a little unusual in that this provision has been introduced in support of initiatives within the construction industry, as opposed to a specific follow-through of the Government's policy. Therefore, it has been a somewhat complex matter because we have had to negotiate with a large number of trade federations and interest groups to produce what I hope hon. Members will regard as a consensus within the industry. As such, the legislation is only the tip of the iceberg and much else is needed in the construction industry. I shall report on any progress in this regard to the House.
  I pay tribute to the officials in my Department who have carried much of the load of the lengthy meetings that have taken place with the various interest groups in the construction industry. Although there is a consensus,
  46
  it has moved around a little during the course of the deliberations and it has thrown up an enormous amount of extra work.
  Something must be done about the competitiveness of the construction industry, which is a problem. In a report commissioned jointly by the Government and the construction industry, Sir Michael Latham, a former Member of the House, reported in 1994 that the productivity of construction in the UK was falling badly behind our overseas competitors. He found that costs were far too high and invited the industry to set itself a target of reducing those costs by 30 per cent. by 2000.
  Sir Michael's conclusion may have given many in the industry a jolt, but it was partly based around frightening evidence from the industry's clients. For example, Lynton plc found that the cost of producing a typical American office building in North Carolina to be 32 per cent. lower than a similar building in Heathrow. Stanhope reported that during the period 1985 to 1991 it regularly achieved construction savings of around 30 per cent. compared with industry norms. Anyone who has heard Sir John Egan of the British Airports Authority making speeches on that subject will know that he regards the 30 per cent. target as modest. He has reported that, in most cases, things are 55 per cent. cheaper in the United States.
  The Latham report gave no illusions that the solution would be simple. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. provided at least one example of a cost-saving strategy that was multi-faceted. The company had reduced the cost and time of construction in the UK over the preceding five years by 60 per cent. and on-site construction times from 115 to 15 days by using modular techniques and treating production as an engineering exercise. It was looking for further improvements including standardisation of components, and it agreed on a yearly programme with producers to build up familiarity, team work and performance.
  Given that background and the improvements registered by some clients, the House may wonder what legislation has to offer. It is not a process in which legislation offers everything. We cannot require the industry to innovate and use new technologies, although the Government can and do provide assistance to research; nor can we require the industry to use new forms of working such as partnering and benchmarking, although we are sponsoring initiatives aimed at just that as part of our wider competitiveness agenda. We have an obvious interest, and not just because of our commitment to the United Kingdom plc, as the industry's biggest customer. We have therefore been involved in much of the process to improve competitiveness and I would like to report on progress.
  One of the first recommendations of the Latham review to be implemented, and one of the most important, is the setting up of the Construction Industry Board. It is comprised of representatives of the four main umbrella organisations in the construction industry representing the consultants and professionals, such as architects; the major contractors and master builders; the specialist subcontractors; and the material producers and suppliers. They have been joined on the CIB by representatives of the clients and of Government. It is the first time that the industry has had an effective co-ordinating body and the ability to speak with one voice.

  47
  The CIB mechanism has spawned a number of working groups that have been created to deal with an aspect of improving the construction industry's productivity and competitiveness. Nevertheless, the Government have been persuaded by the construction industry that legislation is required to improve the contractual framework in which it operates. Construction is unusual in the way in which it is organised, because large projects in particular draw upon a wide range of construction skills that tend to be provide by independent specialists. Hence a client may retain a major contractor to organise a project for him, but that contractor will not necessarily use his own staff. Skills and labour may be bought in from subcontractors, each operating under a separate contract. On a large project, the final result will be a lattice of certainly tens, and possibly hundreds of contracts involving the clients, main contractors, designers, managers and specialist subcontractors.
  I will come on, in a moment, to the way in which this Bill will tackle the problems that that can cause, but it is important that I first set the provisions in context. They complement a far wider process of productivity improvement. A process that is being co-ordinated by a central forum, the Construction Industry Board.
  The board's main avenue of progress is via the 12 working groups. Those have a mixed membership that includes representation from the main contractors, specialist contractors, consultants and Government. In addition, there is representation from that important group—the clients. That wide cross-representation will help to ensure that the outputs from the working groups, whether they are reports, guidance notes, or codes of practice, will have the support of all sections of the industry as well as its clients.
  I believe that it is true to say that the extent of that co-operation is unique in the history of the UK construction industry, and it is vital to ensure that the best possible use is made of that valuable resource.
  Each of the working groups is making an important contribution to the process of change. I regret that I can only sketch out that contribution in the time available to me.
  Working Group one has been producing a guide for clients on better briefing. It has reviewed the guidance already available, and used that to draw up a guide for the use of experienced and inexperienced clients, in the public and private sectors. Many of the problems encountered on construction sites can be laid at the door of inadequate or poor briefing by clients of their designers and constructors. The objective of the guide is to save clients time, trouble and money by helping them to determine the most appropriate construction project for their needs, and at the same time to foresee problems and avoid them. The guide is now in the final stages of preparation and is due to be considered by the board in the near future.
  Working group two is producing a code of practice which is intended to cover the full procurement process. The objective is to enable clients to obtain their desired end product, get value for money, and guide industry practitioners on their roles. The code is intended to be an authoritative statement of best practice, and easily accessible to a wide range of clients and industry
  48
  practitioners. The work is being co-ordinated with that of working group one. The code is now in its final stages and is due to be considered by the board shortly.
  Working group three is also working on a code of practice, which aims to codify the practice of short tender lists and selection on the basis of both quality and price, and ensure that subcontracts meet the Latham principles. It aims to rule out Dutch auctioning, as well as securing co-operative working between subcontractors. The work is being co-ordinated with that of working group two. The final report is due in the near future.
  Working group four has a dual task. As well as producing a mechanism to enable quality as well as price to be assessed when engaging professional consultants, it has been studying the issues relating to the creation of a single register of consultants seeking public sector work, and the appropriate requirements for entry on to the register. In tackling the first part of its work, the working group took full account of the various mechanisms that have already been produced in that respect. The guidance will enable full scope to be given to the qualitative aspects of consultants' tenders for commissions, thus enabling proper judgment to be given to value for money. The guidance has been endorsed by the National Audit Office as well as by the Audit Commission and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It has now been approved by the board and is due to be published shortly.
  On the second part of its remit, the working group's report has been accepted by the board, and handed over to the Department of the Environment, which has let a contract for the redevelopment of that and the contractors management information system.
  Working group five has also had a dual remit. As well as developing a standard pre-qualification form for public sector work, it has been considering the issues relating to the creation of a single register of contractors seeking public sector work, based on the existing contractors management information system. The working group's report has been approved by the board; as mentioned earlier, DOE has let a contract for the redevelopment of the contractors management information system.
  Moving away from the production of codes and guidance notes, working group six was tasked with preparing a report identifying action for Government and for the industry on construction training for craft workers and operatives. The working group has produced a summary report with recommendations, which take account of the actions of the Construction Industry Training Board in implementing its new entrant training strategy. The working group also looked at the activities of non-CITB training organisations, the training of supervisors and technicians, the training needs of specialist trades, the delivery of training and its funding. That report is due to be considered by the board shortly.
  Working group 7 is considering the image of the industry. Much of the criticism of the industry by outsiders is based on the industry's unfavourable image. Often that perception is based on a misunderstanding of the way that the industry operates or on misinformation or a general prejudice against what is perceived to be a dirty, noisy industry, which operates in unpleasant conditions. That unfavourable image is accepted as a significant problem and lies at the root of many of the problems that the industry has in dealing with the outside world.

  49
  The working group has produced several valuable ideas which have been accepted by the board. Plans are now in train to set up a national version of a considerate contractors' scheme, similar to that operated successfully by some local authorities. In addition, a marketing plan adopted by the hoard should lead to some exciting initiatives, which should go some way to counter the industry's poor image.
  One of the outcomes of the industry's poor image is difficulty in recruiting women and ethnic minorities. The perception is that of an industry dominated by macho white men. Although that picture is not representative of the industry as a whole, it is not far enough from the truth to enable the industry to be counted as a true equal opportunities employer. Working group 7 was set up to tackle that problem, starting with equal opportunities for women.
  The working group has gone to immense trouble to investigate the truth, examining all sectors of the industry to find out what the position is and what improvements could practically be made. Its aims are to encourage the development of attitudes, practices and physical environments that do not disadvantage women, and to encourage more women to enter the industry at all levels, trades and professions and to progress in it.
  The working group's report includes an equal opportunities code of practice and an implementation plan for use at company level. The report has been adopted by the board, which aims to publish it soon.
  Working group 9 considered the education of construction professionals. There have been several reports on that subject in recent years. The working group's task was to consider how best to achieve implementation of those recommendations that have received general industry support. The working group's solution was to produce a list of what it called "learning outcomes"—in other words, attributes that those graduating in construction disciplines should have acquired, as well as attributes that are appropriate for those undertaking continuing professional development during their careers. Those learning outcomes should better equip construction professionals to exercise management and business skills as well as professional judgment and awareness. The report has been adopted by the board and is in the process of being implemented.
  A great deal of very good work is going on in many academic institutions, encouraging cross-disciplinary teaching in the construction industry. Not long ago, I visited the University of Central England in Birmingham, in the Perry Barr area, and was greatly impressed by what it is doing. I am sure that that is one of the ways to approach future professional education.
  The House will have noted that the Bill omits any provisions on the subject of liability for construction defects, but that does not mean that the work carried out by working group 10 has been wasted. That working group was tasked with taking forward the recommendations in "Constructing the Team" that related to liability and insurance matters. It has produced three reports so far—on liability law reforms, latent defects insurance and supplier's liability. Some of the liability matters are currently under consideration by the Law
  50
  Commission, and the working group's reports will provide useful material for the Law Commission's consideration.
  Ms Joan Walley: In view of that working party's findings about the construction of properties, what does the Minister propose, in legislation now before the House, in response to the anxieties of people in my constituency who have houses built under the Shindler method of construction, who are unable to claim as eligible owners?
  Mr. Jones: With the greatest of respect to the hon. Lady, I do not believe that that relates to what is in the Bill. The issue of liability, in a much wider sense, is highly relevant to the reputation of the construction industry and to the problems which some people experience, but as construction can be considered, not in the narrow, but only in the wider, context, we must await what the Law Commission says.
  The Law Commission recently reported on joint and several liability, and working group 10 has been reconvened to consider and respond to the Law Commission's report. Meanwhile, the working group is in discussion with the Association of British Insurers on the development of latent defect policies.
  Working group 11 was charged with putting flesh on the bare bones of the 30 per cent. cost reduction target by considering what productivity improvements could be achieved and how best to achieve them. The working group's report has been approved by the board. It includes reports from sub-groups on benchmarking, quality and information technology, together with proposals for acting on its recommendations. It accepts the target of a 30 per cent. cost reduction in real construction costs as realistic and achievable, and identifies barriers that need to be overcome to secure such cost reductions. It also makes several research proposals, and emphasises the need to collate and disseminate best practice knowledge in a usable form to achieve significant productivity improvements. The board has delegated implementation of several of the recommendations to groups such as Construct IT and the Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel—CRISP—as well as setting up a new task force on cost reduction.
  Finally, working group 12 was set up relatively recently, in June 1995. Its objective is to promote the practice of partnering, where appropriate, in both public and private sectors by establishing best practice benchmarks, facilitating the widest dissemination of good practice and ensuring the development of appropriate training and education packages. It has commissioned a scoping study of current practices and existing guidance to identify gaps in guidance and the need for additional promotion. It expects to complete its work in the autumn.
  Before leaving the subject of the Construction Industry Board, I pay tribute to Sir Michael Latham for his invaluable work as the board's first chairman. Sir Michael recently stepped down after more than a year and a half at the helm of the board and its predecessor, the review implementation forum. As the board embarks on a longer-term business plan, he has handed over to Sir Ian Dixon, who has already been driving forward change in the industry.
  I have reviewed the aspects of Latham being advanced by good practice initiatives, but there are two main areas in which Latham and the Government shared the view

  51
  that good practice alone may not be enough to affect the radical change that we are seeking from this industry. These two areas are dispute resolution and payment, and it is in those areas that we propose legislation.
  From the start, we applied two tests to this: the first, that there should be some consensus within the industry—I do not mean unanimity, but a consensus—and the second that there should be a workable, practical solution. That has led to a very difficult process of negotiation, because—
  Sir Peter Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to secure the admirable objectives that he has just stated would be to have the widest possible definition of construction operations? I pay tribute to him for having widened the definition already and listened to representations on that point, but can he confirm that he remains open to further arguments, such as from the Electrical Contractors' Association, for further widening of the definition to include matters such as maintenance? The widening of the definition will obtain the maximum benefit from this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He has taken an active interest in those matters on behalf of, not only his constituents but a wider spread of people who have a significant interest at stake. I shall say something about definitions later, but we have always made it clear that we want to see the widest possible definition consistent with excluding those areas where there is no problem in practice, and of course the building material suppliers, because obviously they are in the same position as those who supply any other form of goods. Getting those definitions right in law is an extremely complex process; that is why there has been such a lively debate about it in the industry and in the other place.
  Mr. Den Dover: Is that why my hon. Friend intends to exclude process engineering—because he is happy that there is not too much litigation in that field?
  Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend said, the process engineering industry made it very clear to me—the record speaks for itself—that it has not had the same dispute and payment problems as the construction industry as a whole. That is why we decided that that industry should be excluded. In reaching that conclusion, we do not seek to exclude ordinary construction processes—there is sometimes a little of both on site. We are trying to address that consideration without embracing an industry that does not have any real problems.
  We have made a judgment based on the practicalities. The negotiation process is difficult because consensus is not always fixed. The legislative process has provided an opportunity for people to advance new points of view or to put a new emphasis on existing concerns. That is one of the reasons why some of the legislation will be dealt with by way of statutory instrument instead of being on the face of the Bill. It seems quite likely that we shall want to respond to changing practices within the industry. Therefore, we should not lay down hard and fast rules that apply now but which may become outdated. Obviously, I hope that the construction industry will put its house in
  52
  order so that the Government never have to intervene again. However, that will not necessarily occur and we shall want to respond to any changes.
  If problems arise outside the area for which we have legislated, it seems reasonable at this stage not to preclude any changes in definition. We shall watch developments in all parts of the industry. We have adopted a flexible approach, which will be welcomed in the construction industry—and I suspect that it will not create divisions in the House.
  Sir Anthony Durant: On the question of flexibility, part II of the Bill mentions contracts. When will the legislation come into effect, and what is the position regarding existing contracts, about which there is widespread concern?
  Mr. Jones: I understand that concern, but it is not the practice of the House to legislate retrospectively. Various clients have introduced many improvements already. The date when the legislation comes into effect will be determined by its progress through the House—it has passed through the other place. As to flexibility, we shall listen to points raised by all hon. Members in order to ensure that we have got it right. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
  The debate so far illustrates the difficulty of shuttle diplomacy in this area. There are many conflicts of interest, not just between different umbrella groups but within them. I suspect that my officials who have not been exhausted by the process may be called to act as negotiators in future crises in Yugoslavia, the far east or wherever, such are the diplomacy skills that they have developed.
  The Bill promotes a clear system of dispute resolution called adjudication. The industry is clear about what it means by that: it wants a mechanism that produces a fast and impartial resolution of a dispute and allows the contract to continue. The industry does not want the decision necessarily to be the final one. It wants to ensure that disputes are tested at the time, on the spot and are resolved quickly to the parties' satisfaction.
  Our provisions provide a right to refer construction disputes for adjudication. We expect that entitlement to be met normally by the construction industry deciding, as a matter of course, to include adjudication arrangements in its contracts. The Government are challenging the industry to take action to improve its contractual practice and to introduce the sort of adjudication arrangements that best suit it. The best outcome must be that there is no need for a fall-back.
  However, we have a view about the minimum standards that contractual adjudication clauses must satisfy. They relate to speed of decision, impartiality, and the freedom for an adjudicator to investigate disputes and reach his own conclusion. In another place we added the necessary provision to give adjudicators protection from personal liability so long as they act in good faith.
  The Government are conscious that one party to a contract may think that it can tip the scales in its favour if it strikes out the adjudication clause. That is the industry's experience until now. If there is no adjudication provision in a contract, or the clause is defective in any way, we shall provide a fall-back adjudication mechanism in our scheme for construction contracts, to be made by statutory instrument.

  53
  The Bill acts to improve payments in the industry. It abolishes "pay when paid" clauses, except in the event of insolvency. It is relatively common for contractors to refuse payment to the next contractor down the line until they have themselves been paid by their client. At worst, that can lead to delays in payment lasting months. The Government do not consider that to be acceptable and we wish to put an end to that practice. I have always said that if the industry treats its subcontractors badly, it will end up with bad subcontractors—and that is not in the interests of the industry.
  The Bill also provides a right to payment by instalment on longer contracts and establishes a notification system for payment. If there is any intention to withhold payment on its final due date, a notice must be served specifying the reasons for withholding that payment. There is a multiplicity of possible payment arrangements for construction contracts. It is not for Government to decide that one is better than another: no doubt they all have their place.
  However, Parliament can legislate to ensure that contracts are be clear about what payments become due and when. We can ensure that information about payment is available to the payee. We can agree arrangements which expose unreasonable grounds for withholding payment and which can be challenged before an adjudicator. That is the basis of what we propose.
  I shall now outline the adjudication and payment scheme. Under the Bill, there will be a scheme establishing, first, a fall-back adjudication provision if the contracts agreed by the construction industry do not adequately provide one; and, secondly, relevant payment provisions if the contracts signed by parties are inadequate.
  When the Bill was being considered in another place, we set out a first shot at the scheme so that Parliament could see how it might fit the workings of the Bill. The construction industry told us that our illustrative adjudication scheme was not to its liking. We have taken account of those views and we intend to modify our proposals. My Department will undertake a consultation exercise following Royal Assent which will set out the detailed options for a statutory adjudication scheme.
  Mr. Dover: While welcoming the fact that reflection upon the legislation's passage through Standing Committee will assist the follow-up of the regulations after Royal Assent, should they not receive parliamentary scrutiny also? Should not the necessary clauses be carved out during the legislation's passage through Standing Committee? Perhaps my hon. Friend has set his mind against that course and is waiting for Royal Assent.
  Mr. Jones: We are consulting about that, but the Bill provides for a statutory instrument approach. The House will have the chance to debate those matters if it so chooses and we shall see what emerges. There are several potential variants and we shall not prejudge what the final adjudication scheme will look like—that is in the hands of the industry.
  Let me put beyond any doubt our intention that the scheme will come into effect only if construction contracts are deficient in any way. Our aim is to encourage the industry to get its contracts right. Furthermore, we are providing adjudication and not
  54
  arbitration. We intend to propose that parties be required to abide by an adjudicator's decision until practical completion of the contract, but that thereafter they may reopen the dispute.
  I re-emphasise the remarks by my noble Friend Lord Lucas during debate in the other place. We do not intend that adjudication should be used simply to postpone resolving disputes. We have had enough of disputes within the construction industry. Government, the industry and its clients want to see an end to them: they are expensive and damaging to the industry's productivity and reputation. We want to see the industry using the opportunity that we are giving it to improve its payment record and to resolve disputes quickly, without dragging them into arbitration or before the courts.
  We intend the Bill's provision to cover a wide span of the construction industry. After all, that industry asked for the Bill. It desperately wants revised payment arrangements and the ability to resolve disputes quickly and easily. The Government welcomed the debates in another place because they helped to refine and widen the definition of construction operations. We shall be tabling a number of amendments in Committee as a result.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Who will decide whether construction contracts include adequate provisions for payment or adjudication? If it is to be the Construction Industry Board or a similar organisation, there will be fears that contracts will have to be submitted very early in the construction process and that delays will be incurred while they are being considered.
  Mr. Jones: If the contracts do not meet the tests that I have set out, they will be in conflict with the law and, under the statutory instrument, they will be null and void. Therefore, any party to those contracts will be able to fall back on the scheme that we have prepared.
  Mr. Coombs: My question related not to the criteria by which those contracts will be null and void, but to who decides and when. That is a crucial matter for those entering such contracts.
  Mr. Jones: As I said, the decision will go back to the courts. If there is a problem with a contract that does not meet our particular test, any party to such a contract will be able to seek redress under the Government's fall-back scheme.
  In respect of definition, we are currently looking at supply and fit contracts. It is not our intention that the Bill should apply to suppliers of building materials and components as other provisions, such as the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, apply to them. Some construction contracts, however, require the manufacture of specialist building components as well as their fitting—such as those in respect of air-conditioning equipment. We hope to extend the Bill's provision to those contracts. Such a change will be widely welcomed, especially by smaller specialist contractors in construction.
  We are also clarifying the exclusion of process engineering that was mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover). Examples of that are oil refining and chemicals. There has been much unnecessary confusion. We want to make it absolutely clear that only

  55
  the plant and machinery and its associated steelwork are excluded from the Bill and not wider construction operations on process engineering sites.
  The Bill also reforms the help that we give to the renewal of private-sector housing. It aims to give local authorities the flexibility that they need to direct resources effectively, giving help where it is most needed and to maximum effect.
  We have come a considerable way from the days of wholesale and unquestioning slum clearance which could too easily destroy close-knit local communities. We have provided for the basic amenities—inside lavatories and separate bathrooms—and we now need to consider how the money available to help remedy the remaining unfitness should be used.
  We have left behind the days when it was thought necessary to spread resources widely so that everybody got something. There are fewer unfit properties, with the number of unfit occupied private sector houses falling by 7 per cent. to about 1 million between the English house condition surveys of 1986 and 1991. One third of those could be made fit for under £500 each and are owned by people who could easily afford the cost.
  We need to stand firmly on the principle that home owners are primarily responsible for repairing and maintaining their properties. In 1991 alone, home owners spent £20 billion on repairs and improvements to their homes. The need for public expenditure on private-sector renewal arises only where people really cannot afford to undertake repairs. It represents only about 2 per cent. of the total amount spent each year on repairs and renovation in the private stock.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: When examining grant aid to private and public home owners, did the Minister consider improving water efficiency and water safety in people's homes? I am particularly concerned about the replacement of lead piping in public and private-sector properties. The Institute of Plumbing is keen to promote that, partly because 50 per cent. of trainee plumbers finish their NVQ training without any suitable site experience. That problem would be redressed by a major programme of grant aid for lead replacement.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point and seeks to widen the definition of unfit. Hon. Members have made a number of suggestions as to whether the present definition applies to the modern world. The Bill does not alter that definition, but no doubt the hon. Lady will seek an opportunity to debate why not or whether it should be changed in one way or another.
  We have to strike a balance between what central Government tell local government to do and what local government is left to decide for itself in targeting expenditure effectively. The Bill moves the balance towards local government following the principle that, as we move towards targeting expenditure at those in greatest need, we need to increase the decision-making power of local authorities in respect of priorities.
  The current framework for renovation grants in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 was set up to do just that. It was intended to encourage a more strategic and area-based approach to addressing the need for
  56
  renewal and renovation. It targeted help better on poor condition houses and poorer people and introduced a grant to give systematic help to disabled people. It also gave a right to mandatory grant to people on low incomes living in poor housing.
  It gave local authorities a good range of tools, but experience has shown that the pressures for grant assistance have resulted in mandatory grants taking the lion's share of resources. That has distorted any strategy that local authorities may have developed and area-based activity has been undermined in many authorities.
  The achievements of the current system are considerable. Nearly 500,000 grants have been awarded since 1990–170,000 of them were awarded to help make properties fit.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does the Minister accept that people with a legal right to mandatory grants did not get them and there was a de facto system of rationing? That is certainly the case in my local authority area in Pendle and elsewhere in north-east Lancashire.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman highlights a point that has been raised many times by individual local authorities. It is precisely why almost all the local authorities that I met during my time as Minister responsible for housing told me that they wanted an end to the mandatory system which would also enable them to avoid the pepper-potting that occurs under the present arrangements.
  Reform is necessary. In many areas, a strategic approach aimed at the renewal of an entire area or focused on particular problems is likely to be more cost-effective than meeting individual needs as they arise. Most local authorities accept that. What we hear from them—rather than from the local authority associations—is that the move away from the mandatory grant system will allow them to be more effective in using grant to meet their local needs and priorities.
  Central Government will continue to provide special funding for local authorities in the form of grant. That will ensure that local authorities continue to prioritise expenditure and do not divert resources into other areas.
  As the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) raised the matter, perhaps I could ask about Labour's opposition to the abolition of mandatory renovation grants. The Opposition have not even said whether they would reverse the legislation in the unlikely event of their forming the next Government. If they do not intend to at least they should have the honesty to support the sensible measures in the Bill, as many Labour councillors do. If they would reinstate mandatory grants, they should tell us where they would get the money to do that. Unless the Opposition give us a firm pledge on what they would do, their opposition to the Bill is absolutely worthless.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: The Minister has implied that the reinstatement of mandatory grants would require additional expenditure. Will he give us the Government's estimates for next year's expenditure without mandatory grants as his comments imply that there will be a reduction in expenditure?
  Mr. Jones: The Government's plans have been published and show level pegging into next year.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the Minister now concedes that there will be level pegging, how will the reintroduction of mandatory grants lead to increased expenditure?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Pendle raised that point. With or without mandatory grants, there will be queues if we keep to the present arrangements. That is a reasonable issue to debate. We concluded that we should end the mandatory grants system. If the Opposition's response is that the mandatory grants system should be retained, but that money should be made available to deal with the present demand-led system, they should say so and let us know where the money will come from.
  The Bill retains mandatory and discretionary disabled facilities grants, which are designed to help disabled people stay in their own homes. It relaxes the means test so those caring for disabled people, other than spouses, will no longer be expected to contribute to the cost of adaptations. Disabled adults living, for example, with their parents or children will be more likely to receive grant.
  There was a useful discussion in the other place on those provisions and as a result, we have included a less dated reference to disability for the purposes of the Bill, replacing one that had been based on the definition in the National Assistance Act 1948. We have ensured that the wide eligibility has not been prejudiced by such a change, and I hope that the new definition will command the agreement of the House.
  The Bill retains grant assistance to landlords on a discretionary basis, allowing local authorities to decide the level of grant to award to landlords and introducing the possibility of attaching conditions—such as nomination rights and good maintenance, to assist in securing strategic aims.
  The Bill also simplifies and replaces the minor works assistance scheme. Local authorities will continue to be able to give help for minor repairs, improvements and adaptations through home repair assistance to the elderly, infirm, disabled people and persons on means-tested benefits. I welcome what is being done to bring into eligibility people living on houseboats and in mobile homes.
  There was some debate in the other place, which was continued this afternoon, about the current standard used to assess the fitness of a property. We have announced the intention, once the Bill is out of the way and before the end of the year, to begin a review of the housing fitness standard, which will ensure that the requirements of the standard and its application are properly considered.
  The Bill also reforms the system of architects registration. In the United Kingdom, to use the title "architect" a person must be registered with the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom—know by its acronym of ARCUK. Anyone is allowed to design buildings, but they cannot use the title "architect" unless they are registered with ARCUK. Our proposals seek to reform that body. For the sake of clarity, I should mention that the Royal Institute of British Architects is a separate professional organisation to which most, but not all, architects belong. It is not affected by this legislation.
  The reason for reforming ARCUK is that since it was established in 1931, it has grown large and cumbersome and it has taken on functions that are not strictly concerned with registration. Moreover, the council has
  58
  difficulty in enforcing protection of title. Because of those problems, ARCUK asked the Government in 1991 to review the architects registration legislation. The Government commissioned John Warne to undertake a review, and his subsequent report highlighted the inefficiencies of the existing registration system. John Warne's recommended solution was to repeal the architects registration Acts and to abolish protection of the title "architect". The Government were initially prepared to accept that recommendation but, in view of the strength of feeling against abolition, agreed instead to explore ways of improving the existing system.
  As a result, the Government worked with the profession to produce an agreed package of reforms. The subsequent public consultation revealed a strong level of support for the proposed reforms within and without the profession. Our proposals build firmly on the existing pattern of regulation in the architects profession and streamline the registration body. They reduce its size from 73 members to 15 and remove unnecessary committees. They limit the council's functions to matters strictly related to registration and discipline, and they create a genuinely minimalist body that we expect to remain minimalist.
  The reforms provide for the profession, its customers and the public to be represented on the board. The changes are designed to maintain a high level of public confidence in the standards of the architectural profession and they provide a channel for complaints where those standards are not met.
  The Bill also includes provisions to extend the powers to give financial assistance for regeneration and development, to provide a single legislative basis for the single regeneration budget, which currently operates under a range of powers. The SRB brings together a number of programmes to provide co-ordinated support for regeneration initiatives in England. New schemes are supported through the competitive challenge fund, which has already been widely welcomed as a success. That success was endorsed in the recent report by the Environment Select Committee on the conduct and outcome of the first challenge fund bidding round. The Committee concluded that the challenge fund had already demonstrated its potential to achieve excellent value for taxpayers' money. Local partnerships have submitted high quality bids, reflecting tremendous co-operative effort towards the successful regeneration of their areas.
  The Bill is wide ranging and addresses many problems. I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome the Minister, who moved the Second Reading in the absence of his boss, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is variously reported as being in Norfolk and in Derbyshire. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to track down the last remaining Tory councillors in those areas.
  This is the second housing Bill that the Government have introduced this year. Like the first one, this Bill does not measure up to the housing problems faced by so many people. It does not even address most of their difficulties. As with the Housing Bill, the Government's proposals will make matters worse—certainly for owner-occupiers and private tenants whose homes need to be repaired; the Bill deprives those people of their right to renovation grants.

  59
  Anyone who listens to people in Britain today—whether in city centres, suburbs, market towns or villages—knows that millions of people feel insecure in their jobs, on the streets, about their pensions, about the prospects for their children and grandchildren, and about their homes. The Housing Bill ignored the insecurity of owner-occupiers and only tinkered with the dangers and insecurity faced by people who live in houses in multiple occupancy. It claimed to help leaseholders, but failed to deliver. It increased the insecurity of private tenants and made homeless people even more insecure.
  The Housing Bill was improved in Committee as a result of the efforts of my hon. Friends—in particular, by the spectacularly well-informed contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). By ancient and ridiculous custom, the House confines the description "learned" to Members of Parliament who are Queen's counsel. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich is truly learned on the subject of housing. He is certainly the most learned in the House and among the most learned in the country, and more learned on the subject than me. Even the combined efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and all the other Opposition Members in Committee on the Housing Bill could not turn that legislative sow's ear into a silk purse.
  The first part of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill covers housing. It does not just ignore problems or pretend to deal with them—it will make matters worse for many people. The Bill will take away the right of owner-occupiers and tenants to grants for repairing their homes, so it will protract the enormous backlog of disrepair that has left 1.5 million homes unfit for human habitation. The problem afflicts people throughout the country. There are 79,000 unfit homes in the north-east, 257,000 in the north-west, 160,000 in Yorkshire and Humberside, 116,000 in the east midlands, 200,000 in the west midlands, 114,000 in the south-west, 149,000 in the south-east—excluding London, and more than 240,000 in London.
  The fact that a property has been officially designated unfit for human habitation does not mean that no one is living in it. Most such properties are still used—that, after 17 years of Tory government. The Government's appalling housing record is not confined to leaving millions of people in homes that are unfit for human habitation, but goes much wider. The Government, having encouraged the public to become owner-occupiers, turned around and kicked millions of people in the teeth.
  The Tories can no longer claim to be the party of owner-occupiers—far from it. Theirs is the party of repossessions, mortgage arrears and negative equity. One million or more families live in homes worth less than their mortgages. Negative equity preys on the minds of more than 180,000 families in London, 400,000 in the south-east, 160,000 in the south-west, 90,000 in the east midlands, 60,000 in the west midlands and 50,000 in the north-west. Negative equity is something new. It is the Tories' latest addition to the lexicon of housing misery and their novel contribution to the tide of insecurity that afflicts so many families.
  That is not the end. A quarter of a million families are seriously in arrears with their mortgage. Under Labour, serious arrears affected only 10,000 families. So mortgage
  60
  arrears under the Tories are 25 times worse than they were under Labour. That is another bitter, depressing and unsettling Tory contribution to family insecurity.
  People who are in arrears fear that their homes will be repossessed and they are right to fear repossessions, because about 50,000 families a year have their homes repossessed. Repossessions under the Tories are running at 17 times the rate under Labour. So there are 17 repossessions under the Tories for every one repossession under Labour. The figures work out at about 1,000 repossessions a week.
  Since Second Reading of the Housing Bill, which did nothing for owner-occupiers, about 14,000 more families have lost their homes. That has all happened under a Prime Minister who told the British people at the general election:
  "We stopped the repossessions just before Christmas"—
  and:
  "We are going to make life easier for people buying their own home"—
  and:
  "We will maintain mortgage tax relief."
  No wonder Mrs. Thatcher has said:
  "You can imagine my honor when the Government which succeeded me cut mortgage tax relief. It's not fair on all those young people who bought in the knowledge that it was there."
  It is not just owner-occupiers who have been hammered by the Government. They have also hammered tenants. Average council rents are six times as high as they were under Labour. In the past five years, they have risen by more than three times the rate of inflation. In the same five years, while the retail prices index rose by 27 per cent., housing association rents went up by 85 per cent. Rent rises in the private sector have been even worse. As a result, the cost to the taxpayer of housing benefit has risen from £4 billion a year to £10 billion a year—and a great deal of that money has gone straight from the taxpayer into the pockets of the landlords and moneylenders who bankroll the Tory party.
  That is not the only help that the Tory party has given landlords. The Tories' betrayal of the hopes of leaseholders shows where their loyalties really lie. The Government said that they would help leaseholders, but they did not. The Government tried to con people that they were the leaseholders' friend, but the only people they conned were Tory Members of Parliament who voted to look after the landlords who bankroll the Tory party rather than the interests of the thousands of leaseholders they claim to represent. That is the only possible explanation of why Tory Members of Parliament who represent more than 1 million people in places such as Brighton and Hove, Kensington and Chelsea, Ealing, Merton, the Wirral, Southend, Wandsworth, Fulham and Barnet, last week joined the Government to vote down our proposal to give leaseholders the right to manage and other proposals to strengthen the hands of leaseholders in their dealings with unscrupulous landlords.
  The Government have weakened the position of homeless families by putting through laws to leave them in perpetual insecurity, living for ever—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I remind him that we are debating the Second Reading of

  61
  a Bill which does not encompass all housing matters? This is not a general debate on housing. I am prepared to allow a certain latitude by way of background, but it must not allowed to become the foreground.
  Mr. Dobson: I wish to point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Bill has 102 clauses, which relate to the circumstances of owner-occupiers, tenants and landlords, and that those are the matters to which I am referring. I am coming to points that are directly involved in the Bill, but I understand that a debate on Second Reading allows general points to be made and attention to be drawn to the fact that the Bill does not deal with many of the housing problems that people face.
  Mr. Dover: As the hon. Gentleman has wandered away from the subject of the Bill, I want to put him to the test on one matter that he has raised. He gave the impression that, under the Prime Minister, mortgage tax relief would disappear. It is still there and it will be there until the next general election. Can the hon. Gentleman spell out whether it will last after the general election, should the Labour party win?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down pathways that have little to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Dobson: I shall make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I have not wandered away from the Bill, but the Bill has wandered away from the housing problems of people. Secondly, I said nothing about what the Prime Minister intends to do about mortgage tax relief. I mentioned his promise to keep it and his decision to go back on that promise and reduce it twice.
  The Government have reduced and weakened the position of homeless families by putting through laws to leave them in perpetual insecurity, as I have said. The Government reject the commonsense answer to homelessness, overcrowding and homes unfit for habitation—that is in the Bill—which is a house-building programme. The Government, to use the new, bureaucratic jargon, have downsized the building programme. They inherited a council building programme of 54,000 new homes. By last year, they had downsized it to 404. Labour built 135 new homes for every one built under the Tories. No wonder homelessness has doubled under the Government.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Since the hon. Gentleman has clearly implied that the Labour party would increase the programme, will he tell us to what level he would increase it, and from where the finance would come?
  Mr. Dobson: We have made it clear—I shall come to this matter in my speech—that we believe that the Government, let alone the next Labour Government should—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): Answer the question.
  Mr. Dobson: Let me finish. If the Government had any sense, they would allow councils to start to invest the takings from the right-to-buy sale of council houses in building homes for people who have nowhere to live.
  Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: Let me finish the point. The Minister has asked a question and I am trying to answer it.
  62
  We have been urged by people in the building industry to ensure a phased release of the money, because they do not want to go back to the boom and bust that the industry suffered before. If the Minister does not like the answer, that is tough.
  Mr. Jones: I do not like the answer, because it is not a full answer. Housing publications have condemned the Labour party's calculations as wholly unreal on that point. What would be the consequences for council tax payers of spending even a further 20 per cent. of the sums that are on deposit?
  Mr. Dobson: It is no good the Minister chiding me about the idea of councils being allowed to spend the takings from the right-to-buy scheme. The Government permitted councils to do that for one year because they thought it was popular. In Scotland, the Government have insisted that councils spend every penny of their takings. The Minister should not suggest that there is anything odd or dangerous to public finance about what we suggest.
  If we consider the figures on homelessness in every part of the country and the amount of houses being built, we see that Labour built 9,000 new council homes a year in London. Last year, the Tories managed just 22 new homes to help the 29,000 families who are officially accepted as homeless. In Yorkshire, under Labour, 4,000 new homes a year were built. Last year, 24 were built—but there are more than 11,000 homeless families in Yorkshire. In the north-west, Labour built 8,000 new homes a year. Last year, the Tories managed just three—not 3,000, not 300, but three—to help meet the housing needs of 18,000 families in the north-west who have nowhere decent to live. In the south-east outside London, Labour built 11,000 homes a year. The Tory grand total is 47. There are 18,000 homeless families in the south-east outside London.
  I could give other examples. Ministers and Government apologists will say that, although council house building has been reduced, housing association building has expanded. That is true, but it has not made up the difference. Council and housing association building averaged more than 134,000 a year under Labour; under the Government it is running at 34,000 a year—100,000 fewer. Even housing association building is being cut now.
  The common-sense answer to the problem, which has been pursued by all Governments since the 1930s, is to build more homes for people who are homeless or living in overcrowded or degrading conditions. That is why Labour has pledged—I repeat—to introduce a phased release of the takings from the right-to-buy sale of council houses for investment in new housing. That would be good, not just for the families who would get new homes, but for jobs in the building industry and the building supply industry, such as brick makers in Bedfordshire, carpet weavers in Kidderminster, and the people who make central heating boilers in Belper, electrical fittings in Basildon or lavatory pans in Stoke-on-Trent.
  Jobs would also be created if people were set to work renovating homes—but the Bill wants to cut house renovations. That is why it proposes to take away the right of householders to a renovation grant to make their homes fit for habitation. That is nothing wildly luxurious. It is to make their homes structurally stable, free from serious

  63
  disrepair or dampness which harms a family's health, to provide proper heating, lighting, ventilation, wholesome piped water—if it is lead-filled it may fall outside the definition of wholesome—a bath or shower, a lavatory, drainage of foul water and a decent place to prepare food. Those are basic standards—nothing luxurious.
  At the moment, people have a right to such grants, but not for much longer. The Government are proposing to take away that right. Let us be clear. A substantial proportion of the people whose homes need bringing up to those basic standards are elderly or hard up, or both. As the number of old people increases, and as the policy of care in the community leaves more people in their own homes, the requirement to bring homes up to scratch will increase, not diminish.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Government for taking away mandatory grants, will he tell us whether a Labour Government would restore them—yes, or no?
  Mr. Dobson: The Government have not managed to take them away yet. The Opposition may be able to stop the measure going through. We shall certainly try. We shall expect all minority parties and any Tory Member who claims to look after owner-occupiers to join us.
  The Government's response to the problem is not to build more houses or do more rehabilitation; it is, as usual, totally bureaucratic. They are changing the rules rather than getting the work done. The Government want to take away householders' right to a renovation grant because too many householders have been exercising that right. The Government are nothing if not wrong headed.
  The scheme for mandatory renovation grants has had a high take-up and was doing a lot of good, so the Government have decided to drop it. Contrast that with their infamous rent-to-mortgage scheme, which is an abject failure. Despite expensive advertising, precisely 15 families have availed themselves of it, but the Government will keep it going. Their slogan appears to be, "If it works, drop it. If it fails, keep it." That may be a sneak preview of the slogan that they have thought up as their last desperate bid to win the coming general election.
  In future, grants will be available only at the discretion of a local council. That will increase the bureaucratic burden on, and administrative costs of, every council. Councils will be encouraged to exercise their discretion in favour of not making a grant because they are to be given the right to defer action year after year even where houses are so unfit that repair notices have been served.
  In the other place, the Government rejected an amendment that would have enabled grants to be made to provide fuel-efficient space heating. That would have been an enormous benefit to many families whose unfit houses are the very opposite of fuel-efficient, and leave families often old, certainly cold and frequently skint. Investment in renovation grants has fallen to £270 million from more than £400 million three years ago. It is an illuminating illustration of the Government's priorities that they are cutting the funds available to bring 1.5 million homes unfit for habitation up to decent standards while giving increasing tax concessions—in the most recent year totalling more than £60 million—to rich people who inherit stately homes.
  64
  The Bill also extends the scope of home energy efficiency grants. A fat lot of good that will do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his November Budget, slashed one third off the money available to that scheme, so the combined effect of this change and the Budget will mean less money spread more thinly.
  The Government are trying to shift the responsibility for cutting house renovation on to local councils. They hope that councils will be blamed for turning down claims for home renovation grants. The Government say that the proposed change will make it easier for councils to promote group repair and area renewal policies, but it is just as likely that the limited funds that they are making available will be used up simply coping with grants to fund the most urgent repairs and to disabled people. Instead of hitting owner-occupiers and tenants in that way, the Government should have examined, with other agencies, including lenders and builders, other ways of stepping up funding, rather than cutting it.
  At the moment, councils can deal with unfit homes by asking owners to improve them. If that response does not succeed, they can serve repair, closure or clearance notices. For people who are trying to live in such places, which are officially recognised as unfit for habitation, the enforcement procedures for the orders are already protracted, cumbersome and unsatisfactory. Up to now, any delays have been despite the law and the intentions of Parliament. If we accept that councils can issue a notice formally to defer action on a place unfit for habitation, delay will become the law of the land. That may be all very well for the dodgy landlords who fund the Tory party, but it will be hell for the tenants. Just think about it. For the first time this century, the law will say to families that the place in which they are living is unfit for habitation, but that it will stay that way—by law.
  I come next to those parts of the Bill that deal with the construction industry. The Latham report—we pay tribute to Sir Michael—published in 1994 recommended that the productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of the construction industry could be improved substantially by making changes in the culture, procurement methods and contractual basis under which the industry has operated. It recognised that relations between clients, consultants, contractors and sub-contractors had been far too adversarial and that that had been to the detriment of all concerned.
  Latham recommended that more emphasis should be placed on quality, as well as price, and that well-informed clients and well-chosen consultants and contractors could, between them, achieve economies, save time and obtain better quality work, and that they would do that best by co-operation and team work. Making profits by getting a job well done, to cost and on time, would be better than the present system, which has often reduced clients, contractors and sub-contractors to trying to rip off one another in order to stay in business. Many have ended up suing through every court in the land. That has done wonders for banisters in my constituency, but it has not helped to establish an efficient and cost-effective building industry.
  That sensible view was welcomed by most people in the industry and it may even have been welcomed by Ministers at the Department of the Environment, but it was and remains anathema to the Department of Trade and Industry, to many Cabinet Ministers and especially to the Deputy Prime Minister. They all advocate deregulated,

  65
  cut-throat competition as the answer to all the nation's ills. Those manic deregulators have been embarrassed by the Latham report because it recognises that the efficiency of the construction industry has been reduced rather than enhanced as a result of practising for decades exactly what the Government now preach will be good for every other industry.
  The report, I am glad to say, also reflects the proposals being advocated by the Labour party for more investment in training and in research and development to bring about short-term and long-term improvements in productivity, quality and safety. Ironically, the previous under-investment in research and development in the construction industry should mean that any increased investment in research and development now will show bigger and more immediate returns than would be obtained in industries that had always invested heavily in research and development.
  The Bill proposes changes in the law to bring construction contracts in line with Latham's proposals but, almost inevitably, it does not go far enough in some respects, while in one major area it goes right off beam. The definition of construction contracts in the Bill covers only about 50 per cent. of construction operations. The Government have promised changes to extend the definition, but we shall need to look at them carefully.
  Where the Government have got it just plain wrong is in the detail of their proposals to provide for disputes to be referred to an adjudicator. At present, they propose that the adjudicator's decision should be not just binding, but final. That is not what the industry wants.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening when I spelled that out. We certainly did not say that. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  Mr. Dobson: Well, that is my understanding, and it is also my understanding that it is not what the industry wants. The industry would prefer an adjudicator who can make a quick, binding interim decision that is not final, but subject to review—what is sometimes described as a "pay now, argue later" decision. That is what Latham proposed and what the industry wants, but—perhaps as a result of the malign intervention of the Department of Trade and Industry—the Government were so incompetent that they could not get it right.
  In response to almost universal condemnation of their proposals by people in the industry, the Government have said that they will withdraw and amend what the Minister described as the illustrative scheme of constructive contracts. We welcome that, but we shall press for clear and binding Government commitments in regard to what goes into that scheme before the Bill leaves the House. I remind Conservative Members who are concerned about the future of the construction industry of the promises—made from the Dispatch Box—that Railtrack would not be sold. Those promises ensured the passage of the Bill that became the Railways Act 1993, but they have somehow disappeared—and Railtrack is now being sold. We want those commitments from the Government. They need not be in the Bill itself, but we want the Government to make clear, irrevocable and binding commitments before the Bill is passed.
  The scheme must also—as it is intended to—provide clear requirements for timely payments to contractors and sub-contractors, and make void any clause in a contract
  66
  that seeks to allow a contractor to pay a sub-contractor only when he himself has been paid. That is known in the trade as a "pay when paid" clause. We shall carefully scrutinise all aspects of the proposals in Committee and on Report because we believe that full legislative backing must be given to the recommendations in the Latham report and to the changes already set in train in the industry without the Government's intervention.
  The Bill changes the arrangements for funding regeneration projects, whose present main vehicle is the single regeneration budget. We do not object to the clarification in the Bill, but although the "beauty competition" approach to regeneration may, in promoting local partnerships, have proved useful in the past, it is no longer generally required for that purpose. Working in local partnerships has become the standard practice of local councils.
  I believe that the retention and expansion of the "beauty competition" approach owes more to Ministers' desire to go around the country claiming personal and political credit for the work of local councils, local businesses and the local voluntary sector. Perhaps that is what the Secretary of State is doing this afternoon. That approach represents what might be called the little Jack Horner syndrome: for the benefit of regional television and local radio and newspapers, Ministers want to be seen to put in their thumb, pull out a plum and say, "What a good boy am I."
  There is too much central Government interference—too much ministerial interference. Too many local decisions are being made by unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats. Schemes such as this reek of the prejudice that "the man in Whitehall" knows best. That is a doubtful proposition at the best of times, but when we know that the man in question is the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), it becomes a joke.
  A section of the Bill that we do welcome is the provision for relocation grants in clearance areas, which is the product of an excellent initiative by Birmingham city council. That council, which is usually denounced by Conservative Members, has demonstrated both the need for and the value of such grants. They help to maintain communities while replacing much of the worst housing stock in inner-city areas. Our only concern is that, without the resources to back up the new grant, local authorities may well not be able to use their new powers to the extent that they would wish.
  The Bill also empowers the Secretary of State to set up one or more residuary body to take over the assets and liabilities of the Commission for the New Towns, urban development corporations and housing action trusts. That idea is not as straightforward as it may seem. The residuary bodies set up after the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils behaved like estate agents; members of the London residuary body behaved like very dodgy estate agents. Its behaviour over the disposal of county hall was deplorable, and remains a scandal to this day. There is reason to believe that that deal was pushed through by the then Secretary of State for the Environment—the present Deputy Prime Minister—in the days immediately preceding the last general election because he was determined that county hall should be sold before the election regardless of the cost and the harm done to anyone else.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that £10 million of the agreed £60 million

  67
  is still to be paid? It is not due to be paid until 2012, and there is precious little chance that London ratepayers will see any of it. That is what a residuary body does for us when it is set up by the Tories.
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have here a copy of the Public Accounts Committee's report—
  Mr. Matthew Banks: What has that to do with the Bill?
  Mr. Dobson: It has a great deal to do with the Bill. The Bill proposes the establishment of residuary bodies, or a residuary body. If those bodies are to be staffed by Tory placemen—and possibly placewomen—who are a gang of total incompetents, as is illustrated by what happened to county hall, everyone should be concerned.
  Let me quote from the evidence given to the PAC. The Chairman asked Sir Godfrey Taylor, the boss:
  "Do you consider you obtained a firm bid from Shirayama?"
  Sir Godfrey replied,
  "Yes, I did."
  The Chairman asked:
  "Why did you not hold them to it?"
  Sir Godfrey replied:
  "It was possibly the biggest disappointment I have had in my public life that we were not able to do that."
  He was then asked:
  "But if you had a firm bid, properly backed by legal guarantees, you would have had them over a barrel would you not?"
  He replied:
  "We could not enforce it in the British courts."
  This was a British body selling a bit of British property. When asked,
  "Why not?",
  Sir Godfrey replied:
  "For the simple reason that we could not."
  He was asked:
  "Why did you not get a bank guarantee then if you felt that way?"
  The answer was:
  "They were not willing to give us a bank guarantee."
  He was asked:
  "Could you not have insisted on it?"
  He replied,
  "We could have."
  That was the standard of the performance of one residuary body—the residuary body responsible for disposing of the most valuable asset possessed by any such body. We do not want any more scandals of that kind. I should have thought that even Tories who are bothered about standards of conduct in public life would be concerned about what has happened.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Could there not be a greater risk in respect of the London Docklands development corporation? Under clause 139 of the Bill, any Environment Minister can establish any new quango
  "corporate to receive any property, rights or liabilities to be transferred by an order",
  or—which is worse—
  "amend, repeal or otherwise modify any enactment for the purpose of enabling any body established under any enactment to receive such property".
  68
  If that is not quango-making, what is? And those proposals involve people who have behaved in the way described by my hon. Friend over county hall. Moreover, the proposals are to be implemented by means of a negative instrument, without the agreement of Parliament. Would it not be better to ensure that the proposals are at least subject to parliamentary approval?
  Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend. His area has been affected by the doings—and undoings—of the London Docklands development corporation, and he is right to be concerned about what will happen now. About all that the corporation has left is real estate, and that may be handed over to the residuary body. There will not even be the restraints, or alleged restraints, that have been imposed on the LDDC in regard to the disposal of assets. As in this case, a Deputy Prime Minister could decide to sell them off to one of his mates in Japan.
  The Bill does not make clear who will get the takings from the sale of assets by the new residuary bodies. I shall stand corrected if Ministers can tell me that it does make that clear. In the case of the Commission for the New Towns, many councils covering new towns would like some of the money to be used to bring up to scratch some of the new town housing taken over by them or by housing associations which needs to be improved.
  Councils representing areas covered by urban development corporations and housing action trusts will want some of the funds to be ploughed back into the areas where land and buildings are located, rather than being siphoned into some more prosperous area. I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the docklands area will agree that at least some of the assets of the London Docklands development corporation, whether still in the hands of the development corporation or in the hands of the residuary body, should be used to benefit the area that they were established to benefit, not shifted off somewhere else, or even sold to some flag of convenience so that it can use the docks.
  All in all, this ragbag of a Bill fails to meet the housing needs of the people of this country. It takes away rights from owner-occupiers, fails to implement properly sensible proposals in the Latham report and does not make the required changes in funding to urban and rural regeneration. Although it contains some proposals that we support, we shall vote against it—above all because it takes away the right to renovation grants of owner-occupiers and tenants.
  6.29 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Second Reading of—I stress the title—the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Although I shall concentrate on parts II and III, I should like to offer the following opinion on housing grants. It seems to be sensible and fairer to move from a mandatory scheme for regeneration grants to a discretionary one, especially when the investment or the allocation of funding is to be maintained next year on this year. It also seems eminently sensible to give that discretion to local authorities, which will be able to co-ordinate better where the limited funding is going and direct it better to those on low incomes.

  69
  For example, in relation to the home energy efficiency scheme in part V, it seems quite absurd that under the original rules anybody over 60 years old could have received help, irrespective of their income. I am totally opposed to that concept—perhaps less so in the past few months since I became 60 myself. In all equity, we should concentrate what are limited resources where they are most needed. Those who disagree with that must answer yes or no, as they were invited to do, to the question whether they are going to increase the amount of funding.
  On using right-to-buy receipts, I say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that of course a proportion can be used, but if all the rest are used, they will only have to be replaced through higher council tax bills, since they are presently being used to meet the interest on local authorities' debts or to reduce those debts.
  I declare an interest because I am a chartered and registered architect and can therefore be considered to have a direct interest in part III. I am, however, a non-practising architect and therefore have absolutely no financial interest in part III. Indeed, I have the opposite of a financial interest, because I pay what I consider to be substantial annual subscriptions to the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom. I therefore have a financial interest in reverse. My hon. Friends may say that, because I am non-practising, it is only because of vanity that I pay those extraordinary amounts of money to be able to keep the letters after my name. I therefore concede one thing to the Opposition. I am the classic personification of the saying that the more letters a person has after his name, the less he knows about the subject.
  In examining part II, relating to contractual relationships in the construction industry, it is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about one of the largest industries in our country, whether measured in output or manpower. I am told that last year the construction industry dealt with £50,000 million-worth of new orders and that approximately 1.5 million people work in what we describe and define as the construction industry. To put it another way, the industry is responsible for 8 per cent. of this country's gross domestic product.
  As all hon. Members will know, the construction industry is also very diverse, with many one-man firms and very many small firms. It has been plagued by disputes, as my hon. Friend the Minister said. I am very grateful to him for leading us through in a very understandable way what is not only a five-part Bill but one that necessarily deals with complicated and complex issues. The industry is also plagued by late payments. Perhaps in more than any other industry, cash flow is vital. Late payments disrupt many contracts for that cash-flow reason alone. For too long there has been a culture of "pay when paid"—to use the phrase that the Labour Front-Bench team has used—and, indeed, "pay if paid", which is even worse.
  My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the comparison with construction in the United States and called in aid many other statistics that have been gleaned from the Latham report. Relatively speaking, the industry is inefficient, uncompetitive and adversarial. There must be a better way in which to run such a huge industry. Fairer contractual arrangements are therefore essential and overdue. Equally, since the industry is a competing and conflicting one, consensus and co-operation are vital.
  70
  I take the view that the reason why the construction industry does not have the political clout in the corridors of power that it should have is simply that it cannot speak with one voice, unlike the car manufacturing industry, the farming industry, and so on. It has to get its own act together if it is to get its deserved political influence in this House.
  I am very grateful and pleased that the Government and the industry have set up the inquiry, which produced the Latham report, "Constructing The Team", two years ago. I join my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in their tributes to our erstwhile colleague Sir Michael Latham. His inquiry was most painstaking and an heroic effort considering the many previous inquiries that have been held into the industry, which did not—perhaps—have the results that we had hoped. He deserves the gratitude of us all. I am very mindful of the fact that he presented a package of measures rather than an a la carte menu from which we could pick one thing without the other. The report struck a balance between the competing interests and the disparate parts of the industry.
  I must record a personal observation. I personally regret that the Bill does not deal with two of the important issues that Sir Michael identified: his recommendations on the introduction of trust funds and the need to tackle latent defects. There is a desperate need—I choose that adjective carefully—to amend the law of liability. My hon. Friend the Minister tells me that the Law Commission has looked into that. I hope that it will be able to bring forward proposals.
  For example, it is quite wrong—perhaps this is special pleading—to lay on architects or designers, since not all designed buildings are designed by architects, unlimited liability. Such liability is against the interests not only of architects but of clients and other parts of the construction industry. However, I accept that there has been no consensus in the construction industry about such matters, so on balance I can understand why the Government have gone ahead with the Bill, excluding those two important points.
  I accept that an essential ingredient of the Bill is the fact that, when the Government came to frame part II, they faced two particular problems. The first was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry). What is the construction industry? Where do we draw its boundaries? There is no clear-cut division, as in so many things in life, between construction industry contracts and process engineering contracts. There is a grey area, as the debates in the other place underlined. More certainly, those who represent the process engineering industry were opposed to being included in part II.
  The second problem was raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I think that he was wrong on the matter. Undoubtedly, that will come out during the debate. The concept of adjudication is distinct from that of arbitration. That was perhaps not readily appreciated when the Bill was in its early forms of presentation. It is absolutely right to say that we must find some mechanism for dealing with disputes which arise during the contract. So much time and money has been wasted. The quicker adjudication process for disputes which arise during contract is very much to be welcomed, but it cannot be final and binding, which is the final act of arbitration.
  Mr. Raynsford: I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 107. Does he concede that the way in which it is currently phrased—parties may refer a dispute for "resolution" under the procedure—makes it difficult to see how the process can be short-term adjudication rather than the binding and final arbitration which many people have been worried will be the effect of the Government's proposals?
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I do not have clause 107 in front of me, but my understanding is that, if both parties to a dispute agree that the adjudication is acceptable, that is the end of the matter. Perhaps more important, if that is not enshrined in clause 107 as it is currently drafted, my reading of the debates in the other place suggests that the Government will table an amendment to make it clear beyond any doubt. That raises the point that, on a complex and complicated Bill such as this, we need all the expertise we can get and it is a matter of working in co-operation and within consensus as far as we legitimately and politically can. If I have the misfortune to be selected to serve on the Committee which considers the Bill, that will be my overriding purpose. The rapid dispute resolution or adjudication, if unacceptable to one party, must go to arbitration at practical completion of the contract.
  The third problem was the need to speed up the payments system. Delaying payments has been an art form in too many construction contracts. Payments have been delayed not only from the client to the contractor or from the contractor to the sub-contractor but from sub-contractor to sub-sub-contractor. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, there are often many sub-sub-contractors engaged in the building process. It is a minefield at the best of times. It is eminently sensible to introduce, first, the right of payment by instalments on all but the quick and short contracts and, secondly, mandatory payment timetables. While the details can be examined in Committee, I believe that the proposed "adequate mechanism" for payment must be defined.
  I join my hon. Friend the Minister in welcoming the setting up of the Construction Industry Board. Many attempts have been made to do something similar in the past. The Group of Eight was one such attempt. At a more modest level, I was engaged with others in trying to introduce a construction industry umbrella group, but for one reason or another such bodies fall by the wayside, usually because the big boys in the industry want to have everything in their control. Sadly, we can see the same phenomenon even among the professionals in the construction industry. If the Royal Institute of British Architects proposes something, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors tends to demean it, or the other way round. I do not seek to make a pro-institute point one way or the other.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency is the person who has introduced the Bill. As I say, part II is very complex and relatively few people in the House have the experience of the construction industry that my hon. Friend has. Some years ago he was very much involved with the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.
  I should like to mention a few points which relate to part III on architects' registration. I understand that I am the only architect in the House so I am perhaps an endangered species. As the Minister said, the Bill
  72
  proposes that the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom should be vigorously amended. It is a cumbersome body. It was created in 1931 and it is separate from the main architects' institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects. I understand that about three quarters of the. 30,000 qualified architects in the United Kingdom are members of RIBA or the equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland body.
  Most architects are self-employed or work in small practices. I do not think that my view will commend itself to all parties in the House or perhaps not even a majority of the House, but I should have preferred to see ARCUK abolished and all the regulation taken over by RIBA and its Scottish and Northern Ireland equivalents. I believe that most registered but non-chartered architects—those who are members of ARCUK but not RIBA—do not belong to RIBA because they do not want to pay the annual subscription of more than £200 a year.
  If I had had my way, the problems would have been sorted out by abolishing ARCUK and transferring its responsibilities to RIBA, but forcing RIBA to take all registered architects as licentiate members of the institute, who would pay approximately the amount that they now pay to be members of ARCUK, but would not have the other rights, privileges or responsibilities of membership of RIBA. That would have been a much better way. That is, I think, what John Warne proposed in his report.
  The RIBA is a prestigious professional body. It is well established. It has been in existence since 1834 and it is nationally known. It would have been the natural body for the self-regulation of architects. As hon. Members will know, self-regulation is practised by most professions in the country. I accept that the professional conduct, discipline or complaints committees of those professions have lay representatives, which is precisely what is proposed in the new set-up. I would have preferred that, but, as second best, I welcome the minimalist ARCUK, whose board is to be reduced from more than 70 members to 15, of whom only seven will be representatives of the architectural profession.
  Many architects are uneasy that a majority of the 15—eight—will be lay people, representing consumer and public interest bodies. Architects have nothing to fear from that. If the seven architects are opposed to the majority of eight and cannot swing over one person, their cause may not be that strong.
  It is right in this day and age that lay people should represent the consumer and public interest. Confidence is the keynote and I am sure that architects will accept that. It is certainly the trend in other professions. The General Medical Council is in the process of increasing the number of its lay members from 13 to 25, although I accept that it has 102 members. I do not know why it needs so many. Architects will lead so that other professions can follow in encouraging confidence among their clients and the public.
  I mentioned John Warne's report, which got it half right. He was wrong to suggest that the protection of the word "architect" should be abolished. I disagree for the simple reason that architects do not enjoy a monopoly of building design. No one who wants to put up a building or structure has to employ the services of an architect. From a special pleading point of view, I wish that people had to, but they do not. People with no qualifications at all can call themselves building designers or even

  73
  architectural consultants. Only registered architects can call themselves architects. That is an important distinction that should be maintained because architects do not enjoy a monopoly.
  I am grateful for being called. This is an omnibus Bill with five parts, 147 clauses and three schedules. I support the thrust of what the Government are doing. The Bill could not possibly deal with all matters relating to housing and nor does it seek to do so. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was a little unfair in his comments on that. I understand that it was originally to have been included with the Housing Bill. It was right to divide them and deal with the matter in two bites. I commend it to the House.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: Any Member of Parliament who goes around the country will know that the dominant problems that concern people are unemployment, the crisis of people's fears about housing and homelessness, dereliction and, for many people, despair. The Bill is supposed to be about housing and regeneration but will do absolutely nothing to deal with those problems. Clauses 124 and 125 deal with grants and I shall refer to them later. Homeless people and those worried about dereliction or their jobs—some of whom may work in the construction industry—who listened to the two Conservative Members who have spoken would wonder whether the Government and their supporters were totally out of touch.
  On Sunday morning, I visited a group of people who went to a site owned by Guinness by Wandsworth bridge. Yesterday, 500 people turned up there to build a sustainable village. I hope that the House will bear with me in referring to that because it relates to the Bill. The site is 13 acres and has been derelict for seven years. It has been brilliantly and appropriately renamed "Pure Genius". It consists of an old oil depot and a distillery near the riverside. Near it are flats that are supposed to sell at £190,000 that people cannot afford to buy.
  The group is called "The Land is Ours" and has spent six months bringing together architects, building craftsmen, plumbers, electricians and engineers. I met an unemployed soil scientist who told me that he worked at night as a cashier in a supermarket because he could not get a job as a soil scientist. Yesterday, 500 people turned up and began building their huts, lavatories, gardens and farms. It is the anniversary—this is something that few hon. Members will remember, although I certainly do—of the great occupation that took place in 1946, when demobilised service men occupied empty sites and began building for themselves.
  The key question that the House must address is simple. Do we believe that the right to a home is a basic national right? Is it in the national interest that everyone should have a home of their own? Under the Liberal Government before the first world war, Lloyd George said that the nation's health was a national interest. I remember being told that after the second world war and thinking, "It's obvious; we've got the health service." However, it is not obvious now that the nation's health is in the national interest.
  The House has never accepted—and the Bill does not accept—that people have rights to homes, though anyone in their senses knows that a good home underpins family
  74
  life, protects people, provides an environment, and deals with many of the problems of law and order and crime. We must establish that the House believes, however long it takes, that everyone is entitled to a home. After the war, I remember Lord Woolton boasting that, if the Conservatives were elected, they would build 400,000 houses a year. They did pretty well in the 1951 general election on that promise.
  The second question is, why is there homelessness? My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed to the negative equity figures and the number of people who were behind with their mortgages. My opinion is that homelessness is a necessary discipline of a capitalist society. If we walk along Embankment at night and see people in cardboard boxes, we think, "If I have row with my employer, get sacked, cannot keep up my mortgage and get repossessed, as 1,000 people a week are, I would be in a cardboard box." Unemployment is designed to frighten people into obedience, and homelessness is the final threat. We are sometimes told that fewer days are lost in industrial disputes than were lost under the last Labour Government. But if we take the days lost in industrial disputes and those lost through unemployment together, the figure is far, far higher than it was when Labour left office.
  The whole argument about home ownership is a fraud. I go to public meetings—I did 171 last year—and I ask how many of the people there are home owners. Many people put up their hands, but when I ask how many have not got mortgages, they all put their hands down again. There are many home buyers and but few home owners. Home owners are free but home buyers who have mortgages that they cannot keep up suffer from all the fears that I have mentioned.
  The country needs between 90,000 and 120,000 affordable homes a year. We have the necessary skills. There are 500,000 unemployed building workers. There are sites all over the place. In London alone, derelict sites cover an area as big as the borough of Westminster. We have the money. Do not tell us that if local authorities spent their £6 billion from the sale of council houses, they would have to raise the rates. They would get the money back. They would invest in housing and get the rents back. On that basis, it would be better for the authorities to sell off everything they own. It is time we addressed those questions.
  I do not want to detain the House for long because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. The main question is the ownership of land. I introduced a Bill 10 years ago to bring the land into common ownership. The first privatisation was the Enclosure Acts, which took common land and handed it to the large farmers. The highland clearances were the same. From the beginning of time, people in this country have had a feeling that the land belongs to them. Even Lloyd George said so. I remember his song about "the land, the land, the land on which we stand; why should we be paupers with the ballot in our hand? God gave the land for the people." In 1381, the Reverend John Ball said:
  "Things will not go well in England till all property is held in common".
  In 1649, the Levellers said:
  "The land is a common treasury. It is a crime to buy and sell the land for private gain."
  If we study the history of the subject, we find that the people feel that the land belongs to them.

  75
  The argument about whether it is legal to occupy an empty site that is owned by Guinness does not concern me because, under the Heresy Act 1401, it was an offence to read the Bible. It was an offence to hold many religious opinions in the House and to argue for votes for women—Emmeline Pankhurst went to prison. It was an offence not to pay the poll tax. Although the House never likes to be reminded of its history, when people do something outside, it is ignored or laughed at, but it turns up a few years later as official policy. The Government are totally out of touch with what people feel, particularly young people.
  Clause 124 is the reason why I can link my speech to the Bill. It states:
  "The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, give financial assistance to any person in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with activities which contribute to the regeneration or development of an area."
  The activities are listed as:
  "securing that land and buildings are brought into effective use",
  "contributing to, or encouraging, economic development",
  "creating an attractive and safe environment"
  that is what is happening at the Guinness site—
  "preventing crime or reducing the fear of crime"—
  that is what happens with that type of movement—and
  "providing or improving housing or social or recreational facilities, for the purpose of encouraging people to live or work in the area or benefiting people who live there".
  Those are the powers that are to be given to the Secretary of State and one of the comforts is that the present Secretary of State will be off in a few months. We shall have a Labour Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who made such a powerful speech, will have those powers at his disposal. I ask him to consider seriously encouraging people who need homes to take over derelict land and build sustainable villages of their own. Hon. Members may laugh, but they have laughed at everything from suffragettes to the Chartists and trade unions. They always laugh. That is their privilege, but history never records such views to be correct.
  As the Bill passes through its various stages in the House, I hope that people throughout the country will follow the example of what is being done in London. Some of the people at the site came from Newbury and others have been involved in other campaigns. My message is: "If you want to bring pressure to bear on a Government, you mustn't wait for the legislation that you need, you must do it yourself." With fairly sympathetic media—something that has given me some pleasure and caused me some surprise in the past few days—people will realise that, if they want to end unemployment, homelessness, dereliction and despair, the best thing is to do it themselves and see how others will follow.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency on the enormous amount of work that he has done on the Bill. It is a great credit to him, and without his massive personal commitment it might not have come about. His sincere
  76
  belief in the need to improve practices in the industry was evident in his speech. He made it clear that, without good contractual practices, there will not be any good subcontractors and, without them, efficiency gains in the industry, which are only too necessary, will not be possible.
  My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the work done by his staff. I can certainly endorse that. When I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1992–93, the Department was concerned to do all that it could to improve matters in the construction industry. I am aware of the great input of staff in the Department; great credit is due to them.
  This Bill is extremely important. Part II will affect the livelihood of many hundreds of thousands of people in the construction industry. Indeed, I should declare an interest, as it will affect me as a professional engineer. We just heard an excellent speech from the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who declared a negative interest, I think—I am not sure how many people cease to practise as architects. I once heard a definition of an architect as someone whom one never employs twice, but perhaps it would be unfair to apply that too broadly. His speech illustrated the importance of having hon. Members in the House with a broad background, who can bring experience of an industry and speak as well as he did.
  The Bill will also affect the 2,000 members of the Electrical Contractors Association, which I have been proud to represent for most of my 13 years in Parliament. The new Register of Members' Interests is published this afternoon. I believe that the House is much the better for having many hon. Members with a diverse range of interests and experience of the real world of work before they come here. We should certainly avoid encouraging a Parliament full of career politicians, who demand higher and higher salaries for Members. It is far better to have hon. Members who are not solely dependent on parliamentary salaries and have a wide range of interests in the world outside. I was nearly turned down as a foster father because the social services thought that my parliamentary income was far too insecure. I was passed as fit only because I was a professional engineer with another income.
  It is only right that trade associations should be properly and openly represented in Parliament. The Electrical Contractors Association is, I am glad to say, one of the strongest associations in the country, with a record of representing the best interests of the specialist construction industry as a whole. For instance, the electrical contractors' training and apprenticeship schemes are acknowledged to be the best in the country, bar none.
  Much consultation has taken place and, as the Minister said, great credit is due to Sir Michael Latham, whom the Department of the Environment so wisely chose to head the team and whose report is the foundation for the Bill. Sir Michael achieved a great deal more than many people thought possible. We are all indebted to him because the industry plays such an important part in the economy, representing nearly 10 per cent. of gross national output. If a 30 per cent. improvement in efficiency were possible, it would give a 3 per cent. boost to that output.
  The ECA, with some 2,000 member firms and 50,000 employees, is a major constituent of the Constructors Liaison Group, which represents specialist sub-contractors

  77
  in the construction industry. The CLG welcomes the main provisions of part II of the Bill so far as they embrace the recommendations of the Latham report, but wants the Government to go further than the changes already suggested during the Bill's progress in another place.
  First, on the definition of the industry and the question of scope in part II, the process industries should be included. I am a little uncertain why they are not, but perhaps the Government lack confidence in the Bill. It is a good Bill and, therefore, the more of the industry that it embraces the better. We should not hang back. The work that specialist subcontractors do in the process industries is just the same as the work that they do in the rest of the construction industry. It is fair to say that there is a difference with the process industries, in that they are not speculative as some building is—the process industries do not put up towers like Canary Wharf—so that sector of the industry is rather more secure and stable. That does not mean to say, however, that it is a utopia for sub-contractors.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will think again about extending the scope of the Bill so that sub-contractors are in no doubt that the work that they do for process industry contractors will be embraced in the same way as the Bill embraces their work elsewhere. As things stand, sub-contractors face the same sort of free for all when working in the process industry as they do elsewhere in the construction industry. It is important, therefore, to include the process industries fully in the Bill.
  Off-site work and steel work should be included in the Bill. Modern processes, which often lead to more work being done off site, should not for some strange reason be excluded from the excellent provisions of the Bill.
  Maintenance and repair, which according to the Department's own definition account for more than 50 per cent. of the industry's output, should also be included. It is currently unclear whether it is included. Perhaps the Minister will clarify in his reply whether maintenance repair is included and will also deal with the issue of design.
  Adjudication, which arises under clause 107, has already been mentioned. I am certainly pleased with the way in which the Minister has taken account of the representations made in the other place, and I believe that we are now getting nearer to a workable definition. It is still important that we have tighter definitions so that we can be absolutely clear about how the adjudication process will work and can avoid confusion over arbitration. The Government are well aware of the strength of the points made by Lord Ackner when he spoke very well on that matter in the other place, stressing the rubric of "pay now, argue later" as the basis for adjudication rather than arbitration. It is very important that we have a completely clear distinction on that point.
  I accept the Minister's argument that the draft scheme is much better kept as a statutory instrument and that the Government will have time to consult more fully on it in the autumn after the Bill becomes law. I was a bit concerned when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that he would do all that he could to stop the Bill. I am not sure whether he was referring to the entire Bill or only to parts of it, but I certainly look forward to seeing it on the statute book. I hope that Opposition Members will confine their
  78
  opposition to certain parts of the Bill and will not try to stop it completely. The excellent measures that it proposes will be welcomed and should become law sooner rather than later. I hope that the Opposition will understand that point.
  It is essential that the Government get the draft scheme right. Therefore, they should consult fully and properly on it. As a statutory instrument, it will be open to amendment at a later date more easily than if it were part of the Bill.
  The payment issue is causing the most concern to sub-contractors because it is the key to survival for small firms; it is life or death for them. For large firms, it may not matter very much whether an adjudication, arbitration or legal action goes one way or the other. It may be uncomfortable if large firms lose an action, but they will survive it, whereas it is a matter of absolute survival for small firms. It is therefore essential that the definitions are very clear.
  We are confused about clause 108. We do not see why 60 days should come into the matter. The CLG would like subsection (1) to be deleted. It cannot see any sense in having a 60-day threshold in the first place. I have never heard of such a thing, and would be happy for it to be 30 days—which is the normal arrangement. There seems to be no need for that subsection at all.
  Clauses 109 and 110 require much better definition to ensure that they work properly. As I said, it is absolutely vital for small firms to know that the provisions will work properly. It would be a disaster if the Bill reached the statute book and enabled clever lawyers employed by large firms to outwit small firms because of provisions that had not been properly thought through. Amendments have been proposed by the CLG. The Government are aware of the amendments, and I hope that they will feel able to introduce them as Government amendments in Committee.
  It is essential that payment mechanisms are properly developed and provisions on debt are clearly established. It is not clear from the Bill exactly when a debt would become a debt and how the payment mechanism would work.
  Clause 112 covers the ignominious practice of "pay when paid". That practice has existed for some years, but it has recently become more prevalent. Once it starts in an industry, it spreads right through because each person feels that he must pass on the practice to the next person in the chain, so that the whole industry becomes riddled with it. It is perhaps the most important clause in the Bill, as long as it works properly.
  It is again felt that better definitions are needed, as there may be ways in which some people may be able to avoid the Bill's provisions. It is essential that that bad practice is eliminated from the industry, and it is much to the Government's credit that they are introducing the Bill so that this, of all the worst practices, will be eliminated. It will do more than anything else to improve sub-contractors' sense of security. They need the certainty of cash flow to be able to pay their wages.
  I am uncertain where the Government stand on the question of trust funds, which formed a very important part of Sir Michael Latham's recommendations. If I remember rightly, he said that he did not want his recommendations cherry-picked, and that they should be taken on board as a whole. I hope that the Government

  79
  will feel able to consider including trust funds and that, if amendments are tabled in Committee, the Government will feel able to consider them positively—or, ideally, to table their own amendments to make trust funds a reality.
  Trust funds would deal with the whole problem of pay when paid because, if the money is there, it can flow through and the fear of insolvency does not need to arise.
  I have confined my remarks principally to part II of the Bill, with which I have been most concerned, but all the Bill's provisions are important. I am interested in the provisions on disabled facilities grants. I noticed that many of the Bill's measures have been widely welcomed, but I know from my experience that there is a need to improve some procedures, certainly in relation to assessment.
  A year or two ago, I was asked to help a constituent of mine who had been turned down for a shower seat because he lacked sufficient priority. When I went to see him, I found that he was a double-amputee. He had no legs, but he was considered to be an insufficient priority to have a shower seat. He was still registered by social services as having one leg. That is one example of how assessment procedures can be way behind what they should be. It is essential that we improve the way in which people are assessed and the speed with which it is done.
  I do not know whether the Government will be able to re-examine the problem of part M building regulations applying to new homes. I understand that it would cost about only £200 to £300 for the regulations to apply to each new house, which seems to be an affordable figure. It is, of course, much less than the cost of altering a house at a later date.
  I do not know whether there will be an opportunity for me to serve on the Committee, but I certainly wish the Bill well in its progress through Committee. I look forward to it coming back to the House on Report and Third Reading.
  7.17 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Housing is a key element of our infrastructure because for the majority of families their house is the single biggest purchase they will make in their lives. Between us, we spend more than £30 billion a year on housing in the United Kingdom, and 30 per cent. of our total wealth is in housing. As hon. Members have already said in this debate, decent homes are the anchor for successful families and successful individuals.
  Housing is a part of the construction industry, which is a key element in our national economy. In 1995, construction output was worth £52.5 billion or 8.5 per cent. of our gross domestic product. That is why this Bill is so important, and why the Housing Bill which had its Third Reading last week is also so important. I fear, however, that both pieces of legislation suffer from the same problem, because many of the issues that the Government claim to be dealing with will not be solved by changing priorities or by moving the goalposts. They will primarily be solved by increasing investment and enabling long-term financial planning. For that, we need an improvement in financial confidence—in fact, we need that elusive feel-good factor about which we hear so much.
  80
  Part I of the Bill deals with grants and needs to be considered against the condition of existing housing. The last major review of the state of our housing was the English house conditions survey conducted in 1991 and published two years later. The survey showed that at that time almost 1.5 million dwellings in England were unfit and that well over 1 million more were in need of substantial repair. That describes the condition of 2.6 million properties, or more than 13 per cent. of the housing stock in England. About 5 million people are currently living in those properties, three quarters of them in the private sector.
  Local authorities and housing associations have generally achieved a steady improvement in the condition of their properties, but most reported a deterioration in the condition of private sector properties. If anything, the situation appears to have got worse since 1991. Many local authorities submitted reports for last year's annual survey conducted by the National Home Improvement Council. Councils had found higher levels of unfitness than they had expected from their interpretation of the 1991 survey.
  The NHIC said that rural local authorities in particular have found that the situation had got very much worse. In fact, some rural local authorities found levels of unfitness in homes that were twice as high as indicated in the 1991 house conditions survey. The NH1C survey highlighted a number of concerns, one of which related to homes in multiple occupation. Some local authorities reported that 80 per cent. to 90 per cent of houses in multiple occupation in their areas were unfit. In fact, the private rented sector in general was found by a majority of authorities to be deteriorating badly. That is very bad news, because the Housing Bill that we debated only last week will place more people in that sector.
  As might be expected, very high levels of unfitness and disrepair were found in homes built before the first world war, but what concerned many authorities is the indication of a very sharp decline in the standard of inter-war property. A number of authorities told the NHIC that many people did not seem to be aware of how bad a state their properties were in. That was especially true of elderly people, people on low incomes and people living in rural areas. One council reported that more than four fifths of people living in unfit homes had said that they thought that their living conditions were generally satisfactory, and that was despite the fact that there were clear signs that their health was probably suffering as a result of the condition of their dwelling. That is very depressing.
  Even when people apply for home improvement grants, they have to wait a long time. The NHIC survey found that the average wait was three years but that in some areas people were having to wait 15 years for a grant. As for discretionary grants, most councils said they were able to provide them only for very restricted purposes and on very restricted budgets. Some authorities ran out of money in June, only three months into the financial year.
  Many bodies, including the NHIC, were critical of the Government's White Paper, and I shall read out one or two of the comments that have been made. The Chartered Institute of Housing said that, despite regular surveys of the housing stock, no assessment is made of the resource input needed to deal with the backlog of disrepair revealed. The Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities felt that the

  81
  White Paper was narrow in that it failed to attempt any strategic assessment of the repair needs of the sector. Even the Council of Mortgage Lenders said:
  "This consultation paper signals a further reduction in the public resources made available to assist the repair and maintenance of private properties even though there is known to be a significant unmet demand."
  There is therefore a widespread opinion that the Government are not tackling the real problem.
  I represent a constituency that contains very many elderly people. I was therefore especially worried by the points made to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members, by Age Concern. Age Concern is disappointed that the Government do not intend to extend part M of the building regulations. It is also concerned about the removal of the right to mandatory grants because it believes that that could lead to older people living in unfit housing for long periods.
  The harmful effects of poor housing are well documented. Dampness leads to bronchial and respiratory illnesses; cold homes lead to hypothermia and increased susceptibility to other illnesses; and unsafe housing can lead to accidents and death. Various estimates have been made of how much we spend treating people suffering from the effects of cold and damp housing. One estimate is £800,000 but another is well over £1 billion.
  Age Concern recognises that local authorities are not meeting their duty to award even mandatory grants, but it does not believe that scrapping them is the answer. Like other bodies, it wants a clear national strategy and adequate resources to tackle the problem of unfit housing. Age Concern and other bodies are also worried about grants for the disabled. Age concern is especially worried as 71 per cent. of such grants are given to people aged 60 or over.
  Although grants for disabled people will remain mandatory, local authorities will be able to defer payment for up to 12 months. If people need the grant when it is approved but do not get it then, they may not be able to stay in their own homes, and it may well cost the state more to provide care for them elsewhere. As the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said, waiting for assessment is another problem.
  Everyone agrees that there is a lack of occupational therapists. There have been various suggestions about how we might deal with the problem. When the matter was discussed in another place, the possibility that general practitioners might be used in some cases was considered. The case of the double amputee who needed a seat in his shower, cited by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East, illustrates the problem. I hope the Minister will listen in Committee to the concerns that have been expressed and try to do something about them, because the system is not working terribly well at the moment.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady and I did not want to interrupt her flow. I guarantee that we shall consider all the issues that have been raised, but I must correct something that she said. She said that we had decided not to extend part M of the regulations. In fact, we are still analysing the huge response to the consultation and we shall make a decision when we have finished.
  Mrs. Maddock: I am grateful for that information about part M. My perception, and that of others, is that
  82
  this has been going on for a long time. The Bill provided an opportunity to solve the problem, but that has not been done. However, I welcome the Minister's comments and look forward to the Government's decision.
  I recognise that the Government have listened to some of the concerns expressed and made some changes to the Bill in another place. One change related to the length of time that someone has to be living in a house to get a grant. The matter is still controversial—one has to have been living in a house for three years before becoming eligible. Baroness Hamwee said in another place that that can be a disincentive and that there should be more discretion for local authorities to decide these matters. I know that the Minister has provided further discretion and that in some cases the local authority can waive the qualifying period. However, basically the situation remains the same. Grants should be an incentive to improve and to repair properties—there should not be hurdles to prevent people from doing that.
  I welcome the fact that disabled people who live in park homes will now be eligible for grants. The Minister knows that I share his interest in people who live in park homes, and he very kindly included them in the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which I piloted through the House. For too long, owners of mobile homes have been treated as second-class home owners. I have an enormous number of such people in my constituency, many of whom are elderly and on fixed incomes and have been unable to apply for disabled facilities. This provision is long overdue. I may be ruled out of order for saying this, but I would like the Minister to commit himself to reforming the whole of the mobile homes legislation, although perhaps that is for another day.
  Part II of the Bill aims to provide fairer contractual arrangements. Many hon. Members have spoken at great length on this and I join them in paying tribute to Sir Michael Latham. He has done a tremendous job. However, one or two problems still remain, some of which have been highlighted today. The construction industry needs a hand. For example, since June 1991, construction workers have lost their jobs in the south-east and East Anglia. If those people were back at work, the Exchequer would be £729 million better off in social security payments and taxes and this would save up to half the cost of building. The Trades Union Congress has suggested that every new construction job creates two more jobs elsewhere in the local economy, which is why it is so important. Even if that were only half true, the money spent on building would be recouped almost immediately.
  We are told that the economy is growing—indeed, some Ministers believe that it is booming—but construction is per cent. below its 1990 peak level. Unemployment in the construction sector is 12.2. per cent., against a national average of 8.5 per cent. It is estimated that, in the first half of this year, 20,000 jobs will have gone in the construction industry.
  The output graph from the industry shows a series of peaks and troughs over recent years. It is vital that we have economic stability and regulations which help rather than hinder the industry. Completions have been dropping since 1988. Unfortunately, negative equity and job insecurity do not allow the market to benefit from lower prices and interest rates. If we add to this Government cuts in housing, in road construction and in health, we can see that the problems are getting worse.

  83
  The Bill will not address the underlying problems. However, we welcome some aspects of the Bill, particularly when it comes to Latham. I remember being a councillor and looking at competitive tendering. I was concerned that we were discouraged from taking quality into account when we looked at tenders—and in some cases we were actually not allowed to take it into account. The resolution of disputes will be examined.
  I welcome the fact that there is more emphasis on research and development and on raising standards and skills. That is particularly important in relation to energy conservation. We have heard a lot of this before, but what guarantee do we have that it will happen? We already know that measures to clarify liabilities for building defects have been dropped. This afternoon we have heard that that issue has been referred to the Law Commission.
  With regard to payment of debts, we all know that small businesses, in particular, need regular payments to keep their cash flows healthy. I am surprised that I am the first to mention the confusion about where the Government stand on this issue. The Deputy Prime Minister claimed that he improved his cash flow tremendously at the expense of small businesses, but the Economic Secretary took an opposite view. There are still matters in the Bill that need to be resolved and many bodies are still concerned about this.
  There is a new right for parties to a contract to refer disputes about payments to an independent adjudicator. However, the way in which the adjudication scheme will work remains a mystery and will be revealed after consultation. I know that several bodies are still concerned about one or two aspects of this. Like other hon. Members, I have received correspondence from the Institute of Civil Engineers, which feels that the Government are confused about what is arbitration and what is adjudication. It is also concerned about suspension of contracts and performance. I am sure that those matters will be raised in the Standing Committee. It is obvious that there are still problems, despite going a long way towards implementing Latham.
  Part III of the Bill relates to the registration of architects. It is remarkable that the Government have changed their mind at least twice on this issue. However, we have had good input from Conservative Members on this. It is essential that a registration scheme should cover the full range of practising architects.
  Part IV refers to regeneration. The Government claim that they are giving local authorities wider powers to deal with regeneration schemes, but resources continue to dwindle. Who is running local government? There are no longer many councils run by the Conservatives, but we know where they are going to put the blame, despite the fact that much of the money will come from central Government. It is a good thing that local authorities can give relocation grants in clearance areas, but where are the resources to come from? Once again, the guidance notes are yet to be issued by the Secretary of State.
  Part V deals with miscellaneous and general provisions. I was surprised that the Minister did not mention the home energy efficiency scheme in his opening speech. I know that the Minister is interested in this scheme and I am grateful to him for his help with the Home Energy Conservation Act that I steered through the House last
  84
  year. If it were not for his commitment, I am sure that that Act would not be on the statute book now—and I do not detract from that.
  However, the Minister must be acutely embarrassed by what happened in the Budget last year when it came to spending on the home energy efficiency scheme: one third of the budget was cut. When one looks at how much that is in terms of the amount that the Government spend, one sees that it was extremely mean, and it has been met with anger and astonishment by every group involved in energy efficiency, the elderly and other people suffering from fuel poverty.
  Pensioners are more likely than any other households to own inefficient, old and poorly maintained heating appliances, and to use expensive fuels such as on-peak electricity and solid fuel fires. Forty per cent. of households headed by a person who is aged over 75 live in energy-inefficient homes. When I read the NHIC survey results I was surprised—perhaps I should not have been—to see that quite a few authorities are providing grants to help householders with energy conservation work on their homes, despite the availability of the HEES grants. The justification was the selectiveness and limited nature of HEES grants, a problem that will only get worse as a result of the cuts introduced by the Government last year and some of the new regulations introduced by the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister will give hon. Members some indication as to where he stands on this issue. I know that he is a strong supporter of energy efficiency. I hope that he can lean rather more heavily on the Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to be constructive in Committee. I concur strongly with the comments made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) about what a Committee can do for a Bill and the constructive way in which people work. I know the Minister will have as his aides Ministers who worked with me and others on previous housing legislation, which we improved.
  The construction industry badly needs our support. We must deal with the backlog of repair and unfitness in our housing stock. Every time I talk about housing in the House, I talk about the sorts of policies that the Liberal Democrats would like to see. We believe that councils should be allowed to spend their capital receipts and that they should have the freedom to act on and solve the problems of bad housing in their areas.
  We would like the way in which the public sector borrowing requirement is calculated to be reformed because we need to distinguish between capital and revenue. We need to ensure that we can show in the accounts that investment in long-term infrastructure is a good thing. The Chartered Institute of Housing has considered that requirement in some detail and conferred with other financial institutions about it. They have concluded that, if such changes were made, more money would be available to spend on housing and on infrastructure.
  We need to do more than the Bill, which merely moves the goalposts. We need a clear national strategy, backed with adequate resources, to tackle the problems of unfit housing. Above all, we need to give another impetus to the construction industry, which so badly needs our support.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: It is a real pleasure to speak in a debate opened by my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, who has such invaluable and detailed knowledge of the subject. I pay tribute to his experience, which was revealed not least by his response in the past few days to the requirements of the construction industry, which revealed that he has a proper idea of what it requires.
  I support what my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said about mandatory disabled grants, which are not properly assessed. A lot of work needs to be done by local authorities to ensure that council officers assess a person's case independently and fairly to identify the need and how quickly provision should be made available. After all, the handicapped and the disabled need every help that we can possibly give them. It is right and proper that the disabled, whose need is urgent, will get a larger share of the grant available under the Bill and I welcome that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) spoke about the Architects Registration Council. It is a good thing that the Government did not allow it to be abolished two or three years ago. I welcome the fact that, since then, the council's activities have been freshened up and greatly improved. The introduction of an independent or lay person on the board of that council is especially welcome because architects work in the real world and they serve an array of building clients from the public and private sectors. It is therefore right and proper that those clients—the lay members—should be represented on the Architects Registration Council. That move is long overdue. The Bill will address the problem caused by the fact that there are far too many professional members of that council.
  Hon. Members have already said that the relocation grants that will be available to many of our constituents are an excellent prospect. Far too often, people have had to move out from the towns and cities where they wanted to stay, where there were schools for their children and where they played a full part in their community. It is right that they should be given assistance to ensure that they can stay in their towns and continue to play a part in their community. It is also right that that money should be targeted at that objective.
  The streamlining of the legislation relating to the single regeneration budget is welcome. Many items of Government legislation relate to that budget and those responsible for it have a mammoth task in deciding between competing schemes up and down the country. However, far too little money and resources are available to tackle the problems of dereliction. The only way that they will be provided is to ensure that we get value for money.
  I am therefore all in favour of urban challenges comprising groups, particularly those involving the private and public sectors, which put forward their best ideas for the money on offer. Such partnerships will offer the best value for money and ensure that the problems of dereliction are well and truly overcome. I therefore welcome the forward-thinking, positive ideas in the Bill.
  A number of hon. Members have rightly spoken in favour of the home energy efficiency scheme. The number of pensioners in my constituency who have benefited from that scheme over the years is unbelievable. The money invested gives a tremendous return by reducing
  86
  heating bills straight away. In the past, that scheme has involved loft insulation as well as the draught-proofing of doors and windows. It has been an absolutely marvellous use of public money because it has enhanced people's quality of life as well as reduced their heating bills. Its operation has ensured that we have targeted resources onto to those most in need. That scheme also generated labour-intensive activities in the construction industry at a difficult time when work was scarce.
  Some adverse comment has been made about the activities of residuary bodies. I have always found them to be responsive. I admit that they are not elected, but they have done a marvellous job in collecting assets of all kinds and using them, selling them off or off-loading them. Okay, we have heard about the sale of county hall in London, but at least that site has been put to use earlier than was expected and money has been generated from the sale of flats. I pay tribute to the London residuary body.
  There is an urgent need for such a residuary body to take over the work of the urban development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns when they wind down. I was a prime mover in getting the UDCs set up, and I pay tribute to their marvellous work. They have had unique powers because they have been able to buy and amass land and give themselves planning permission. They have transformed the centres of Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle, and even Trafford Park, which is outside Manchester. They have brought jobs to those areas, improved the housing stock and the general infrastructure. I have nothing but praise for their activities. In terms of public sector spending, however, everything should have a limited life. When those bodies were set up, it was always assumed that they would be wound up after five or eight years when they had fulfilled their job.
  It is right that the Commission for the New Towns and the UDCs should be wound down in the next few years and it is necessary that there be a body charged with the task of off-loading those organisations' assets. After all, those organisations held land when it was easy to dispose of it, unlike now, and certainly not at the high boom prices of the past. I have every confidence that any residuary body or bodies set up to take over the huge job of the UDCs and the Commission for the New Towns will do it well on behalf of the Government.
  Part II is the backbone of the Bill, and rightly so. I should like to add my compliments to the tributes paid to Sir Michael Latham. He has done a super job in the past few years, as he did as a Member of Parliament for many years, to make sure that the voice of the construction industry is heard. He has managed that because of his wealth of experience, which he has in spades.
  Sir Michael's report concentrated on trust and team work, of which there has been far too little in the construction industry. That lack has been disastrous, because the construction industry has an extremely bad reputation. I am not surprised that we must sharpen our act to catch up with countries in the far east, the middle east, the Americas and Europe. I am not convinced, however, that 30 per cent. cost savings are possible. I am sure that that estimate took into account the enormous legal bills that would be saved because of less and less litigation—an undoubted effect of the Bill. In future, we need to ensure that the client is confident that he will get what he wanted, at a reasonable cost and in reasonable time.

  87
  When I was chief executive of the National Building Agency—a Government quango—25 to 28 years ago, we were often brought in to sort out public building projects, such as huge hospital projects, that were running over on time by two or three times the construction period and running over two or three times on budget. Admittedly, that was a time of high inflation, but the construction industry would simply wind up and grind down to zero work load if it carried on like that.
  Even in today's climate, some building contractors are famed for their use of claims. On any site, if a building contractor has a proper estimate and performs well, he will hit the target date for completion and come within budget. Many contractors are disorganised and inefficient, and expect to milk the client afterwards by using their claims department to make enormous claims that bear no relationship to the clauses of the contract, which do allow extensions of time for weather and all sorts of things, some with costs and some without costs. They make such claims and expect to obtain that money as of right.
  The legal profession has fed very well on that system for many years. What I admire about Sir Michael Latham is the fact that he is cutting through all that and calling time on a process that should have disappeared years ago. It will mean a greater work load in the industry, more trust and more team work. The industry will have a better reputation and our export opportunities throughout the world will be enhanced. We have some of the best building and civil engineering firms in this country. They are in export markets and do extremely well, but they will do better if they are able to abide by the rules set out in the Bill.
  I shall now discuss those rules. I mentioned to the Minister the possibility that the process engineering industry should be in the scope of the Bill. Perhaps he would give it one last thought before he keeps it out. I admire the fact that there has been a very small amount of litigation—that is superb. Why change something that is a success? It might have some rationale if most, if not all, construction contracts fell into the ambit of the Bill. Then there would be no uncertainty.
  I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) about the adjudication process. He asked a valid question, to which I hope that the Minister will give further thought—who decides whether the adjudication terms and payment terms in the contract drawn up between employer and contractor are reasonable and adequate? That is a very important matter. If I, as a building client, want to start work and am ready to sign the contract, but someone empowered to do so jumps in and says, "Sorry; I do not think that the adjudication and payment terms are adequate," I might easily have a delay, as soon as the legal profession comes in, of two or three months without even trying.
  On the needs of the industry, I was delighted to have put into my hands today a superb letter, dated 2 May, from the Minister to Sir Michael Latham, which came to me through the hands of the Construction Industry Council. I wish that it had been made available to hon. Members on both sides of the House, because Opposition Members are working under the misapprehension that several of the items mentioned in it have not been addressed. I shall briefly skim through some of those.
  88
  First, the professions in the industry—especially those whose members might act as adjudicators—do not take kindly to the thought that they may have to try to obtain professional indemnity insurance if they act as adjudicators. A sentence on the final page of the letter gives them tremendous comfort. It says:
  "we have provided adjudicators with protection against liability for their decisions so long as they act in good faith. The point made to the Government was that it might be difficult to recruit adjudicators without that provision. We agree."
  I agree entirely. Adjudicators will play a key role in the workings of the Bill, and they need to act in good faith, in their professional capacity. It is essential that they do not feel that the ground will be cut from under them, that they have no professional indemnity insurance and that they might have all their assets called in. If they do not have those fears, they will be able to do their best.
  Debate has been played out about the period for adjudication and about whether the findings of the adjudicator are binding. The various organisations in the industry have said, "We need a reasonable time for the adjudicator to reach a decision"—perhaps the period in the original scheme was too short—"and we do not want his decisions to be final and binding."
  I shall quote again from the letter at some length, because the matter is very important:
  "The adjudication mechanism described in the Scheme included a provision for adjudicators to make binding decisions (on the principle that it might be helpful to get small disputes resolved once and for all); it also enabled parties to agree at the outset that a dispute could be reopened after practical completion of a contract for final resolution in arbitration or before the Courts.
  I recognise that the adjudication procedure which we put forward in the draft Scheme has caused some concern in the industry not least because it was feared that it might not achieve the objective of securing a rapid resolution of disputes. We have now made it clear that the statutory consultation on the Scheme will be on the basis that adjudication will require parties to abide by an adjudicator's decision during the period of a contract but that either party would be able to reopen the dispute thereafter, so long as a proper notification has been given within a set period."
  I hope that Opposition Members fully accept that that settles their misgivings. If they have do not have a copy of that letter, I hope that they will get it in the next few minutes or so.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will of course understand that all these misgivings and anxieties would not have occurred in the first place if the scheme, as originally proposed by the Government, had not given rise to considerable doubts and concerns. There remain problems, such as the one that I have highlighted in the wording of clause 107, which will need to be considered very carefully to ensure that we have a workable scheme that is acceptable to the whole industry. That must be the objective.
  Mr. Dover: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. We now have the statutory consultation process, which will be carried on after Royal Assent. I pressed the Minister on that earlier.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Throughout, the problem has been that the construction industry was prepared to sign up to general propositions but we could not flush out the detail. It required the draft scheme to focus the minds of those in the industry on what they wanted and did not

  89
  want, and it has enabled us to end up with something broadly acceptable. There may still be points that we need to resolve and we are perfectly willing to continue discussion with the industry and outside to try to do so if at all possible.
  Mr. Dover: The industry has pondered long and hard about detailed wording. I am a civil engineer by profession, and the wording that the Institution of Civil Engineers sent to the Minister in the past seven days will need to be very carefully examined; I think that it is perfect. The institution also has a very good idea on the payment provisions, which I shall discuss later.
  It is in the interests of all parties in the House, the construction industry and the nation to ensure that we get the right legal framework. If we have to take another few weeks or months—even after Royal Assent—so be it. At least there will be a consultation process. I very much welcome the Minister's statement earlier that we shall be able to debate those regulations in the House. That will give us a first-class opportunity to ensure, with some hindsight, that the thing is properly worked out in detail, which is extremely important.
  The usual standard contracts used between client and contractor contain full payment conditions, specifying payment periods, but the Bill concentrates on special contracts between, say, the main contractor and his subcontractors. They are sometimes swingeing and very unfair. Sub-contractors fall into all sorts of financial traps, and they often have to stay on the job and see the contract out even though they are not being paid. I welcome the fact that the Bill addresses insolvency and that there will be a fair payments system and a test which presumably people must comply with from the start. Payments must be made properly at the right intervals.
  I would like to suggest one amendment proposed by the Institution of Civil Engineers: that the word "valid" be inserted before the word "ground" in clauses 2110(a) and 110(b). The institution suggests that companies who withdraw their effort from a site because of non-payment must notify the adjudicator named and agreed under the contract of their decision, giving valid reasons for withdrawing their labour. In other words, a firm cannot say, "I am a sub-contractor on the job, but I am not happy so I shall withdraw my labour," without valid grounds. I hope that the Minister will consider allowing the adjudicator to make a pronouncement and determine whether valid grounds should taken into consideration when drawing up contracts.
  In conclusion, the Bill represents a major step forward for the industry. I appreciate not only the craft and the care that has gone into the Bill's preparation, arising out of Sir Michael Latham's report, but the tremendous number of hours and days of discussion of it in the House of Lords. It is unusual for major legislation to come to the House following consideration in the other place. The House of Lords has done much to carve out the right form of words in part II of the Bill and I hope that the Standing Committee will examine it even more carefully. The Bill contains many good ideas and it will be a tragedy if Opposition Members seek to divide the House on a measure that is useful to the entire construction industry. I support all its provisions.
  8.1 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: It is important to recognise that the Bill could well be important for the construction industry, and I am sure that there was a great deal of technical consultation before its presentation. I hope that the legislation will also advantage manufacturers in my constituency who make bricks and who are involved in the sanitary and tableware industries.
  My principal concern—which is relevant to how Opposition Members will vote this evening—is whether the Bill addresses the unmet housing need in constituencies across the country. I represent many people who urgently need housing of one kind or another, and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made it clear earlier that the Bill does not address that existing need.
  We have heard much tonight about the single regeneration budget—the SRB—and how it will benefit those who live in houses that are in need of attention. Although the Government have allocated some resources to the SRB—I refer to the Cobridge SRB in my constituency—that is no substitute for regular maintenance and proper mandatory grants. That funding is necessary in a constituency such as mine where about 7,000 people are owner occupiers and a large proportion of them—63 per cent.—are elderly.
  As we move towards the new millennium, we must put on the statute book basic standards for new-build houses. We must address issues such as home safety, energy efficiency, environmental sustainability and housing for the generations. Earlier today, the Government informed us that we must expect to pay for our care in old age—although we thought that our national insurance contributions would meet that cost. It is significant that the Government have said nothing about care in the community. The fact that, as we approach the new millennium, we cannot apply design standards to new-build houses in order to make them fit for habitation by future generations says a lot about the Government's failure to address the country's housing crisis.
  That failure is my main concern: the Government cannot get their housing policy right. We are debating the Bill this evening because the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 has failed. It came into effect in July 1990 and it should have provided mandatory grants to those who needed them. Earlier today, my hon. Friend spelled out some basic housing regulations. Many people do not have indoor WCs or wind and watertight roofs over their heads. Is it asking too much for those people to be entitled to mandatory grants?
  With the exception of provision for the disabled, the Government have insisted upon moving away from providing decent housing and mandatory grants. I am very alarmed about the direction in which the Government are heading. Many Labour-controlled councils around the country desperately want to help those who need mandatory grants, but they are not able to do so because the Government have not provided the funding. The Government are aware of that problem, but they refuse to allow local councils to award mandatory grants. That is a telling point.
  I shall refer briefly to my constituency and to the city of Stoke-on-Trent which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson)

  91
  represent. The Minister kindly visited north Staffordshire recently to see the housing problems at first hand. Following that visit, we were grateful to receive an extra allocation of £, which was made available to deal with housing problems in Stoke-on-Trent. That funding is very helpful, but it does not go far enough.
  Stoke-on-Trent city council needs £10 million simply to satisfy the number of outstanding mandatory grants and to meet the needs of 1,000 people who are on the waiting list and who require sums ranging from £1,000 to £20,000. That gives some idea of the extent of the housing problem in my constituency. By terminating the mandatory grants system, the Government have caused a tremor throughout my constituency which is equal to that felt in Burslem when there was an earthquake registering 2.7 on the Richter scale. We are facing a housing crisis, and the removal of mandatory grants will condemn many of my constituents to living in damp and in squalor—the sort of housing that should have vanished with the 19 th century.
  For the legislation to deal effectively with housing problems in my constituency, it should include several important provisions. I refer to the situation facing about 33 so-called "ineligible owners" who live on the Galleys Bank estate in Kidsgrove in my constituency. Those people purchased properties, which they later discovered were built using the Schindler construction method, after the cut-off date of 26 April 1984. They did not know then that the properties were defective under housing defects legislation.
  I have raised the issue with the Government. It is outrageous that 33 owner-occupiers are unable to find a solution to their problem. It is not simply a matter of liability, as the Minister suggested earlier. The Government must recognise that those people could not have known that their homes were defective. It will not do to say that the matter can be dealt with under the present system of discretionary housing grants as the properties require 90 to 100 per cent. rebuilding grants. When we reach the later stages in our consideration of the Bill, I shall ask the Minister to discuss the matter with Newcastle borough council in order to find a solution to that constituency problem.
  As we approach the millennium, we desperately need a housing strategy. Local authorities throughout the country, including the two that I represent—Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle—manage to fulfil their housing responsibilities. The village of Bradeley in my constituency demonstrates how local authorities can be innovative and meet housing needs, but to do that they need more than legislation: sufficient funds need to be made available. Quite simply, the Government have not done that.
  I believe that the challenge facing the current Government in respect of this legislation, the next Government—which will certainly be a Labour Government—and local authorities throughout the country is to plan for the millennium and make sure that we have decent housing that can be handed down the generations to our children and grandchildren.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: In giving a general but not unequivocal welcome to the Bill, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for
  92
  Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency on his hard work, particularly with the building industry, and his almost unrivalled grasp of the issues involved. It is a shame that he is not in his place—he has probably gone to dinner—nevertheless it should be recognised that he has done a wonderful job.
  I should first declare an interest. I am proud to have been in the housebuilding industry for the past 20 years and I understand some of the problems that have been mentioned, particularly in respect of part II of the Bill. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) that I have always used an architect. Generally speaking, the architectural profession produces excellent work.
  It would be remiss of me to mention some aspects of the Bill without referring to the extraordinary remarks by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He said that Conservative Members tended to laugh at what he had to say. I certainly did not laugh; I found his words absolutely chilling. I am glad that he said them, however, as I suspect that they reflect the views of a large proportion of Labour Members.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: indicated dissent.
  Mr. Coombs: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) shakes his head, possibly signifying yet another split within the Labour party in this as in other areas of policy.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke in Castro-esque terms about the nationalisation or common ownership of land, and denigrated people's sincere attempts to own their own homes just because they might have to raise the money by taking on a mortgage. When the right hon. Gentleman was Viscount Stansgate, he might not have had to do that, but the vast majority of the rest of the world does. His comments might have been considered a slap in the face by people who aspire to home ownership in that way.
  In that context, the capitalist society, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, has done rather a good job in terms of the condition of housing stock in Britain. As we have heard, in the past five years the proportion of dwellings regarded as unfit has fallen by about 10 per cent. to 1 million. The figure is still too high. We also heard that one third of those dwellings could be put right at a cost of less than £500 and that half were unfit in only one respect.
  Throughout the building industry and in my constituency, the interaction of the private and public sector, technological advances and improved building regulations over the past few years have resulted in significant improvements in the general standard of our housing. To give just one example, the latest household survey, which relates to the period between 1979 and 1991, shows that when Labour was last in government, only 43 per cent. of pensioners—who are not regarded as a high wealth sector in society—had central heating in their homes; something that most people regard as pretty basic. The present figure is well over 75 per cent. That demonstrates an improvement in the housing conditions of a large proportion of people in Britain.
  Part I of the Bill deals with housing renovation grants and grant regimes generally. The Government are absolutely right to put those matters on a discretionary, not a mandatory, basis, for the simple reason that councils should be able to decide their priorities in those matters. Their objection to a discretionary scheme sits ill with Labour Members who are always extolling the virtues of

  93
  giving local councils more power to object. As Lord Williams of Elvel said in the House of Lords on 20 February 1996:
  "Worse still, practice on how to apply the discretionary system will vary from local authority to local authority."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 984.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote speeches made in the House of Lords, except by Ministers.
  Mr. Coombs: I stand admonished, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact that he said that that would be so demonstrates one of the strengths of the system, which until now has been reactive rather than proactive and has led to a pepper pot or static approach. The Bill will allow local authorities to target resources to ensure that renovation grants are properly monitored. In too many cases, they are not, and that leads to a waste of resources.
  The proposed change would affect certain properties, particularly those owned by private landlords, who are not covered by the housing renovation grant scheme. Only 4 per cent. of approvals for renovation grants relate to properties owned by private landlords although they preside over one third of unfit buildings. It would allow local councils—if they wished, and I hope they do, irrespective of their political colour—to work with private landlords to improve the condition of their housing stock. Obviously, that will depend on the commitment of an individual council to its task and its willingness to work with private landlords.
  It is important to avoid a feeling of injustice and discrimination—despite the neighbourhood renewal assessments—among those who will no longer receive housing renovation grants to which they feel automatically entitled. It is even more important that local councils who will be working on a strategic basis ensure that local communities have a sense of ownership in respect of improvements to the area.
  When I represented Moseley on Birmingham city council, I worked closely with the Balsall Heath residents action group as Balsall Heath was an inner-city part of my ward. One of that group's continual gripes about the council in those days—irrespective of political control—was that improvements were being carried out despite them and over their heads. They had no feeling of ownership so they did not consider any improvements to be of lasting value.
  Sadly, the housing renovation grant scheme—irrespective of the fact that it will be discretionary—continues to overlay the existing means test, which is complicated and which many of my thrifty constituents, who have maintained a certain level of income as a result of their savings, consider to be discriminatory. We have heard that there were £357 million worth of applications for housing renovation when £250 million was available. There will always be a scarcity of resources, irrespective of which party is in government at Westminster.
  It is important that resources are used sensibly, not wasted, and to engage the efforts of the private sector through housing improvement trusts, venture capital trusts and so on, to add to available resources. Tax relief for essential improvements, even though it may exceed the £30,000 limit, is something that the Treasury should examine. There is an argument for allowing capital
  94
  receipts to be targeted for the purpose in some councils—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—subject to the councils being able to prove via the Audit Commission or the Department of the Environment that their overall financial position is such that the use of capital receipts would not be irresponsible.
  I welcome the home repairs grant, which replaces the minor works assistance grants—particularly in respect of mobile home owners. There is an enormous number of caravan and mobile home owners in my constituency—the highest in the United Kingdom. Too often, they have missed out on grants for minor improvements that would make a significant difference to their properties. The scheme marks a significant advance.
  We must attribute part II to not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but Sir Michael Latham and his team. I am always slightly suspicious—it may just be bloody-mindedness on my part—when there is a consensus across the House in favour of one particular action, particularly when it involves greater Government interference in an industry as large as construction, which has a turnover of £50 billion and employs 5 million people. However, I accept that Sir Michael was right in identifying significant improvements that could be made to the industry. The estimate of 30 per cent. overcosting is probably not unrealistic, to the extent that the industry is too often confrontational—although I have never found it particularly so in my 25 years of dealing with contractors and sub-contractors.
  Training standards are generally poor. Despite the existence—and here is a lesson for us all—of the Construction Industry Training Board, there is a lack of qualifications in what is a fragmented industry, and it is significantly undercapitalised in many cases—particularly in respect of smaller companies. I support the Bill's proposals to outlaw "pay when paid" contracts.
  A company in my constituency, Burke Brothers, laid electrical cable along the M5 and M4. That firm, which employed about 90 people, worked with Tilbury Douglas. I do not suggest that that company, which was contracted by the Highways Agency, was at all to blame. As there was no easy way of arbitrating on the agency's refusal to pay Tilbury Douglas because the standard of work was not adequate, and because Tilbury Douglas operated a "pay when paid" contract with Burke Brothers, that firm ran into enormous financial difficulties. As a result, its 90 former employees work elsewhere or not at all. "Pay when paid" contracts are unrealistic and anachronistic, and they should be abolished.
  I agree that the new engineering contract ought to be the industry standard, but I have some reservations about the circumstances under which it might be replaced and what might replace it, under the scheme for construction contracts. I am not sure who would activate the move to the mandatory, Government-led contract. Who would decide that a particular contract was not appropriate in terms of its payments and other provisions, and when? I see the potential, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), for considerable delay unless such questions are clearly answered by the Committee and the Bill.
  A much clearer definition of construction operations is needed. We heard the plea made on behalf of the process industries. I believe that more and more construction will

  95
  be off-site, by prefabrication. Provision for that development needs to be made in the contractual conditions.
  Although I welcome adjudication, we must ensure that it is not over used by people who are trying to seek an unjustified advantage in the contract. I would like adjudication to be continually used throughout a contract, but with recourse to the courts available at the end of the contract if either party felt aggrieved in respect of overpayment or contract length.
  The power exercised by different commercial interests—particularly by large contractors over small firms—will remain in evidence, irrespective of the letter of contracts. Small contractors will still want more business from larger companies, so will be unwilling to rock the boat. Any contract should take cognisance of that.
  One reason for confrontation in the building industry in recent years is the narrow profit margins resulting from the state of trade. When there is more meat, companies are prepared to share it. Firms too often sign up to a contract on which they will notionally make a loss at a particular price, hoping to negotiate a profit from the extras that come along during the contract's life. That practice is due to the state of trade, and I do not see how it can be avoided. When trade picks up, hopefully such practices will gradually disappear—as in the past.
  I cannot understand why clause prevents a party to the contract who wishes to live in the property that is to be constructed from taking advantage of the new terms—particularly since people live in their own houses and, as a result, enter into contracts that are of significantly greater value than do people who work on a business basis. They obviously feel the results and therefore the need for arbitration in a far more intimate and intense way. I am not convinced that private householders should—subject possibly to a minimum £20,000 contract value—be excluded from the Bill's provisions. I hope that the Government will give some thought to that aspect.
  The good in the Bill significantly outweighs those matters about which I have reservations—particularly part II. I ask only that any scheme that the Government introduce through regulations rather than primary legislation is not so bureaucratic as to increase costs and delays in the construction industry, which would be against the interests of everybody—including those people who are working so constructively with Sir Michael Latham.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: The Bill covers many issues, and we could spend a long time trying to consider them all, but I want to refer to the housing issues that arise out of it, because I consider housing to be the greatest social problem in the country. I know that we have unemployment benefit, community care, health care and education, but if we had proper and significant housing provision, many other social problems would be eased.
  I want, therefore, to impress on the House the need to introduce a comprehensive housing strategy to resolve the problems that I, as a constituency Member of Parliament, encounter. I receive more correspondence and other
  96
  representations on housing issues than on any other subject. I know that unemployment is high on the agenda of the Labour party, but I must tell the Minister, the Conservative Government and my colleagues that we must place housing high on our agenda because of the social consequences of the lack of a housing strategy.
  The Bill is designed to end grant assistance for low-income owners and landlords to bring their property up to a minimum standard of repair and to replace it with grants given at the discretion of the local authority. That is not a welcome move, because proper resources should be given to local authorities if they are to have responsibility for distributing grants.
  The Bill would remove the basic human right to a home that is fit to live in. The current system gives a statutory right to cash help to bring property up to a minimum standard, subject to a means test. It ensures that owner-occupiers and tenants who are trapped in housing that is officially unfit to live in and who are unable to afford its repair are eligible for Government grant. A significant number of people find it difficult to provide the resources to bring their homes up to a proper quality.
  It is now the Government's policy that elderly people should remain in their homes longer. The removal of the right to a Government grant—less than five years after its introduction—will extinguish any hope of help or support in many vulnerable people who live in homes that are in need of urgent repair. One in six—or 3.5 million—properties require urgent repairs costing more than £1,000.
  The Bill refers to deferred action. That is an option that will legitimise doing nothing when a house is found to fail minimum standards. Unfitness will be officially sanctioned and many properties will suffer from blight while awaiting action, which will be put off. At the resource levels currently planned, many local authorities will be unable to use the new grant more flexibly, as cash will be spread too thinly to do much more than deal with the worst problems and meet obligations to pay grants to disabled people. We will witness a patch-and-mend system, which I consider totally unacceptable.
  We have a serious reservation about the way in which legislation has been implemented—in particular, the lack of transparency in the allocation processes, including the competitive nature of the process, the role of the Government offices in the regions and the extent to which need is taken into account. We also have reservations about the fact that the number of areas able to access regeneration resources has been extended, while resources have been reduced.
  Age Concern has told the Government that it is
  "disappointed that Government proposals to extend Part M of the building regulations to take account of the access requirements of disabled people … are not included in the bill."
  The Minister has said that the Government are considering that issue, but unless it is addressed, greater problems will occur.
  Age Concern also reports, in the briefing material that every hon. Member has received, that 71 per cent. of disabled facility grants were given to applicants aged 60 or over. That is the area at which grants should be targeted, but without the proper resources it will be more difficult to help people over 60.
  The National Home Improvement Council has also presented a report, arising out of its house condition survey, that shows that about 1.5 million dwellings are

  97
  unfit for habitation and that a further 1.1 million, while not unfit, require substantial repair. We have evidence, therefore, of a significant problem in housing repair, and the reduction in grants will not help people who are in need of assistance.
  Wakefield housing department reports a problem because a range of other grants and provisions aimed at helping people to improve and maintain the standard of their homes will also be affected by the Bill. The chairman of the housing committee makes it clear that, if the Bill is passed, the effect will be worrying for that housing authority.
  Contrary to what the Minister said in his opening remarks about canvassing local authorities and receiving their support in principle for the Bill, my local authority has made it clear on more than one occasion that, without the proper resources and assistance from the Government to make grants, there will be a deterioration in the quality of housing stock throughout the Wakefield metropolitan district area. The annual capital allocation for 1996–97 that has been set in my area is half of what the authority will require if it is to meet the demand for housing grants and provide the help that is needed.
  The glass industry has said that it could help with renovations and housing grants. In my area, which is part of the Yorkshire and Humberside area, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of grants made available. Without some additional provisions in the Bill, greater problems will arise. That is clear from the representations that I have received—as, I am sure, have other Members of Parliament—from constituents.
  The Bill and the Housing Bill will do nothing to help the social problem of housing. Because of the lack of support from the Government on housing provision and the quality of housing, I shall join my colleagues in opposing the Bill tonight. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider carefully the amendments that we will table, because they would help to enhance the quality of housing through the grants system. I also hope that we will be given some assurances that people will not suffer because of the deterioration in provision that is outlined in the Bill.
  8.39 pm
  Sir Anthony Durant: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has signalled to me requesting that I speak for only five minutes. I shall do my best.
  I am chairman of the all-party group on the construction industry, so I feel that I should make a few comments. I am also a personal friend of Sir Michael Latham. He and I have been involved in politics for a long time. He did an outstanding job on his report and it is well worth all hon. Members' reading it.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a fatuous and silly speech. It was wide of the Bill and no more than the usual soundbite stuff that we have come to expect from him.
  However, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made an outstanding and extraordinary speech. He wants to nationalise the land. That has been attempted. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Community Land Act 1975, night after night, for about a month. The Bill was enacted and 80
  98
  acres were nationalised at a cost of £150 million. The measure was then dropped. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the Labour party's experience in nationalising the land.
  The Institution of Civil Engineers is concerned about contracting. It asked, and I in turn ask my hon. Friend the Minister, about the date of implementation of the Bill. The institution suggests that it should be some six months after Royal Assent. It wants time to amend its standard contracts in line with the Bill. It is also concerned about existing contracts, which it feels should stand. In addition, it would like clarification of some kind of outline of the scheme. I believe that that will come in the form of a statutory instrument. It would like to see that as soon as possible.
  The Bill does not deal with professional negligence, which is another concern of the industry. I understand that that matter is being considered separately.
  The institution feels that adjudication is good for obtaining a quick decision on a dispute during construction so that work can continue, but it is concerned that adjudication is being confused with arbitration. The decision resulting from adjudication should be binding only until completion; complex legal arguments should be dealt with later. That is in the Bill, and I merely emphasise it.
  The institution is also concerned about the withholding of payments and the suspending of performance—walking off site. It suggests that a contractor intending to withhold payments should give valid reasons for so doing. It proposes an extra clause, which on careful study does seem reasonable, under which, if a contractor sought an adjudication on whether effective notice of withholding payment had been given, the right of a sub-contractor to walk off site could not be exercised on withholding payment.
  Those are some of the worries of the Institution of Civil Engineers of which my hon. Friend the Minister is probably well aware, but I simply wanted to put them on the record.
  There are matters in the Latham report which I hoped would be in the Bill. Its recommendation on insolvency is not in the Bill. That is a great worry to the industry, and I hope that it will be considered later. There is also the matter of who activates the provisions of the scheme, which has been raised in an intervention. Disputes could arise over whether the scheme has been activated. That point needs clarification.
  Part I has been unjustly slammed by the Opposition. No credit has been given for the fact that facilities for disabled people will be given grants. Such facilities are important.
  Mrs. Maddock: I did recognise that fact in my speech.
  Sir Anthony Durant: I apologise. The hon. Lady must have done so during the short time I was out of the Chamber getting some nourishment. I saw her doing the same just after me. I accept that. The grants for facilities for disabled people are generous.
  I also welcome the grants for clearance, which are important in respect of large estates where clearance is necessary if new, smart estates are to be built. The Bill will assist councils in dealing with grants for clearance.

  99
  Those are the few general points that I wished to make. I hope that I have not been too long for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I support the Bill and shall vote for it tonight.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: We have heard much from Conservative Members about such important matters as the organisation of the architecture profession, but I want to concentrate on part I and the scandal with regard to renovation grants.
  Having created the crisis of unfit houses and the lack of resources to meet that scandalous situation, the Government intend to remove the mandatory right to an improvement grant for houses that are statutorily unfit and, effectively, to walk away from the problem.
  Like every other hon. Member, I was prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and listen to what he had to say, but his arguments fell into a significant pit of disrepute when he tried to convince the House that the Government's intention was to pass responsibility to local authorities. The Minister was trying to convince us that the Government support local authorities and that they think that local authorities do a good job. The Government have spent 17 years systematically undermining local authorities, yet the Minister has the temerity to suggest that the Government's motivation here is their love for local authorities and their belief that all local authorities are so competent that they will do a better job than the Government. It was at that point that the Minister's argument fell to pieces.
  As we approach the 21st century, the removal of that right to grant will condemn millions of people to live in houses that are unfit for habitation. Hon. Members must reflect on that. After 17 years of Tory rule, that is the prospect that millions of people face. There are hundreds of such people in Stoke-on-Trent, many of them in my constituency.
  I want to give the House some idea, in the short time available, of how serious the situation is, using the example of Stoke-on-Trent, which is by no means unusual. Hundreds of authorities face the same problem. I give the following information for Conservative Members' delectation.
  The latest information from Stoke-on-Trent shows that 419 owner-occupiers are waiting for a mandatory renovation grant. Sixty-one involve landlords on whom notices have been served, 74 are for mandatory disabled facility grants and 57 are for assistance for minor works. In the case of 51 mandatory renovation grants to landlords where notices have been served, and in the case of 167 mandatory disabled facility grants, application forms have been issued.
  As a result of preliminary investigations by the local authority, it is estimated that some 780 owner-occupiers are in unfit properties where initial property appraisal has shown that they meet all the criteria for a mandatory grant. I could give more statistics, but I shall not bore the House—particularly Conservative Members, who are not very interested.
  If we tot up the figures, we see that, in Stoke-on-Trent alone, 1,600 properties would qualify for grant, about 800 of which would qualify for a mandatory grant, yet they have no chance of getting one.
  100
  What do the Government do in the light of that disgraceful situation, which affects not only Stoke-on-Trent, but authorities countrywide? They walk away from it. They pick up their ball and walk away. The Minister is not fooling anyone when he tells us that that is because the Government have great faith in local authorities. We all know that the reason for the Bill is that the Government have been stung by the justified criticism of the chaos that they have created in this area of housing. When the Bill becomes law they want to be able to say, "It has nowt to do with us; local authorities are to blame." That is the real motivation behind the Bill. If the present Government are still in power—which I doubt—Ministers may well reply to our questions by saying, "Don't blame us; blame local authorities."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned the Under-Secretary of State's visit to Stoke-on-Trent following our representations. I, too, thank the Under-Secretary of State for taking the time and trouble to go and see for himself what is happening. Our arguments were clear; the hon. Gentleman listened, he saw, and his heart melted slightly. We thought that it had, anyway, and we thought that there would be a little more money to spend on that vital area—£300,000 in supplementary credit, in fact.
  This is where I depart slightly from what was said by my hon. Friend. Supplementary credit approval does not mean more money from the Government; it means that the council has authority to borrow, and that local taxpayers must pay. As I have said, I thank the Minister for his interest, for his visit, and for taking part in discussions with us, but the fact remains that, having recognised the problem, he said that no more Government money was available—"but you can borrow a bit more if you like, and council tax payers can pay."
  What sort of approach is that, in view of the statistics that I gave relating to the authority represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North, for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and me? Many properties will continue to be unfit for human habitation, and will deteriorate. Local authorities cannot meet their legal obligations—and that is not accidental, but a direct result of Government policy. As we enter the latter part of the 20th century, millions of people throughout the country are finding themselves trapped in housing that is unfit for human habitation, and neither the Bill nor Ministers' speeches can give them any hope. That is the legacy of 17 years of Tory Britain; the sooner it is changed, the better.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: As we are short of time and several of my hon. Friends wish to speak, and because it is of utmost importance to my constituency, I shall concentrate on the part of the Bill that deals with grants. I shall, however, refer briefly to part II, and the measures that arise from the Latham report. Having known Michael Latham, and having studied the report when it was published, I believed that action was necessary, and I am glad that the Bill provides for action. I recognise, however, that many of the issues involved would best be debated in Committee.
  I agree with some hon. Members who have spoken today, and with bodies such as Age Concern, that the Government have merely paid lip service to the

  101
  importance of the home energy efficiency scheme by including measures in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cut more than £30 million from the programme in last year's Budget. That is not consistent; it is nonsense.
  Some 250,186 dwellings in the north-west are unfit for habitation. It is a serious problem—certainly in my constituency, where much of the housing stock is pre-1918 and in need of major renovation. Let us consider what the Government have done for home improvement. In 1983, there was a bonanza before the general election when, as hon. Members will recall, councils were given unlimited resources to provide grants to improve older housing stock. I believed at the time that that was a deliberate attempt to influence the outcome of the election, and to a large extent my suspicions proved correct. Immediately after the election, there was a clampdown on the available funds.
  From that time on, the Government have consistently attacked home improvement and modernisation. In the 1988 Budget, they stopped tax relief on mortgages and loans; that came into effect on 6 April. In the 1984 Budget, they introduced VAT on home improvement work; that came into effect on 1 June 1984. Then there was the means test for grant introduced in 1990 as a result of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. In ending mandatory grants the Government are driving another nail into the coffin, preventing the improvement of older housing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said that he thought that, when a Minister visited his constituency and saw the problem, his heart melted a little. Housing Minister after housing Minister has been to Burnley, but I have not seen one respond in a way that would do a single thing to deal with the problem. They have all uttered nice words of concern, but not a penny has been spent. When Ian Gow was a housing Minister he visited Burnley, and I must say in all fairness that he did not only go to the houses that we had arranged for him to go to; he stopped the car here, there and everywhere, and jumped out to look at houses for himself. When he returned to London, however, he wrote a nice letter saying that he recognised the problem but that no more cash was available at that time.
  Another former housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), visited Burnley twice. I have lobbied him on behalf of the north-west, including Wigan; I have lobbied him with groups representing Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire—with councillors, council officers and Members of Parliament. At the time—some four years ago—the right hon. Gentleman recognised the difficulties involved in a service that is demand-led. The answer, however, is not to clamp down on grants and do away with them, as the Government are doing; that merely directs resources in a slightly different direction.
  All the north-east Lancashire authorities came down to meet the right hon. Member for Acton. He said then that north-east Lancashire, and Burnley in particular, had a peculiar cocktail of problems: low incomes, a high proportion of home ownership and pre-1918 properties and low values, even after improvement. Let me tell the Minister who will wind up the debate that we still have exactly that problem, and that the Bill does nothing to deal with it.
  102
  How will councils cope under the new arrangements that will do away with the mandatory right to ask for a grant? On many occasions, former Ministers refused to acknowledge that councils were having to exercise rationing because they were unable to meet their statutory requirement to provide mandatory grants due to lack of cash. How does the Under-Secretary think that councils with major problems in their areas will be able to determine their priorities? I look at Burnley and wonder whether the priority will be Daneshouse, Stoneyholme or Burnley Wood. I am glad that I am not on the council and have to take such difficult decisions. There are just not enough resources to deal with the problems.
  I hope that there will be flexibility in the use of the three-year qualification. If no one will move into the odd old terraced house in Burnley that has not been improved, and the property becomes empty because people have few resources and cannot do it up because of the grants arrangement, the house will become derelict and destroy the whole terrace. The Minister referred to pepper-potting, which I recognise can cause difficulties and problems. The Under-Secretary must recognise, however, that in old industrial towns, where a terrace can be as long as the road, the entire terrace can be destroyed if individual houses are not improved or maintained and become empty and derelict. Where there are few resources and low-value properties, it is very difficult to deal with the problem.
  To say that there is an ability to defer grants for disabled facilities for a year is unacceptable. If a disabled person is found to be eligible and in need of a grant to provide facilities to overcome their disability, they should receive it straight away. Councils such as my local authority have problems because they have always virtually run out of resources after the first two or three months of the year and can deal only with priorities for the rest of the year. There are many other instances in which they should be able to give grants, but cannot, and people suffer as a result. The Government must recognise those major problems in places such as Burnley and north-east Lancashire and realise that the only way in which to solve them is to make more resources available to address the needs of the older housing stock.
  9 pm
  Mr. Ian Pearson: The Bill is lengthy but disappointing. Some of its proposals are welcome, especially those that implement certain recommendations of the Latham report, on which, regrettably, time will not allow me to comment. Ultimately, however, the Bill is a failure because it does nothing to tackle the fundamental problem of inadequate investment in new housing and in the regeneration and renovation of older sub-standard housing. The dismantling of the mandatory renovation grant system is simply a back-door way to cut costs. It will mean that more owner-occupiers and tenants will have to live in housing misery for longer—and that some will have to face the fact that they might never see their housing conditions improved in their lifetimes.
  In Dudley, the local authority has 500 outstanding housing grant applications, which total about £4.25 million, yet it has seen its specified capital grant almost chopped in half since the regime was introduced, from £2.75 million in 1991–92 to less than £1.5 million this year. It is estimated that people in the queue will have to wait at least three years before their applications are

  103
  sorted out—notwithstanding the growing queues for disabled facilities due to financial restrictions, which are an all too depressing feature in my local area.
  What is more, that is only the tip of the iceberg. A housing stock condition survey conducted last year in Dudley showed that there were 5,000 unfit dwellings. Across all sectors, about £300 million is needed to bring the houses up to a basic standard of habitation. Yet at the same time, the housing investment programme allocation grant to Dudley borough this year was only £12 million. At that rate of progress, it will take 25 years to deal with the current problems, let alone with what might happen in future. The Bill will also do nothing to solve the problems of 11,000 people in Dudley who are on the housing waiting list.
  Part IV of the Bill includes a measure to extend the Secretary of State's powers to provide financial assistance, principally through providing a single legislative basis for the single regeneration budget. I see the sense of a single legislative basis for the SRB, but I am very disappointed that the business start-up scheme is still one of the programmes in the SRB pot. It is wrong that in some parts of the country one can start a business if one wants but in others one cannot. There needs to be a national scheme to help people who are taking their first entrepreneurial step, yet it is just not available.
  As someone who is involved in advising a number of local authorities and training and enterprise councils on preparing bids for the first round of SRB funds and advising Government offices on assessing bids, I must admit that the SRB process has produced some significant benefits. It has made possible a much-needed sharpening up of some local authorities and training and enterprise councils, which the city challenge process also helped to produce. It has enabled them to take a more strategic approach to urban regeneration and to act in partnership, which is now becoming an established feature of activity in urban regeneration.
  It is tough to recognise that, although an area may suffer from incredible deprivation, its funding applications need to be rejected because the local authority and its partners are not up to the job. However, if that is the case and better value for money can be had elsewhere, so be it; it has to be done. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the area and the ability of partners to deliver.
  There are a number of practical difficulties with the way in which the SRB regime works in practice. A project to install inside toilets and replace rotten windows to make houses fit for habitation is extremely important to those living in conditions of disrepair, such as those in parts of my constituency, but it is not a sexy SRB bid. The SRB criterion of partnership skews bids towards those projects which can demonstrate partnership.
  Many housing programmes cannot demonstrate partnership, so it is not surprising that housing schemes in my patch have done badly as a result of the change from estate action to SRB. In 1994, £3.78 million was allocated to housing schemes, but this year only £430,000 has been allocated. That reflects a judgment of what can be got through the Government office as a successful SRB bid as much as it reflects Government cuts in funding and the views of local partners on what priorities should be set.
  104
  Similar problems exist with private sector leverage. It is a laudable principle and, while I accept that it should be a feature of the SRB bidding process, bids that rely entirely on those criteria and have no flexibility are fundamentally flawed.
  Part V of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to set up one or more residuary bodies to receive any property, rights or liabilities from urban development corporations and other bodies. The Department of the Environment memorandum on the Bill dated 14 February provided a justification for the proposal. It said:
  "it makes sense to create a single body to deal with all the remaining issues, rather than to perpetuate the life of each corporation until its functions have been completed. The alternative would be to hand the residuary functions to the Secretary of State to be dealt with by the appropriate regional Government Office. Not only might this, in some cases, result in wasteful duplication of effort, it would also require the application of skills not normally available in GOs unless they were to engage consultants."
  I must admit to surprise at that, because my experience of the west midlands residuary body and others is that they were not reticent in buying in skills from consultants. I should add that, if Government offices do not have the skills to handle the functions of urban development corporations, they should acquire them. They, after all, have to decide on urban regeneration bids and they ought to become strategic partners in urban and regional regeneration, not pure bag carriers for the Government.
  If the Government do not want to go down the Government office route, an alternative is to consider using English Partnerships as a vehicle for bids. However, the Government do not seem to be doing so. While the memorandum talks about creating a single body to deal with all the remaining issues, I received this reply from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), to a question about what would happen to the financial liabilities incurred by the urban development corporations:
  "negotiations with potential successor bodies are still taking place."—[Official Report, 23 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 64.]
  On 14 February the Government said that a single body makes sense, but on 23 April they said that they were in negotiation with potential successor bodies. Which is right? We badly need an explanation.
  The Bill will do nothing for the many hundreds of my constituents who live in housing misery. On that basis, while I welcome its positive measures for the construction industry, it must be opposed.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, because housing is a big issue in north-east Lancashire. Pendle lies alongside the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and shares common characteristics with it.
  I listened carefully to the Minister's opening remarks. He convinced me, as if I needed any convincing, that this is another fraudulent Bill from a fraudulent Government. He said that it would create flexibility and give help where it is most needed. Some 15,000 properties in my borough—45 per cent. of the stock—need renovation. What is the point of targeting such a vast problem? What can be done when so much of the stock needs renovation'? It requires not flexibility but more cash and resources to tackle the problem.

  105
  The Minister went on to say—this is one of those comforting Tory nostrums with which people find it difficult to disagree—that home owners are responsible for their own homes. No one would disagree with that, but there are compelling public policy considerations that mean that the state has a role to play in housing provision. Of course it is right that home owners are responsible for their own homes but what happens when they are impoverished—when they are on low wages or unemployed—and cannot afford to do up their homes? That is the position in north-east Lancashire. Huge deprivation is caused by bad housing, low wages and unemployment. People cannot find the money to do up their houses.
  Poor housing means poor health. In my constituency, 30 per cent. of households have a member suffering from a limiting long-term illness. That compares with a national average of 18 per cent. and is another compelling reason for tackling the decrepit housing stock. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) reminded us of what the Age Concern document said:
  "The harmful effects of poor housing on health are well recorded. Dampness can lead to bronchial and respiratory illnesses; cold housing to hypothermia and increased susceptibility to illnesses; unsafe houses can lead to accident and deaths".
  How true that is.
  There is also a burden on the health service. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the £800 million that it costs the NHS to remedy conditions that should be tackled at source by dealing with clapped-out houses that should have been renovated years ago. The Minister said that councils, as opposed to the local authority associations, welcome the move from mandatory to discretionary grants. Where is the evidence for that? It another ministerial assertion plucked from the air. Perhaps he was talking only of Conservative councils, of which I think there are about 11.
  I seem to be giving you a headache, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important issue and I want to make sure that the Minister hears what I am saying. I can modulate my voice now that I have the Minister's attention. Mandatory grants were described by the Lancashire Evening Telegraph in the year of my election to the House as a "sick joke". The newspaper, which has a high readership in the area, said that thousands of people with the legal right to mandatory grants do not get them because they are, in effect, rationed. That was the point I made to the Minister earlier.
  That is something that crops up year after year in the housing strategy documents published by my local authority. The 1995 document stated that applications
  "are processed at a rate determined by the level of funds available."
  That is not a solution. They were not mandatory grants, but arbitrary grants yet those grants were needed.
  North-east Lancashire has the oldest housing stock in the north-west and perhaps the oldest in the country; it is totally clapped out. People should not be living in many of the houses. In my constituency, 20,000 houses were built before 1919, which is 57 per cent. of all dwellings, 65 per cent. of the houses are in band A, which is the lowest council tax band, 18,000 homes were built before the turn of the century and 15,000 are assessed as in need of renovation. We are talking about 15,000 families living in houses that need to be renovated. Also, 2,150 additional homes failed to meet current fitness standards. The local
  106
  authority estimates that the cost of improving stock, bringing it up to standard and making it fit for human habitation would be £14 million. There is no getting away from the fact—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Prentice: I think that I can anticipate what the hon. Lady is about to say, but I will give way to her even though she has only just walked into the Chamber.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh, no she has not—she has been sitting over there.
  May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my constituency has a very elderly housing stock? Many houses and schools are more than 300 years old, but, because we have had a Conservative city council for most of the time, we have steadily got on with renovating those houses. Houses that were worth £200 when I first became the Member of Parliament were given council grants to be renovated. On St. George's quay, there are now some beautiful houses, which will last another century. That is because the local authority did its task over the years. It did not say, "Woe is me", and leave it to the next generation. We got on with the job when it came.
  Mr. Prentice: Lancaster is now Labour-controlled, and perhaps I am looking at the reason for that change of control. There is no comparison between Lancaster and north-east Lancashire.
  We need cash to make a serious attack on housing repairs, dilapidation and decay. I mentioned that 15,000 houses were in need of renovation and that an additional 2,150 were unfit for human habitation. How many mandatory grants did my local authority award in 1995? Only 99 and 12 discretionary grants. In 1995–96, it awarded 122 mandatory grants and 12 discretionary grants. This year, in the housing investment programme, which looks forward to 1996–97—the current year—the number of mandatory grants will plummet to 70 from 122 and the number of discretionary grants to 12. That cannot even begin to make a dent in the problem.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, the Minister is being completely disingenuous in saying that local authorities will be given responsibility and that the discretion that the Bill offers them will magically provide a remedy that was not there before. The harsh truth is that local authorities have been starved of cash and have not been able to use their capital receipts to do up the housing stock and we are paying the price for that.
  I started by saying that the Bill is totally fraudulent. I suspect that no one in my constituency would disagree with that assessment.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: This is a comprehensive Bill, and I should like to touch on a couple of its provisions.
  I do not think that the removal of mandatory grants will make the situation any better. We currently cannot keep up with demand, and there is no way of attempting seriously to deal with the problem by saying that demand has been unrealistic and that we will get rid of mandatory grants.

  107
  We have an enormous range of problems, particularly in London. In my area of Newham, housing is undoubtedly our most severe social problem. Most of the case load at my advice surgery in Stratford is about housing, and much of it is about private sector housing. Contrary to popular belief, most of the properties—or a majority of them in my constituency, in the north of the borough—are in the private sector. Much of that housing is seriously dilapidated, and I think that this Bill will make the situation worse.
  We have a problem in London. In 1991, 21 per cent. of private sector stock was designated unfit, yet public expenditure on renovation grants is currently less than a third of the 1983 level in real terms. There are 175,000 private sector dwellings in London that are statutorily unfit, many of which will be inhabited by elderly owner-occupiers. Previously all owners on low incomes would have qualified for grants, but now only a few will be eligible. I do not understand how the Minister can possibly say that this Bill will improve housing in the east end or in London generally.
  As I understand clause 139, it gives enormous powers to Ministers without any positive vote of the House of Commons. If we are to consider transferring assets to other statutory bodies, particularly to residuary bodies, we must realise that the track record of residuary bodies is not good—again, that is particularly so in London. The process involves taking public property and handing it over to unaccountable, hand-picked men, and to the occasional woman, to dispose of as they see fit—without any proper accountability or control.
  The classic example of residuary bodies in London was, of course, the London residuary body, which was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Godfrey Taylor, a former Tory leader of Croydon council. The Government have always been very wise and astute in picking a Tory stooge to do their dirty work for them. That residuary body was responsible for disposing of a great many public assets.
  Residuary bodies simply do not have the degree of public accountability that elected councils or elected bodies have, and we must complain about that. The public do not have access to the meetings at which public assets are disposed of, and they are not able to read the minutes of those meetings. Deals were done behind closed doors. When we tried to ask questions about the activities of residuary bodies, we were told that that is a matter for the residuary body, or that it is a matter of commercial confidentiality. That money and those assets belong to the public. In many ways, they are being given away and flogged off at knockdown prices, and that is totally unacceptable.
  Who are the people appointed to residuary bodies? They are mates of Ministers and old, clapped-out Tory councillors—of whom there are now many, given what has been happening to the Tories in recent years. Those people get stuck on residuary bodies and pull down very substantial fees for turning up for the odd day, and no doubt a good lunch afterwards. Those practices bring the whole system into disrepute.
  The classic example was the London residuary body, which is the type of body that we are talking about in the Bill. The House should be very wary of handing over anything to such a body. Hon. Members should consider
  108
  the disposal of county hall. It was sold to Shirayama Shokusan, a shadowy Japanese company that we knew very little about. Indeed, the London residuary body knew nothing about it, which was proven by the way in which events subsequently unfolded. Criticisms of the London residuary body abound in the text of reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office.
  First, the London residuary body sells county hall. The agreed price is £50 million but Shirayama says that it cannot in fact afford that sum but will pay £42 million. The residuary body says that it will sue but Shirayama asks how it can because Shirayama has no assets in this country. Shirayama agrees to pay £50 million—£40 million down and the other £10 million out of future profits.
  There was no bank guarantee, there were confidentiality clauses and there was no contractual arrangement with the London residuary body for Shirayama Shokusan to complete the development. Despite all that, the London residuary body continues to say that it is prepared to accept the deal. The remaining £10 million is supposed to come from profits to the year 2012, but Shirayama then says that it does not expect to make any profits between now and then. London charge payers will therefore have to whistle for that £10 million—they will never see it.
  Given what is happening at county hall, anyone who thinks that once public assets are handed to a body such as the London residuary body it will strike a proper deal on behalf of taxpayers and charge payers is whistling in the dark because it is not going to happen. The fact is that Londoners have been robbed by the London residuary body.
  I wanted to have the opportunity to sack the incompetent Sir Tag Taylor. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench know that I am not an ambitious man, but I want to take horrible revenge on the London residuary body. I want to introduce an element of red terror to those who have stripped the GLC of its assets and sold so many of them at give-away prices. I want the opportunity to find out where all the bodies are buried. If my hon. Friends will let me do that, I shall die a very happy man.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: This has been an important debate because it has shown yet again the enormous gulf that exists between the two parties on housing and regeneration issues. The subject matter in the Bill goes to the very heart of three crucial aspects of policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is very fond of boxing metaphors. The House will be well aware that today he scored a knockout to add to that given last Thursday, when the verdict of the people of this country on the Government's performance was passed. Conservative seat after Conservative seat fell to Labour. After two drubbings in successive years, even political pundits such as Mr. Peter Snow were struggling on Thursday night to invent a new word more pejorative than "haemorrhaging" to describe the loss of Conservative support.
  My hon. Friends have made some excellent contributions to today's debate. They spoke with great passion and conviction because they are fully aware of the impact that the Government have had on their

  109
  constituents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a most interesting contribution on yesterday's activities on Guinness land. He fascinated the House with details of the number of people who turned up and the extent of their activities. He rightly said that the House must accept that people have a right to decent accommodation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) pointed out that the ending of mandatory housing grants will send an earthquake through her constituency. I am determined to be nice about both my Stoke colleagues despite the fact that Leicester City will be playing Stoke on Sunday night for a place at Wembley.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was right to complain about the unfairness and injustice of the single regeneration budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) described the ending of mandatory grants as a scandal.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), a former council leader, may not have melted the hearts of housing Ministers as he had wished to do, but he certainly touched the hearts of his Labour colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) spoke from enormous experience gained from advising Government offices, training and enterprise councils and other bodies about the single regeneration budget. He said that a balance needed to be struck between the needs of an area and the abilities of the partners to deliver what the SRB had to offer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) talked of the 15,000 families in Pendle who are living in unfit housing. Finally, if there is an expert on the matter in the House it must be my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), to whom we all pay tribute for his excellent work in exposing the sham of the sale of county hall.
  I thank Conservative Members for their contributions to the debate, including the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs)—who is not in his place but who must have damned his future ministerial career, but delighted Labour Members, when he asked for the targeting of capital receipts. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who has experience of construction, also made some useful points.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras dealt with the Labour party's objections to the housing and construction provisions of the Bill. I add my tribute to Sir Michael Latham, my former neighbour in Leicestershire. He has received a lot of praise from hon. Members on both sides of the House, so he must be an ideal candidate for canonisation. Perhaps the Secretary of State and I should write a joint letter to the Pope asking him to progress this. I have never heard so much praise heaped on a former Member of the House.
  In the time available to me, I intend to deal with the provisions that affect architects and the issues of regeneration policy. All hon. Members would agree that it is important that the profession of architecture is properly regulated and that there is an adequate system of registration. The current arrangements have been in existence for 60 years, so any change is likely to be difficult—as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), the only self-confessed architect in this place, explained.
  110
  The Bill's provisions on registration and the composition of the board will have to be scrutinised carefully in Committee. The Labour party wants to see increased consumer protection through a revised registration board. However, it is important that the board has the support of the profession. It is clear, from the representations that have been received, that there is widespread concern in the profession about the level of control. We support the views that have been put to the Government, but they have not accepted that there should be a minimalist board that limits the possibility of the needless and expensive duplication of professional services.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman may recall my saying that the General Medical Council is about to increase the lay membership of its council from 13 to 25, out of a total membership of 102. If he believes that the majority on the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom board—who are lay people—should be increased, does he believe that that should apply to every other profession?
  Mr. Vaz: This may be the first step to regulating and registering other professions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could raise that if he serves on the Committee. I would like to see better regulation of the legal profession. To be fair to the Secretary of State—we are all delighted that he is here at last, following his various visits to different parts of the country; we try to be fair, compassionate and kind to him when he is present in the House, because someone has to be—it was not he who began the process of dismantling urban Britain; he merely presided over its final collapse.
  As hon. Members are aware, the dismantling of regeneration policy began when the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the end of the urban programme in 1992. That announcement was swiftly followed by a letter to the leaders of 57 local authorities formally abolishing the programme. The urban programme was the mainstay of regeneration policy for more than a generation, and it was brought to an end with no consultation and with even less thought.
  In the context of the regeneration policy of the Government, the decision to axe the urban programme was perfectly understandable. We have, after all, had 28 different regeneration initiatives over the past 17 years. We have had a bewildering compilation of initiatives, each launched in a blaze of publicity, each reducing the amount of resources and each top-sliced from its predecessor.
  Whatever became of the urban partnership fund, the enterprise zones or the 26 other schemes? To my mind, first prize in any regeneration contest must go to the Minister or to the official in the Department of the Environment who dreams up the names of the schemes. He or she should get the Booker prize for fiction. Out of this morass comes the single regeneration budget—no extra resources, no new political direction, just a new name that the Bill seeks to give to a new, all-embracing scheme.
  We believe that the philosophy of partnership must be at the heart of regeneration. When we use the word "partnership", we do so to show, in a practical sense, what local government is achieving with its principal partners.

  111
  Up and down the country, Labour local government has been working for decades to make the partnership ideal a reality. Ministers know for themselves, because they have seen the evidence from the hundreds of photo-calls that they have attended, that the civic leadership of urban Britain, which is exclusively Labour, has delivered all that was promised to its people. We have seen a galaxy of innovative schemes in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Salford and in countless other towns and cities.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that the only reason why Labour local councils enter into any partnership is because they were forced into it by the Government. Until that Government insistence, Labour local councils never entered into partnership with anyone. At the moment, they allow such partnership because they have to. If there were a Labour Government there would be no partnership in local authorities.
  Mr. Vaz: The Secretary of State would not know a partner if it sat on his lap and asked for support. The fact is that Labour local government had worked in partnership for decades before the Government decided to jump on the bandwagon. But for the determination of local authorities leaders and those councillors who supported schemes in different towns and cities, such partnership would never have been achieved. Instead of constantly attacking local government and using the most successful schemes for blatant political propaganda, the Government should hail their success and use that good practice as an example to the world.
  Robbed of civic pride because of Ministers' pursuit of an outdated anti-municipal ideology, local government has sought to restore that pride to its citizens. It has offered them a better quality of life. Local government has done so with the use of scarce resources, which has been an enormous challenge and, despite ministerial criticism, it has responded magnificently.
  There can be no effective regeneration policy without the involvement, support and expertise of the private sector. Business people, however, who are keen to work with local government, have been badly let down by the Conservative party. I have visited hundreds of schemes and met hundreds of business people. It has become clear to me that there is an enormous amount of enthusiasm for potential projects, and a legacy of actual involvement, but real complaint is made that the Government, and this Secretary of State, refuse to listen. The private sector-public sector partnership, so vital to regeneration, has as its cornerstone the recognition of community pride and advancement. Many are shocked at the language used by the Secretary of State in attacking local government. They want to work with local government. The Bill does not help them to do that.
  The talent and enterprise exist. Of course the private sector wants a return; it would be absurd and ludicrous to suggest otherwise. But it shares the view of local councils that if, at the end of the regeneration process, there is no physical and social improvement, it is not worth pursuing. The private sector wants to invest and quite rightly requires shared ownership of the regeneration process, provided the economic climate and conditions allow it to do so.
  112
  The third partner in the regeneration process, which does not even get a mention in the Bill, is the voluntary sector. To Labour it is an equal partner with the others. Neglected by the Government, who do not even bother to consult it on the Bill or any other issue, it has struggled valiantly as its role and activities have been cut, yet that sector represents organisations at the coal face, which deliver commitments to local people.
  The Bill provides a legislative basis for the single regeneration budget, which has already managed two rounds to date. It is an odd situation to pass legislation after the event, but so be it. What has been created is the SRB challenge fund—I am sure hon. Members will note the sporty, competitive name. It will be to the regeneration world what the King George VI cup is to racing and the Benson and Hedges cup is to cricket. Unlike a cricket match, where there is a 50 per cent. chance of winning, the odds are stacked heavily against people in this Government gameshow.
  When the SRB was created no extra resources were provided and all the existing programmes were merely added together. Even worse, the number of authorities that would have benefited from the old urban programme has greatly increased while the chances of success have been greatly diminished. If one increases the number of bidders and reduces the amount of funds, one is heading for trouble.
  The way in which the competitive process has operated is much worse. It insults the intelligence of those in local government. It uses valuable time, effort and resources. It is an established fact that there should be no guarantees and no blank cheques for public money, but it should also go without saying that to pit great cities and towns against one another—Brighton against Birmingham, Leicester against Luton, Manchester against Maidstone—in that perverse way builds up expectation and provides disappointment and dissatisfaction. It does not take into consideration the issue of need and the circumstances prevailing in each area.
  Department of the Environment press releases always dwell on the winners of those competitions, but the figures for failed bids are stark. In round two of the bidding process, the percentage failure rate was as follows: 59 per cent. in the eastern region, 54 per cent. in London, 61 per cent. in the north-west, 54 per cent. in the south-west, 48 per cent. in the north-east and 46 per cent. in Merseyside. Bids worth £480 million, for 156 schemes, were rejected by the Government. No consolation prize exists for those who have lost—only the long wait for the next round of bidding.
  Mr. Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: No.
  We have always accepted the need for one cohesive regeneration grant, but Labour will abolish the competitive process as a means of obtaining funds.
  We shall create strict criteria that must be met if regeneration funds are to be awarded. Those criteria will encourage those requesting regeneration funds to produce quality, properly costed bids, and they must demonstrate their requests by showing the involvement of their partners, including the private sector. Access to private sector funds will be of utmost importance under a scheme that proposes a standstill budget.

  113
  Conservative Governments have always shown a lack of vision. The annuality rules of city challenge, the drive for quick-fix solutions, has not worked. Five years is not long enough to plan or implement a vision statement for a local area. Each area needs to create a strategic plan that takes into account the needs of the local community.
  Ministers have long abandoned their role as initiators. Central Government must give the lead, not with imposed ideas, but by signalling political direction. The regional offices must be restructured and made more effective and accountable; there is nothing about that in the Bill.
  Two years ago, the Minister then responsible for regeneration, the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), promised regional regeneration statements for each area. They never arrived. Such statements of aims are crucial if there is to be clarity and certainty about how those requesting funds are to be assessed. The notion that everything should be left to the market is unacceptable.
  I believe that there must be a role for entrepreneurs to suggest local projects with which they wish to be involved, provided that they obtain the support of local government.
  Mr. Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Vaz: No.
  Far too often, the present Government have been obsessed with organisational matters rather than the more important question of what the objectives of those organisations should be. We prefer substance to form. We want things to be achieved, not just talked about.
  English Partnerships is a classic example—an organisation in search of a role. I pay tribute to the work of David Taylor, its first chief executive, who had to resign for personal reasons last week. Had it not been for his personality and ability, English Partnerships would have gone adrift some time ago. If there is a need for such an agency, its role must be clearly defined and its regional structure democratic and accountable.
  The demise of the urban district councils was planned many, many years ago, yet—alas—the Government do not have a co-ordinated approach as to what is to succeed them. Nowhere is that lack of vision more apparent than in the Government's attitude to the east of London. The Canary Wharf development and the Thames gateway initiative foreshadow a city to the east. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would agree, the development of east London is long overdue. Ministers have not worked to bring together the projects, organisations and local authorities to provide a cohesive policy.
  The Bill is entitled the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, yet not one homeless family will be housed as a result of it. Not one extra construction job will be created; not one area will be regenerated. Bereft of ideas and besieged on all sides, the Government limp on to defeat—if not tonight, then certainly at the polls. It is a hopeless Bill, from a hopeless Government.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on an important Bill
  114
  which introduces significant reforms. In opening the debate, the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, my hon. Friend the Member for West Hertfordshire (Mr. Jones), identified the areas that will benefit from the reforms. In the construction industry, much needed and much anticipated reforms will deliver a more competitive industry with wider benefits to the economy and important benefits to construction clients.
  The Bill provides a more flexible system of renovation grants, with more discretion for local authorities. It introduces important reforms to the architects profession and to the single regeneration budget. Those significant reforms have been widely welcomed outside the Chamber.
  I found the response of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) somewhat disappointing in the face of those significant reforms. He began his speech by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), whom he described as truly learned. I am conscious of the natural modesty of the hon. Member for Greenwich and I do not think that it is fair or proper for me to offer a judgment in that regard. However, having described his hon. Friend as more learned than he, it is fair to say that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did little to disprove that proposition in the remainder of his speech. His speech was not learned, judicial or legal—in fact, it reminded me of the work of a dodgy builder.
  Like any dodgy builder, the hon. Gentleman began with a job lot left over from his previous speech. Many of his remarks seemed to come from his contribution to the Housing Bill debate and properly belonged there. As his speech progressed, it became clear that his material had been rejected. He made the most bogus of all bogus comparisons by contrasting council house building now with the building rate under the last Labour Government. He knows perfectly well that, in so doing, he is not comparing like with like. He ignores the important provision that the Government make in a wide variety of other ways, including through housing associations.
  I shall not be tempted further down that path as I do not wish to stray from the subject of this important debate. The hon. Gentleman committed another sin of the dodgy builder: he started constructing his argument without any idea of what he wanted to achieve—he gave no indication of what he intended to build. When it came to the point that really mattered—whether he would make a commitment to meet demand-led mandatory grants—the hon. Gentleman was silent. Hon. Members will have noted the obvious way in which he avoided that commitment.
  The hon. Gentleman's evasion was all the more striking in the face of the clarion calls from the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for Burnley (Mr. Pike), for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) and many others who asked for more resources to meet demand-led mandatory grants. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was not prepared to give that commitment. He gave no indication of his intentions and he remained silent and embarrassed when a commitment was sought.
  The hon. Gentleman then called for close scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. We did not get off to a promising start when he referred to the subject of adjudication and entirely ignored the clear commitment given by my hon.

  115
  Friend in opening the debate. My hon. Friend made it quite clear that we do not intend adjudication to be final and binding. The hon. Gentleman somehow failed to hear my hon. Friend say that we intend to propose that parties should be required to abide by an adjudicator's decision until practical completion of the contract, but that thereafter they may reopen the dispute.
  Mr. Dobson: If the Minister looks at the Hansard, he will find that I said that the Government's original proposition would have made the adjudicator give a decision that was not just binding, but final. I was not talking about the Minister's comments. I said that we cannot believe a word that Ministers say at the Dispatch Box because Labour Members remember the Government's promise not to privatise Railtrack.
  Mr. Clappison: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's position has not improved. He called for scrutiny in Committee. What is the point of calling for scrutiny unless it relates to what is currently proposed?
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) compared the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras with a boxer who had scored a knock-out. Although it might do wonders for the hon. Member for Leicester, East by providing him with a future career as a boxing promoter, as a boxing fan and member of the public, I would not buy tickets on the strength of that comment.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East said something interesting at the end of his speech. If I heard him aright, he said that Labour would provide no extra money for the single regeneration budget. I take that to be the definite intention behind the hon. Gentleman's speech—and he seems to accept it. He did not say what would happen to the single regeneration budget if there were more bids than there were resources available. That is another interesting question that remains open.
  We heard some excellent speeches from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) spoke with great authority as a chartered architect. He described himself as belonging to an endangered species as he is both an architect and a Member of Parliament. He could not think of any other hon. Members who were architects. I remind him that Sir Christopher Wren was also an architect and a Member of Parliament—a comparison not entirely uncalled for in the circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet was absolutely right, as were other hon. Members who spoke from professional experience, when he talked about the problems in the construction industry, which has been plagued by disputes and late payments. He was absolutely right to say that cash flow was vital and that the industry could be more efficient, more competitive and less adversarial. He was entirely right in his comments and in his support of the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a speech that the hon. Member for Leicester, East described as interesting in a rather chilling way. The right hon. Gentleman is a senior member of the House and I always enjoy his speeches, although I do not often agree with them. When he called for common ownership of land, my enjoyment of his speech was somewhat greater
  116
  than that of his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. Their pleasure and enjoyment of his speech seemed to vary inversely with the feeling of pleasure of those on the Back Benches surrounding the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke about common ownership of land. His comments seemed to cause a certain amount of discomfort.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who also has a long-term interest in the construction industry, made a constructive speech. He highlighted his connection with the industry through the Electrical Contractors Association. He asked an important question in respect of process work—whether maintenance and repair work would be included. I am pleased to tell him that building and civil engineering repair work will be included, as will maintenance work in so as far as it involves construction operations such as repair, restoration and redecoration. I can also assuage his concern about design work, as clause 104 covers the design work of all professionals in the construction industry.
  The House will be aware of my hon. Friend's concern for disabled people. He referred to the part M of the building regulations. He will know that we have received a large number of representations on that and we currently considering them.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) also welcomed many of our proposals, particularly in respect of the disabled facilities grant. She recognised the assistance that the Bill will provide through the extra discretionary help that will be available and the changes to the means test that will provide assistance to more disabled people. She also welcomed the extension of the grant to those living in park homes and mobile homes.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the English house condition survey, to which I hope to refer later, and made some comments about unfit homes in the private rented sector. The most recent English house condition survey covering the period from 1986 to 1991 shows a reduction in the number of unfit homes in the private rented sector. Contrary to what the hon. Lady said, much of what has been brought about by way of deregulation has improved the condition of properties in the private rented sector.
  Mrs. Maddock: Perhaps I can clarify that point. I quoted from a further survey by the National Home Improvement Council which showed that the report that the Minister has just mentioned was not holding up and that conditions were getting worse.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady placed reliance elsewhere in her speech on the English house condition survey, which clearly showed a big improvement in the private rented sector.
  Mr. Ainger indicated dissent.
  Mr. Clappison: It did.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is the expert.
  Mr. Clappison: I would not rely too much on that proposition, in view of the hon. Gentleman's other propositions.

  117
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) also made an important contribution. He paid tribute to the Urban Development Corporation, which he helped to bring about, and spoke from his experience as chief executive of the National Building Agency. My hon. Friend was clear about the benefits that the Bill will bring to the construction industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) gave the Bill a general welcome. We greatly hope that the availability of adjudication will prove an effective method for resolving disputes, and will prevent many disputes arising in the first place—thus reducing the amount of litigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) made a pertinent speech. We will consider the implementation date most sympathetically.
  The proposed reforms in respect of the construction industry have been welcomed in all parts of the House, especially by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I add to the tributes paid by many hon. Members to the work of Sir Michael Latham. The House would do well to remember Sir Michael's injunction to take reform seriously and pursue it speedily. His report called for the Government to take the initiative:
  "The initiative must be taken by Government, in conjunction with major clients and other leaders of the construction process. If this opportunity is not taken, it may not recur for many years, and a new report may be commissioned in the year 2024 to go over the same ground again."
  The Government are taking the initiative, in all the ways that my hon. Friends have explained, through the working group and important reforms on payment and adjudication, which have been welcomed throughout the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, in his blanket opposition to the Bill, will not do anything to undermine those important reforms.
  With regard to home renovation, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke at length about the effects of the conditions relating to unfit properties. We are also concerned about such properties, but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the English house conditions survey showed a substantial reduction of 7 per cent. in the number of unfit occupied private sector homes between 1986 and 1991. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to changes in the criteria, but they were made less stringent. If the hon. Gentleman will compare the figures for 1981 and 1991, he will find a substantial reduction in the number of unfit properties over that period. After 10 years of Conservative government, the position was much better than in 1981, after five years of Labour Government. The situation in 1991 was 50 per cent. better.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should remember also that home owners must in the first instance take responsibility for their properties, and that is governed by general economic conditions. There has been a big improvement under this Government. Many more families have homes which have the benefit of double glazing, central heating, indoor toilets and other basic facilities than when Labour last held office. At that time, fewer than half the dwellings had central heating, and nearly 5 per cent. of properties were without inside toilets. There was little improvement during those years. Families did not have the basic facilities that they take for granted today. The improvement has been brought about by a healthy, well-managed economy which gives prosperity
  118
  to home owners, brings the benefits of sustained economic growth, low inflation and low interest rates and allows people to invest in their own homes.
  There have been substantial improvements and we shall bring about more improvements as a result of the Bill. The people of this country are better housed in better conditions than ever before.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 257.

  Division No. 120]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bates, Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Elletson, Harold

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cash, William

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorst, Sir John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Colvin, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  Couchman, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Harris, David

  119

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Sproat, Iain

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stern, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sumberg, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sykes, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Malone, Gerald

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Thomason, Roy

  Marland, Paul

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thumham, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Trend, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Viggers, Peter

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walden, George

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waller, Gary

  120

  Ward, John

  Wilshire, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Simon Burns.

  Willetts, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dixon, Don

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Alton, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Betts, Clive

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blunkett, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boateng, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Gapes, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, John

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

  George, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Byers, Stephen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caborn, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Callaghan, Jim

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Gunnell, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hain, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Mike

  Church, Judith

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Jean

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

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

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hutton, John

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ingram, Adam

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  121

  Jamieson, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Murphy, Paul

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, Tessa

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Parry, Robert

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

  Pearson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pendry, Tom

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter L

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pope, Greg

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Litherland, Robert

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McAllion, John

  Radice, Giles

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Randall, Stuart

  McCartney, Ian

  Raynsford, Nick

  McFall, John

  Reid, Dr John

  McKelvey, William

  Rendel, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McLeish, Henry

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rogers, Allan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooker, Jeff

  MacShane, Denis

  Rooney, Terry

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maddock, Diana

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Maxton, John

  Simpson, Alan

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Milburn, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  122

  Stevenson, George

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Stott, Roger

  Walley, Joan

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Straw, Jack

  Watson, Mike

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Worthinqton, Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Touhig, Don

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Ms Ann Coffey and Ms Janet Anderson.

  Vaz, Keith

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  HOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION 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 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act,

  (ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund under any other enactment; and

  (c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums received under or by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Question agreed to.

  Civil Service Pension Schemes
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): I beg to move,
  That the draft Contracting Out (Administration of Civil Service Pension Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.
  The order is being introduced as part of the Government's drive to improve the quality of public services and to develop better, more efficient methods of delivering those services. The Government's "Competing for Quality" programme has produced a sea change in the way in which public services are delivered.
  Competition has led to better value for money for the taxpayer. In the three years since the "Competing for Quality" programme has been operating, Departments have reviewed in all £2.6 billion-worth of activities, producing savings to the taxpayer of well over £500 million—in excess of 20 per cent. on average. Competition has also produced higher standards of service for the customer.
  The order is to be made under section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It specifies administration of the principal civil service pension scheme and associated schemes as a function that external contractors may be authorised to undertake. At present, under the Superannuation Act 1972, only public servants may undertake that function.
  Section 1(1) of the Superannuation Act provides that the Minister responsible for the civil service may make, maintain and administer superannuation schemes for persons employed in the civil service and related organisations. Responsibility for day-to-day administration of civil service pension and compensation arrangements is formally delegated under the 1972 Act to employing Departments and agencies. They can either perform the full administration function in house or buy in services from other providers in government.
  The order will make it possible for private sector providers to compete for the business and thus extend the choice available to employing Departments and agencies. The civil service unions and the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance have been formally consulted on the draft order.
  Mr. Frank Field: Have they agreed?
  Mr. Willetts: The anxieties expressed by the civil service unions and the pensioners alliance focused particularly on the future value of their pensions—a subject on which we have been able to give them cast-iron assurances, to which I shall turn later.
  Mr. Field: While the Government are the proper custodian of the public interest here, the whole push of Government policy is to take into account the consumer's views about public services. The consumers in this case are civil servants and retired civil servants. To what extent do those two groups support the changes that the Government propose this evening?
  Mr. Willetts: There is certainly widespread recognition among pensioners that the service that they receive is in general of a good standard, but it does not follow from that that it is not possible to improve further on standards. If it is possible, of course we look to do so.
  124
  An efficiency scrutiny of the civil service pension schemes recommended:
  "Departments should be encouraged to market test their pension operations."
  Approval of this order will permit Departments to test this area of activity against alternative sources in the market. The aim is to give improved quality of service to scheme members and to provide better value for money for the taxpayer. Decisions on the timing and other arrangements for market tests will be the responsibility of the individual Departments. It will be open to existing service providers to compete on a value for money basis.
  Mr. John Garrett: In what areas does the Minister envisage the quality of service being improved?
  Mr. Willetts: If we knew all the ways in which the quality of service would be improved, we would not need to engage in a market test. One of the purposes of a market test is to discover whether there are better ways of doing things and to take advantage of technological improvements, from which all parts of the service will be able to benefit when we bring in the new computer software package that will be available from July. The improved software package will make extra quality of service possible that currently is not possible. We shall find out which organisations can best deliver that quality of service.
  Ms Judith Church: What criteria will be used in determining who will administer the pension scheme in the future? On what criteria will the Minister judge the bids?
  Mr. Willetts: The basic criteria will be the same as other cases in which we apply the "Competing for Quality" initiative—quality of service, efficiency of service delivery and scope for savings in the cost of administration of the public service. If existing in-service providers are as good as their defenders maintain, they should be able to win contracts as a result of the initiative. We do not rule out in-service bids.
  I should explain that the order relates solely to administration of the civil service schemes. Administration covers such activities as scheme induction, calculation of benefits, answering inquiries, maintenance of personnel data, processing applications to buy added years or pay additional voluntary contributions and paying pensions.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: On that basis, can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the value of the funds invested on behalf of the civil service pensions will not be affected by the proposed order, and that we are talking solely about the administration of the scheme rather than the benefits which will be available to members?
  Mr. Willetts: While the civil service pension schemes are not themselves funded, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks on the fundamental point that the value of the pensions earned by civil servants will be completely unaffected by these changes. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that fundamental issue.

  125
  A number of hon. Members have written to Ministers on behalf of constituents and local branches of the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance expressing concern about the implications of the order for both the active and retired membership of the schemes. I can reassure the House on that, because occupational pensions for civil servants will continue to be provided under the civil service pension scheme. The pensions of scheme members will not be affected.
  Competitive tendering for the administration function involves no changes in the benefits provided by the scheme and the pensions of retired members will continue to be increased annually in accordance with the Pensions (Increase) Acts. The Minister for the Civil Service will remain responsible to the House for the development of the scheme and also for the rules setting out the benefits and entitlements of scheme members. There is no pension fund, so there are no fund assets which could be put at risk. Cabinet Office Ministers will continue to account to Parliament for expenditure on the civil superannuation vote.
  A contractor will not be allowed to advise civil servants on whether to join or leave the scheme or about the merits of individuals making additional voluntary contributions or buying added years. Explanatory booklets for scheme members will continue to be published by my Department. Steps will be taken to maintain confidentiality of personnel records. Computerised records will, of course, be covered by the Data Protection Act 1984. In any market test, appropriate service standards for scheme administration of the principal civil service pension scheme will be set. Any contract will require a standard of service at least as high as that under existing arrangements. Those standards will apply from the outset.
  A new pensions administration software package tailored to the requirements of the civil service schemes is being procured by my Department. It will become available in July. It will enable the adoption of more efficient and innovative approaches to scheme administration, such as a one-stop shop for serving scheme members. It will enable service levels to scheme members to be raised while significantly reducing cost. The software will be portable between providers, enabling new players, including small businesses, to enter the marketplace. It will make market testing particularly effective.
  A series of competitive tendering exercises will offer the work in manageable parcels. That will encourage new and existing third-party administrators to compete effectively for the business and so offer Departments and agencies several alternative suppliers from which to choose. In conclusion, I quote from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee:
  "The quest for greater effectiveness and efficiency in the Civil Service is an unending one; the requirement to maximise the return from finite resources will not go away."
  Mr. Garrett: How can it be more efficient to split the administration of the civil service pension scheme over a multiplicity of small or medium-sized contractors instead of being organised at one central point as it is now? Secondly, how many people are employed, and are therefore likely to face redundancy, in administering the existing system?
  Mr. Willetts: First, the administration of the schemes is the responsibility of Departments. One possibility that
  126
  results from our "Competing for Quality" initiative is for new consortia to be assembled with several Departments getting together. There is no reason why there should be any fragmentation. On the second point, the overall pensions administration, including both entitlements and payments out, involves approximately 800 staff. I am not in a position to give any figures for redundancies. We may well find that the in-house providers, if they are as good as their defenders say, win the contracts.
  I believe that this proposal will raise standards of service to scheme members and secure best value for money in the administration of the scheme, while the pension entitlement of scheme members will not be affected. I commend the draft order to the House.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: The order concerns the administration of the principal civil service pension scheme, which has about 500,000 active members, 520,000 pensioners and 170,000 preserved pensions. May I be so indelicate as to remind the Minister that many of those members live in marginal seats? After the humiliation of the South-East Staffordshire by-election and their severe drubbing at the local elections, a reasonable person might think that the Government would make moves to reassure such an important group of voters. Not a bit of it. They insist on flouting Lord Healey's first law of holes, "If you're in a hole, stop digging." The Government, egged on by the Minister in his ceaseless quest for more productivity, are throwing out the shovels and bringing in the excavators.
  Their pensions are important investments to civil servants—next to their homes, the most important investment. The Minister told the House that the order will not affect their pensions in any way, merely the administration of the pensions. He did not quite say that civil service pensions are safe in the Government's hands but I am certain that he will when he replies. The evil Opposition and the wicked civil service unions are cruelly stirring up needless alarm.
  I must tell the Minister that there is no need to stir up alarm. Civil servants are already alarmed. Why? They do not trust the Government. That should not surprise the Minister. No one trusts this Government, not even their own Back Benchers.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh, yes we do.
  Mr. Foster: At last, a loyal Government supporter—a miracle to behold and to be congratulated.
  The Minister will have seen the ICM poll published in the Observer last Sunday. It shows that insecurity has risen sharply during the 1990s and has spread to people of all ages, regions and social groups. He should know that insecurity is widespread throughout the civil service. The MORI poll is evidence, as is the recent poll of civil servants published in the Observer. In that poll, 92 per cent. believed that civil service morale was quite or very bad and 73 per cent. would not advise the next generation to join the civil service. Even Sir Robin Butler himself, in an interview in the Observer last November, admitted that the changes sweeping through Whitehall had sapped morale and created a climate of insecurity.

  127
  Since 1979, 250,000 civil service jobs have been lost. The civil service has been market tested, contracted out and privatised. Who can be surprised if there is a climate of insecurity? Civil servants know that their jobs are not safe in the Government's hands. How can they be expected to trust the Government with their pensions?
  As the Minister said, the Council of Civil Service Unions, which represents the majority of people in the scheme, has been consulted, as has the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance, which has more than 70,000 members among retired civil servants. Both organisations are vehemently opposed to the Government's proposals. Why did the Minister tell us that? There is no support for the order among civil servants, civil service pensioners or deferred civil service pensioners.
  Despite Government assurances, which the Minister has repeated tonight, civil servants and civil service pensioners remain concerned that the order is an early stage in the process of breaking up and destroying the principle civil service pension scheme. Already, Public Service Ministers have delegated to Departments responsibility for pensions administration. The order will allow them to contract out the work to private-sector organisations. Fortunately, as the Minister said, the order relates only to the administration of the pension scheme and not to Public Service Ministers' responsibility to make and maintain the scheme. However, with their lack of trust in the Government, civil servants fear that that will be the next step.
  It is clear that the term administration of the scheme relates both to making awards and payment of pensions. Consequently, the order will remove the present statutory obstacles to the privatisation of that part of the Office of Her Majesty's Paymaster General that pays public sector pensions. Without the order, a privatised Paymaster—the Government intend to privatise it—would be unable either to undertake administration work or to pay public service pensions.
  The Minister extensively quoted the 1992 efficiency scrutiny to justify the proposals, but it contains a considerable amount of information that can be used to support arguments for maintaining the status quo—for example, the cost of pensions administration. In 1991–92, that cost was £25 million compared with the then gross cost of civil service pension payments of nearly £2 billion—that is found in paragraph 7. I take Paymaster as an example. It represents the largest share—36 per cent.—of the cost of civil service pensions administration and pays pensions to 1.5 million public servants, including teachers and NHS staff.
  Paragraph 23 of the efficiency unit report says:
  "it thereby achieves great economies of scale"—
  a point hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). Paragraph 24 goes on:
  "the PGO's unit costs … are currently around £16, which is broadly in line with what the private sector would charge for a large scale pension paying service."
  Other than market testing, almost all the recommendations of that efficiency scrutiny have been or are being implemented. Already considerable benefits are accruing. Even greater efficiencies will be possible when the new information technology software, produced by the
  128
  civil service pensions division, is introduced shortly. If outside organisations are allowed to take over the administration of the pension scheme, the software will be made available to them free of charge. In other words, private contractors will be subsidised by the taxpayer to take over the jobs of civil servants.
  One of the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny which has already been implemented is the delegation of responsibility for administration from central Departments to Departments and agencies. There are already a number of very satisfactory pension administration providers within the civil service. In addition to Paymaster, they include the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. Consequently, an internal market already exists. Departments have a choice of providers, all of whom have very considerable expertise in administering large-scale public sector pensions.
  The efficiency scrutiny recognises that
  "most large employers with above say 1,000 staff run their own employers scheme and administer it in-house. The pension consulting and insurance firms manage many schemes for employers, but most of these are schemes with less than 1,000 members. A few are between 1,000 and 2,000 members, and a very small number are larger than that. Where larger schemes are contracted out—and there are a handful of examples—it tends to be for particular reasons reflecting a strategic decision on the part of management".
  It goes on, in paragraph 52, to produce a draft which
  "suggests that above about 20.000 staff-in-house operations are actually cheaper than contracting out".
  Mr. Willetts: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to complete the sentence, which goes on to say:
  "this is not, of course, a reason for not testing the market".
  Mr. Foster: The Minister anticipates me; I was going to quote those very words, which I shall not now do.
  Paragraph 56 of the efficiency scrutiny claims:
  "it is thought that the efficiency of contracted out pensions administration is likely to improve significantly over the next few years as new technology is introduced"—
  that is under the present arrangements, of course. Civil servants and civil service pensioners object most strongly to their pensions and their pension scheme being used to allow the private sector to experiment to improve its own efficiency. The pensions of civil servants—indeed, any pensions—are far too important to be used as training aids for inexperienced contractors.
  A detailed study of paragraphs 49 to 60 of the efficiency unit scrutiny develops no convincing arguments for market testing, other than that it is a central policy of the Government. The case is not made that the private sector is more efficient or more effective in administering pensions on the scale of those in the civil service. Civil servants and civil service pensioners are not dogmatically opposed to the private sector or to the proper use of outside expertise in relation to their pension scheme.
  A private sector organisation, Triskels, has worked closely with civil service pensions to improve communications and to produce a new series of explanatory booklets on the scheme. This work has been of the highest quality and has much to recommend it.

  129
  Again, the case is not made for there being greater expertise in the private sector in administering the schemes.
  In the Government's consultations of regulations arising from the Pension Act 1995 and the Occupational Pension Scheme (Transfer Values) Regulations 1996 responses have demonstrated concerns about the efficiency of out-sourced pension administrations. I shall quote the third paragraph of a letter from the Department of Social Security dated 15 March:
  "During the consultation process which has been ongoing since last summer, some commentators have suggested that the period proposed for providing a guaranteed statement to the member (effectively 7 working days excluding weekends) was too short. Schemes which had "outsourced" their pension administration would face real difficulties in complying with the deadline."
  Civil servants and civil service pensioners are content with the service that they get from the present in-house scheme administrators. They would certainly object to the administration being transferred to private sector organisations that cannot respond quickly to the demands of members.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully. Is he referring to organisations that have assets to manage or to the notional schemes with which the public sector is concerned? It seems to me that providing information rapidly on the basis of an entirely notional scheme is much less problematic than providing information rapidly on a scheme in which there are real assets and real investments to measure up.
  Mr. Foster: I was making the point that problems have already been discovered in those companies that have out-sourced their pension schemes. This is recognised by Government Departments, such as the Department of Social Security. Clearly, existing pensioners and members of the scheme are more than satisfied with the service that they currently receive. They do not want to risk that standard of service by being contracted out to organisations that do not have the expertise or the experience of large schemes.
  In preparing the efficiency unit scrutiny, the Treasury commissioned two independent surveys by the Wyatt company to ascertain the views of recent leavers from the civil service and current members of staff about the pension scheme. Of the leavers, more than 60 per cent. responded positively. They thought that the service was efficient and sensitive. I contend that the figure would be much higher now given the in-house improvements in efficiency that have been made.
  None of the surveys showed any support for market testing or contracting out. However, if Ministers are so convinced that their current proposals are in the best interests of civil servants and of civil service pensioners, they should have the courage of their convictions. They should commission yet another survey, perhaps again from the Wyatt company, to test support among civil servants and civil service pensioners.
  Dr. John Marek: My right hon. Friend is making a most telling case. He must know that the Minister is a civil service leaver, and I wonder whether he has a preserved pension. Perhaps the Minister is not concerned about the proposal and has given precedence to dogma over common sense. I should have thought that
  130
  if he were concerned, as a civil servant, about his colleagues in the civil service, he would weigh my right hon. Friend's words carefully. I should have thought that he would want to propose at the Dispatch Box those policies that have the support of his one-time colleagues instead of proposing, as appears to me from listening to his speech, a bit of dogma that has no backbone of support from his former colleagues.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I am sure that his remarks have been well noted by the Minister, who may have the opportunity to reply to them when he responds to the debate.
  I am inviting the Minister to conduct another survey to test the opinion of civil servants and civil service pensioners. After all, the Government readily concede that members of pension schemes have rights. That principle should apply as much to civil servants as to former employees of Robert Maxwell.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I join the civil service unions and the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance in challenging the Government to let civil servants and civil service pensioners decide the future administration of their scheme. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that challenge when he replies to the debate.
  I must ask what the order is for. Why are the Government so determined to make themselves so unpopular with so many people, for so little return? The current scheme is efficiently administered, as admitted in the scrutiny report. The members of the scheme are perfectly content with the current arrangements. If the Government's intention was to squeeze further efficiency from the administration of the scheme, they could do that within the internal market now operating. So why is the Minister bothering to create all that hassle for his Government? Is not the real reason the Government's wish to privatise Paymaster? Without the order, a privatised Paymaster could not tender for the contract. Without that substantial contract, Paymaster would be a far less attractive proposition for privatisation.
  So here we go again. I think that Ministers have become privatisation junkies. As they stumble from crisis to crisis, beating the retreat towards the general election, they scorch the earth as they go. They are completely in the hands of the ideologues who are now running the show. They are appeasing the right; they are ignoring the view of 1 million floating voters, who perhaps more than any other group represent middle England.
  The Conservative party, that once formidable vote-gathering machine, is now incapable of addressing the concerns of the British people. Its unpopularity is richly deserved. For those who have created so much job insecurity for others, there is some justice in the fact that perhaps the most insecure jobs of all are those of the Prime Minister and those on the Government Benches. I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the order in the Lobby.
  10.48 pm
  Sir Edward Heath: The debate gives me the opportunity to say a few words that I have long wanted to say about the position of the civil service.
  I must immediately declare an interest that I had long before Nolan decided to treat us all as criminals. When I left the Army, in 1946, I decided to enter the civil service

  131
  if possible. I therefore sat the administrative examination, and I have always been rather proud of the fact that I came top of the whole administrative service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to know that my party appreciates it—it has taken 50 years, but it is nevertheless very gratifying.
  I entered the civil service, and I was there for a year. I found that I could not get anything done, so I left and entered politics. I will not make a comparison between the two—that might be invidious—but, at that time, those of us who had been at university before the war regarded it as one of our main objectives to get into the administrative civil service because it was so highly respected, in this country and elsewhere. The civil service was certainly the envy of the whole of the English-speaking world, and of what were then the colonies.
  What is the position today? The morale of the civil service has never been lower—never. One knows that full well from all one's contacts with the civil service. Is that healthy? Of course not. Therefore, one should pay attention to every possible factor that affects the civil service.
  The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) rightly mentioned the political impact in our country at the moment. I am not putting it in the forefront of the argument, but it is a very important political factor for my constituency and others like it on the outer ring of London. It certainly will not help the Government to recover from the position in which they found themselves last Thursday.
  In the past 15 years, too many people have tried to gain credit by discrediting the civil service; the only thing they have done is to decry the number of people in the civil service and claim great victories when the number went down. That was mostly bogus, because people were moved out of the civil service into other organisations that do the same job. The number was not greatly diminished, but great uncertainty in the civil service was produced. The exercise has therefore achieved nothing.
  The hard facts of the case are that, if one wants to reduce numbers in the civil service, one must provide not some outside organisation, but an alternative means of tackling the problems that the service must handle every day. That means that one must have some mechanisation—newer developments in equipment and so on—to enable fewer people to do the job. At the moment, jobs are simply not being done.
  I do not know the experience of other right hon. and hon. Members, but I have done an analysis of the first three months of this year, and time and again I have waited two months before receiving a letter from a Minister in response to a constituent's problem. I have now received such a letter after a wait of three months. If I may say so very humbly, if it takes two or three months to answer my letters, I do not know how long it is taking to answer those of other hon. Members. That is the situation the Government have to deal with, and it is another reason why our voters are entirely disillusioned with the service that Government and Ministers give them regarding their day-to-day problems.
  The issue of pensions is crucial for civil servants. Again we are told, "Privatise it!" Of course there has been a major field for privatisation, but we must acknowledge
  132
  that the position regarding the services is quite different, and dogma to the effect that they should be privatised is causing much trouble.
  The job—the intention—of privatisation is not to provide a service but to make profit. In the process, privatisation may provide a service for some, but not all. That is the automatic result of any economic analysis. When it comes to pensions, private providers are not interested in providing a service: like any insurance company, they are interested in how they will make money for their shareholders. That condemnation may be levelled at all moves by my hon. Friend and by the Government to allow services to be provided by those who are not service providers. Such people simply seek to make money for their shareholders.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: You must be joking—weren't you a Conservative?
  Sir Edward Heath: If my hon. Friend denies that fact, he is not a sound Conservative economist. I am prepared to argue that point. In pursuing the privatisation path, particularly regarding civil service arrangements, my hon. Friend the Minister is making a grave mistake.
  I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude and distinguish between the privatisation sphere and the sphere of services that can be provided only by organisations such as the present civil service. I know that my hon. Friend will not take any notice of my suggestion, and I am sorry that I cannot stay to listen to his refusal to do so, but I am quite prepared to read his comments in Hansard tomorrow and see on what grounds he repudiates my request.
  I believe that it is a basic consideration. The Government must decide to draw the line and stop carrying on in a dogmatic manner, believing that whatever they do in that sphere is correct. The public have come soundly to the conclusion that it is not correct, which is why the Government are suffering in many ways—including this way.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), not least because he echoes the comments that we on these Benches have made for much of the Government's tenure of office. I am delighted to welcome him to our point of view. Given that the Government's majority has been reduced to one, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity—which he obviously did not have in the civil service—to do something really dramatic and join us in the Lobby to defeat the Government tonight. I look forward to that moment with considerable pleasure.
  The Liberal Democrats are not dogmatically opposed to market testing or to contracting out—we have never said that and we never shall. On the contrary, we believe that such matters should be considered individually on their merits. Benefits may be derived from market testing or from contracting out. We may benefit from outside expertise, knowledge and new ideas or opportunities. The competitive process may lead to an increase in the number of new choices which may lead, in turn, to a better solution, but that is not an inevitable consequence and

  133
  there are points to be made on the other side of the argument. I believe that, in this case, the points against outweigh any advantages that may be gained.
  The first point that we must make is that administration of a pension fund is not a negligible matter, as the Minister seemed to imply in at least part of his speech. We are talking about those who will not be the investors in pension funds, but that does not diminish the importance of their work—particularly for the pensioners concerned. The fact that a pensioner may be paid the right sum, but paid it three months late due to an administrative error, is crucial for that pensioner. For example, a pension might be paid into the wrong bank account and the money might not reach its rightful recipient for some time. Good administration of a pension fund is just as important as good investment or getting the sums right.
  The Minister skated lightly over the problem of confidentiality which is immensely important to some civil servants. Those who work in the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are obvious examples of civil servants who may not wish their private affairs, their addresses and their financial details to become public knowledge. Of course there is some risk of that, and those people fear that there will be a greater likelihood that their affairs will be more widely known, if their pension fund is administered by a private contractor instead of a civil service organisation.
  Mr. Nigel Jones: Can my hon. Friend think of any way in which my constituents who work at GCHQ could benefit from the order and protect the confidentiality of their pension arrangements?
  Mr. Rendel: No, indeed. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. His constituents are at the heart of the problem of confidentiality because of the work in which they are involved and the risks that they will take if their whereabouts or personal details become known in the private sector.
  Moreover, the Government have failed to dispel the suspicion that the process has been driven by a dogmatic desire to extend the amount of private involvement in the public sector. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that steps would be taken to maintain confidentiality, but that was all he said about it. I do not consider that a sufficient guarantee that confidentiality will be properly maintained.
  There is a further concern that the Government seem to be driven by dogma rather than by a rational consideration of what is needed. The Government may be moving towards a greater break-up of public service pension funds than they have so far admitted.
  The current service is well received by civil servants and those who have recently retired. Recent enhancements, some of which have been described, have been made to the current service. The efficiency scrutiny that has been mentioned accepts that, for a very large number of employees and pensioners, in-house administration is almost always more efficient and cost-effective than going to an outside contractor. That is almost common sense, so it is difficult to see why the Government do not accept it.
  The most important objection to what the Government are doing brings me back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Civil service morale is so low that to give it a further blow, as the Government are doing tonight, is no way to proceed.
  134
  The main reason why the measure will be a further blow to civil service morale is the lack of consultation with those covered by the scheme. Although those involved may have been formally consulted, their views were not taken into account and that makes the consultation rather superficial. The Government have talked about the need for private sector businesses to improve communication with their employees. That is an important consideration for all businesses, following numerous examples of bad practice, yet the Government are ignoring their own advice and the right of current and former civil servants to have a real say in the administration of their pension scheme. If it is right that that should happen in the private sector, it must be even more right that it should happen in the public sector.
  Because the Government are not governed by company law, they are better able to take into account the real needs and desires of former and current employees rather than simply to take into account the bottom line. What they are doing tonight is an example of bad government. Civil servants have had to put up with enough in recent years, working in an increasingly tense public sector with falling morale. To ignore further their views, as the Government threaten to do tonight, will make it likely that their morale will fall still further. That will have a damaging impact on the conduct of government. The Government should not get the order through the House tonight.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Willetts: The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) complained about insecurity in the civil service, then went about stirring up insecurity with a series of lurid claims about the future of the civil service pension scheme that bear no relationship to reality. The right hon. Gentleman accused us of having a plan to break up and destroy the principal scheme, but that is simply not the case. We are talking simply about creating the opportunity for competitive tendering for the administration of the scheme, which will have no effect on benefits.
  The proposal is, in the best sense of the word, permissive. It simply creates a new opportunity for Departments to invite the private sector to tender for the business of administering civil service schemes—something from which they are stopped by law from doing. We are removing that obstacle.
  The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made great play of the efficiency scrutiny. I am perfectly willing to accept all the quotes that the right hon. Gentleman gave, provided that he will accept the point made at the beginning of the report:
  "The scrutiny has established that there is a range of services which the private sector could offer with advantage, including pensions administration. It recommends that market testing should proceed as soon as the legal position has been resolved."
  We are now implementing that proposal.
  The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked why we are not balloting members. I am not aware of any precedent for balloting members of any pension scheme, public or private, on its administrative arrangements—that would be an extraordinary and unprecedented step.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) for remaining in his place for the remainder of the debate. He raised important questions about the civil service as a whole. My right hon. Friend spoke as a former civil servant; I shall reply to him as a former civil servant myself.

  135
  I was in Oxford last Friday, and I asked the dons whether they remembered the days—which I am sure my right hon. Friend remembers—when undergraduates used to sit in serried ranks to take the civil service entrance examination. I asked whether undergraduates still did so, and the answer was an unambiguous yes. Undergraduates are still trying to enter a career in the civil service because of the job satisfaction that the service offers, enhanced by our reforms which aim to give more managerial responsibility and discretion to civil servants, who should not suffer under the elaborate hierarchies under which the service operated in the past.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup feared bogus reductions in civil service staff numbers. Of course we must be wary of bogus reductions, but I assure my right hon. Friend that the reduction from 732,000 staff in 1979 to fewer than 500,000 today has been achieved not by statistical manipulation but by precisely the sort of changes that my right hon. Friend recommended. One example is the use of automation in fundamentally improving the way in which services are delivered.
  Mr. Derek Foster: If the situation is as the Minister says, why did the ombudsman draw particular attention in his latest report to the deterioration in the quality of service given and make the point that it was due to staff reductions? The ombudsman stated that staff numbers have so reduced that the service is not able to give the same quality of service, and he is receiving far more complaints.
  Mr. Willetts: I have studied the ombudsman's latest report carefully and I cannot find in it evidence to sustain the assertion that appeared in the press notice. We take careful notice of anything that the ombudsman says, as he is an officer serving the House, but I do not accept the assumption that the way to measure the quality of output is by measuring the input. The challenge for the private sector is to improve the quality of service that it offers customers while not spending more on overheads and running costs. We should expect the same of the public service.
  Mr. Rowe: I am sure that my hon. Friend would remove a miasma of anxiety if he were able to confirm that, if a private sector provider won the contract and made a horlicks of it in some way, the cost of making that mistake would not fall on the scheme but on the company providing the administration.
  Mr. Willetts: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Nothing in the proposals will in any way affect the benefits payable to civil servants. That leads me to the short speech from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel).
  Mr. Rendel: If what I gather is nowadays described as a horlicks were made by the company concerned, that might include problems such as I mentioned in which somebody was paid very late. Does the Minister agree that late payment would affect the pensioner concerned?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman, while he has protested great concern about this subject, does not seem
  136
  to understand the basic elementary points of what we propose. The proposals cover the administration of the scheme for current civil servants. That has nothing to do with the payment of pensions to former civil servants. The proposals in the order concern entirely the administration of the scheme for current civil servants and are nothing to do with Paymaster's function of paying out benefits and pensions to retired civil servants.
  On the basis of the clarification that I have been able to offer tonight—in particular, the fundamental assurance that the order contains no change to civil servants' pension rights—I invite the House to approve the order.
  11.11 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I am sorry to speak now, but I honestly thought that one or two Conservative Members would rise to support the Minister. Alas, I fear that that is not the case. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), in a well-meaning way, tried to put the Government back on the rails. I agreed completely with the right hon. Gentleman because he got to the nub of the problem. I dissent from the conclusion that he drew, because he was trying to guide the Conservative party to a line that would enable it to remain in office. As an Opposition Member, I cannot agree with that, but if the Government insist on continuing with their dogma—the word has been used on several occasions by different right hon. and hon. Members—it is likely that they will be turfed out at the next general election, whenever they have enough courage to call one.
  The issue centres on providing service rather than profits. I concur with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup because, for a substantive reply from some Government Departments—not all—I now have to wait not two or three months, except on rare occasions, but two, three or four weeks. In the Department of Social Security, for example, the time that civil servants have to give care to their answers and to work out the arithmetic about individual claimants is minimal, the result of which is that the number of mistakes made in that Department multiplies from day to day. That is a sorry state of affairs. The country should expect accuracy and efficiency from civil servants, and they should reply to letters in a reasonable time.
  It is all very well having charters for this and charters for that, but if replies are not accurate, if the figures are wrong, and constituents have to go to their Members of Parliament, who then have to write again to the social security department or to the Secretary of State for Social Security, that is not good for the country or for my constituents, because of the extra work and administration.
  That is the nub of the problem. I expect the civil service to be staffed sufficiently to be able to produce accurate, proper and quick answers to my constituents' questions. I fear that, during the past six or seven years, with cuts—another per cent. here, or another per cent. there—they have not been receiving that service.
  The Minister made a glib speech. I hope that he will not mind my saying so—I do not mean this in any rude way—but he did not address the questions that the proposal raises. He talked about the civil service scheme and the fact that the benefits that civil servants receive would not be affected, regardless of whether the scheme was hived off to the private sector for administration

  137
  purposes. What he did not talk about—not once—was the effect that it would have on the taxpayer, the ordinary member who pays taxes in the United Kingdom.
  If the scheme was hived off to the private sector and a mess—I do not want to use the word horlicks—of the scheme was made, and if the civil servants did not lose any of the pension entitlements as, rightly, they should not, the country would have to foot the bill. I am not sure that the computing system for the scheme is ready yet—there are questions about whether it is in place.
  If the scheme were to be hived off, is the advantage anything other than saving money? If it is, when the market testing goes ahead, will the Minister set parameters that at least assure some hon. Members that standards of service will be met? The Minister did not mention that. He may not have wanted to. Some standards of service could be identified to ensure that the civil service pensioner will receive the same service as now, when the scheme is being administered by the civil service. I am talking, for example, about acknowledgements of a pensioner's letter by return of post, about substantive replies being given within two or three weeks and, more important, some statistics about the accuracy and helpfulness of those replies.
  The simple straightforward question, which addresses directly the problem raised by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, is whether there is a possibility of marrying the desire of a private company to make profits for its shareholders with the ability to provide standards of service that can be guaranteed and in which civil service pensioners can have confidence when the specifications for the market testing are produced. I do not know. I rather doubt it. This is a matter of service as opposed to profit. Administration of the scheme should be left in the hands of those who have administered it extremely well over the past decades. That is an important question and I am sorry that the Minister has not answered it.
  I come now to the second point—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are fed up with me. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members are not even in the Chamber. They should keep quiet or move into the Chamber, because that is the way in which we do things in the House of Commons. Half a million civil servants are interested in who will administer their pension scheme. It is a great pity—I see that my own Whip is now telling me to wind up my speech, but I shall make an important point before I do. It will not take long. If hon. Members pay attention, I hope that they will learn something, or at least have something to think about.
  My second point is straightforward but important. In the private sector, there has recently been a spate of conversions of mutual societies to banks and so forth. People are balloted before any change is made in their mortgage arrangements and, following Maxwell, before any change has been made in the administration of private sector pensions, all pensioners have been balloted on whether they agree with the change.
  My challenge to the Minister is very simple: is he prepared to ballot civil servants after the changes have been agreed, or recommended, to find out whether those who will be affected accept the changes? That is a straightforward, simple question. Unfortunately, the Minister has not answered it. There are two points there—[Interruption.] I am asked what the third point is, but there is no third point. We must get on.
  138
  First, there is the question of service. Can the Minister assure the House that standards of service will be set if the administration passes to the private sector? Secondly, will he have the guts, the decency and the respect for civil servants to ballot them before the provisions are enacted?
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 240.

  Division No. 121]

  [11.21 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Alexander, Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Elletson, Harold

  Amess, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Faber, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Eric

  Booth, Hartley

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bowis, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gallie, Phil

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butcher, John

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Churchill, Mr

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clappison, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  139

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Sproat, Iain

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lord, Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Sumberg, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sweeney, Walter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Malone, Gerald

  Thomason, Roy

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marland, Paul

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mates, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Trend, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Merchant, Piers

  Viggers, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Walden, George

  Waller, Gary

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Ward, John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Watts, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Whitney, Ray

  Norris, Steve

  Whittingdale, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Willetts, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wilshire, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Pawsey, James

  Wolfson, Mark

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wood, Timothy

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Rathbone, Tim

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Richards, Rod

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Michael Bates.

  Riddick, Graham

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Alton, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Anger, Nick

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Ashton, Joe

  140

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Barnes, Harry

  Godsiff, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Battle, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Gunnell, John

  Blunkett, David

  Hain, Peter

  Boateng, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  Bradley, Keith

  Hanson, David

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

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Home Robertson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

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

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Church, Judith

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Connarty, Michael

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corston, Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Cox, Tom

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

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

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Etherington, Bill

  McFall, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKelvey, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Faulds, Andrew

  McLeish, Henry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fisher, Mark

  McNamara, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maddock, Diana

  Foulkes, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fraser, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Galloway, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Gapes, Mike

  Maxton, John

  Garrett, John

  Meacher, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  141

  Milburn, Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Miller, Andrew

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Short, Clare

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Simpson, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

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

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mullin, Chris

  Snape, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Stevenson, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stott, Roger

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Parry, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Pearson, Ian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Walley, Joan

  Radice, Giles

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watson, Mike

  Reid, Dr John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rendel, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton South East)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Joe Benton and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Contracting Out (Administration of Civil Service Pension Schemes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th May, Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings) shall have effect with the following variations: in paragraph (1) in place of the words 'two o'clock' shall be inserted 'half-past ten o'clock and between one o'clock and two o'clock'; in place of paragraph (5) shall be inserted 'Not more than two subjects shall be raised between half-past nine o'clock and half-past ten o'clock and not more than two subjects shall be raised between one o'clock and two o'clock'; and the Speaker shall suspend the sitting on that day between half-past ten o'clock and one o'clock.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Fabricant be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Hospital and Dental Services (Southampton)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  11.35 pm
  Mr. John Denham: I am grateful, at this late hour, for this debate, because in the past year a series of problems in the hospital and dental services in Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority area has caused mounting concern about the future of our local NHS. I cannot mention all the problems tonight but I hope that I can raise enough to make the Minister realise that they are not minor or isolated problems but are part of a pattern that is making people in Southampton ask where their health service is going. It is a pattern of cuts in vital services—a two-tier health service in which who pays for care is more important than how ill people are.
  These examples are a case study of the problems inherent in the Government's management of the national health service. and especially in their health market. I shall deal briefly with the situation in the Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust and the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority, and touch on the state of dental services in that health authority area.
  I have three points at the outset. I am not trying to suggest that no one is treated well in the local hospital service or that no one is looked after or gets better in Southampton hospitals—of course many people receive a high standard of care every day—but I will say unambiguously that that quality of care is now under serious threat. I do not criticise the staff at any level. I have no doubt that all the people involved in the hospital services and the health authority are working as hard as they can, often against the odds and under considerable pressure. I recognise the openness with which the Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust and the health authority have responded to my inquiries and requests for information. It is perhaps true, in part, that that makes it easier to document the problems we face in Southampton, but that is no bad thing.
  The background to the current problems is the trust's financial crisis. It faces an £11 million shortfall in the current financial year, but the financial pressures have been building for some time. I shall give some examples. Fred Woolley house, a much-loved national health service convalescent home, was closed for a period up to April this year to save money. It has been temporarily reopened, but the trust makes little secret of its desire to close it permanently. It fills a much-needed role in the local health service. It offers recuperative care, often for people who have undergone major traumatic surgery. It is a vital bridge between hospital care and a return to a life at home. There is a local campaign to save Fred's, and I give it my full support.
  If that service goes, we all know what will happen. Some people will be discharged to their own homes too early, increasing the pressures on families and general practitioners. Some will, inevitably, return to hospital.
  I visited the accident and emergency unit at the general hospital recently. Again, I was impressed by much of what I saw, but it was emphasised to me how many of the elderly people admitted as emergencies in late

  143
  December and January—at a time when such admissions hit the national headlines throughout the country—had been discharged from hospital prematurely.
  The stress on GPs is building up. One local GP wrote to me this week:
  "There is an overall increase in our workload, much of which is driven by the desire of the hospital trust to reduce its costs by passing work without accompanying resources to primary care."
  Needless to say, the financial crisis leaves resources and facilities unused. A ward in the Tom Rudd unit at Moorgreen hospital, which could be providing rehabilitative care, lies empty. Again, the result will be early readmissions to hospital, a new burden on families to care or admission to a residential care home with perhaps another home sold to pay the costs.
  On 29 April, following a similar move last year, the health authority wrote to GPs further restricting their ability to make extra contractual referrals. Once again, the GP's ability to refer patients to the most appropriate provider of care has been restricted.
  We hear a lot about funding for the national health service from the Government, but that letter from the health authority to GPs make it clear that
  "The financial difficulties facing the NHS in the coming year are probably more severe than at any time since the reforms were implemented."
  Does the Minister agree with the health authority and that statement? If not, why does he think that it is wrong when that view is shared throughout the local health service?
  The ability of the Southampton University Hospitals trust to meet the needs of children who need emergency care is also being restricted. As The Southern Daily Echo reported last December:
  "Sick children needing emergency treatment are regularly diverted to hospitals in Poole and Portsmouth, while eight paediatric beds are lying empty and unused at the city's General Hospital."
  Apparently, children had been diverted to other hospitals at least twice a month from the beginning of that financial year. All too often, we have had reports of mothers and newly born babies being sent from hospital to hospital across the south in the search for intensive care cots.
  Care of the terminally ill has been yet another cause for concern. Dr Roger Ryall, clinical director of cancer care for the trust, spoke of his fears when faced with demands to make a cut of £800,000 in his budget and, in particular, on the impact that that will have on the terminally ill. He is quoted as saying:
  "If we are forced to make these cuts, what will happen is that we will be much less able to buy time for people.
  There are two categories of treatment—a lot of patients can be cured now and live a long time. We have to protect services for those people.
  Where we will not be able to give such a comprehensive service is for people for whom we buy time—patients who know from the day they arrive we cannot cure because it is too extensive."
  It is indeed alarming and appalling that senior clinicians are forced to talk publicly about reducing the level of care offered to the terminally ill.
  Dr. Rya11's comments are those of one clinician faced with the impact of cuts on the services that he is trying to provide, but we can have little doubt that all his colleagues feel much the same about their areas of duty and responsibility.
  144
  At present, the trust is in the process of shedding the equivalent of more than 370 full-time jobs. The bulk of those will fall directly in areas of front-line patient care. More than 350 care staff will go from the clinical directorate, about 18 from hospital services such as pathology and one from management. Is that not depressingly familiar in a national health service that, since 1989, has had 50,000 fewer front-line staff and 18,000 more managers? Those running the trust and the health authority make it quite clear to me that the growth in administrative and management jobs is a direct result of the internal health market. The billing for care, the need to resolve disputes about bills that have been sent out and many other activities all eat into the resources available for front-line care.
  At this point, the Minister may say that I have simply given a list of cuts, and that he hears this story all day, long. However, I want to emphasise not only the damaging nature of the cuts but what they mean for the way in which the health service in Southampton is being twisted and distorted to meet the needs and demands of the health market forced on to the health service locally.
  On top of the impact of the cuts—alarming as they are—is the reinforcement of a symptom that has become all too common in the hospital service in Southampton. I refer to the development of a clear, unambiguous two-tier system—a service in which what care one receives and, in particular when one receives it, is governed not by how ill one is but by where one lives and who is paying for care. We witnessed that locally last year.
  I am disappointed that he is not answering this debate, but the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone)—our local Health Minister, if I may call him that—was made well aware of one particular problem last October: the cancellation of non-urgent orthopaedic operations. He will remember being challenged by a Mr. Bridle when he visited Southampton last year. Mr. Bridle was just one of many patients whose expensive operations were put on hold. In that case, as in others, operations were prioritised, not according to clinical need but according to cost. That is just one example of cost pressures overruling clinical need.
  From last October, routine gastroscopy services were withdrawn from the patients of non-fundholding GPs, although the services available to fundholding GPs were not similarly affected. Under recent contracts, heart patients living in Southampton face waits of up to twice as long for treatment at the city's general hospital as patients with the same condition in Portsmouth and Bournemouth. Bournemouth patients coming to Southampton face a maximum delay of four months; Portsmouth patients coming to Southampton face a maximum delay of six months; but Southampton patients in their own local hospital face a wait of up to nine months.
  It is simply unfair and unjust that people with the same conditions and the same needs, whose wait for surgery imposes the same limits on their lives and activities, and who suffer the same fears and anxieties, wait for different lengths of time for the same treatment by the same doctors in the same wards of the same hospital. Why does this happen? It happens as a direct result of the workings of the internal market. These effects are not endemic across the country, but they are felt with particular force in

  145
  Southampton because of the very size of the Southampton University Hospitals trust in relation to the main purchasers.
  The local health authority purchases only about half of the care provided by the Southampton hospitals. That means that when the major local hospital trust runs into financial problems, it turns to the health authority for assistance. That in turn means that all the burden of bailing out the hospital falls on one purchaser, and in particular on the patients whose care is being bought by the health authority. In effect, the trust looks to half its patients to carry the costs of all its financial problems. That is precisely what the Southampton University Hospitals trust has tried to do.
  The trust has a shortfall of £11 million. It said that it would make £5 million worth of savings itself, and I have listed some of the consequences of the cuts involved. It then turned to the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority with a request for the other £6 million.
  The internal market means that smaller purchasers, fundholders, other health authorities and those with the greatest freedom to go elsewhere can continue to demand the higher level of service. The health authority is trapped. If it demands the same level of service for its patients as other purchasers, it can bankrupt the trust and close the hospital, but that "nuclear option" is clearly impossible. In practice, it could not find the £6 million that the trust was seeking. Instead, it had to settle for a second-rate service for its patients.
  The health authority could not afford to bail out the hospital, so it had to agree to a reduction in the level of patient care. The health authority has agreed that waiting times should be allowed to double from the current maximum of nine months to a maximum of 18 months allowed by the patients charter. This applies only to health authority patients. As I have said, the health authority's waiting times are already longer than those of many other purchasers.
  This decision has created a new type of patient in Southampton hospitals: the red star patient. There are 191,000 red star patients in the Southampton area who have their care paid for by the health authority. Admission staff and consultants have literally been told to stick a red star on their files. In relation to the red stars, a letter from the trust states:
  "it would then be necessary to inform these patients in the clinic that they are effectively on the end of the waiting list."
  I ask the Minister a simple question: is this what the Government's health reforms were intended to create—191,000 red star patients at the end of the waiting list, regardless of their needs or their condition? I declare an interest in this regard: I do not have a fundholding general practitioner, nor do my children—we are at risk of becoming red star patients, at the end of the queue.
  In my constituency, 14 practices became fundholders as a multi-fund this year. That is not surprising, given what is happening. I know that, for many, this was a least-worst option and an agonising decision. This does not solve the problem. The more doctors who choose this option, the greater the pressure on the health authority when the trust is in financial crisis and the greater the pressure to produce a two-tier service as the number of purchasers fragments further.
  146
  I ask the Minister: how can he justify to 191,000 people, including me and my children, that they should be sent to the back of the queue? I do not put the blame on the health authority—it has a wide range of responsibilities. As it has made clear, if it had not agreed to these changes, emergency and urgent treatment would have suffered. There are other pressures: on services for elderly people, for people with mental health problems and for people with learning disabilities. The problem lies with the Government and their approach to managing health care.
  Similar problems are apparent in the dental service in the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority area. I have already sent the Secretary of State a copy of the report recently published by the local community health council. However, I should like to take a few moments to highlight its main conclusions. More children suffer from serious dental decay in my constituency than in almost any other part of the country. Dental illness is a serious problem for them.
  In fairness, I welcome the recent appointment of a salaried dentist to serve the city centre parts of my constituency. However, NHS dentistry is becoming more and more difficult to obtain in my constituency and in the wider health authority area. In some villages around Southampton, no NHS dental service is available. In Southampton, there is no dental practice able to accept NHS patients in Townhill Park. This is a direct consequence of the so-called knock-on effect. That practice has accepted NHS patients from Hedge End, outside the city, where there is no NHS service. However, this means that the practice has had to refuse new registrations from local people. As the number of NHS dentists reduces, so the scrabble to remain with the remaining practices intensifies. No emergency service is available in Bitterne, Bassett, Bitterne Manor, Bitterne Park and St. Denys.
  Those who responded to the community health council expressed grave concern about dentists who require them to register as private patients to secure NHS care for their children. Many people who are receiving private dental treatment are doing so not from choice but because they are unable to find a local NHS dentist or to travel to their nearest NHS dentist. I have carried out two surveys of local dentists since I was elected. They confirm that more and more dentists are moving out of NHS care either entirely or with restrictions on their lists. Every time this happens, the pressures on the remaining NHS dentists grow.
  I conclude by asking the Minister whether he recognises the growing pressures on NHS dentistry in my area. Does he accept that, in practice, a significant number of Southampton residents are unable to obtain NHS dental care? If he does, what does he intend to do about it?
  The story of my local health service is now one of a service that is not available equally to everyone. That service does not offer care according to a person's need. It operates a hospital service according to which people wait longer if they have the wrong doctor or live in the wrong area. The local dental service is such that people may not be able to obtain NHS dentistry or will have to pay privately if their children are to get NHS care. I do not believe that the NHS in Southampton is safe in the Government's hands.
  11.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham).
  First, I note that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the excellent work done particularly by the Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust, working in partnership with local purchasers. The Government have honoured their manifesto pledge to increase health spending in real terms every year, and new spending plans announced in the Budget mean that total spending by the NHS in England has increased from £6.5 billion in 1978–79, to £34.7 billion this year. That is equivalent to a real-terms increase of 72 per cent. since 1978–79.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware of some of the implications of that funding for Southampton. For example, a new £10 million hospital development for elderly people was opened on the former Southampton Western hospital site in January. It will provide 104 beds. Secondly, three neurosurgical theatres are being built at Southampton General hospital, at cost of £6 million, and are due to open in the summer. Thirdly, that funding will allow for cardiac expansion, including extra ward and intensive care unit capacity at Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust, which will be ready in the autumn. Those three items of capital expenditure are being funded by the huge increase in the budget for the NHS.
  At the end of last year, the vast majority of patients in Southampton—more than 98 per cent.—were seen within nine months, and only five people had been waiting for more than 12 months. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Southampton University Hospitals trust was the first university teaching trust in the United Kingdom to achieve the excellent nine month standard. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that achievement compares rather well with the patients charter standard of 18 months. Southampton is therefore succeeding in setting and achieving a much tighter and more challenging standard for its own population. Overall, general and acute sector episodes of care completed by the trust have increased by more than 20 per cent in the past three years—a quite remarkable achievement.
  I acknowledge that that level of activity has caused some financial problems in the trust recently, but I am sure that the trust, the health authority and the NHS executive south and west regional office are currently discussing an agreed strategic approach to address that problem. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment in any detail on the issue now, but I understand that emergency and urgent work will be unaffected, although there may some slippage in waiting times as the financial problems are resolved.
  The health authority will retain its standard of nine months' waiting time, but it recognises that it may have increasing difficulty in maintaining that standard. The health authority and the trust have a long and strong strategic relationship, and I am confident that they will be able to agree on a way forward.
  Secondly, may I deal with the hon. Gentleman's points about two-tierism? As the internal market develops, fundholders are improving services for their patients and
  148
  others are following their example. Having a range of purchasers—health authorities and GP fundholders—stimulates innovation and critical consideration of service delivery to the benefit of all patients. Joint guidance issued by the Department of Health and the profession in June 1991 clearly states that hospitals should not offer contracts to one purchaser to the disadvantage of patients of another. All emergencies are seen immediately, and all urgent cases that cannot be seen immediately are placed on a common waiting list.
  The amount of hospital activity purchased will always depend to some extent on the skill of the purchaser. All purchasers need to learn from that and ensure that they place equally good elective contracts on behalf of the patients of non-fundholding GPs. Inevitably, when driving up standards, some improve before others. Our aim is to bring the quality of all services up to the standard of the best.
  Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about dentistry in Southampton. We have a good record, which is demonstrated by the figures, which speak for themselves. For example, expenditure on the general dental service between 1978–79 and 1994–95 has grown by nearly 60 per cent. in real terms. In 1994–95, courses of adult treatment had increased by 7.6 million from a similar figure for 1979, and there had been a 33.7 million increase in adult examinations in the same period.
  I am aware that, in parts of the Southampton area, there are currently no NHS adult services for new patients. I have seen the recent Southampton and South West Hampshire community health council report on dental health services in the area, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I do take it seriously. I understand that the health authority has already responded to that report, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has sent a copy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who will reply to him in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that 59 per cent. of the adult population of Hampshire are registered with an NHS dentist. That compares favourably with the national average, which is less than that—57 per cent. The health authority runs a very efficient dental helpline service to assist patients with access to NHS dentists and to help unregistered patients in an emergency.
  As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the health authority has already appointed one salaried dentist, in November 1995, in Southampton. I would not pretend that that addresses the whole problem, but I understand that the health authority intends to apply to my Department for a further five salaried posts to cover the areas where there is at present no NHS cover. In addition, there is an emergency dental service based at Southampton general hospital. The service has been increased from two half-day sessions per weekend to full-time sessions at weekends and on bank holidays. I understand that those may be extended to some weekday evening sessions, so the problem is being tackled locally.
  It would be incomplete of me to cover the changes that we are introducing in the general dental service without mentioning the reforms that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced last year. The hon. Gentleman mentioned him, so I may bring him into the debate as well. That was a comprehensive package of across-the-board reforms, the product of extensive study and wide consultation following on from the 1994 Green

  149
  Paper, "Improving NHS Dentistry". We are working on the reforms with representatives of the dental profession, and I believe that they will deliver concrete improvements in general dental services and help the NHS to tackle the oral health challenges ahead as well as providing stability and security for dentists.
  150
  All that will provide a strong framework in which the general dental service can continue to develop throughout the country—in Southampton and elsewhere.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Criminals (Damages Claims)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions since 1990 persons convicted of crime have subsequently been successful in claiming damages from the victim of that crime for the offender's loss and personal injury; and if he will make a statement about eligibility for legal aid in bringing such claims. [27389]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Figures about such claims are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil legal aid may be available to an individual wishing to bring such a claim through the courts of England and Wales, subject to the standard tests on the merits of the case and financial eligibility.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what budgetary allocation was made in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; what allocation has been set aside for 1996–97 for the immigration appellate authority; and is the allocation within that budget in each of those years, for special adjudicators hearing asylum appeals. [27173]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The table shows the overall budgetary allocation for the years requested. The immigration appellate authorities do not keep a record of the allocation made specifically to special adjudicators hearing asylum appeals, and the table shows the amount allocated to all judicial costs in all areas of the appellate authorities' work.

  Year

  Overall budgetary allocation (£)

  Judicial allocation (£)

  1994–95

  3,755,603

  2,386,000

  1995–96

  4,793,057

  2,648,762

  1996–97

  7,931,512

  4,122,604

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the actual or protected outturn of(a) immigration appeals in total, (b) substantive asylum appeals and (c) fast track asylum appeals in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. [27174]

  Mr. Evans
  It is not possible to provide separate figures for(b) and (c) as the immigration appellate authorities do not distinguish between these categories when recording determined appeals. I am able to provide the following information:
  2

  Adjudicators

  Year

  Total

  Asylum

  1994–95

  23,587

  3,196

  1995–96

  21,282

  8,354

  1996–97 (projected)

  33,630

  19,970

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal

  Year

  Total

  Asylum

  1994–95

  1,859

  388

  1995–96

  1,230

  510

  1996–97 (projected)

  1,900

  1,430

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contract, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [27584]

  (2) what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27585]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for four executive agencies. For the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, the information is set out in the table. I have asked the chief executives of the Land Registry and of the Public Record Office to reply separately.

  Scheme

  Provision available

  Criteria used to judge eligibility

  (a) Maternity leave

  (i) 14 weeks statutory maternity leave, retaining right to return to same job;

  (i) available to all staff, regardless of status, subject to proper notification and the provision of a maternity certificate;

  (ii) 18 weeks, combination of statutory maternity leave and unpaid special leave, with right to return to work on no less favourable terms and conditions of employment than held before absence;

  (ii) must qualify for statutory maternity pay (see below);

  3

  Scheme

  Provision available

  Criteria used to judge eligibility

  (iii) 14 weeks paid maternity leave plus unpaid maternity leave up to total maximum absence of 52 weeks from the date maternity leave begins, with right to return to work on no less favourable terms and conditions than held before absence.

  (iii) must be in paid service at the time the leave begins and have rendered at least one year's such service overall; must not be employed on a casual, standby or short notice basis or on a fixed term contract of less than two years; must give a written undertaking of intention to return to work after maternity leave and produce a maternity certificate;

  (iv) additional paid or unpaid special leave may be granted.

  (iv) on written application, at personnel officer's discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  (b) Maternity Pay

  (i) 18 weeks statutory maternity pay; first 6 weeks at 90 per cent, of average weekly earnings in the eight weeks prior, 12 weeks at the set rate, currently £54.55;

  (i) must have 40 weeks service by the expected date of childbirth; have average weekly earnings of not less than the lower earnings limit for the payment of National Insurance contributions; still be pregnant by the 11th week before the expected week of childbirth, or have given birth by this time; must provide proper notification and produce a maternity certificate.

  (ii) 14 weeks at full pay, and notional statutory maternity pay where appropriate.

  (ii) as for paid maternity leave above.

  (c) Paternity leave

  Two days paid special leave, either at the time of birth or in the following weeks.

  Available on written application

  An additional five days paid special leave if exceptional or unforeseen domestic difficulties arise at the time of birth or immediately afterwards, (see also parental leave below)

  Available at local management discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  (d) Parental leave

  for adoptive mothers, up to 20 days special leave with pay plus unpaid leave up to a maximum absence of 52 weeks;

  Available on written application

  if a woman does not exhaust her entitlement to unpaid maternity leave, the balance of leave is taken into account when considering a later application for unpaid special leave for childcare purposes, either from the woman

  Available at personnel officer's discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  4

  Scheme

  Provision available

  Criteria used to judge eligibility

  or her spouse if he is also employed by the Department civil service.

  (e) Flexible working hours

  Flexible working hours arrangements may be introduced or revised in any office.

  Dependant upon discussion between staff and line-management and their trade union representative at local level.

  (f) Part time work (g) Job sharing

  Anyone can apply to work part-time or to job-share.

  Available at local management and personnel officer's discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  (h) Leave to care for sick children

  Up to five days special leave with pay in any one year may be granted locally;

  Available on written application at local management discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  Additional paid and/or unpaid special leave and/or career break may be made available if this appears justified in the particular circumstances.

  Available at personnel officer's discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances.

  (i) Home working

  The Department does not specifically recruit staff to work at home on a permanent basis. Available as a temporary measure.

  Available at local management and personnel officer's discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  (j) Term-time contracts (k) Annual hours contracts

  Contracts are not offered although existing staff may apply for annual hours and term-time contracts

  Available at personnel officer's discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  (l) Workplace nurseries

  44 nursery day care places are available for children under five; and approximately 75 playscheme places for children five to 12 years old which are used during the main school holidays.

  Waiting lists are maintained where the Department cannot meet the demand for places at a new or existing nursery venture. In allocating places, the Department observes the Equal Opportunities Commission's "Good Practice Guide", as recommended by the Cabinet Office in January 1992.

  Generally, playscheme places are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis but occasionally preference is given to "essential" staff whose skills and experience are particularly needed by the Department.

  (m) Childcare None allowances

  N/A

  5

  Scheme

  Provision available

  Criteria used to judge eligibility

  (n) Carer's leave

  Up to five days special leave with pay in any one year may be granted; Additional paid and/or unpaid special leave

  Available on written application at local management discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  and/or career break may be made available if this appears justified in the particular circumstances.

  Available at personnel officer's discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  (o) Career

  Staff who have successfully completed their probationary period.

  Must have a good record of attendance and performance. Available at personnel officer's discretion, dependant upon individual circumstances

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on the provision and eligibility criteria of a number of conditions of service. I can supply the following information:

  Employees of HM Land Registry may benefit from the following provisions under the agency's conditions of service. Eligibility criteria, where applicable, are shown in the text:—

  (a) Maternity Leave:

  (i) Irrespective of an individual's length of service, a minimum of 14 weeks maternity leave is allowed.

  (ii) Paid maternity leave of 3 months and 1 week is allowed where the individual:—

  —states their intention to return to work for a minimum period of 4 weeks;

  — undertakes to repay maternity pay, less statutory Maternity Pay, if she fails to return;

  — is in paid service with the agency when she starts maternity leave, and has given at least one year's such service;

  — is not employed on a casual basis, and

  — is not employed on a fixed term contract of less than 2 years.

  (iii) The earliest date from which the period of paid maternity leave can commence is the beginning of the 11th week before the expected week of confinement.

  (iv) Unpaid maternity leave may be granted up to a further 41 weeks starting with the week in which the baby is born, to a maximum possible absence of 52 weeks (11 weeks prior to the expected date of confinement plus 41 weeks maximum unpaid leave).

  (b) Maternity Pay:

  Staff who qualify for paid maternity leave under item (a) (ii) above receive their normal rate of pay for the period concerned. In other circumstances statutory maternity pay is payable.

  (c) Paternity Leave:

  Fathers are entitled to two days paid paternity leave, which may be taken at the time of the birth or during the weeks following (eg when the mother leaves hospital.) Paternity leave cannot, however, be paid during periods of unpaid absence.

  (d) Parental Leave:

  Paid special leave of up to one week may be granted to assist staff in coping with unforeseen short term domestic problems, including the care of a child. Unpaid special leave for longer periods may also be granted. All applications for special leave are considered sympathetically in light of the circumstances.

  6

  (e) Flexible Working Hours:

  Staff have the option to work flexible working hours subject only to very limited shift-working requirements. There are no specific criteria, save that a small minority of staff may be excluded for disciplinary reasons.

  (f) Part-time Work:

  The agency allows part-time working wherever possible. a minimum of 16 hours per week is encouraged. No specific criteria apply other than the need to have regard to the existing working patterns in order to avoid operational difficulties. Staff are able to opt for a wide range of working patterns, such as whole or part days, or combination of whole or part days.

  (g) Job Sharing:

  The agency provides opportunities for full-time posts to be shared by two employees. There are no specific criteria and no posts are automatically excluded. The agency will require to be satisfied that the arrangements in each case will meet operational requirements, and part-time working might offer a suitable alternative in the event of difficulty.

  (h) leave to Care for Sick Children:

  Paid special leave of up to one week may be granted for short term care of sick children, in order to provide initial assistance in relation to unforeseen circumstances. Unpaid nursing leave may be granted for longer periods. All applications for special leave are considered sympathetically in light of the circumstances.

  (l) Home Working:

  The agency does not operate home working except on an occasional, short term basis, to assist individual staff as part of their recuperation from injury or ailment.

  (j) Term-time Contracts:

  The agency considers requests for term-time working under its part-time working arrangements. Requests are accommodated by the granting of unpaid leave of absence during school holidays. Such requests are met wherever operational circumstances allow.

  (k) Annual Hours Contracts:

  The agency has no current provisions for annual hours contracts.

  (l) Workplace Nurseries:

  Two offices have workplace nurseries, each of which caters for up to 40 children aged from 6 weeks to 5 years. Staff at a third office have access to an interdepartmental nursery led by the Home Office, catering for a similar age range. All staff employed by the Agency at these locations are eligible to play for a nursery place for their child(ren). The agency also has holiday playschemes at 18 offices.

  (m) Childcare Allowances:

  The agency does not operate a system of childcare allowances. The running costs of nursery places are subsidised and the user parents pay a reduced fee.

  (n) Carer's Leave:

  Unpaid special leave may be granted to care for elderly or infirm relatives, dependants or partners, or where heavy domestic responsibilities have been borne for a long time. All applications for special leave are considered sympathetically in light of the circumstances.

  (o) Career Breaks:

  The agency operates a career break scheme, offering unpaid special leave for up to 5 years, with an option to extend for a further 2 years in appropriate circumstances. The scheme is intended to help staff deal with caring responsibilities or where an individual's health has suffered as a result of past responsibilities. In order to take a career break under the scheme staff must:

  —be a permanent member of staff;

  —have one year's paid service of 16 or more hours per week, and—

  —have a satisfactory work performance and a satisfactory attendance, conduct and health record.

  A 'keeping-in-touch' scheme operates in tandem with the career break scheme for those who wish to participate.

  7
  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is away from the Office on official business, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Pubic Record Office to your question about the provision available to employees in the agencies for which he is responsible.

  The provision available to employees of the Public Record Office, with the criteria used to judge eligibility, is:

  (a) Maternity leave

  Established staff and fixed term appointees are entitled to three months and one week paid maternity leave providing they

  1. intend to return to work

  2. have worked one year (in the past three) and

  3. are currently working.

  A further period of unpaid leave up to a combined total of 52 weeks is available.

  Limited period appointees are not eligible.

  (b) Maternity pay

  Established staff and fixed term appointees are entitled to normal salary for three months and one week and to 18 weeks Statutory Maternity Pay.

  Limited period appointees who have worked continuously for at least 26 weeks and continue into the 15th week prior to the expected week of confinement may be eligible for 18 weeks of Statutory Maternity Pay, at the discretion of management.

  (c) Paternity leave

  Established staff and fixed term appointees are entitled to 2 days paid paternity leave.

  (d) Parental leave

  Available to established staff and fixed term appointees, at the discretion of management.

  (e) Flexible working hours

  Available to established staff and fixed term appointees in appropriate posts.

  (f) Part-time work

  Available to all employees, subject to operational needs. It is also allowed to members of staff who return to work after a period of sick absence.

  (g) Job sharing

  Available to all employees, subject to operational needs.

  (h) Leave to care for sick children

  As for (d) above.

  (i) Home working

  Available at the discretion of management.

  (j) Term-time contracts

  Not used.

  (k) Annual hours contracts

  Not used.

  Workplace nurseries

  Not available.

  Childcare allowances

  Planned for introduction in 1996/97, subject to the availability of resources.

  (n) Carer's leave

  As for (d) above.

  (o) Career break scheme

  Unpaid leave up to 5 years is available for established employees at the discretion of management.

TREASURY

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by his Department in 1995–96. [26144]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: In 1995–96 the Treasury paid 9 per cent. of legitimate private sector invoices more than 30 days after their receipt and 91 per cent. on time. This figure reflects the clearing up of outstanding and disputed invoices and improvements to the Treasury's payment performance. In most cases the Department would have discussed the reason for the delay with the supplier, for instance to resolve disputes concerning the invoice or the delivery.

  VAT (Errors and Fraud)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the consultants' report drawn up for Customs and Excise on errors and fraud in VAT repayments will be completed; if he will place a copy in the Library; what was the percentage of payments incorrectly made; and how much revenue is involved. [27331]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The customs internal consultants' review covers the more complex areas of the VAT repayments credibility system. Work is proceeding to the timetable advised to the Public Accounts Committee by the chairman of Customs and Excise. The consultants' study of percentages of repayments incorrectly made, and the amount of revenue involved, is expected to be finalised in August 1996 when the PAC will be updated on the findings.

  The full report will contain details about checks on repayment claims, that would be of great advantage to potential fraudsters. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate to place a copy in the Library.

  Earnings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of employees in(a) each region and (b) nationally earned (i) less than £1.50 per hour, (ii) between £1.50 and £2.50 per hour, (iii) between £2.50 and £3.50 per hour, (iv) between £3.50 and £5 per hour, (v) between £5 and £10 per hour, (vi) between £10 and £20 per hour and (vii) in excess of £20 per hour in 1995 prices for each year since 1986. [27133]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: The information is contained in several tables which I will arrange to have placed in the Library.

  Public Sector Pension Funds
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the annual cost of lump sum payments paid by each public sector pension fund in (i) 1974, (ii) 1979 and (iii) the most recent year available; [27333]

  (2) what was the annual cost of pensions paid in each public sector pension fund in (i) 1974, (ii) 1979 and (iii) the most recent year available. [27334]
  9
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Comprehensive figures are not available in the form requested. Information is available only for some of the centrally administered public service schemes and, for the earlier years in question, cannot always be disaggregated.

  The schemes shown are all unfunded and expenditure comes from moneys voted by Parliament in estimates.

  Information that is available is as follows:

  1974–75

  1979–80

  1994–95

  £ million

  Civil Service

  1141.5

  1421.9

  11,859.6

  —

  261.2

  2151.6

  1399.0

  —

  Armed Forces

  11,218.9

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  2329.8

  —

  NHS

  82.6

  299.3

  11,334.2

  —

  2321.0

  —

  NHS (Scotland)

  9.2

  36.4

  1181.7

  —

  250.1

  —

  Teachers

  150.9

  430.5

  12,106.9

  —

  2499.5

  —

  Teachers (Scotland)

  22.5

  58.1

  1219.5

  —

  151.8

  —

  1 Pension.

  2 Lump sum.

  n/a not available.

  Adjusted for 1994–95 prices using GDP deflator

  1974–75

  1979–80

  1994–95

  £ million

  Civil Service

  1741.7

  11,053.6

  11,859.6

  —

  2320.8

  2378.6

  2399.0

  —

  Armed Forces

  n/a

  n/a

  11,218.9

  —

  2329.8

  —

  NHS

  433.0

  747.5

  11,334.2

  —

  2321.0

  —

  NHS (Scotland)

  48.2

  91.0

  1181.7

  —

  250.1

  —

  Teachers

  791.0

  1,075.1

  12,106.9

  —

  2499.5

  —

  Teachers (Scotland)

  117.9

  145.1

  1219.5

  —

  251.8

  —

  1 Pension.

  2 Lump sum.

  n/a not available.

  Figures relate to retirement pensions and related lump sums including ill-health, death gratuities, family benefits and pensions increase payments. Where one figure is shown this represents the combined expenditure on pensions and lump sums.

  Post-war Credits
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total sum of post-war credits paid out since 1 January 1979; and what is his estimate of the amount left unclaimed. [27781]

  Mr. Jack
  The total sum of post war credits paid out in the period 1 January 1979 to 31 March 1996 is £3,640,938.82. This includes interest which amounts to £1,002,577.36. It is estimated that £33 million remains unclaimed.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27595]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executives of the Royal Mint, the Office for National Statistics, the Valuation Office and Paymaster agencies. I have asked each of them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Langford to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  In your question to the Chancellor (ref 27595) you asked a number of questions relating to conditions of service within the Agency. The following address the questions in the order posed:

  a) Maternity leave: Women are entitled to three months and one week paid maternity leave if they:

  have one year's cumulative employment (continuous or broken, casual or permanent)

  are not employed on a casual basis or on a fixed term appointment of less than two years at the time the leave begins.

  are not on unpaid leave at the time

  can confirm in writing that they intend to return to work for the Agency after their baby has been born.

  A further period of unpaid maternity leave may be taken subject to the total leave not exceeding fifty two weeks.

  If the employee does not qualify for maternity leave the Agency allows up six months' unpaid leave to be taken during or following pregnancy.

  b) Maternity pay: The entitlement is three months and one week on full pay. Any further leave taken is unpaid.

  c) Paternity leave: Men are entitled to two days paid leave which may be taken before or after the baby is born.

  d) Parental leave: The Agency provides up to five days paid special leave in cases of urgent domestic distress, at any one occasion. This is based on management discretion. Unpaid leave may be granted for longer periods.

  e) Flexible working hours: The Agency operates a flexible working hours system which allows the employee to arrange their working days to meet their domestic (at the discretion of management).

  f) Part-time work: The Agency operates a part-time system with a minimum of fifteen working hours and a maximum of thirty hours per week. The Agency, at the discretion of management, endeavours to meet the employees requests for their preferred hours of work.

  g) Job-sharing: The Agency, at management's discretion, provides Job-sharing opportunities for staff wishing to work for only part of the day.

  h) Leave to care for sick children: The Agency may allow up to 5 days paid special leave in cases of care for sick children at any one time. This is based on management discretion.

  i) Home working: The Agency does not have this scheme.

  j) Terms time contracts: The Agency does not have this scheme.

  k) Annual hours contracts: The Agency does not have this scheme.

  l) Workplace nurseries: The Agency does not have this scheme.

  11

  m) Child care allowances: If the employee is sent on a course by the Agency and has to pay additional monies for child care, the Agency will pay up to £40 per week to help meet the costs.

  n) Carers leave: The Agency does not grant paid leave to the employee when their carer is on holiday. The employee may be granted special leave without pay. This is based on management discretion.

  o) Career break schemes: The Agency allows up to five years unpaid leave for career breaks. This time is not pensionable however any days that are worked for the Agency during this time are:

  All criteria are set out in the VOA's Staff Handbook. Management's discretion applied in the circumstances identified above.

  Please let me know if I can assist further.

  Letter from Keith Sullens to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your question about special leave etc arrangements.

  The following provisions are available to PAYMASTER staff;

  (a) Maternity leave.

  Leave to attend ante-natal care and up to 52 weeks paid and unpaid maternity leave.

  (b) Maternity pay.

  Three month's and one week's paid maternity leave providing the expectant woman has been working for one year at the start of the maternity leave and intends to return to work. Statutory Maternity Pay is payable subject to the normal rules.

  (c) Paternity leave.

  Two days paternity leave is allowed either at the time of the baby's birth or when the mother leaves hospital if this is more beneficial for the family.

  (d) Parental leave.

  Special leave may be granted to parents as necessary including for adoptive purposes.

  (e) Flexible working hours.

  Flexible working hours are available to all staff at PAYMASTER including part-time staff. Staff may work their contractual hours between 7.00am and 7.00pm.

  (f) Part-time work.

  We are prepared to consider any part-time working arrangement providing it is acceptable to the individual's line management. Currently 130 people work part-time representing 20% of all staff at PAYMASTER.

  (g) Job sharing.

  Many of the part-time posts are held on a job share basis but this is not always a requirement for working part-time.

  (h) Leave to care for sick children.

  Parents may be allowed up to 5 days leave with pay to care for sick children. The amount of leave granted depends upon individual circumstances.

  (i) Home-working.

  We do not employ anyone on home working contracts.

  (j) Term time contracts.

  We do not employ anyone on term time contracts. Several staff are employed on short notice contracts and one member of staff is employed on a part-year basis.

  (k) Annual hours contract.

  We do not employ anyone on annual hours contract.

  (l) Workplace nurseries.

  PAYMASTER has a workplace nursery with 27 places.

  (m) Child care allowances.

  We do not have any plans to introduce child care allowances.

  (n) Carers leave.

  12

  Short term care may be provided by short periods of special leave with and without pay. For long term care a career break of up to five years may be allowed.

  (o) Career break.

  PAYMASTER career break schemes are available to either men or women who have domestic responsibilities which are difficult to combine with work. To qualify for a career break staff must be employed on a permanent basis, have completed probation and have satisfactory performance and attendance records.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question on the provisions made available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department as far as it relates to the Office for National Statistics.

  On 1 April 1996 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) merged with the Central Statistical Office (CSO) to form a new executive agency—the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Prior to the merger, both departments operated flexible working practices and made provision for special leave for their employees for the purposes of maternity, paternity and other domestic responsibilities.

  Like its predecessors, ONS is committed to being an equal opportunities employer which aims to provide working environment where no-one is unfairly discriminated against and where staff feel valued. To this end ONS has made provision for: alternative working practices; special leave of absence; and special childcare arrangements for its staff. Some of the details of these provisions are still the subject of discussion with our departmental trades union side, but the broad outline is detailed below:

  Alternative Working Practices

  A wide range of alternative working patterns are supported throughout the agency, including part-time working, job sharing, home-working (both formal and informal), and nil-hours contracts. In addition a flexible working hours system is in operation on each site. Other alternative working practices, such as term-time working and annual hours contracts, are also possible, though they are not in use in ONS at present. Alternative working practices are available for all ONS staff where the nature of the work allows.

  Special Leave of Absence

  ONS operates statutory rules on maternity leave and pay for all pregnant employees regardless of length of service or hours of work. In addition, more generous levels of pay and leave are available for staff depending on their length of service. For example, permanent employees with one year's service or more are entitled to 14 weeks full pay and up to 52 weeks maternity absence. Two days paid paternity leave is available for permanent employees.

  Special leave, both paid and unpaid, is granted to staff in order to care for sick children or elderly dependents and is also granted for adoption purposes and a wide range of other domestic responsibilities. In addition, ONS operates a Career Break Scheme of one to five years for staff with significant domestic responsibilities. All permanent staff are eligible to apply for special leave. Special leave for some domestic circumstances is also made available for casual staff with a minimum of three months service. Each case is considered on its own merits.

  Special Childcare Arrangements

  ONS provides, or buys into, a subsidised holiday placement scheme at all locations, opens to the children of all ONS employees. At the Newport site it has also been possible to make provision for a subsidised nursery. ONS staff are reimbursed for the cost of additional child care expenses where these are incurred as a result of official business outside of normal working hours.

  ONS strives to give all employees the opportunity to develop their full potential and will continue to make provisions, wherever practicable, to facilitate individual members of staff who have particular responsibilities for dependents and require alternative working patterns or special arrangements.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  13
  Letter from Roger Holmes to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question about provisions available to Royal Mint employees.

  The details as applicable to the Royal Mint are as follows:

  (a) Maternity leave: See Annex A.

  (b) Maternity pay: 14 weeks paid leave, plus up to a further 37 weeks unpaid leave.

  (c) Paternity leave: 2 days paid leave.

  (d) Parental leave: Nil.

  (e) Flexible working hours: Available to all employees not directly involved in continuous production work, which involves 24 hour cover, 365 days per year. A regular feature in other areas.

  (f) Part-time working: Available to all employees. All requests to date have been accommodated.

  (g) Job Sharing: As (f) above.

  (h) Leave to care for sick children: Each case judged separately on its merits. Up to 5 days paid leave available for domestic emergencies.

  (i) Home-working: Nil

  Currently under consideration by an in-house working party on alternative working patterns.

  (j) Term-time contracts: Nil

  (k) Annual hours contracts: Nil

  (l) Workplace nurseries: Survey recently undertaken. Not a requirement by staff.

  (m) Child care allowances: Nil.

  (n) Carers leave: Each case decided on its merits. All requests to date have been accommodated—both male and female.

  I trust my reply is helpful.

  Royal Mint Maternity Leave

  The EC Pregnant Workers Directive 92/85 and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 provides the right to all pregnant women, regardless of length of service, to 14 weeks paid maternity leave.

  If taken ill during pregnancy paid sick absence may be authorised in the normal way. However, sick pay is not issuable once paid or unpaid maternity leave has commenced.

  The entitlement of maternity leave covers 14 weeks paid leave plus a further 37 weeks unpaid leave. Depending on the timing of the leave, there may be an entitlement to a further 4 weeks Statutory

  Maternity Pay

  When employees give notice of their impending absence on maternity leave they must state in writing their intention of returning to work not less than 37 weeks from the week in which the baby is born.

  Employees must give at least 7 days notice, in writing, of their intended date of return.

  Whether an employee decides to return to work or not an employee may change her mind at later date.

  (i) If an employee changes her mind and decides to return to work, provided she returns not later than 41 weeks after the week of confinement, her resignation may be cancelled and her service may be treated as maternity leave.

  (ii) If an employee decides not to return she will have to repay the difference between what she was paid and what she was entitled to (currently 6 weeks pay).

  (iii) An employee who wishes to change to part-time duties following maternity leave, cannot demand this of right. Departments will, however, endeavour to assist as work priorities dictate.

  It is a requirement of law that a certificate stating the 'expected date of confinement' is supplied to the employers, before maternity pay/leave be granted.

  Inland Revenue Office, Salisbury
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff, by grade, are employed at the Salisbury tax office of the Inland Revenue; how many members of the public visited the office in person; and how many telephone calls were received by the office in the last 12 month period for which figures are conveniently available. [27847]

  Mr. Jack
  Details of the staff currently employed at the Salisbury tax office are as follows:

  Number

  Grade

  Technical staff (Inspectors)

  9

  (2 in Pay bands A&B, 7 in Pay band C)

  Clerical staff

  46

  (13 in Pay band D, 33 in Pay band E)

  Secretarial

  2

  Permanent staff (+ casual assistance as required)

  During the year to March 1996 the Salisbury tax office and tax inquiry centre received 10,126 visits from members of the public and answered 48,626 telephone calls.

  Inland Revenue (Mobile Advice Centres)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many mobile advice centres are operated by the Inland Revenue; where they are based; what destinations each has visited in the last 12 months for which figures are available; how many staff are normally attached to each mobile advice centre; and how many cases were handled at each destination. [27848]

  Mr. Jack
  During the year to March 1996 the Inland Revenue operated six mobile advice centres. Two of these were based in Cardiff and the others in Telford, Stourbridge, Exeter and Andover. Each employed between two and four members of staff depending on the location visited. Visits were made to some 300 locations throughout Britain and more than 67,000 inquiries from members of the public were dealt with. No detailed breakdown of these figures is available to show the number of inquiries dealt with at each location.

  From April 1996 a further mobile advice centre is operating from Middlesbrough.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [27603]
  15
  (2) what provision is available to employees of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27602]

  The Solicitor-General
  The following are available in the Departments and agencies for which my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible:

  Crown Prosecution Service: all except (i) and (l)

  Treasury Solicitor's Department: all except (l) and (m)

  Serious Fraud Office: all except (l) and (m)

  Government Property Lawyers: all except (e), (l) and (m).

  Details of entitlement are set out in the civil service management code or other staff manuals and/or are determined according to the merits of each individual case.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May. [27190]

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

  Hospitality
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if the rules for holding fundraising and party political events at No. 10 Downing street are applied to Chequers, No. 11 Downing street, No. 12 Downing street, Dorneywood and Chevening; [27517]

  (2) if he will list the date, host and purpose of all non-official party receptions or functions held at No. 10 Downing street and Chequers since November 1990. [27516]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 May 1996]:Ministers under this and previous Administrations have been allowed-at their own or party expense—to host non-official or party receptions or functions in Downing street. All catering, staff and other direct costs must be met by the organisers of the event. Appropriate arrangements are required for security clearance.

  The same rules are applied at Chequers, Chevening and Dorneywood within the overall arrangements made by the trustees with each occupant.

  The details of individual functions are not a matter for the Government.

DEFENCE

  Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British forces in peacekeeping operations around the world with particular reference to mine clearing. [26933]

  Mr. Soames
  We are making significant contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. In the specialised area of mine clearance, the United Kingdom has made a major contribution to training trainers and providing advice in developing an indigenous capability that will continue after peacekeeping forces have withdrawn.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of employment in the defence industry in the United Kingdom is supported by Ministry of Defence contracts. [26934]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

  Joint Rapid Deployment Force
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of establishing a joint rapid deployment force. [26936]

  Mr. Soames
  The joint rapid deployment force will strengthen the UK's capability to project effective military forces rapidly worldwide in support of our interests. It will be capable of contributing to a wide range of operations, whether mounted nationally or as part of the UK's contribution to those mounted by NATO, the Western European Union or the UN.

  Forces in Europe (Deployment)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent of deployment of British forces in Europe; and if he will make a statement. [26937]

  Mr. Soames
  British forces are currently deployed in Germany, Cyprus, Italy, Gibraltar, the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, and make a significant contribution to the peace implementation force in Bosnia. Details can be found in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996", presented to the House on 1 May 1996.

  Operations Southern Watch and Provide Comfort
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on RAF deployment to Operations Southern Watch and Provide Comfort. [26938]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF contributes six Tornado GR1 and one VC 10 tanker aircraft to each operation. The Tornados operate in the tactical reconnaissance role.

  Both operations monitor Iraqi activity on the ground in support of UN Security Council resolution 688, which calls on Iraq to cease the repression of its civilian population.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the reason for the low flying by a fast jet over Barnoldswick on 18 April at about 10.15 am. [26939]

  Mr. Soames
  A Harrier aircraft from No. 20 Sqn., RAF Wittering, on a routine training sortie, carried out a simulated level pass attack on a target some three nautical miles north of Barnoldswick on 18 April at about 10.15 am.

  Ministerial Visit (Middle East)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the middle east. [26940]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend's visit to Israel was made in response to a long-standing invitation. The visit provided the opportunity for discussions on a range of issues, including bilateral defence relations. My right hon. Friend was also able to stress the Government's determination to see a diplomatic solution to the Lebanon crisis and a speedy return to the peace process.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the viability of the nuclear deterrent. [26941]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from individuals and organisations on aspects of our deterrent forces. The entry into service of Trident ensures that we will have a credible and effective deterrent well into the next century.

  Training Areas (Warsaw Pact Countries)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he can report on the use of training areas by British and allied forces in the former Warsaw pact countries. [26942]

  Mr. Soames
  We plan that the Army will exercise in both Poland and Ukraine in September of this year, subject to final confirmation by the Governments of those two countries. Discussions over other possible training opportunities in central and eastern Europe are continuing. The arrangements under which other allies train in central and eastern Europe are a matter for the countries concerned.

  Horseshoe Barracks, Shoeburyness
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Horseshoe barracks in Shoeburyness. [26943]

  Mr. Soames
  Studies are currently under way to identify whether any parts of Horseshoe barracks are surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements and therefore suitable for disposal. The views of the local authorities and local community will be taken into account before any decisions are reached.

  Ministerial Visit (Israel)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Israel. [26944]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).

  RAF Aircraft Crashes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF aircraft have crashed this year; and if he will make a statement. [26945]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of seven RAF aircraft have crashed in six accidents. Separate boards of inquiry are carrying out thorough investigations in order to determine the causes of each accident and to consider what action may be necessary to minimise the risk of recurrence. In line with normal policy, a summary of the findings of each inquiry will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in due course.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent initiatives on European defence co-operation he has instigated; and if he will make a statement. [26946]

  Mr. Soames
  We have pursued a number of initiatives in support of the Government's policy on European defence announced in our memorandum of 1 March last year. In NATO, we have actively pursued implementation of measures designed to support development of a European defence identity within the alliance, consistent with the NATO summit agreement of January 1994. In the Western European Union, and in particular during the United Kingdom's six-month presidency of WEU, which began on 1 January this year, we have pursued a number of initiatives, including the establishment of a situation centre and introduction of a progressive exercise programme with the aim of strengthening the WEU's capability to mount and control certain humanitarian and rescue, peacekeeping and other crisis management tasks.

  Departmental Performance (Value for Money)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department uses to judge whether it provides value for money; and what assessment he has made of its performance. [26947]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon.member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 2 April,Official Report, column 146.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently stationed in the United Kingdom and how many overseas; at what cost in each case; and if he will make a statement. [26948]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of deployments by geographical area are published annually in my Department's "UK Defence Statistics" booklet. At 1 January 1996, 178,412 service personnel were deployed in the UK, and were
  19
  deployed 52,631 overseas. Information on the associated costs is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear-submarine Z-berths there are currently in Scottish coastal waters; which ones have been used in the last 10 years, and when; and if he will make a statement. [28076]

  Mr. Soames
  The table sets out the usage of Z-berths in Scotland during the period 1992 to 1994. Figures prior to 1992 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Scottish Z-berth usage in days 1992 to 1994

  Z-berth

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Broadford bay

  0

  0

  0

  Brodick bay

  0

  0

  0

  Campbeltown

  0

  0

  1

  Coulport

  51

  94

  66

  Dales Voe

  0

  0

  0

  Dalgety bay

  0

  0

  0

  Firth of Forth

  0

  0

  0

  Glen Mallan

  0

  0

  0

  Holy loch

  0

  0

  0

  Lerwick

  0

  0

  0

  Loch Ewe

  0

  0

  0

  Loch Goil

  3

  14

  14

  Loch Striven

  0

  0

  0

  Portree

  0

  1

  0

  Raasay

  0

  0

  0

  Rothesay

  0

  3

  0

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what monitoring he undertakes of the potential environmental impact of nuclear submarine Z-berths in Scottish coastal waters; and if he will make a statement; [28075]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential environmental impact of nuclear submarine Z-berths in Scottish coastal waters; and if he will make a statement. [28074]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Defence Radiological Protection Service—DRPS—regularly monitors areas around UK establishments that support submarine operations to demonstrate that nuclear powered warship operation is neither harming the environment nor resulting in unacceptable levels of public radiation exposure.

  DRPS surveys are complemented by the marine radioactivity monitoring programme undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which publishes its findings independently.

  Unidentified Objects, (Rendlesham Forest)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current security classification on the documents his Department holds on the unidentified objects seen by members of the United States Armed Forces in Rendlesham forest, Suffolk in 1980; and if he will make a statement. [27644]
  20
  Mr. Soames
  The papers held by my Department relating to the alleged events at Rendlesham forest, Suffolk in 1980 are unclassified.

  British Service Personnel (Cyprus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many official complaints as to the behaviour of British service personnel stationed in Cyprus have been reported to the Ministry of Defence in London since 1 January 1996; and if he will make a statement. [27622]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has received a number of letters from hon. Members and from members of the public condemning the actions of the three soldiers convicted of the manslaughter of Louise Jensen. While many of them have also included general criticism of the behaviour of some UK military personnel, I am not aware of any separate complaints relating to specific incidents involving service personnel in Cyprus since 1 January 1996.

  We will not tolerate behaviour that brings the Armed Forces into disrepute. The vast majority of service personnel based in Cyprus are very well behaved.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place with the Italian company Valsella regarding the upgrading of the Ranger land mines delivery system; and if he will make a statement. [27631]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A representative of Valsella attended a presentation given to officials of my Department in September 1995 by the manufacturer of the Ranger land mine delivery system about the potential for upgrading that system.

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department or agencies' buildings partly, or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27730]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what provision is available to employees of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [27609]

  (2) what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity

  21
  leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27610]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.s

  British Service Men's Graves
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department has evaluated about the recent plundering of graves of British service men killed on the Somme and at Ypres in the first world war; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [27931]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department deplores the desecration of previously unidentified war graves, wherever they may be discovered throughout the world. Individuals are expected to respect all past battlefields, which may be the last resting place of so many, and not to disturb them.

  Where human remains are found, it is the responsibility of the individual to inform the local authorities who, in the case of remains dating back to either of the two world wars, will collaborate with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The commission, in turn, will arrange for a suitable military funeral in one of its military cemeteries, as close to the original burial site as possible. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is aware of the content of the article published in the Sunday Times for 28 April and has confirmed that appropriate action has been taken.

  Rotary Wing Support Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department first permitted women in the RAF to serve on rotary wing support helicopters. [28167]

  Mr. Soames
  The Department first permitted women in the RAF to serve on rotary wing support helicopters in 1991.

  Business Subsidies
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the grants and loans provided by his Department to businesses, together with the criteria they have to meet in order to obtain the subsidy. [28185]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is not the policy of the Ministry of Defence to provide financial subsidies to industry.

  Phoenix
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce a decision of the future of Phoenix; and if he will make a statement. [28396]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I hope to make an announcement before the summer recess.

  Works of Art
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's works of art are classified as missing. [26935]
  22
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  One hundred and seven works of art belonging to my Department's collection are classified as missing.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Servants (Forum)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if public servants are eligible to serve as delegates in the forum; under what conditions civil servants will be permitted to be candidates; and which social security benefit payments will be affected by delegates' allowances. [26730]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Under the provision of the legislation public servants are eligible to serve as delegates in the forum. Pursuant, however, to the Northern Ireland civil service non-industrial pay and conditions of service code civil servants to whom the code applies will not be permitted to serve as delegates in the forum or to put themselves forward as candidates. Similar conditions apply to home civil servants.

  The extent to which any social security benefit is affected will depend on the amount of the allowance and the individual's circumstances. Benefits which could be affected by delegates' allowances are: income support, unemployment benefit, invalid care allowance, disability working allowance, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, retirement pension—if the member is a dependant on a spouse's claim—and family credit, for fresh and renewal claims.

  "Making Belfast Work"
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many team leaders of the "Making Belfast Work" south and east team there have been in the past two years; how long the present acting team leader has been in position; when a permanent team leader will be appointed; and for what reasons there was no full-time replacement when the acting team leader was recently on leave. [27153]

  Mr. Moss
  "Making Belfast Work", south and east team has had two team leaders in the past two years. An acting team leader has been in post since February 1996.

  A Northern Ireland civil service trawl competition is under way at present to appoint a permanent team leader to the team.

  Another team leader has been covering the south and east area until the acting team leader returns from leave. In accordance with normal practice, a full-time replacement is not provided to cover periods of leave.

  Dental Caries (Children)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of five-year-old children in Northern Ireland had dental decay in(a) 1990, (b) 1992 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27438]

  Mr. Moss
  Every two years the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry conducts a survey of dental caries prevalence in children aged five throughout the United Kingdom. However, the survey did not extend
  23
  to Northern Ireland until 1994 and figures are not therefore available for 1989–90 or 1991–92. Figures for 1995–96 will not be available until March 1997. The latest available information, for 1993–94, shows that the mean percentage of five-year-old children in Northern Ireland for whom there is evidence of caries experience is 59 per cent.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [27586]

  (2) what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for (a) maternity leave (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27587]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is as follows:

  Subject

  Provision

  Main eligibility criteria

  a. maternity leave b. maternity pay

  3 months and 1 week paid leave for monthly paid staff and 14 weeks for weekly paid staff

  Available to permanent staff who intend to return to work after childbirth, are in paid service at the time maternity leave begins and have rendered at least one year's such service.

  c. paternity leave

  2 days' paid leave

  Available to all male officers.

  d. parental leave

  No specific provision. However in cases of urgent domestic distress, at Departmental or Agency discretion: (i) paid leave to a maximum of 5 days(ii) unpaid leave

  All staff are eligible to apply. Each application is considered sympathetically and a decision taken on the circumstances of the individual case, having regard to the effect of such leave on the business needs of Departments and Agencies.

  e. flexible working hours

  Flexible systems for the attendance of staff are widely available providing scope for individuals to vary times of arrival and departure, length and timing of lunch break and to take time off if they work additional hours.

  Available to all staff unless, exceptionally, such provision would have an adverse effect on overall efficiency.

  24

  Subject

  Provision

  Main eligibility criteria

  f. part-time work

  Available at Departmental or Agency discretion.

  All staff are eligible to apply. Each application is considered on the basis of the ability of Departments and Agencies to provide the facility requested and its effect on their business needs, but no request is refused unless there is appropriate objective justification.

  g. job-sharing

  Available at Departmental or Agency discretion.

  As for part-time work (f) above.

  h. leave to care for sick children

  Paid and unpaid leave available at Departmental or Agency discretion.

  As for parental leave (d) above.

  i. home-working j. term-time contracts

  Available at Departmental or Agency discretion in a limited number of areas at present, with consideration being given to wider application.

  Where appropriate, applications are considered taking account of the circumstances of the individual case and having regard to the effect on the business needs of the Department or Agency.

  k. annual hours contracts

  Not available.

  —

  l. workplace nurseries

  Available on a limited basis, for the children of staff working in the Northern Ireland Office, London (See also Note 1)

  Places allocated in order of application.

  m. childcare allowances

  At Departmental or Agency discretion where this can be justified on value for money grounds. At present the Child Support Agency and the Department of the Environment provide assistance towards the cost of an employee placing a child in a nursery of the parent's choice.

  (i) one of the parents/guardians must be an employee of the Department or Agency; (ii) the nursery must be registered with the relevant Health and Social Services Board; (iii) the allowance is payable only until the child begins primary school.

  n. carers' leave

  At Department of Agency discretion (i) paid leave to a maximum of 5 days; (ii) unpaid leave.

  As for parental leave (d) above.

  o. career break schemes

  At Departmental or Agency discretion unpaid leave may be granted for any period from one year up to a maximum of 5 years.

  All staff are eligible to apply. Career Breaks are available for most purposes including further education, domestic responsibilities, starting a business, maintaining a family business or a stay abroad.

  Currently eight holiday play schemes, which are open to the children of all staff are assited financially by the Department Finance and Personnel.

WALES

  Gwent Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Gwent health authority concerning the co-opting of his assessor onto the inquiry panel investigating the internal appointment of an external candidate to a senior management position in January; when he expects the panel to report; what arrangements he has made for reporting back to him; and if he will make a statement. [28096]

  Mr. Hague
  None. I have not appointed an assessor. An external adviser has been co-opted by the health authority to provide the committee of inquiry with independent and expert advice. The committee is expected to report back to the authority in early June and I shall be consulted on the outcome.

  Dental Caries (Children)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of five-year-old children in Wales had dental caries in(a) 1990, (b) 1992 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27419]

  Mr. Richards
  Every two years the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry conducts a sample survey of dental caries prevalence in children aged five throughout Great Britain. From the results of these surveys it is estimated that the mean percentage of five-year-old children in Wales for whom there was evidence of caries experience in 1989–90 was 57 per cent. in 1991–92 it was 59 per cent. and in 1993–94, the latest year for which information is available, it was 54 per cent. Information for 1995–96 is not yet available.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the population in Wales were registered with dentists for continuing care in(a) 1990, (b) 1992, (c) 1993, (d) 1994 and (e) 1995 in the age groups (i) 18 to 64 years, (ii) 65 to 74 years and (iii) 75 years and more; and if he will make a statement. [27437]

  Mr. Richards
  New arrangements for the registration of patients with general dental practitioners were introduced at the end of 1990. However, as it took some time for patients to register, meaningful data were not available until 1991. The available data, collected by the Dental Practice Board, are given in the following table:

  Percentage of people registered at the end of September

  Year

  Age groups

  18–64

  65–74

  75+

  1991

  44.4

  29.6

  18.8

  1992

  62.7

  42.1

  30.0

  1993

  62.3

  42.2

  29.7

  1994

  61.4

  42.2

  30.1

  19951

  58.6

  39.6

  29.8

  1 1994 population data (the latest available) have been used to calculate these figures.

  Schools (Road Safety Programmes)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each education authority in Wales and 26
  for Wales as a whole, the number of (a) primary and (b) secondary schools operating road safety programmes in each of the last three years; and what is the proportion represented by such schools of the total number of (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [27429]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  University Colleges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit Welsh university colleges in the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [27939]

  Mr. Hague
  I will be visiting University College of North Wales Bangor on 8 May and University of Wales Aberystwyth on 31 May 1996. I hope to visit other higher education institutions during the course of the next year.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [27607]

  (2) what provision is available to employees of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27606]

  Mr. Hague
  All staff of the Welsh Office and its executive agency Cadw are entitled to statutory provision. In addition maternity leave exceeds statutory provision by two weeks and there is an entitlement for paternity leave of two days. Staff are also eligible to apply for special leave with pay and without pay for a number of specified reasons including caring responsibilities. Places at a work place nursery are available to staff. Requests from staff wishing to work patterns other than full-time conditioned hours are considered sympathetically with regard to the operational requirements of the Department.

  Special Protection Areas
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to complete the designation of the Ramsey Island, St. David's Coast, Strumble Head proposed special protection area and the Carmarthen Bay candidate special protection area. [27839]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Consultation is taking place regarding the proposed classification of Ramsey and St. David's coast as a special protection area. Strumble head is not being proposed for such classification and our
  27
  additional bird counts are needed to assess whether Carmarthen bay qualifies for consideration as a special protection area.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for research into ME; what statistics he has collected on the incidence of ME; what guidelines he has issued to health authorities on the coding and classification of ME; and if he will make a statement. [28399]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office does not at present have any specific proposals for research into ME. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is always willing to consider and fund soundly based research proposals in competition with other applications.

  There are no centrally held statistics on the incidence of ME in Wales nor has the Welsh Office issued specific guidelines to health authorities on its coding and classification.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he collates on the level of financial balances on the books of each of the training and enterprise councils at their financial year-end 1995–96; and what consultations he has had with each TEC concerning the levels of those balances. [28397]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department receives copies of each Welsh TEC's published annual report and accounts supplemented by more detailed financial returns required under the TEC operating agreement. Information for 1995–96 is due by the end of July 1996. From 1995–96 the returns will be collated into an All-Wales account which will be audited by the National Audit Office and published. The Department discuss TEC balances on a regular basis.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list to the nearest £1 million each category of his Department budget which was(a) overspent and (b) underspent at the end of the financial year 1995–96; and what assessment he has made of the extent of the underspend that arises from delays in capital expenditure approval. [28400]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Friday 22 March 1996,Official Report columns 357–58. Details of the outturn for 1995–96 will be provided in the public expenditure provisional outturn White Paper which will be published in due course.

HEALTH

  Health Service Dentists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people aged 15 to 24 years were 28
  registered with NHS dentists in (a) 1984, (b) 1989, (c) 1992 and (d) 1994 and (e) 1995; and if he will make a statement; [27020]

  (2) how many people were registered with NHS dentists in (a) 1985, (b) 1989, (c) 1993 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [26960]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of patients registered with General Dental Service dentists: registrations at 31 December, 1992 to 1995; all patients and patients age 15 to 24

  England

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  All patients

  28,847,520

  29,547,398

  28,911,403

  27,776,901

  Patients aged 15 to 17

  1,245,617

  1,288,420

  1,311,236

  1,345,928

  Patients aged 18 to 24

  2,820,031

  2,793,830

  2,639,862

  2,419,082

  Patients aged 15 to 24

  4,065,648

  4,082,250

  3,951,098

  3,765,010

  Notes:

  These data are taken from the Dental Practice Board's quarterly counts of registrations qualifying for payment. This is the only source of registration data which is broken down by age. Children's registrations have been recorded before the effect of the lapses in registrations which occur at the end of each year.

  Central formal registration was introduced in October 1990; figures for December 1984, 1985, and 1989 are not available.

  The Dental Practice Board improved its systems for detecting duplicate registrations in 1994 and some 3.5 million duplicate registrations have been removed since then. This has had a significant effect on the number registered.

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board—quarterly count of active registrations.

  GP Commissioning Groups
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps health authority managers are taking to encourage general practitioner commissioning groups. [26793]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities are well aware of the need to involve all general practitioners in purchasing decisions for their patients. This was clearly set out in EL(94)79. It is restated as a medium-term priority in the priorities and planning guidance (EL(95)68), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients received free dental treatment in(a) 1990, (b) 1992 and (c) 1994; and if he will make a statement; [26978]

  (2) how many people were entitled to receive free dental treatment in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [26980]

  Mr. Malone
  All children are eligible for free dental treatment. Information is not available about the number of adults eligible to receive free dental treatment.

  The information available about treatment provided to adults is shown in the table.
  29

  Number of courses of dental treatment administered to adults eligible for free treatment: 1990; 1992–93; 1994–95

  England

  Thousands

  Adults

  Six months September 1990

  1992–93

  1994–95

  Courses administered to adult patients eligible for free treatment

  2,029

  5,653

  5,621

  Information is collected in terms of courses of treatment rather than patients. This table excludes courses for which there is no patient charge, including arrest of haemorrhage, and repairs and replacements under guarantee, administered to charge payers.

  Information is not available for the whole of 1990. The introduction of the new contract in October 1990 affected information flows. Data have been provided for the six months, April to September.

  Since October 1990 and the introduction of the new contract, children's dental treatment has largely been paid for by capitation payments. Records of individual treatments are not collected centrally. All treatment for children is free.

  Drugs Campaign
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research was undertaken during the preparation of the current Health Education Authority drugs campaign; and what measurement is being made of the campaign's efficiency; [27422]

  (2) how the subject drugs were chosen for inclusion in the Health Education Authority's current drug campaign. [27423]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Health Education Authority commissioned a survey of young people between 11 and 35 years old, which addressed prevalence, settings and attitudes to drug misuse to inform the content and tone of publicity campaigns, including what specific drugs or groups might be targeted. The summary research findings was published on 3 May. The effectiveness of the publicity campaigns will be evaluated and monitored by pre and post testing of each stage of the campaign and by further annual surveys of young people.

  The drugs chosen for the Health Education Authority's current publicity campaign—ecstasy, LSD and speed—were those most commonly associated with young people and the "dance scene". The publicity campaign aims to inform both young people and parents about the health effects and risks of the drugs and is being promoted on the radio, in the youth press, and women's magazines.

  Nursing Homes, Doncaster
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many privately run and owned nursing homes are currently registered with the Doncaster health authority; and how many were registered in December 1979. [27432]

  Mr. Bowis
  There were 34 nursing homes registered with Doncaster district health authority in 1994–95. Information is not available centrally for years before 1993–94. All nursing homes are in the independent sector.
  30
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in privately run and owned nursing homes registered with the Doncaster health authority there are currently in the Doncaster metropolitan borough; and how many there were in December 1979. [27431]

  Mr. Bowis
  There were 966 nursing home beds registered with Doncaster district health authority within the boundaries of Doncaster metropolitan district in 1994–95. This information is not available centrally for years before 1993–94. All nursing homes are in the independent sector.

  Drugs (Schools)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve distribution of up to date information about drugs to those involved in drugs misuse work in schools, social services, the Probation Service, the criminal justice system and elsewhere. [27421]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health has commissioned a report into the information needs of drug action teams, which will enable them to identify up-to-date information. It will also inform Department of Health work in developing an information strategy.

  Drugs Helpline
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many callers have made use of the national drugs helpline since its launch in 1995; how the calls have been classified; what information has been supplied to callers; and what measurements have been made of the success of the helpline. [27425]

  Mr. Bowis
  Between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996, the national drugs helpline answered 192,755 calls. They are classified by whether they are interactive or non-interactive— whether advice or counselling is given—and by the profile of callers, which includes gender, age, location, ethnicity, language, misuser/non-misuser and the reason for the call.

  The helpline operates a free 24 hours-a-day confidential service staffed by trained counsellors who provide callers with advice and counselling, information on drugs and solvents, and on local drug services. The helpline also distributes leaflets and literature about drugs and solvent misuse to callers on request.

  The national drugs helpline is currently being evaluated by independent consultants. Their report on the Department is expected at the end of May.

  The helpline number is 0800 77 66 00.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will collate centrally information for ambulance costs per mile for each ambulance authority; and if he will make a statement. [27615]

  Mr. Horam
  I have no plans to do so.

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department or agencies; buildings partly or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27727]

  Mr. Horam
  From 1 April 1996, the Department of Health took on responsibility for its buildings from Property Holdings, including vacant space and the payment of rents. For 1996–97, this Department and its agencies will pay an estimated £9 million in rents on leased buildings totalling 775,000 sq ft for which it has now become responsible. Of this, 18,200 sq ft in two buildings is currently vacant at an annual rental cost of £325,000.

  Prior to April 1996, the payment of rentals on leased buildings and for any vacant space were the responsibility of Property Holdings.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department had evaluated(a) before and (b) since 1978 in respect of possible contamination of factor VIII with particular reference to non-hepatitis A and B. [27713]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1978, it was known that there was a non-A, non-B hepatitis virus, but it had not yet been identified as the hepatitis C virus. At the time, there was no test for it or any way of eliminating it from blood products. However, people known to be at risk carrying non-A, non-B hepatitis were not accepted as blood donors. In 1985, heat treatment was introduced with a view to inactivating viruses that were known to be transmitted by factor VIII. In 1989, hepatitis C was identified. Clinical monitoring has not shown evidence of transmission of hepatitis C by factor VIII since this time. Currently used manufacturing procedures are effective in preventing transmission of hepatitis C. Since 1991, when reliable tests first became available, all blood donations in the United Kingdom have been tested for hepatitis C. In addition, since 1993 only batches of factor VIII derived from donations, whatever their sources, which have been screened and found negative for antibody to hepatitis C virus have been allowed to be placed on the market.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial help is or is planned to be available for those who suffer from hepatitis C. [27714]

  Mr. Horam
  A number of people have been infected with hepatitis C through blood or blood products. The Government have great sympathy with those infected with hepatitis C in this way, but, as no fault or negligence on the part of the national health service has been established, we have no plans to make special payments.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the 32
  advantage of voluntary sector participation in Government-funded targeted HIV and AIDS health promotion work. [27873]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government's HIV/AIDS health promotion strategy', published in November 1995, recognises that targeted HIV health promotion work for vulnerable groups, such as gay men, may often he better undertaken by community-based and self help voluntary groups than by the Government or their agencies. We are therefore exploring the scope for greater voluntary sector involvement with targeted campaigns.

  1"HIV & AIDS Health Promotion: An Evolving Strategy", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Emergency Ambulance Calls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency ambulance calls have been made within the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in each of the last three years. [27945]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for Northumbria ambulance service national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mrs. Beryl Balls, for details.

  Spinal Injuries (Research)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study his Department has made of the progress of research(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad into the use of implants to activate the muscles of people with spinal injuries; what action he will be taking to expedite such research in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [28696]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Medical Research Council is funding two linked projects into the use of implants to stimulate the muscles of people with spinal injuries:

  (i) Development of a multi-channel lumbo-sacral motor root stimulator implant—October 1992 to September 1995;

  (ii) To explore the use of lumbar anterior root stimulator implants. Funding of £212,000 has been allocated for this two-year project, which began in October 1995.

  Pressure Sores
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent statistics his Department has collated of the incidence of pressure sores among NHS hospital patients; and if he will list them for each region at the latest date for which figures are available. [26897]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Sick Children
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to local health authorities in respect of their obligations to sick children under the UN convention on the rights of the child. [26898]
  33
  Mr. Bowis
  In 1991, a copy of the convention was sent to every health authority and national health service trust in England and Wales.

  The principles of the convention were highlighted in recent guidance on children's services planning and in the draft guidance "Child Health in the Community: A Guide to Good Practice" which was issued for consultation in March 1995 and which is expected to be published shortly.

  Doctors (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study into the number of doctors taking early retirement from the NHS and the reasons for which they do so. [26899]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department supports cohort studies of doctors' careers by the medical careers research group at the Oxford unit of health-care epidemiology. These examine career patterns and wastage in the medical profession and the reasons why doctors leave the national health service.

  The future programme of work will include a survey of the earliest cohort of doctors, who graduated in 1974. Most of these doctors are now in their mid to late 40s—some are older—so that, over the next few years, the studies will provide information on early retirements as well as a picture of the doctors' retirement intentions.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [27580]

  (2) what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27581]

  Mr. Horam
  Provisions on all the above are made available for staff in the Department and its executive agencies. Eligibility criteria rate set out in the conditions of service manual. Line managers are encouraged to deal with individual cases sympathetically, where criteria include discretion and business need.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the long-term effects of the use of ECT, with particular reference to children. [28050]
  34
  Mr. Bowis
  The main agency through which the Government support bio-medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. There has been a considerable volume of research of the efficacy of electro-convulsive therapy for different patient groups and this research has confirmed that ECT is a very effective treatment of some clinical conditions, and has made it clear which conditions are best treated by ECT. An unpublished survey in 1992 by the child and adolescent section of the Royal College of Psychiatrists recorded that ECT was used very rarely on those under the age of 18 and only where patients were very ill indeed. Such a low rate of treatment means that conducting any controlled trials would be impossible.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) information and (b) statistics his Department compiles on the use of ECT (i) in psychiatric hospitals and (ii) on children. [28049]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number of administrations of electro-convulsive therapy is not available centrally.

  Blood Giving
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been introduced in the last year to ensure potential blood donors can be informed of blood giving sessions in their area. [27974]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for the National Blood Authority, which is working towards the implementation of the targets for improved services to blood donors outlined in the interim donor's charter issued last November. Regular donors are notified of their local donor sessions some two weeks in advance. A range of measures is used to publicise donor sessions, including local posters and media advertising.

  Mental Health. (Re-admissions)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate(a) the number of people re-admitted to hospital and (b) the expenditure on such hospital re-admissions due to mental illness each year since 1990–91. [28070]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally.

  Health Service (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the regional health authority and all district health authorities and NHS trusts that provide health services in Devon and Cornwall indicating when the existing periods of appointment of members and non-executive directors expire. [28051]

  Mr. Bowis
  Regional health authorities were dissolved with effect from 31 March 1996. District health authorities and family health services authorities were replaced by new health authorities on 1 April. Details of the membership of health authorities and national health service trusts in Devon and Cornwall are given in the table.
  35

  Cornwall

  Appointed to

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority

  Chairman:

  Dr. Stan Dennison

  31 March 1998

  Non-Executives:

  Mrs. Catherine Blight

  31 March 1999

  Lady Holborow

  31 March 1999

  Dr. Edward Ferrett

  31 March 1999

  Mrs. Margaret Horrell

  31 March 1998

  Mr. Peter Sandry

  31 March 1998

  Cornwall Healthcare NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. John Askham

  31 October 1996

  Non-Executives:

  Lady Banham

  31 October 1996

  Mr. Michael Eldred

  31 October 1996

  Mr. Ian Hope

  31 October 1997

  Mrs. Suzie Ladbroke

  31 October 1997

  Mrs. Sheila Taylor

  30 November 1997

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Learning

  Disabilities NHS trust

  Chairman:

  The Rev'd Trevor McCabe

  30 November 1996

  Non-Executives:

  Mr. Andrew Bell

  30 November 1996

  Mrs. Katherine Hardie

  30 November 1996

  Mrs. Fay Hunt

  30 November 1996

  Mr. Robert Stephens

  30 November 1997

  Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. John Williams

  30 November 1997

  Non-Executives:

  Mr. Edward Latham

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Gilbert McCabe

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Colin

  30 November 1997

  Micklewright

  Mrs. Doreen Henderson

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Anthony Hill

  30 November 1997

  Westcountry Ambulance Services NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. James Pease-Watkin

  31 October 1996

  Non-Executives:

  Mrs. Hilary Bucklar

  31 October 1996

  Mr. Patrick Egan

  31 October 1996

  Lt. Col. Robert Perkins

  31 October 1996

  Mr. Julian Luttrell

  31 October 1997

  Devon

  Appointed to

  South and West Devon health authority

  Chairman:

  Mrs. Judy Leverton

  31 March 1998

  Non Executives:

  Mr. Peter Cliff

  31 March 1999

  Mrs. Jean Jarvis

  31 March 1998

  The Reverend Peter Jones

  31 March 1998

  Mrs. Agnes Gwen MacPherson

  31 March 1999

  Mr. John Turner

  31 March 1999

  North and East Devon health authority

  Chairman:

  Mrs. Ro Day

  31 March 1999

  Non Executives:

  Mr. Colin Bennett

  31 March 1999

  Mrs. Mary Hollingworth

  31 March 1999

  Mr. Ronald Hughes

  31 March 1998

  Mrs. Jane Moore

  31 March 1998

  Mr. Michael Walker

  31 March 1999

  Exeter and District Community Health

  Services NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. Sylvia Russell

  30 November 1997

  Non Executives:

  Mr. Adrian Acton

  30 November 1997

  Mrs. Ann Halse

  30 November 1996

  Professor Arthur Roy

  30 November 1997

  Miss Margaret Stokes

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Michael J. Dommaille

  30 November 1997

  36

  Devon

  Appointed to

  Northern Devon

  Healthcare NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. Alan Eastwood

  30 November 1997

  Non Executives:

  Mrs. Elizabeth Burton

  30 November 1996

  Dr. Alun Edwards

  30 November 1996

  Mrs. Jill Farwell

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Brian Greenslade

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Stephen Pearce

  30 November 1996

  Plymouth Community

  Services NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Vacancy

  Non Executives:

  Mrs. Gloria Beeching

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Eric Distin

  30 November 1997

  Mrs. Ida Miles

  30 November 1997

  Mr. John Nicholas

  30 November 1997

  Miss Candy Rai

  31 May 1996

  Plymouth Hospitals

  NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Sir Vernon Seccombe

  31 October 1997

  Non Executives:

  Mrs. Sally Greenhalgh

  31 October 1998

  Mr. Jeremy Ramsden

  31 October 1996

  Mr. Peter Seldon

  31 October 1997

  Mrs. Sylvia Ackerley

  31 October 1997

  Professor Roger Bull

  31 October 1997

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare

  NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Dr. Ruth Hawker

  31 October 1997

  Non Executives:

  Mr. Henry Ball

  31 October 1997

  Mr. Derek Lamb

  31 October 1996

  Mrs. Anne Mayes

  31 October 1996

  Ms Eleanor Tranah

  31 October 1997

  Mr. James Wendover

  31 October 1998

  South Devon

  Healthcare NHS trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. Anthony Boyce

  30 November 1996

  Non Executives:

  Mr. Michael Dobson

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Michael Hawkins

  30 November 1997

  Mr. Kenneth Holmes

  30 November 1996

  Mrs. Patricia Wootten

  31 October 1997

  Mr. Mark Galley

  30 November 1997

  National Register for Carers, Assessors and Verifiers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what help his Department is giving to the national register for carers, assessors and verifiers. [28171]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. We shall, however, be publishing a consultation paper on ensuring adequate standards of competence for social services personnel.

  Licensing Authority
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 186, if he will list all legal actions taken against the Licensing Authority in 1995. [28433]

  Mr. Malone
  Judicial review proceedings were instigated against the licensing authority by Generics (UK) Limited in 1995 on two occasions.

  Medicines Commission and Committees Regulations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions the Medicines Commission and Committees Regulations 1970 have been revised; and which regulations are still in force. [28434]
  37
  Mr. Malone
  These regulations have not been revised and are still in force.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which chairmen of the Medicines Commission have been appointed for a period in excess of that provided in the Medicines Commission and Committees Regulations 1970; and what effect breaches of the regulations have on the validity of the commission's advice. [28435]

  Mr. Malone
  There have been no appointments for a period in excess of that provided in the regulations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Colliery Tips
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by county the colliery tips still remaining in the ownership of British Coal; and what is his policy for(a) disposing of them and (b) their environmental restoration. [27641]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what summary of responses he has received from the Office of Gas Regulation to its recent consultation exercise regarding the continuation of the E factor criteria to encourage investment in energy efficiency; and if he will list those organisation which responded(a) positively and (b) negatively to the continuation of the E factor with the new price control mechanism. [27943]

  Mr. Eggar
  The gas supply price control review, which includes the future of E factor funding beyond March 1997, is a matter for Ofgas.

  British Energy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide a dividend dowry for British Energy after privatisation. [28131]

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to provide a dividend dowry for British Energy post privatisation.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to structure the finances of British Energy to create a special dividend reserve. [28141]

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to create a special dividend reserve for British Energy. Like any other company British Energy will pay dividends out of its distributable reserves using its own cash resources.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the liabilities that will follow the assets upon privatisation of the nuclear industry; and if he will make a statement. [28130]

  Mr. Lang
  The details of the liabilities that will be taken by British Energy into the private sector at flotation will be given in the prospectus.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27599]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The chief executives of DTI executive agencies will respond direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnock to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question on various aspects of the terms and conditions of employment for Patent Office employees.

  The answers to the points you raise are set out below:-

  (a)&(b) Maternity Leave/Pay - The Patent Office offers its permanent staff, who have more than one year's service and who intend to return to work after their maternity leave, the right to apply to take up to 52 weeks maternity leave. This comprises 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full rate of pay and up to 38 weeks unpaid maternity leave. Casual staff and staff with less than one year's service are entitled to the usual statutory provision.

  (c) Paternity Leave - Fathers may take up to 2 days paid paternity leave at the time of the birth of their child or during the weeks following the birth. The Patent Office line managers are allowed to give up to five days special leave to fathers, where there are difficulties at the confinement or to care for other young children in the family.

  (d) Parental Leave - The Patent Office has no formal parental leave. Line managers are encouraged to understand the problems facing staff who are balancing their work and child care commitments.

  (e) Flexible Working Hours - The Patent Office offers a Flexible Working Hours scheme to all staff at Senior Examiner level and below, whether employed on a full time or part time basis.

  (f) & (g) Part-time Work/Job Sharing - Any member of the Patent Office may apply to work part-time or to job share.

  (h) Leave to Care for Sick Children - Parents may apply for up to 5 days special paid leave to nurse a sick child.

  (i) Homeworking - The Patent Office currently has one member of staff on a pilot scheme to examine the feasibility of homeworking.

  (j)&(k) Term-Time Contracts/Annual Hours Contracts - The Patent Office does not use such contracts but staff may apply to take unpaid special leave during school holidays.

  (l) Workplace Nurseries - The Patent Office offers a limited number of nursery places to staff in an on site nursery, which is run by another Government Agency. The Office also runs school holiday playschemes.

  (m) Child care Allowances - The Patent Office will reimburse staff for any additional child care costs as a result of a temporary change to their working routine.

  (n) Carers Leave - The Patent Office allows staff to apply for up to 5 days paid special leave to nurse a sick relative or dependent. Carers may also apply for a career break.

  (o) Career Break Scheme - The Patent Office offers permanent staff, who have a satisfactory performance marking and attendance record, the right to apply for a career break of up to 5 years to assume homecare responsibilities for a dependent.
  39
  Maternity leave/pay and paternity leave are entitlements. Apart from the nursery and playscheme places, which are available on a first come first served basis, the other provisions are discretionary and subject on a case by case basis to the agreements of line managers.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to provide additional information on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory in reply to your question about the availability fo various schemes and facilities to staff in DTI.

  The provisions here at the National Weights and Measures Laboratory are for the most part the same as for employees in the rest of DTI. Where practical staff can work flexible working hours and this Agency operates a nursery jointly with the two other Laboratories here on the Teddington site.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the provisions available to employees in The Insolvency Service Executive Agency for maternity leave and pay and other parental/carer responsibilities.

  Mr. Taylor, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, has replied to you, on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to employees within the DTI. Provisions within The Insolvency Service are the same as the DTI's for the following parts of your question: (a)-(d); (f)-(h); (m)-(o). The answers to the remaining parts of your question are:

  (e) Flexible Working Hours—The Service operates a flexible working hours scheme.

  (i), (j) and (k) Homeworking/Term-Time Contracts/Annual Hours Contracts—Several employees within the Service are homeworkers. Staff may apply to use a number of the alternative working patterns. Staff may apply to take unpaid special leave during school holidays.

  (l) Workplace Nurseries—The Service does not operate any workplace nurseries.

  Maternity leave/pay and paternity leave are entitlements. The other provisions are discretionary within the operational requirements of The Service, and subject on a case by case basis to the agreement of line managers and personnel management.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  Question: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) childcare allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case.

  I have been asked to answer the questions you raise on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.

  (a) and (b) maternity leave/pay—Permanent staff with more than one year's service and who intend to return to work after their maternity leave are entitled to apply to take up to 52 weeks maternity leave comprising 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full rate of pay and up to 38 weeks unpaid maternity leave. Casual staff and staff with less than one year's service are entitled to the usual statutory provision.

  (c) Paternity leave—Fathers may take up to 2 days paid paternity leave at the time of the birth of their child or during the weeks following the birth. Line Mangers may allow up to five days paid special leave to fathers where there are difficulties at the confinement or to care for other young children in the family.

  (d) Parental leave—The Agency has no formal parental leave. Line Managers are encouraged to understand the problems facing staff who are balancing their work and child care commitments.
  40
  (e) Flexible working hours—There is a flexible working hours scheme which applies to staff in the Agency's Headquarters.

  (f) and (g) Part-time work, job sharing—Any member of staff may apply to work part-time or to job share. This is subject on a case by case basis to the agreement of line managers.

  (h) Need to care for sick children—Parents may apply for up to five days special paid leave to nurse a sick child.

  (i) Homeworking—There are arrangements for staff within the Radio Investigation Service to work from home. Applications are judged against three criteria, a) that the Officer lives within his or her defined area of work and b) that the officer's average travelling time to the nearest Agency office from his or her home is greater than one hour and c) more than half of the offices normal work is within 15 miles of his or her home address.

  (j) and (k) Term-time contracts, Annual Hours contracts—There are no staff on such contracts within the Agency.

  (l) Workplace nursery—The Agency does not operate a workplace nursery. Staff can apply for places at a school holiday playscheme run by DTI in Central London.

  (m) Childcare allowances—Staff may apply for reimbursement of additional childcare costs incurred as a result of a temporary change to their working routine.

  (n) Carer's leave—Staff may apply for up to five days paid special leave to nurse a sick relative or dependant. Carers may also apply for a career break.

  (o) Career break scheme—Permanent staff who have a satisfactory performance marking and attendance record may apply for a career break of up to five years to resume home care responsibilities for a dependant.

  Maternity leave pay and Paternity leave are an entitlement. The other provisions are discretionary and subject, on a case by case basis, to the agreement of Agency line management.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information about various aspects of the personnel provisions for his department. I am replying as Chief Executive of Companies House, and give this Agency's details below. The sub-paragraphs reflect the labelling in your PQ.

  (a) & (b) Maternity Leave/Pay: Permanent staff with more than 1 year's service and who intend to return to work after their maternity leave, are entitled to apply to take up to 52 weeks' maternity leave. This comprises 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full rate of pay and up to 38 weeks unpaid maternity leave. Casual staff and staff with less than 1 year's service are entitled to the usual statutory provision.

  (c) Paternity Leave: Fathers may take up to 2 days paid paternity leave at the time of the birth of their child or during the weeks following the birth. Line managers may allow up to five days paid special leave to fathers where there are difficulties at the confinement or to care for other young children in the family.

  (d) Parental Leave: Companies House has no formal parental leave. Line managers are encouraged to understand the problems facing staff who are balancing their work and child care commitments.

  (e) Flexible Workings Hours: Companies House offers a flexible working hours scheme to all full-time staff. Depending on the operational needs of the section, some part-time staff may also participate in the scheme.

  (f) & (g) Part-time Work/Job Sharing: Any member of staff may apply to work part-time or to job share.

  (h) Leave to Care for Sick Children: Parents may apply for up to 5 days special paid leave to nurse a sick child.

  (i), (j) & (k) Home Working/Term Time Contracts/Annual Hours Contracts: Companies House does not operate home working/term time contracts/ annual contracts on a formal basis. However, managers use their discretion to allow staff to work from home during a domestic crises situation where operationally possible. Staff may apply to take unpaid special leave during school holidays.

  41

  (l) Workplace Nurseries: Companies House does not operate any workplace nurseries. However, it buys into a school holiday playscheme in Cardiff and is considering offering financial support to staff where they live outside Cardiff and use a registered playscheme.

  (m) Child Care Allowances: Staff may apply for reimbursement of additional child care costs incurred as a result of temporary change to their working routine.

  (n) Carers Leave: Staff may apply for up to 5 days paid special leave to nurse a sick relative or dependent. Carers may also apply for a career break.

  (o) Career Break Schemes: Permanent staff who have a satisfactory marking and attendance record may apply for a career break of up to five years to assume home care responsibilities for a dependent.

  Maternity leave/pay and paternity leave are entitlements. The other provisions are discretionary and subject, on a case by case basis, to the agreement of line managers and any other local arrangements that may be in place.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job-sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27598]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The answers to the questions raised are as follows:

  (a) and (b) Maternity Leave/Pay—Permanent staff with more than one year's service and who intend to return to work after their maternity leave are entitled to apply to take up to 52 weeks maternity leave, comprising 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full rate of pay and up to 38 weeks unpaid maternity leave. Casual staff with less than one year's service are entitled to the usual statutory provision.

  (c) Paternity Leave—Fathers may take up to two days paid paternity leave at the time of the birth of their child or during the weeks following the birth. Line managers may allow up to five days special leave to fathers, where there are difficulties at the confinement or to care for other young children in the family.

  (d) Parental Leave—The Department has no formal parental leave. Line managers are encouraged to understand the problems facing staff who are balancing their work and childcare commitments.

  (e) Flexible Working Hours—Some parts of the Department operate flexible working hours schemes. Arrangements are made locally.

  (f) and (g) Part time Work/Job Sharing—Any member of staff may apply to work part-time or to job share.

  (h) Leave to care for sick children—Parents may apply for up to five days special paid leave to nurse a sick child.

  (i), (j) and (k) —Homeworking/Term-Time Contracts/Annual Hours Contracts—A number of such working patterns are operating in the Department. Staff may apply to take unpaid special leave during school holidays.

  (l) Workplace Nurseries—The Department does not operate any work place nurseries. However it runs a school holiday play scheme in central London, and supports a number of local schemes at Government office locations.

  (m) Childcare Allowances—Staff may apply for reimbursement of additional child care costs incurred as a result of a temporary change to their working routine.

  (n) Carers' Leave— Staff may apply for up to five days paid special leave to nurse a sick relative or dependent. Carers may also apply for a career break.

  42

  (o) Career Break Scheme—Permanent staff who have a satisfactory performance marking and attendance record may apply for a career break of up to five years to assume homecare responsibilities for a dependent.

  Maternity leave/pay and paternity leave are entitlements. Apart from the play schemes for which places are available on a first come first served basis, the other provisions are discretionary and subject on a case-by-case basis to the agreement of line managers and any other local arrangements that may be in place.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used to define a small business; how many people(a) in number and (b) as a percentage of the total workforce, are currently employed by small businesses in the United Kingdom so defined; how many small businesses are currently operating in the United Kingdom at the latest estimate; and what were the numbers in 1987, 1990 and 1992. [28218]

  Mr. Page
  There is no single definition of what constitutes a small firm. A range of definitions is used in practice according to the context in which they will apply, for example in setting boundaries for schemes targeted at small firms. For statistical purposes, a small firm is often defined as having fewer than 100 employees.

  The latest estimates show 10.4 million people, 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, employed in such small firms at the end of 1993. Estimates of the numbers of small firms operating in the United Kingdom are given in the table.

  Numbers of small1 firms in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Number (millions)

  1986

  3.22

  1988

  3.66

  1990

  3.77

  1992

  3.50

  1993

  3.56

  Note:

  1 Firms with fewer than 100 employees.

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry.

  Orimulsion
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which regulatory authorities he is consulting about the proposed use of orimulsion fuel for electricity generation in Pembrokeshire; and when he expects to receive their views. [27920]

  Mr. Page
  The Pembrokeshire county council, the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Welsh Office and the Department of Transport are being consulted. It is too early to give an indication when my right. hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will receive their considered views as they are currently considering other associated matters.

  Gas (Complaints)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President to the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve the
  43
  performance of British Gas as a result of complaints registered in the north-west region by the Gas Consumers Council. [28101]

  Mr. Eggar
  The performance of British Gas is a matter for the company. It has said in response to the Gas Consumers Council's annual report of performance in 1995 that it is working very hard to restore high levels of service.

  The Government are ensuring, through the phased introduction of competition in domestic gas supply, that consumers have a choice, as they have at present in gas servicing.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his department's policy regarding bulk buying for business links. [28152]

  Mr. Page
  Business links, as independent companies, are fully responsible for their own purchasing arrangements including securing best value for money, taking account of all factors.

  My Department is keen to encourage business links to develop collaborative bulk-buying which will secure greater value for money in their purchase of equipment and services. I therefore welcome the establishment of the business link network company which, when fully operational, will provide a range of support services to the business links including the development of purchasing arrangements of this type.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which business links have achieved the Investor in People standard. [28153]

  Mr. Page
  Business Link, Teesside achieved recognition as an Investor in People on the 22 April 1996. Other business links, such as Lincolnshire, operate as divisions of training and enterprise councils and are therefore part of the existing recognition of the TEC. As a requirement of the business links accreditation process, all business links must become recognised Investors in People within three years of opening.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many catering firms(a) in total and (b) in each parliamentary constituency will be excluded from applying for a loan under the loan guarantee scheme as of 1 September. [28177]

  Mr. Page
  Given that eligibility for the loan guarantee scheme depends on factors other than the business sector it is not possible to determine how many catering firms will be excluded.

  British Coal Enterprises
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he had with the chairman of British Coal Enterprises, prior to privatisation, with regard to maintaining the services provided by British Coal Enterprises, to small local businesses, with particular reference to loans at advantageous interest rates; and if he will make a statement. [27947]
  44
  Mr. Page
  My Department has had regular contact with British Coal about the privatisation of its British Coal Enterprises subsidiary. Throughout the sales process, British Coal has made clear that it would be considering proposals for BCE in the light of its statutory duties and the importance of ensuring the continuation of effective assistance to coalfield communities. I understand that the purchasers of BCE's business funding activities are committed to a programme of continued investment in the coalfields.

  Medicines
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the effects of ending resale price maintenance on non-prescription medicines, and the effect this will have on small pharmacy businesses; and if he will make a statement. [27949]

  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 sent to me have been forwarded to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Mining
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many deep mines were in production in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) the United Kingdom as a whole, in each year since 1982; and if he will make a statement. [27440]

  Mr. Page
  The number of British Coal deep mines was as follows:

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  End March 1983

  143

  35

  13

  191

  End March 1984

  131

  30

  9

  170

  End March 1985

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  169

  End March 1986

  105

  19

  9

  133

  End March 1987

  89

  15

  6

  110

  End March 1988

  78

  12

  4

  94

  End March 1989

  74

  10

  2

  86

  End March 1990

  66

  6

  1

  73

  End March 1991

  59

  5

  1

  65

  End March 1992

  45

  4

  1

  50

  End March 1993

  45

  4

  1

  50

  End March 1994

  n/a

  2

  n/a

  17

  End December 1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  16

  Note:

  n/a = not available.

  Source:

  British Coal and Digest of Welsh Statistics.

  At the end of 1995 there were a total of 32 large deep mines in operation in the private sector.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons Her Majesty's Government placed on the market in separate tranches shares in BT and BP. [27335]
  45
  Mr. Lang
  Decisions on privatisation offer structures, including the amount of particular shareholdings offered for sale at particular times, take account of issues such as the size of the company being sold and market conditions at the time of each sale.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department made to the Home Department regarding the extra work imposed on small firms by the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [28151]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Officials from my Department have been in touch with those from the Home Office about various aspects of the Bill during the normal course of business.

  Particle Physicists and Astronomers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from Sir Arnold Wolfendale about the provision of money for particle physicists and astronomers; and if he will make a statement. [27560]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]:I have received a letter from Sir Arnold Wolfendale arguing for extra funds to support particle physics. In the current financial year the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council has been allocated an additional £10 million, over and above the £8 million allocated last year, to protect its budget from the increase in the sterling cost of its CERN and ESA subscriptions arising from exchange rate and national income movements. Funding priorities between particular areas of research within its remit are quite rightly for the PPARC.

  Coal Mining (Safety)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the powers of the mines inspectorate so that owners who fail to produce a valid certificate of insurance will have their licence to work a mine withdrawn. [27295]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no such plans. However, failure to produce a valid certificate of insurance can lead to prosecution.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest figures for the major injury rate per 100,000 manshifts in the United Kingdom coal mining industry for the year beginning 1 April 1996. [27298]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many notices have been served on private mine owners by the mines inspectorate because of their failure to produce a valid certificate of insurance. [27296]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Trade Unions
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what financial or other assistance the Overseas Development Agency provides to trade unions in developing countries in Africa; [27960]

  (2) what financial or other assistance the Overseas Development Agency provides to trade unions in developing countries in Latin America; [27961]

  (3) what financial or other assistance she provides to trade unions in developing countries in Asia. [28026]

  Mr. Hanley
  Under the British aid programme, over £1 million has been committed since 1987 through the joint funding scheme for the development of trade unions. Of this £434,000 was spent in Africa, £263,000 in Asia and £355,000 in the Caribbean. In addition, £200,000 a year has been available since 1995 through the workers' development scheme for projects to promote employee working conditions in developing countries. None of these funds have been committed in Latin America.

  Aid
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of overseas development aid given by each member state of the European Union as a percentage of the gross domestic product for each of the last three years; and what is the European Union average. [27956]

  Mr. Hanley
  Figures for the percentage of GDP spent on official development assistance by EU member states on a financial year basis are not available. Figures for net ODA expenditure as a percentage of gross national product for these countries in 1992–94 are as follows:

  Percentage of GNP

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Austria

  0.30

  0.30

  0.33

  Belgium

  0.39

  0.39

  0.32

  Denmark

  1.02

  1.03

  1.03

  Finland

  0.64

  0.45

  0.31

  France

  0.63

  0.63

  0.64

  Germany

  0.38

  0.36

  0.34

  Greece

  0.07

  0.07

  0.11

  Ireland

  0.16

  0.20

  0.25

  Italy

  0.34

  0.31

  0.27

  Luxembourg

  0.26

  0.35

  0.40

  Netherlands

  0.86

  0.82

  0.76

  Portugal

  0.36

  0.29

  0.35

  Spain

  0.27

  0.28

  0.28

  Sweden

  1.03

  0.99

  0.96

  United Kingdom

  0.31

  0.31

  0.31

  European Union Average

  0.45

  0.44

  0.42

  Notes:

  1 Usual measure is ODA as percentage of GNP, not GDP.

  2 1994 is the most recent year for which data is available.

  3 Greece is not a member of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee but has a small aid programme US$82 million in 1994).

  Source:

  OECD/DAC chairman's report 1995.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation Standards, Jamaica
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment(a) his Department and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority has made of Jamaica's adherence to aviation standards set down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. [26750]

  Mr. Norris
  None. However, the Civil Aviation Authority has a contract to advise the Jamaican Civil Aviation Department on matters relating to airworthiness and flight operations standards.

  Aircraft Inspections
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inspections have been undertaken by(a) the Civil Aviation Authority and (b) his Department into aircraft leased by aircraft operators in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [26908]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority does not believe that additional safety checks are necessary on aircraft leased between UK operators. Wet leases of non-UK registered aircraft by UK operators are permitted only in order to meet temporary needs. If necessary, and requested by the UK operator, the CAA may carry out an audit of the lessor airline to confirm its safety standards.

  Merchant Navy Uniform
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the law on the wearing of Merchant Navy uniform; and if he will make a statement. [27114]

  Mr. Norris
  There are no plans to amend the law on the wearing of Merchant Navy uniform.

  British Rail Route Structure
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost of the backlog on the British Rail route structure. [27817]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's asset maintenance plan for track and route structures, developed with the assistance of independent consultants W. S. Atkins, forecasts the expenditure required over the 10-year period from 1 April 1994 for sustaining the operating capacity of the assets in accordance with Railtrack's operational policies and standards and to comply with its statutory obligations. The plan also takes into account the longer-term maintenance requirements of the assets.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what part British Rail maintenance experts played in estimating the costs of maintenance of the route structure for the Railtrack Pathfinder prospectus. [27813]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack developed its asset maintenance plan for track and route structures with the assistance of independent consultants W. S. Atkins. I understand that the preparation of the plan included making extensive inquiries of experts in the rail industry, and that this included a number of past and present employees of British Rail.
  48
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the forward projections of maintenance costs made over the last 10 years by British Rail. [27814]

  Mr. Watts
  This information could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the maintenance figure for the Railtrack route structure for the 10 years after flotation given in the Pathfinder prospectus is the same as expenditure by British Rail in its last 10 years. [27790]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: It is to be expected that the costs of maintenance of railway structures will be similar over time, given the long asset lives of the categories of asset concerned, which are preserved by ongoing maintenance and partial renewal and are rarely replaced in their entirety. Railtrack's asset maintenance plan for track and route structures, prepared with the assistance of W. S. Atkins, forecasts the expenditure considered to be necessary to sustain the operating capability of the relevant assets in accordance with Railtrack's operational policies and standards.

  Fuel Rebate Duty
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sums paid by his Department in each of the past five years in fuel rebate duty to(a) British Bus plc, (b) First Bus plc and (c) Stagecoach Holdings plc and its subsidiaries. [27612]

  Mr. Norris
  It would not be appropriate for the Government to disclose this information, which is regarded as commercially confidential, about private sector bus operators.

  UK Fleet (Aid)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the advantages of giving financial aid to the United Kingdom fleet to encourage the employment of British ratings. [27613]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 1 April,Official Report, column 32 to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe).

  London Underground (Power Cut)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what were the conclusions of the quantified risk assessment undertaken in respect of the power failure on London underground on 6 April in respect of potential loss of life; [27811]

  (2) what analysis had been conducted of the local power cables shortly before the power failure on London underground on 6 April; what was the estimated residual working life on those cables at that date; and what actions he plans to prevent a recurrence of the incident. [27812]

  Mr. Norris
  A report into the electrical failure on the London underground on 6 April will be placed in the Library once the investigation has been completed and a report for publication has been approved by London Underground Ltd.

  Railtrack (Loans)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what purpose the loans of(a) £75 million on 5 March 1993, reference 2343E, (b) £100 million on 19 March 1993, reference 2344E, (c) £75 million on 25 March 1993, reference 2345E, (d) £100 million on 2 April 1993, reference 2346E, (e) £75 million on 19 April 1993, reference 2347E, (f) £75 million on 30 April 1993, reference 2348E, (g) £50 million on 2 July 1993, reference 2349E, (h) £50 million on 8 January 1993, reference 2342E and (i) £100 million on 29 May 1992, reference 2336E were made to the British Railways Board and then transferred to Railtrack; and for what reasons they are now to be written off under the Railways Act 1993 (Extinguishment of Loans) (Railtrack plc) Order 1996. [28106]

  Mr. Watts
  The loans listed were made for the purposes of section 19(2) of the Transport Act 1962 and transferred by a transfer scheme made for the purposes of section 85(3) of the Railways Act 1993. Liability for the loans was extinguished so that, in the private sector, Railtrack will have a capital structure—debt and equity—appropriate to give the best overall value to the Government and the taxpayer, and to enable Railtrack to finance the programme of expenditure outlined in its network management statement.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what value of loans was incurred by the British Railways Board and transferred to Railtrack and written off by the Railways Act 1993 (Extinguishment of Relevant Loans) (Railtrack plc) Order 1996; what value of Government stock Railtrack has been or will be obliged to buy to offset these loans; and if he will make a statement. [28105]

  Mr. Watts
  The sum of the liabilities extinguished by the Railways Act 1993 (Extinguishment of Relevant Loans) (Railtrack plc) Order 1996 is £1,229,418,952.18. The loans in question were all made to the British Railways Board and transferred to Railtrack. On 29 March 1996, Railtrack issued three debentures to Her Majesty's Government acknowledging indebtedness in the principal amount of £589 million.

  Rail Bridges and Tunnels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the life expectancy of existing rail bridges and tunnels. [27936]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's route structures are preserved by ongoing maintenance and are rarely replaced in their entirety. Railtrack inspects its bridges and tunnels on a cyclical basis and maintains them as long as can be economically justified. Maintenance includes the replacement of component parts of the structure so that the life span of the entire structure is extended. Many bridges and tunnels dating from the very earliest days of railways in this country and abroad continue to give satisfactory service.

  Railway Maintenance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what allowance was made in calculation of the costs of maintenance of the rail structure by W. S. Atkins for the backlog of inspections on maintenance left undone by British Rail. [27918]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's asset maintenance plan for track and route structures, prepared with the assistance of W. S. Atkins, forecasts the expenditure considered to be necessary to sustain the operating capability of the relevant assets in accordance with Railtrack's operational policies and standards.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the relevance of Bayesian probability theory to the maintenance costs of the rail structures, with particular reference to the allowance made in such analyses for the age of the asset and its condition; and what assessment he has made of the comparative value of(a) Bayesian analysis of cost estimates and (b) estimates based on inspection of the assets; [27935]

  (2) what the estimated costs of maintenance of the rail structure were in the W. S. Atkin's report before and after refining by Bayesian probability theory. [27934]

  Mr. Watts
  Bayesian probability theory is an established modelling technique relevant to determining estimates of maintenance expenditure for rail and other structures. Independent expert consultants, W. S. Atkins, employed by railtrack to assist in the development of its asset maintenance plan—AMP—for track and route structures, used Bayesian statistical techniques in its analysis of data on the condition of certain assets, gained from sample surveys. The estimates in the Atkins report were derived from Bayesian analysis throughout for those assets to which it was applied.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for what reasons the opening of the second Severn crossing will not take place until after the official opening ceremony; [27951]

  (2) if he will arrange for the second Severn crossing to be open to traffic before the official opening ceremony. [27952]

  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 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the opening of the Second Severn Crossing.

  The bridge cannot be opened to traffic until construction has been completed and the permit to use has been issued. This will be issued shortly before the official opening ceremony.

  We intend to open the road to traffic as soon as is safely possible after the ceremony.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he will make for traffic diversions to circumnavigate the M49 pending its completion when the second Severn crossing opens. [228401]
  51
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what arrangements are being made for traffic pending the completion of the new M49.

  Traffic will continue to use the existing M5 to Junction 18 (Almondsbury) and the M4 until the M49, which will join the M5 (Junction 18) to the Second Severn Crossing at Pilning, is opened.

  Northern Line
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London Transport underground services, regarding the developments that are to take place on the Northern line, to ensure that there will be adequate alternative means of transport pending completion of the work; and if he will make a statement. [27962]

  Mr. Norris
  I have discussed with London Transport on several occasions the temporary closures on the Northern line to facilitate essential engineering works, including the alternative transport arrangements it is making.

  Road Development (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the present approved and funded major road developments for the Greater London area. [27959]

  Mr. Norris
  The national trunk road schemes currently under construction in London area listed in table 2 of "Managing the trunk road programme", published by HMSO in November 1995. A copy of this publication can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  The major local authority schemes currently under construction in London area are as follows:

  Thamesmead Spine road (phase 4)

  A110 Nags Head road/ High street

  A206 Woolwich road improvement

  Wealdston by-pass

  A409 Sheepcot road

  A402D Uxbridge town centre

  Hounslow town centre

  East Ham town centre by-pass

  Strateford Gyratory modifications.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present waiting time for driving tests in(a) Greater Manchester and (b) London; how many examiners have been moved on a temporary basis from Manchester to London; and for what reasons. [27958]

  Mr. Norris
  The average waiting time for a car test in Greater Manchester is currently 12 weeks. In Greater London, it is 16 weeks. During the period from 1 January to 28 June, 10 examiners have been, or are to be, transferred temporarily from Manchester to London for a total of 64 man weeks. The Driving Standards Agency regularly monitors waiting times to ensure that they do not vary radically between major conurbations in Great 52
  Britain. For example, if all examiners currently attached to London returned to their home centres, it is estimated that the waiting time in the capital would rise to 20 weeks.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons his Department has declined to form a formal partnership with the technical advisers to the Derbyshire Families Association. [28161]

  Mr. Norris
  We are considering the Derbyshire Family Association's—DFA—written request, received on 30 April, that the Department should form a formal partnership with the technical advisers to the DFA. When considering the DFA's request, we will have regard to a number of issues, including the reasons for mounting the return expedition and the position of other parties with a legitimate interest in the return.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of engaging technical experts to take part in the second survey of the MV Derbyshire wreckage field. [28162]

  Mr. Norris
  The independent technical assessors appointed to oversee the return expedition have to undertake a range of tasks including the planning and supervision of the return, assessment of the data obtained on site and completion of their report for submission to Ministers and the European Commission. The cost of engaging the assessors will depend on the amount of work they will have to do, including the time needed to assess and report on the data collected. No accurate assessment of the likely costs can yet be made.

  "Transport: The Way Ahead"
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to his Department of the consultation of "Transport: The Way Ahead." [28027]

  Sir George Young
  For the costs of compiling, publishing and distributing "Transport: The Way Ahead", I refer the hon. Lady to the reply my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 22 June 1995,Official Report, column 360.

  The further costs of Ministers and officials attending seminars and discussions, and analysing responses, cannot be separated from the running costs of the Department.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27597]
  53
  Mr. Norris
  Each of the Department's executive agencies has delegated authority in all areas cited.

  I have asked the chief executives of the agencies to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  I am responding on behalf of the Marine Safety Agency to your question to the Secretary of State for Transport about provision for maternity leave etc:

  (a) Maternity Leave: There is provision for a total of 52 weeks paid and unpaid maternity leave provided that no more than 41 weeks are taken after the date of birth.

  (b) Maternity Pay: There is provision for 18 weeks paid maternity leave—3 months 1 week at full pay and 4 weeks at the lower rate of statutory maternity pay.

  (c) Paternity Leave: 2 days automatically—but up to 5 days if individual circumstances merit.

  (d) Parental Leave: No specific provision—but up to 5 days may be granted to cover "urgent domestic distress".

  (e) Flexible Working Hours: Available in all MSA offices.

  (f) Part-Time Work: Requests are considered on an individual basis. There have been very few so far, and we have been able to meet the requests.

  (g) Job Sharing: We have received no requests to date. If any are received, they will be considered on an individual basis and will be met if it is possible to do so.

  (h) Leave Care for Sick Children: No specific provision—but see (d) above.

  (i) Home-working: No provision.

  (j) Term-Time Contracts: No provision.

  (k) Annual Hours Contracts: No provision.

  (l) Workplace Nurseries: No provision.

  (m) Childcare Allowances: No provision.

  (n) Carers' Leave: No provision.

  (m) Career Breaks: Up to 5 years. To date, requests have been few, and all have been met.

  All cases are treated individually and are assessed according to their own merits.

  Letter from Derek Harvey to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  A copy of your question to the Secretary of State for Transport about certain conditions applicable to staff in the executive agencies within the Department of Transport has been passed to me so that I may answer you directly about the situation in VCA.

  The VCA Framework Document does allow VCA delegated authority in all of the areas mentioned, however, the current position is as follows.

  The provisions available to employees in VCA for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (g) job sharing, (h) leave care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (1) workplace nurseries, (m) childcare allowances, (n) carer's leave and (o) career break schemes and the criteria used to judge eligibility in each case are the same as those applied in the Central Transport Group (CTG) of the Department, with one exception. In the case of (e) flexible working hours VCA have retained the old level of the maximum hours to be carried forward, whereas CTG now allow an additional 4 hours and 12 minutes to be carried forward.

  I hope this is helpful.
  54
  Letter from B. L. Herdan to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply directly to your Parliamentary Question, number PQ1905/95/96, which is for answer on 7 May 1996.

  The Driving Standards Agency's delegated authority is to determine its policies in all the areas cited in your question, although in practice it currently follows the appropriate principles as set out in the Department of Transport's Staff Handbook.

  There are fixed criteria for maternity leave and pay and flexible working hours arrangements.

  Those other circumstances mentioned which involve types of leave, whether paid or unpaid, are not considered as automatic entitlements but as discretionary concessions. Applications are treated sympathetically, with consideration given to the needs of the Agency and whether the application is necessary and justified.

  In relation to the provision of variable working patterns, namely part-time work, job sharing, home-working, term-time contracts and annual hours contracts, the Agency either already makes them available to, or is prepared to consider adopting them for, its employees.

  Although the Agency does not at present provide workplace nurseries it will consider requests for financial assistance to operate them, or the granting of an allowance towards the funding of an individual employees proposed childcare arrangements during school holidays.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to respond to your question on what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) childcare allowances, (n) carers' leave, and (o) career break schemes, and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case.

  Further to Mr. Norris's Written Answer today, the information for the Vehicle Inspectorate is as follows:

  (a) Maternity leave—minimum 18 weeks, maximum 52 weeks, dependent on length of service.

  (b) Maternity pay—staff with at least one year's service may receive 3 months and one week's (or 14 weeks, if greater) full pay, followed by up to a further 4 weeks' Statutory Maternity Pay. Other staff will receive any statutory payments as appropriate.

  (c) Paternity leave—2 days entitlement, with up to a further 3 days at the discretion of line managers.

  (d) Parental leave—paid and unpaid special leave is available to staff who have adoption and fostering responsibilities, the number of days allowed by management depending on the circumstances of each case.

  (e) Flexible working hours—the Inspectorate operates schemes for this, available to all staff employed in its Headquarters offices in Bristol and Swansea, and in its Legal and Prosecution Services Office in Cambridge. Customer service requirements preclude this, however, at Heavy Goods Vehicle Testing Stations and Road Transport Enforcement offices, where flexible working patterns are more prevalent (see below).

  (f) Part-time work and (g) Job sharing—the Inspectorate encourages flexible working patterns wherever possible. About 13% of our workforce are either part-time, or job share.

  (g) Leave to care for sick children—line managers may approve up to 5 days paid special leave for this. Beyond this, unpaid special leave can also be granted.

  55

  (h) Homeworking, Term-time contracts and Annual hours contracts—these arrangements are all available to Inspectorate staff, and requests are considered sympathetically against the exigencies of our business needs.

  (i) Workplace nurseries—the Inspectorate makes no provision for these.

  (j) Childcare allowances—the Inspectorate re-imburses staff for any additional childcare costs they might incur as a result of official business, attending training courses, etc.

  (k) Carers' leave—staff may apply for up to 5 days special leave, with pay, to care for a sick relative. Unpaid leave can also be granted for longer term care and domestic responsibilities.

  (l) Career breaks—up to 5 years special leave, without pay, can be granted for child-rearing, and full-time study. Requests are considered sympathetically, but approval is subject to the business needs of the Inspectorate, and the practicability of holding a post open for the intended period of absence.

  Subject

  Available yes/no

  Current provision

  Eligibility criteria

  (a) Maternity leave

  Yes

  18 weeks maternity leave.

  Available to all pregnant employees regardless of length of service or weekly hours of work. 3 weeks notice required.

  Unpaid leave available after paid leave ends up to 52 weeks in total.

  Available to staff who qualify for the 14 weeks paid maternity leave (see (b) below).

  (b) Maternity pay

  Yes

  14 weeks maternity pay plus 4 weeks Statutory Maternity Pay where appropriate.

  Completion of 1 years paid service immediately prior to start of maternity leave.

  (c) Paternity leave

  Yes

  2–5 days paid leave.

  Available to all fathers of new born children. Length of leave dependent on circumstances surrounding the birth, number of children in family and availability of after care support.

  (d) Parental leave

  Yes

  Special leave without pay available for staff who are unable to arrange for the care of their children during school holidays.Subject to individual circumstances, the demands of the work and holiday arrangements.

  (e) Flexible working hours [FWH]

  Yes

  FWH system allows staff considerable flexibility in attendance. Staff must attend work at certain (core) times of the day but can start and finish work each day within flexible bands.

  Most staff with a few exceptions e.g. Security Officers. Scheme operates to fit in with business needs.

  (f) Part time working

  Yes

  Since 1976 a wide range of working patterns have been on offer e.g. mid-day working to suite school hours, 2–5 days a week etc. Current 891 individuals are working part time, including staff working a job share pattern (See (g) below).

  Available to all staff subject to operational requirements.

  (g) Job sharing

  Yes

  Available since 1983.

  Available to all staff subject to operational requirements.

  (h) Leave to care for sick children

  Yes

  Up to 3 days special leave available for staff to cope with a short term crisis. Further unpaid leave may also be approved after initial period of paid leave.Available to all parents/guardians. Amount of time allowed dependent upon individual circumstances of each application.

  (i) Homeworking

  No

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  (j) Term time contracts

  No

  Not Applicable

  Not Applicable

  (k) Annual hours contracts

  No

  In 1991 DVLA introduced Permanent Part year Appointments [PPYA]. Staff work first 2 weeks of month for 9 peak months of the year and at other times when required.Subject to operational requirements.

  56
  Letter from Dr. S. J. Ford to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  As DVLA's Chief Executive I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to write to you directly with the details in answer to your Parliamentary Question on a range of employee provisions.

  For ease of reference I have set out the details in the attached table.

  By way of background, you may wish to know that DVLA currently employs some 4,460 staff. Retention of trained, experienced staff helps to ensure that the Agency delivers a professional and efficient service to our customers. Initiatives and conditions which enable staff to combine their work and domestic responsibilities help to reduce loss of expertise. The Agency was named Employer of the Year by the Working Parents Association in 1994 in recognition of its development of family friendly initiatives and provision of support facilities.

  I hope that this is helpful.
  57

  Subject

  Available yes/no

  Current provision

  Eligibility criteria

  (l) Workplace nursery

  Yes

  Opened June 1990 at Agency's Swansea HQ. Caters for children from 3 months–5 years. A holiday playscheme for children aged 4–12 years is also available at the Swansea site during the main school holidays.

  Child places are offered on a first come first served bases. Current fees are £65–68 per week.

  (m) Child care allowances

  Yes

  Since 1994 DVLA staff can apply for reimbursement for reasonable and unavoidable additional child care expenses.To cover expenses incurred because of official duties in excess of normal working week.

  (n) Carers leave

  Yes

  3 days paid special leave available to help staff cope with a short term domestic crisis. It may be supplemented with a period of unpaid special leave.A working carers group which meets monthly was established at Swansea in 1993 to support staff who have additional responsibilities caring for elderly or disabled dependants.All staff are eligible to apply and managers are expected to exercise discretion in deciding the merits of individual cases.

  (o) Career breaks

  No

  Between 1988 and 1994 the Agency offered a Career Break Scheme. This had to be suspended because of difficulty in finding jobs for those who wanted to return at a time of staff surpluses. Reintroduction of the scheme is currently under consideration.

  Dependent on satisfactory attendance, work performance and conduct.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question concerning the flexible working arrangements for employees of Department of Transport executive agencies. The table at Annex A shows the provisions available for Highways Agency employees. We are currently carrying out a survey which includes questions on flexible working patterns so that we can ascertain demand in the Agency and shape our response accordingly.

  Provisions for HA staff are as follows:

  Provisions

  (a) Maternity leave

  Statutory paid and non-paid leave are available together with up to 5 years unpaid child rearing leave.

  (b) Maternity pay

  Statutory Maternity Pay is available.

  (c) Paternity leave

  Fathers may take up to 5 days paternity leave.

  (d) Parental leave

  Line management have discretion to allow staff up to 5 days continuous paid leave to care for children should domestic arrangements break down. Up to 20 days leave is available for an adoptive mother or father.

  (e) Flexible working hours

  Staff may opt to work flexible working hours.

  (f) Part-time work1

  Staff may opt to work part-time. In practice it may take a while to find a part-time post to suit the individual.

  (g) Job sharing1

  Staff may opt to job share. In practice it may take a while to find a job share partner to suit the post.

  (h) Leave to care for sick children

  Line management have discretion to allow staff up to 5 days continuous paid leave to are for sick children. This may be repeated at line management discretion. We would also allow long-term unpaid leave if requested although we could not guarantee a job at the time they wished to return to work.

  58

  Provisions for HA staff are as follows:

  Provisions

  (i) Home working1

  We currently have one person who works from home and we will consider other cases on their merits. We are also considering whether to run a pilot scheme.

  (j) Term-time contracts1

  We are in the process of assessing the demand for this type of flexible working pattern.

  (k) Annual hours contracts

  We do not offer this flexible working pattern but would consider it on request.

  (l) Workplace nurseries

  We do not have workplace nurseries.

  (m) Childcare allowances

  Some funding is available for holiday playschemes and we expect to be able to meet about 50 per cent, of the costs for the Agency (either via the individual or direct to a playscheme) this year.

  (n) Carers' leave1

  Line management have discretion to allow staff up to 5 days continuous paid leave to care for children or elderly or sick relatives should domestic arrangements break down. Staff may also take unpaid leave. In practice, we could not guarantee that a job would be available after a long absence, at the time they wish to return to work.

  (o) Career break schemes1

  Staff may take up to 1 year's career break eg to travel or improve their education. In practice, we cannot guarantee that a job would be available at the time they wish to return to work.

  1 We are currently building up a database of staff interested in part-time, job sharing and other flexible working patterns so that we can assess the need and respond appropriately.

  59
  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Maternity leave.

  The Coastguard Agency has not varied the terms and conditions of employment set out in the Department of Transport Staff Handbook. Copies of which are available to all staff.

  Details on specific areas are covered in the annex attached.

  Maternity Leave

  The rules with regards Maternity leave vary depending on the contract the member of staff has with the Agency and the length of their reckonable service.

  A member of staff with over a years service is entitled to a maximum of 18 weeks paid Maternity leave and a maximum of 34 weeks unpaid leave. However an employee may only take a maximum of 41 weeks leave, paid and unpaid, after the date of birth.

  For staff with over 26 weeks reckonable service but under a year the maximum length of time changes to 18 weeks paid Maternity leave and 22 weeks unpaid leave of which a maximum of 29 weeks can be taken after the birth.

  Staff with less than 26 weeks service 15 weeks before the expected week of birth are entitled to 18 weeks maternity leave, unpaid except for Maternity allowance paid for by Social Security, and a further 11 weeks unpaid.

  Maternity Pay

  An employee is entitled to 18 weeks paid Maternity leave, of which a maximum of 11 can be taken before the birth. This is available if the employee concerned is in paid service at the time the Maternity leave begins, they are not employed on a casual basis, they are not on a fixed term appointment of less than 2 years (unless the contract specifically allows it) and that the employee intends to return to work after the childs birth.

  Paternity Leave

  Fathers of a new born child are entitled to 2 days leave with pay which can be taken at the time of the birth or during the following weeks. A further 3 days leave are allowed in exceptional circumstances.

  Parental Leave

  A break of up to five years unpaid special leave for child rearing is available under the Agency's Career break scheme.

  Flexible Working Hours

  Where it is possible for flexible hours to be worked employees are given the option of working flexible or fixed hours. The scheme is open to both part and full time workers.

  Part-time Working

  The Agency has a number of part time workers and would consider requests from employees to convert to part time hours on a case by case basis. All new posts are advertised as being open to applicants wanting to work full, part time or job share.

  Job-Sharing

  The Agency does not currently employ anyone on a job share but would consider requests on their individual merits. All new posts are advertised as being open to applicants wishing to job share.

  Leave Care for Sick Children

  Special Leave with pay for 1–3 days (5 days in exceptional circumstances) is available for caring for a sick child.

  Home-Working

  The Agency does not have any officers who work on a regular basis from Home but would consider requests from staff on an individual basis.

  Term Time Contracts

  The Agency does not currently employee anyone on a Term Time Contract but would consider any requests on an individual basis.
  60
  Annual Hours Contracts

  The Agency does not currently employee anyone on an Annual Hours Contract but would consider any requests on an individual basis.

  Workplace Nurseries

  The Agency does not have a workplace nursery.

  Childcare Allowances

  The Agency does not pay employees and Childcare allowances.

  Carers' Leave

  1 to 3 days special leave with pay is allowed (up to 5 days in exceptional circumstances) which is intended to enable alternative arrangements to be made. If these cannot be made in this time, special leave without pay may be applied for.

  The Agency will consider every case on its merits and where felt necessary additional special leave with or without pay may be granted.

  Career Break Schemes

  The Agency does not operate a career break scheme, considering each application on its individual merits. The break can be for a maximum of 5 years Special unpaid leave and may be awarded for Child Rearing, Further/Higher Education etc.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27596]

  Mr. Norris
  The following provisions are available to staff in the central transport group of the Department of Transport:

  (a) Maternity leave—minimum of 18 weeks, maximum of 52 weeks—dependent on length of service;

  (b) Maternity pay—staff with at least one years' service staff may receive three months and one weeks' full pay followed by up to a further four weeks statutory maternity pay. Other staff will receive any statutory payments as appropriate;

  (c) Paternity leave—fathers are entitled to two to five days at the discretion of line managers;

  (d) Parental leave—in addition to maternity and paternity leave, the central transport group also offers staff up to one years' leave (mixture of paid and unpaid) for adopting a child and up to 20 days, per year, special leave to enable foster parents to attend meetings etc;

  (e) Flexible working hours—central transport group operates a flexible working hours scheme which is available to staff in most areas of CTG. Staff who work part-time or who may be casual employees are not exempt from working flexible working hours;

  (f) Part-time work—the central transport group aims to agree applications for part-time working where ever possible as a matter of departmental equal opportunities policy;

  (g) Job sharing—where ever possible CTG will aim to agree applications from job shares;

  (h) Leave to care for sick children—line managers may approve up to a maximum of five days' paid special leave may be granted to look after a sick child;

  (i) Home working—the central transport group looks at each application for home working and treats as appropriate;

  (j) Term time contracts—as per (i);

  (k) Annual hours contract—as per (i);

  (l) Workplace nurseries—the central transport group offers places to staff in its Hastings office;

  61

  (m) Child care allowance—where staff incur extra child care costs as a result of departmental business, training courses etc., the central transport group meets such costs;

  (n) Carers' leave—Staff may apply for up to five days' special leave with pay to care for a sick relative. Special leave without pay may be approved when it is necessary for a member of staff to care for elderly or infirm relatives. Special leave without pay for up to 12 months may be granted to a member of staff who has borne heavy domestic responsibilities over a long period.

  (o) Career break—long term special leave without pay, for a period not exceeding five years, is available to staff for reasons including: raising children, accompanying partners abroad, full time study.

  London Underground
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the report of the inquiry into the power failure which occurred on the London underground on 6 April; and if he will make a statement. [27972]

  Mr. Norris
  A report about the electrical failure on the London underground on 6 April will be placed in the Library once the investigation has been completed and a report for publication has been approved by London Underground Ltd. I expect that this will be by the end of this month.

  Contracts
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Trafalgar House plc, (b) BICC plc, (c) HSBC Holdings plc and (d) the General Electric Company plc indicating the date the contract was awarded, its duration, its purpose and the total value of the contracts for each year since 1980. [27970]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Transport in London
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to his Department of(a) organising and (b) publishing the results of his consultation on transport in London. [27971]

  Mr. Norris
  The production of the document "A Transport Strategy for London" cost the Government office for London a total of £18,748. An estimate of the costs of staff time of the officials in the Government office and the Department of Transport who worked on the document would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Pedestrians and Cyclists
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proportion of all journeys under two miles were made(a) by bicycle and (b) by foot, in the UK in each year since 1979; [28215]

  (2) what proportion of all journeys were made by (a) bicycle and (b) foot in the UK in each year from 1979. [28214]

  Mr. Norris
  Figures for journeys are available only for Great Britain and for particular years. They are given in the table.
  62

  Percentage of journeys under 2 miles by bicycle

  Percentage of journeys under 2 miles by foot

  Percentage of all journeys by bicycle

  Percentage of all journeys by foot

  1975–76

  4.5

  67.3

  3.3

  35.3

  1985–86

  3.3

  64.4

  2.4

  34.2

  1989–91

  2.7

  61.1

  1.9

  30.1

  1992–94

  2.3

  60.6

  1.7

  29.1

SCOTLAND

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contracts his Department and his agencies have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26685]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has the following contracts with Serco Ltd.:

  (i) the provision of facilities management services at Victoria quay, Edinburgh at a cost of approximately £1.6 million over five years. The contract will expire on 18 September 2000 but it contains provision for up to two one-year extensions, making the latest possible contract end date 18 September 2002. The Department is entitled to terminate the contract at any time without penalty upon giving six months' notice in writing.

  (ii) the installation and maintenance of traffic information and control systems across the monitoring network in the central belt of Scotland at a total cost of £18 million. The contract was awarded in October 1993, the contract length being two years six months and a three-year maintenance period thereafter which will end in April 1999. Should the department decide to halt the installation there would be no penalties; merely an obligation to meet any costs outstanding or imputed.

  (iii) the maintenance of the Scottish Office electrical and electronic equipment throughout the road network at a cost of £180,000 per annum. The contract will expire in April 1997. The department is entitled to terminate the contract at any time without penalty upon giving 12 months' notice in writing.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in Scotland in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [27415]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Type of birth

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Twins

  2 live

  711

  682

  790

  751

  762

  780

  1 live, 1 stillbirth

  15

  22

  11

  25

  13

  30

  2 stillbirth

  5

  5

  6

  4

  3

  5

  Triplets

  3 live

  14

  18

  15

  10

  16

  27

  2 live, 1 stillbirth

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1 live, 2 stillbirth

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  63

  Type of birth

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Quadruplets

  4 live

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3 live, 1 stillbirth

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Quintuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1provisional.

  Dental Caries (Children)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the five-year-old children in Scotland had dental caries in(a) 1990, (b) 1992 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27403]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A standardised survey on randomly selected samples of children aged five across Scotland found that the mean percentage of five-year-old children for whom there is evidence of caries experience was 59.2 per cent. in 1989–90 and 58.2 per cent. in 1991–92. Figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the basis for his statements of 22 April,Scottish Grand Committee, Official Report, column 10, and Official Report, column 36; and what response he has had from the European Commission in respect of this matter. [27661]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: Since the onset of BSE, we have followed the best available scientific advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and introduced strict controls for the protection of public health. The World Health Organisation has endorsed our actions. All of this is on record. However, despite this independent scientific endorsement of the safety of British beef, the European Commission placed a complete ban on all beef-related exports to any part of the world. It has not offered any scientific justification for this and Commissioner Fischler has publicly stated:
  "I would not hesitate to eat beef in England. I see no medical reason not to."
  There is therefore no alternative valid interpretation to that offered by my right hon. Friend on 22 April.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what written objections he has received to proposals to develop wind farms at West Garty and Gartymore, Sutherland; and if he will make a statement. [27893]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has received a total of 355 letters about proposals to develop wind farms at West Garty and Gartymore, Sutherland. Of these, 10 support the proposal, with 345 opposed to the development. Those in favour cite the positive aspects of green energy whereas those against argue on grounds of environmental impact, noise, visual intrusion and concerns about restoration.

ENVIRONMENT

  EU Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the directives which have affected his Department in each of the past three years and(a) the United Kingdom legislation introduced as a result of the directives, (b) the United Kingdom legislation which goes beyond the minimum standards set out in the directives, and (c) the clauses within each piece of United Kingdom legislation which amplify the minimum standards set out in the directives. [27084]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: The directives which have affected my Department in each of the past three years and the main UK legislation or measures introduced by my Department as a result are shown in the following table. (b) and (c) cannot be answered without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Directive

  Main UK legislation or measure

  1993–94

  87/217/EEC—Prevention of Environmental Pollution by Asbestos

  Direction to the National Rivers Authority (NRA) 1993

  88/379/EEC—Dangerous Preparations— Classification, Packaging and Labelling (CPL)

  The Chemical (Hazard Information and Packaging Regulations) 1993

  89/178/EEC—Dangerous Preparations—CPL— 1 st Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993

  90/492/EEC—Dangerous Preparations—CPL—2nd Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993

  90/517/EEC—Dangerous Substances—CPL—11th Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993

  90/641/Euratom—Ionizing Radiation

  The Ionizing Radiations (Outside Workers) Regulations 1993

  91/l55/EEC—Dangerous Preparation—Safety Data Sheets

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993

  91/325/EEC—Dangerous Substances—CPL—12th Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993

  91/326/EEC—Dangerous Substances—CPL—13th Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993

  91/632/EEC—Dangerous Substances—CPL—15th Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993

  91/322/EEC—Indicative Limit Values

  Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (as amended)

  92/3/Euratom—Shipment of Radioactive Waste

  The Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste Regulations 1993

  92/32/EEC—Dangerous Substances—CPL—7th Amendment

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993; The Notification of New Substances Regulations 1993; The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994

  92/42/EEC—Energy Efficiency of Hot Water Boilers

  The Boiler (Efficiency) Regulations 1993

  92/57/EEC—Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites

  Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994

  92/69/EEC—Annex V Test Methods

  Adopted as an Approved Code of Practice

  92/72/EEC Ozone

  The Ozone Monitoring and Information Regulations 1994

  65

  Directive

  Main UK legislation or measure

  92/72/EEC—Titanium Dioxide Waste

  Direction to the NRA 1994

  93/15/EEC—Placing on the Market and Supervision of Transfer of Explosives for Civil Use (POMSTER)

  The Placing on the Market and Supervision of Transfer of Explosives Regulations 1993

  93/67/EEC—Risk Assessment of New Substances

  The Notification of New Substances Regulations 1993

  93/90/EEC—Dangerous Substances—Exemptions, List of Legislation

  The Notification of New Substances Regulations 1993

  93/105/EEC—Dangerous Substances— TestRequirements for Polymers

  The Notification of New Substances Regulations 1993

  1994–95

  87/101/EEC—amending Directive 75/439/EEC on Waste Oils

  The Waste Management Licencing Regulations 1994

  90/679/EEC—Biological Agents

  Control of Substances Hazardous to Health 1994

  91/156/EEC—amending Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste

  The Waste Management Licencing Regulations 1994; The Waste Management Licencing (amendment etc.) Regulations 1995; The Waste Management Regulations 1996

  91/271/EEC—Urban Waste Water Treatment

  The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994

  91/689/EEC—Hazardous Waste (as amended by 94/31/EC)

  The Special Waste Regulations 1996

  92/43/EEC—Habitats

  The Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) Regulations 1994

  92/37/EEC—Dangerous Substances—CPL— 16th Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994

  92/91/EEC-Extractive Industries, Boreholes

  The Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995; Prevention of Fire and Explosion and Emergency Response Regulations 1995; Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works Regulations 1995; Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction) Regulations 1996

  93/18/EEC—Dangerous Preparations—CPL—3rd Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994

  93/21/EEC Dangerous Substances—CPL—18th Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994

  93/68/EEC—amending inter alia Directive 89/106 on Construction Products

  The Construction Products (amendment) Regulations 1994

  93/72/EEC—Dangerous Substances—CPL—19th Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994

  93/101/EEC—Dangerous Substances—CPL—20th Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994

  93/112/EEC—Dangerous Preparations—Safety Data Sheets Amendment

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994

  94/2/EC—Energy Labelling of Fridges, Freezers and their Combinations

  The Energy Labelling (Refrigerators and Freezers) Regulations 1994

  94/15/EC—amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release of GMOs

  GMO Deliberate Release Regulations 1995

  94/51/EC—amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the Contained Use of GMOs

  GMO Contained Use (Amendment) Regulations 1995 Amendment Regulations 1995

  94/66/EEC—amending Directive 88/609/EEC on Large Combustion Plants

  Direction to HMIP 1995

  66

  Directive

  Main UK legislation or measure

  94/69/EEC-Dangerous Substances—CPL—21 st Adaptation

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1995–96

  91/676/EEC—Nitrates

  The Protection of Water Against Agricultural Nitrate Pollution (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

  92/104/EEC—Extractive Industries, Mines and Quarries

  The Quarries Miscellaneous Health and Safety Provisions Regulations 1995

  92/58/EEC—Safety Signs

  Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996

  95/12/EC—Energy Labelling of Washing Machines

  The Energy Information (Washing Machines) Regulations 1996

  92/13/EC—Energy Labelling of Tumble Driers

  The Energy Information (Tumble Driers) Regulations 1996

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of England in(a) area and (b) population is currently covered by unitary local authorities; and what the figures will be when the changes arising from the proposals of the local government commission have been implemented. [27434]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  At present 11 per cent. of the area and 43 per cent. of the population of England are covered by unitary local authorities, including London boroughs and metropolitan districts. Once all the structural changes which the Government have accepted have been implemented the percentages will be 16 per cent. and 54 per cent. respectively.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions are taking place, and with whom, on the future development of Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement. [27621]

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

  Local Authorities (Out-of-court Payments)
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of out-of-court payments made by local authorities with special reference to the payment by Northumberland county council to a former employee, on the ground of stress in the performance of his job; what assessment he has made of whether such payments are a proper use of public funds; and if he will freeze this payment until it has been examined by the district auditor. [27645]

  Mr. Curry
  Following an award of damages by the courts against Northumberland county council, and prior to an appeal, the county council reached an out-of-court settlement with a former employee which was met by its insurers. The district auditor has no locus as regards payments met by insurers.

  Refuse Tip (Attlebridge)
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the leaking of toxic and infected material from the refuse tip at Attlebridge in Norfolk. [27411]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: Responsibility for ensuring that the site at Attlebridge in Norfolk does not harm human health nor cause pollution of the environment now rests with the Environment Agency. The site is subject to a recent planning application and in view of the appellate role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I cannot comment on the merits of the application.

  Housing (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were on the Coventry city council housing waiting list for each year since 1990; and how many are currently on the waiting list. [27906]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing waiting list at 1 April each year in their annual housing investment programme—HIP—returns.

  The data reported by Coventry city council for each year since 1990 are as follows:

  Number of households on the waiting list

  April 1990

  6,984

  April 1991

  6,851

  April 1992

  8,664

  April 1993

  8,917

  April 1994

  7,690

  April 1995

  6,857

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new(a) social dwellings and (b) specialised social dwellings he estimates Coventry will need in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [27908]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department does not prepare local estimates of the need for new social housing or specialised social homes. It is for local authorities to assess local housing needs and to identify these in their housing strategies.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carer's leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27576]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has a range of policies designed to help staff combine their career and domestic responsibilities. Full details are included in the terms and conditions of staff and set out in the 68
  Department's "Staff Handbook" or other published guidance. In some cases eligibility is statutory or automatic and in others an element of local management discretion is involved. I will write further to the hon. Member with full details and enclose the relevant extracts from the Department's guidance.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27577]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's three executive agencies, the Planning Inspectorate, the Building Research Establishment and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, all provide a range of policies designed to help staff combine their career and domestic responsibilities. In most cases the initiatives follow the terms and conditions adopted for my Department's employees as set out in the Department's "Staff Handbook" and other published guidance. However, there are variations to take account of local circumstances in the individual agencies. I will write further to the hon. Member with the full details of the eligibility criteria and these variations.

  Advertisements (Special Control)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many orders for areas of special control of advertisements have been approved since 1966; [27833]

  (2) how many proposed orders for areas of special control of advertisements have been rejected since 1996, and on what grounds; [27834]

  (3) if he will list the (a) district, (b) borough and (c) national park authority areas where approved areas of special control of advertisements exist, and specify those which are (i) district, (ii) borough and (iii) park-wide in extent. [27835]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. I am writing to the hon. Member with such information as we have.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the area of land covered by approved orders for areas of special control of advertisements, given(a) in total and (b) by district. [27836]

  Mr. Jones
  It is estimated that approximately 50 per cent. of the land area of England and Wales is subject to area of special control of advertisements designation. The area by district is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment if he will list the proposals for new orders for areas of special control of advertisements that he is currently considering. [27837]
  69
  Mr. Jones
  No new orders for areas of special control of advertisements are currently before my right hon. Friend. He is currently considering modifications to existing orders in South Shropshire district council, Enfield London borough council and Vale Royal borough council.

  North Sea (Protection)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the Government's proposals on the implementation of the ministerial declaration of the fourth international conference on the protection of the North sea. [27838]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government are preparing a comprehensive United Kingdom guidance note on the implementation of the fourth North sea conference declaration, as has been the practice after previous North sea conferences. It will be published shortly.

  Rural Development Areas
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list rural development areas, indicating when their boundaries last changed. [28155]

  Mr. Clappison
  A map of the Rural Development Commission's priority rural development areas can be found in the commission's 1995 corporate plan, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The current areas are as follows:

  Cambridgeshire

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  Cumbria

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Durham

  East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire (ex Humberside)

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  North East Derbyshire

  North Yorkshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  North West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire

  Redcar and Cleveland (ex Cleveland)

  Rotherham

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  West Derbyshire

  West Yorkshire

  Wiltshire.

  70
  The commission carried out a comprehensive review of its rural development areas during 1992–93. The current boundaries became effective on 1 April 1994.

  Cetaceans (Protection)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the Government plan to take to protect cetaceans from pollution and other environmental damage; and if he will make a statement. [28126]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government are committed to the protection of the marine environment, and play an active role in international fora aimed of conserving cetacean numbers.

  Although direct evidence of adverse effects from chemical pollution and climate change is scarce, the UK is participating in discussions, initiated by the International Whaling Commission, to consider the effects of both of these processes.

  The Government have also recently played a major role in developing protocols aimed at tackling persistent air borne and land sourced organic pollutants in collaboration with the UN Economic Commission for Europe and the UN environment programme.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of the Rural Development Commission's business advisers in each year since it began. [28148]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Rural Development Commission regionalised its operations and set up dedicated teams of business advisers, working primarily within the commission's priority rural development areas, in 1990. Since 1995 business advisers have operated exclusively in these areas. The cost of business advisers prior to 1990 is contained within the general running costs of the commission and cannot be disaggregated. The commission's expenditure on business advisers in the years 1990–91 to 1995–96 are as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  2.80

  1991–92

  2.31

  1992–93

  2.13

  1993–94

  2.35

  1994–95

  1.82

  1995–96

  0.87

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current value of the Rural Development Commission's small firms loan fund. [28149]

  Mr. Clappison
  The net book value of the commission's loan fund, after allowing for provision of unrecoverable loans, is as follows:

  £ million

  At 31 March 1994

  15.261

  At 31 March 1995

  15.306

  At 31 March 1996

  14.814

  Estimated 31 March 1997

  14.104

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement on challenge funding of local authority capital. [27975]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new rented homes housing associations will be able to start in 1996; and what were the figures for each of the past three years. [28071]

  Mr. Clappison
  Figures covering the last three years showing the number of project approvals made for new housing association rented accommodation in England areas follows:

  Project approvals for rented housing: self contained and shared accommodation

  Housing Corporation HAG funded units

  Local authority HAG funded units

  Total HAG funded units

  1993–94

  43,857

  19,226

  63,083

  1994–95

  39,992

  17,076

  57,068

  1995–96

  23,792

  11,394

  35,186

  These figures cover new rented accommodation provided through a new build and the purchase and rehabilitation of existing properties. In addition, over this period, the Housing Corporation has also approved home ownership incentive schemes which release existing social rented homes for reletting.

  The Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1996–97, which excludes local authority HAG, provides for between 21,300 and 26,100 project approvals for new rented housing in England. In addition, the Housing Corporation estimates that there will be a further 18,500 to 21,700 ADP approvals in 1996–97 including home ownership incentive schemes. Additional lettings will result from local authority support for housing associations.

  Marine Pollution
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government have taken to date to implement the United Nations environment programme's programme of action on land-based sources of marine pollution; and what further action is planned. [28122]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to my written reply of 25 March 1996 to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis),Official Report, column 535.

  Persistent Organic Pollutants
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy in respect of a global ban on persistent organic pollutants. [28125]
  72
  Mr. Clappison
  The United Kingdom 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. Furthermore, the Government support the United Nations environment programme initiative to build on this work to achieve a global, legally binding treaty and will play an active role.

  The development of such protocols, involves the careful identification of potential persistent organic pollutants, their assessment and a consideration of the most appropriate action to take to control the identified risk. This will not always result in a total ban. In some cases, there may be an essential use of a substance which should be preserved, where safer and effective substitutes may not be available. Each substance identified as a persistent organic pollutant will have to be judged on its own merit.

  Business Subsidies
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the grants and loans provided by his Department to businesses, together with the criteria they have to meet in order to obtain the subsidy. [28182]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department provides grants directly to businesses under the following schemes:

  Single regeneration budget challenge fund

  City challenge

  Regional enterprise grant

  Environmental technology innovation scheme (now closed to new applications)

  Small company environmental and energy management assistance scheme

  Grants under the Water Industry Act 1991 towards national security measures in the water industry

  Grants under the Industrial Development Act 1982 towards water and sewerage infrastructure in assisted areas

  Grants under the Water Industry Act 1991 towards rural water and sewerage projects.

  The Department does not provide any loans directly to businesses.

  There are no overarching criteria for the above grant schemes; the criteria for each scheme are dependent on it's individual aims and objectives. However, all recipients have to satisfy the Department that their application offers value for money and that there will be satisfactory controls over the funds received. Any business which would wish to apply for a grant or a loan under one of the above schemes can find out the specific criteria it would need to satisfy by contacting my Department.

  The grants listed are paid directly by the Department of the Environment to businesses. In addition, the Department also funds other bodies, including local authorities and non-departmental public bodies, who will themselves support businesses through grants and loans.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the outcome of the meeting of the United Kingdom round table on sustainable development held on 25 April; and if he will make a statement. [28295]
  73
  Mr. Gummer
  At its 25 April meeting, the round table approved a report on defining a sustainable transport sector, which will be published shortly. It also had a preliminary discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the Green Paper "Transport—The Way Forward" published that day. The meeting agreed to begin work on four new projects:

  intermodal transport, both passenger and freight;

  land use planning controls over energy developments;

  water resources; and

  housing and sustainability.

  On 19 April, the round table published its first annual report. This describes all the work that is completed or under way.

  Packaging
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the European Community directive on packaging and packaging waste will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [28443]

  Mr. Gummer
  As part of its commitment to achieve sustainable development, it is Government policy to encourage the recovery of value from waste wherever that is practicable. To this end it is desirable that more of the real environmental costs of waste production and disposal should be borne by the producers of that waste directly. This creates a stronger market incentive for companies both to reduce waste in the first place, and then to find cost effective ways of recycling or otherwise recovering unavoidable waste. The Government's objective should be to establish a policy framework within which the efficiency and innovativeness of the market can be harnessed to solve environmental problems. Producer responsibility does that; it makes the market work to the benefit of the environment.

  Industries concerned with packaging—those who manufacture and use the packaging which ends up as waste, including retailers—have been particularly resourceful in their response to the challenge of producer responsibility. Eight million tonnes of packaging waste are produced each year, and in response to the Government's invitation the industry's producer responsibility group put forward its own proposals to recover and recycle 58 per cent. of United Kingdom's packaging waste by 2001. It proposed that this should be achieved through the creation of one or more industry financed and managed organisations which would invest in a variety of waste recovery projects. The prototype recovery organisation is now being established as VALPAK. However the industry made clear that these schemes would be established only if there were effective legislation to deter free riders. The Government accepted this industry view and invited comments on a range of possible legal obligations which could achieve a framework in which competing companies could operate and which would enable the Government to implement the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste.

  In responding to the different options for a legal obligation, the great majority of business organisations indicated a strong belief that the primary objective of meeting the UK's recovery and recycling targets could be secured only if all the major players had an incentive to
  74
  co-operate through a shared legal obligation. This would also create the most favourable conditions for formation of cross-sectoral collective industry schemes, which many businesses have indicated is their preferred approach to meeting these targets.

  Further work took place to develop a form of shared approach which could both provide assurance to Government that the necessary targets would be met while also providing an acceptable basis for apportioning the obligation between the different stages of the packaging chain. Final agreement on such a basis and its supporting principles was achieved on 15 December 1995 at a meeting chaired by Sir Peter Parker and attended by 30 of the leading businesses involved.

  This has not been the approach in some other EU member states. Some have proposed a packaging tax and others have legislated for a "take back" requirement upon shops and business premises to receive back from consumers all of the sales packaging around products sold. These approaches provide less flexibility for affected businesses and do little to create the new markets for recycled materials which is essential in the long term. Indeed some schemes in some other states have had a damaging impact on reprocessing and manufacturing activity in the UK and the rest of the Union and it was for that reason that industry pressed for a single market framework which we then successfully negotiated in the form of the directive.

  By contrast with some of these other approaches, the UK Government place a high priority on implementing producer responsibility in a way which the UK industry itself feels can be operated effectively. This will help to minimise the burden upon individual companies, maximise their freedom to choose how to meet their targets, and thereby make our environmental objectives more readily attainable.

  I am therefore announcing today that the Government have accepted the industry view that a shared legal obligation is the right way forward. I am now satisfied that this approach will enable us to meet the environmental standards which people increasingly expect industry to adopt, which our national commitment to sustainable development requires of us, and which would achieve the flexible targets which we successfully negotiated within the EU' s packaging directive. In the near future I propose to publish draft regulations under the Environment Act 1995 that will give effect to 15 December agreement and to guide this process I recently asked Sir Peter Parker to chair an advisory committee comprising some of the senior business representatives most closely involved in developing producer responsibility for packaging. I am announcing separately the terms of reference, membership and initial tasks of the advisory committee and its future role in monitoring and reviewing the operation of the regulations.

  In the light of the work already undertaken by the committee on implementation of the 15 December agreement, I propose to include in the draft regulations the following elements:

  (i) A method of calculation of individual business or scheme obligations. Any business covered by the regulations will need to be able to work out what its recycling and recovery obligation would be, so as to decide whether to perform that

  75
  on its own or join a collective scheme. The business would need to measure the tonnage of packaging which it manufactures or fills or sells or supplies. It would then apply the following percentages which, on current data and assumptions, are consistent with the 15 December agreement.

  Per cent.

  Packaging raw material manufacture

  6

  Conversion

  11

  Packing and filling

  36

  Retailing/supplying

  47

  Importers would be treated on a comparable basis.

  (ii) A phased approach to meeting the targets:

  an initial requirement, from 1996, for businesses or collective schemes to provide data and information to the Environment Agency;

  a second stage requirement, from 1998, to provide evidence that recycling and recovery is being achieved, initially to 1998 targets and then the full directive targets in 2001.

  (iii) A cut off by which businesses using less than 50 tonnes packaging a year would be exempt from the quantified legal obligation (it is estimated that 90 per cent. of businesses—which account for less than 10 per cent. of total packaging—would be below this threshold). Further consideration is being given to other means by which such businesses could help to contribute to higher levels of recycling and recovery.

  This approach is intended to give businesses as much flexibility as possible, particularly in the early years, and create confidence that the targets will be achieved. In consulting on the regulations we will be seeking further business views on costs and practicality of the systems proposed so as to minimise compliance costs and limit the regulatory framework to the minimum.

  The industry now needs to turn its attention to developing more detailed plans for the formation of industry-led collective exemption schemes, such as VALPAK. Such schemes will need to satisfy UK and EC competition criteria. Many, if not most, businesses will no doubt continue to feel that participation in such schemes provides the simplest and cheapest means of meeting their obligations.

  The producer responsibility initiative marks important new ground in environmental policy-making and provides a remarkable example of effective Government-industry collaboration. A shared approach to our national war on waste will boost recycling across the country, foster many new ways of putting waste to work and maximise our recovery of scarce resources. A new market will be created, and the environment will be a chief beneficiary. I pay tribute to the many individuals and companies from all sectors of the packaging chain who by rising to this demanding challenge have played an important part in putting the nation on the path to sustainable development.

  Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much expenditure was incurred by(a) the Housing Corporation and (b) the local authority in relation to each of the proposals for a transfer of tenanted council housing in Torquay to another landlord since 1988; and what were the numbers and percentages of tenants voting (i) for and (ii) against each proposal. [11714]
  76
  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 January, Official Report columns 578–79]: The figure for the Housing Corporation's total grant spend on the Torbay Tenants' housing association should have been £1,869,306, less repayments of £49,074, giving a net figure of £1,820,232.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the tenants' advice scheme set up under part IV of the Housing Act 1988 with particular reference to(a) setting up costs incurred by his Department and the Housing Corporation, (b) publicity and promotional expenditure, (c) annual revenue expenditure incurred by the Housing Corporation in each year since 1988, (d) grants to tenants organisations and others and (e) any other expenditure. [11715]

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply 29 January, Official Report column 579]: The figure for the Housing Corporation's total grant spend in support of tenants' choice cases should have been £4,203,574, less repayments of £76,381, given a net total of £4,127,193.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [27582]

  (2) what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-timework, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27583]

  Mr. Howard
  These provisions are set out in the departmental staff handbook—a copy of which is in the Library—which details conditions of service for all Home Office employees, apart from those in the Prison Service. A staff handbook will be issued shortly for Prison Service employees. There is no written guidance on term-time or annual hours contracts, but these would be considered, subject to operational requirements, as the need arose.

  Immigration Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was paid to consultants Touche Ross to evaluate the immigration services staff rotas; and if he will make a statement. [27924]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Fees payable to private sector consultants by the public services are treated as commercial confidential and are not normally disclosed.

  Prison Staff (Convictions)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (i) prison governors and (ii) prison officers have convictions for(a) indecent assault, (b) other crimes against the person and (c) other offences; and if he will make a statement. [27448]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 April 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the 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. Roger Berry dated 7 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to your recent Question about prison governors and prison officers convicted of criminal offences.

  Centrally held figures relate to the period since 1990. The figures set out in the table below relate to convictions over the period March 1990 to March 1996.

  Staff currently serving

  Indecent assault

  Other crimes against the person

  Other offences

  Prison governors

  1

  0

  1

  Prison officers

  0

  14

  108

  The Prison Service takes the conviction of any of its staff for any criminal offence very seriously and can take action under its own code of conduct and discipline. Where a member of staff is found guilty of a serious offence, the normal outcome would be dismissal from the Service. Lesser offences may also, depending on the circumstances, result in dismissal or may result in other penalties such as written warnings, loss of promotion opportunities or pay.

  In the cases listed, the 'other crimes against the person' are all cases of actual bodily harm. These offences largely relate to domestic disputes. 'Other offences' include first time drink/driving convictions, speeding, fishing without a licence, letting a dog worry sheep etc.

  Departmental Posts (Losses)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many posts he estimates will be lost at the Home Office during the next three financial years; from which units they will come; and if he will make a statement. [27929]

  Mr. Howard
  Planned staff numbers in the Home Office and its agencies are set out in annex 4 of my Department's annual report CM 3208 published in March, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Permanent staff numbers are projected to fall by 1,045 between 1995–96 and 1998–99, of which 705 are in the Prison Service.

  Proxy Votes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has assessed on the abuse of proxy votes; and if he will make a statement. [27862]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no recent evidence to suggest that abuse of the proxy voting system is either systematic or widespread. Application forms relating to absent votes were amended in 1994; electors now have to indicate 78
  clearly whether they are applying to vote by post or by proxy, and all appointments of a proxy must be signed by the elector.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the areas where Doncaster prison has performed to a higher standard than other private prisons since it opened. [27614]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the 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. Martin Redmond, dated 7 May 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 areas where Doncaster prison has performed to a higher standard in relation to the other contracted-out prisons.

  There is no proposal to make a qualitative evaluation of Doncaster prison's performance against that of any of the other contractually-managed prisons. This is because the factors that influence performance, which include size, function and population mix, are such as to make direct comparison difficult.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the key performance indicators for the running of Doncaster prison; and if he will list the statistics in respect of which performance indicators have been met since the prison opened. [27617]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the 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. Martin Redmond, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, to reply to your recent Question about key performance indicators for the running of Doncaster prison.

  Key performance indicators are specified in the contract, relating to the following areas of operation:

  (1) Escapes from the prison. The contract requires that there should be no more than two by the end of the first year of operation, and no more than one in each subsequent year. There was one escape from Doncaster prison in the first year of operation, and there has been none since.

  (2) Escapes from escort. The contract requires that there should be no more than eight escapes from escort in any of the first three years of the contract. There have been no escapes.

  (3) Time out of cell. The requirement of a minimum 12 hours per day for prisoners on normal location has been met.

  (4) Positive regimes. The contract requires the availability of at least 12 hours of regime activities, including education, for prisoners on normal location, and also the availability of at least 6 hours per week of education and training for adult prisoners, and 15 for young prisoners under 17. These targets have been achieved.

  (5) Visits. The contract requirement is for the statutory minimum for visits as set out in Prison Rules. This requirement has been exceeded at Doncaster prison.

  (6) Grievances. The contract requires that 90 per cent of grievances capable of resolution at prison level, be resolved within seven working days. The level achieved for the first contractual year was 95 per cent, and the level for the current contractual year is running at 100 per cent.

  79

  (7) Assaults. The contract required no more than 148 assaults on prisoners, and no more than 77 assaults on staff by the end of the first year of operation. For the second year, a level of 215 assaults has been set. The total number of assaults for the first contractual year was 221, and is projected to be 154 for the current year.

  In addition to the contractual requirements, the performance of Doncaster prison is measured against the Service-wide key performance indicators. These figures are provided in the Prison Service Annual Reports.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the security cameras currently operating at Doncaster prison are constantly monitored; how many officers are on duty per shift monitoring the security camera; how many security cameras are in operation at any one time; and for how long the videotape recordings made by the cameras are stored. [27618]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the 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. Martin Redmond, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about whether the security cameras currently operating at Doncaster prison are constantly monitored; how many officers are on duty per shift monitoring the security cameras; how many security cameras are in operation at any one time; and for how long the videotape recordings made by the camera are stored.

  The security cameras are constantly monitored and have videotape facilities. Doncaster prison holds high risk prisoners and I am sure that you will understand that to provide the remaining information which you have requested might prejudice security at the prison.

  Prison Service Health Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature of all(a) medical and (b) health care research currently being undertaken within the Prison Service for each United Kingdom prison. [27616]

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

  Letter from Brian Landers to Mr. Martin Redmond dated 7 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about (a) medical and (b) health care research currently being undertaken within the Prison Service for each United Kingdom prison.

  The Directorate of Health Care for the Prison Service in England and Wales holds a central register of medical and health care research receiving central support and approved by the independent Prison Service Health Research Ethics Committee. The attached list sets out the centrally approved and supported projects recorded on the central database as currently in progress.

  Information on local studies, approved by the governor of an establishment and a recognised Research Ethics Committee, is not notified to the Directorate of Health Care in all cases and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  The situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective Departments.
  80
  Prison Service Health Research Ethics Committee approved Medical and Health Care Research Projects receiving central funding

  Assessment of the needs and best management of severely behaviourially disturbed young offenders at Aylesbury young offenders institution;

  Evaluation of a pilot scheme for the contracting-our of Genito-Urinary Medicine services to the NHS by Wormwood Scrubs, Brixton and Wandsworth prisons;

  Evaluation of the drugs rehabilitation programmes implemented in 22 prisons under phase 1 of the Prison Service Strategy for Drugs;

  Analysis of the doctor patient relationship in the prison setting. Four sample prisons are in the process of selection;

  Assessment of throughcare arrangements and needs for prisoners with a history of mental illness discharged from prison direct to the community—Yorkshire prisons;

  Evaluation of a project jointly funded by the Department of Health and the MACA for development of care plans prior to release of mentally disordered prisoners—Leicestershire prisons;

  A study into the effect of the application of section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This involves central records without the direct involvement of establishments.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that have been rendered free of illegal drugs following the implementation of Government policy; and if he will make a statement. [27620]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the 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. Torn Cox, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about prisons in England and Wales that have been rendered free of illegal drugs following the implementation of Government policy.

  Mandatory drug testing has been implemented in all prisons, on schedule, by 31 March. The data it will yield will provide, over time, a good indicator of the level and patterns of drug misuse in prisons. But, because the random testing programme involves the testing of only 10 per cent. of a prison's population each month, even when all these tests prove negative it will not be safe to claim that a prison is free of drug misuse.

  Prison Service Budget
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the chief inspector of prisons about the planned reductions in the prison service budget; and what action he has taken in response. [27858]

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

  Letter from Brian Landers to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about representations from the Chief Inspector of Prisons about the planned reductions in the Prison Service budget; and what action has been taken in response.
  81
  There are regular contacts between the Chief Inspector, Home Office Ministers and the Prison Service on a wide range of issues, including cost reduction, which affect the Service as a whole and individual prison establishments. The Director General has told Sir David Ramsbotham that he has advised governors of the importance of maintaining the balance between essential security and control measures, constructive and effective regimes for prisoners and providing support for staff. The emphasis is on reducing costs and not reducing the amount of purposeful activity for prisoners; and resources should continue to be given to those programmes which help prisoners to address their offending behaviour.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time served by prisoners who have received mandatory life sentences before release on licence. [27717]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales",—table 8.5 of the 1994 edition, (Cm 3087). A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department or agencies' buildings partly, or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27726]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office assumed accountability for all the offices in which it had occupations, including any vacant space therein from 1 April 1996. Prior to this date, the whole of the Government common user (office) estate—CUE—in which Government Departments were housed was owned by Property Holdings. The part of the question requesting figures for the last five financial years is, therefore, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  As at 1 April 1996, the Home Office had no totally unoccupied office buildings, and only 10 with some vacant space. This vacant space amounted to 92,429 sq ft which comprised less than 1 per cent. of the total Home Office non-prison estate. The estimated annual rental cost of this vacant space is £205,000.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money his Department spent on advertising campaigns to recruit special constables in each year from 1991–92 to 1995–96. [28204]

  Mr. Howard
  Expenditure by the Home Office on advertising to recruit special constables in each year from 1991–92 to 1995–96 was as follows:

  Financial year

  £000

  1991–92

  875

  1992–93

  1,060

  1993–94

  1,460

  1994–95

  2,800

  1995–96

  2,300

  Prisoners (Education and Training)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of education and training for prisoners have been budgeted for in the Prison Service in the current financial year. [27924]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 7 May 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 hours of education and training budgeted for in the current financial year.

  Each prison governor has a single budget for the running of the establishment. The allocation of funds will be determined by local circumstances, reflected in the business plan agreed with the area manager. Governors have been asked to report their initial spending plans for 1996–97 to the Prison Service Financial Support Section, and a preliminary forecast of the anticipated expenditure on education and training should be available towards the end of May or in early June.

  Governors purchase teacher contact hours from their education provider at an agreed price per teacher contact hour. Contract prices are unique to each establishment, and the price per contract hour depends on the number of teacher contact hours ordered. There are also discount arrangements in some circumstances. It is, therefore, not possible to forecast the number of teaching hours to be ordered from the preliminary forecast of expenditure.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were on remand at the latest available date categorised by their alleged offences. [28109]

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

  Letter from Brian Landers to Mr. Ian Pearson, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners were on remand at the latest available date, categorised by their alleged offences.

  Provisional information on the number of remand prisoners held in Prison Service establishments on 31 March 1996, by offence, is given in the attached table.

  Population of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 31 March 19961; by offence

  Number

  Violence against the person

  2,105

  Sexual offences

  514

  Burglary

  2,118

  Robbery

  1,086

  Theft and handling

  1,636

  Fraud and forgery

  188

  Drugs offences

  1,109

  Other offences

  1,578

  Offence not recorded

  678

  All offences

  11,012

  1 Figures are provisional.

  Grants and Loans
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the grants and loans provided by his Department to businesses, together with the criteria they have to meet in order to obtain the subsidy. [28190]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department does not make grants and loans to businesses in the private sector.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill (Small Firms)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the extra work that will be imposed on small firms by measures in the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [28150]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We do not expect that our proposals on the prevention of illegal working will affect small businesses disproportionately. We intend to keep the burden on all employers to a minimum, and will have this in mind in the preparation of guidance. The responses to our consultation document and compliance cost assessment lead us to think that the compliance costs for small business will, in the main, be minimal.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish further details of his proposals for the sentencing and supervision of mentally disordered offenders as set out in chapter 8 of the White Paper, "Protecting the Public: the Government's Strategy on Crime in England and Wales." [28462]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library copies of a consultation document, "Mentally Disordered Offenders: Sentencing and Discharge Arrangements". The consultation period on the document lasts until 30 June 1996.

  Terrorism (Video Cameras)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received recommendations from the City of London police to site video cameras at Stranraer, Holyhead and Fishguard, as part of security operations to counter the Provisional IRA; and what plans he has to commission video cameras at these points. [27240]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 1 May 1996]: Advice on the introduction of closed circuit television cameras at ports across the country has been provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers, not the city of London police. Funding and guidance on the installation of CCTV has been provided by the ACPO advisory group since June 1994, and cameras were operational at Stranraer, Holyhead and Fishguard by March 1995.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 184, from whom the Licencing Authority received a manuscript of the transnational study before the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines of 13 October 1995. [28436]

  Mr. Malone
  I have been asked to reply.
  84
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995, columns 1149 and 1153.

  Raffle Tickets
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of commercial companies that print and sell tickets and otherwise administer draws and raffles on behalf of registered charities. [27336]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  Responsibility for charities and the voluntary sector was passed from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage on 1 May 1996.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the response of the United Kingdom and the EU to the report of the UN rapporteur on religious intolerance, Mr. Abdel Fattah Amor, on the execution of Protestant leaders in Iran; what has been the outcome to this response; and if he will make a statement. [27856]

  Mr. Hanley
  We welcome Mr. Amor's report. Our views on the trial of those accused of killing the three Christian pastors in Iran were set out in my reply of 4 December 1995. In the light of Mr. Amor's report and the reports of the UN special rapporteur, Mr. Hussain, and the UN special representative, Mr. Copithorne, the European Union co-sponsored a resolution critical of Iran at the UN Commission on Human Rights. The resolution, adopted on 24 April 1996, expressed concern at Iran's failure to meet international standards on the administration of justice and the lack of adequate protection for Christian minorities. We will continue to maintain pressure on Iran to do more to protect the rights of religious minorities.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had, and with which bodies, on the Council of Europe Cuco report on the Turkish settlers living in occupied northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [27619]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have had no discussions on this report since exchanging views at the Council of Europe Ministers' Deputies meetings in December 1992 and March 1993.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had, and with whom, regarding the military airfield in Turkish-occupied Cyprus at Lefkoniko; and what use is made of this airfield. [27635]
  85
  Mr. Davis
  None. Lefkoniko is not a military airfield. It is a small civil airport used for one month each year when the main airport in northern Cyprus is closed for repair and renovation, or when flights are diverted.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what replies he has received from the high commissioner in Cyprus on the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist party in the Turkish Cypriot-occupied area of northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [27897]

  Mr. Davis
  In early December 1995, there were reports in the Turkish Cypriot press of plans to found an Islamic party. We have seen no evidence that such a party has been established.

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department or agencies' buildings partly, or fully occupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27728]

  Mr. Hanley
  The square footage and cost, including VAT, of rented space, by both wings of the FCO and its agencies in the United Kingdom over the last five financial year are as follows:

  Square footage

  Cost £

  1991–92

  357774

  9,759,695.90

  1992–93

  357774

  9,759,695.90

  1993–94

  357774

  10,137,292.12

  1994–95

  362924

  9,729,174.43

  1995–96

  355327

  9,161,664.81

  The FCO also occupies Crown freehold properties. None of the leased buildings were partially or totally unoccupied during the period.

  Russia
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Russian Government about the use of the death penalty in that country. [28120]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made no representation to the Russian Government about the use of the death penalty. It is an issue we continue to monitor closely.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had and with whom on elections in the Indian-occupied area of Kashmir, with particular reference to(a) the involvement of the military forces now stationed in this area and (b) the quality of the candidates; and if he will make a statement. [28024]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have had discussions with a wide range of people, including officials, Members of 86
  Parliament and others on the various aspects of the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Jammu and Kashmir. The need to develop a genuine political process remains an important part our long-standing policy on Kashmir. Elections can contribute to that process.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the British high commissioners for India and Pakistan regarding the proposed elections to take place in Indian-controlled Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [27946]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our high commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad report regularly on developments concerning Kashmir, including the forthcoming parliamentary election. I discussed Kashmir with them during my recent visits to India and Pakistan.

  British Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy concerning the British Council; and if he will make a statement. [28073]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to my closing statement in the Adjournment debate on the British Council in 1 May,Official Report, columns 1097–1102.

  Ambassadorial Posts (Women)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of women in ambassadorial posts in(a) 1986, (b) 1991 and (c) on the latest available figures. [27375]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of women in ambassadorial posts is as follows:

  (a) 1986: 1

  (b) 1991: 2

  (c) 1996: 8.

  Senior Departmental Posts (Women)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policies adopted by his Department in order to encourage more women into senior positions within his Department. [27376]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have an action programme in place to ensure equality of access to recruitment, training, career development and promotion for all women. Graduate recruitment into the fast stream is particularly targeted to help redress the under-representation of women at senior grade level, and 57 per cent. of the 1995 fast stream intake were women. We encourage the retention of women through a number of initiatives including flexible/part-time work, job sharing, career breaks of up to five years, subsidised nursery facilities and holiday play schemes for school children. The FCO has been a member of the national opportunity 2000 campaign since 1992.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision is available
  87
  to employees of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27578]

  Mr. Hanley
  Provisions of employees of the FCO and its executive agencies are as follows.

  (a) Maternity leave and (b) Maternity pay

  There are three elements:

  Paid maternity leave (MATL)

  Statutory maternity pay (SMP)

  Unpaid maternity leave (MUPL)

  Three months plus one week on full salary, in one continuous period to include the date of confinement, the criteria being that the officer:

  is not employed on a casual, standby or short notice appointment, or on a fixed-term appointment of less than two years

  has been employed by the civil service for at least one year and is not on extended unpaid leave immediately before maternity leave would start

  intends to return to work after the confinement agrees in writing to repay payments for maternity leave if she does not return to work.

  SMP

  Paid for 18 weeks, although for those eligible for MATL 14 weeks of this would be offset by full pay, providing the officer is serving in the United Kingdom.

  MUPL

  An officer may take unpaid maternity leave subject to the total period of MATL, SMP and MUPL not exceeding 52 weeks. In addition employees can apply for further special unpaid leave up to a maximum of five years.

  (c) Paternity leave

  Two days to be taken at the time of confinement, or during the weeks immediately afterwards.

  (d) Parental leave

  Special leave with pay may be authorised to arrange an adoption and care for a newly adopted child.

  (e) Flexible working hours

  A flexible working hours—FWH—scheme is in operation, though not in overseas posts.

  In the FCO heads of Department have discretion to operate the scheme in their Department or in sections of it. Any established or casual—minimum three months' contract—non-industrial member of staff can opt to join an operating FWH scheme.

  In the Overseas Development Administration, a FWH scheme is available to all permanent UK staff.

  (f) Part-time work and (g) Job sharing

  Both are available to all staff serving in the UK and any requests are considered within the constraints of operational requirements.

  (h) Leave to care for sick children

  Up to one week's leave may be granted for the short-term care at home of sick children. For longer-term care staff can apply for up to 5 years' special unpaid leave.

  88

  (i) Home working

  Home working is permitted; each application is considered individually, taking account of the reasons for the request, security implications and operational requirements.

  (j) Term time contracts and (k) Annual hours contracts

  No such contracts are in operation.

  (l) Workplace nurseries

  The FCO subsidises 10 places at a nursery run by the Westminster Children's Society for children from 6 months to 5 years. There is an on-site nursery at the FCO's Hanslope park site. The FCO and ODA use the Westminster holiday playscheme for children from five to 12 years. The ODA provides one of the sites for the holiday playscheme but does not offer nursery provision. The ODA's Scottish headquarters operates a playscheme for children aged five to 14 years.

  (m) Child care allowances

  In the FCO child care allowances are not paid to staff serving in the UK. For staff serving overseas there is an element in the cost of living and representational allowances to compensate for any increased childcare costs. The level of provision is calculated by an allowances inspector on the basis of local costs and the needs of the job.

  In the ODA officers can claim reimbursement of additional child care expenses necessarily incurred as a result of their: attending a residential training courses; travelling for the office on a short-term visit; or attending a training course on a day on which they do not usually work.

  (n) Carers' leave

  Up to one week's leave may be granted for the serious illness of a relative or dependent, or for the short-term care at home of a close relative or dependent. For longer-term care staff can apply for up to five years' special unpaid leave.

  (o) Career break schemes

  Special unpaid leave for a maximum of five years in aggregate. Each application is considered on its merits.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27579]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer.

  Turkey (Human Rights)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the steps that he thinks the UN Commission on Human Rights should be taking to address the continuing instance of human rights violations in Turkey. [27694]

  Mr. David Davis
  The presidency statement at the UN Commission on Human Rights, to which we contributed, including a number of steps which we hope the Turkish Government will take to improve the human rights situation in Turkey. Agreement to fix a date for the visits by the special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights is among these.

  Yugoslavia (Diplomatic Relations)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the recent appointment of a British ambassador in Belgrade; and when he expects a Yugoslav ambassador to the UK to be in post. [27969]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom recognised the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—FRY—on 9 April 1996. We have now appointed our chargé d'affaires in Belgrade as ambassador. We expect the FRY to appoint an ambassador to the UK shortly.

  Grants and Loans
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the grants and loans provided by his Department to businesses, together with the criteria they have to meet in order to obtain the subsidy. [28188]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have provided no grants or loans to businesses.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Foulridge Wharf Bridge
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the canal bridge at Foulridge wharf as forming part of a heritage museum site. [27170]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend has decided to accept the advice of English Heritage, her statutory advisers on listing matters, that this bridge is not of special architectural or historic interest and she will not therefore be adding it to the statutory list.

  Lottery Funding (Southwark)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the projects within the London borough of Southwark that have received funding from each of the national lottery funds. [27426]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, 19 awards totalling £63.6 million have been made to projects within the London borough of Southwark. The information is contained in the following table:

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Amount

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  William Penn Steel Band

  29,357.00

  Arts

  16 October 1995

  Shakespeare's Globe Trust

  12,400,000.00

  Arts

  23 November 1995

  Opera Factory

  41,470.00

  Arts

  6 February 1996

  Bankside Gallery Ltd.

  17,000.00

  Arts

  6 February 1996

  Strathcona Theatre Company

  44,059.00

  Arts

  11 April 1996

  Method and Madness

  411,375.00

  MC

  30 October 1995

  Tate Gallery of Modern Art

  50,000,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  12th Camberwell Scouts

  27,406.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Amott Road Pre-School Nursery

  800.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Bird in the Bush Community Centre

  21,414.00

  90

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Amount

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Dachwyng Supplementary School

  12,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Downtown Community Project

  30,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Edward Henry Housing Co-op

  4,500.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Elephant Jobs Charity

  57,850.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Pelican Estate Tenants and Residents Association

  5,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Southwark Victim Support scheme

  25,500.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  The Lorrimore

  172,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  The Southwark Branch of Arthritis Care

  3,000.00

  Sports

  6 December 1995

  London Borough of Southwark

  350,000.00

  Totals

  (19 awards)

  63,652,731.00

  Greenwich Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much national lottery funding has been allocated to the Greenwich millennium exhibition project by each of the funds. [27428]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Millennium Commission has announced, in principle, a commitment of up to £200 million in lottery grant to the exhibition; the remaining capital and operating cost will be raised from other sources.

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the space footage and cost of office space rented by her Department and its agencies and the number of her Department or agencies' buildings partly, or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27733]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department and its agencies fully occupy 97,670 sq ft. of office square on which we will pay £520,857 in respect of service charges for the year 1996–97. The rents paid for Government offices are a commercial in confidence matter between the Government and their landlords

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has evaluated of(a) BSE being hereditary and (b) BSE infecting land; and if he will make a statement. [23562]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 3 April 1996]: MAFF has funded research into the possible heritability of BSE. Details of this study have been published as "A study of the inheritance of susceptibility to bovine spongiform encephalopathy" by Wijeratne W. V. S. and Curnow R. N., in The Veterinary Record in 1990, vol. 126, p5–8, and "The incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the progeny of affected sires and dams" by R. N. Curnow

  91
  and C. M. Hau, in The Veterinary Record on 27 April 1996, p407–408. Investigation of any association between bulls used in artificial insemination and incidence of BSE in offspring has also been carried out. This work is an ongoing part of the epidemiological monitoring, and has not identified any evidence of heritability. It has been published in part in "Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Related Diseases—An Epidemiological Overview" by J. Wilesmith, in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 1994, vol. 42, p1–8. No heritable mutations that result in spontaneous or heritable BSE have been identified in bovines.

  There is no evidence of any link between BSE transmission and possibly contaminated land. Were this to occur, it would be seen as horizontal transmission of the disease from cattle to cattle. This is not seen. Details of this work was published in The Veterinary Record on 1 April 1995, p312 Hoinville et al. A copy of the paper was also annexed to the May 1995 progress report to Parliament, which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce the Narang test to identify cattle infected with BSE before they are destroyed. [25909]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 26 April 1996, Official Report, column 325.

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many BSE-infected cow carcases have been dumped in the Attlebridge tip in Norfolk. [27410]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: Approximately 360 carcases of BSE suspect animals were disposed of at the Attlebridge tip between September 1988 and December 1990. No carcases have been disposed there since 1990. Only three BSE carcases have been disposed of by burial since the end of 1991; these were all on remote sites where the preferred option—incineration in specialist plant—was not practicable.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost of the slaughter of cattle of five years old and above in herds in Scotland which have had an incidence of BSE. [23364]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I have been asked to reply. It is estimated that there are just over 149,000 animals aged five years or above in Scotland in herds which have an incidence of BSE. Slaughtering animals alone at a cost of about £50 per head would cost around £7.5 million. More substantial would be the economic costs to the meat and dairy industries and compensation to farmers for losses of stock and replacement.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the directives which have affected his Department in each of the past three years and(a) the United Kingdom legislation introduced as a result of the directive, (b) the United Kingdom legislation which goes beyond the minimum standards set out in the
  92
  directive and (c) the clauses within each piece of United Kingdom legislation which amplify the minimum standards set out in the directive. [27081]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: The directives made in the years 1993 to 1995 and involving the Ministry's policy responsibilities are as follows:

  1993

  93/1/EEC, 93/5/EEC, 93/8/EEC, 93/9/EEC, 93/10, EEC, 93/17/EEC, 93/19/EEC, 93/23/EEC, 93/24/EEC, 93/25/EEC, 93/26/EEC, 93/27/EEC, 93/28/EEC, 93/35/EEC, 93/40/EEC, 93/43/EEC, 93/45, EEC, 93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC, 93/50/EEC, 93/51/EEC, 93/52/EEC, 93/53/EEC, 93/54/EEC, 93/55/EEC, 93/56/EEC, 93/57/EEC, 93/58/EEC, 93/60/EEC, 93/61/EEC, 93/62/EEC, 93/64/EEC, 93/66/EEC, 93/69/EEC, 93/70/EEC, 93/71/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/77/EEC, 93/78/EEC, 93/79/EEC, 93/85/EEC, 93/99/EEC, 93/102/EEC, 93/106/EEC, 93/107/EEC, 93/110/EEC, 93/111/EEC, 93/113, EEC, 93/114, EEC, 93/117/EEC, 93/118/EEC, 93/119/EEC, 93/120/EEC, 93/121/EEC.

  1994

  94/13/EC, 94/I4/EC, 94/15/EC, 94/16/EC, 94/17/EC, 94/28/EC, 94/29/EC, 94/30/EC, 94/34/EC, 94/35/EC, 94/36/EC, 94/37/EC, 94/39/EC, 94/40/EC, 94/41/EC, 94/42/EC, 94/43/EC, 94/50/EC, 94/51/EC, 94/52/EC, 94/54/EC, 94/59/EC, 94/64/EC, 94/65/EC, 94/70/EC, 94/77/EC.

  1995

  95/2/EC, 95/4/EC, 95/5/EC, 95/6/EC, 95/8/EC, 95/9/EC, 95/10/EC, 95/11/EC, 95/29/EC, 95/31/EC, 95/33/EC, 95/35/EC, 95/36/EC, 95/37/EC, 95/38/EC, 95/39/EC, 95/40/EC, 95/4 I/EC, 95/42/EC, 95/44/EC, 95/45/EC, 95/52/EC, 95/53/EC, 95/61/EC, 95/65/EC, 95/66/EC, 95/68/EC, 95/69/EC, 95/70/EC, 95/71/EC, 95/212/EC, 95/498/EC.

  The cost of providing the other information sought would be disproportionate.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations the Government have made to the intergovernmental conference about reforming the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. [27499]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's approach to the 1996 intergovernmental conference was set out in the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations". This explained that efforts to secure further reforms of the common agricultural policy would continue in parallel with the intergovernmental conference since such reforms do not require treaty change. The White Paper also made clear the Government's determination to achieve improvements in the operation of the common fisheries policy, including addressing the problem of quota hoppers. If necessary, proposals for amending the treaty to deal with this problem will be submitted to the conference in due course.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost of work required to be done by slaughterhouses operating under temporary derogations from the Fresh Meat (Hygiene Inspection) Regulations 1992 to enable them to meet the standards designated by the regulations. [27857]

  Mrs. Browning
  This information is not available. The cost of bringing slaughterhouses up to the structural standards laid down in the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and
  93
  Inspection) Regulations 1995, which replaced the 1992 regulations, is a matter for the individual plant operator. It will depend on the nature and extent of the structural work required at each premises and the way in which each operator whose premises is operating at present under a temporarily derogated licence decides to meet the required standards.

  General information on the likely costs of meeting the standards laid down is however, contained in the compliance cost assessment on the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations. This was placed in the Library of the House when these regulations were laid before the Parliament on 9 March 1995.

  Grants and Loans
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the grants and loans provided by his Department to businesses, together with the criteria they have to meet in order to obtain the subsidy. [28184]

  Mr. Boswell
  There is a range of grant and loan schemes provided by the Ministry for businesses and individuals. These are summarised, with guidance to applicants, in the Department's publication, "At the Farmers' Service", a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member. This booklet sets out also the main common agricultural policy support schemes and their eligibility criteria.

  Hares
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to(a) protect the brown hare and (b) ban hare coursing. [27503]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Total Social Security benefit expenditure

  66,382

  75,336

  82,427

  84,866

  88,787

  (b) Total means tested benefit expenditure

  20,328

  25,518

  28,707

  30,308

  31,625

  "b" expressed as a percentage of "a"

  31 per cent.

  34 per cent.

  35 per cent.

  36 per cent.

  36 per cent.

  Note:

  1. Estimated outturn figures are given for 1995–96.

  Source:

  Departmental Report March 1996 (Tables 1 and 3).

  War Pensioners
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many war pensioners have had their allowance for lowered standard of occupation cancelled as a result of his recent changed of practice. [27543]

  Mr. Heald
  To date, a total of 1,285 awards have been withdrawn.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of setting up an EDS computer system for the Child Support Agency; and what have been its monthly running costs since April 1993. [27406]
  94
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Government's statutory scientific conservation advisors, commissioned a survey of brown hares between 1991 and 1993. The survey found that while there had been a decline in hare numbers since the 1960s it was not clear if numbers were continuing to decline. The survey concluded that hare coursing had affected only a small proportion of populations and did not pose a threat to national populations.

  The biodiversity steering group, chaired by my Department, was set up to advise Government on costed targets for the UK's most threatened and declining species and habitats. The group published its findings on 13 December 1995. "Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report" includes a costed action plan for the brown hare. The plan proposes a number of actions to maintain and expand existing populations, with the aim of doubling spring numbers in Britain by 2010.

  The Government will publish their response to the report shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the upper earnings limit was last increased for claimants of invalid care allowance. [27384]

  Mr. Burt
  The earnings limit increased from £40 to £50 with effect from 12 April 1993.

  Means Testing
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the cash value of all benefits paid out were means tested, in each of the last five years. [27443]

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

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the contracts and agreements currently held with EDS for the Child Support Agency computer system are as follows:

  Start date

  End date

  CSA Operational Accounting System

  7 March 1992

  31 March 2002

  CSA Maintenance Assessment

  8 July 1992

  31 March 2002

  CSA Software Support Services

  7 March 1992

  31 March 2002

  CSA Technical Services

  1 May 1997

  31 March 1997

  The monthly running costs, and the value of individual contracts and agreements is commercial in confidence.

  95
  The total value of the above projects is estimated as £23 million.

  On 1 June 1995, EDS was awarded a 10-year contract for the provision of Data Centre Services for the whole of the DSS—including CSA. This contract is volume/output based. The value depends on future levels of business.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case; [27601]

  (2) what provision is available to employees of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27600]

  Mr. Burt
  A woman employed on a permanent appointment, or a fixed-term appointment of two years or more, with at least one year's paid service and who contracts to return to work after her childbirth is entitled to three months and one week paid maternity leave and a maximum of 52 weeks continuous paid and unpaid maternity leave. Fathers are allowed a minimum of two days paternity leave, except in the Contributions Agency, where a minimum of five days is allowed.

  In all parts of the Department, staff may apply for career breaks to care for children under 16 or elderly relatives, for special leave to (among other things) care for sick children, to work part time, either on a term-time basis or any other pattern, to job share or to work from home. For all these provisions staff apply to their line managers who deal with applications sympathetically, having regards to the needs of the member of staff, the merits of each case and the needs of the business. In addition, flexible working hours are available to most staff in the Department. Business units are free to appoint staff on annual hours contracts or to work part time or to work from home if that meets their business needs.

  Workplace nurseries are provided at various locations throughout the Department where an acceptable business case has been made, funds exist and the facilities provide value for money. Staff may claim family care expenses for any reasonable and unavoidable extra family care expenses where they are required to be away from home on official business outside their normal working hours.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) internal and (b) external research projects funded or part-funded by his Department which assess the impact of claimants representation at (a) social security appeal tribunals and (b) medical appeal tribunals; and if he will make a statement. [27778]

  Mr. Burt
  We are not funding or part-funding any such research projects. Details of the research programme are published annually in the research yearbook a copy of which is in the Library.

  Outreach Workers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people working as dedicated customer service staff, on an outreach basis, under Benefits Agency officers in Wales have recently been, or are to be, redeployed; and if he will make a statement on the provision of information to potential beneficiaries under the disability living allowance scheme in rural areas. [27149]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 1 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people working as dedicated customer service staff, on an outreach basis, under Benefit Agency (BA) officers in Wales have recently been, or are to be, redeployed; and if he will make a statement on the provision of information to potential beneficiaries under the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) Scheme in rural areas.

  Customer service staff are located in all BA Districts in Wales, where outreach work forms an integral part of their duties. Staff are not dedicated solely to outreach work, however there are currently 317.47 fulltime equivalent posts employed in customer services in Wales. No decisions have been made as yet to the possible redeployment of any customer service staff.

  There are seventy-five Benefits Agency outlets in Wales. Customers may obtain benefit advice, including advice on the DLA Scheme, by telephone, face-to-face interview or by post. Benefit information in the form of leaflets, is available in Post Offices and the option of a home visit by a Benefits Agency officer is available if required.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mental Illness
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list(a) the number of claimants and (b) the expenditure on invalidity benefit and incapacity benefit resulting from mental illness for each year since 1990–91; [27973]

  (2) if he will list (a) the number of claimants and (b) the expenditure on invalidity and incapacity benefit due to disability, excluding mental illness, for each year since 1990–91. [27966]

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure data for invalidity benefit and incapacity benefit cannot be broken down by medical condition. Some information on the numbers of claimants
  97
  with mental disorders is available for invalidity benefit and is set out in the table. Comparable information for incapacity benefit is not yet available.

  Claimants incapacitated on the last day of the statistical period in connection with a claim for invalidity benefit

  Date

  Mental disorder

  Other incapacities excluding mental disorder

  30 March 1991

  207,000

  1,099,000

  4 April 1992

  228,000

  1,211,000

  3 April 1993

  258,000

  1,322,000

  2 April 1994

  278,000

  1,403,000

  1. Figures are taken form a 1 per cent. sample of all invalidity benefit claims in Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was(a)the number of claimants and (b) the expenditure on income support due to disability, excluding mental illness, for each year since 1990–91; [27965]

  (2) if he will list (a) the number of claimants and (b) the expenditure on income support due to mental illness in each year since 1990–91. [27967]

  Mr. Evans
  The information to identify how many income support claimants suffer from a mental illness is not available.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make changes to the Benefits Agency out-of-hours emergency payments service. [27831]

  In-work expenditure from 1980–81 to 1987–88

  £ million

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  FIS/family credit

  42

  66

  94

  123

  126

  130

  161

  180

  Disability working allowance

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Housing benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Community charge benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Council tax benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  42

  66

  94

  123

  126

  130

  161

  180

  In-work expenditure from 1988–89 to 1994–95

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  FIS/Family credit

  394

  425

  494

  626

  929

  1,208

  1,441

  Disability working allowance

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  7

  11

  Housing benefit

  0

  0

  340

  395

  525

  600

  700

  Community charge benefit

  0

  0

  170

  80

  95

  0

  0

  Council tax benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  130

  140

  Total

  394

  425

  1,004

  1,101

  1,552

  1,945

  2,292

  Notes:

  1. Amounts expressed in cash prices.

  2. Amounts for housing benefit, community charge benefit and council tax benefit include expenditure on recipients who work, but who also get income support.

  Source:

  1. Social Security Department report 1995–96 and its predecessors.

  2. Housing benefit management system annual inquiry (sample 1 per cent.).
  98
  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter form Peter Mathison to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 2 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what plans he has to make changes to the Benefits Agency (BA) out-of-hours emergency payments service.

  As you will be aware I recently outlined the BA's plans for the future delivery of social security benefits based on the BA vision of "right money to the right person at the right time, every time".

  It is against this background that the Agency decided to review the need for the out of hours service and the London Emergency Office which provides a service to customers at night and weekends. A decision on its viability is expected later this year.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Grants and Loans
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the grants and loans provided by his Department to businesses, together with the criteria that they have to meet to obtain the subsidy. [28192]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department of Social Security does not provide grants or loans to businesses.

  In-work Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total annual expenditure on in-work benefits for each of the last 15 years. [27930]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.
  99
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a breakdown of the expenditure on in-work benefits for each year since 1980 in net present values. [28083]

  In-work benefit expenditure from 1980–81 to 1987–88

  £ million

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  FIS/Family credit

  91

  131

  174

  217

  212

  207

  249

  264

  Disability working allowance

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Housing benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Community charge benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Council tax benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  91

  131

  174

  217

  212

  207

  249

  264

  In-work benefit expenditure from 1988–89 to 1994–95

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  FIS/Family credit

  543

  547

  589

  702

  1,000

  1,264

  1,480

  Disability working allowance

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  8

  12

  Housing benefit

  0

  0

  405

  443

  566

  628

  719

  Community charge benefit

  0

  0

  202

  90

  102

  0

  0

  Council tax benefit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  136

  144

  Total

  543

  547

  1,196

  1,235

  1,672

  2,036

  2,355

  Notes:

  1. Real terms figures calculated using the GDP deflator published in the November 1995 FSBR.

  2. Amounts for housing benefit, community charge benefit and council tax benefit include expenditure on recipients who work, but who also get income support.

  Source:

  1. Social Security departmental report 1995–96 and its predecessors.

  2. Housing benefit management system annual inquiry (sample I per cent.)

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Sport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of secondary schools which play regularly organised(a) cricket, (b) football and (c) rugby football. [27267]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 26 April 1996]: This information is not collected centrally. The national curriculum requires that all pupils aged 11 to 16 should pursue games as part of their physical education. Precisely which games are taught is a matter for schools themselves to decide.

  Evidence from the Office for Standards in Education inspections shows that the overwhelming majority of secondary schools offer traditional team games to their pupils, both within curriculum time and as extra-curricular activity.

  Left-handed Children
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment she has made of the number of left-handed children of school age; [27864]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to provide equal opportunity at schools for left-handed pupils; [27867]

  (3) if she will conduct a study of the special educational needs of left-handed pupils. [27868]
  100
  Mr. burt
  The information is in the table.

  Mrs. Gillan
  Left-handedness is not recognised as a special educational need within the meaning of the Education Acts. Provisions relating to pupils with special educational needs apply equally to left-handed and right-handed pupils. The Department does not collect information on the number of left-handed pupils, and has no plans to conduct a study on the special educational needs of such pupils. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me with details of any case causing him concern, I shall gladly look into it.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans she has to help teachers respond appropriately to the special requirements of left-handed pupils, with particular reference to assisting them in avoiding discomfort in writing; [27866]

  (2) for what reasons dealing with left-handedness is not among the criteria she specifies for teacher training; [27869]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the relative advantage of teaching strategies for coping with left-handedness in pupils during (a) initial training, (b) induction and (c) service. [27865]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Teaching methods and arrangements for the induction and inservice training of teachers are not centrally prescribed. It is for schools and teachers to determine the most effective way to ensure they meet the needs of all their pupils, using the resources available to them. The Secretary of State specifies broad criteria for courses of initial teacher training, including the need for new teachers to be able to respond to relevant
  101
  individual differences between pupils. Institutions accredited to provide such courses are responsible for meeting these criteria. All schools and courses of initial teacher training are subject to independent inspection followed by published reports.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to harmonise the rates and rules governing TEC-funded training programmes with Further Education Funding Council funding for colleges; when she expects the research funded by her Department from the Further Education Funding Council on the inequalities in the funding mechanism to be finalised and published; and if she will make a statement. [27776]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government are committed to raising participation and attainment by young people in education and training and promoting fair competition between providers. In support of this agenda, they are investigating whether there is a case for encouraging a more consistent approach to funding methodologies across school sixth forms, further education sector colleges and work-based training for young people, and to funding levels for similar qualifications in the different sectors.

  We have already published for discussion an initial analysis of the comparative public funding cost per qualification achieved by 16 to 19-year-olds in each of the three sectors and placed a copy in the Library.

  We are refining this initial analysis and considering the scope for convergence of funding methodologies across 16 to 19 provision in consultation with the Further Education Funding Council, the Training and Enterprise Council national council, local authority associations and others.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sums have been provided in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 to fund the range of advice and information centres and other schemes run directly or indirectly by Barnsley and Doncaster TEC; and what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of transferring these funds in future years to careers services. [27634]

  Mr. Paice
  In 1995–96, training and enterprise councils had flexibility to use up to 2.7 per cent. of the training for work budget provided by the Department to fund local adult advice and guidance services. Barnsley and Doncaster TEC exercised this flexibility to devote £336,280 towards the funding of the advice and information centre—"Skillshops"—run directly by the TEC. The TEC also received £41,000 for an access to assessment project and £28,331 for a gateway to learning project.

  In 1996–97, TECs have flexibility to use up to 1 per cent. of their training for work budget to fund local adult advice and guidance services. It will be for Barnsley and Doncaster TEC to decide whether to exercise this flexibility and, if so, how the services might be delivered.

  In 1996–96, Barnsley and Doncaster TEC also received funding in respect of advice and information services for young people, comprising £377,044 for careers guidance delivered by careers services to pupils in years 9 and 10;
  102
  and £14,748 to enhance careers libraries in schools and colleges. For 1996–97, all funding for careers advice and guidance for young people in Barnsley and Doncaster is being routed through Lifetime Careers (Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham) Ltd., the company which is contracted to provide careers services in Barnsley and Doncaster.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements she intends to introduce to restore the eligibility of self-employed disabled people to apply for support under the access to work scheme. [27623]

  Mr. Paice
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her announcement on 26 March,Official Report, columns 489–91, we are considering this issue further.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what mechanisms of accountability are available to measure performance and ensure value for money for Ofsted. [27632]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These are matters for the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, to write to the hon. Member.

  Standard Spending Assessment Calculations
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to what extent, and for what reasons, standard spending assessment calculations for local authority education budgets differentiate between spending per pupil in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools. [27630]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The main determinant of the differential between the primary and secondary allowances per pupil in the education standard spending assessment calculations is the differential in the national pattern of local education authorities—LEA—reported spending between the sectors. The standard spending assessment allocations are not hypothecated: LEAs can and do deploy the resources available to them on a different basis.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is(a) the total number and (b) the number in each LEA of (i) head teachers, (ii) deputy head teachers and (iii) teachers who have taken early retirement on the ground of ill health in each year since 1991; and if she will make a statement. [27832]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: The table shows the retirements on ill health grounds for England and each local education authority—LEA—area, from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector, including grant-maintained schools, for the financial years 1991–92 to 1994–95, the most recent year for which this information is available.
  103
  Separate figures are provided for head teachers, deputy head teachers and classroom teachers. The table is restricted to members of the teachers' superannuation

  Ill health retirements from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Financial year of award

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Other

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Other

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Other

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Other

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  2

  0

  7

  3

  0

  7

  1

  0

  10

  3

  1

  16

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  10

  0

  3

  10

  2

  0

  9

  2

  0

  15

  Hackney

  1

  1

  7

  1

  1

  5

  0

  1

  6

  0

  0

  14

  Hammersmith

  0

  2

  5

  0

  3

  5

  2

  0

  9

  2

  1

  20

  Islington

  1

  1

  7

  0

  0

  12

  1

  0

  4

  2

  0

  13

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  4

  Lambeth

  1

  5

  7

  0

  0

  8

  1

  1

  18

  1

  1

  10

  Lewisham

  0

  2

  15

  2

  0

  10

  0

  0

  14

  0

  1

  13

  Southwark

  0

  1

  11

  0

  1

  13

  3

  1

  16

  1

  1

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  7

  1

  1

  8

  2

  0

  12

  1

  0

  14

  Wandsworth

  0

  1

  8

  0

  3

  10

  1

  1

  14

  2

  4

  14

  Westminster

  0

  0

  10

  0

  2

  10

  0

  0

  6

  1

  1

  10

  Barking

  2

  1

  6

  0

  0

  8

  2

  0

  15

  0

  0

  12

  Bamet

  2

  1

  7

  2

  1

  11

  2

  0

  8

  1

  2

  19

  Bexley

  0

  0

  7

  0

  2

  14

  3

  3

  9

  2

  2

  11

  Brent

  0

  0

  9

  1

  0

  6

  0

  0

  7

  0

  1

  9

  Bromley

  3

  1

  7

  1

  1

  7

  3

  1

  11

  1

  0

  11

  Croydon

  2

  1

  13

  0

  1

  15

  1

  1

  21

  0

  3

  21

  Ealing

  0

  0

  15

  0

  0

  13

  2

  1

  6

  0

  0

  8

  Enfield

  1

  0

  11

  1

  0

  6

  0

  2

  5

  1

  1

  14

  Haringey

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  5

  1

  0

  4

  1

  1

  12

  Harrow

  1

  0

  8

  1

  2

  8

  2

  1

  10

  3

  2

  18

  Havering

  0

  1

  16

  0

  1

  19

  3

  2

  13

  1

  2

  14

  Hillingdon

  2

  2

  18

  0

  1

  13

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  7

  Hounslow

  2

  1

  8

  1

  0

  12

  0

  0

  13

  5

  0

  16

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  6

  1

  0

  6

  Merton

  1

  0

  3

  1

  0

  4

  0

  1

  10

  1

  0

  6

  Newham

  0

  0

  5

  1

  0

  8

  1

  0

  8

  1

  1

  14

  Redbridge

  2

  1

  8

  1

  0

  4

  1

  0

  7

  1

  2

  9

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  1

  4

  1

  0

  3

  2

  0

  8

  0

  1

  7

  Sutton

  2

  0

  3

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  4

  0

  0

  10

  Waltham Forest

  1

  0

  8

  2

  2

  7

  3

  2

  18

  2

  0

  12

  Birmingham

  9

  10

  67

  5

  6

  78

  5

  8

  81

  5

  7

  89

  Coventry

  1

  3

  33

  1

  2

  23

  0

  4

  34

  1

  1

  35

  Dudley

  0

  1

  12

  2

  3

  16

  2

  2

  12

  1

  2

  17

  Sandwell

  3

  2

  18

  0

  3

  20

  2

  2

  33

  3

  5

  35

  Solihull

  0

  2

  13

  2

  1

  16

  0

  1

  13

  5

  2

  17

  Walsall

  0

  0

  18

  2

  5

  21

  0

  2

  21

  4

  4

  23

  Wolverhampton

  5

  3

  15

  6

  2

  41

  3

  6

  22

  6

  6

  21

  Knowsley

  3

  1

  17

  0

  1

  13

  2

  2

  17

  0

  1

  15

  Liverpool

  2

  4

  44

  4

  4

  38

  8

  3

  51

  6

  3

  36

  St. Helens

  1

  0

  14

  3

  2

  28

  1

  1

  30

  3

  2

  25

  Sefton

  1

  4

  22

  4

  2

  28

  7

  3

  33

  7

  0

  24

  Wirral

  3

  4

  26

  3

  1

  15

  3

  4

  22

  4

  0

  24

  Bolton

  2

  3

  21

  4

  2

  24

  2

  3

  28

  3

  3

  31

  Bury

  0

  1

  8

  1

  1

  11

  2

  1

  15

  2

  2

  18

  Manchester

  4

  6

  28

  5

  3

  43

  5

  4

  43

  3

  1

  43

  Oldham

  0

  1

  14

  0

  1

  16

  1

  0

  27

  0

  3

  18

  Rochdale

  4

  3

  17

  3

  0

  13

  4

  4

  24

  4

  3

  21

  Salford

  0

  1

  18

  0

  3

  16

  2

  8

  20

  1

  2

  18

  Stockport

  2

  1

  31

  1

  4

  28

  5

  2

  37

  0

  5

  38

  Tameside

  4

  1

  10

  1

  5

  12

  1

  1

  19

  5

  4

  21

  Trafford

  1

  2

  9

  0

  3

  16

  4

  1

  23

  0

  4

  19

  Wigan

  4

  0

  17

  0

  3

  13

  6

  1

  33

  3

  3

  18

  Barnsley

  4

  2

  14

  3

  1

  16

  0

  2

  24

  5

  3

  24

  Doncaster

  3

  3

  15

  3

  0

  18

  3

  1

  26

  2

  4

  22

  Rotherham

  0

  3

  16

  0

  0

  18

  3

  0

  21

  0

  3

  22

  Sheffield

  3

  3

  28

  3

  4

  25

  5

  4

  38

  4

  3

  26

  Bradford

  7

  4

  42

  4

  3

  36

  5

  8

  45

  3

  4

  39

  Calderdale

  4

  2

  14

  2

  1

  15

  6

  0

  17

  3

  2

  26

  Kirklees

  2

  3

  25

  2

  2

  40

  8

  6

  51

  5

  4

  42

  Leeds

  2

  4

  39

  4

  2

  41

  4

  7

  69

  3

  4

  67

  Wakefield

  7

  2

  37

  3

  3

  37

  2

  4

  41

  2

  4

  33

  Gateshead

  0

  1

  10

  0

  2

  18

  1

  0

  18

  1

  1

  19

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5

  2

  35

  0

  3

  16

  3

  4

  14

  5

  0

  16

  North Tyneside

  0

  2

  15

  2

  0

  15

  2

  1

  15

  3

  0

  13

  South Tyneside

  1

  1

  12

  2

  4

  14

  2

  3

  14

  2

  3

  12

  Sunderland

  2

  3

  26

  3

  7

  30

  6

  3

  32

  2

  4

  36

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  104
  scheme in full-time, part-time or occasional service at 31 March immediately before the financial year in which they retired.
  105

  Ill health retirements from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Financial year of award

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Other

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Other

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Other

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Other

  Avon

  5

  5

  49

  7

  5

  39

  8

  7

  62

  15

  8

  55

  Bedfordshire

  5

  4

  28

  6

  1

  30

  6

  3

  28

  8

  5

  31

  Berkshire

  8

  6

  39

  6

  5

  31

  3

  7

  48

  10

  4

  43

  Buckinghamshire

  8

  7

  21

  4

  3

  22

  8

  3

  34

  9

  2

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  5

  22

  4

  6

  27

  6

  3

  22

  4

  5

  49

  Cheshire

  7

  3

  58

  9

  5

  49

  12

  7

  64

  11

  15

  74

  Cleveland

  3

  3

  55

  4

  7

  74

  6

  13

  68

  9

  6

  67

  Cornwall

  8

  6

  31

  5

  2

  37

  8

  2

  26

  4

  3

  32

  Cumbria

  5

  4

  36

  5

  4

  22

  5

  4

  34

  7

  1

  31

  Derbyshire

  10

  6

  59

  3

  1

  54

  9

  3

  52

  16

  9

  47

  Devon

  8

  5

  64

  6

  8

  67

  14

  11

  70

  15

  11

  88

  Dorset

  5

  5

  30

  6

  5

  43

  3

  3

  31

  4

  6

  45

  Durham

  5

  9

  38

  1

  8

  53

  6

  5

  51

  13

  9

  60

  East Sussex

  4

  7

  31

  4

  5

  41

  5

  6

  46

  11

  4

  54

  Essex

  4

  11

  81

  6

  12

  79

  12

  16

  103

  16

  9

  121

  Gloucestershire

  3

  1

  24

  5

  4

  20

  5

  5

  31

  5

  3

  28

  Hampshire

  10

  11

  97

  15

  9

  110

  10

  13

  140

  16

  8

  151

  Hereford and Worcester

  8

  10

  47

  12

  7

  50

  11

  11

  58

  14

  10

  78

  Hertfordshire

  4

  6

  63

  12

  3

  45

  5

  5

  52

  14

  9

  73

  Humberside

  2

  6

  51

  5

  5

  62

  3

  3

  46

  15

  7

  88

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  7

  0

  1

  3

  2

  3

  3

  2

  2

  7

  Kent

  15

  15

  92

  19

  17

  107

  17

  8

  111

  16

  7

  143

  Lancashire

  14

  18

  112

  16

  12

  109

  24

  13

  156

  24

  19

  146

  Leicestershire

  8

  4

  57

  5

  2

  45

  7

  6

  51

  10

  7

  58

  Lincolnshire

  11

  9

  49

  10

  6

  29

  12

  6

  46

  4

  6

  58

  Norfolk

  9

  10

  52

  9

  7

  43

  13

  8

  56

  15

  7

  42

  North Yorkshire

  6

  3

  44

  6

  4

  26

  9

  9

  40

  14

  8

  56

  Northamptonshire

  4

  2

  35

  5

  4

  34

  8

  4

  61

  14

  4

  51

  Northumberland

  4

  2

  18

  4

  6

  15

  6

  4

  24

  6

  4

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  12

  5

  74

  13

  9

  79

  5

  12

  73

  13

  3

  82

  Oxfordshire

  5

  2

  25

  4

  6

  29

  6

  2

  28

  10

  4

  36

  Shropshire

  5

  2

  28

  3

  1

  31

  6

  3

  44

  6

  5

  30

  Somerset

  9

  5

  41

  11

  2

  39

  8

  2

  43

  9

  8

  38

  Staffordshire

  12

  6

  79

  12

  14

  73

  15

  9

  81

  19

  9

  95

  Suffolk

  2

  4

  23

  6

  1

  33

  6

  5

  42

  11

  5

  48

  Surrey

  11

  10

  45

  6

  3

  53

  7

  11

  58

  10

  8

  52

  Warwickshire

  1

  3

  28

  3

  8

  20

  3

  4

  30

  4

  5

  41

  West Sussex

  1

  3

  34

  5

  3

  36

  5

  3

  33

  7

  5

  37

  Wiltshire

  13

  5

  32

  8

  4

  28

  13

  10

  35

  7

  3

  51

  England

  377

  339

  2,859

  368

  331

  2,927

  471

  377

  3,455

  559

  384

  3,743

  Social Charter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which paragraphs of article 7 of the European social charter the Government have(a) accepted and (b) rejected; and, in each case, for what reason. [28102]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have accepted paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 of article 7 as the UK legislation on the protection of children and young persons is in conformity with those provisions of the charter. They have not accepted paragraphs 1, 4, 7 and 8 because those provisions do not accord with UK legislation or practice and would reduce employment opportunities for young persons and increase business costs.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial assistance the Government have given to each of the authorities that have introduced nursery voucher schemes; and if she will make a statement. [28025]
  106
  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday 29 April 1996,Official Report, column 348.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current level of Government funding for higher education; and what was the figure in 1979 and 1989 in constant prices. [28091]

  Mr. Forth
  The current level of Government funding for higher education institutions in England is around £4,600 million. In 1989–90, at constant prices, it was just under £4,000 million. Comparable figures for 1979–80 are not readily available.

  Training (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women, aged from 16 to 21 years, were involved in a Government-sponsored training scheme in the Greater London area as of 31 March. [27954]
  107
  Mr. Paice
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, the total number of individuals involved in youth training programmes in London as at 31 March 1996 was 18,424. This includes youth training, youth credits and modern apprenticeships.

  Data for adults in training are not collected by age or gender.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of the Children Act 1994 Special Educational Needs Regulation 4 (14) (Special Needs) on the ability to statement the special educational needs of Ben Simpson in the Meriden constituency. [28069]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Education Act 1993 and the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994 make provision for local education authorities in appropriate cases to assess a child's special educational needs. Regulation 14(4) relieves LEAs of the duty to comply with the statutory time limit for making a statement in certain circumstances, including the child's absence from the LEA's area. If parents are dissatisfied with an LEA's decision in respect of statutory assessment they may appeal to the independent special educational needs tribunal. If parents believe an LEA is failing to comply with a statutory duty, they may complain to the Secretary of State. The Department has received no correspondence about Ben Simpson.

  Disabled People (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number of registered disabled people living in the Greater London area as of 30 March. [27955]

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

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about registered disabled people living in the Greater London area.

  I regret that it is not possible to supply the information in the form requested. However, as at 15 April 1996, the latest figures available show that there were 48,685 people registered as disabled in the Greater London area. Of this total 34,229 are male and 14,556 female.

  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision is available to employees of her Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27590]
  108
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following arrangements apply within the Department:

  (A) MATERNITY LEAVE

  To qualify for departmental unpaid maternity leave an employee must:

  Be employed on a permanent basis, as a part-year appointee, or as a recurring temporary appointee.

  Produce a maternity statement from a registered medical practitioner or certified midwife, giving the expected week of confinement.

  State that they intend to return to work after the baby is born.

  Maternity leave—paid and/or unpaid—is allowed for an overall period of 52 weeks from the start of the maternity absence.

  Casual employees have a statutory right to take a period of 14 weeks' unpaid maternity leave.

  (B) MATERNITY PAY

  In addition, meeting the qualifying criteria for unpaid maternity leave, to qualify for paid maternity leave an employee must also:

  Be in paid service at the time their maternity leave begins and have at least one year's reckonable service.

  Agree to repay any salary received, less any entitlement to statutory maternity pay for the period of maternity leave, if they fail to return to work and complete the equivalent of one month's reckonable service.

  Employees will not qualify for paid maternity leave if, immediately before beginning their maternity leave, they are on special unpaid leave, unauthorised absence, or sick leave at no pay or pension rate.

  Maternity pay is allowed for a continuous period of three calender months and one week.

  Different provisions exist for employees on recurring temporary appointments and for part-year appointees.

  Casual employees are not eligible for paid maternity leave under the civil service scheme. If the appointment is subsequently made permanent, casual service will count towards the qualifying period for paid maternity leave.

  (C) PATERNITY LEAVE

  Two day's paid paternity leave may be taken at the time of the birth, or

  during the weeks following the birth when mother and baby leave hospital.

  (D) PARENTAL LEAVE

  Adoption Leave

  Special leave may be granted to the adoptive parent(s):

  up to 20 days' paid leave may be taken either before or after the child comes into full-time care

  up to 52 weeks' unpaid leave, less any paid leave taken as above

  the leave can be taken by either parent, or shared between them

  Birth of a second or subsequent child

  Special paid leave, up to a maximum of five days may be given:

  at the birth of a baby. when alternative arrangements cannot be made to look after other small children

  Care for children

  Special paid leave up to a maximum of five days may be given when normal child minding arrangements break down unexpectedly.

  Up to three weeks' special unpaid leave may be allowed, on line manager's recommendation, to care for school-age children during school holidays, providing the leave is taken in addition to at least two weeks annual leave charted in one or more of the school holiday periods.

  109

  (E) FLEXIBLE WORKING HOURS (FWH)

  The Department operates a FWH system to provide a more flexible system of attendance for all staff.

  All staff may work FWH at line management's discretion.

  (F) PART-TIME WORK

  The Department operates an equal opportunities policy whereby all posts are considered to be available on a part-time basis.

  Staff can apply to change from full-time to part-time employment to suit changing circumstances for a short period or an indefinite period.

  Entitlement to annual leave, special leave etc. is on a pro rata basis to the hours worked. Part-time staff are regarded as non-mobile.

  (G) JOB SHARING

  All posts are considered to be available on a job-sharing basis. This is a voluntary arrangement whereby a full-time post is divided into two part-time jobs. The two job holders work together and share the overall duties and responsibilities of the original full-time post.

  (H) LEAVE TO CARE FOR SICK CHILDREN

  Special leave with pay may be allowed to a member of staff to care for sick children. Medical evidence is requested to support the application if the absence is over five days.

  Line managers consider the circumstances, the operational need and discuss alternatives ie. part-time hours, working from home.

  Where longer-term nursing is required, special leave with pay may be allowed to enable staff to make suitable arrangements. Sympathetic consideration is given to requests for special leave without pay if more time is needed to make such arrangements.

  (I) HOMEWORKING

  There are three main categories of homeworking:

  1. Working part-time at home, based in an office with agreed amounts of time homeworking.

  2. Home as a base.

  3. Working at home on a permanent basis.

  Consideration is given to costs, security, communications, management of staff, health and safety, environment and facilities when a manager decides when to transfer work from a normal office environment to a home-based office.

  Staff can not be moved into a post without their agreement.

  (J) TERM-TIME WORKING

  There is provision for term-time working, providing the non-working period is not less than two weeks or more than three months.

  Dates of attendance must be agreed in writing in advance.

  Pay can be averaged out over the year or be received at the end of each month for periods actually worked. Tern-time appointments are non-mobile. Non-working periods do not count for sick absence pay, qualifying service for higher annual leave, qualifying service for maternity leave, or reckonable service for pension purposes.

  (K) ANNUAL HOURS CONTRACTS

  There is no standard arrangement for annual hours contracts although consideration would be given to all requests for alternative working patterns.

  (L) WORKPLACE NURSERIES

  The Department provides a nursery at its head quarters in Runcorn and Sheffield. Both nurseries offer 50 places and the cost to parents ranges from £5.50 per half day to £57.50 for a week. Opening hours are 8 am to 6 pm.

  There are also school holiday playschemes, which operate in Darlington, London, Runcorn and Sheffield.

  110

  (M) CHILD CARE ALLOWANCES

  Staff who have young children can apply for additional child care costs when attending a residential training course or being required to work outside their normal pattern of hours.

  (N) CARERS' LEAVE

  Special leave with pay can be allowed to help staff cope with serious illness of a partner, close relative or dependant, in order to deal with the initial emergency or care on discharge from hospital, where there is no one else available to provide the care required.

  In exceptional circumstances, special leave can be allowed to look after close relatives with minor illnesses.

  Special leave without pay can be allowed up to a maximum of six months to care for an aged/infirm relative. Periods in excess of six months may qualify for a career break.

  (O) CAREER BREAKS

  Career breaks may last for a minimum of six months to a maximum of five years. The period of unpaid leave may be extended for a further 52 weeks if a woman has a second child during the career break.

  Staff should have a good attendance record and have achieved a satisfactory performance.

  Adult Training Schemes
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was(a) the number of people and (b) the expenditure on adult training schemes as a result of unemployment caused by mental illness in each year since 1990–91; [27963]

  (2) what was (a) the number of people and (b) the expenditure on adult training schemes as a result of disability, excluding mental illness, in each year since 1990–91. [27964]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not available.

  Thamesmead Job Club
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations her Department held, and with whom, before the decision to close the Thamesmead job club. [28333]

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

  Letter from Robert Horne to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question, in the absence of the Chief Executive, about what consultations took place, and with whom, prior to the decision to close the Thamesmead Job Club.

  Unemployment levels in the District have fallen and there has, as a result, been a corresponding reduction in resources available for Job Clubs.

  The District Manager did not take the decision to close Thamesmead Job Club lightly. The decision was made on the basis of a review of all Job provision across South East London, taking into account.

  (a) the numbers of eligible unemployed people from local Jobcentres;

  (b) cost of Job Club provision;

  (c) the performance of local Job Club in helping people find jobs;

  (d) geographical location of Job Club and travel patterns.

  111
  The District Manager, his Business Managers and the Programme Providers across the District, taking full account of the demand for Job Club, took the decision to close Thamesmead to ensure an even distribution of available provision.

  All eligible clients in the District will continue to have access to a Job Club, and fares will be reimbursed.

  I hope this is helpful

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will visit Thamesmead to discuss the proposed closure of the Thamesmead job club with unemployed people in the Thamesmead area. [28330]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the closure of Thamesmead Jobclub as the issues raised fall within the operational responsibilities delegated to the Employment Service as an Executive Agency.

  The decision to close Thamesmead Jobclub was not taken lightly and was arrived at after a review of all the Jobclub provision within the District.

  In reaching the decision to close the Thamesmead Jobclub, we took into account the total number of unemployed people within the Thamesmead catchment area, the cost of the Jobclub provision, it's current performance and referral rates and the overall geographical location of the Jobclub in relation to travel to work patterns.

  My District Manager considers that there will be sufficient places available in the existing Jobclubs to meet the local need. Indeed, those attending the Thamesmead Jobclub have been offered alternative placements for which the Employment Service will reimburse their fares in full.

  In respect of your request that the Secretary of State visits the clients involved, perhaps the most appropriate course of action would be for the District Manager, Ray Nash, to meet with you and the existing Jobclub members to explain the position. Should you wish to contact him, his telephone number is 0181 308 1618.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of job clubs; [28331]

  (2) how many job clubs are currently in existence; and how many she proposes to (a) close and (b) open in the next 12 months. [28332]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  112
  Letter from Robert Home at Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 7 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions about Jobclubs.

  The performance of Jobclubs is assessed on a regular basis to provide information which will improve the effectiveness of the Employment Service in helping unemployed people back into work.

  Management information is collected monthly and is used to monitor the operation of the programme. The latest management information shows that in 1995/96 just over 95,500 people were placed into jobs following participation in a Jobclub and a further 24,300 took up other opportunities such as training places or starting their own business.

  Periodic evaluations of the programme are also carried out. These examine, in more detail, various aspects of the operation and impact of the programme. Details of these studies copies can be obtained through the House of Commons library.

  The Employment Service currently maintains a network of 1,338 Jobclubs throughout the country. This will provide places for around 204,000 unemployed people during 1996/97. This includes a number of specialist Jobclubs for people facing particular difficulties returning to the labour market.

  With reductions in unemployment the number of Jobclub places will reduce. Decisions about where Jobclubs are located are made by the 154 District Managers who are responsible for the delivery of the full range of Employment Service programmes within their Districts. Wherever possible they will seek to maintain a network of Jobclubs which will be accessible to the vast majority of people of our clients. In some locations particularly in rural areas it may be difficult to operate a full time Jobclub. In these cases we are able to provide jobseekers with a Distance Learning Pack which contains advice and information to help with job search techniques.

  Given changes in local labour market conditions it is difficult to be precise about how many Jobclubs will close and how many will be open during the next 12 months. However, I anticipate that the network will reduce by no more than 10 per cent during the year.

  I hope this is helpful.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Joint Intelligence Committee
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in reviewing and releasing the records of the Joint Intelligence Committee under the initiative announced on 25 June 1992; what are the locations within the Public Record Office of records which have been released; which years are covered by records which have been released; what records are now planned to be reviewed for release; and if he will make a statement. [28038]

  Mr. Freeman
  Good progress has been made with reviewing and releasing the records of the Joint Intelligence Committee—JIC—since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on 25 June 1992 that JIC papers would in future not be covered by a blanket ban on release, but treated like all other Government records and released after 30 years unless the contents remained sensitive.

  JIC minutes and memorandums for the years 1936 to 1950 have been reviewed. Those found to be no longer sensitive have been released in the Public Record Office—PRO—, Kew with the following class references—CAB 56/1–7, CAB 81/87–138, CAB 159/1–8, CAB 158/1–11.
  113
  Post-1950 records are currently under review. Releasable records for the years 1951 to 1953 will be transferred to the PRO in early 1997. It is expected that the JIC records will continue to be released in three-year tranches every year until the review has been completed.

  Grants and Loans
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the grants and loans provided by his Department to businesses, together with the criteria they have to meet in order to obtain the subsidy. [28186]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office does not make grants or loans to businesses.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to publish a skills audit as part of the current year's competitiveness White Paper. [28128]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The results of the Government's skills audit will be reported in the competitiveness White Paper. The skills audit itself will be published on the same day as the White Paper.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to publish the current year's competitive White Paper. [28129]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The third competitive White Paper will be published in the summer.

  Year

  Grant £

  Departmental candidate fees £

  Company subscriptions £

  Other income £

  Total turnover £

  1993–94

  20,000

  34,350

  61,690

  8,960

  125,000

  1994–95

  20,000

  47,325

  98,375

  27,300

  193,000

  1995–96

  35,000

  70,000

  147,150

  51,850

  304,000

  1996–97

  35,000

  81,500

  175,500

  54,500

  346,500

  The Government's financial contribution is represented by the grant and departmental candidate fees.

  Cabinet Office Report
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list by name, department and organisation the outward and inward secondments, non-executive appointments and attachments referred to in table 40 of the Cabinet Office report 1996, Cm 3220. [27379]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Office of Public Service does not collect centrally comprehensive information on inward and outward secondments and attachments. The full detailed information requested in addition to the aggregate data already published can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, when information was last collected centrally, in 1995, we received details of 57 civil servants who, at that time, held, or were due to take up, non-executive appointments within private sector companies either for developmental reasons or on an ex officio basis. Although some details may have changed, the names of the Departments, civil servants and organisation involved are as listed.

  Whitehall and Industry Group
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the members of the board of the Whitehall and Industry Group; and what was the Government's financial contribution to it in 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and what is proposed for 1996–97. [27346]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Whitehall and Industry Group has a board of trustees comprising:

  John Sacher, CBE, chairman of the Whitehall and Industry Group; director of IT, Marks and Spencer plc;

  Brian Fox, head of senior civil service group, Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service;

  Geoff Keeys, formerly director of personnel, the Prudential Corporation;

  Alice Perkins, deputy director—public spending, HM Treasury; and,

  Richard Power, formerly communications director, Forte.

  It also has a number of patrons. They are:

  Sir Robin Butler, GCB CVO, secretary of the cabinet and head of the home civil service;

  Sir Terry Burns, GCB, permanent secretary, HM Treasury;

  Sir John Coles, KCMG, permanent secretary, Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

  Bob Ayling, chief executive, British Airways;

  Howard Davies, deputy governor, Bank of England; and Christopher Haskins, chairman, Northern Foods.

  The groups funding is made up as follows:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  A. R. Burne: Albert Fisher

  R. W. Hathaway: RHM

  G. A. Hollis: Dalgety

  M. M. Parker: Cadbury

  R. G. Purnell: H. R. Wallingford

  HM Customs and Excise

  A. Sawyer: Royal Bank of Scotland

  Ministry of Defence

  C. V. Balmer: Marks and Spencer

  R. P. Crane: Thorn Security

  A. C. H. Mace: Avery

  D. R. Morris: Rank Organisation

  B. A. E. Taylor: Stirling Fibre Ltd.

  Employment Service

  G. Kennedy: Three Town Initiative

  P. McCabe: Great Easterhouse Development Co., Ltd.

  Department of the Environment

  R. G. Courtney: Woods of Colchester Ltd. (GEC)

  N. Glass: CV Apparel Ltd. (Coates Viyella)

  J. Hobson: Tarmac

  D. A. Nichols: Anglian Water

  115

  W. P. S. Rickett: Redland Roof Tiles

  J. F. Stoker: Hanson plc

  A. G. Watson: AMEC

  Home Office

  J. Thompson: KPMG

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  A. Green: Vickers Defence Systems

  C. Humfrey: J. C. Bamford

  J. Ling: RTZ Borax

  V. Sutherland: Save and Prosper

  K. Tebbit: Mott Macdonald

  D. Wright: AEA Technology

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  C. Everett: IBM

  N. Oppenheimer: Marks and Spencer

  Royal Mint

  David Snell: OGWR Partnership Trust plc

  Scottish Office

  A. W. Denham: The Wise Group

  D. Hart: Westerhailes Partnership Co., Ltd.

  I. McCall: Scottish Design

  D. Y. A. McFaden: United Distillers

  W. A. MacGregor: Strathclyde Green Belt Company

  E. Mackay: Moray Firth Maltings

  G. Rooney: Local Investing Networking Co., Ltd.

  E. Weeple: Westerhailes Partnership Co., Ltd.

  Department of Social Security

  R. Allen: Marks and Spencer

  Department of Trade and Industry

  B. Bender: BTR Industries Ltd

  P. Bunn: Glynwood Plastics Ltd

  S. Charik: European Transonic Wind Tunnel

  G. S. Dart: Laing Engineering Ltd

  R. C. Dobbie: Vickers

  A. Eggington: BOC UK Gases Ltd

  I. Jones: Glynwed Consumer Products

  M. K. O'Shea: Seven Seas Ltd

  M. Mayer: British Approvals Board for Telecoms

  W. Paton: Optimat Ltd

  J. Phillips: Forward Trust Group Ltd

  M. Stanley: IBM

  A. J. Wallard: Rank Cintel

  Department of Transport

  R. Balme: P&O European Transport Services Ltd

  J. Denning: Lloyds Register Quality Assurance Ltd

  D. McMillan: P&O European Transport Services Ltd

  HM Treasury

  P. Gray: Laing Management

  Ministerial Car Fleet
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the size of the ministerial car fleet in each year since 1979. [28028]

  Mr. Freeman
  As this is a purely operational matter I have asked the chief executive of the Security Facilities Executive to reply to the hon. Member.
  116
  Letter from John King to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 7 May 1996:

  I have been asked by Mr Freeman, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (who has Ministerial responsibility for the Government Car Service (GCS)), to provide you with a response to your Parliamentary Question concerning the size of the Ministerial car fleet. I am the Chief Executive of the Agency with operational responsibility for the GCS.

  Full records showing the size of the GCS Ministerial fleet are only available for the last four years and are as set out below:

  Year

  Number of cars

  1992/3

  90

  1993/4

  90

  1994/5

  90

  1995/6

  86

  Employees' Rights
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what provision is available to employees of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27588]

  Mr. Willetts
  The provision for the Cabinet Office including the Office of Public Service is as follows:

  Available

  Comment

  Criteria

  (a) Maternity leave

  Yes

  3 months, 1 week

  After one year's service otherwise statutory terms

  (b) Maternity pay

  Yes

  3 months, 1 week

  After one year's service otherwise statutory terms

  (c) Paternity leave

  Yes

  2 days

  —

  (d) Parental leave

  Yes

  Paid or unpaid Special available

  Case decided on merits

  (e) Flexible working hours

  Yes

  —

  —

  (f) Part-time working

  Yes

  —

  —

  (g) Job sharing

  Yes

  —

  —

  (h) Leave to care for sick children

  Yes

  Up to five days paid special leave per year, unpaid leave available

  Case decided on merits

  (i) Home working

  Yes

  —

  —

  (j) Term-time contracts

  Yes

  —

  —

  (k) Annual hours contracts

  No

  Would consider proposals

  —

  (l) Work place nursery

  No

  Westminster Holiday Playscheme. Access to a place in an emergency

  (m) Child care allowances

  No

  Able to meet extra costs incurred at the Department's insistence

  —

  117

  Available

  Comment

  Criteria

  (n) Carer's leave

  Yes

  Paid or; unpaid Special Leave available

  Case decided on merits

  (o) Career breaks

  Yes

  Up to five years

  One year of satisfactory service

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for(a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts, (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case. [27589]

  Mr. Willetts
  The implementation of policies on all of these matters is delegated to the chief executives of my agencies. I have, therefore, asked the chief executives of the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, Central Office of Information, Chessington Computer Centre, Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, Civil Service College, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Occupational Health and Safety Agency, Recruitment and Assessment Services, The Security Facilities Executive and the Buying Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from N. E. Borrett to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 3 May 1996:

  Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your Question relating to conditions of service and workplace facilities.

  The answer to each section in respect of PACE is as follows:

  (a) Maximum of 52 weeks paid and unpaid.

  (b) Full pay for three months and one week, or fourteen weeks, whichever is the longer.

  The above are automatic for permanent Civil Servants with one year's service.

  (c) Two days: this is automatic.

  (d) Up to five days paid leave—may be followed by unpaid leave.

  (e) A flexible working hours scheme operates.

  (f) Staff of any grade or sex may apply to be considered for part-time working.

  (g) Job sharing is available.

  (h) As at (d) above.

  (i) May be offered as part of an alternative flexible working pattern. The above are subject to approval by management.

  (j) Not available.

  (k) Not available.

  (l) None.

  (m) Not available.

  (n) As at (d) above.

  (o) A career break of up to five years (unpaid) may be granted for child rearing/elder care. To qualify, staff must be permanent employees who have satisfactorily completed an initial probation period. In addition, they must have a satisfactory record of attendance and conduct, and performance that fully meets the requirement of the grade.

  I trust that the above gives all the information.
  118
  Letter from Mike Devereau to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 1 May 1996:

  The Deputy Prime Minster has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Office of Information, to your question about the provision of facilities for employees.

  COI operates the following schemes for all of its permanent staff:

  Maternity Leave

  Maternity Pay

  Paternity Leave

  Flexible Working Hours

  Part-time Work

  Job Sharing and through its special paid, or unpaid, leave arrangements:

  Parental Leave

  Leave to care for sick children

  Carer's Leave

  Career Breaks

  Details of all these schemes and, where appropriate, the criteria used to judge eligibility are set out in the Staff Handbook, a copy of which is held by each staff member.

  There is considerable flexibility for staff employed on a part-time basis to agree contracts which suit their personal circumstances. For example COI currently employs people whose contracts allow them to: work from home, work three weeks in four, return to their homes in other countries for regular periods.

  COI does not provide in house child care or nursery facilities. However staff in London can use the Westminster holiday playscheme and free information and advice on childcare facilities is available to all staff from the private sector and the COI Welfare Officer.

  There is no provision for childcare allowances although COI offers a subsidy of 50£of the cost of the holiday playscheme.

  Letter from R. N. Edwards to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 1 May 1996:

  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your Question about employee conditions and workplace facilities.

  The answer to each section in respect of Chessington is as follows:

  (a) 14 weeks paid. Maximum of 52 weeks paid and unpaid;

  (b) full pay for 14 weeks;

  (c) 2 days;

  (d) up to 5 days special paid leave in any one leave year may be granted when serious personal or domestic problems arise which require the personal attention of a staff member;

  (e) a flexible working hours scheme operates;

  (f) over 50 staff work part-time hours;

  (g) job sharing is available;

  (h) allowed as at d. above;

  (i) practised as the need arises;

  (j) not available;

  (k) not available;

  (l) a nursery on site for up to 24 children between 3 months and 5 years;

  (m) not available;

  (n) allowed as at d. above;

  (o) a Keep in Touch (KIT) operates, which allows for a period of up to 5 years special unpaid leave for staff who have to give up work because of unavoidable commitments.

  The criteria for eligibility where appropriate are as follows:

  a., b, and c. Automatic.

  d., h., i., n. and o. Subject to approval by line management and personnel.

  119

  e. All staff, except computer shift workers and support staff, can work flexible hours.

  f. and g. We accommodate part-time working in most parts of Chessington and try to suit the needs of staff subject to business needs. With regard to job sharing this is agreed where there are 2 members of staff who can provide continuous cover between them;

  1. To date all requests for places have been met, but should demand exceed the number of places available, then priority is given to parents to whom a high level of training has already been given; or parents from grades where Chessington is experiencing a shortage of staff; or where particular skills are required.

  I trust the above gives all the information required. If not please do not hesitate to get in touch.

  Letter from Robin Guenier to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 1 May 1996:

  As Chief Executive of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), I am responding to your recent question raised about certain aspects of working conditions for employees of departments under the control of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  In general CCTA's policies do not differ from those of the Cabinet Office. Maternity leave and maternity pay, paternity leave and parental leave are granted by CCTA in accordance with the Civil Service Management Code.

  We offer all staff the opportunity to participate in flexible working hours and part time working. We also have people on career breaks.

  We have had staff job sharing and have staff involved in home-working schemes.

  We do not have a workplace nursery but do offer an assisted holiday playscheme facility.

  While we have never been asked for term time contracts, annual hours contracts or carers leave we would consider any application sympathetically, within the guidelines of the Management code.

  Childcare allowance is not offered as a matter of course although we pay the additional cost of childcare if a member of staff is away on business or attending a residential training course.

  Letter from Dr. S. H. Hickey to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 3 May 1996:

  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your Question about various provisions available to employees of the Civil Service College.

  (a) (b) Maternity Leave and Pay

  Paid maternity leave is available to all staff for a period of three months and one week provided that the employee makes a statement of their intention to return to work after confinement and is in paid service at the time the period of maternity leave begins and has rendered one year's service.

  Maternity leave can be extended to include unpaid leave for a further period provided that the total of paid and unpaid leave does not exceed 52 weeks.

  (c) Paternity Leave

  Two days paid paternity leave is available to all staff irrespective of grade or length of service.

  (d) Parental Leave

  No specific provision for parental leave but unpaid leave is available to all staff to cover need.

  (e) Flexible Working Hours

  A flexible working hours scheme is available to all staff up to and including SEO level subject to the business and operational needs of the organisation.
  120
  (f) Part-Time Work

  Part-time working is available to all staff subject to the business needs of the organisation.

  (f) Job-Sharing

  Job-sharing is available to all staff subject to the business and operational needs of the organisation.

  (g) Leave to Care for Sick Children

  Two days special paid leave is available to all staff to provide for emergency care of sick children.

  Special unpaid leave is also available to all staff for an unspecified period determined by need and management agreement.

  (h) Homeworking

  There is no current provision for contracted home-working but the facility to work from home is available to all staff subject to management agreement.

  (i) Term-Time Contracts

  There is no current provision for term-time contracts.

  (j) Annual Hours Contracts

  There is provision for a limited number of annual hours contracts. Availability is determined by the business needs of the organisation.

  (l) Workplace Nurseries

  A workplace nursery is available to all staff.

  (m) Childcare Allowances

  There is no current provision for specific childcare allowances.

  (n) Carer's Leave

  Two days special paid leave is available to all staff to provide emergency care for infirm relatives.

  Special unpaid leave is also available to all staff for an unspecified period which is determined by need and agreement.

  (o) Career Break Schemes

  A career break scheme is available to all staff for a period not exceeding five years. Eligibility for career breaks is centred around domestic need such as childcare, care of elderly or infirm relatives, or relocation of partner's work to distant locations. All staff must state their intention to return to work before a career break is granted.

  Letter from Mike Lynn to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 2 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply, so far as HMSO is concerned, to your Parliamentary question about various employment provisions. The information is as follows:

  (a) Maternity Leave

  All pregnant employees qualify for 14 weeks leave regardless of their length of service or hours worked. Those with 1 or more year's service are entitled to 14 weeks paid leave, and up to 52 weeks unpaid leave.

  (b) Maternity Pay

  Employees with a minimum of 26 weeks service and up to 1 year's service receive statutory maternity pay (SMP). After 1 year's service they receive the first 14 weeks at full pay and 4 weeks at statutory maternity pay (SMP).

  (c) Paternity Leave

  2 days paid leave may be taken either before, during or after the birth.

  (d) Parental Leave

  Where there is no immediate viable alternative, e.g. assistance from relatives, Urgent Domestic Leave of up to one week with pay may be taken. In exceptional circumstances this may be extended as unpaid leave. Adoptive leave, involving longer periods, is also available.

  (e) Flexible Working Hours

  Flexible working hours are arranged between managers and staff within each area. The determining factor is the need to staff the office for the duration of the working day, ensuring adequate cover at peak times.
  121
  (f) Part Time Working

  HMSO encourages part time working and currently has 103 staff working part time between 15 and 35 hours per week.

  (g) Job Sharing

  Currently 8 jobs are shared, involving 16 members of staff.

  (h) Leave to Care for Sick Children

  Up to 1 week's paid leave, followed by agreed extended unpaid leave.

  (i) Home Working

  There are currently 5 people formally regarded as home working. In addition, many of our sales staff are based at home, with most of their work on the road.

  (j) Term Time Contracts

  There are currently no contracts of this nature.

  (k) Annual Hours Contracts

  HMSO has two units in London that work annual hours contracts, presently covering 116 staff. A further 75 will join the scheme later this year.

  (l) Workplace Nurseries and Childcare Facilities

  HMSO provides 20 places at a nursery at Norwich, in partnership with a local college, and 50 places per day at play schemes for the 6 school holiday periods.

  (m) Childcare Allowances

  The nursery and play schemes are subsidised by HMSO.

  (n) Carers Leave (Sick Nursing)

  Up to I week paid leave, followed by agreed extended unpaid leave, alternatively temporary adjustments to working hours may be granted.

  (o) Career Break Scheme

  Staff who have completed 2 years permanent service may be granted a Career Break for a maximum of 5 years. There are a total of 7 staff currently taking career breaks, and 3 have successfully returned.

  Letter from J. L. Gordon to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 1 May 1996:

  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your questions. The information relating to the Occupational Health & Safety Agency is as follows:

  (a)

  Maternity Leave

  Provision in accordance with Civil Service arrangements generally.

  (b)

  Maternity Pay

  (c)

  Paternity Leave

  OHSA allows 2 days special leave with pay.

  (d)

  Parental Leave

  Special leave with pay depending on particular circumstances, amount of annual leave etc. Each case decided on merit.

  (e)

  Flexible Working Hours

  Certain more junior grades at HQ participate in a scheme. Not appropriate in some areas because of the need to respond to customer requirements.

  (f)

  Part-Time Work

  OHSA has number of staff on part-time work/job share. Approval to some extent governed by needs of customers and whether it is possible to arrange hours around requirements.

  (g)

  Job Share

  (h)

  Leave to Care for Sick Children

  No circumstances have arisen, other than odd days when special leave with pay has been given. Any case would be dealt with on its merits.

  122

  (i)

  Home Working

  No formal arrangements exist but where appropriate line manages have authority to authorise on a case by case basis.

  (j)

  Term-Time Contracts

  None currently in place but possible within constraints of customer requirements.

  (k)

  Annual Hours Contracts

  None in place.

  (l)

  Workplace Nurseries

  The Agency is small and staff too widely scattered to make this a viable proposition.

  (m)

  Childcare Allowances

  No provision.

  (n)

  Carers Leave

  No requests have been received to date but would most possibly be dealt with as special leave and each case dealt with on its merits.

  (o)

  Career Break Schemes

  Because of the size of the Agency it is difficult to operate a full career break scheme. There has been one case in recent years where a break of 2 years was approved.

  I trust this information is sufficient for your needs.

  I trust this information is sufficient for your needs.

  Letter from Craig Muir to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 3 May 1996:

  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question. Recruitment and Assessment Services are happy to provide the enclosed information.

  Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS) follows the guidelines of the Civil Service Management Code in all issues.

  1 Maternity leave/pay—Departments and Agencies must provide 3 months and 1 week's paid maternity leave (if paid monthly) and 14 weeks paid maternity leave (if paid weekly) to a woman civil servant for a period of continuous absence during confinement providing that she:

  A. state that she intends to return to work in the Civil Service after her confinement, and that she agrees to repay any payment made during that period if she fails to return (such payment will exclude any Statutory Maternity Pay to which there is entitlement);

  B. is in paid service with her department/agency at the time her maternity leave begins and has rendered at least one year's such service;

  C. is not employed on a casual, standby or short notice appointment; and

  D. is not employed on a Fixed Term Appointment of less than two years.

  2 Paternity leave—male civil servants whose appointment is permanent or for two or more years are entitled to 2 days' paid paternity leave. Departments and agencies may allow paternity leave to any other appointment, at their discretion. Paternity leave cannot be paid during periods of unpaid absence.

  3 Parental leave—RAS has not had any staff that have applied for parental leave, however each case would be assessed at the time of application.

  4 RAS operates a system of flexible working hours for all permanent, fixed term and staff on loan. It is the responsibility of the line managers to ensure the system is not abused. RAS does not have anyone who is on a annual hours contract.

  5 RAS has part time/and job sharing posts within its organisation, and is very mindful of staff needs.

  123

  6 Leave to care for sick children/term time contracts/carers' leave/career break—Departments/agencies have discretion to grant special leave with or without pay where they consider this to be necessary or justified. In determining whether special leave should be granted, departments and agencies should mainly have regard to the effect of such leave on the discharge of public business. In determining whether special leave with pay should be granted, departments and agencies will in addition need to be satisfied that the circumstances of the particular case justify such a concession. An example of special leave with pay would be for a bereavement of a close family member, 5 days with pay would be granted.

  7 RAS does not provide workplace nurseries, or childcare allowances.

  8 Home working—RAS allows staff to work from home providing they do not work in a supervisory role. They must be contactable by telephone and respond to queries within 1 hour.

  Letter from John Smith to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 3 May 1996:

  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question:

  "To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what provision is available to employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department for (a) maternity leave, (b) maternity pay, (c) paternity leave, (d) parental leave, (e) flexible working hours, (f) part-time work, (g) job sharing, (h) leave to care for sick children, (i) home-working, (j) term-time contracts (k) annual hours contracts, (l) workplace nurseries, (m) child care allowances, (n) carers' leave and (o) career break schemes; and what criteria are used to judge eligibility in each case."

  The answer to each section in respect of SAFE is as follows:

  (a) Maximum of 52 weeks paid and unpaid.

  (b) Full pay for three months and one week, or fourteen weeks, whichever is the longer. The above are automatic for permanent Civil Servants with one year's service.

  (c) Two days; this is automatic.

  (d) Up to five days paid leave—may be followed by unpaid leave.

  (e) A flexible working hours scheme operates.

  (f) Staff of any grade or sex may apply to be considered for part-time working.

  (g) Job sharing is available.

  (h) As at (d) above.

  (i) May be offered as part of an alternative flexible working pattern. The above are subject to approval by management.

  (j) Not available.

  (k) Not available.

  (l) None.

  (m) Not available.

  (n) As at (d) above.

  (o) A career break of up to five years (unpaid) may be granted for child rearing/elder care. To qualify, staff must be permanent employees who have satisfactorily completed an initial probation period. In addition, they must have a satisfactory record of attendance and conduct, and performance that fully meets the requirement of the grade.

  I trust that the above gives all the information required.
  124
  Letter from S. P. Sage to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 2 May 1996:

  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question.

  The provisions made available to employees within The Buying Agency in relation to questions A-O of your fax dated 29 April 1996 are largely determined by the policies currently laid down in the Staff Hand Book, as follows:

  (a) Maternity Leave

  A woman will be allowed paid maternity leave for a period of continuous absence before and after confinement of 3 months and 1 week or 14 weeks (whichever is the greater) provided that she satisfies the necessary criteria. "Confinement" is the date of birth of a child, whether living or not, after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

  (b) Maternity Pay

  This is covered by the Statutory Regulations within the EP(C)A 1973 and subsequent amendments TURER 1993. Statutory Maternity Pay is a statutory requirement which applies to the Civil Service as an employer in the same way as any other employer.

  (c) Paternity Leave

  Male staff are entitled to 2 days paid paternity leave.

  (d) Parental Leave

  No such category as yet for TBA.

  (e) Flexible Working Hours

  All staff are permitted to participate in a flexible working hours system unless there is a particular reason for them not being included.

  Flexible Working Hours are: (7.24 standard day)

  Core Times

  7.30–10.00 am

  12.00–14.00 pm

  16.00–18.00 pm (15.30 pm on Fridays)

  Allowance to carry over from one period to the next

  Credit: 22.12 hours

  Debit: 11.06 hours

  (f) Part-time Work

  The Agency considers all requests. There are currently 8 members of TBA staff engaged on a part-time basis.

  (g) Job Sharing

  Job share has been arranged on 5 or 6 occasions in the past but there are no job share arrangements at present. As with (f) requests are considered and approval will be given to the mutual satisfaction of all parties.

  (h) Leave to Care for Sick Children

  Unpaid leave is granted for a limited period until more permanent arrangements can be made.

  (i) Home Working

  15 TBA staff currently work from home.

  (j) Term-time Contracts

  Not applicable at present.

  (k) Annual Hours Contracts

  Not applicable at present.

  (l) Work Place Nurseries

  This has previously been investigated, however no scheme is presently in place. There is as yet no demand from staff.

  (m) Childcare Allowances

  Not applicable at present.

  (o) Career Break Schemes and What Criteria Are Used to Judge Eligibility

  Several TBA staff have availed themselves of the Career Break Scheme in the past.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Hon. Members' Employees
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many right hon. and hon. Members have not lodged contracts of employment at the Fees Office 126
  for employees paid by the Fees Office from the office costs allowance; and how many employees are affected. [27553]

  Mr. Newton
  There are 21 right hon. and hon. Members who have not lodged contracts of employment with the Fees Office for employees paid from the office costs allowance, and 53 current employees are affected.

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

Former Yugoslavia: Tribunal
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What agency they consider should be responsible for protecting investigators working for the tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, the clearance of mines from areas being investigated, the prevention of attempted tampering with forensic evidence including suspected mass graves, and the arrest and detention of alleged offenders.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the NATO-led implementation force is providing a secure environment in which the tribunal can work. IFOR supervises the clearance of mines prior to the arrival of a tribunal investigation team. IFOR is providing aerial reconnaissance and foot patrols of suspected mass grave sites and will report any attempts to tamper with the graves to the tribunal. The tribunal has confirmed it will prosecute those wilfully destroying evidence of complicity.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the extension of IFOR' s terms of reference to cover these matters is most welcome? However, has she noted that Mr. Dusko Tadic today becomes the first person to go on trial for crimes against humanity since Nuremberg? Is this not rather as if Nuremberg had started without Goering or Ribbentrop being present? Does she agree with the comments of Senator George Mitchell that the single
2
most important step to be taken towards achieving Dayton's aspirations is now the immediate apprehension of alleged war criminals? What steps will IFOR or the United Nations take to see that Mladic and Karadzic are brought to trial and that they do not remain in positions of power and influence within the Serb entity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is yes. Of course we have all noted the first name to come before the tribunal today. So far as Mladic and Karadzic are concerned, it is very important that if there is evidence against them they will be brought before the tribunal. It is the responsibility of all states to arrest any individual indicted by the tribunal. That has been made absolutely clear to all those who might have contact with Mladic and Karadzic. IFOR will arrest and transfer to the tribunal any indicted persons whom it encounters. But I put the very points that the noble Lord is making to Bosnian Serbs last week and I have no doubt that I shall be doing the same tomorrow in Banja Luka.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that at the time of the terrible massacres of the Moslem inhabitants of Srebrenica that city was a safe haven under the supposed protection of the United Nations? This is a matter which weighs heavily on many of us. I wonder whether she has any information about possible progress in bringing the perpetrators of those terrible atrocities to book?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we were all aware that Srebrenica was termed a safe haven. But my noble friend may recall that at the time I expressed in this House and on platforms very grave doubts as to whether Srebrenica could actually be a safe haven given its location and given the disposition of forces at that time. Of course those who may have perished in Srebrenica by the hand of others need to be found, but my noble friend will recall that this area of the world has had a very cold winter, the ground has been rock solid and it is an area where the water table is extremely high, which has made investigation difficult up to now. We hope that investigations which take place may bring

3
at least some success and some peace in knowing what has happened to the many, many missing persons in the area of Srebrenica.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the UN appointed prosecutor, Judge Richard Goldstone, that unless more of the indicted war criminals are arrested and brought to justice the peace process will be threatened? It will do so because without justice there will be yet more cries for vengeance. Can she reassure the House that if more of these war criminals are not arrested the Government will take steps to persuade the international community to take further action beyond what she has described today?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that I agree with Judge Goldstone. Indictments against 57 individuals have already been announced. Of those 43 are Serbs, eight are Croats, three are Bosnians and three are of unknown ethnicity. I understand that two more Moslems have been arrested in recent days. That brings the Bosnian Moslem community in full compliance with the Dayton agreement. I willingly assure the noble Baroness that the Government will press for more to be done, but steady progress is now being made. We shall do all we can to help in this matter. I am glad to say that Judge Goldstone is very satisfied with the level of IFOR co-operation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say that she will be in Banja Luka tomorrow? If so, can she say what the responsibilities of the British forces would be in the Serb entity if their attention was drawn to the presence of either Mladic or Karadzic? Would they be charged with the duty of apprehending those persons and handing them over to the prosecutor? If not, how does she imagine that the Bosnian Serb entity can be persuaded to comply with the Dayton accords in good time for the elections in September, which obviously cannot be held while those two gentlemen occupy positions of power in the Serb entity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed I shall be in Banja Luka tomorrow. All mandated IFOR troops are required to arrest and transfer to the tribunal any indicted person whom they encounter. That is exactly what troops of any nationality serving with IFOR will do.

Torture Weapons
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether torture weapons are still being manufactured in and exported from this country in spite of the exposure of the trade on television and in the Press and, if so, whether this trade is carried out under licence.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government are not aware of torture weapons being manufactured in the United Kingdom. An export licence
4
would be refused for the export of any weapons intended for such purposes. The United Kingdom is a party to the United Nations convention against torture. The Government deplore the use of torture and would never knowingly support the export of equipment for such purposes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reassurance. Is she aware that, despite those reassurances, the export of torture weapons is taking place? Is she further aware that specific companies have been named and that the veracity of the report of Mr. Martin Gregory on Channel 4 was challenged by Mr. Heseltine, which resulted in a libel settlement of £55,000, paid either by Mr. Heseltine or the taxpayer? Will the Minister look again at this problem? In addition to that, there has also been a report by Miss Sarah Wilson in the Scotsman. The Daily Mail, the Press Association and the Guardian have all referred to specific companies which are manufacturing or trading in these weapons, either directly or indirectly. Will the noble Baroness look at the whole matter again?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has made many points and has taken quite some time to make them. I hope the House will allow me equal time so that I can deny all the allegations that the noble Lord opposite has made. The companies which are the subject of the allegations publicly denied them. The Home Office, the DTI, the Scottish Department and the Ministry of Defence, as well as various police forces, undertook the investigations. We have some of the toughest export controls in the world, and we shall act on any credible evidence that they are being evaded. The noble Lord mentioned many things which appeared in the newspapers—it is touching that he believes everything that he reads in them. But I say to him that, as was made clear in the agreed statement to the court, while the department accepted that the implications of the comments were not justified, that did not entail the acceptance of the accuracy of the allegations made against the Government in the programme. As I have said, the Government deplore the use of torture, and I stand by that statement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Lord Harlech: My Lords, we have all been horrified by reports about the export of instruments of torture. Can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to oppose torture wherever it is occurring?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The Government do everything they can to oppose torture wherever it is occurring. They receive information from both government and other sources such as Amnesty International. Our embassies abroad regularly discuss our anxieties on human rights with countries which are believed to practise torture. The United Kingdom also plays an active role in the United Nations in supporting and developing international initiatives aimed at the prevention of torture. The United Kingdom also contributes to the United Nations voluntary fund for the victims of torture.

5
I repeat again that the Government deplore the use of torture and would never knowingly support the export of equipment for such purposes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may acknowledge what the noble Baroness has said on behalf of our Government and applaud it. Having said that, does she agree that there are cunning, terrible people who, despite the laws of our country, do these horrible things? Would it not be possible for our Government to see that their honourable policy is totally and thoroughly maintained at all times?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government are doing exactly that.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, what the noble Baroness has said is very interesting. But does what she has said about not exporting such terrible pieces of equipment apply also to electric shock batons?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Certainly, my Lords. No companies or individuals in the United Kingdom currently have authority under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to manufacture, possess or deal in electric shock batons.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the answers given by the noble Baroness sounded most forthright to me and very much committed the Government to neither producing nor exporting weapons of torture. I take it that I am right in interpreting what the noble Baroness has said as being categorical. However, perhaps I may ask her—this is not a trick—whether her answers depend on the definition of the word "weapon". Could other items which are made in, and exported from, this country be used for torture? Can the noble Baroness assure me that she meant to say that no "instruments" of torture—if I may use that word rather than "weapons"—are made here or exported?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I would never assume that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would ask me a trick question. Innumerable ordinary domestic and industrial products can be misused for improper or objectionable purposes for which, clearly, they are not intended—for example, DIY power drills, woodworking clamps and even toothpicks and cigarettes can be misused. I hate to think of all the possibilities. It is not practicable to seek to control trade in perfectly legitimate goods. The export of weapons and of restraint weapons—that is what we were talking about—is controlled by, as I have already said and I repeat forcefully, some of the toughest export controls in the world. I repeat that we shall act on any credible evidence that those controls are being evaded.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that we would not permit United Kingdom companies to deal in implements of torture. Does she recall that the Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme cited the example of a person in the United Kingdom buying implements of torture from Mexico and exporting them to a third
6
country? Is that unlawful? Have the Government drawn the attention of the police to that particular instance of export via a third country?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that programme certainly made such allegations; but the Government are not aware of any such cases. The United Kingdom does not have extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of dealing in goods for which an export licence from the United Kingdom would be required. However, the Government are considering whether to cover such offshore sales—that is what the noble Lord is referring to—in the forthcoming consultation on a range of export control matters following the Scott Report.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government consider leg irons to be implements of torture?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, leg irons are restricted articles for which export licences would not be granted.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, this is an important subject in which the Government's veracity is at stake—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Oh yes, and I have to pursue it, if noble Lords will forgive me, by saying this—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: By asking a question, then. Is it the case that the Government are stating their intention without enforcing it in practice? If that is the case, and since one cannot pursue the matter further at Question Time, there seems no alternative but to pursue it in another way by, say, an Unstarred Question or a short debate.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not accept what I am saying. I repeat that the Government deplore the use of torture and would never knowingly support the export of equipment for such purposes.

Late Payment: Assistance to Small Firms
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to assist small firms facing bankruptcy, with consequent unemployment of their staff, as a result of the failure of large organisations to pay bills for subcontracted work.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government are aware of the impact that late payment of commercial debt can have on small businesses. We are working with the business community on this issue. A significant package of measures was announced in 1994. In addition, the Prime Minister announced on 11th March this year new measures to tackle late payment, including consultation on whether public companies should be required to publish their payment performance.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware—I am sure that he is—that where payment is not made, unemployment will often result because the small firm cannot afford to keep its staff? Is he also aware that the suggestion that, for example, interest should be claimable on late payment would not necessarily help small companies because they would then become worried that they would not get another contract if they were awkward? Is the Minister aware that there is legislation in, I believe, the United States under which small firms have immediate access to the courts if they cannot get the payments that they are owed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as is evidenced by the fact that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised the issue as recently as 11th March, we are certainly concerned about the question of late payment. I agree with the noble Baroness about a statutory right to interest, but in our consultations eight of the nine small firms' representative organisations voiced their opposition to statutory interest for fear of the detrimental effect that that could have on a small firm if the company were to say, "If you are going to charge me interest, I will find another supplier for my next order".
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the interest was mandatory after the credit term had expired and if everybody was subjected to such provisions, there would be no such competition between small businesses or fear of a contract being taken elsewhere because any company with a contract that was then transferred to another company, small or large, would be subjected to the same fine if payment was made late?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that may be true, but both large and small companies—small firms are not very quick to pay their bills either—could easily say, "Before I give you my business, can I have an extended term of credit from 30 to 60 days or from 60 to 90 days?" I believe that such provisions could be circumvented in that way.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, are government departments paying their bills on time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade are very keen to ensure that government departments pay their bills on time. Every government department is asked to make a return
8
annually on the speed with which it pays its bills with relation to the 30 working days limit. Looking at the table of those returns, I am happy to say that there have been considerable improvements and that the great majority of government departments manage to pay over 90 per cent. of their bills in that period. In addition to government departments, local authorities are important to small businesses in this way. We are discussing with the Audit Commission what could be done to ensure that local authorities pay their bills on time.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, is it not a fact that a number of Continental countries have mandatory interest payments and that they have found that that has expedited the payment of bills?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree that a number of continental countries have such systems, but the evidence suggests that they do not improve the position greatly.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, do the rules which apply to government departments apply also to National Health Service trusts, particularly when they are contracted with private facilities? I have had notice that one particular trust has delayed payments beyond six months.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, all that I have with me is a list of government departments, so I am afraid that I cannot answer that question on healthcare trusts. However, I shall endeavour to find out the answer this afternoon and shall write to the noble Countess.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is a difficult problem to solve. Does the noble Lord have any evidence that the problem is getting worse? Has anything occurred in the past few years to exacerbate it? One obvious thought that I had was that when interest rates were extraordinarily high one could see a culture of non-payment or delayed payment emerging, but, although that ought to be self-regulating as interest rates fall, the people who write to me about it say that the problem is just as bad now as it ever was. Although I am sympathetic to some of the Government's solutions, they all seem to share one troubling characteristic: they will make money for the banks rather than for the real economy. Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not know whether there is any particular reason why this has become a bigger problem over recent years, if indeed it has become a bigger problem. It would be unfair—if not against the rules of order and procedure—to ask all noble Lords who have paid bills rather late, having waited for red demands, to put up their hands. This is a matter which is probably of long standing. Something like 84 per cent. of small firms admit to paying their suppliers late. Although it is a problem, from the investigations that have been carried out, largely by Professor Nick Wilson of the University of Bradford,

9
it is quite clear that small firms which have put in place good credit controls are not so plagued by the problem as those which do not have good credit controls in place.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if there is any logic in the economic theory just propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, one would expect that as interest rates fell the factoring of invoices of small businesses would decline. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether that has happened.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I believe I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am not able to speculate on whether or not the position has changed due to the reduction in interest rates. I am afraid that I cannot help my noble friend in that regard either. I suspect that the increasing use of credit and cheque payments between companies and the competitive nature of business all play a part in the late payment syndrome.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Lord had the benefit of consultations with his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who, in the course of his excellent autobiography, described the very great benefits that accrued to middle-sized firms from delaying payment till the last possible moment?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, upon having asked that question. I took a small wager with my staff on whether or not somebody would put that question to me. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has had a successful business career and has suffered setbacks in that career at various stages, has propounded the simple proposition that when companies get into trouble it is important that their creditors are understanding. In that way, those companies can get out of the trouble and become good payers again.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for his replies to the questions, does he agree that very often it is a matter of large firms withholding payment from small firms, as has happened in the case just reported to me? Does he also agree that the Government can do a great deal to change the general culture as well as introduce legislation? It would be of assistance if the culture was changed so that fast payment of bills was insisted upon in the case of small firms.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as far as concerns the case to which the noble Baroness has referred, of which I am aware, there is considerable dispute, as there often is in the building industry, between contractors as to the work done and the value of the work done. The case that the noble Baroness has in mind is very much on those lines rather than one where the principle is a desire not to pay the sub-contractor. The general point and those I have already made—which I believe have general agreement—that to put interest on late payment will have a detrimental effect on many small firms are issues that we come back to every time we look at the problem.

Prisoners: In-cell Television
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the removal of television sets from prisoners' cells is conducive to their rehabilitation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 16th October 1995 his decision to reject Sir John Learmont's recommendation that in-cell television should be made widely available. We are reviewing the position in respect of prisoners who have in-cell television in the establishments where the privilege is at present allowed to varying extents, but final decisions have yet to be taken.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, do I gather from that Answer that the original statement that television in cells has been rejected has now been modified? Is the noble Baroness aware that everybody is opposed to this, including the Daily Mail, the last vestige of recondite Howardism, Sir John Learmont and so on? Am I to understand that the Government are for once backing down and showing good sense?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I may have to disappoint the noble Earl. The Home Secretary in his response to Sir John Learmont still believes that televisions in cells would not be consistent with the view that prison conditions should be decent but austere. Nevertheless, he is considering the policy; not reconsidering the fundamental policy. Provision for prisoners to watch television in communal areas during association periods and the use of television for information and educational programmes will be unaffected by this policy.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an indication of the average length of time spent in cell in Her Majesty's prisons, since clearly the whole matter depends upon that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give a precise answer. However, more prisoners than ever before spend more than 12 hours each day out of their cells. The improvement has been dramatic in the past three years. Forty-one per cent. of prisoners now spend more than 12 hours per day out of their cells compared with 24 per cent. only three years ago.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does not the Minister's first answer shows a remarkable degree of indecision? It is more than six months since the Home Secretary opposed Sir John Learmont's view. We still do not know what the policy is. Prisoners do not know whether existing televisions are to be removed, whether there are to be separate categories for separate kinds of prison, like local prisons, or whether the presumed policy as announced by the Home Secretary is to be modified in any way. Is not such indecision a recipe for unrest in our prisons?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is certainly no indecision. The noble Lord may well have noticed that the Home Secretary and the Home Office have been particularly busy on departmental policy in recent times. But there are important considerations, including timetabling, order and control and giving prisoners due notice. All these matters need to be taken into account in coming to a conclusion about the policy. However, the principle that in-cell television is not consistent with decent but austere provisions is still the basic policy. What we are considering here is implementation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that case should not the Home Secretary consider the implications before making off-the-cuff comments, as he has?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend has not changed his fundamental view about in-cell television. He strongly believes that people who enter prison for wrong-doing should give up some of their everyday activities, one of which is in-cell television.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, if any action is to be taken, will the Minister at least consider the desirability of using televisions in cells as an incentive to good conduct, and in particular allow them to be installed in such areas as drug-free wings?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and his department very much believe that constructive activities are more effective in rehabilitation programmes than simply sitting around in cells watching television.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, after the Third Reading of the Defamation Bill, my noble friend Lord Lindsay will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the cattle disposal scheme.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with today to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Simon of Glaisdale to be taken immediately after the Defamation Bill.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Aviation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority I very much welcome this Bill. It deals with what used to be a gap in the law governing civil aviation activities. It is good that, despite the pressure of other business, the Government have seen fit to introduce this Bill, which I hope your Lordships are about to approve.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support of my noble friend, speaking as he does as a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. But I disagree with my noble friend on one small point. It was not the Government who introduced this Bill but myself. I am glad to tell my noble friend that the Bill has the support of the Government. I hope that it will also have the support of another place and become law before very long.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1996
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to bring the substances which are listed in the order within the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
In October 1992 the Government asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider whether anabolic steroids should be brought under control. The council concluded that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the misuse of anabolic steroids and other substances with similar effects constituted a social problem—a key criterion of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—and should accordingly be controlled. It is that advice which has led to the order being brought forward.
The substances referred to as anabolic steroids have two effects. One is to increase muscle mass (the anabolic activity) and the other is to masculinise (the androgenic activity). Either one or a combination of these effects can be attractive to people who wish to improve their athletic performance or to enhance their physical appearance. They have to take them over a long period of time and to train hard if the desired results are to be achieved. The effects are not instantaneous and in that respect they are rather different from other controlled drugs.
Misusers take these drugs in quantities which greatly exceed therapeutic doses and we are concerned about the serious effects which they can have on their health. Reported side-effects include liver and kidney disorders, high blood pressure and adverse effects to sexual

13
organs. There is also some evidence that steroids may cause changes in mood and behaviour, including increased aggression.
Injectors also run the risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis and other diseases through the use of non-sterile injecting equipment or through sharing needles. It is estimated that about 80 per cent. of those who take anabolic steroids take them through that method.
The extent of misuse is hard to gauge. But a study in 1992 into anabolic steroid misuse in Great Britain showed, through a gym survey and a survey of misusers using syringe exchanges, that misuse was spread through many parts of the country but appeared to be confined to persons who used them instrumentally in sports and weight training. Misuse was found to cover all social groups and to be a predominantly male activity from the late teens through the twenties and thirties. It was on the basis of those considerations that the advisory council recommended that anabolic steroids and similar acting substances should be controlled.
The council has recommended the substances in the order which we are considering. This begins with a list of 48 steroids with anabolic and/or androgenic activity. I shall give noble Lords a quick flavour of what they cover. They start with Atamestane, Methenolone, Methyltestosterone, Metribolone, Norclostebol, Norethandrolone, Oxandrolone, Enestebol, Ethyloestrenol, Fluoxymesterone, and I shall finish with Trenbolone. I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is interested in that information which no doubt he already knew.
The order goes on in sub-paragraph (c) to provide a generic definition of substances which as yet have not been developed but if they were would have similar properties. It is thus a catch-all. The Act contains similar provisions which, for example, catch Ecstasy and its close relatives without naming them specifically. In addition to these anabolic and androgenic steroids there are in sub-paragraph (e) six further substances listed. These are also characterised by their muscle mass increasing properties and are known to be misused by body builders and sportsmen.
The order makes the substances Class C drugs rendering offenders liable on summary conviction to a maximum term of imprisonment of three months and/or a fine of £2,500 and on conviction on indictment to a maximum of five years and/or an unlimited fine.
Having brought the substances within the terms of the 1971 Act we propose by amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 to make it an offence without authority to produce, to supply, or to possess or import or export with intent to supply, the specified substances. It would not, however, be an offence simply to possess these drugs in the United Kingdom. The advisory council took the view that the illicit dealers and traffickers should be the target rather than those who misuse anabolic steroids. After careful consideration we have accepted the council's recommendation which would in this respect put these substances into the same category as the benzodiazepine drugs such diazepam. Our intention is to bring the controls into force on 1st September.
I stress that addressing the supply side, which this order will do, is to deal with only one part of the problem. We need also to tackle demand, which we are doing through the strategy set out in the White Paper Tackling Drugs Together which is as applicable to anabolic steroids as it is to other drugs of misuse. Action across a range of fronts is required to make an impact on anabolic steroid misuse, as it is for all drugs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committed].—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the basis that the order follows directly, and without alteration, from the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, we on these Benches have no objection to its introduction, and we would not seek to oppose it in any way. Indeed, we congratulate the Government on following the scientific recommendations made to them.
One or two of the remarks of the noble Earl puzzle me. He referred to the possibility of misuse in more than therapeutic doses. I am not clear whether that means that within therapeutic doses it would still be legal. He said that many sportsmen and bodybuilders use far more than is required in therapeutic doses. Will therapeutic doses still be legal after the order takes effect? The noble Earl says that Ecstasy comes under the order. It is not clear where, in the four paragraphs of the order, it comes and what protection there is for future variations along the same general formula. Nor is it clear whether the undoubted ability of what one might call the fringe pharmaceutical industry to produce variations which would evade regulation of this kind will be controlled.
Finally, I am grateful for the confirmation that as a Class C drug it will be supply rather than possession of the drug that will be controlled.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his support of the order. He had two queries about the therapeutic uses of anabolic steroids. They will still be able to be prescribed by the medical profession. It is difficult to gauge where therapeutic use stops and abuse starts. This is an area where we are learning all the time. We shall continually monitor all aspects of anabolic steroid abuse.
I see from looking at my notes again that I was not clear when I referred to Ecstasy. As I understand it, Ecstasy is already covered under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I mentioned it so as to make clear how under paragraph (2)(c) we use various chemical formulas to try to cover any future variation of anabolic steroids that may come to the market.
As regards consultation, perhaps I may confirm that the council took evidence from researchers who undertook an exploratory investigation of anabolic steroid use throughout Great Britain. That involved doctors from South Wales, who had particular experience with anabolic steroid use; the police; the Sports Council; and researchers who had investigated the psychological effects of anabolic steroid use. Research papers on the subject were also studied.

15
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the order brings under control an entirely new range of substances. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs concluded that their misuse, in the words of the 1971 Act, was,
"having or appeared capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem".
We believe therefore that it is right and proper that they should be controlled. These substances will render liable to prosecution by the police people who illicitly supply them. There is no doubt in the Government's mind that it is against these people that the force of the criminal law should be directed. That is what the order, and the accompanying regulations, will bring about. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Resolutions of Private Companies) Order 1996
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 will make some minor but important changes to company law. The changes affect the procedures which private companies must follow in respect of written and elective resolutions and can be summarised as follows. First, the present requirement for a minimum of 21 days' notice to be given of a meeting at which an elective resolution is to be proposed would be removed. That would allow such meetings to be held at short notice. But the dispensation would apply only where all members entitled to attend and vote at the meeting were agreeable to the short notice.
The second change relates to the passing of written resolutions under the Companies Act. At present, copies of proposed written resolutions must be sent to a company's auditors. If the resolution concerns the auditors as auditors they may, within seven days, give notice to the company that it should be considered in a general meeting of the shareholders. The resolution will not be effective unless the auditors inform the company that the resolution does not concern them as auditors, or that it does but need not be considered at a general meeting. If the auditors do not contact the company it must wait the full seven days before the resolution can come into effect.
That requirement has proved burdensome and time consuming. It has also been questioned whether the procedures apply to those companies which do not have auditors; for example, because they are dormant. As a result, the written resolution procedure is seldom used by private companies. They often resort to calling meetings instead and accept the additional expense incurred.
The draft order will, if accepted by your Lordships, reduce those burdens. The only requirement would be to send a copy of a proposed resolution to the auditors or to notify them in some other way of its contents at or before the time it is given to a member for signature. A breach of that requirement would be a criminal offence but would not affect the validity of the resolution. The order also provides certain defences for those responsible for complying with that requirement; namely, the directors and secretary of the company. The present requirement for auditors to be given seven days' notice of proposed written resolutions and for them to be able effectively to insist on a meeting being held would be repealed.
Finally, the draft order would amend the Companies Act to make clear that the statutory written resolution procedure may be used in addition to any provision for written resolutions in a company's articles. The company has a choice of which procedure it wishes to use.
In accordance with the usual scrutiny procedures under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act there has been full public consultation on the draft order. It has also been considered by your Lordships' Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers and the Deregulation Committee of another place. Under the original proposal for a draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 23rd October last year, the requirement to inform auditors of proposed written resolutions would have been revoked completely. A new requirement to send to outgoing auditors copies of agreed written resolutions which replace them with the new auditors would have been introduced.
The Deregulation Committee of another place expressed concern in its report that the proposal would remove some necessary protection from members of private companies. It therefore recommended, first, that auditors be sent copies of proposed written resolutions at the same time as members, or that they be informed of the contents of such resolutions no later than when they are first made available to members; secondly, that in order to enable auditors to provide advice to shareholders if requested to do so the proposed written resolution should not be adopted before notification of it has reached the auditors; and thirdly, that the requirement to notify auditors of proposed written resolutions should not apply to the category of companies which are not required to appoint auditors.
The Government considered carefully those proposed amendments and the draft order now before the House reflects the committee's recommendation with one exception. The draft order does not require notification of proposed resolutions to reach the auditors prior to their adoption. The Government consider that to include such a requirement in the written resolution procedure would add little in terms of shareholder protection and would reintroduce uncertainty and delay. Companies would continue to be discouraged from using the procedure and would continue to call meetings instead. In short, the opportunity for deregulation would be lost.
I should also mention that the requirement in the original proposal for a draft order to send to outgoing auditors copies of agreed written resolutions which

17
replace them with new auditors has not been carried forward. That was considered unnecessary since the auditors would be informed of all proposed written resolutions.
The Deregulation Committee has considered the amended draft order and has recommended unanimously that it should be approved. When your Lordships' Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers considered the original draft order it stated that it saw no objections to the Deregulation Committee's proposed amendments. The committee considered that no necessary protection would be lost if the draft order were made and it considered it an appropriate order to be made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act. In its second report, your Lordships' committee reported that the draft order now before your Lordships' House was in a form satisfactory to be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution. Finally, the committee reported that there was nothing in the draft order which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would have needed to draw to the special attention of each House. I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defamation Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Offer to make amends]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 6 on page 3 and insert—

("(a) to make a suitable correction of the statement complained of and a sufficient apology to the aggrieved party,

(b) to publish the correction and apology in a manner that is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to the other amendments standing in my name. Although to some extent they deal with other subject matters they are linked in that they are responses to points raised by your Lordships during earlier proceedings and to which I undertook to give attention. The first set of amendments is concerned with the offer of amends; I shall deal with that first. Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 deal with problems which were raised by various sections of the media in relation to the offer of amends.
I should like to mention that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, who as your Lordships know has not been able to attend this House for some time due to his physical disability, has asked me to tell your Lordships of his enthusiastic support for this Bill, although he is bodily at a distance.
As I said, the amendments which I am moving today result from helpful suggestions made at various stages of the Bill by your Lordships. As I hope your Lordships
18
would expect, I have given very careful consideration to all the suggestions which have been made to me, and those which I will move today relate to two of the reforms made by the Bill.
First, I propose to make an important modification to the new procedure of the offer to make amends machinery, and some further modifications relating to the statutory privileges afforded to reports and other materials of the proceedings of particular courts, and of legislatures and specified other public proceedings.
Your Lordships will recall that the statutory privileges, originally contained in Section 3 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 and Sections 7 and 9 of the Defamation Act 1952, were urgently in need of being brought up to date, not least to reflect the changes which have been made in our relationships with other countries, both in Europe and internationally. In particular, as Lord Justice Neill's working group said:
"it is surely beyond question that in view of our entry into the European Community in 1973 the privilege accorded by section 7 and the schedule to the Defamation Act 1952 to newspaper [and other] statements by certain British officials and of certain categories of meetings or proceedings, within this country, should be extended to cover reports of similar matters within the community".
We have applied the same principles to the updating of Section 3 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888, including a reference to the European Court of Justice in the Bill as introduced (following consultation on the draft Bill published last July), and your Lordships accepted my amendment at Committee to include also the European Court of Human Rights.
Noble Lords will recall that Clause 14 was amended while the Bill was in Committee, to provide a free-standing list, in subsection (3), of the courts to which the section applies, so that contemporaneous reports of their proceedings will be absolutely privileged. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, had tabled an amendment which partly coincided in effect with my own amendment, but would also have included international war crimes tribunals. I have concluded that it would be right to include such tribunals, and that is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
The terms of the amendment will ensure that those international criminal tribunals which are recognised by the United Kingdom—including any such tribunals which may be set up in the future—will be covered. Hitherto, such tribunals have been set up by the Security Council of the United Nations, but we have provided for the possibility that we and other nations may in the future wish to make use of other international agreements. This is a precaution which it is right for us to take, although our earnest wish must be that there will be no further events making it necessary to set up such tribunals and have such trials.
Your Lordships may consider that the timing of this amendment is particularly opportune, as I understand that the hearing of the first case before the tribunal dealing with alleged war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia is to begin today, and that this is the first war crimes trial since Nuremberg.
Amendment No. 12 is to similar effect, putting these international tribunals on the same basis as the other international courts already referred to in Part I of the first schedule, for the purpose of the qualified privilege conferred by Clause 15.
I turn now to the matters dealt with in the earlier amendments. I considered most carefully the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and other noble Lords when the clauses introducing the new offer to make amends machinery and defence were previously considered by your Lordships. As your Lordships will be aware, those concerns were reflected in various sections of the media.
Those replace an existing defence which does not now fulfil the purpose for which it was created. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 1952 introduced a new statutory defence of unintentional defamation. It allowed a defendant who could prove his own lack of intention to forestall the plaintiffs claim provided he could act extremely quickly once he became aware that he had defamed the plaintiff.
The provision was intended to provide a speedy and relatively cheap way out of trouble in cases of "innocent" defamation. In practice, the formal requirements were found to be very cumbersome, and the stringent formal and other conditions were such that the defence was very little used. In the evidence before the Neill Committee, one of the most popular recommendations was for a more user-friendly defence in substitution for the old Section 4 defence. Such a defence could be loosely based on the best features of the old unintentional defamation defence, but without those features which had made the old defence so unattractive and unworkable in practice. It would avoid the need for a trial when the defendant was prepared to admit liability and to make amends, even though he could not meet all the conditions imposed by Section 4.
The Neill Committee recognised that it was impossible to produce a perfect solution, but its recommendation was that there should be a new, more streamlined defence, introducing certain changes which would remove some of the hurdles presently confronting defendants. The onus should not be on the defendant to prove lack of intention, and the defendant should have a more realistic time in which to decide whether or not to make an offer. On the other hand, it was not satisfactory for defendants to have a defence available, based on their reasonable behaviour after publication, which would leave the plaintiff with no compensation at all in respect of hurt feelings or injury to reputation caused by an admitted defamation.
During last year's consultation on the draft Bill we identified a further need. Many publishers welcomed the streamlining of the defence and the opportunity to make amends when they found that they had made a mistake. But they explained that it would still have to be limited when there was the possibility of a dispute as to the exact meaning of the statement. In those circumstances, a defendant might not be willing to make an open offer to make amends in case the court found that the meaning was more seriously defamatory than he was willing to
20
concede. Nevertheless, a full trial could still be avoided if the provisions allowed the defendant to make an offer limited to the defamatory meaning which he was prepared to concede. Clause 2 is therefore an improvement on the published draft, allowing the defendant to make a qualified offer to make amends, specifying that meaning or meanings; that is, the meaning or meanings which the defendant is prepared to accept that the statement could bear.
I believe that those modifications were welcomed as meeting a real need; to overcome reluctance to make an offer because of the possibility of significant differences between the ways in which the parties would contend that the defamatory statement should be read. But it is another hurdle which has been stressed during the passage of the Bill. It was represented to me most forcefully that the media in particular would be disabled from using this procedure because they would not be willing to start up a mechanism which could end up as invoking a judge's power to dictate the terms of their apologies, and to compel them to publish those words in a particular way. Your Lordships may recollect a leader in which an important national event was signalled in the 10 o'clock news as following an intimation of some apology which, although no doubt very important for the person to whom the apology was made, it would not be seen as of shattering national importance.
As I said at Report, it seems to me that the dramatic examples which have been given to illustrate why the media would be reluctant to offer amends under these provisions do not reflect the likely reality of their operation. Nevertheless, we are all anxious to see that the new procedure will achieve the desired result, that where a person has been defamed, and the mistake is acknowledged, a system of speedy and voluntary amends should become the recognised conventional path to choose to resolve differences which might otherwise involve the parties in protracted and expensive litigation. This is something which may not happen if there is a general reluctance to come forward and make offers, even if that reluctance is attributable to what we would consider to be an unnecessarily cautious approach. As I said, I wish to reach the best possible solution to this problem. We want to encourage maximum use of the offer machinery, provided, of course, that its use will lead to effective amends being made to those who have suffered defamation.
Effective amends is the whole purpose and centre of the provisions. It involves not merely acknowledgement of the wrong but an attempt to undo the wrong which has been done. It is essential that the person who has done the wrong should be willing to, and should, take steps which will achieve that aim. It is in both parties' interests that the wrong should be righted as quickly as possible and as inexpensively as possible. In most cases, therefore, there is likely to be agreement as to the amends which will be appropriate.
But inevitably there will be some cases in which, although the parties are agreed in principle, they are unable to agree the exact steps to be taken. That may be because the offeror is not willing to apologise in terms

21
which would be acceptable to the wronged party and which the court would consider reasonable or he is not prepared to give his withdrawal a prominence which the wronged party considers proportionate to the prominence of the original published wrong; or it may be that the wronged party is making unreasonable demands. Only the court can judge in a particular circumstance which is the case. This is where I have modified the provisions. I believe that it would be wholly appropriate for the court to judge those matters and to make an order accordingly, so that the package awarded to the person who accepted the offer will reflect the full amends that he is entitled to expect when he accepts the offer—no more and no less.
It may be that a very limited publication is apt. It may be that the money element in the package, if any, would be very small. Nevertheless, it has been represented to me that there is a very real fear among the media that, if they made offers, orders might occasionally be made against them in terms which differed very radically from what they had contemplated when making the offer. It is suggested that while there was any such risk offers would not be forthcoming. Of course, the media do not have the exclusive privilege of being at the receiving end of libel claims, and this procedure is not designed for their exclusive use. But it is important that those who are defamed by the media should not be deprived of the benefit of it because of the reasons which I have outlined. I have, therefore, sought an accommodation to vary the provisions which will apply when the parties cannot agree the details in such a way as to preserve the core of the amends package while removing that element which was seen as a serious disincentive to offering amends; namely, that offers might rarely, if ever, be made.
The amendments now proposed to Clauses 2 and 3 maintain the emphasis on the need for appropriate publicity being given to the correction and apology. But if the parties fail to agree those details, the defendant must take his chances on the basis of his best offer. The details of his best offer—as to wording and manner of publication—will be scrutinised by the court. If the court thinks that the plaintiff's demands for more were unreasonable, the position will be much the same as if the court had made an order coinciding with the best offer. If, however, it falls short of what the court considers to be adequate, that will be reflected in the money compensation.
One possibility which did concern me was that an offer of amends might be made as something of a tactical ploy by a person who had no intention whatever of righting the wrong in the manner contemplated by the provisions and whose "best offer" might even exacerbate rather than amend the original wrong. It is an established principle of defamation law that conduct after the original publication may be taken into account in the assessment of damages, whether that conduct shows a will to make good or determination not to do so. I have taken great care, therefore, to ensure that that principle is clearly manifested in the provisions. If it appears that an offer has been made hypocritically, that may indeed sound in the compensation. That, I think, will discourage any attempt to abuse the new machinery.
22
For the convenience of your Lordships, I have sought to explain all of the amendments tabled in my name at the same time. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may respond in the same way as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the matter of the scheme. I am most grateful for the noble and learned Lord's proposed Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 12 which, as he indicated, give a necessary and appropriate protection to contemporaneous, fair reports of the proceedings of international criminal tribunals. I am certainly conscious that a good deal of thought has been given to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and myself, as well as others, relating to directed corrections or apologies which editors of newspapers and television programmes strongly resisted.
However, I have one question regarding Amendment No. 2. Paragraph (a) refers to,
"the correction and apology by a statement in open court".
Under the present scheme of the rules of court, it seems to me that that would mean that the offer of amends could be put into effect only after the issue and service of the writ. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would confirm that interpretation.
The noble and learned Lord indicated that he wished maximum use of the offer of amends machinery to be made. Therefore, it is a pity that Clause 2(5) still contains the prohibition on the ability to make amends after the service of a defence. Generally speaking, it seems to me that a reasonable balance is now capable of being struck between the utility of the procedure—that is, the offer of amends procedure, which ought to he reasonably quick and cheap and, therefore, reasonably acceptable to the parties—and the legitimate concerns, as foreseen by at least two of us, of editors of publications and television programmes. As a matter of principle, I welcome the improvements to the offer of amends machinery.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I greatly welcome the first amendment and, indeed, all of the amendments to which the noble and learned Lord has spoken. If I may say so, it is particularly gratifying that the noble and learned Lord has responded in a characteristically open-minded way, not only to the debates in your Lordships' House but also to the representations that have been made outside the House.
I should, first, declare a personal interest, as occasionally clients are foolish enough to ask me to appear as counsel in libel cases, normally on the side of newspapers. But, speaking for myself, I view the first amendment as being damaging only to the interests of the libel Bar, as it will surely mean some reduction in our income if, as we hope, the effect of the amendment will be to discourage avoidable libel litigation and favour instead the much more sensible approach which the offer of amends procedure is intended to achieve.
In my view, the great virtue of the amendments is that they strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the important conflicting public interest—that is, the public

23
interest in vindicating the right to personal reputation—and, on the other hand, the important public interest in freedom of expression. I am glad to see that judicial protection is retained in the amendments. Although editors regard that as being a matter within their exclusive sovereignty, they must surely realise (and I am sure that those who are responsible do) that ultimately it is for the courts and not for them to decide how to strike that balance.
I believe that the fears expressed by the media may have been exaggerated. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is wise to respond to those fears so that the media have no excuse for not making full use of the fast-track procedure; that is, the offer of amends procedure. I very much hope that all those who advise the media will impress upon them the importance of making the system work rather than raising legalistic or pedantic points. For all those reasons, I am delighted that the first amendment has been tabled in such a form that it meets those legitimate interests while still preserving the core of the very sensible procedure of which the members of the committee of Lord Justice Neill were the original architects. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to the amendments. With regard to the point on the Rules of Court made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I think that adjustment of the rules will be required to take account of these procedures.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Accepting an offer to make amends]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert (", as follows.
( ) If the parties agree on the steps to be taken in fulfilment of the offer, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for an order that the other party fulfil his offer by taking the steps agreed.
( ) If the parties do not agree on the steps to be taken by way of correction, apology and publication, the party who made the offer may take such steps as he thinks appropriate, and may in particular—

(a) make the correction and apology by a statement in open court in terms approved by the court, and

(b) give an undertaking to the court as to the manner of their publication.

( ) If the parties do not agree on the amount to be paid by way of compensation, it shall be determined by the court on the same principles as damages in defamation proceedings.
The court shall take account of any steps taken in fulfilment of the offer and (so far as not agreed between the parties) of the suitability of the correction, the sufficiency of the apology and whether the manner of their publication was reasonable in the circumstances, and may reduce or increase the amount of compensation accordingly.
( ) If the parties do not agree on the amount to be paid by way of costs, it shall be determined by the court on the same principles as costs awarded in court proceedings.").
Page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. With your Lordships' leave, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hoffmann Lord Hoffmann moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
EVIDENCE CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
(".—(1) Where the conduct of a person in or in relation to proceedings in Parliament is in issue in defamation proceedings, he may waive for the purposes of those proceedings, so far as concerns him, the protection of any enactment or rule of law which prevents proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
(2) Where a person waives that protection—

(a) any such enactment or rule of law shall not apply to prevent evidence being given, questions being asked or statements, submissions, comments or findings being made about his conduct, and

(b) none of those things shall be regarded as infringing the privilege of either House of Parliament.

(3) The waiver by one person of that protection does not affect its operation in relation to another person who has not waived it.
(4) Nothing in this section affects any enactment or rule of law so far as it protects a person (including a person who has waived the protection referred to above) from legal liability for words spoken or things done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, any proceedings in Parliament.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), that subsection applies to—

(a) the giving of evidence before either House or a committee;

(b) the presentation or submission of a document to either House or a committee;

(c) the preparation of a document for the purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business;

(d) the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of either House or a committee; and

(e) any communication with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or any person having functions in connection with the registration of members' interests.

In this subsection "a committee" means a committee of either House or a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee and withdrawn; it was moved again on Report and, but for a procedural mishap, would have been withdrawn. I now move it again with the leave of your Lordships' House. On the previous two occasions the House was, perhaps not surprisingly considering the subject matter, somewhat thinly attended. As there are now more noble Lords present, I ask the indulgence of the House if I cover what to some will be familiar ground.
This amendment has been stimulated by two recent cases, one in the Privy Council and one in the courts of this country. The English case is that of Mr. Neil Hamilton, a Member of another place and formerly a junior Minister. The Guardian newspaper published an article which he says amounted to an allegation that he made corrupt use of his position. He was said to have received payments from a businessman in return for asking Ministers questions which were intended to further that businessman's interests. The matter was taken sufficiently seriously for him to be asked to resign from the Government with no prospect of return until he had cleared his name from the Back Benches. This he attempted to do. He issued proceedings for libel. The Guardian pleaded justification. It said that what it had printed was true. But then the question arose as to whether

25
the court could decide this matter. It would involve investigation of what a Member of one of the Houses of Parliament had done in the course of his parliamentary duties. The court held that this would be contrary to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689, which is headed "Freedom of Speech" and provides,
"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament".
The primary purpose of Article 9 is of course to protect honourable Members and noble Lords from legal proceedings such as actions for libel, or in the old days prosecutions for sedition, on account of what they say or do in Parliament. This guarantees that complete freedom of speech which is essential to the functioning of Parliament and which was part of the settlement after the Glorious Revolution. In the 300 years since then the courts have given Article 9 a wide construction. It applies not only to actions against Members or noble Lords for what they have said in Parliament, but to any proceedings in which it is sought to question what has happened in Parliament. Indeed, the article has been said to be only part of a wider privilege which Parliament has to control its own proceedings and which in the 19th century was famously held to include the right to prohibit publication of reports of its debates.
There has been no previous case in England in which a Member of either House has sought to bring a libel action which raised a question about his own parliamentary conduct. But there has been at least one in Australia. It so happened that there had recently been a case in New Zealand, Prebble v. Television New Zealand, which came before Members of your Lordships' Appeal Committee sitting in their capacity as Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In that case it was decided that the court could not inquire into parliamentary conduct and that if the effect of that was to stifle a defence—on the part of, in that case, the television company, or the newspaper—that defamatory allegations were true, the Member's action would have to be stayed. So following that decision, the judge who was hearing Mr. Hamilton's case decided he could not investigate whether the Guardian's defence was true or not and that Mr. Hamilton's action would have to be stayed. So it remains technically in limbo but for practical purposes dead. Unless there is a change in the law which enables the judge to decide whether or not the Guardian was right, Mr. Hamilton cannot sue it. There is nothing which he can do to clear his name.
I should say at once that I do not know Mr. Hamilton and I have never met him. Nor, of course, do I have any idea as to where the truth lies in the dispute between him and the Guardian. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is unjust that he should not be able to put the matter before a judge and jury, like any other citizen who considers that his integrity has been publicly defamed. It is therefore to redress this injustice to Mr. Hamilton and anyone else who may in future find himself in the same position that I put forward this amendment. Its effect—if I may summarise—is to allow a Member of either House in defamation proceedings to lift a corner of the curtain which the Bill of Rights draws
26
over parliamentary proceedings and to allow the judicial gaze to fall upon his conduct alone. In no other way does it touch upon Article 9 or the privileges of Parliament.
If this amendment is passed it will give Mr. Hamilton access to justice which is at present denied him. As to this, I think that your Lordships can be in no doubt. But while access to justice is a matter of high constitutional importance, I recognise that it cannot always take paramount place. There are other aspects of the public interest to which it must sometimes defer; and one of these is the proper functioning of a democratic Parliament, which in our ancient constitution is still underpinned by the Bill of Rights. Notwithstanding my natural concern as a Member of the Appeal Committee of your Lordships' House with the administration of justice, I recognise the importance of these other constitutional issues. For that reason I do not see myself in the role of a partisan advocate of this amendment. The case for the amendment is fairly plain and I have made it already. But I also conceive it my duty to lay before your Lordships the arguments against the amendment so that you may better be able to balance the claims of justice against other interests of state.
One does not have to look very far for an example of access to justice being necessarily subordinated to the proper functioning of Parliament. The absolute privilege which the Bill of Rights gives to parliamentary debates and to newspaper reports of those debates means that a citizen who is defamed by something said in Parliament has no remedy in the courts. Even if the defamation was grave and malicious, his interests are sacrificed to the paramount interest of allowing uninhibited free speech in Parliament. So it is argued by some that the present case is only the other side of the coin. If honourable Members can say what they like about other people without being sued, why should they be able to sue for what other people say about them?
I think that this symmetry is deceptive. The public interest in freedom of speech in Parliament is ancient, plain and obvious. Not only is it greatly prized; it is also jealously guarded against misuse. Both Houses have their own disciplinary procedures against Members who abuse the privilege to defame outsiders. But what is the public interest in allowing anyone free licence to make defamatory statements about what honourable Members or noble Lords do in the course of their parliamentary duties? It may be said that they are public figures and that therefore in the interests of general discussion of public affairs they should have to submit to what may be said about them. The United States comes close to having such a rule. It allows public figures to sue for defamation only if they can prove that the statement was made with malice or reckless disregard of the truth. It is not enough for them to be able to show or even to require the other side to show that it was wrong.
But there is little support for such a rule in this country. And to maintain the rule with which we are concerned today would be a very eccentric way of giving effect to a policy of free discussion of public figures. First, it would apply only to what they did in the course of their parliamentary duties. If Mr. Hamilton had been alleged to be corrupt in the performance of his

27
duties at the Department of Trade, there is no doubt that he could have sued for libel like anyone else. There is simply no logic in a distinction between what he does in that capacity as a public figure and what he does as a Member of another place.
Secondly, under the present rule, Mr. Hamilton is not even able to sue as he could in the United States, if the newspaper were malicious or reckless. He cannot sue at all.
Thirdly, there is no domestic procedure for restraining abuse, as there is in the case of defamatory statements made by honourable Members or noble Lords. It may be theoretically possible for the Committee of Privileges in the other place to declare that a false statement about the way in which a Member of the other place performed his duties was an infringement of the privilege of the House. I have not really considered the matter because I am sure that your Lordships will agree that from a political point of view such a procedure would not in practice be a feasible remedy.
The argument that honourable Members or noble Lords must take the rough of the Bill of Rights with the smooth does not stand up to critical examination. There is not even a connection between those who get the smooth and those who get the rough. To leave an honourable Member defenceless against attacks on his honesty because some other Member might be tempted to abuse his privilege of free speech is like some primitive form of collective punishment. But I readily acknowledge that the argument has a certain superficial attraction and your Lordships may think that regard should be paid to the way in which a proposal may be received irrespective of whether that perception is based upon any very coherent analysis of what the public interest requires.
The second serious argument against the amendment is that it has not been sufficiently considered. It is true that this is the third occasion on which it has been before the House and it will, of course, have to undergo further consideration in another place. But in the scale of the three centuries for which Article 9 of the Bill of Rights has survived untouched, the proposal can fairly be described as novel. It is not surprising, therefore, that concern has been expressed by people who have the interests of Parliament at heart, not only in this country but also in the Commonwealth. In this debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale will be speaking to a Motion which he has put down to refer the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
I have great sympathy with my noble and learned friend's point of view. I say at once that I must confess to being extremely nervous at having put down a proposal which touches in any way upon the Bill of Rights, even though at the moment I think it to be totally innocuous and indeed beneficial. I think that my noble and learned friend's proposal would ideally be the right one. And, of course, it may be that my noble and learned friend and other noble Lords, in the course of this debate, will persuade me and others that there really are pitfalls for which such an inquiry is the only answer. But if that course were taken, the remedy, if any, would
28
almost certainly be too late to help Mr. Hamilton. By the time the committee had reported, and parliamentary time had been found to pass its recommendations into law, his claim would be very stale indeed. The beneficiaries would be future honourable Members or noble Lords who might find themselves in Mr. Hamilton's position. And since, so far as I know, his is the first case of its kind in this country for 300 years, it may be some time before the change has any practical effect. So your Lordships have to decide whether or not Mr. Hamilton is to be allowed access to justice. From his point of view, justice delayed will be justice denied. Your Lordships must consider the arguments and decide whether there are constitutional considerations of sufficient weight to require that he should be denied a remedy.
The third argument against the amendment is that there are objections of principle and practical difficulties about the way in which it may operate. It allows, as I said, an honourable Member or noble Lord to permit judicial scrutiny of his own conduct in Parliament and not that of anyone else. The objection in principle is this: that the privilege of Parliament is the privilege of each House as a whole and not that of any individual Member. It should therefore only be capable of being waived, if at all, by a resolution of the House. But I do not think that that would be a practical solution. There is no precedent for the House being able to waive the privilege so far as it protects the free speech of an individual Member and for my part I think that that would be a dangerous doctrine. It would enable a majority to deprive an unpopular member of a minority group of his essential constitutional right to freedom of speech. Equally, in a case like this, the right of a Member to sue for libel would be dependent on a resolution which may be influenced by factional interests. So there should be no general principle of waiver by resolution of the House. The remedy offered by the amendment is essentially a private matter for the Member who has been defamed, and that is how I think it should be.
I am aware of one practical problem, and there may be others. The one I have in mind arises in a case in which two or more Members are together concerned in conduct in respect of which one of them wants to sue for libel. How, in that case, can one of them allow his conduct to be investigated by the court without at the same time exposing the conduct of his colleagues to investigation as well? In a case in which one person's conduct is inextricably mixed up with that of another, how in practice is the subsection to be given effect?
I shall not disguise the fact that there is no easy answer to this question which has never arisen and may never do so. But judges are accustomed to finding themselves in a position in which, in the course of having to do justice between plaintiff and defendant, they have to protect the interests of third parties who have become involved. Sometimes they will find it possible to decide the case without trespassing upon the interests of others; sometimes they will protect him by prohibiting publication of evidence or names. I think that this is a problem which will have to be resolved if and when it arises. It does not, so far as I know, arise in the case of Mr. Hamilton.
Finally, it is said that this is an amendment which should originate, if at all, in another place. It arises out of the particular case of an honourable Member, and the privilege itself, although it belongs to both Houses, is historically more closely associated with the other place. I intend no trespass upon the dignities of the other place. No one could be more conscious of the need to respect its privileges than my noble friend Lord Tonypandy who spoke in the debate on this amendment at Committee stage. He made no suggestion then that anyone would take offence. All that your Lordships are being asked to do is to provide the other place with a text which it may accept, reject or amend with the benefit of such consideration as your Lordships are able to give it.
In conclusion, in placing this amendment before your Lordships, I should emphasise that it is not essentially a matter of lawyers' technical law. The question here is striking the balance between the right of access to justice and any countervailing considerations of public interest. In deciding this question, noble and learned Lords have no advantage over others of your Lordships in knowing what is the right solution. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that we have all heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I ought now to call, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
Line 3, after ("may") insert (", with the consent of both Houses of Parliament,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I thought that I had withdrawn Amendment No. 5. I did not want an already complicated issue made more complicated. It seemed to me in every way more satisfactory that your Lordships should have to decide whether to accept the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann or to let the matter be decided primarily in the other place but subject to review by your Lordships.
There can be no question but that the amendment raises matters of the highest constitutional importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said at Report stage, the Bill of Rights is at the very heart of our constitution. The amendment seeks to tamper with the Bill of Rights. Your Lordships will be grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann for having brought the matter before your Lordships and set it out in such an attractive manner today.
I have every sympathy with Mr. Hamilton, who is not the only one concerned. As my noble and learned friend said, in effect he has been denied recourse to the courts of justice. That has been inherent in the Bill of Rights for over 300 years. Any statement or proceeding in Parliament is immune from scrutiny and whoever wishes to challenge it, equally with Mr. Hamilton, has been throughout without recourse to the courts of
30
justice. The difference this time is that there is a backlash so it is the Member of Parliament who is not immune but who seeks relief. It is the reverse of what has obtained until now. It is implicit in the Bill of Rights and will remain implicit after the amendment passes into law, if it is agreed to, that a party is inhibited from recourse to the courts of justice.
Before turning to major matters, perhaps I may take up three points to which my noble and learned friend referred. He described the present situation as giving free licence to anyone to defame, without any danger and without redress, a Member of Parliament. I do not accept that for a moment. Parliament itself has its own machinery for ensuring that that kind of injustice is not perpetrated.
The second point to which my noble and learned friend referred was the liability to partisanship if the matter were to depend on the vote of either House of Parliament. Again, I am afraid that I do not accept that. A number of noble Lords were Members of the other place and I hope that they will bear me out when I say that the Privileges Committee of the House of Commons acts judiciously and fearlessly. Moreover, although its recommendations are generally, but not invariably, accepted by the House, I cannot accept that the House itself is liable to unfair partisanship.
There was the notable case in 1947 of Mr. Garry Allighan, who behaved disgracefully. There was a large Labour majority in the House at the time, he was a Labour Member and he behaved so disgracefully that the Leader of the House brought a Motion proposing that Mr. Garry Allighan should be suspended without pay for six months. However, the House went further than that. The House, being predominantly of Mr. Allighan's party, accepted an amendment that he should be expelled and so he was. So I am afraid that I do not accept the argument that the House of Commons is incapable of judging such matters fairly, that it will always be warped by partisanship.
The third preliminary matter which my noble and learned friend mentioned was the position of my noble friend Lord Tonypandy. Unfortunately he cannot be here today as he is in hospital, but we share an office and I discussed the matter with him after the Report stage. He agreed strongly that the matter should be primarily the concern of the House of Commons and should be left to it for the initial decision. I telephoned him in hospital only last Thursday to ensure that he was of the same opinion. He is and he authorised me to say so.
So much for the preliminary points made by my noble and learned friend. I hope that he will not press the amendment. In the first place, it needs much more consideration and consultation than it has received, particularly consultation with the officers of both Houses and with Commonwealth parliaments. The matter has arisen in both New Zealand and Australia and there are already rumblings of concern from the Antipodes at the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend.
Secondly, it seems to be highly unsatisfactory that such a constitutional point should be implemented as a by-blow in a defamation Bill. Thirdly, it seems to me primarily a matter which should be left for the initial

31
consideration of the other place. The events which led to the Bill of Rights were exclusively those in the House of Commons. The two current cases, one of which is Mr. Hamilton's, are both in the House of Commons.
There is a further reason why it seems that the matter should go untrammelled to the other place. If your Lordships were to inscribe this amendment on the Bill, it would form part of the Government's Bill and, I surmise, be the subject of a running Whip. However, if it is left to be independently advanced in the other place, the Government having proclaimed neutrality, there would be a free vote. Surely, on a constitutional matter of this kind, that is in every way preferable. So I hope that my noble and learned friend will not press the amendment. There are grave difficulties anyhow. The assumption behind it is that there is an individual privilege of a Member which he himself can waive. But that is not so. It is universally agreed that it is stated by Erskine May and all the other authorities that the privilege is that of the House or, in some cases such as with the Bill of Rights, of Parliament. If a Member, by implication—and it is no more in this amendment—is able to waive his own privilege, in so far as he has one as a Member of the other place or this place, there remains the privilege of the House as a whole. That means that the House as a whole can take cognisance of the conduct or words in question.
In the most recent case that reviewed this matter, Pickin v. BR some 20 years ago, it was emphasised that it would be quite intolerable if there were two inquiries going ahead simultaneously or overlapping, one by the courts of law and one by the House of Parliament. The amendment would land us in a whole number of respects in precisely that situation.
A number of very difficult expressions would fall for interpretation in the courts, the most important being "proceedings in Parliament". There is every reason to think that that might be differently interpreted by the courts and by the House itself.
Then there is the difficulty to which my noble and learned friend referred, whereby our two Members are in a similar position. They are accused jointly of being corrupt. One waives privilege and sues; the other stands on his rights. What is to be done? My noble and learned friend mentioned that but did not offer any solution. I can see no solution that would be consonant with justice. In fact, the sensible thing now would be for the House to conduct its own inquiry, taking no notice of any pretended waiver by one Member; but he would have a statutory right by implication to have that waiver.
There are three different sources of privilege which have different scope and different incidence. There are the privileges that are asked by the House of Commons of the Queen at the Opening of Parliament—the three requests that are made. The most important of them is freedom of speech, which is largely merged now, I believe, in the Bill of Rights. That is a privilege of the House of Commons alone, although this House probably has similar privileges.
Then there is the privilege of the Bill of Rights as to words, conduct and proceedings in Parliament. As my noble and learned friend said, there is a far wider scope
32
of privilege. The privilege of the Bill of Rights is the privilege of the whole of Parliament alone and cannot, I believe, be waived by either House. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, a distinguished constitutional lawyer, nodding his acquiescence. I hope he will intervene in this debate. He has had ministerial experience of both Houses and his service abroad gives him a comparative outlook.
There is a third group of privileges which I believe belong to each House separately. They go very wide. Noble Lords may remember that A. P. Herbert, before he became a Member of Parliament, pursued a campaign against the restrictive licensing laws. A prime target was Parliament, which enacted those laws but did not obey them. He took out a summons against the refreshment manager of the House of Commons. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed that and it was dismissed on appeal by the Lord Chief Justice. Even the opening hours in the bars in Parliament are covered by privilege—not by the Bill of Rights, but by the wider privilege. So the House will see how far we can go from defamation.
That brings me to defamation itself. On Report, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was inclined to doubt whether there would be any cases of tort other than defamation. But, considering A. P. Herbert's case, can one be so sure? In any case, assault and battery is a tort as well as a crime. Let us suppose that two Members come to fisticuffs on the Floor of the House. Who has the right to claim that the other is the aggressor and that he is engaged in no more than self-defence? Let us suppose, for instance, that a campaigning journalist comes face to face with his victim, a Member, in the Lobby. What is the position then? There arises the sort of question that examiners like to set: "Supposing there was that sort of scuffle in the gateway between New Palace Yard and Parliament Square …". It simply cannot be assumed that this is a defamation problem only and whatever is important can be dealt with by a defamation Bill.
The fifth point of difficulty was mentioned on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I shall leave him to deal with it. If this amendment were passed, it would require something further; namely, the availability of qualified privilege by the newspaper or other organ of the media.
There is another very important point; namely, what about public opinion? Public opinion regards Parliament somewhat askance. In Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann mentioned "saloon bar opinion" and "saloon bar cynics". What would they say if this House were to approve a measure that allowed a Member to pick and choose: to stand on his privilege when it suits him but to waive it when that suits him? Noble Lords may think that Parliament should have regard to the likely repercussions on opinion.
There are two more short points. First, what about Scotland? One of the many doubtful points in this branch of the law is whether the Bill of Rights applies to Scotland. In fact, the Bill of Rights was passed before

33
the Act of Union, and Scotland has its own declaim of rights. It is by no means in the same terms as the Bill of Rights; but that, again, is a matter that requires investigation.
Finally, there is the matter I mentioned of Commonwealth repercussions. It is for those reasons that I put down the Motion which is to be taken immediately after this Bill and which has been discussed along with it. As at present advised, I do not propose to move that Motion because I feel that the whole matter should go to the other place completely untrammelled and with a clean slate. I shall listen to what your Lordships have to say about that. In the meantime I suggest that on a matter of such constitutional importance this amendment ought not to be accepted.
[Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I never cease to be amazed at what is said in this place. Coming from such a great constitutional lawyer as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to be classed as a distinguished constitutionalist is an accolade of which I am very proud. Perhaps I should increase my fees somewhat. Not as a distinguished constitutional lawyer but as someone trying to approach this difficult question with a degree of common sense, let me put certain basic propositions to the House. I shall do it in very short order.
I start by saying that I have considerable sympathy with Mr. Hamilton. This is a situation in which, because of the nature of parliamentary privilege in this country, prima facie a case which would have gone through the courts in the normal way is now not capable of doing so. As I understand it, whatever happens to this amendment does not defeat the case. The case is not statute barred. As I understand it, it is stayed for the time being.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, did the House a service in setting out at some length the background to the argument. It was notable that, in the course of his argument, he conceded that there was an effect on Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689. He said that what we should be doing in this House is providing the other place with a text. With great respect, I do not believe that that is the function of this place. We are supposed to be legislating. We are supposed to be considering adding a clause to a Bill which in due course will go to the other place for its consideration. We are performing our legislative function and not providing the other place with a text which they might or might not wish to consider.
Let me put to the House what I hope are relatively simple propositions. First, does the proposed amendment go to the issue of the privilege of Parliament and Members of Parliament? The answer is clearly yes. Secondly, whose privilege is it—the individual's or Parliament's as a whole? The answer is also clear: it is the privilege of Parliament as a whole and not of one individual Member. My third proposition is: if the amendment is accepted, does it alter the privileges as
34
expressed in the Bill of Rights of 1689? The answer is clearly yes. If it does and if there is a case for altering the privileges of Parliament or of individual Members of Parliament, as expressed in the Bill of Rights of 1689, how should Parliament go about altering that Bill of Rights? I venture to suggest that an amendment tacked on to the Third Reading in your Lordships' House of a Bill on defamation is, frankly, not the way in which a constitutional issue of such importance should be considered.
However one looks at the matter and however much sympathy one has for Mr. Hamilton, and indeed the other defendant in this affair, it goes to the root of the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the British public. We are talking about a privilege that is attached to Parliament. With great respect, I do not believe that one should deal with the matter in this way.
If the matter should not be dealt with in that way, how should one do it? It seems to me that there is here an issue that is worth considering and that should be considered. Who should consider it? In my submission, it should not be done by this House on its own in the course of passing legislation. It should be done as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, proposed in his Motion; namely:
"That it is desirable that a joint committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the issues raised by the proposed new clause",
as set down in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. I believe that that is right.
Should the matter come to a Vote, let me make my position clear. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, insists on the new clause, I shall oppose it. I shall do so on the basis that, if his amendment is to fall, the House will be prepared to accept the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
I said that I would be brief and I have been. It seems to me that this is too important an issue to be dealt with in legislation in this way. It requires detailed consideration by a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. If the result of that consideration is that we should amend the Bill of Rights of 1689, so be it, and that can no doubt be done in a proper way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too can be brief. I have not discussed this matter with any member of the Government, although I am a keen supporter of the Government. I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said and with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. However, we have to acknowledge that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, with great care and thoroughness and obviously after giving the matter great thought, has drawn our attention to a conflict. It is a conflict between the constitutional necessity for having freedom of speech in all proceedings in Parliament and in committees of Parliament and the sense of justice in rare individual cases.
I served for some years on the Committee of Privileges of another place. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, there were occasions when that committee had to consider the justice of a matter. In my

35
experience, it reached sensible conclusions. I do not think that there was ever a case in which we had to consider the kind of conflict that arose in the case of Mr. Neil Hamilton. I should hope that after 300 years or more such cases would be extremely rare.
But there is one fundamental objection to the principle put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. It is the only opinion that I wish to put before your Lordships. If Parliament said that parliamentary privilege could be waived in any case before the courts, in my opinion it is most likely that in such cases the person who might be asked to waive the privilege would be deemed under a moral obligation to do so. If that became the usual practice, then de facto, although not directly by law, we would do away with the privilege conferred by the Bill of Rights. So we must be very careful before we give a discretionary power on the part of the individual which could become by moral obligation a pressure and in that way indirectly alter a constitutional principle.
It is a constitutional principle which must not be altered without the very greatest care, if it is altered at all, I repeat that freedom of speech is fundamental to the working of democracy, especially to the working of the House of Commons. It also affects your Lordships, although in practice, over the centuries, it has not in fact done so. But, of course, your Lordships have a duty to consider the matter as we are doing this afternoon.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I hesitate to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is such an experienced parliamentarian, and to dispute that freedom of speech is fundamental to the workings of Parliament, especially of the other place. However, it is my strongly held view that freedom of speech should be exercised with responsibility.
One of the developments in modern politics has been the way in which freedom of speech, protected by 100 per cent. parliamentary privilege, has been abused. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I served for some considerable time in another place. Over the 25 years I have served in Parliament, I have become increasingly concerned about the blanket privilege protection that is enjoyed, particularly by those who serve in the other place. I was a member of the Procedure Committee when the decision was taken to televise the proceedings of another place. At that time I expressed the view that a Member of Parliament could rise in his or her place and make outrageous statements about members of the public, particularly local authority councillors, who were in no position to defend themselves against such allegations. Today, Tuesday, large numbers of people throughout the country will have watched the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time. It has become quite commonplace for Back-Bench Members on all sides of the House—I make no party political point here—to rise in their place and make such outrageous statements.
When I was a member of the Procedure Committee in another place I suggested at the time of the decision to televise its proceedings that there should be introduced some redress for those whose characters
36
were maligned in that way by people who were using the protection of privilege in another place. In my time here I have seen privilege used constructively. Noble Lords may remember the Savundra affair, the great insurance scandal, of the early 1970s. That insurance scandal could not possibly have been exposed had it not been for the fact that Raymond Carter, a Birmingham MP, raised the matter under privilege from the Back Benches of the other place. So I have seen privilege used in a correct and constructive fashion, but I have also seen privilege abused in the most appalling manner.
While I support the proposal submitted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I should like to have seen the terms of that proposal extended to include not only a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament but also some constitutional experts who serve in neither House of Parliament in order to bring outside opinion and influence to bear on the proceedings of that investigation.
I know Neil Hamilton very well and I can claim with some confidence that he and I have been friends since he entered the House of Commons. I was already there when he came. However, we are not here today to discuss an individual's problems and concerns. We are discussing an issue of profound principle. Neil Hamilton was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. He was not involved in any way, shape or form in the Matrix Churchill affair. But had he been, it is an astonishing fact that, like every other Minister at that time, he would have been in a position, advised by the Government's Law Officers, to issue a public interest immunity certificate to prevent the very examination that we are seeking to implement here today in the change to the Bill of Rights.
Ministers, advised by the Law Officers, are in a position to issue public interest immunity certificates to prevent the revelation of information. That is the dichotomy and contradiction with which we are all faced. In this case it is suggested that the courts should be given the power, by changing Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, to examine the conduct of a Member of Parliament—a Minister in this case—on the say-so of that individual. If that is the opinion of both Houses of Parliament, where then stands the citizen? Why should not the citizen have the right to go to the courts to ask them to investigate the parliamentary conduct of a Member of this House or of another place; or is it to be a one-way street? That is how this will be seen in the country at large.
I appreciate the frustration that is felt by Mr. Hamilton in his complaint against the Guardian but I do not agree with the proposal to change Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps I may point out that the Bill of Rights would not apply to Scotland. The claim of right is the article of association that would apply to Scotland. The position at the minute is that the courts do not have the right to investigate the conduct of a Member of Parliament. It is suggested that we give them that right but that we do not give the individual citizen the right to ask the courts to carry out that same investigation. What kind of impression are we giving to the people of this country as we seek to reform the democratic process?

37
If this matter comes to a Division I shall follow the advice of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and support the proposition put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I would hope that on the amendment that was moved so genuinely and ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann—he has done the House a service by allowing us to discuss the matter—the opinion of the House will not be sought.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, at this stage perhaps the House will bear with someone who wishes to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. Not surprisingly perhaps to the House, I put first the fact that the honourable Member, Mr. Neil Hamilton, has decided to bring libel proceedings, a very considerable decision for anyone to take, in order to defend himself against an attack by a newspaper which has brought to a stop his ministerial career and must have damaged his career as a Member of Parliament. Having made that great decision and having decided to subject himself to the ordeal—it is an ordeal—of libel proceedings, he now finds that he has come to a dead stop. He can do nothing to remove from public knowledge an attack upon his character first made in a newspaper and now made in proceedings by justification. He can do nothing. We here appear to believe that to release him from the bar that puts a stay on the proceedings raises such implications of a constitutional nature that we are unable to back the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, gave valuable advice to the House, but I believe that he misdirected himself on one point. He referred to the amendment being "tacked on" to the Third Reading. The amendment was moved in Committee and at Report stage. I am sure that he would not wish to charge the noble and learned Lord with that.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord is right as regards the procedure. Perhaps I may be forgiven for observing that, as I understand it, the amendment had been discussed by only four Members of your Lordships' House before today.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. It may have been discussed by only four noble Lords, but some of us were here who agreed with what had been said so we did not feel it necessary to add to it. Certainly, I was one of them. I hope that the House will consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said, bearing in mind the great authority which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble friend Lord Renton and others, bring to our discussions, and that we shall get back in our minds to the problem of what is the right thing to do over what is manifestly an injustice.
These proceedings have been stayed and for so long as that is so, Mr. Neil Hamilton's character is stained. That is what happened to me, and that is why I can speak with some feeling. In my case the matter goes on and on and I am getting used to it. Mr. Neil Hamilton is not used to it. He is a much younger man and he has
38
to face life with this charge sticking to him. Surely, this House, with its regard for justice, which means not only the privilege of Parliament but justice to the individual, will think again before dismissing the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, during the brief debate on the Bill at Report stage I expressed sympathy for the aim of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, which was tabled only shortly before the debate. After further reflection, I am now convinced that the amendment is flawed and would infringe fundamental principles of the constitution. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I explain why. It is for several main reasons.
First, contrary to the view of some of your Lordships, I believe that Mr. Neil Hamilton, whom the amendment was devised to assist and who has not pursued an appeal to the higher courts, would have reasonable prospects of success, as I shall explain. Secondly, the amendment is, as your Lordships have indicated, at odds with the protection given to parliamentary privilege by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Thirdly, it would operate arbitrarily. Fourthly, I believe that it would extend parliamentary privilege in a manner that would unnecessarily interfere with free speech. Fifthly, it would create new conflicts between Parliament and the courts of the kind we thought dead and buried a century ago. Lastly, it would authorise conduct that would infringe the European Convention on Human Rights.
In approaching the amendment I respectfully suggest that we would do well to heed the wise warning in the maxim, "Hard cases make bad law", to which I would add, bad constitutional law and bad constitutional practice. The fact that Neil Hamilton's case is a hard case should not lead us to act in a hasty way. In the Prebble case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, explained,
"The basic concept underlying Article 9 is the need to ensure as far as possible that a member of the legislature and witnesses before committees of the House can speak freely without fear that what they say will later be held against them in the courts".
He made it clear on behalf of the Privy Council that:
"The privilege protected by Article 9 is the privilege of parliament itself. The actions of any individual Member of Parliament, even if he has an individual privilege of his own, cannot determine whether or not the privilege of Parliament is to apply".
In the Prebble case, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, observed, the Privy Council decided that parties to litigation cannot bring into question anything said or done in the House by suggesting that actions or words were inspired by improper motives or were untrue or misleading. The Privy Council said that such matters lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.
It is significant—and it has not yet been mentioned—that nowhere in the Commonwealth has any other legislature or any member of any other legislature, so far as I am aware, sought to tamper with Article 9 in the wake of the Prebble case in the manner contemplated by this amendment. In my view it is most unfortunate that Mr. Hamilton did not appeal against the application of the Prebble case in the circumstances of his particular

39
case because there is strong persuasive authority, not considered by the Privy Council, suggesting that the Law Lords might hold, if he did appeal, that he could pursue his libel action notwithstanding Article 9.
Without taxing the patience of noble Lords unduly, perhaps I may give one example. I have in mind the decision of the American Supreme Court in United States v. Brewster (1972) where it upheld the validity of an indictment of a former US senator alleging that he had accepted a bribe to be influenced in the performance of his official acts. The Supreme Court decided that although the American equivalent of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights protects members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for the performance of such acts, it does not protect all conduct relating to legislative acts or motivation. The Supreme Court said that it was the taking of the bribe, not the act which the bribe was intended to influence, which was the subject of the prosecution. The court held that the "speech and debate" clause, which is equivalent to Article 9, imposed no obstacle for that type of prosecution. Chief Justice Burger observed that in Canada, as well as in Australia, courts have held that parliamentary privilege does not bar the criminal prosecution of legislators for bribery.
In my view it is very strongly arguable that if Mr. Hamilton had pursued an appeal, the Law Lords would have been persuaded by this reasoning—not only in the American case, but in others—to decide that Article 9 interposes no obstacle to an action based on a particular libel of which he complained since an allegation of accepting cash for asking questions in Parliament is quite different from the allegation in the Prebble case of making misleading statements to Parliament. In other words, I believe that Mr. Hamilton's case can readily be distinguished from the Prebble decision.
Noble Lords may think that if that is correct Mr. Hamilton should be pursuing his remedy in court rather than that we should have to consider such a grave and weighty constitutional amendment. In addressing the merits of the case, I believe that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, goes much wider than the particular circumstances of Mr. Hamilton's case. In my opinion the amendment is plainly inconsistent with Article 9. It seeks—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made the point—legislative authority for Parliament to surrender its vital collective privilege to any individual Member or anyone else who is a witness in defamation proceedings and whose conduct is in issue in those proceedings. It leaves entirely to the discretion of that Member or witness, or other individual, to decide whether to waive the protection given to Parliament by Article 9. I venture to doubt whether such a course can constitutionally be taken in accordance with Article 9 and in accordance with the law and custom of our constitution as observed over the past three centuries without the House itself deciding in each particular case whether or not to waive the collective privilege. However, that is what the amendment seeks to do by means of what is really a parliamentary equivalent of a sweepingly broad Henry VIII clause—ourselves acting in this sense as Henry VIII.
40
I believe that the amendment is also inconsistent with the central purpose of Article 9 in another important way. Its very existence would mean, if it were enacted, that a Member who has been defamed will be under pressure to waive the collective privilege to vindicate his reputation. Furthermore, although the amendment purports to leave it to the discretion of the individual without affecting the operation of parliamentary privilege in relation to another person who has not waived it, that is not how it will work in practice, as several noble Lords have said.
Let us take the case, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, referred, of several Members being involved in the same matter. One decides to waive the collective privilege so that he can pursue a libel action. He is able to proceed with the action in that case only if he can persuade the others to waive their privilege; otherwise the court would stay the action on the ground that there cannot be a fair trial unless the relevant evidence, including the evidence of the other Members, is made available. That means that pressure will be brought to bear by one Member on another Member to waive privilege. Pressure of that kind undoubtedly undermines the collective protection of parliamentary privilege, and the very existence of the possibility of waiver by any one Member would deprive all Members of the confidence, at the time they speak, that they could be certain that there could not subsequently be a challenge in the courts to what they are saying.
I am sorry to say that I also think that the amendment would operate arbitrarily in several ways. In the first place, its operation would be entirely at the discretion of the individual Member or witness. Secondly, it could be waived entirely to further his own particular interest as a party to litigation. I take as an example the case of the Church of Scientology v. Geoffrey Johnson-Smith, as he then was. The plaintiff in that case sued Geoffrey Johnson-Smith for defamatory remarks made during a television interview outside Parliament. Geoffrey Johnson-Smith pleaded fair comment and privilege. To defeat that plea, the Church of Scientology pleaded that the MP had acted with malice, and it sought to adduce evidence, including extracts from Hansard, of what the MP had done and said in Parliament. The court refused to permit that because it would breach parliamentary privilege.
However, if the amendment were passed, a defendant would retain the option to use parliamentary privilege to shield himself in libel proceedings not only in respect of what he had said or done in Parliament, but also, as in the Johnson-Smith case, of what he had said or done outside Parliament. On the other hand, he would be given the new right, an entirely novel right, at his sole discretion, to waive privilege whenever it suited him, whether as plaintiff or defendant, in defamation proceedings. That would surely strike the other party to the libel proceeding, and the public at large, as an unfair extension of parliamentary privilege, inconsistent with its origins and primary purpose and arbitrary in its operation.
It would also unjustifiably interfere with free speech since a newspaper seeking to criticise an MP would have no way of knowing whether, or upon what basis,

41
parliamentary privilege might be waived so as to permit the newspaper to establish the truth of fair criticisms of the conduct of elected Members in the performance of their legislative duties. That would have a serious impact on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, described as,
"a most important aspect of freedom of speech, namely the right of the public to comment on and criticise the actions of those elected to power in a democratic society".
The amendment is arbitrary in another way, not yet referred to. It applies only to defamation proceedings, yet the reputation of an MP or other witness may be at stake in other proceedings, such as a criminal conspiracy trial, as in the Australian case of Hunt. I can discern no rational basis for permitting an individual waiver only in libel proceedings. If it were right to permit waiver by an individual, he should surely be permitted to waive the privilege to clear his name in the course of a criminal trial, say, for bribery or corruption.
As several noble Lords have said, the amendment would plainly result in the very vice, to which the Privy Council referred in Prebble, of reviving conflict between the courts and Parliament by allowing it to be suggested in cross-examination or submission that a Member or witness had lied to the House.
As it stands, the amendment would also unnecessarily chill free speech by allowing Members to pursue libel proceedings without there being qualified privilege, unlike the position in the United States, Australia, India, Pakistan, and Trinidad and Tobago. However, I recognise that that matter falls outside the scope of this amendment.
If this matter is to proceed further—I very much hope that it does not—I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, I very much hope that after this debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, will seek leave to withdraw the amendment. I believe that Mr. Hamilton should be left to pursue his legal remedies before the courts by way of appeal out of time. I also suggest that we should not subvert ancient and wise constitutional principles for the sake of a particular personal or political interest in litigation, however hard the case.
The immunities written into Article 9 were not included simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of either House but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by ensuring the independence of individual legislators. It was the culmination of a long struggle for parliamentary supremacy. I submit that it is as important as ever in protecting the independence and integrity of Parliament and should not be permitted to be undermined to meet the personal and private needs of particular individuals, however much we may or may not sympathise with the case.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, the House should be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, for bringing this amendment before it. I have been influenced in this matter by the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. The noble Viscount was for many years a most successful Speaker of another place. One of his duties was to protect the interests of a Member of Parliament. He said previously that he was
42
sympathetic to this amendment. I accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said and that he has spoken to the noble Viscount—I am sure that we all wish the noble Viscount a speedy recovery from his illness—who said that the decision will, of course, be taken in the other place. If this amendment is passed, the matter will be discussed in the other place in any case.
I do not like the fact that the emphasis has been on the other place. As far as I can see, it could happen to a Member of this House. Consequently, I believe that both Houses are under a joint liability, if I may so put it. I believe that we should pass the amendment and let the other place look at it.
Having been in Parliament for well over 30 years, I am not all that keen on having more and more committees. The establishment of committees is invariably a delaying tactic—I am not suggesting that this will be—but the danger is there. Consequently, I do not think that we should set up another committee. I believe that this House is capable of, and has a constitutional right to, pass the amendment which can then go before another place. If we do not pass the amendment and if we do not say anything about the matter, how can the other place be given advice by this House? We should view the situation more from the parliamentary point of view.
I turn now to the Privileges Committee. That committee cannot possibly help Neil Hamilton in the circumstances. If a Member of Parliament commits a misdemeanour, the Privileges Committee can take action against him. In the past, the Privileges Committee has done just that. As the noble and learned Lord has said, that committee can suspend a Member for a Sitting, one week, two weeks or whenever. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. This matter has been debated backwards and forwards. There is no point in going over all the arguments again. As a parliamentarian, I believe that this should be passed and that it should go to another place so that it can have another debate upon the matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to make a statement from the Back Benches on the matters under discussion this afternoon. Mr. Hamilton is not the only person involved in this affair. I declare my interest. I am a non-executive director of Ian Greer Associates. That brings me into category 2 of the recent Register of Lords' Interests. As I understand it, that means that I may speak upon matters relating to my interest but must declare it. I have some knowledge of the matters referred to here.
Your Lordships may be aware that over a period of three years the Guardian has conducted a campaign against this company, culminating in a series of serious allegations against it and the way it has conducted its business. The publication of these allegations was made without reference to Mr. Greer or his fellow directors. I believe the allegations to be totally without foundation. They also involve Mr. Neil Hamilton, MP, who, at the same time as Mr. Greer and IGA, sued the paper for libel. The allegations proved very damaging to a small and, until that time, successful company. They caused a sensation not only in the UK but internationally. The

43
hurt and damage have been substantial. Fortunately, IGA had long-standing clients who did not believe the allegations and remained loyal. Nonetheless, business losses were sustained. As a result, IGA was forced to make some staff redundant. As a non-executive director, I receive a small fee, but during that period I did not accept it. I felt that I could not do so while the company had to lose staff.
Eighteen months on and after a lot of hard work things are beginning to turn around. The libel case that IGA brought against the newspaper was stayed on the grounds of parliamentary privilege. Therefore, the company has been denied access to justice. Mr. Greer as an ordinary citizen should have had the opportunity to clear his name by pursuing the action against the newspaper. He does not enjoy the rights that are afforded to Members of either House to speak in their own defence. In staying Mr. Greer's libel action on the grounds of parliamentary privilege, Mr. Justice May said that he was acutely aware that his decision might be perceived as a profound denial of justice to the plaintiffs (Mr. Greer and IGA).
Strangely enough, many newspapers commented on the injustice of the ruling. It was only right and fair that the Guardian should have had to try to prove the faults and damaging claims that it made. Surely it is wrong that newspapers should get away with making false allegations and then be able to shelter behind parliamentary privilege when asked to substantiate them in court.
I appreciate that there are serious constitutional issues involved here, as my noble friend Lord Richard has said. But it is unfortunate, to say the least, that ordinary citizens not protected by privilege should be caught up in a web of this kind and be unable to have their day in court. In view of my interest, which I have declared, I do not think it right that I should vote on this matter. Therefore, I propose to abstain. Nevertheless, I feel that the House should be made aware of the background to some of the issues that are being debated today.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. I do so with enthusiasm, since I have been a victim of the problem with which the amendment seeks to deal. In 1990 when I was a Member of another place I was the subject of a libellous article in a well-known journal which alleged that I had broken the rules about the registration of Members' interests in 12 different respects. The article was erroneous in almost every particular. I was advised that, if a court were able to take a decision, I should certainly win, as far as anyone could be certain of anything in a defamation case. I was also advised that as soon as the case reached a comparatively early stage the Attorney General would intervene on grounds of breach of parliamentary privilege. Consequently, the case could very well be stayed.
I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and other noble Lords have said about the paucity of similar cases in the past. In my case the
44
situation was complicated by a case decided only a few months before the libellous article to which I have referred. I refer to Rost v. Edwards. That case also involved Members of the House of Commons and the Register of Members' Interests. In that case the learned judge decided that claims for privilege in respect of the register did not fall within the definition of proceedings in Parliament. He ruled that it was open to the plaintiff to give the evidence he wished regarding the registration of Members' interests and to the defendants to challenge that evidence. But there was a considerable body of opinion that that case had been wrongly decided and that, if I took my case further and the High Court followed the Rost case, the Attorney-General would take it to appeal and might very well win. Of course, anyone who opposed the case put forward by the Attorney-General in that situation would have to bear his own costs as well as those of the Attorney-General, which is not a very attractive proposition.
Therefore, I was in the same position as Mr. Neil Hamilton. I had no means of clearing my name. This seemed to me to be wholly unjust. I could not understand how the rule of privilege, which had been originally intended to protect freedom of debate in Parliament, could prevent a Member of either House of Parliament defending himself against a libel. Fortunately, in the event my action against the journal was settled, not on the terms which I believe would have been awarded had the case been decided by a court but at least on terms which included the payment of my costs and the publication of an apology. But I do not believe that that weakens the case for the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston that the principle we are now discussing is equally important to this House as it is to the other place. It is true that cases of this kind have arisen more frequently in the other place, which is perhaps a consequence of the nature of the other place, but the principle is also relevant to this House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that, if this amendment were passed, it would become part of a Government Bill and it would go to the other House as a Government Bill. Therefore, the voting on this clause (as it would then be) would be whipped. After 28 years in the other place, I am confident that there is no reason at all why a free vote should not be allowed in the other place as it has been allowed in this House on the matter. Now that the subject of the registration of Members' interests in both Houses has assumed greater prominence in the media than before, it is even more important that Parliament should do what it can to ensure that this wholly unjust situation does not arise again.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have listened to this debate for some time. It is quite clear that no one in the House objects to the objects of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. I believe that if it had been otherwise, the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, would have been sufficient to sway us. All I say about Mr. Hamilton is that we should vote on the assumption that what is

45
his case today may be ours tomorrow. The argument is not whether something should be done but whether what should be done is this particular amendment.
Clearly, a person who is defamed should have a right to justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said that there were no previous cases. However, there were cases before the passage of the Bill of Rights. In those cases, it was treated as a contempt of the House collectively. So the libeller or defamer was called before the House or its Committee of Privileges and accused of a contempt of the House collectively. That clearly was not a satisfactory procedure. It tended to create a sense of conflict between the House and an individual litigant—a sense of taking a hammer to crack a nut. We do not want to go back there, but if we do not go back there then the only reasonable alternative is access to the courts. But the question is whether access to the courts should be reached by means of this amendment. On that, my sympathies are with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Like him, I am deeply concerned by what my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill described as making a sort of Henry VIII clause of privilege with us in the capacity of Henry VIII, making over to the individual Peer or Member, as it were, almost the ownership of his privilege as if it were his.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is quite right: the privilege is that of the House, and it is that of the House because it exists in order to allow the Member to serve the House. On that, I venture to say that I cannot think of any of my academic colleagues on either side of the Atlantic who would disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and there are few subjects indeed upon which I could make that statement.
I shall though venture—if I may—to ask one small question about which I must be tentative, because it has arisen only since we came into the Chamber. The noble and learned Lord said that the privilege was that of the Bill of Rights. I wonder whether it is in fact an older privilege against suing and being sued, because, if it is so, as I suppose, then the case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about waiving the privilege is very much strengthened because there are then plenty of precedents in favour of the case he advances, which is that the proper procedure is for the Member or the Peer to go to his own House and ask the leave of the House to waive the privilege.
The privilege is that of the whole House. Each House of Parliament is sovereign over its own proceedings, and, as I see it, it is not proper for any one but the whole House to attempt to waive its privileges. That is why I feel a grave doubt about putting statements about parliamentary privilege and parliamentary procedure into an Act of Parliament, because it has been clear, at least for 400 years, that neither House has any authority whatsoever over the privileges or the proceedings of the other. That is a jealousy guarded point. But what goes into a statute has the authority of both Houses. It, in effect, allows whichever House prevails in a disagreement to legislate a procedure for a ruling on privilege which may conflict with the wishes of the other. That is the tip of a very, very large wedge. I have
46
no wish to see the House pass it. So I hope that we will think for a long time before inserting any such provision into an Act of Parliament.
So far as concerns Parliament, a resolution of each House in the relevant case is sufficient. Where we need to think more—the committee recommended by the noble and learned Lord is the right place to do it—is of the protection of the courts, because of course the House may waive its privilege but since that is not in an Act of Parliament it does not free the courts from the obligation laid down in the Bill of Rights. To do that, we need another and a different amendment, saying that the courts shall not be held to be in breach of the Bill of Rights in any case in which the relevant House of Parliament has chosen to waive its privilege. For that amendment, I would vote; for the amendment before the House at present, I regret to say that I would not.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if I may be forgiven after an hour and 34 minutes of listening to this interesting debate, I should like to make just one or two observations. At the start, I felt a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Hamilton, who is a friend of mine. Having heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, move his amendment, I must say that I was wholly convinced by it. That conviction has only been mildly shaken from time to time by those who have opposed it. If it comes to a Division, I shall therefore vote for it.
What seems to me to be odd, unpalatable, and very hard to accept, is that a privilege which was designed originally for the protection of Parliament and its Members should now have the wholly unintended effect of barring the access of one Member to the courts, that Member believing himself to have been seriously libelled. I need not go into that more than to say that he was obliged, as a result of the publication of that accusation, to resign as a Minister of the Crown. I know that sympathy for Mr. Hamilton has been expressed even by those who oppose the amendment, but I feel, nevertheless, that perhaps rather too much has been made of a minor change to a law which has stood for over 300 years. It does not seem too much to suggest, in the interest of justice to an individual, this modest change, which does not give him anything save that which is the right of every citizen of this country who feels he has been wronged.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to support the amendment and to underline what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Peyton. I do so by asking a very simple question: what happens if we put ourselves in the position of those who drafted and passed the Bill of Rights, and ask whether they would have intended Mr. Hamilton to find himself in his present predicament thanks to their otherwise worthy endeavours? May I suggest that they would have been very disturbed? Those who drafted the Bill of Rights cannot have envisaged the public climate in which we live today. I hope that your Lordships will not think me flippant if I go further and suggest that they could not conceivably have been able to foresee the existence of the Guardian newspaper, or indeed of the rest of our modern media. It is perhaps for that reason that Mr. Hamilton's case, if not the first, is certainly one of the very early cases after 300 years of history.

47
I am not a constitutional expert, but the amendment does not seem to me to go against the fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights. Indeed it appears to go with the wider implications and intentions of the Bill itself. It does not go against its priceless principles. I have listened to all the arguments put forward this afternoon by noble Lords who oppose the amendment, and I have to say that they strike me as somewhat administrative when set against the principles that we are debating. I have had the impression that some noble Lords who have spoken against the amendment have been standing the Bill of Rights on its head.
I am left with the letter which I received from Mr. Hamilton; indeed, I am sure that many noble Lords have received the same letter. I have heard nothing which goes against the urgency and obvious justice of his case, which is merely the right to have it heard before the courts. Therefore, I shall conclude by quoting to your Lordships what Mr. Justice May said when he very reluctantly stayed the case. He said:
"I am acutely conscious that staying the actions may be perceived as a profound denial of justice to the plaintiffs. The ability of all persons to come to the courts to have their disputes tried and determined fairly and according to law is a cardinal right upon which freedom under the constitution depends".
I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I came to the House to support the amendment, but having heard the debate I am unable to do so, largely for the reasons given by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I feel keenly about the manifest injustice of the situation and that is why I came to support the amendment. However, if by statute one starts to interfere with the privileges of Parliament, one is starting something which is of even greater consequence than an injustice.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I wish to make one point. It is that we should remember the circumstances in which the Bill of Rights was drafted. It was intended to protect the two Houses of Parliament against the Executive. People could not then have forecast a time when we should suffer from a yellow press. Surely it is more important to look at how we protect citizens. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, reminded us that not only are Members of the two Houses involved and seek such protection. To impute some principle of non-intervention in the affairs of Parliament to the authors of the Bill of Rights is to go very far from historical truth.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann for tabling the amendment, the way in which he moved it and the balance with which he presented it. All of us would expect that of him.
There is no doubt that the issue is difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, this is a House of Parliament legislating but it is a House of Parliament legislating as part of the parliamentary process. What we decide today is subject to the approval of the House
48
of Commons before it becomes law. I believe that discussion of this matter in the House of Commons will be greatly assisted by the breadth of our debate today. I am sure that that was one of the purposes my noble and learned friend had in mind in presenting the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway confessed to having been swayed to change his mind by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Therefore, perhaps it would be worth my while to say a word or two about that. The noble Earl made clear that it is impossible to remove the obstacle which Mr. Justice May and the Privy Council felt existed in cases of this kind without amendment of the Act of Parliament because the Act of Parliament creates the obstacle. No resolution of either House of Parliament of itself could do that. Therefore, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, towards the end of his remarks accepted that proposition and said that some form of parliamentary intervention is required in order that the court should be able to remove the obstacle.
As regards the amendment the Government are neutral; it is a matter for the House as a whole to consider. We would regard it as vitally important to have the opinion of the House of Commons, which is principally, although not solely, affected by the amendment, before reaching a view about it. I believe that the House of Commons would be able to consider the matter carefully if it came forward as part of a Government Bill. There is no intention whatever on the part of the Government that there should be anything other than a free vote on the matter in the House of Commons.
For the purposes of our discussion I assume that the decision taken was the correct one. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was moved to suggest that Mr. Justice May may have got it wrong and that an argument which was not put before the Privy Council might have affected its view. I believe that your Lordships must work on the basis of the judgments before you; namely, that of Mr. Justice May and of the Privy Council.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Will he agree that, since Mr. Hamilton has not pursued his appeal to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords and since the Prebble case plainly does not deal with allegations of bribery but rather misleading statements in the House, it must be at least an open question as to whether the House of Lords would give as broad an interpretation to the Privy Council as did Mr. Justice May?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is always a question, which is why rights of appeal are granted, and these days only a fairly brave lawyer would forecast with 100 per cent. confidence a decision of a higher court. I am speaking about the decision for the purposes of our debate today. I am not saying that Mr. Justice May's judgment will stand for ever. A similar judgment was made in another case at about the same time by Mr. Justice Owen, but even two High Court judges would not necessarily determine the law for the future. Your Lordships will know that the House of Lords has not professed to do that. There is always a degree of the provisional in such matters. But for the sake of the present debate your Lordships must assume that the

49
judgment of Mr. Justice May was correct, as was a similar judgment of Mr. Justice Owen in a similar case. That is my assumption in looking at the matter.
If those judgments are correct, the Act relating to England and Wales which created the obstacle to doing justice was created to protect the parliamentary process and that has turned out to be an obstacle to a Member of Parliament obtaining access to justice. That may be inevitable and certainly under the present law it appears to be inevitable. The question is whether Parliament should intervene to change it. All noble Lords have agreed that if the law has that effect the only way it can be changed is by the intervention of Parliament.
I accept immediately that the privilege created by the Bill of Rights as regards this aspect is a privilege of Parliament. It is not a privilege of individual Members of Parliament; it is a privilege of Parliament. However, the consequence of the existence of that privilege is the interposition of an obstacle to protecting themselves in the face of individual Members of Parliament. That may be a consequence of the privilege of Parliament, but it is an obstacle that the individual faces in seeking access to the courts in order to clear his name from what he believes to be a defamation.
The question is whether Parliament should do something about that. Two courses are open to your Lordships today. The first is to send the whole matter to a joint committee of both Houses, which of course would require the agreement of the other place. The second is to consider whether this amendment should be passed. Of course, there is a third possibility of doing nothing, but in the face of such an injustice your Lordships might not feel moved to do nothing. Therefore, the question is: what should be done?
To send the matter to a joint committee is not a solution but is a way of having the matter considered further by your Lordships, and there has been a fairly full debate today. I have no doubt that the whole of this debate will be available for all Members of the House of Commons who wish to take an interest in it.
If the amendment comes forward in a government Bill, it will have come forward as a result of an amendment moved by a noble and learned Lord from the Cross-Benches without the Government having a view upon the matter, and there will be a free vote.
It is said that resolutions of each House of Parliament are important in that connection. I agree entirely with that. It will be necessary for both Houses of Parliament to agree to the amendment before it becomes the law of the land. Therefore, it seems to me perfectly correct that the views of both Houses are taken independently and that the refusal of either House to agree to the amendment will cause it to fall.
And then it seems to me that it is right that the individual in whose path this obstacle to justice is placed in consequence of this particular immunity or protection should have the right to say that he does not wish that obstacle to remain in his path, if that is his wish.
Various points have been made in relation to this; for example, that pressure could be put on one Member to waive his privilege. At present there is the familiar
50
invitation to a Member who makes a statement that he should come outside and make it again. That is a matter for the Member's discretion.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is not taken up very often.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble says that that invitation is not taken up very often. The matter of waiver would be a matter for the individual Member of Parliament, and in relation to this amendment it leaves it open to the individual Member whether or not to exercise that waiver.
Assuming that the law laid down by Mr. Justice May and Mr. Justice Owen is correct, following Prebble, as they thought they were, anyone can defame a Member of Parliament in respect of that Member's participation in the proceedings of Parliament without that Member of Parliament having any possibility of obtaining redress in the civil courts for that defamation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who at an early stage was sympathetic to the amendment, has indicated some reasons against it: that it may prevent free speech and so on. The alternative is to leave unresolved the problem that a Member of Parliament can be defamed in respect of his central activities as he participates in the proceedings of Parliament without remedy in defamation which would be open to any ordinary citizen.
I believe that a sufficient case has been made for this amendment for your Lordships to consider carefully whether or not it should be part of the Bill when it goes to the House of Commons on the distinct understanding that this matter will have to be debated and considered very carefully in the House of Commons before this remedy is afforded. I am not aware—and I have not been made aware in the course of this afternoon—of any other solution which is likely to be effective. Those matters are for your Lordships to consider.
As I said, the Government's view is that this should be an entirely free vote. That is the position that we shall adopt in relation to this matter. My personal view is that it is right for your Lordships to give the House of Commons an opportunity to consider it.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to ask one question of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. If we do vote against accepting the amendment, does another place have an opportunity to discuss it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would be open to a Member in another place to table such an amendment which would then be discussed there. The advantage of this amendment is that it comes from a completely independent source; namely, it was moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann from the Cross-Benches. As my noble friend will know, there are no Cross Benches in another place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will deal with one very important point. This amendment deals with waiver of parliamentary privilege and protection in

51
defamation proceedings only. But of course, if the matter can arise in relation to defamation proceedings, may it not arise also in relation to proceedings for breach of contract, especially if fraud is alleged, and in other kinds of proceedings including criminal proceedings?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this Bill deals with defamation. Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that it is proper to deal with this only, if at all, in the context of defamation. This Bill does not allow us to deal with a whole range of proceedings. But your Lordships may well feel that in relation to an important matter of this kind, it may well be right to proceed in stages. This Bill has provided an opportunity to raise this matter in relation to defamation, which was after all the subject matter of the cases giving rise to the problem. When a Bill dealing with that very subject matter is before the House, it might be appropriate to deal with that aspect at least.
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, I said when moving the amendment that I did not see my role as that of an advocate for the amendment but rather to put the matter before your Lordships for debate. Therefore, I trust that your Lordships will not think it any discourtesy if I do not reply to the points made during the debate.
I have listened with great respect to the arguments which have been made against the amendment. On the other hand, it is clear that there are noble Lords who are in favour of it. In those circumstances, it would be wrong not to test the opinion of the House. I commend the amendment.
5.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 157; Not-Contents, 57.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Bridges, L.

Ackner, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Addington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Addison, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ailsa, M.

Butterworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Cadman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ampthill, L.

Carnock, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cayzer, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Beloff, L.

Coleridge, L.

Bethell, L.

Courtown, E.

Blaker, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch, B.

Cross, V.

Blyth, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Boardman, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bowness, L.

Devonshire, D.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Digby, L.

52

Dilhorne, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Merrivale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Dubs, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elles, B.

Monson, L.

Erne, E.

Moran, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Mottistone, L.

Ezra, L.

Mountevans, L.

Freyberg, L.

Munster, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Nicol, B.

Geddes, L.

Northbrook, L.

Geraint, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gormanston, V.

Parkinson, L.

Goschen, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peel, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Pender, L.

Halsbury, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Hardwicke, E.

Prior, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harvington, L.

Rawlings, B. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Rees, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Rennell, L.

Howe, E.

Renwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rochester, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Rodney, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St Davids, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L

St. John of Bletso, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sandwich, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Seccombe, B.

Kintore, E.

Sharples, B.

Knutsford, V.

Skidelsky, L

Lawrence, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Leigh, L.

Strafford, E.

Lindsay, E.

Sudeley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Taverne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Teynham, L.

Long, V.

Thatcher, B.

Longford, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thurlow, L.

Lyell, L.

Tollernache, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

McConnell, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Wharton, B.

McNair, L.

Wilberforce, L.

McNally, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Wrottesley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balfour, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B

Berkeley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blease, L.

Greenway, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.

Hemphill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hughes, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Eatwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Erroll, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Kimball, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Glenamara, L.

Lockwood, B.

53

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Seear, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monkswell, L.

Simon, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Palmer, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Rea, L.

Stedman, B.

Redesdale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Richard, L.

Weatherill, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.58 p.m.
Clause 14 [Reports of court proceedings absolutely privileged]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("and").
Page 11, line 4, at end insert (", and
() any international criminal tribunal established by the Security Council of the United Nations or by an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the above amendments when moving Amendment No. 1. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [Extent]:
Lord Hoffmann Lord Hoffmann moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10
Page 12, line 13, at end insert—
("section (Evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament) (evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament),").
Page 12, line 27, at end insert—
("section (Evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament) (evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament),").
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("section (Evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament) (evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament),").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Commencement]:
Lord Hoffmann Lord Hoffmann moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 13, line 22, at end insert—
("section (Evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament) (evidence concerning proceedings in Parliament),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Qualified Privilege]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 16, line 50, after ("Rights,") insert—
("() any international criminal tribunal established by the Security Council of the United Nations or by an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Cattle Disposal Scheme
6 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 in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question which has been asked in another place on what progress has now been made in giving effect to the 30-month cattle disposal scheme and whether a Statement will be made.
"Slaughtering started in Scotland on Friday and elsewhere in the UK today. Some 104 livestock markets and some 72 abattoirs have been approved as collection centres. I anticipate substantially increasing activity as the week proceeds and see no reason why the scheme should not be fully operational by the end of this week. I have made it clear that all operators in the meat business will have to work together to make the 30-month cattle scheme a success. I met representatives of livestock markets together with a number of abattoir representatives this morning. I am seeing the renderers tomorrow.
"These are the crucial steps in the chain. Large numbers of animals have to be processed and I will need to ensure that this is done as speedily as possible so that farmers can have surplus stock off their fields and quite reasonably be paid compensation as quickly as possible. At all times we have to have regard to the welfare of the animals concerned and the need to restore consumer confidence. This scheme is being put in place as part of a number of measures to help restore confidence in British beef; it is a novel scheme without precedent and we have sought to set it up with all possible speed.
"Farmers, livestock markets, abattoirs and renderers have to work together—they do so normally and they have to do so now. I intend every day to see representatives of all the main interests to deal with any problems that might arise, but hope that it is not long before the scheme no longer requires daily ministerial involvement. Farmers will, I am sure, recognise that there are a large number of animals that have to he culled and that they cannot all be culled immediately. As the House will know, there is finite rendering capacity, so I am examining with all speed whether and what possible further cold store capacity can be brought into play to help accelerate the scheme.
"I well appreciate the concerns of everyone in this House that this scheme operates fully and efficiently without delay. I promise to keep honourable Members regularly updated on progress and am determined that this scheme will make a positive contribution to our wider aim of restoring confidence in British beef as speedily as possible".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in another place. I declare an interest as someone who is involved in dairy farming. Tomorrow it will be seven weeks since the first Statement was made on this matter. How many cattle have been slaughtered so far? The Minister said that the scheme will be up and running by the end of this week. Does he mean that the slaughtering will take place at the rate of 20,000 per week by the end of this week, which is of course the normal slaughtering figure? Is the Minister also aware of the statement made today by the chairman of Unilever that the BSE fiasco is in the UK and not in Europe and that the answer has to be found in the UK?
Last Friday Farmers Weekly referred to chaos and shambles. There are also reports that the Meat Hygiene Service does not have enough qualified staff to deal with the matter. Can the Minister tell the House what is happening with the proposed exemptions from the slaughter scheme? I am sure he knows that this is extremely important for beef farmers who are producing prime beef which has had no exposure to BSE. As I understand it, at the moment they are still caught by the scheme. We were told some time ago that there would be an exemptions scheme. Can the Minister tell the House what is happening as regards the exemptions scheme?
As part of the slaughter disposal, what has happened to the selective slaughter scheme that was proposed as a bargaining counter in Brussels but was rejected? Most farmers, who are aware that they would be affected by this selective slaughter scheme if it were introduced, are now in limbo. They do not know what will happen. Is the scheme to be revived? Is it a part of the carcass disposal scheme? Is it to be left on the table as a bargaining counter for months until it is decided in Brussels and Luxembourg what it is proposed to do about the export ban? If the Minister could explain what is happening over that scheme, that would be extremely helpful.
On today's early morning farming programme and today in the Statement the Minister of State, Mr. Baldry, proudly announced that now—I believe it will start tomorrow—there will be a daily meeting with all the various interests involved, including the NFU, the CLA, the renderers, the slaughterers, the meat wholesalers and the rest. But we have had to wait seven weeks for this to happen. Why did this not happen on day one? Is there no contingency planning in MAFF or in the Department of Health?
We still have the problem of the feed ban. Some 27,000 animals have been born since the feed ban was introduced. The Minister's noble friend Lord Lucas confirmed in a previous Statement that there has been some malpractice either on farms or in the feed mills, or both. What action do the Government propose to take on this matter? It is clear that the feed ban has been transgressed; otherwise there would be much more serious and more worrying questions about the 27,000 animals which have been born since the ban was introduced. If the Government admit that there has been a substantial transgression of the feed ban, will the Minister tell the House what action they propose to take?
56
My honourable friend Dr. Gavin Strang has asked for an inquiry into the matter but the Government have rejected that. What alternative action is proposed? We are not being wise after the event. In 1990 we as an Opposition asked for the banning of the use of ruminant protein in all forms of animal feed, not just in ruminant feed but also in pig and poultry feed. That was rejected by the Government six years ago. Now they have introduced the measure, but the effect of their rejection six years ago is the problem of the 27,000 animals which have been born since the ban was introduced. I remind the House that the Prime Minister told my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition only last Thursday that the confusion surrounding this scheme was being examined and investigated and that he hoped that it would be resolved speedily. We can all agree with that, but if we have to go by what has happened so far, it will not be quick.
Does the Minister accept that it is vital that we stop BSE at source? As I said, there must be an investigation into why 67 per cent. of new BSE cases are now in cattle which were born after the ruminant feed ban. As hundreds of thousands of older cattle—perhaps up to 800,000—are to be destroyed under this scheme, does the Minister agree that a live test for BSE has become all the more important and that, if there were any delay on the part of the Government in the establishment of such a test, that would be unforgivable? Having taken the decision that there would be both a live and a deadweight option for the 30-month rule, I should point out to the Minister that it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the compensation arrangements are fair not only to farmers but also to the other sections of the meat and livestock industry and to taxpayers.
We all want to see the lifting of the export ban, but I hope that the Government will accept that we have to restore confidence to consumers—not just consumers in this country but consumers in Europe—but also to our European partners if we are to get the export ban lifted. I suggest that what has happened so far does not exactly give anyone confidence. Last week I asked a Starred Question about the use of the Food Safety Act, which requires the Government to show an imminent risk to public health before introducing a slaughter policy at all. We are told constantly that beef is safe, so where is the imminent risk to public health? I understand that there is now to be a legal challenge to the whole of the slaughter policy from the beef trade on the basis of the use of the Food Safety Act. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
The NFU has approached first the British courts and now, I understand, the European Court of Justice. The Government have said constantly that they are proposing to challenge the ban in the European Court of Justice. I suggested here last week that they should use Article 186 of the treaty to seek interim relief. Will the Minister say when the Government propose to start proceedings in this matter?
We now have 120,000 cattle stacked on farms waiting for the scheme to get under way. All the parties involved wonder what they are supposed to do and how they are to be paid. Our European partners await clear policies to show that the eradication of BSE is being substantially

57
speeded up. The whole morass is overlaid by actual or potential appeals to national and European law. The Government must get hold of the problem and give clear leadership. If they do so, we shall certainly support them.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not repeat all the admirable arguments put forward. However, after seven weeks it does not look as though we are getting on as well as we should have done had the planning been right.
Certain facts are worth repeating. We know that without doubt the great spread of BSE in Britain has been due to feed. Since that time we have slaughtered 160,000 animals. However, from all quarters we have indications that the ban on the use of SBO rendered bonemeal has not been effective. The Government have to make up their minds to set in motion a sensible plan to accelerate the decline of BSE in this country.
Many of the proposed measures appear reasonable if they are put into effect. The capacity of the industry—whether that of renderers, or as regards total destruction through large premises—has to be the limit to which we stick. I do not believe that the Government should bargain with Europe. If they have a sensible plan to tackle the problem—by eliminating the obvious cases, using the 30 months scheme with sensible exceptions, and so on—they should stick to it.
On the Government's own admission they are not sure whether BSE can be passed on through the mother or by proximity. They hedge their bets. As regards heavily affected BSE dairy herds, there is no doubt that in order to give confidence a policy of slaughter in those herds might well be followed.
The Government should stick to their guns, apply those guns with a reasonable aim, and get things going. After seven weeks a lot of confusion exists. The Minister must have read all the farming press. Every single publication wonders what the devil is happening and is not satisfied that a competent scheme is in being.
One of the long-term factors is that without doubt manufacturers of cattle food should have to state the content on the bag. A number of these factors stick out a mile. The next two weeks will be absolutely vital. However, at present it does not look as though the farming community knows where it is going or where the Government are going, and whether all the matters to which the noble Earl referred, such as compensation, and so on, will be applied. I await with interest what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that we fully understand why the farming press and farming community seek answers to some of the aspects of the schemes, especially the 30 month scheme which is a massive scheme. It poses immense logistical problems. It is a scheme where we have pre-empted and anticipated many of the problems that would arise. But inevitably the scheme is throwing up other teething problems. We are in the business of solving those problems as soon as they are identified. However, the scheme is worth between £500 million and £600
58
million to the farming community in its first year of operation. It is absolutely vital both to the farming community and to consumer confidence. It is unprecedented. The scheme seeks to reverse the usual flow of the industry. The industry seeks to produce beef for consumption. This scheme seeks to remove that beef from the consumers' market. Therefore, no one should underestimate the challenge that the scheme poses and the effort involved in getting it into place.
I accept that the farming community, and tens of thousands of livestock farmers, seek answers to questions. Across the United Kingdom they have all received letters, in some cases two letters, from the relevant ministries. The farming press has carried advertisements from the relevant ministries. We have provided helpline numbers, and so forth. We are determined that farmers have the information and that we solve the problems.
I will not accept from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that this is a UK fiasco or that there is a lack of leadership.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it was the chairman of Unilever who said that. All I did was to repeat what he said.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord repeated it. If he seeks to ignore the European dimension of this saga, he is fooling himself and possibly others in the House. The domestic beef market is back to over 80 per cent. of its pre-crisis levels across many areas. It is the export ban which has caused so much chaos in terms of consumer confidence over a wider area. There is not a shred of scientific justification for the ban. It is unprincipled. It is disproportionate. I resent the fact that the noble Lord continues to apologise for the ban and refuses to condemn or deplore it. We think that the ban is worthy of action in the European Court. I have explained that it has no scientific basis whatsoever. It has done untold damage across the European markets. The German market is down 50 per cent. at the moment; the Portuguese market is down 80 per cent. It is that ban, introduced without any logic whatsoever, which has done a huge amount of damage.
We are producing the staff and resources for the MHS. We are consulting at present on the exemptions; we went out to consultation on Friday. We are pursuing an important initiative. We are consulting with the industry on the selective slaughter scheme. I remind the House that the commissioner himself called it logical and rational, and felt that there was no credible alternative. However, agriculture Ministers in other European countries did not share the good sense of the commissioner. That remains on the table. We shall continue to negotiate from that position.
If we proceed with that or any other scheme we shall do so only with the agreement of Parliament, the industry and our own veterinary scientists. We shall not depart on some sacrificial route simply to appease European feelings.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that the announcement made by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place about daily meetings with the industry is somewhat tardy. All four agriculture departments have consulted and liaised extremely closely with their industries throughout the BSE crisis. My

59
honourable friend announced today that in England he would have daily meetings to ensure that the 30 months scheme was running as well as possible.
In Scotland, as in the other territories, we have had very good relations with the industries involved. On Friday, we killed 100 cattle under the 30 months scheme. We expect to kill 500 today. I do not have with me the figures for the other territories. However, I repeat what my honourable friend said in another place: that by the end of this week the scheme should be up and running.
The vital figures which neither noble Lord should forget, especially when addressing the subject of cases in cattle born after the ban and the possibility of a feed inquiry, are those which illustrate how steeply incidences of BSE are declining in the United Kingdom. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, the Scottish figures immediately. In 1993 we had 2,200 cases. By 1995 we were down to 600 cases. This year we anticipate just 300 cases. The same rate of decline has been recorded across the United Kingdom.
Referring specifically to born-after-the-ban cases, 84 per cent. of all such cattle were born in the second half of 1988 and during 1989. Only 3,140 animals born in 1990 became born-after-the-ban cases. That figure has fallen; only one calf born in 1993 became a born-after-the-ban case. Therefore, the trend is very steeply downwards. That is why we must approach any selective slaughter scheme with great care.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, suggested that we ignore the European dimension of the proposal and go ahead with it on a unilateral basis with no linkage to European negotiations. Our own veterinary scientists say, and the SEAC advice is, that the rate of decline of BSE in this country is so fast anyway that in terms of human or animal health there is no need to supplement it with this proposal. However, given the importance of the European diplomatic challenge and of removing the ban, it is worth considering a logical supplement. That is what characterises the selective slaughter proposal currently on the table.
I address my last point to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. The export ban is having a disproportionate effect in Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is vital that we use any means possible to remove it. If there is leverage in a selective slaughter proposal, we should use it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked an important question about the exceptions to the 30-month scheme. What progress has been made in dealing with the Galloways, Highland cattle and so on?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I answered the question but briefly and at speed. The consultation document went out to the farming industry on Friday 3rd May. We regard it as being an absolute priority for the specialist breeds which may be grass-fed and herds which fall into the category of never having been connected with a case of BSE during the past six years. There is a strong case for exemptions being awarded rapidly and we regard it as an urgent priority.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the ban on exports being challenged in the European Court. Has that challenge been put in? If so, when is it expected that it will be heard by the European Court? I shall be grateful if my noble friend could answer that and also give whatever estimate the Government have of the number of animals that will be slaughtered as a result of the cull.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as regards the ban, we are launching our action within a matter of days. I cannot inform my noble friend with any accuracy of the likely timetable that will be pursued within the Court. However, as soon as it becomes known I hope that both my noble friend and the House will be informed. As regards the number of animals involved in the proposed selective cull, to which my noble friend referred, the approximate figure at the moment is 42,000. We regard those 42,000 cattle as being at the highest risk of contracting BSE at a later date. If, at any stage, there are developments in finding a live test through technology, it will pre-empt the need for selective culls and other programmes which involve the culling of cattle.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I rather regret the attitude that continues to come across from the Government of seeming to blame Europe for all their problems. We need to recognise that there is to a great extent a lack of knowledge and therefore difficulty in deciding who is right, who is wrong and what action should or should not be taken. One area where we are not faced so much with that problem is the feed ban. It was, I understand, a legal requirement on the feed industry to stop using SBOs in feed production. That is a legal requirement. Last week we were told by the Minister that the ban appeared to have been broken and that contaminated animal feed stuffs—cattle feed—have been supplied. First, what powers do the Government have to seek financial redress, whether by fines or levies on the feed industry, to recover the public moneys expended in dealing with the problem so far? The number of animals which have succumbed to BSE over the past five or six years is enormous and the cost to the Exchequer significant. What powers do the Government have to obtain financial redress from the feed manufacturers? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that they extract money from those companies which presumably made significant profits because of their illegal activities over the past five or six years?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in regard to the 30-month cattle disposal scheme, those in this House who saw how the Speaker controlled the other place during the discussion will realise that she kept the House firmly focused on the question. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has gone wide of the subject in his remarks; nevertheless I shall answer them. We do not necessarily seek to blame Europe in isolation of all other factors that pertain to the case. However, the fact is that the ban was imposed without any scientific evidence. It was imposed world-wide on our exports. We feel that that is of doubtful legality. So, both in terms of the science and of the injustice of such a move, we have strong feelings.

61
As regards SBOs and feed production, I remind the noble Lord of what I said to the noble Lords, Lord Carter, and Lord Mackie. With the incidence of BSE reducing so significantly, it is clear that the regulations on SBOs and feed have broadly worked. However, the SEAC recommendations of late March recognised that it was doubly important to ensure that it was not possible for ruminants to gain access to SBO protein in their food. Therefore, in case there had been leakage in the feed mills or on farms where farmers were running both ruminants and non-ruminants, it was decided that all livestock feed should exclude SBOs as a constituent. If any feed company is found to fail to comply with any regulations, then prosecutions will be considered. It is simple.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is true that, as has been suggested, exemptions could be made on a regional basis? Is there any possibility of that idea being taken up, particularly for the part of the country for which he is personally responsible?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, despite the obvious incentive for an agriculture Minister from Scotland to seek an exemption for Scotland, there is no basis on which we can logically hope to claim a regional exemption at the moment. Both the farming industry and we ourselves realise, as is confirmed by veterinary scientists, that the incidence and pattern of BSE in Scotland are such that we cannot convincingly defend a regional exemption.
What we can hope to achieve through more specific exemptions, such as those based on specific herds, is that a wide area of Scotland can become exempt. If we approach exemption on those criteria, we can defend it to our critics; we can defend it to those in the media who might perhaps seek to debunk any part of the UK seeking exemption. There is a strong basis on which we can defend such an action. The farming unions have looked very closely at that, and we are as one on the subject.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, unlike many on the Continent, British consumers are to be commended for not being hysterical hypochondriacs in this matter, given that beef sales here are only 20 per cent. down as compared with 50 per cent. in many parts of the Continent?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I commend British consumers for being so resolute in the face of the hysteria that has swept through some areas. Much of our beef market is up to 85 per cent. of pre-crisis levels. We welcome back the Wimpy burger chain—although we do not feel that it should have left in the first place. Its return to buying British beef is a welcome move. As the noble Lord said, there are other domestic markets in Europe which are suffering losses at the moment in excess of 50 per cent. of their usual domestic beef purchase levels.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I believe I heard my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie say that it stood out a mile that we should go ahead with the
62
labelling of feedstuffs. I did not hear the Minister reply to that. Perhaps he thought it a little wide of the Statement. But it is an extremely important point. Perhaps the Minister will say what the Government are doing in that respect.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we agree with the noble Lord that the labelling of feedstuffs is absolutely vital, as indeed are the constituents. We therefore expect the labelling to indicate to the farmer what is in the product that he purchases for his animals.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I hope the Government manage to get a speedy decision from the Court, particularly as regards the worldwide ban. On first examination that seems to go far beyond any power that the Union could have. There is much criticism of the action taken by the European Union. However, we must remember that this disease has prevailed for nearly 10 years in large numbers of cattle in this country. We can hardly say that Europe acted terribly precipitately when it put the ban into operation. That does not mean that I differ in any way from the views of the Government in trying to get the ban lifted as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lord Carter spoke about the number of animals that had been born infected during a period when it was assumed that there was no feeding of the wrong material. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned two possibilities. He suggested that the disease could be passed from mother to calf; he also suggested contagion as a possibility. Do the Government accept those as possibilities? If so, what examination is being undertaken of that aspect of the matter?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, given where he sits in the House, is prepared to condemn the worldwide element of the European ban. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and myself have now been through six or seven Statements. I keep waiting for the noble Lord, the Opposition spokesman on agriculture in this House, to deplore or condemn the ban in the same way as his noble colleague did.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in a debate in this House on 17th April, my noble friend Lord Richard and I pointed out that, under the directive, the ban was illegal. We pressed the Government to take action. It is no good condemning it. We must take the matter to court because the decision is illegal.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, related to the possibility of horizontal/vertical transmission, as the two pathways named by scientists, either between mothers and calves or between cattle in the same area. There is no evidence of either pathway. There is no evidence of the genetic transfer of BSE, nor indeed of contagious transfer.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I do not like, "There is no evidence". After all, it was always said that "there was no evidence" that the disease could be passed from cattle to human beings; yet that is now obviously being

63
explored as a possibility. Therefore we should not be so ready to act on the basis that there is no evidence. Perhaps we should be searching for evidence.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we have spent millions of pounds searching for evidence; but it is the consensus of all the scientists involved in the research—through SEAC and the research centres that are employed for BSE research—that that is not the route. They have been able to find no evidence—nor indeed to manufacture any—in their efforts to prove that as a possible pathway. They are all as certain as scientists can be that it is through the feed that BSE has been transmitted and not through genetic or contagious transmission.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, the so-called worldwide ban is a complete mockery since we in this country still eat British beef, which is still the best in the world.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. We know that it is not only the safest beef in the world but probably the best quality beef in the world. We are therefore at a loss to understand why the Europeans, without a shred of evidence, decided that it should be banned, not only from the Continent but from all world markets.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will not mind my asking him why he stated so strongly that there was no evidence of the possibility of genetic transmission or transmission by proximity when a statement from the Scottish Office indicated that "there was no evidence to the contrary". In other words, it could not be ruled out.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I meant exactly what I said. I assure the noble Lord that there is no evidence of vertical transmission of BSE from a mother to a calf. My understanding of the research is that the scientists not only seek to identify evidence where cases are known to be occurring, but also seek to manufacture such a pathway: they see whether they can infect a calf through infecting the mother. There is a very energetic search to eliminate that as a possible pathway. They have been unable to establish any proof that that is the pathway. They have, however, assured themselves that the most likely route, and the most likely explanation, is that BSE is spread through SBOs getting into feed.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the Minister explain how the particular age of 30 months came to be chosen? Why is it applied to all cattle? Is it not extremely heavy-handed to use the same age, irrespective of the breed, sex and type of the cattle involved?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the 30-month definition was chosen because SEAC, which represents the greatest body of expertise on the subject, suggested on 20th March that all beef from cattle over 30 months of age should be deboned. Shortly thereafter the farming unions, different parts of the processing industry and retail groups lobbied as one voice that, were we to take
64
beef from cattle in excess of 30 months off the market, that would go a considerable way to restoring consumer confidence and therefore to restoring market activity. So it was in response to a united voice from the producers, the processors and the retailers that we reflected the SEAC watershed of 30 months with this 30-month scheme. We do not see it as being permanent. It is a temporary measure until the market is back where it should be and consumer confidence is back where it should be.
As I assured the House, achieving these exemptions is an absolutely urgent priority. There is a very good case for exemptions. They should help restore some sense to an otherwise distorted market.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, is the Minister aware how grateful owners of slow maturing cattle will be to hear what he just said and that the Government are consulting on exemptions for slow maturing cattle? I hope that there will be a good scheme up and running as soon as possible.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, that is exactly what we want to see, too.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1996
6.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to the draft Income Support (Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1996.
The Government are seeking powers to test a new approach to help unemployed people back to work. The regulations are made under powers in Section 29 of the Jobseekers Act. That allows pilots of changes to benefit regulations to be set up:
"with a view to ascertaining whether their provisions will, or will be likely to, encourage persons to obtain or remain in work".
That is precisely the aim of the project work pilots.
The pilots will be operated by the Employment Service in two locations: the Hull and Medway and Maidstone travel-to-work areas. They will apply to all people aged 18 to 50 in those areas who have been claiming unemployment benefits for two years or more. We expect around 8,000 to 9,000 people in total to fall into that group.
Let me say a little about how they will work. When people in the client group attend their first six-monthly Restart interview in the pilot, they enter the first part of the pilot, which lasts for 13 weeks. The main aim will be to place people in suitable jobs. But other help will be available for those who need it. They may be referred to jobclubs for further help in looking for jobs, or to

65
training for work to improve their skills. A jobfinder's grant of between £100 and £400 will also be available to help overcome financial problems in taking work.
We will, in addition, aim to put unemployed people in direct touch with employers through trial periods, during which they can demonstrate their abilities in a job while remaining on benefit. Employers who recruit people from the pilot will be able to claim a Workstart subsidy of up to £1,500.
For some people the intensive voluntary help which I have just described has already begun. The first project work Restart interviews took place on 9th April.
If, after that period of intensive help, people are still claiming unemployment benefits, they will be allocated a place on a work experience programme, which will last for a further 13 weeks.
The work experience element of project work will be provided under contract and will involve projects of value to the community. In most cases people will carry out 18 hours of work experience each week and, in addition, three hours of supervised job search activity.
We expect the vast majority of people will welcome the opportunity to take part in work experience. However, if an unemployed person refused to participate without good cause, his benefit would be disallowed for up to 14 days in the first instance, and for periods of up to 28 days beyond that.
The pilots are designed specifically to tackle the main problems which face people after a long spell of unemployment. Intensive help is provided to make jobsearch more effective. Work trials, Workstart and the work experience itself tackle the prejudice which people often face from employers. The requirement to attend a programme of structured help or advice can remotivate people and be the galvanising factor for those who have lost hope and motivation.
The requirement to attend work experience in project work also helps to reinforce a view which has gained considerable ground in recent years: if someone has been out of work for a long time, while the Government have an obligation to provide financial support to them, the taxpayer has a right to expect that they will take positive steps to improve their own prospects of finding work. I have no doubt that the vast majority of unemployed people want to work. But for the few who have no intention of seeking a job or who are claiming fraudulently, I would expect project work to offer a deterrent. As the House will see, the project work process is intensive and contains many different elements of help for unemployed people.
The regulations we are discussing today concern one important aspect of the pilots: to make people who fail to attend the work experience element subject to benefit sanctions. The regulations would provide that power under the income support legislation, which will apply until October this year, and the jobseeker's allowance once that is implemented.
The income support regulations were sent to the Social Security Advisory Committee in December, immediately following the announcement of the pilots. SSAC decided not to consult in late February, and the income support
66
regulations and JSA pilot regulations were laid before the House in March. They were approved by committee in the other place on 25th April. The first referrals to the work experience element of the pilots, for which the regulations are needed, will happen in July.
Both sets of regulations make similar provisions. People who fail to attend the work experience element will be subject to benefit disallowance for up to 14 days on the first occasion and up to 28 days in subsequent instances. We have designed the regulations so that they match as far as possible the general sanctions regime that will apply under JSA.
We have built in a number of important safeguards. First, written notice must be given of the requirement to attend; and sanctions cannot apply unless there is a place available on work experience. Secondly, the normal rules for access to hardship payments will apply both under income support and JSA. Thirdly, those who can show good cause for not attending project work will not be subject to sanction. In addition to a number of specific examples of good cause—including that of caring responsibilities—there is also a general "good cause" provision to cover unforeseen circumstances. Decisions will of course be taken by independent adjudication officers.
The House will recognise that these regulations come forward to bring into effect a process that has been designed with care. It is based on considerable practical experience of helping long-term unemployed people to find work. The regulations have been considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and we have taken on board its comments.
We shall, of course, monitor and evaluate the results most carefully. We shall be looking to see how far the approach helps unemployed people to find work when otherwise they would have remained on benefit. We shall consider what new light project work throws on the problems that people who have been out of work for a long time have in getting a job and we shall take that fully into account in considering further measures to help such people.
All the evidence of the past suggests that people unfortunate enough to be out of work for two years or more may be left behind by the recovery unless we make a special effort to assist them. By approving these regulations, the House will enable the Government to test a carefully devised programme of intensive help to people who need it most in the improving labour market. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that we all thank the Minister for repeating the statement made in another place. We all agree that the long-term unemployed find it especially difficult to re-enter the labour market. We accept that their skills, their motivation and, above all, the employer's attitude work against them. It is always easier to get a job if you already have one.

67
We also welcome the principle of pilot schemes. Too often social security initiatives have been thwarted because of the all-or-nothing, the national-or-not-at-all approach. As a result, we have not been able to learn from the mistakes or the successes. We have not been able to look in at a learning process.
However, a number of worries remain. I shall raise five of them. First, there is the content of the programme itself. Despite the Minister's reference to skills in his opening remarks—which I entirely share—it is clear, so far as we can see, that the content of the programme is almost entirely about motivation and penalties, with nothing about skills. For example, would a positive outcome allow someone to go to a local FE college and take a course for three months in IT, advanced HGV (heavy goods vehicle) driving or to refresh catering skills? What guarantee is there that training is embedded in the work experience schemes?
The second question is about whom the scheme affects. As the Minister said, the scheme covers those between 18 and 50 years of age claiming benefit for two years or more. Whom within that age group does the department expect the employment service to target? My belief is that many of the older men who experience longer term unemployment may have a health problem. For example, they may have been on invalidity benefit but have failed the new incapacity test because they have not enough points, even though they continue to have genuine physical or mental health problems. What is the Government's view? Will they push such men into project work, knowing not only about the health problems but, more to the point, being aware that employers in future will be exceedingly unlikely to employ someone who comes with a poor health record in preference to someone who is fit. How are such older men affected by the programme? Even if such training placements do not worsen their health, the possibility of their re-entering the labour market is slender.
For example, where someone has been on invalidity benefit and fails now to qualify but nonetheless has some points, is it possible that he might come on to such project work only if he wished to do so rather than face a benefit sanction? I believe that the Government would seriously improve the success factor of the schemes were the Minister to accept such a qualification for people who either received invalidity benefit in the past or, in applying for incapacity benefit, have received points, though not sufficient, to qualify them for incapacity benefit. They are very often the people who are long-term unemployed but who cannot for reasons of health and employers' attitudes re-enter the labour market.
My third point is about providers. Which employers does the Minister have in mind? We all accept that the best chance for that person is to continue to work for the employer who has given him the work placement as the goodwill and motivation exist on both sides to make it work. Who are those the Government have in mind? Placing a person with an employer who is unlikely ever to employ him ensures, as we know all too well from Restart and YTS, that he is churned onto yet another training scheme when the present one finishes.
68
The problem is that the Government are introducing the scheme without the background of a rising job market. Twelve people are chasing every vacancy. If this scheme adds a thirteenth person to chase that job vacancy, one is merely displacing someone else from the interview or the job. One is merely churning. The best prospect of expanding the job market is if the employer realises that the trainee represents value for money. In other words, the scheme would work if employers just as much as trainees were given counselling and support to extend their job opportunities. We welcome the Workstart bonus of £1,500. But what else is being done to counsel employers to help them take on additional trainees?
For example, would the employment service allow voluntary organisations to provide placements for long-term unemployed people and for that to be counted as a positive outcome? It always saddens me that most of those volunteering are employed. The benefits structure locks those who have the time to volunteer out of the community. They are excluded. A voluntary organisation approved for the purpose of these regulations, such as the National Trust, mimics the labour market in terms of the work skills it provides; is socially useful in the work performed; and is socially inclusive in that the unemployed who receive benefit also benefit society. The long-term unemployed are motivated because the volunteers are given a sense of self-worth, and, in very hard-headed terms, such voluntary organisations have an excellent record of preparing their volunteers for the world of waged work. That is one of the few ways of improving skills, motivation and experience in a situation where there is no rising job market and where, therefore, one employed person may replace another.
But that does not meet the Government's other objective, which is to cut the benefits bill. I was much struck that the Minister here and the Minister in the other place referred not to those who have been unemployed for two years but to those who have been receiving unemployment benefit for two years. That brings me to my fourth point—finance. Will the Minister confirm that the scheme is to cost about £12 million? Will he tell us where that money will come from? In another place my honourable friend Mr. McCartney asserted that the Government were cutting and in some cases closing down community action programmes in other towns to fund this pilot project. The Minister in the other place did not deny that. What is the point of that? Why this restless swishing of money around the system, taking from one group of unemployed in one town to give it to another group of unemployed in another town? Am I right in my fears that 40,000 people may be excluded from community action programme schemes in order to fund 9,000 people on project work? If I am right, it sounds like a lousy deal.
That brings me to my final point. How will the Minister assess the project? What percentage of jobs does he expect his 9,000 people to find? Will he net that against the loss of jobs, if that is what happens, among those cut out from the community action programmes? Will he know who is doing the project assessment?

69
Unless it is properly assessed, both in terms of gross and net job gains, it is not worth doing the project at all. Compulsory schemes or quasi-compulsory schemes such as Workwise, jobplan or Restart have an extremely poor success rate. Usually around one in three have a positive outcome. But that mostly means shuffling that person onto yet another government scheme. Only one person in 25—about 4 per cent.—actually ends up with a job as a result of all this.
We share the Minister's concern about the situation in which the long-term unemployed find themselves. We welcome the use of pilot schemes. We are pleased also that the regulations seem to show a decent respect for the complicated situation in which many long-term unemployed find themselves—with regard to good cause for not taking up a placement, the rights of appeal, forfeit of benefit and so on. It would be helpful if the Minister could allay our other fears on the schemes' finance; if he could be supportive of those coming off invalidity benefit or who have poor mental or physical health but who do not yet qualify for incapacity benefit. It would be helpful also if he would accept that going on to an approved voluntary scheme would be an acceptable outcome.
At the moment it is very clear that all the department's research shows that over the past four years the problem for the long-term unemployed is not motivation but lack of jobs. The average unemployed person receives barely one job offer a year. The long-term unemployed receive fewer than that. Unless we introduce such schemes against a rising job market, all we do is add to the number of people chasing the vacancies without having added one iota to human happiness.
6.57 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a long and helpful letter about these regulations and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about the importance of finance.
These regulations do not look like something especially big but it used to be one of the particular political skills of King James VI and I that when he wanted to do something to which his opponents were likely to take the most intense objection he did it in a long series of small stages, each one so small that his opponents would have looked absurd if they had chosen to make a fight of it. My noble kinsman the Minister may perhaps remember introducing the regulations about Restart courses which were the beginning of the road which has led on to here, in each case bringing in a small extra measure of compulsion to be used on the unemployed. For we must be clear that benefit sanctions on the scale we are now discussing are a form of compulsion. These appear to me to be leading on very slowly by a series of Jacobean small stages towards something which is beginning to look remarkably like peacetime conscription. That is a change of very great magnitude, of the kind we ought not to be discussing on a series of small regulations.
Having mentioned the Restart courses, where attendance was to be compelled by means of a benefit sanction, I shall repeat a question I asked my noble
70
kinsman then which he could not answer at the time and I hope he can answer now. What happens to the people who are sanctioned? Do they thereafter do a Restart course? Are they sanctioned again for refusing again, or are they lost from sight? An answer to that question and to the equivalent question about those sanctioned under these regulations is an absolutely essential part of monitoring the scheme so that we can judge what its consequences really are. If that is not done, the scheme is not being monitored.
Despite the sanctions, I understand now that if one takes the Restart and the job plan programme together, refusals in 1994–95 were running at 75,000 a year. So there must be something pretty strong driving those people to refuse those courses. We want to know what it is and that it is not going to apply this time round. In some cases it is clearly the quality of the training. For example, we have one reported case of someone who had been trained for three years as a hairdresser. All she had done in that time was to sweep hair from the floor. That is not really what I understand by training. It is one possible reason for being dissatisfied with training and, since training, whoever provides it, is inevitably going to be of uneven quality, it is something to which we should pay attention. Is the Minister in a position today to say any more about who is providing this training and in any more detail what forms it will take?
I also have very great doubts about the underlying analysis which has led the Government to these regulations. It is surely as we have heard it many times before; namely, the belief that the unemployed are workshy and need to be, as the Minister put it today, "galvanised". There may be all sorts of other reasons for not taking part in a training programme, such as the very commonly stated belief that it does not increase the chances of getting a job, or the belief that the training itself is a waste of time. The whole thesis of welfare dependency on which many of these galvanising measures are based, rests on the assumption that we enjoy an exceptionally generous level of benefits. That is not now the case. Our welfare benefits are now among the lowest in Europe. A thesis which continues to depend on the myths of these exceptionally generous and attractive benefits is liable to be based on out-of-date information.
There are other reasons for which people may refuse training that may not necessarily deserve a sanction. Decisions on "good cause" may not always be correctly reached. There is no decision system which is correct in 100 per cent. of cases. The training may be totally unsuitable; for example, suppose being stone deaf I found myself being trained as a musician. I would regard that as a waste of my time and everybody else's. In general, I have quite profound misgivings about any system which treats people as if they were plasticine, to be forced into whatever shape those in charge of them think they ought to take.
When this scheme is monitored it will be done in the form of positive outcomes. Can the Minister say what will be taken as a positive outcome from these courses? Will referral to another government scheme be taken as a positive outcome or will only those who get a job be counted as having a positive outcome? I want to know

71
a bit more also about the hardship. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the effect that these sanctions may have on people's health. Two weeks without benefit or even four weeks, are not likely to leave one in a fit state to take on heavy physical labour. I hope that the Minister can tell us something about the availability of hardship payments for those who receive these sanctions.
We already get cases under the old sanctions of people who are found not to have eaten for three days or those whose water has been disconnected. That is spreading the inconvenience by what it might be paradoxical to describe as a ripple effect. It affects other people as well as those sanctioned.
If we are to have any reliable monitoring of what these regulations are doing, we desperately need monitoring of what happens to those who are disentitled to benefit. What do they do? What is the behavioural effect? What is the health effect and, above all, when it is over, in what way, if any, has their behaviour been changed? If we cannot answer these questions we simply cannot decide whether the regulations and training are having the desired effect or not. It is essential for the Government to get that information.
We are told that the immediate form of payment is the benefit level plus £10. To know what that is worth we need to know—and this is a matter of some urgency—what happens to entitlement to passported benefits. Do people taking these forms of training get free school meals or free prescriptions? If not, £10, so far from being a carrot, will have very much the opposite effect.
We on these Benches regard ourselves, in the light of the Resolution of the House of 20th October 1994, as being free to vote on regulations. The principle of these justifies the importance. The reasons why I am not going to do that tonight are first, that we voted on the principle of this on the Jobseeker's Bill and that, although not conclusive, is significant. Secondly, in the "good cause" provision; in the provision for travel over an unreasonable distance; and in the allowing of a good cause that we may not yet have foreseen, there are two very vital concessions which make good undertakings by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Inglewood.
I believe that I have already got all that I am going to achieve on this matter. That does not mean that I am satisfied, but I am grateful. The point about hardship is the one that remains. I repeat it—because I shall come back to it many times—we must know what happens to those who suffer these sanctions.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to raise two points with the noble Lord. First, are the training programmes in any way linked with the NVQ qualifications to which the noble Lord's department is giving a great deal of support—indeed it is the sponsoring organisation? It is an opportunity to link the two together and that can only be advantageous. It will mean that people who have been trained, even if they got to level 1 of the
72
appropriate NVQ, will have firm evidence to show to a prospective employer that they had made some substantial progress and reached some kind of a level. That will surely increase the opportunity of getting a job.
The second point concerns people who have been taking advantage of the 21-hour rule for studying while still drawing benefit. If I am wrong I shall not continue with what I am saying because it will only waste the time of the House. I understand that it is proposed to reduce the period to 16 hours. If that is correct, I want particularly to draw the attention of the noble Lord to a fact which is being felt by a large number of women who wish to return to the labour market and who wish to take training courses or study courses, or who have been doing so under the 21-hour rule. They are finding that the colleges believe that they cannot do an effective job with the students in 16 hours. I am informed that the colleges are thinking of cutting the courses because they do not believe that they will be able to get the numbers to undertake the studies if there is a reduction to under 21 hours. They believe that it will not be suitable to go ahead with the courses. I had this information passed to me only this morning. Quite a number of colleges are in a great state of confusion as to what they should be doing because at this time of the year they need to plan their courses for next year. If they believe that they are to be limited to women who can work only for 16 hours, that will substantially alter the programmes that they put forward.
It is a kind of indirect consequence which very easily becomes overlooked. We need clarity on the matter. The colleges need to know now what the position is. I know that the noble Lord understands. Now the courses are being planned and arrangements made. If the colleges cut back the courses in anticipation that the 16-hour rule will make it impossible for them to do the job that they want to do and for women to come forward, the ultimate effect may be very undesirable in a way which I know the noble Lord would not wish to see.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the last point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is not strictly relevant to what we are discussing, so I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurances that I shall write to her on it in great detail.
As ever, I was grateful for small mercies in that at least both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl welcomed the concept of piloting a scheme of this sort. However, I completely reject the allegation from the noble Baroness that such a project will not create jobs but will merely displace others from their jobs—in other words, that it will move people around. The noble Baroness said that trying to do that when the job market was, as she implied, shrinking was not the right way forward. That is not my view and it is not the view of the Government. It is not for government to create jobs. It never has been and it never should be. The only way in which governments can create jobs is to build and create a strong economy. We are doing just

73
that. The noble Baroness ought to know that employment has grown by some 730,000 over the past three years. The aim of project work is very much to help people to take advantage of that.
There has been much concern about the training element of project work. There seems to be considerable misunderstanding about the aim of project work and its work experience element. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked whether NVQs could be made part of the training that is being provided. I should make it clear that the providers of project work placements are not required to provide vocational training leading to qualifications. People who take part in the pilot scheme who could benefit from such training will be eligible for training for work. That is the purpose behind training for work. We are looking here at providing appropriate work experience for the individuals at whom we are addressing the scheme. There is obviously an element of training in work experience, but work experience is not training in itself. If training is appropriate—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord knows better than anybody that NVQs are concerned with competence on the job. They are tested only by competence on the job. That being so, there is no question of training outside. It is training on the job.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if training is appropriate, it can be pursued through training for work. That is the purpose behind training for work. We are talking here about an element of work experience. If we are to provide work experience, it is right that it should be work experience that is appropriate for those who are likely to benefit from it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, stressed the importance of having the right providers of work experience. The noble Baroness went on to ask whether voluntary organisations and others could provide that experience. All that I can say at the moment is that we can now announce that we have selected the major providers of the project work placements in the two areas. The activities to be provided range from conservation and environmental work, to retail administration, to—I believe that this will please my noble kinsman—historical research. The providers are charitable and educational bodies and private sector trusts. They have only recently been informed of their success in the bidding process. Until the bidding process is completed, we would prefer not to give precise details such as the names of those organisations. However, I assure the House that I shall be more than happy to provide that information as soon as practicable and to give further details of exactly what—in addition to historical research—is to be provided.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was not going to ask about the historical research, but that is good news. If this proves an appropriate way forward, will the Minister learn from the project experience that a placement with a voluntary organisation should also be regarded as an approved, appropriate and positive outcome from a JSA interview?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is more than aware that this is a pilot. The aim of having a pilot scheme is to learn something from it. Obviously, in advance of the evaluation and assessment of the pilot, I cannot give any assurances as to what we shall learn, but we shall no doubt learn some interesting things. Indeed, what the noble Baroness is suggesting might be one such thing. In due course I shall give the noble Baroness further details of exactly who has been selected. Where possible, I shall also try to give further details of what is being proposed.
The noble Baroness also asked whether individuals with health problems, particularly those in the older group within this cohort, if I can use a modern word, would be affected. I should start by saying that we selected the group—those aged 18 to 50—with some view of excluding those who might be more likely to suffer the problems which the noble Baroness specified. However, I assure the noble Baroness that the regulations specify that an individual will have "good cause" not to participate if participation is likely to endanger his or her health. I think that that deals with the particular problems which the noble Baroness raises. I cannot give a guarantee that anyone who had been in receipt of invalidity benefit in the past or who had received a number of points towards incapacity benefit would automatically be covered, but the "good cause" provisions allow non-participation if participation is likely to endanger health.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way again. I am sure that he is trying to be helpful and I am sure that we both want to reach the same position on this. However, will he clarify what he means by "endanger health"? It is clear from the regulations that any job placement which worsens or aggravates an existing condition would be held to endanger a person's health—or health and safety, according to the set of regulations being considered. I am concerned about somebody with a mild but chronic disability, perhaps associated with back or mental health problems. A person might suffer persistent pain and fatigue, for example. For such a person, the work placement might be uncomfortable but would not necessarily endanger health in the sense of worsening it. Can the Minister help us on this?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it will obviously be a question of fact and degree in every individual case. I should not like to take the noble Baroness any further other than to say that decisions on what is likely to endanger health will be adjudicated on by the independent adjudication officer. If the placement was held to endanger health, the person concerned would have "good cause", but that must be a question—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, but what does the word "endanger" mean?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that "endanger" means exactly that. It must be a matter for the independent adjudication officer. He must decide on the facts before him.

75
Perhaps I may move on to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about passported benefits. That is important in terms of potential disincentives to participation. I can give the House an assurance that passported benefits will not be affected in any way whatsoever.
The noble Baroness suggested that the pilot removes provision from other areas. She particularly mentioned community action. People outside the area of a pilot scheme are not losing out. We are offering them the most appropriate help in the current economic circumstances. I refer to a wide range of programmes focusing on job search and on removing the barriers into real work. In a very difficult public expenditure round we have maintained the number of opportunities for unemployed people at the same level as last year.
With regard to community action, I accept that that was a useful and successful programme, but it no longer represents the best value for money for the taxpayer as part of our current strategy for tackling longer-term unemployment in what I believe—the noble Baroness should accept this—is a much more buoyant labour market than in the past.
I move now to the question of evaluation and assessment, which is of considerable importance. It is important to know whether a pilot scheme has been a success. I assure the House that the pilot schemes will be fully evaluated both by the work of the internal researchers in the Employment Service and by outside bodies under contract. The number of people moving into jobs will be a major focus of that evaluation. That will be something that will inform our judgments as to how well the two pilot schemes have worked.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about sanctions, what would happen after them, and the general purpose behind them. The sanctions are there, as on other occasions, to protect the taxpayer from having to subsidise people who have no good reason to remain unemployed. They exist to influence the behaviour of people who are claiming benefit, and they have an important role in reinforcing incentives for unemployed people to take the right steps to get back into work.
We do not expect a healthy adult to suffer any significant change in his or her health during a two-week benefit exclusion. Benefits will be available to vulnerable groups to prevent hardship. But after the sanction period people will be referred again to project work. That process will be repeated again and again until they have completed their 13 weeks of project work. Obviously the evaluation will include an examination of those people as they leave the pilot, and an examination of those who are sanctioned and what they do and where they go. I hope that that will tell us much not only about the project itself but about the sanctions and their effectiveness.
I move on to the hardship rules. Under income support those who are sanctioned will be able to apply for hardship payments under the existing rules: 20 per cent. or 40 per cent. depending on the circumstances. Under JSA those who are vulnerable—for instance, those who are ill or who have children—can apply for hardship payments. That is in line with the
76
policy on all sanctions. There are no special rules for the pilots. We are doing no more than happens elsewhere within JSA as it will come into effect in due course.
We believe that these regulations are an essential component of an exciting and genuinely radical programme—a programme which offers real hope to unemployed people. Certainly, those people who do not want to be helped into jobs may find the process uncomfortable. But our responsibility is to unemployed people and the taxpayer, not to the freeloaders.
We recognise that there is a degree of complexity in this approach. That is why we want to test it thoroughly. We could have introduced it on a national basis—which the noble Baroness herself rejected—with a simple amendment to the JSA regulations. We choose instead to use the pilot powers to monitor and evaluate the scheme, which on a national basis could cost a great deal in the short term. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income Support (Pilot Scheme) Regulations 1996
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport Bill
7.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move that the London Regional Transport Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is essentially technical in nature. Its purpose is to extend the powers of London Transport in order to allow it to make full use of the opportunities available under the Government's private finance initiative. I believe that the Bill has cross-party support. Private sector investment in London Underground in particular should not be impeded by unnecessary restrictions in LT's statutory powers. I hope that your Lordships will accept that principle and support the Bill.
The Bill originates from the work done by London Underground in developing a number of PFI projects, which I shall describe in a moment. In looking for the most innovative and attractive deals, they came across various potential or actual legal problems arising from their statutory powers. This is not surprising. London Transport's existing powers date back to 1984, well before the PFI. It is worth emphasising, however, that the Bill was drafted following a request from London Transport, and in full consultation with it, and it has its full support.

77
Three of the projects which are now at quite an advanced stage brought to light the problems which this Bill is intended to address. The first is known as Communications or Connect. This project would require a contractor to provide an integrated radio system for London Underground based on a fibre optic network. The network would not only provide updated systems for LUL's own communications systems, but it would have sufficient spare capacity to be used by the contractor to provide telecom and IT services to third parties. Sharing costs in this way would greatly reduce the cost to LUL.
Secondly, there is a ticketing project known as Prestige. This would involve the complete modernisation of LT's ticketing systems, based on the progressive introduction of smartcard technology. The contractor would take over responsibility for providing and selling tickets for both Underground and bus services and for the equipment to validate these such as the ticket gates at Underground stations. Giving the private sector responsibility for the whole system would provide scope for the introduction of innovative and efficient systems. But, as with the Communications project, there may be scope to spread costs; for instance, if the smartcard can be used as an electronic purse to buy a range of other services.
The third scheme involves power supply. This would involve a contractor taking over London Underground's existing power generation plant and taking responsibility for the provision of main and emergency power supplies for the Underground network. As with the schemes already mentioned, the contractor would be able to spread costs by supplying power for third parties using the Underground's distribution network. These are major projects that would involve a private sector capital investment of around £650 million.
It may assist the House if I emphasise what the Bill does not do. I can reassure your Lordships that the Bill in no way erodes the powers of London Transport or changes its status. This is not a privatisation Bill. In particular, there is nothing in the Bill which affects the basic duty of London Transport, as set out in Section 2 of the 1984 Act, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London. Equally, there is nothing which in any way affects London Transport's functions under Section 8 of that Act in relation to the planning of fares and services. Nor does the Bill change the wide range of other provisions in the 1984 Act which would almost certainly need to be changed if the Underground were to be privatised.
I hope that the House does not take these remarks as a sign that the Government's belief in the benefits of privatisation is waning. Far from it. One has only to look at our commitment to the railway franchising process to see that.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. The main purpose of Clause 1 is to empower London Transport, subject to obtaining the Secretary of State's consent, to enter into an agreement with a contractor under which the contractor will carry on activities which LT does not itself have the power to carry on. Paragraphs (a) to (c) of the new Section 3(2A) to be inserted in the 1984 Act
78
set out the types of agreement which it will be possible for LT to sign. The new Section 3(2A) is intended to maximise LT's flexibility to enter into PFI contracts while ensuring that the agreements relate either to LT's function of providing public passenger transport services in London or the exploitation of LT land or assets by the contractor. This amendment is essential if London Transport is to gain the maximum benefit from the private finance initiative.
I have already mentioned London Underground's proposed Communications PFI project for the installation of a fibre optic network, with some capacity being used by the Underground and the rest being available for sale to third parties. London Underground has no powers to act as the provider of such a cable network to other users, nor, as things stand, can it enter a revenue-sharing agreement with a contractor who installs and manages a network. This provision will enable London Underground to enter into such agreements, so that, through a revenue-sharing or royalty clause in the contract, it can share the contractor's success in selling capacity to third parties. I believe that that sums up the main provisions of the Bill.
Still with Clause 1, the new Section 3(2B) we are inserting in the 1984 Act is a technical amendment to enable London Transport to sign contracts with banks or other financial backers of the PFI contractor. For large value projects, both London Transport and the PFI contractor's financiers are likely to want the reassurance of direct agreements with one another, so that their respective rights are protected should the contractor default.
The main purpose of Clause 2 is to provide for the continuity of services. Subsection (1) enables London Transport to acquire land for the purposes of agreements under Section 3(2) or 3(2A). This would, for example, enable land to be acquired in LT's name for an electricity sub-station not directly required for LT's own purposes but for use by the contractor in supplying electricity to LUL. I would emphasise that this is not a compulsory purchase power; it is intended to safeguard LT's claim to essential assets at the end of a PFI contract.
Subsection (2) provides that LT may take over services where they are no longer being provided by the contractor under a Section 3(2) or 3(2A) agreement. Again, that is a pragmatic provision designed to ensure continuity of service where a PFI contract ends and another contract cannot be let immediately. Subject to obtaining the Secretary of State's consent, LT could take over the activity concerned so as to ensure the continued provision of passenger transport services and, if applicable, so that it can continue to provide services to any customers of the contractor.
We expect that when PFI contracts expire the commercial activities associated with them would generally pass to a new private sector contractor, following a further competition. But we do need to provide for what we trust will be the very rare circumstances in which a contract comes to an end prematurely; for instance, through default of the contractor. In that situation, LT would clearly want, and

79
would have the powers, to take over immediately those functions connected with the running of its own services. But it would be perverse if services being provided to third parties then had to be terminated.
Finally, subsection (3) has the effect of empowering LT to do all other things in its power which in its opinion are necessary or expedient to secure the performance of agreements under Section 3(2) or 3(2A). That power sounds very wide-ranging in its scope. But in fact it is a residual power which needs to be read in the context of LT's express powers elsewhere in the 1984 Act and in this Bill. This provision will, however, widen LT's powers so that it can take a number of practical steps to help ensure that PH agreements work in practice; for example, by enabling LT to take charges on moveable property so as to safeguard its claim to important assets at the end of a PFI contract.
Clause 3 adds a new section (Section 31B) to the 1984 Act. In order to ensure continuity of service, the new Section 31B empowers the Secretary of State to make an order enabling certain statutory powers—for example, powers acquired by LT under old private Acts—to be transferred between LT and a contractor or to be exercised concurrently by the two.
Clause 4 makes minor and consequential amendments which can fairly be called technical ones. Clause 5 is a standard financial provision. Clause 6 is the standard provision giving the Bill's Short Title, commencement date and extent.
I hope that the House will forgive me for a somewhat dry and detailed explanation of the circumstances of the Bill, but that is justified by the fact that this is a fairly dry and detailed Bill. It is, in essence, a technical one. It is a small Bill. But it is an important one for public transport users in London. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Goschen.)
7.34 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, not only do I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the Bill so cogently, I forgive him for committing the offence of being dry. I did not think he was all that dry. I have always thought of him as something of a wet, but there it is.
We support any reasonable means of promoting more investment in the publicly operated, integrated transport systems that apply in this country. The Bill could be helpful. I have one concern—a concern which the Minister did not wholly address; that is, the wide spread of Clause 3, to which I shall come in a moment. Our concern in this House, as it was in another place, is whether that clause contains any hidden agenda—the hidden agenda being privatisation—which the Minister was at pains to say it did not have. The Government, he said, have not lost their faith in privatisation—mania for privatisation might be a better description—of the railways, they have just lost their way.
We are going to debate railway—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. I am sure that is what I did not say. The noble Lord may be putting words into my mouth.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I know that the Minister did not say that. He said that the Government have not lost their faith in privatisation, especially of the railways.
Viscount Goschen: Hear, hear!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was saying that they had not lost their faith, they had just lost their way. I shall not go further into that, because we shall be having a debate on the railways tomorrow afternoon. We shall be able to explore what has happened with greater precision.
I shall turn immediately to Clause 3, which the Minister says is a wide-ranging clause. While he says that the Government have no intention of pursuing privatisation through this route, will he concede that it could be so used? After all, what it does is to enable the Secretary of State by order to provide that certain of LRT's statutory functions may be exercisable by another person, either instead of LRT or concurrently for the purposes of carrying out agreements. Clause 2 is also extremely wide. From the Minister I should like not merely an assurance that the Government have no present intention of pursuing a course of privatisation through the Bill, but a categorical assurance that they would not be so empowered. That is a different question. It is one which caused another place to debate this issue at great length. I do not propose to ape it in that regard.
The trouble is that assurances given from the Front Bench are of little avail if the Government change their mind. They changed their mind, for example, over the Railways Bill. They intended initially to privatise British Rail first and then Railtrack some time later. Then they committed a volte face; they changed the order altogether, without any proper debate of course in either House of Parliament as to why they had chosen that particular route. Mere assurances do not suffice. That is why I put the question in the way I did.
Perhaps I may turn to the element of the PFI, which is essentially what the Bill is about in terms of empowering London Regional Transport to do certain things which the Government say it could not do without the provisions of the Bill. I accept that. Unfortunately, the PFI, as conceived by the Government, has not been all that it was cracked up to be. The claims for its success have been wildly exaggerated by the Government.
The Government's PFI scheme followed the scheme introduced initially by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Prescott, some four years before the Government even conceived of undertaking a PFI of this kind. I shall come to our own scheme in a moment. The PFI as conceived by the Government has come under massive criticism from a good part of the private sector, not least the construction industry, which is most vitally affected by it. It was designed to provide funding

81
additional to that put up by the Government. Instead, the Government seem to think that it is an alternative, very largely, to public expenditure.
The PFI was designed, or so the Government said, to enable public enterprise to diversify profit-making activities. That is what the Bill purports to do. That is fine but it appears to be wholly inconsistent with the Government's attitude towards the Post Office, in respect of which we in the Labour Party have been arguing for precisely that kind of remit. Perhaps the Minister will explain that inconsistency.
The Government have been able to expend only one-fifth of the expenditure authorised on PFI schemes. That is scarcely a resounding success. They have failed to provide guidance as to national or even regional transport objectives, without which the private sector is left in a state of utter uncertainty. They have failed to offer any, or any reasonable, idea of prioritisation, of risk allocation and of facilitating the tendering system, which is grotesquely cumbersome.
As I said previously, the Opposition have published their own public/private finance initiative based on partnership between the public and private sectors. They have done so not in response to the Government's scheme but well in advance of it, as the Minister should know. We have consulted on problems affecting this form of financing and the relationship with the public sector borrowing requirement. We shall continue to consult with the private sector on those issues. There is no doubt that these exchanges have already proved to be constructive and worth while and have been well received by the private sector.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the challenges which I see confronting London Underground. First, London Regional Transport's underground system—indeed, its whole system—is crucial to the way in which London lives and works. It is crucial to its economy and the contribution which the capital city makes to the national economy and to the country's well being. It is crucial to the tourism industry, in which my noble friend Lord Graham takes a keen interest.
Secondly, it is clear that London Underground has not been able to perform as well as it could. That is underlined by the Bill and by the legacy of neglect inherited by London Regional Transport in terms of underinvestment, inconsistency in government policy and the ideological spasm that resulted in the abolition of a strategic transport planning authority for London.
Perhaps I may give examples of the legacy of neglect. The pumps and drainage systems were designed in Victorian days. In 1993 London Underground said that emergency investment of £18 million a year was needed just to keep the network operational. In fact, £9 million was made available and current investment has been forced down to £5 million a year. The geriatric track leading to the doubling of speed restrictions in 1994 and 1995 also illustrates some of the problems confronted by London Regional Transport. There are problems of subsidence and land slippage; pre-war signalling systems on the Northern Line; the warning of major closures on four lines, including the Bakerloo Line; and major reductions in staffing so that many underground
82
stations are unmanned at night, causing great anxiety particularly among women and disabled people in old, dilapidated and uncomfortable stations. That situation is likely to become worse with privatisation, with its record of cuts in staff numbers.
The Government's inconsistency in investment policy is illustrated by the fact that, although Ministers say that capital investment in London is at an all-time high, one must recognise that half of that is to be applied entirely to the Jubilee Line extension and £200 million is generated by London Regional Transport itself against a backcloth of the problems that I have described. In 1991 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that investment should be increased to about £700 million or £750 million a year. The then Minister, Malcolm Rifkind, responded affirmatively. Just before the 1992 election, the Government promised £2.1 billion over three years. After the election it was slashed by £700 million and in 1995 the three-year figure was cut to £1.2 billion.
The problem with all that is that London Regional Transport's hopes were first raised and then dashed, creating a situation in which it had to spend time and resources in developing projects. That was utterly wasted when funding had to cease abruptly. We are addressing the way in which we make the difference between an underground system set on a process of slow decline and one which, perhaps modestly, can continue to meet London's needs. Certainly it is important that the partnership system to which I have referred should be brought into place at the earliest opportunity.
The need for a strategic transport planning authority for London is clear and overwhelming. It is now supported by many Conservatives but still resisted by the Government. Such an authority needs to investigate in depth a number of interesting initiatives. London First has made a proposal to invite businesses to vote on whether they should contribute to a specific investment programme in existing and new railway lines in London. That proposal is worthy of consideration. I wish to know whether the Government have given it any thought and, if so, what their conclusions are. It is, after all, only asking for businesses to vote on something.
Ministers have raised concerns about the public sector borrowing requirement, which is always the obstacle. Yet the very same Government have devised ways and means of circumventing the PSBR on poll tax, council tax and grant-maintained schools. Therefore, it does not seem to be such an obstacle when the Government do not wish it to be.
London First suggested congestion charging with revenue being hypothecated to the improvement of London's transport system. Would the Minister care to comment on that and say where it falls in terms of raising funds in order to carry out so many extremely important schemes? I am saying only that the schemes are worthy of careful investigation. Our intention is to work properly and effectively with the private sector in order to ensure that the public/private partnership schemes work to the advantage of a national and London infrastructure system so that we can achieve

83
affordable, efficient and safe links between the capital's transport terminals and its people. In so far as the Bill goes some way towards that, we welcome it.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I welcome the Bill even though it is described by my noble friend the Minister as being of a technical nature. All transport matters affecting London are of considerable importance to all those who live and work within the capital area and who visit it. It is fair to say that the success or failure of transport within the capital has the ability materially to affect London's future position in the world. I welcome the Bill, giving London Regional Transport the ability to take greater advantage of the private finance initiative without being fettered by the apparent problems with the existing legislation.
It is easy to quote figures selectively, but if we look at what has been done we know that there has been considerable investment in London transport since the Government took it over in 1984. Of course, at any one time and in any one case there will always be demands and needs for more. It is important that the private finance initiative is drawn in because those additional improvements and schemes will not come about without such private-sector finance.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, tempted me about the need for a strategic transport authority for London. Perhaps that is for another time and another debate. I could pose the question: what was the nature of the investment between 1969 and 1984 when the Greater London Council ran London's transport? Indeed, what did the Greater London Council do about many aspects of transport policy? Those of us in the outer areas of the capital saw little or no activity whatever during those years. However, I should not wish to bring contention into this debate.
There is no doubt at all about the value of the private finance initiative. I do not know when it started. I am not certain whether it was conceived four years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested. I speak from personal experience as a member of the borough council of Croydon and, if it is appropriate, I declare an interest as such. The tram link scheme there, which has been at least six years in its formation, has always been based on the involvement of the private sector. We were encouraged on many occasions by the Government to take forward that matter with LRT.
That is a light rail system which will run from Wimbledon, around Croydon, through to Beckenham and New Addington. It will be a completely new east-west public transport system in that particular area of the capital. While final details have yet to be announced, the preferred bidder for the concession has been chosen. I believe that that light rail system will be built with the support of government and a substantial contribution from the private sector.
The development of the scheme and its promotion through Parliament would not have been possible without the private sector, which became involved at a very early stage with adequate arrangements for fair and open tendering when the time came.
84
I welcome in particular the fact that this Bill will enable the ticketing project to go forward. There is no doubt that the success and attractiveness of public transport depends not just on its reliability and cost but on the ease with which it can be used. We can look forward to new ideas and expertise from the private sector being brought to ticketing in London. Whatever the success of London transport in recent years, anyone who has travelled abroad on the metros and bus systems cannot fail to be impressed by the pre-buying of tickets, and the smart cards which can be validated without the necessity of being checked by drivers and conductors. Those small matters, coupled with good information—where stops are positioned and indications of which direction buses and trains are going—all make the public transport system more user-friendly. Perhaps we could get away from waiting at Victoria bus station among the diesel fumes and the wet and the wind if there were such improvements.
I believe that the private sector financial initiatives can bring much to London transport. I wish to see the public transport system within the area of the capital successful and thriving. Anything that holds back that investment should be swept away. For that reason, I support the Bill.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am a person locked into public transport for reasons which most of your Lordships will know. Therefore, I am happy to support a Bill which facilitates and may even increase investment in London transport.
I supported the London Regional Transport Act 1984 which I shall call the nationalisation Act. This Bill, which brings the private finance initiative into play, seems to me to update that Act in ways which enable London transport to take full advantage—and I say so as a taxpayer, council tax payer and fare payer—of the concept of PFI.
On transport subjects, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is a noble friend rather than a noble Lord. Over the years, he and I have both sought to find additional finance for LRT. I am still exploring the tax exempt bond and other ideas which were evolved by the noble Lord and the right honourable Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I hope that that continues.
The preamble to the Bill tells us that it has no effect on public expenditure but may well accelerate major investment projects to the extent that PFI may be more cost effective than the practices envisaged when we renationalised LRT in 1984. However, I have some caveats. First, the PFI is not painless. It seeks to be a blend of Treasury finance and Treasury practice trying to congeal with the private sector's willingness to accept risk, balanced by return. Those of us who were involved in either the Jubilee Line extension or the GEC Northern Line replacement deal remember bitterly that the Treasury and the private sector are not easy bedfellows in those contexts. Therefore, my first reservation is that if we are to make PFI more accessible to London transport, we must expect the Treasury to go further towards understanding private sector concepts. If we fail to do so, I fear that both this Bill and PFI as applied to London transport will fail.

85
My second reservation is about the department's document, co-published with the Government Office for London, entitled A Transport Strategy for London. I am disappointed by the Government's intention to maintain investment at broadly the same level—some £500 million per annum—in London Underground. I am disappointed by the lack of any commitment to a medium-term total planning funding level for London transport as a whole which is, after all, in pursuit of projects which are most needed. I am thinking in particular of traffic congestion and its consequences for bus operation.
A Transport Strategy for London proposes completion of a bus priority network by the year 2003, as it promises modernisation of the Underground system by the year 2008. As a user of both, I should like both those dates brought forward. I speak for many users in that respect.
Capital projects on the Underground require self-generating funds. I pay tribute to London transport and its increasing ability to generate those funds. They require Treasury support and Treasury understanding of the private finance initiative, which goes back to a point I have already made.
Buses are something else. I welcome the Government's support for bus priority measures but I want to move much more quickly. Quite simply, if one overlooks the Thames—and I am not aware of London Regional Transport having any responsibility for the Thames—the London bus is London transport's most under-utilised asset. I gather that in central London, the occupancy of buses is only 25 per cent. which means that 75 per cent. of the bus capacity on offer is wasted. If one goes wider into what was the Greater London Council area and looks at LRT as a whole, the occupancy rate is only 12 per cent. So 88 per cent. of the product on offer is wasted.
No commercial company could survive with wastage of 75 per cent. or 88 per cent. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to address two issues. The first is an acceleration of bus priority measures. I see no reason why the PFI should not be involved. It is for the Department of Transport to work out how, but that is what it is there for. I hope that that will be bracketed with a more vicious attitude towards the private motorist.
I ask my noble friend to remind the bus operators of London—now all commercial companies under subsidy—that they have been given competitive freedom. My noble friend Lord Bowness mentioned what happens in Europe; I should like to explore that further. Will the Government accept that the greatest reason for under-usage of buses is not convenience or congestion, but cost? If we can sort out congestion by going for bus priority, we must encourage the bus operators to attract greater usage by producing the single-journey ticket, covering two or three bus companies. As my noble friend well knows, that is universal practice in Europe. Why can we not do it here? It is not a matter of "not invented here". If it can be done abroad, why can it not be done here? If we did it here we would take pressure off the Underground. We would encourage use of public transport in a wider
86
sense; we would be green, environmentally speaking, and, of course, we would make ourselves more readily accessible and more user-friendly to the tourists which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned when quoting his noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Finally, perhaps I may come closer to home. PFI is one thing: enabling it is another. However, deep down inside we need a strategy for transport in London. Noble Lords will know that Westminster Bridge has been 50 per cent. closed for the past 18 months while the side on which traffic runs from here towards Waterloo is rebuilt. Moreover, it will be 50 per cent. closed on the other side—the side that takes traffic from Waterloo to here—until at least June of next year. Indeed, that is what the signs say.
The Bakerloo line is closing between Waterloo and Piccadilly from October for at least six months. Is that really the way to run transport and to make it appealing? Is it really the way to run a city the size of London? Major rail programmes are scheduled in the following order: the Heathrow Express, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link—thank God!—Thameslink and eventually CrossRail. Can we have similar planning in the immediate vicinity?
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but interesting Second Reading debate on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Bowness slightly chided me for describing the Bill as technical. Of course, it is technical but, nevertheless, it also has an important real effect which goes way beyond its somewhat technical provisions.
However, by my own admission I did say that my initial explanation of the Bill was somewhat dry, but at least it stuck to the basic provisions and contained something of an explanation in that respect. I believe that other contributions, notably that of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, ranged somewhat wider. However, the noble Lord had one particularly substantive point which I shall address now for the convenience of the House.
The noble Lord mentioned a point that was made, and, indeed, pursued at great length, in another place; namely, the possibility of a hidden agenda. He asked me to give him an assurance that that was not the case. I believe that I can do so. A careful reading of the relevant clauses of the Bill makes it clear that the legislation has a very specific purpose. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged. Before the Minister leaves that point, can he give me a specific assurance that that provision could not be used for the purpose of a privatisation measure?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that I can give the noble Lord that assurance. As the Notes on Clauses to the Bill explain, the new Section 31B would enable the Secretary of State, by order, to provide that certain of London Transport's statutory functions are to be exercisable by a contractor for the purposes of

87
carrying out agreements under Section 3(2) and 3(2A) as I detailed earlier. However, subsection (3) of the new clause explicitly excludes—I emphasise "excludes"—the transfer of statutory functions under the 1984 Act. Therefore, as an example, an order could not transfer LT's general duty under Section 2 of the 1984 Act to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services. Similarly, an order could not transfer LT's duty under Section 8 of the 1984 Act to control the level and structure of fares, the level of frequencies and so on; indeed, those would remain the functions of LT. I believe that that explanation fully addresses the noble Lord's specific point.
The noble Lord also made somewhat disparaging, although perhaps supporting, remarks about the private finance initiative. It is worth making the point that the actual actions predate the name; indeed, there were a number of such projects going on, the most noticeable of which was the Channel Tunnel, where private finance was so involved.
I do not accept for a single moment that PFI has not been a success or that the Government have failed to provide guidance on its implementation. Over 1,000 potential projects have been identified with government departments by the Private Finance Panel with a capital value of some £25 billion. With the panel's help, detailed guidance was issued by the Treasury last November and entitled, Private Opportunity, Public Benefit. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend Lord Mountevans that the Treasury is indeed receptive to the needs of the private sector. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Bowness pointed out, private finance schemes have been around for a number of years. I believe that that emphasises my earlier point about the Channel Tunnel and about the Dartford-Thurrock crossing.
My noble friend Lord Bowness gave impassioned support to the private finance initiative. I believe that that is wholly accurate and very worth while. The use of the scheme to identify projects where the private sector can contribute its own investment, and indeed its own management skills, to public sector projects has revolutionised the way that we have looked at such projects. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene again. I give way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The problem is that the attitude of the construction industry in particular is one of great dissatisfaction based upon a number of points that I made in my speech; namely, a lack of prioritisation, a complex and very bureaucratic system of tendering and an inability to understand what the Government's national and regional objectives are with precision. Therefore, will the noble Viscount concede that such problems exist? If he does not understand the situation, he will not begin to address the anxieties felt by the construction industry which I am sure both he and I want to try to resolve.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly accept that nothing is perfect. However, we are talking about very substantial projects which entail partnerships between the Government and the private sector. I am afraid that it is
88
necessary for certain procedures to be followed and for Treasury rules to be satisfied. Indeed, we are talking about large sums of money and about ensuring that the rules of the Treasury are fully complied with. My experience derived from my exposure to the relevant industries involved has been that industry—whether it is the construction industry or any other industry taking forward PFI projects—welcomes the initiative, recognises considerable value in it and finds an opportunity to participate in a fuller way than would otherwise have been the case. I believe that that provides value for money for the taxpayer and access to funding and investment which would not otherwise have been available.
I certainly would not have wanted to intervene in the little dispute between my noble friend Lord Bowness and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the GLC, save to say that I am sure my noble friend is right, rather than the noble Lord. However, that might be seen as taking sides on the issue.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans also made some points on the PFI. I hope that I have managed to reassure him that the Treasury is sensitive to taking on board the various comments which are made in that respect. Of course, the PFI is in its early days. However, it has been a success and I believe that it will continue to be so; but that is only because it will be a proper partnership between government and industry which means that the Government must listen to the points that are made both in this House and, indeed, outside it. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I believe that he answered many of the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. However, I used the word "risk" in my speech. Can my noble friend tell me what is the Treasury's attitude towards risk? Obviously, the private sector sees an opportunity and takes a risk. But, on the other hand, I believe that the Treasury sees such matters in a very different way, and that is a constraint.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the key to analysing such projects correctly and assessing whether they are proper and should go ahead largely depends on the risk against reward balance highlighted by my noble friend. We must look at all such schemes on their merits to assess whether a sufficient quantity of risk transfer has taken place. It is on that basis that the Treasury assesses the various schemes.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans also talked a good deal about the importance of buses. I would certainly have no difficulty in agreeing with him in that respect. Indeed, the bus is often an under-utilised asset. I believe that the recent transport document on London aptly realised the benefits that bus transport can have for the capital.
My noble friend asked about Westminster Bridge. I can confirm the date that he gave of about June 1997 for the completion of the works. We obviously hope that the project will manage to keep to its timetable.
The final subject on which I wish to comment is funding and investment. I imagined that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for one, and others, would open a debate about London Underground financing. I certainly

89
argue that the Underground is not underfunded. Even allowing for inflation, investment in the core Underground in the 1990s has been twice as high as in the 1980s and three times higher than in the 1970s. On top of that around £2 billion is being spent on the Jubilee Line extension. The real underfunding of the Underground took place during the 1960s and 1970s when much of the present backlog built up.
I realise that we shall continue to have arguments about the level of funding of the London Underground. We believe that it is at an appropriate level. We certainly believe that the provisions of this Bill will enable London Underground to make fuller use of the private finance initiative to make sure that it obtains the full benefits, and that that provides maximum value for money for the taxpayer and the best service for the travelling public. Those must be our aims. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Deregulation (Motor Vehicles Tests) Order 1996
8.11 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st April be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft order amends the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to remove the requirement for parking equipment and devices used by local authorities to be approved by the Secretary of State.
This requirement for approval is a cost to the parking industry and a disincentive to innovation. For a supplier with ideas for a new type of parking meter or ticket machine, it is not enough to find a customer local authority; under present arrangements he or she must also obtain the approval of the Department of Transport. Although the approval process has been made as straightforward as possible, it is not always understood by outsiders, and can be a significant bureaucratic obstacle. The approval requirement also involves a small but significant administrative cost to central and local government.
When parking meters were first introduced some 30 years ago the requirement for approval gave motorists a degree of protection against being charged with an offence based upon faulty equipment. We believe this measure has now outlived its usefulness. A range of British Standards for parking equipment is now available, and local authorities have wide experience of parking control. Meters do go wrong from time to time, but faults usually arise from poor maintenance or vandalism, which the approval process cannot protect against. All things considered, we have concluded that the approval process is now redundant and can safely be removed. I commend the order to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st April be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committed]—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may put the record straight. The Minister has spoken to the second draft order. We should have been discussing the first draft order, but I am perfectly happy to take it in that order if that is permissible.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no it is not.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if it is not permissible, the Minister should make another speech.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I have been guilty of an oversight. I was so excited by the successful completion of the Second Reading of the previous piece of substantial legislation that I reached for the wrong document in my folder.
It might be appropriate if I were to say a few words that are more relevant to the appropriate Motion on the Order Paper. Perhaps noble Lords may reflect that my words may have wider meaning when we discuss the provisions of the second important order.
The draft Deregulation (Motor Vehicles Tests) Order 1996 amends the provisions of Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in relation to MoT testing. The purpose of an MoT test is to confirm, once a year, that vehicles are in a roadworthy condition. Section 48 of the Act currently allows motorists to obtain MoT certificates up to one month before the expiry of an existing certificate without incurring any time penalty. In the case of public service vehicles, this concession is for two months. This means that the subsequent certificate can expire up to 13 months after its issue date (or 14 in the case of public service vehicles).
The concession does not exist in relation to the first MoT test certificate at the moment. A motorist may therefore be disadvantaged under the legislation as it stands if his vehicle is MoT tested before it needs to be, since the expiry date of the test certificate will be 12 months after it has been issued. Our objective in proposing the draft deregulation order is to extend the period of validity of the first certificate so that motorists would be able to take advantage of the existing concession which applies to subsequent tests.
We do not believe that the extension of the 13 month certificate concession would give cause for concern on either road safety or environmental protection grounds. We certainly have no evidence to suggest that it would. In our view there would be no significant risks in extending the concession as proposed, especially when it is considered that the vehicles which would be covered by our proposal are much newer than those which already benefit.
With further apologies to the House for my oversight, I cannot move this order now, but I can speak to it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the draft order ends an anomaly which ought to have ended some time ago. I am glad that this draft order has been laid by the Government and I fully support it. I am sorry that the Minister got into some confusion but his sheer glee at getting a Second Reading on a Bill which was largely uncontested is understandable and has clearly led to his state of mind, which is unfortunate but curable.

91
I wish to address some of the points which were raised by the Select Committee in another place when dealing with these deregulation proposals. The main point relates to the period of consultation. I hope that this will not be taken as a precedent, certainly for more contentious issues. The consultation began on 7th February last year and finished on 27th February. That is on the whole a pretty short time—13 working days. The reason given by the department was that the proposal was likely to be uncontentious. However, the odd thing is that that short period of time was not reflected in the way in which the Government went about dealing with this proposal in terms of laying it before Parliament. It was nine months later that that occurred. I hope, therefore, that a greater period of consultation will be given in the main.
The committee paid a guarded tribute to the Department of Transport. It is right that the Department of Transport, which does not often receive tributes, should have that tribute underlined. It was stated that:
"On this occasion we are glad to see that the Department of Transport used first class post".
That, apparently, is not the practice of the Home Office. I hope that the department continues to use first class post when it is engaged in consultations of this kind. Subject to the point about consultation—I hope that the Government will not use this short period as a precedent—we welcome the draft order.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the less I say the better after the earlier inexactitude. On the issue of the consultation process, the time was short. The noble Lord is correct in that regard. However, the arguments were well rehearsed. The industry knew exactly what we had in mind and there were no surprises to come. However, I take the point that the noble Lord makes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Parking Equipment) Order 1996
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st April be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to engage in a great explanation of this measure because by some fortuitous circumstance I believe that the House is already quite well informed about it.
Rather like the previous measure, the order removes a very small and unnecessary bureaucratic procedure. I think that it will be of benefit to all concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st April be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the measure is not quite as simple as that. In my view the Minister should
92
have dealt with the objection raised by the Automobile Association. It is an objection which I do not support but is nevertheless highly relevant.
The Automobile Association has suggested that the proposed change
"would lead to motorists having to prove their innocence".
I do not believe that that is the matter in law. The situation is this. The machine in question, if not approved by the Secretary of State—that is the purpose of the order—would be assumed to be working accurately in terms of evidence being given against the defendant. The evidence is simply admissible and is not conclusive. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is the department's understanding of the situation. In fact, a defendant could seek to prove that the machine was not working accurately.
I wish to raise another factor. I paid the department a tribute previously. Here I do not. It must stop saying silly things. I refer to the report of the Deregulation Committee of another place. The department was taken to task about the issue in evidence at page viii of the report. The department stated:
"If a user believes that a parking meter is not recording time correctly, he or she can check it quite simply by inserting a coin and observing how much time elapses before the penalty indication appears".
That seems a rather strange way of going about things. It takes no account of the time constraints that might affect the person concerned. I believe that the department was a trifle out of touch. As the report states:
"Members of the public cannot be expected to time parking meters to check that they are reliable; there must be some other means of ensuring that equipment performs satisfactorily".
One of the great virtues is that existing British standards will apply. I believe that that is one of the great safeguards. The other safeguard is that if a motorist, faced no doubt by an issue of principle, wishes to seek an acquittal from the court, he might be able to find some other ways of doing so. Having said that, I believe that the proposal is on the whole worthwhile, and we support it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord demonstrates without a shadow of doubt his skill as a lawyer by putting to me some of the difficult objections to the matter and then giving me the answers as to why they should be immediately dismissed.
The noble Lord's first point referred to a possible objection concerning evidence, court procedures and so forth. I know that the noble Lord understands the working of the law in the courts far better than I do. However, the question was as regards what happens if a meter is faulty. To what extent is that evidence taken into account?
If the motorist believes that he has been charged for a parking offence on a meter that is faulty, he should first complain to the local authority. Local authorities are usually quick to check meters and to withdraw charges if they find the meter to be faulty. If that fails, the motorist can take the case to court. Indication given from a parking meter is prima facie evidence. If other evidence—for example, that the meter was faulty—were put forward, the court would consider it. The approval

93
process gives little protection against that sort of problem. That was essentially the noble Lord's argument when he turned his hat the other way round and argued against the objection. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill [H.L.]
8.25 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 9 [Delegation by trustees]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 29 and insert ("be presumed in favour of that other person to have been a person to whom the functions could be delegated unless that other person has knowledge at the time of the transaction that he was not such a person.
And it shall be conclusively presumed in favour of any purchaser whose interest depends on the validity of that transaction that that other person dealt in good faith and did not have such knowledge if that other person makes a statutory declaration to that effect before or within three months after the completion of the purchase.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 both concern aspects of the power of delegation by trustees of land under Clause 9, and I believe it would be appropriate for me, with your Lordships' leave, to speak to them together.
Amendment No. 1 makes two changes directed to points raised on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concerning subsection (2) of Clause 9. That subsection provides protection for a person dealing with a beneficiary-delegate, whom, for illustrative purposes, I shall call A, by entitling him to presume, in the absence of knowledge to the contrary, that the beneficiary-delegate is indeed a person to whom the functions in question could be delegated.
The first change makes it clearer that the time at which there must be knowledge to the contrary is the time of the dealing with the beneficiary-delegate. The second change adds an element of protection for a successor in title of A, to whom I shall refer as B, modelled on, but not identical to, Section 5(4) of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971, with the following effect. When B purchases from A, and B's interest depends on the validity of A's transaction with the beneficiary-delegate, then if A makes a statutory declaration to the effect that he had no knowledge to the contrary at the time of his transaction with the beneficiary-delegate, it shall be conclusively presumed in favour of B that the beneficiary-delegate was a person to whom the functions could be delegated. A's declaration must be made either before or within three months after the date of completion of B's purchase.
Amendment No. 2 is intended to make it clear that, although the power of attorney by which functions are delegated must be made unanimously, so that where the power is revocable it may be revoked by any one of the trustees, this does not override Sections 4 and 5(3) of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971, which cover powers of attorney which are expressed to be irrevocable and given by way of security for a proprietary interest of the attorney or for the performance of an obligation owed to him. It is possible that such a power might be used, for example, in the context of an employee relocation scheme which operates by using a trust mechanism, and since such powers may in general be revoked only with the attorney's consent, Amendment No. 2 excludes them from the revocation provisions of Clause 9(3). Accordingly, where the trustees delegate functions to a beneficiary by a power which is expressed to be irrevocable and to be by way of security, the power may only be revoked in accordance with Section 4 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment. It deals with a point raised at Report stage. I ask forgiveness if I make a comment or two upon Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the light of information which was supplied to me after Report stage but not in time to put down any amendments conveniently at Third Reading.
A colleague of mine, Mr. Wolfarth—I believe that he has sent a memorandum to the noble and learned Lord's department—is much concerned with the possibility of fraud and the opportunity that ought to be given for the prevention of that fraud before the Bill finally reaches the statute book. I therefore raise the point, not for the matter to be dealt with tonight by the noble and learned Lord, but so that, in his wisdom, he may take these matters into account when the other place considers the Bill. I have no doubt that the Bill will go to another place after the House votes tonight.
Amendment No. 1 is important for the protection of purchasers and it is welcomed for that reason. However, references to "good faith" on the part of the person dealing with the attorney prompts one to reflect that powers of attorney could—admittedly as they can be at present—be used in furtherance of fraud. The third party protected by Clause 9(2) may be wholly innocent and needs to be sure of obtaining a good title. But where the attorney is party to a fraud on his principal, the consequence, as a result of the normal overreaching mechanism, is that the principal will lose his interest in the land and have only a claim against the fraudster for the cash proceeds, which is obviously of far less value as a matter of practice. In the context of a traditional express trust with successive interests, fraudulent use of a power of attorney granted by the trustees is perhaps unlikely, though clearly the risk increases somewhat when the powers that may be delegated are, by Clause 6, widened to include all the powers of an absolute owner.
However, Clause 9 is not confined to that context and perhaps the noble and learned Lord would consider, before the Bill goes to another place, whether any restrictions on the scope of the clause or express bars on the use of such a power of attorney to give effect to

95
dealings with the attorney himself or persons connected with him are desirable in order to limit the risk of fraudulent use of powers granted under it.
Additionally, the requirement in Section 27(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 for the receipt of two trustees in order to operate the overreaching mechanism is of fundamental importance in dealing with the aftermath of fraud. If it can be demonstrated that a proper receipt was not given in accordance with that section, which is often the case where signatures have been forged, then the defrauded party can recover his or her property. But if the receipt was good, the innocent purchaser is protected.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated at Committee stage that subsection (7), as it now is, prevents an attorney under that provision from giving a receipt, even on a basis that he is acting by direction of the trustees. But given the crucial importance of the point in a fraud context, would the noble and learned Lord care to consider whether some more explicit drafting is desirable in order to emphasise that the attorney is not authorised under that clause to receive capital money or sign receipts for it?
My observations on Amendment No. 2 are much shorter, I am glad to tell the House. In the case of powers of attorney granted by way of security—the noble and learned Lord mentioned in his remarks on the amendment that such a case in some employee relocation schemes is quite common—is there any reason why automatic revocation is prevented under subsection (3) but not under subsection (4)? The security interest which is protected might be assigned. The original holder should remain able to exercise the power for the benefit of his assignee.
Those are merely additional remarks while dealing with the amendments. They are not intended as in any way against the amendments, and I have made them merely for the consideration of the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his general support for the amendments. As regards the memorandum from his correspondent, we have received a copy and are considering it with the Law Commission which is the expert originator of much of this legislation, and with which we are in consultation on the amendments. I shall carefully consider the contents of the memorandum and its elaboration in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. On that understanding, I hope that the amendments may be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 31, after first ("and") insert ("(unless expressed to be irrevocable and to be given by way of security)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Consultation with beneficiaries]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("of land").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 both concern the transitional arrangements in Clause 11(3) and I believe it would be
96
appropriate to speak to them together. Amendment No. 3 is a technical drafting amendment which ensures that the wording of subsection (3) is consistent with that of subsection (2). Amendment No. 4 is directed to a point raised on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concerning the position in respect of the transitional provisions where new land is added to an existing trust after commencement of the Act; for example, by a further gift of land to be held on the same trusts. It seems right that such a referential trust should be treated on the same basis as the existing trust for the purposes of the transitional provisions, and Amendment No. 4 inserts additional wording into subsection (3) to ensure that this is the case. In other words, in a trust to which the amendment applies, the fact that other land has been added will not affect the position. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am grateful for both amendments and support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 3, after ("disposition") insert (", or a trust created after that commencement by reference to such a trust,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Appointment and retirement of trustee at instance of beneficiaries]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 7, after ("being") insert ("(or, if there are none, to the personal representative of the last person who was a trustee)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am intent on making more rapid progress now. Amendments Nos. 5 to 13 are essentially technical amendments which clear up a number of points on the provisions of Part II of the Bill concerning the appointment and retirement of trustees which were not quite met by the group of amendments to Part II which were accepted on Report. As with that earlier group, I believe that it would, with your Lordships' leave, be appropriate for me to speak to all of the remaining amendments together with Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 5 enables the existing subsection (4) to be deleted by moving the essence of that subsection into subsection (2), which now makes it clear that any direction to appoint a trustee or trustees under this clause is to be given to the trustee or trustees for the time being (which will include anyone being directed to retire at the same time) or, where there is no trustee left, to the personal representative of the last trustee on whom the trust will have devolved.
Amendment No. 6 makes a number of changes to the existing provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 19. The first part of the amendment recasts subsection (3) in order to provide more comprehensively both for the protection of a trustee who is directed to retire and for ensuring that sufficient trustees will remain after any such retirement to give receipts and administer the trust properly. The essence of the retiring trustee's protection is that he should not have to comply with the direction to retire by making a deed declaring his retirement until reasonable arrangements have been made, rather than merely offered, for protection of any rights he may have in relation to the

97
trust, such as a right to indemnity for expenses personally incurred. This principle is now spelt out in the new subsection (3)(b). In addition, the retirement is not to be effective unless there will thereafter be either a trust corporation or two persons, who may be corporate persons or individuals, to act as trustees, and either the retiring trustee is to be replaced on retirement or the continuing trustees consent to his retirement.
The second part of Amendment No. 6 inserts a new subsection (4) which provides for the necessary action to be taken on a retirement under subsection (3) to vest the trust property in those who will be the trustees after the retirement, whether or not it is accompanied by a replacement appointment.
On Amendment No. 6, I should perhaps say in passing that on the substitution of the words in the amendment in the Bill, it looks as though "(a)" is required at the start of the wording. However, my understanding from Parliamentary Counsel is that it is a matter of the printing and that is the way it should read. So what is left in the existing subsection would remain as the opening phrase in the new provision and then the additions from the amendment will be inserted.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 make technical changes to the supplemental provisions of Clause 21. Amendment No. 7 makes it absolutely clear that the ability of a beneficiary to withdraw a direction before it has been complied with extends to both the situations set out in Clause 21(1)(a) and (b). Amendment No. 8 changes the transitional provisions for Part II of the Bill so that trusts created by wills are placed on the same footing as inter vivos trusts. Amendment No. 9 adds the words "by a disposition" to subsection (6) to ensure consistency with subsection (5); and Amendment No. 10 makes it clear that, where the settlor excludes Part II from applying to the trust and a direction has already been made but not complied with, the direction will thereby cease to have effect so that the trustees do not have to comply with it, but may of their own motion do what the direction says if they consider that to be appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 provide for minor technical changes in the Trustee Act 1925 as a result of the changes introduced by Clause 19 as amended. The effect of Amendment No. 11 is to remove the bar in Section 36(6) of the Trustee Act on appointing an additional trustee to serve with a trust corporation; and the effect of Amendment No. 12 is to change the provisions of Sections 37 and 39 of that Act concerning the minimum number of trustees to enable a departing trustee to be discharged, so that the requirement is for a trust corporation or at least two persons to remain, rather than two individuals as at present, so that corporate trustees are covered. These changes ensure consistency with Clause 19 of the Bill, and remove in each case what is at best an inconvenience and at worst a potential trap for the unwary.
Finally, Amendment No. 13 revises the existing consequential amendment to Section 40(2) of the Trustee Act 1925 so that it more clearly takes account of Clause 19 of the Bill as amended.
I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wish to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Before I entered the Chamber, he pointed out to me that (b) ought to be (a), (c) ought to be (d) and (d) ought to be (c). I thought that I had gone through this Bill with meticulous care. I had not noticed that, and I congratulate the noble Lord on his powers of observation.
I have only one brief comment to make. It relates to the last paragraph of the amendment. I make the remark in exactly the same spirit as I mentioned before and not in any way in opposition to the amendments to which the noble and learned Lord has just spoken. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consider that third party rights such as those of the landlord with the benefit of a covenant against assignment of leasehold property require protection in the context of the replacement subsection which is the paragraph to which I have just referred? In particular, where he is able to withhold consent to an assignment only on reasonable grounds, is there a risk that it might be held unreasonable to resist an assignment where statute compels the assignor and assignee to enter into it if, apart from that, refusal of consent would be justified by reference to existing case law?
Does the noble and learned Lord consider, hereafter, that provision is needed for intervention by the court at the instance of third parties, such as mortgagees or insurers of trustees, in the event of evidence being available that a direction by beneficiaries under Clause 19 was given as part of a series of transactions involving fraud?
As I said, all my observations this evening have been directed to the prevention of fraud. I made those observations in asking the noble and learned Lord, with his usual courtesy and wisdom, whether he will consider these matters at a later stage.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for clearing up my mystification at Amendment No. 6. Observant I may have been; wrong I certainly was. It is perhaps inevitable that I was going to be, given the care of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, his officials and the draftsman in preparing the Bill. The treatment of the Bill seems to have been quite meticulous throughout.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for their remarks. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was perfectly reasonable. It was so reasonable that my official concerned with the Bill had also raised it with the parliamentary draftsman. So it must have been a good point.
The other questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are both quite serious. I am not anxious to put into this Bill any protections that are not necessary. On the other hand there may well be a question as to whether the kinds of protection to which the noble Lord referred are necessary. I am considering the point further with the Law Commission with a view to deciding whether or not some further provision should be made.

99
It is perhaps an interesting comment on the area of law with which this Bill is concerned that, although it was framed with very great care by the Law Commission and parliamentary counsel, it is an area in which practitioners have found, as it were, developing points as time has gone on. Obviously, Bills of this kind have to reach the statute book at some point and therefore there must be a cut-off for these observations. It is very much better that we should deal with them before the Bill becomes law rather than afterwards.
I say with all respect that the profession is getting better at doing that than it was some years ago. It underlines the fact that Law Commission Bills are now proceeding to the statute book. In years past, at least from time to time, the profession perhaps tended to treat such matters as rather academic exercises with no practical effect. They now know that there is a pretty good chance that Bills of this kind will reach the statute book, so observations and help have considerably improved.
I am very grateful for all the care that those who commented on the Bill have given to it. I am sure we are all anxious to produce an improvement. Also, anxious as some of us may be to preserve a good living for a certain profession, we wish to be sure that the Bill is as clear as it possibly can be so as to minimise the risk of unnecessary litigation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 13:
Page 10, line 10, leave out from ("(2)(a),") to end of line 24 and insert—
("(b) reasonable arrangements have been made for the protection of any rights of his in connection with the trust,
(c) after he has retired there will be either a trust corporation or at least two persons to act as trustees to perform the trust, and
(d) either another person is to be appointed to be a new trustee on his retirement (whether in compliance with a direction under subsection (2)(b) or otherwise) or the continuing trustees by deed consent to his retirement,
he shall make a deed declaring his retirement and shall be deemed to have retired and be discharged from the trust.
( ) Where a trustee retires under subsection (3) he and the continuing trustees (together with any new trustee) shall (subject to any arrangements for the protection of his rights) do anything necessary to vest the trust property in the continuing trustees (or the continuing and new trustees).").
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("is not by writing withdrawn by any of them before being") and insert ("none of them by writing withdraws the direction given by him before it has been").
Page 11, line 19, leave out from ("disposition") to end of line 21.
Page 11, line 23, after ("Act") insert ("by a disposition").
Page 11, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
("(b) a direction under section 19 or 20 which has been given but not complied with before its execution shall cease to have effect.").
Page 20, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) In section 36(6), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute—
"(6) Where, in the case of any trust, there are not more than three trustees-".").
100
Page 20, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) In section 37(1)(c), for the word "individuals" substitute "persons".
( ) In section 39(1), for the word "individuals" substitute "persons".").
Page 20, line 12, leave out ("after the word "appointed" insert "or under section 19(2)(a)") and insert ("for the words "the statutory power" substitute "section 39 of this Act or section 19").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 6 to 13 inclusive with Amendment No. 5. With the leave of the House, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I cannot let this occasion pass without saying to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack how grateful the Law Society is for the co-operation that he and his department have given to the observations that it has made from time to time. There have been meetings where letters have been discussed. I believe that the Bill has benefited from those discussions and from the decisions that were reached.
I pay my own tribute to the appropriate committee of the Law Society, the Land Law and Succession Committee, and to the two sturdy members, Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Jarman, who kept me briefed and allowed me to appear to be extremely learned in a field of law where my ignorance might have been apparent, certainly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, were it not for the adequacy of the briefing that I had been given.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with every remark just uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in particular in paying tribute to the responsive and careful way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his officials have dealt with the Bill.
I cannot help feeling that the Law Society has been rather more proactive than my branch of the profession. At an early stage of the Bill, I endeavoured to take soundings from appropriate quarters in Lincoln's Inn but important as it is for that area of the practising Bar, it did not seem to have caused a major tremor there. However, I do not doubt that there will be less room for unnecessary litigation as a result of the trouble taken with the Bill so far. We wish it well.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in relation to the Law Society committee and also the two particular members of it who came to a very hastily arranged meeting with me as well as attending a number of meetings with officials. I believe that the Bill is better as a result of that.

101
I have the impression that the Bar thought that the principles of the Bill were wise. The detail and the amendments in which we have been involved have been mostly of a kind which would come more within the daily business of the solicitor branch of the profession than of the Bar. But I have no reason to suppose that, if some major improvement were required, the Bar would not be to the forefront in securing that, as it was, for example, in relation to the technical conveyancing Bill in the previous Session.
102
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Meston, for the part that they played. I believe that there is a deeper basis of knowledge in them than they were willing to acknowledge. I do not believe that their contribution was entirely due to the briefing. I am extremely grateful for their co-operation and the spirit in which the Bill has gone forward.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at eight minutes before nine o'clock.

  India: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal
  India: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal
  Home Helps: Housework
  Home Helps: Housework
  DSS Out-of-hours Service
  DSS Out-of-hours Service
  Iranian Nuclear Plant
  Iranian Nuclear Plant
  Pedlars Acts
  Pedlars Acts
  Genital Mutilation
  Genital Mutilation
  Sexual Exploitation of Children: World Congress
  Sexual Exploitation of Children: World Congress
  Prisoners: In-cell Television
  Prisoners: In-cell Television
  Prison Service Expenditure
  Prison Service Expenditure
  Prisons: Access to Television
  Prisons: Access to Television
  Prisoners: Access to Education Facilities
  Prisoners: Access to Education Facilities
  Gardian Family
  Gardian Family
  Burglary: Sentences
  Burglary: Sentences